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).
Thanks to a Whistleblower that came forth to Attorney Thomas Renz, the public is now seeing, for the first time ever, hard data from the largest database available in the U.S. to study the COVID-19 impact including deaths & injuries; The CMS Medicare Tracking System.
The Total number of American Citizens that died within 14 days of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine is 48,465 according to hard data revealed in the Medicare Tracking System.
Attorney Renz is also in possession of Remdesivir death data from the Medicare Tracking System that has been withheld by the government from our citizens. The Remdesivir data reveals of the 7,960 beneficiaries prescribed Remdesivir for Covid-19, 2,058 died. That is 25.9%.
46% of people died within 14 days of the Remdesivir Treatment. The Remdesivir Treatment was established in U.S. Hospitals at the direction of Dr. Anthony Fauci. Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received Remdesivir. That is 24.6%. Attorney Renz says, ”This begs the question… why is this the protocol in American Hospitals? Does this appear “Safe and Effective” to you?”
LifeSiteNews has more details on the presentation specifically as it pertains to the risks within the Pfizer vaccine. {SEE HERE} “So, when they weren’t injected, their infection rate was 1.3%, and when they got injected, it was 4.34%. It went up by over 300%,” Kingston stated. “They had less infection when they had no protection. So, that’s a problem.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Comments Off on Video: Attorney Thomas Renz Releases Medicare and Pfizer Whistleblower Data: Vaccine Related Injuries and Deaths Far More Widespread Than Reported
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
In November the latest book by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will be available to readers: The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health.
In an address to a conference on the Covid-19 crisis held in Budapest, Hungary this past August Robert Kennedy gave a preview of his research results to the participants. His “Historical and Legal Perspectives of the Pandemic” takes an unusually wide view of the context in which the past 18 months unfolded. As a conservative campaigner for healthcare safety, especially for children, and an environmental activist Kennedy has concentrated on corporate malfeasance and regulatory capture by the pharmaceutical industry. In this talk he explains the relationship of the health crisis to the State itself.
Ask for instance “How much grant or budgeted money from the military establishment is needed before scientific research is called military or weapons research?” or “How much objective science is produced by people entirely dependent or whose salaries are determined by the amount of money from corporate donors and military or intelligence agencies contribute to buy results?” or “How many deceptions and frauds must be perpetrated before those responsible are deemed liars and criminals?” These are of course rhetorical questions. Where a significant majority has learned to accept that pay warrants obedience and profit is the highest form of success and virtue, these questions can mean little and their answers mean even less.
Karlheinz Deschner wrote more than 10 volumes of historical research documenting from the records of the Roman Catholic Church itself all of its criminal activity since the very fraudulent founding of the Holy See in Rome. Yet none of this will alter the conviction of a true Catholic that he or she is adherent to a criminal organisation more than a thousand years old. Deschner includes all of Christendom, not just the Catholics, since the Reformation did not end the crimes.
Here it might be worth noting that some of the most vicious enforcers of the medical martial law regime, Emmanuel Macron, Justine Trudeau, Gavin Newsom, and of course Anthony Fauci were Jesuit educated. The current collaborationist pontiff himself is a Jesuit. The founder of the Society of Jesus understood his work as a military organisation for the aggressive propagation and defence of the holy church. It is a commonplace that Cecil Rhodes was inspired by the Jesuits when he created his Round Table movement for British imperial unity. The Jesuits enjoy the reputation within the espionage profession as an elite element of the Church’s notoriously wide-spun and efficient intelligence operation.
So when Robert Kennedy explains the sources of Anthony Fauci’s funding, the integration of the military and intelligence organisations in the ostensibly civilian NIAID (and hence NIH as a whole), he is scraping some of the veneer from a carefully created body of mythology about institutional medical research and major medicine.
The story and context Kennedy presents in this talk will presumably be more detailed in his forthcoming book. However, it is useful to go back in history even further than Eisenhower’s famous farewell speech to which Kennedy refers.
The regimental genealogy of the NIAID can be traced to the War Research Service, the US regime’s secret biological and chemical weapons research office, run by George W. Merck, president of one of the largest pharmaceutical corporations in the world.[1]
In 1948, coincidental with the importation of Japanese and German war criminals with their cases of prison experimentation results, the War Research Service was transformed into the US Microbiological Institute. The War Research Service had been hidden in the Federal Security Agency, a Roosevelt organisation that included a variety of civilian programs deemed to have national security relevance. Federal security meant programs to protect against anything that could destabilise the US regime during the 1929 Great Reset.
After 1945 and the adoption of the UN Charter, repeating the injunction of the Kellogg-Briand Pact and establishing the offense at Nuremberg of “crimes against the peace”, wars did not stop. Instead names were changed. Names make a difference. The Washington Naval Treaty (1922) restricted the tonnage and types of ships that could be built. Hence ship classes were also renamed. At the same time armament and displacement were reallocated among new ship classes so that construction could continue. The US sought not only to buttress its secret first strike strategy against the Soviet Union but also later to circumvent the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties (starting 1972) by maintaining the same number of missiles and introducing the so-called MIRV, multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles. In other words one missile was turned into a delivery system that could deliver the same number of warheads as additional missiles.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), America’s Gestapo, could not have been sold to the states had it beencalled a police force.
In 1947, the National Security Act was also a response to the need for new language. If war was illegal then one could not have a “war department”. So the national military establishment was renamed the Department of Defence. After the ceasefire in Korea, the US was also forced to rebrand the programs developing weapons it denied ever having or using—namely the chemical weapons, already prohibited and the biological weapons it had inherited from the Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department of the KwantungArmy and the Japanese war criminals of Unit 731 Douglas MacArthur hid from exposure or trials. The principal war criminals from this secret Japanese military research facility no doubt joined their German colleagues recruited through the good offices of Allen Dulles.
Although military research continued under the auspices of the US Army’s Chemical Corps and biological weapons research was still conducted, mainly at Fort Detrick in Frederick, MD—with other major facilities such as Dugway Proving Ground, Wendover, UT—World War II had also raised the petrochemical industry and its sister pharmaceuticals to a major role in the military – industrial – complex. Atomic weapons had enormously expanded the already firm hold of DuPont on the munitions side. The Army Air Corps and the vastly expanded aeronautical and aerospace industry joined behind the new Air Force. Thus it should be no surprise that petrochemicals and pharmaceuticals needed their State bureaucratic partner for the massive post-war armaments program.
It is important to remember here that one of the benefits of US strategic success in the war was the plunder of some of the most lucrative basic research and capture of the most ruthless research personnel available in Germany and Japan. When the leaders of the US regime whine about alleged intellectual property theft by China, they are merely sobbing at the inevitable trickle down from their historical larceny and brain draining.
It simply would have been impossible after the war in Korea to openly foster a biological warfare service in the US war machine. A solution was found. This was supported by trends already well established in the US. Since Frederick Taylor Gates assumed control over the General Education Board (GEB) within the Rockefeller tax dodge, the two largest tax dodges of the time, Carnegie and Rockefeller, had agreed to allocate the theatres of ideological warfare in defence of their fortunes, their class and the system that had come to be called capitalism. Rockefeller money would be devoted to manipulation of the domestic political environment and Carnegie money would be used to buy control of the international side.
At the same time Gates advised Rockefeller to invest his loot in scientific medicine. Although Gates, like Rockefeller, came from a Baptist background, both had come to recognise that medicine is more powerful and intimate even than religion. Scientific medicine, based on the work of professionals operating with “security clearances” could turn the laboratory into technology for social transformation. Just as John D. Rockefeller had legalised his criminal activities to establish the Standard Oil monopoly, Gates proposed a strategy for establishing an ideological monopoly on medicine and thus a practically invincible defence of the gangster class’ prerogatives to rule.
Today’s complicity of the Johns Hopkins University (Bloomberg) School of Public Health should not be a surprise to anyone who recognises that history did not begin in 2019 or 2020. It was GEB money that founded the JHU School of Public Health (in 2001 named after the financial propaganda magnate, Michael Bloomberg, whose tax dodging has permitted him since 1995 to buy reputation at the nation’s premier population control academy).
Corporate control over scientific medicine, especially through funding of medical schools and medical research laboratories, combined with the integration of the pharmaceutical industry into the military-industrial complex. This process reached its international apex when the Rockefeller tax dodge, which had already made substantial financial donations to the United Nations organisation (notoriously supplying part of its feudal estate in Manhattan to build a kind of international “Vatican City”), managed the foundation of the World Health Organisation (WHO).
The chief US delegate to the 1946 International Health Conference was Thomas Parran, the US Surgeon General, who would also be credited with the Tuskegee syphilis experiments on unwitting African-Americans (1932-1972). Rockefeller sent five official observers to the conference. Without a doubt the most powerful delegation at the conference was on the side of corporate medicine and pharmaceutical weaponry.
Recently those few critics of the WHO to be found complain about the amount of money it receives from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. However, it is important to note that WHO was deliberately underfunded when it was started. A proposal that the organisation be funded by the United Nations was defeated in favour of separate contributions by members and a provision for financial gifts (bribes) from other sources.
In 1955, the US Microbiological Institute was again renamed. It became the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. In 1946, the Office of Malaria Control in War Areas, a military operation was renamed the Communicable Disease Center (CDC) and later becomes part of the US Public Health Service—itself a derivative of military/naval hygiene operations. In 1951, the CDC established its cadre program keeping with the ultimately military tradition to which it belongs. The Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) was intended to satisfy “the need for an adequate corps of trained epidemiologists who can be deployed immediately for any contingency, including chemical or biological warfare”. The Communicable Disease Center was later renamed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
If one applies the model Philip Agee used to identify intelligence officers in the US State Department, namely a critical reading of the official biographies with attention to job titles, assignments, and areas of responsibility, one can establish a strong hypothesis that the NIAID officials Robert Kennedy Jr compares with hitmen are all military or intelligence officers under cover.
Most of Fauci’s top deputies—according to the official biographies on the institute website are doused liberally with espionage or military eau de Cologne. Even were Anthony Fauci to be fired, resign or retire, perhaps like William Colby or William Casey did, there are sufficient members of the secret team to continue the work—unless the institution itself and the reality of a massive life science/ biological weapons department is finally admitted. If we are able to conceive that the mission of NIAID is to create allergies and infectious diseases—for war and profit. Then it is not far fetched to see how the work of the National Cancer Institute might have helped Hugo Chavez or other inconvenient personalities.
While these institutions have been labelled and marketed as if they were public services and benign operations for the protection and preservation of a social good, namely human health, they were created, and as Kennedy also shows, have been maintained for the purpose of supporting what is essentially a major arm of the US war establishment, the pharmaceutical industry.
The pharmaceutical industry and its soldiers, the lab-coated officers of the medical profession, fight to control the greatest threat to international capitalism of all—free human beings. Since the start of the 20th century what most people call “science” was harnessed to augment and where necessary replace religion—not to liberate humans from superstition but to anchor them more firmly in it. Social sciences were promoted because they turned social movements and struggle into managerial problems.
Medical sciences replaced the healing arts, first to exclude women who previously would have been burned as witches, and then to exclude any attempts organise healing within healthy communities—by turning health into disease and the patient into an enemy. This pandemic of scientism also infected the humanities but for the most part by causing their atrophy. The imposition of science in its present form was forced by the Progressive movement in North America and the Fabians and Positivists in “Old Europe”. Their descendants today have stolen the language of popular struggle in the 19th and 20th century and wear it as a “lab-coat of jargon” with which they sell their 4th Awakening fanaticism to complement the so-called 4thIndustrial Revolution.
The old national military establishment that invented the national security ideology in 1947 to subjugate the peoples of the expanding capitalist empire after World War II, realised quickly that they could not “kill ‘em all”. They began quickly to improve on the technology first applied industrially to wage the Great War. The target of that technology was and remains the human mind itself. The body housing it was and is of collateral interest. The mission of the war departments in the Pentagon and elsewhere around the world is to control territory and resources, including populations. The mission of the National Institutes of Health is to conquer the human mind and destroy the will of capitalism’s greatest enemy, humans striving toward liberty.
*
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] The following is excerpted from an earlier article by this author. https://dissidentvoice.org/2021/03/the-health-which-i-see-is-disease-if-the-hierarchical-church-so-defines/
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
On August 25, two days after the US Food and Drug Administration fully approved the Pfizer-Biontech COVID-19 vaccine, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austinordered “full vaccination of all members of the Armed Forces.”
Cue outrage and objection. Some officers have resigned their commissions; some enlisted personnel seem willing to risk court-martial and dishonorable discharge rather than get vaccinated. Some claim the mandate violates their rights or lacks a legal basis.
In the quarter century since my honorable discharge from the US Marine Corps, I’ve occasionally been asked by friends to have “the talk” with their teenagers who are considering military careers.
In my view, “the talk” shouldn’t be about whether joining the armed forces is a good idea. That’s a personal decision. “The talk” should be an unvarnished description of what to expect.
Here’s a short version of “the talk,” for those considering enlisting and those who have, in the age of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate:
For the entirety of your military career, you will spend most of your waking hours (and you will be roused from sleep many, many times) doing what you’re told to do. Period.
You’ll go where you’re told to go. You’ll wear what you’re told to wear. You’ll eat what you’re given, when it’s given to you, and you’ll have your hair cut as directed.
You’ll be ordered to do unpleasant things, and do them, possibly including killing other people, being killed yourself, or watching your friends die.
Yes, there’s a contract — a contract more for the government’s protection than yours, which can be unilaterally changed at the government’s convenience. Here’s section 9b of that contract:
“Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowances, benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment/reenlistment document.” [Emphasis in original]
If they do things now as they did in 1984, you’ll be taken through that contract line by line, twice, initialing each section to attest that you understand what it means so you can’t claim otherwise later, before you’re allowed to sign it, take the oath of enlistment, and ship out for boot camp.
The government’s end of the contract involves providing you with three hots, a cot, a paycheck, healthcare, college benefits, etc.
Your end of the contract says that when you’re ordered by your platoon commander to assault an enemy position, or by the Secretary of Defense to get vaccinated, you’ll assault that position or get that injection.
If you can’t stomach that, don’t sign the contract. If you do sign the contract, don’t whine about it or renege on it later when it requires you to do something you don’t want to do.
Thus endeth “the talk.”
Do I like vaccine mandates? No.
Do I believe vaccine mandates are constitutional or morally acceptable where private citizens, un-obligated by contract, are concerned? No.
But as for members of the armed forces: Buy the ticket, take the ride.
*
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.
Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.
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).
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. covers both the legal aspects of our efforts seeking to disapprove the emergency use of the experimental gene therapies and points out the dangers of the political climate that allows these restrictions and mandates to be enforced while the global economy is about to burst.
He is also sending a message, that supports the people who are being silenced to empower them to refuse the COVID vaccines and non-pharmaceutical interventions.
*
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).
What this suggests that these so-called “Delta Deaths” have nothing to do with Covid. They are attributable to the deadly vaccine and its toxic substances.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Following the Taliban’s victory over the U.S. military, U.S. corporate media has churned out a new narrative about the imminent threat of terrorism from Afghanistan that sets the stage for future military interventions. Blasted out in a stunningly disciplined fashion, the media has demonstrated as clearly as ever its coordination with the national security state and advancements of its interests.
The corporate media coverage in the the weeks following the Taliban entry into Kabul conveyed two overriding political messages: first, that the Taliban victory had brought to power the Haqqani network, which is said to be even more violent than the Taliban and even closer to al Qaeda; and second, that the the danger of terrorism had now become much more serious, because the Taliban had could not be counted on to prevent al Qaeda from planning terrorist attack.
Those two messages are firmly rooted in the U.S. military’s determined opposition to ending the U.S. military presence in the country, which shaped the media echo chamber that launched its assault in mid-August on the Biden administration withdrawal, as The Grayzone reported. They also reflect the interest of the U.S. counter-terrorism bureaucracy in maintaining the fiction that al Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan poses an imminent threat to the U.S.
The escalating media panic over a terrorist threat was not grounded in any concrete evidence. Indeed, al Qaeda has not mount any global terrorist operation from Afghanistan since the U.S. occupation began in 2001. The media’s chorus also overlooked the well-documented fact that the Taliban would not have let it do so, as it has renounced al Qaida’s violent international adventurism and staked out a commitment to a purely nationalist Afghan jihad.
Sounding a phony terrorism alarm
Steven Erlanger, the New York Times chief diplomatic correspondent in Europe, set the tone for the new stage of media alarmism over Taliban control in an August 17 article. “Now that the Taliban are back in power,” Erlanger wrote, “there are already worries that Afghanistan will again become a breeding ground for Islamist radicalism and terrorism, aided by new technologies and social media.”
Erlanger acknowledged that the “experts” disagreed on “how big a threat” the Taliban “might become — or how quickly.” However, he claimed that “many doubted at the time that the Taliban would or could keep its promises” in the February 2020 agreement with the Trump administration not to allow al Qaeda or anyone else to “to use Afghanistan to threaten the security of the United States and its allies.”
Erlanger then established his argument by citing the view — “especially in Washington” — that the Taliban government was “almost certain to repeat its encouragement of Islamist terrorist groups” and that “the chances of anther attack on the United States and its allies are much higher now”.
To support his conclusion, he turned to Nathan Sales, the State Department’s Ambassador-at-Large and Coordinator for Counterterrorism during the Trump administration. “The terrorism risk to the United States is going to get dramatically worse” during the new Taliban regime, Sales claimed, because “it is virtually certain” that al Qaeda would get “safe haven in Afghanistan and use it to plot terrorism against the United States and others.”
The New York Times was not done hyping up the terror threat of a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. A story the following week reinforced the theme of a growing risk of al Qaeda terrorism by quotijng Colin P. Clarke, a counterterrorism analyst at the Soufan Group consulting firm founded by former FBI agent Ali Soufan. “The Taliban, Haqqani network, and al-Qaida function as a triumvirate” and “work together hand-in-glove,” Clarke alleged. Thus, according to the Times, “analysts fear” that the Taliban could never deliver on its promise to deny al-Qaida Afghan territory for attacks on the United States.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) weighed in by emphasizing the supposed threat posed by the rise of the “Haqqani network” in a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. The WSJ reported that Sirajuddin Haqqani, the son of the Jallaluddin Haqqani, the founder and head of the Haqqani organization until his death in 2018, had been sought by the United States as a “specially designated global terrorist” for large scale bombing attacks against U.S. and Afghan government forces. He had been deputy commander of Taliban armed forces for years and was recently named Minister of Interior in the new Taliban government.
The WSJ reported that “experts who have followed the group for years” feared that the Haqqani network’s “consolidation of power” would enable a new period of “transnational terrorism” against the United States and its allies. It added that “Afghan officials have for years accused the Haqqani network of facilitating deadly attacks on civilians by providing Islamic State’s local affiliate with technical assistance and analysts don’t accept it and that the Islamic State-Khorasan and the Taliban are “sworn enemies”.
WSJ’s reporters insisted, however, that the Haqqani network has remained “close” to al Qaeda, citing a report by a U.N. Security Council-sponsored group that publishes information on the Taliban and al Qaeda from U.N. member states. The only source cited to support that claim, however, claimed that Al Qaeda “are basically a subsidiary of the Taliban at this point.”
However, that comment implied that, far from being beholden to Al Qaeda, the Taliban exercise enough control over al Qaeda’s activities to ensure that it refrains from any terrorism-related activity.
Finally, MSNBC added its voice to the chorus of terror hype with a September 8 piece advancing the claim that the Haqqani network had linked up with ISIS-Khorasan and the Taliban to form a transnational jihadist hydra. To advance its assertion, MSNBC reported that several major terrorist incidents attributed to the IS had actually involved cooperation with the Haqqani network.
However, MSNBC was merely echoing officials of the deposed, U.S.-backed Afghan government who had conjured up the Haqqani-IS connection to maintain American support.
Rewriting history to maintain U.S. hostility
The corporate media’s framing of the unholy alliance between the Taliban and Haqqani represents a politically-motivated rewriting of history that overlooks the record of U.S. intervention in Afghanistan and the country’s experience after the 9/11 attacks.
The Haqqani network arose during the US proxy war against Soviet forces. At the time, the group was dependent on Pakistan’s military intelligence service and the CIA for cash and weapons — not on bin Laden. As the late journalist George Crile recalled in Charlie Wilson’s War, the Haqqani network’s founder Jalaludin Haqqani was the CIA’s the “favorite commander” and “received bags of money each month” from the CIA station in Islamabad.
When the Taliban was in power, its leader Mullah Omar not only repeatedly warned bin Laden against any move to threaten the United States but reacted angrily to bin Laden’s calling press conferences that threatened the United States in defiance of Omar’s explicit orders. Omar also told Prince Turki al Faisal, the head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence agency, that he sought a joint committee of Islamic scholars to issue a fatwa that would absolve him from any responsibility for protecting bin Laden.
In 1999, Mullah Omar threatened to kick the entire bin Laden operation out of Afghanistan. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, the primary planner of the 9/11 operation, told his interrogators that bin Laden had complained in summer 2001 about Omar’s absolute opposition to any attack on the United States, implying that he had to be deceived about Al Qaeda’s plans.
Following the U.S. military overthrow of the Taliban government in 2001, al Qaeda’s leadership decamped to Pakistan, and most senior Taliban officials left Afghanistan to avoid being imprisoned by the U.S. military.
During the Spring of 2006, Al Qaeda helped the Taliban plan a spectacularly successful offensive in Afghanistan, according to Pakistani journalist Sayed Salem Shahzad, who had extensive contacts with Al Qaeda cadres and is believed to have been killed by Pakistan’s military intelligence agency. But Shazad also documented the process by which the two organizations came into fundamental conflict.
The al Qaeda leadership supported Pakistani extremists who declared war against the Pakistani regime and its military, on whose support the Taliban were dependent. They then established a new Al Qaeda-led political organization for Afghan tribesmen living on the Pakistani side of the border, the Tehrik-e-Taliban (TTP), according to Shahzad.
Al Qaeda justified the TPP as a means of forcing the Pakistani military to abandon its support for the U.S. war in Afghanistan, and the new party continued officially to be loyal to Mullah Omar. Shahzad reported, however, that the party also aimed to draw support away from Mullah Omar and his commitment to jihad strictly for Afghan national independence.
In September 2008, Mullah Omar issued an Islamic holiday message describing the Taliban a “robust Islamic and nationalist movement” which “wants to maintain good and positive relations with all neighbors based on mutual respect.” He assured regional states that a future Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan would do nothing to “jeopardize” other states. That stance provoked a torrent of harsh criticism from commentators associated with Al Qaeda, prompting the Taliban’s house magazine to fire off a letter to the Shanghai Cooperation Conference reiterating Mullah Omar’s previous message.
The open political conflict between the Taliban and Al Qaeda was well known to U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism officials focusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Arturo Munoz, the supervising operation officer at the CIA Counter-terrorism Center from 2001 to 2009, who traveled to both countries frequently, told this writer in 2011, “The Taliban is a homespun Pashtun locally-based revolutionary movement with a set of goals that are not necessarily those of al Qaeda.”
Nevertheless, as the interventionist trifecta of Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen pushed President Barack Obama for 40,000 more U.S. troops in Afghanistan over the course of 2009, they warned the Taliban would inevitably allow al Qaeda to plan and carry out terrorism against the United States if it was allowed to take power.
In 2016, when the top al Qaeda official in Afghanistan’s Kunar province, Farouq al-Qahtani, was killed in a drone strike, U.S. officials claimed he had been planning terrorist actions against the United States and Europe. But U.S. intelligence was unable to muster actual evidence of any such plans.
In a private 2015 interview, Gen. Michael Flynn, who had been in charge of intelligence for the U.S.-NATO command in Afghanistan, expressed serious doubt about the official claim. “What he’s doing up there is not planning external operations,” Flynn commented, “He’s up there planning for a role in the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.”
Despite the private skepticism about official U.S. claims, the standard practice of the national security bureaucracy was still to assume that any senior Al Qaeda official in Afghanistan was planning a terrorist attack – even if there was no actual evidence, as Joshua Geltzer, the Obama administration NSC senior director counter-terrorism indicated in a 2018 interview.
The deceptions only intensified after the Trump administration negotiated a peace agreement with the Taliban in February 2020, under which the Taliban promised that it would not allow Qaeda or any other group to use Afghan territory to “threaten the security of the United States and its allies.”
At this point, national security officials began to insist that the deal required the Taliban to sever all relations with al Qaeda — despite the actual language that didn’t support the claim and the complete lack of evidence of any such al Qaeda plotting on Afghan soil over nearly two decades of war.
Driven by the interests of the U.S. national security bureaucracy, the campaign to undermine the Taliban now threatens to sabotage a goal shared by the U.S. and Kabul: eradicating the IS-K organization.
As early as September 1 – just days after the Islamic State attack on U.S. troops, JCS Chairman Mark Milley indicated it was possible the U.S. might cooperate with the Taliban against IS-K. If Milley’s proposal becomes U.S. policy, the tendentious corporate media propaganda that dominated coverage throughout August and September will fade into the past.
If the ahistorical narrative persists, however, it is safe to assume that the national security bureaucracy has blocked any such cooperation to protect its agenda.
*
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.
Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist who has covered national security policy since 2005 and was the recipient of Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2012. His most recent book is The CIA Insider’s Guide to the Iran Crisis co-authored with John Kiriakou, just published in February.
In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by “Islamic terrorists”. Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.
The expanded edition, which includes twelve new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.
According to Chossudovsky, the “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.
September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.
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).
Prof. Mattias Desmet is a Psychoanalyst and Psychotherapist. He is a lecturing Professor of Clinical Psychology at the Ghent University in Belgium. He has a Master’s degree in Statistics. Over the course of the pandemic, he has been taking the perspective of mass psychology in the explanation of data and statistics.
According to Prof. Desmet, “You need mass media to create a mass phenomena.”
Watch the video below.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
According to the study, there are no microwave weapons associated with the alleged health ailments that caused the Trump administration to decide to dismantle its embassy in the Cuban capital.
A State Department report declassified Thursday dismissed the theory of the causes behind the alleged acoustic attacks reported in 2017 by U.S. diplomats in Havana.
The document, which dismantles the political argument used by the administration of former President Donald Trump to reinforce the U.S. blockade against Cuba, was completed in 2018, but comes to light now to ratify what the scientific community already demonstrated.
Noises linked to a mysterious disease among U.S. diplomats in Cuba, dubbed the “Havana Syndrome,” were likely caused by insects rather than microwave weapons, the declassified report has revealed.
According to the study, there are no microwave weapons associated with the alleged health ailment that caused the Trump administration to decide to dismantle its embassy in the Cuban capital.
The scientific review was commissioned by the U.S. State Department and written by the independent science advisory group JASON.
The United States accused Cuba, without evidence, of an alleged deliberate attack against its diplomatic corps accredited in Havana, which the authorities of the island nation categorically denied from the outset.
A secret report found that microwaves didn't cause "Havana syndrome" incidents and concluded some diplomats heard crickets. https://t.co/RlY8TTWbRy
Last July, President Joe Biden ordered the State Department to examine the possibility of increasing the staff of its representation on the island in the midst of the long-promised review of the policy towards the largest of the Antilles.
In multiple scenarios, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez has reiterated that his country has never perpetrated nor will it perpetrate attacks of any nature against diplomatic officials or their families, without exception. He has also remarked that Cuba never allowed nor will it ever allow its territory to be used by third parties for such purposes.
This is in line with Cuba’s adherence to its obligations under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, with regard to the protection of the integrity of accredited officials on national soil, as well as their families.
Another declassified State Department report earlier this year suggested that Trump’s decision regarding the Havana embassy was, above all, a political response plagued by mismanagement, lack of coordination and procedural non-compliance.
The escalation of statements and actions by the Trump administration was mounted on the story of the health incidents and false accusations, according to Johana Tablada, who is the deputy director general for the United States at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Such actions “tightened the blockade and redoubled hostility against Cuba,” she warned at the time.
*
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: State Department’s declassified report claims noises linked to Havana Syndrome were likely caused by CRICKETS. | Photo: Twitter/@bobttwo
Comments Off on Trump’s Decision to Reinforce Blockade and Dismantle US Embassy in Cuba: Declassified US Report Dismantles Story of Alleged “Acoustic Attacks”
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).
President Joe Biden must issue the appropriate executive order in compliance with the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, and direct all government agencies/entities to make public and unredacted all complete files and records pertaining to the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy as directed by this Act. This information shall be transmitted to the National Archives for full public disclosure to be included in the Archives’ Collection and made available for public inspection and copying.
Here are two bipartisan letters from distinguished citizens imploring and requesting the president perform his constitutional duty and fully comply with federal law and declassify and publish these records before the October 26th deadline. Letter #1. and Letter #2.
There is an ever-growing scholarly consensus among presidential historians, distinguished political analysts, and JFK assassination researchers that on November 22, 1963, an insidious coup d’état by Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson and the highest echelons of the National Security State was accomplished with the brutal murder of President John F. Kennedy.
The official full 889-page report by the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, known unofficially as the Warren Commission, about the assassination of President John Kennedy on November 22, 1963, established the cover-up of this coup. Their landmark final report was presented to President Lyndon Johnson on September 24, 1964, and made public on September 27.
The “smoking gun” in the cover-up of the assassination is found in CIA Dispatch #1035-960 (available online). This was the crucial covert directive to the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird elite media assets to vigorously denounce critics of the Warren Commission Report as “conspiracy theorists.” This is when that particular derogatory term of denunciation and disinformation widely entered the national conversation in an attempt to marginalize, cut off and stifle informed debate on the president’s murder because the path of evidence would lead directly to those elements behind the sinister cover-up.
These facts are discussed in detail in Lance deHaven-Smith’s authoritative Conspiracy Theory in America (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press). Dr. Smith is a widely published scholar in peer-reviewed academic journals and is Professor in the Reubin O’ D. Askew School of Public Administration and Policy at Florida State University in Tallahassee.
What happened on thatfateful Friday in Dallas fifty-eight years ago led to perhaps the single most important series of events affecting the subsequent history of our nation. It lies at the inner most depth, the dark clotted heart, of what observers now describe as the deep state.
Here are additional authoritative evidentiary resources to assist readers in examining this seminal event —
This is the full length uncut version of Rush to Judgment by Mark Lane. Lane, one of the early critics of the preconceived conclusions of the Warren Commission, went to Dallas to do his own investigation and interview witnesses that were ignored by the Commission and others who expanded on their knowledge of the JFK assassination. Particularly crucial were the authoritative statements of eyewitnesses S. M. Holland, Lee E. Bowers, James Tague, and Mrs. Acquila Clemons, What is portrayed in this short critique offers a different picture from the one presented by the US government to the world. This film is a brief for the defense of Lee Harvey Oswald. Mark Lane’s pioneering best-selling book, Rush to Judgment, challenged the Warren Commission Report relating to Lee Harvey Oswald as the sole assassin of President John Kennedy.
Horne is the former Chief Analyst for Military Records for the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), established by the JFK Records Act of 1992, which was tasked with defining, locating, and ensuring the declassification (to the maximum extent possible under the JFK Act) of all Federal Records considered “reasonably related” to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Horne details the numerous anomalies and interrupted chain of custody and destruction of key evidence regarding the president’s body, in the autopsy report(s), the autopsy photo collection (particularly the JFK brain photographs), the deliberate alteration and forgery of the extant Zapruder film, and the supposed “magic bullet” found at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. Watch Douglas P. Horne’s definitive five part video documentary series which summarizes his exceptional research, Altered History: Exposing Deceit and Deception in the JFK, Assassination Medical Evidence. Horne has also written the concise authoritative summary volume,JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated.
While serving as chief analyst of military records at the Assassination Records Review Board in 1997, Douglas P. Horne discovered that the Zapruder Film was examined by the CIA’s National Photographic Interpretation Center two days after the assassination of President Kennedy. In this film, Horne interviews legendary NPIC photo interpreter Dino Brugioni, who speaks for the first time about another NPIC examination of the film the day after the assassination. Brugioni didn’t know about the second examination and believes the Zapruder Film in the archives today is not the film he saw the day after the assassination. Drawing on Volume 4 of his book “Inside the ARRB”, Horne introduces the subject and presents his conclusions.
This is an excellent and invaluable resource. Comprehensive, accessible and unprecedented, Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination presents vital information on each of more than 1,400 individuals related in any noteworthy way to the murders of President John F. Kennedy, Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippit and alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22 and 24, 1963. Based on years of research, a wealth of sources and a long study of the Warren Commission’s twenty-six volumes, this encyclopedic book includes: A-to-Z entries on virtually all the suspects, victims, witnesses, law enforcement officials and investigators.
Quick identification of each person followed by biographical facts, testimony, evidence and more. Detailed listings of sources. Explorations of the puzzling theories and countless sides of the case. Extensive cross-referencing of entries, allowing readers to follow their own investigations and construct their own conclusions. This all-new who’s who will prove an essential companion to the many best-selling books, documentaries and feature films about the JFK assassination.
Bound to be referred to again and again, it is the complete resource for anyone who wants to know more about– or wants to keep better track of– the key players involved in one of the most infamous chapters in American history.
This is the first of several high-level political analyses motivated by a need to better understand the politics that led to both the JFK assassination and the Nixon Watergate Affair. It deploys as the primary theoretical model, C. Wright Mills “Theory of the Power Elite” and the framework in Carroll Quigleys book Tragedy and Hope. With these tools, Carl Oglesby posits an interesting thesis: that JFK’s assassination, instead of being a random act by a lone nut was in fact a carefully planned and professional executed ongoing coup d’ etat a la Americaine, a not so silent coup by the same forces responsible for the murders of JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X and possibly the demise and eventual destruction of the billionaire Howard Hughes.
What all of these events had in common was that they were links in a chain designed to replace one set of power elite (members of the old moneyed “peace promoting” Northeastern Yankee Establishment) with another (the Nuevo Riche and newly arrived, “progress through war” Western Cowboys). Thus it is argued here that the events connecting Dallas, Memphis, Watergate and the demise of the Hughes empire, are but threads in a common fabric, growing and evolving directly out of the systematic corruption of American politics and out of contemporary political realities.
The late Murray N. Rothbard was particularly enamored with this pioneering book, remarking:
Carl Oglesby’s new book is not only exciting and thoroughly researched, it presents the only analytic framework — originated by himself — which makes sense of the violent events of the last decade and a half our recent political history, and puts them all into a coherent framework: the Yankee vs. Cowboy analysis.
The important question looms: why is it that Oglesby has been alone in coming up with this framework? I think the answer is that the methodologies of other writers and researchers have led them astray: the free-market economists who are critical of government actions never bother to ask who benefited from those actions and who were likely to be responsible for them; the Marxists are anxious to indict an abstract, mythical and unified ‘capitalist class’ for all evils of government, and believe that detailed research into concrete divisions and conflicts among power elites detract from such an indictment; those sociologists who have engaged in concrete power elite analysis have only examined structures (who owns corporation X, who belongs to what social club?) rather than the dynamics of concrete historical events; the one writer who has treated Yankees and Cowboys has been so blinded by particular hostility to the Cowboys that he virtually includes everyone living in the Sunbelt as part of a vast Cowboy conspiracy; and the various doughty investigators and reporters of Dallas or Watergate have struck to surface events because they lacked the overall coherent framework.
Carl Oglesby has surmounted all of these defects, and has therefore been able to make a giant breakthrough in explaining our recent history.
The death of Mary Meyer left many Americans with questions. Who really killed her? Why did CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton rush to find and confiscate her diary? Had she discovered the plan to assassinate her lover, President Kennedy, with the trail of information ending at the steps of the CIA? Was it only coincidence that she was killed less than three weeks after the release of the Warren Commission Report?
Fans of The Murder of Mary Russell, JFK: A Vision for America, and other JFK books will love Mary’s Mosaic. Building and relying on years of interviews and painstaking research, author Peter Janney follows the key events and influences in Mary Pinchot Meyer’s life—her first meeting with Jack Kennedy; her support of her secret lover, President Kennedy, as he worked towards the pursuit of world peace and away from the Cold War; and her exploration of psychedelic drugs. Fifty years after the assassinations of President Kennedy and Mary Meyer, this book helps readers understand why both took place.
Author Peter Janney fought for two years to obtain documents from the National Personnel Records Center and the US Army to complete this third edition. It includes a final chapter about the mystery man who could be the missing piece to learn the truth behind Meyer’s murder.
Dr. Cyril Wecht, for two decades the elected coroner of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (including Pittsburgh), is a nationally acclaimed forensic pathologist, and holds both a medical degree from the University of Pittsburgh (1956), and a law degree from the University of Maryland (1962). Forensic pathologists specialize in medically determining how and why someone died.
In criminal murder cases this function is absolutely vital in helping to determine the guilt or innocence of a suspect — in no case more so than in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Dr. Wecht, a very early critic of the Warren Commission, testified at the HSCA. At the annual JFK Lancer assassination research conference in Dallas, held in November, Dr. Wecht summarized the medical evidence against the lone-gunman hypothesis. At the center of Dr. Wecht’s examination is what has become known as the “single-bullet theory” — or the “magic bullet,” as it is known to its detractors: the theory that one bullet can account for the multiple wounds (besides the headshot) of both JFK and Governor Connally.
According to Dr. Wecht, the conclusions of the Warren Commission rest entirely on the single-bullet theory. If that theory fails, then there had to be more than one gunman. This, in turn, leads to questions about the history of the United States since 1963 that many people would rather not pursue. With both passion and meticulous attention to detail, Wecht dissects the Warren Commission’s conclusions.
Moving beyond the medical evidence, he then utters words unexpected from any former American elected official, and particularly powerful coming from a person with his credentials: “What we witnessed…my friends, in plain, plain English — was [a] coup d’état in America. The overthrow of the government. That’s what this case was all about.”
Watch this classic eight minute YouTube clip of JFK Assassination researcher John Judge from the “JFK: Cinema as History” conference (January 1992) which appeared on C-SPAN. It reveals more about “the why” of the November 22, 1963 assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and the coup d’état following his murder than almost anything you have probably heard.
After quoting Thomas Jefferson on the importance of a free press to a republic, John Judge makes a disparaging reference to The Washington Post and The New York Times. He then pauses for a few seconds and is shown glaring at another panel member. This person (not shown in the clip) was Walter Pincus of The Washington Post, who had viciously attacked Oliver Stone’s movie JFK. The older man who is briefly shown in one momentary scene is the late Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty who served as chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff where he was in charge of the global system designed to provide military support for covert activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. In Oliver Stone’s highly acclaimed film, JFK, the mysterious character ‘X’ portrayed by Donald Sutherland was in fact Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, who assisted director Stone in the production and scripting of this historical epic.
JFK: A Nation Betrayed. Narrated by Morgan Freeman, this film reveals new evidence how JFK embarked on secret back channel peace efforts with Nikita Khrushchev & Fidel Castro, determined to get out of Vietnam despite intense opposition inside his own government.
After his confrontational June 1961 Vienna Summit meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, later that year in September Kennedy under took a bold initiative and introduced at the Sixteenth General Assembly of the United Nations a Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.
Conversely the national security establishment (particularly the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff and CIA) believed, not in disarmament but in a nuclear first strike policy against the Soviet Union, and that JFK was naïve and lacked determination and resolve in his opposition to this apocalyptic doomsday scenario. On March 13, 1962 the JCS submitted Operation Northwoods as a pretext for a Cuban Invasion.
This war between JFK and the military intensified following the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. Pentagon leaders such as Air Force chief of Staff General Curtis LeMay believed the peaceful resolution of the Crisis was not Kennedy’s finest hour but had been appeasement of the Soviets and the worst disaster in American history.
JFK proceeded to embark on secret back channel peace efforts with Nikita Khrushchev and Fidel Castro and was determined to get out of Vietnam despite intense opposition inside his own government.
It all came to an end on November 22, 1963, when an insidious coup d’état by Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson and the highest echelons of the National Security State was accomplished with the brutal murder of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas.
*
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 JFK Presidential Library and Museum
Comments Off on President Biden Should Open and Publish All Files and Records Under the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The real story is much more than an adventure starring a Canadian hero.
A CBC story about an ex-Canadian soldier who helped dozens flee Afghanistan ought to have considered the role of the private security industry in the disastrous 20-year-long war in that central Asian country. The large number of private security companies (PSC) in Afghanistan received barely any media attention, leaving Canadians ignorant of a controversial element of the foreign occupation.
In “How a guy known as ‘Canadian Dave’ helped get 100 people out of Afghanistan in final days of Taliban takeover” Judy Trinh writes about David Lavery helping get some of those gathered near the Kabul airport on to flights. A founding member of elite special forces unit JTF2, Lavery coordinated with veterans in this country to get over 100 individuals with Canadian papers out of the country.
The widely circulated story mentioned that Lavery operated a PSC, Raven Rae Consultancy, with some 50 Afghan employees. But a broader look at Raven Rae and PSCs was omitted from the article and most media reports about Afghanistan. According to its site, Raven Rae entered Afghanistan in 2010. It was one of thousands of PSCs that entered Afghanistan during the US and NATO occupation. According to private security industry researcher Anna Powles, Afghanistan “has been a gravy train for the global private security industry for the past two decades.” The US, Canada and other NATO countries dished out billions of dollars to PSCs.
Some have suggested the Afghan military’s quick collapse was partly due to the withdrawal of PSC support. “It was their [PSCs] departure that led to the erosion of the capability of the Afghan Air Force elements, which were critical,” a former senior US commander in Afghanistan told Foreign Policy. “But how could they have been left behind when our forces that provided ultimate security for them were withdrawn?”
At the height of Canada’s 13-year military mission in Afghanistan Saladin, DynCorp and other PSCs had larger numbers of armed men than most of the NATO countries occupying Afghanistan. In 2008 Canadian Brigadier General Denis Thompson explained: “Without private security firms it would be impossible to achieve what we are achieving here. There are many aspects of the mission here in Afghanistan, many security aspects that are performed by private security firms that which, if they were turned over to the military, would make our task impossible. We just don’t have the numbers to do everything.”
The federal government spent tens, maybe hundreds, of millions of dollars on PSCs. They paid $10 million for private security to guard Canada’s “signature” $50 million aid project to repair the Dahla dam in Kandahar province. The federal government contracted Saladin to protect its embassy in Kabul. Saladin also helped secure Prime Minister Stephen Harper during a visit there in 2007 and protected forward operating bases in Kandahar province. Saladin has a troubling history. Its predecessor, KMS, trained and possibly equipped Islamic insurgents battling Russian forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s and it sent mercenaries into Nicaragua as part of the Iran Contra Affair.
Private security firms in Afghanistan were poorly regulated. Many Afghans believed PSCs participated in crime and the large numbers of armed men from different groups made them feel insecure. Afghans told Swiss Peace Foundation researchers that PSCs behaved in a “cowboy-like” manner. After a Canadian officer was killed by a PSC employee in August 2008, Canadian Major Corey Frederickson effectively concurred, explaining that the “normal contact drill [for PSCs] is that as soon as they get hit with something then it’s 360 [degrees], open up on anything that moves.”
As is the case with Lavery, many former Canadian soldiers owned or worked for PSCs in Afghanistan. “Founded in the mid-2000s by Canadian military veterans”, Tundra Group protected forward operating bases in Afghanistan. Toronto company Globe Risk Holdings had offices in Kabul and Kandahar. It hired former Canadian soldiers as did Vancouver’s Canpro Global, which also had an office in Afghanistan.
The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq helped propel Montréal based GardaWorld to be the world’s largest privately held PSC. In recent weeks hundreds of the Montréal company’s employees have been evacuated from Afghanistan.
With over 100,000 employees worldwide, Garda regularly advertises in Esprit du Corps calling on the magazine’s Canadian Forces readership to “translate your military skills into a Gardaworld career.” A number of former Canadian officers were in the upper echelons of Garda. The head of Garda’s Afghan operations, Daniel Ménard, previously commanded Canadian Forces operations in Afghanistan. Ménard had been court-martialled for having sexual relations with a subordinate in Afghanistan and recklessly discharging his weapon. While he worked for Garda, Ménard was also engulfed in controversy in Afghanistan. In 2014 he was jailed for allegedly smuggling guns. Two years earlier two other Garda employees in Afghanistan were caught with dozens of unlicensed AK-47 rifles and jailed for three months.
Garda was also involved in numerous violent incidents in Afghanistan. In 2019 three children were among a dozen killed when a minibus full of explosives crashed into a Garda SUV carrying foreign nationals in Kabul. The same year the Taliban attacked the complex where Garda’s offices were located in an incident that left 30 dead. The Kathmandu Postreported that Garda illegally shortchanged the family of a Nepalese employee killed in the attack.
There are few regulations constraining Canadian PSCs’ international operations. Unlike the US and South Africa, notes “Beyond the Law? The Regulation of Canadian Private Military and Security Companies Operating Abroad”, “Canadadoes not have legislation designed to regulate either the services provided by Canadian PMSCs [private military security companies] operating outside of Canada or the conduct of Canadian citizens working for foreign PMSCs.”Furthermore, Ottawa has not signed the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries and has been little involved with the UN Human Rights Council’s Working Group on the use of mercenaries.
The foreign military pullout and Taliban capture of Kabul has decimated the large PSC industry in the country. Yet most Afghans are likely happy to see the end of private mercenary forces and hired guns dominating their country. This development has gone largely unreported by Canadian media.
The CBC owes Canadians a discussion of the role private security forces played in Afghanistan.
*
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).
While the ruling party gathers for a swanky conference to celebrate its political successes, average Britons are struggling with fuel shortages, economic devastation and a deadly pandemic
One of the most striking features of contemporary politics is the scale of the gap that has opened up between elites and the people.
Let’s look at Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Britain on the eve of next week’s Tory party conference in Manchester. We are talking two parallel realities: on the one hand, the euphoric story of political triumph and economic success. On the other, economic degradation and looming social catastrophe.
The first reality can be found inside the heavily guarded conference centre by Manchester’s famous Midland hotel. Britain’s governing elite were already starting to gather there on Friday: Johnson, his freshly reshuffled cabinet, MPs still pinching themselves in disbelief after the 2019 election triumph, Tory donors on the lookout for contracts – all aided and abetted by a courtier class of client journalists and newspaper editors on a mission to pump out the Conservative message.
Remember that next week’s Tory conference is not just a public affair. The British governing elite will back slap and strike deals behind the scenes at parties, restaurants and private dinners.
As for Johnson, he is guaranteed to receive a hero’s welcome when he steps onto the stage to deliver his leader’s speech.
Remember that this is the first Tory conference to meet physically (as opposed to online) since Johnson’s election victory in December 2019. There is a great deal of celebration to do, and the festivities will stretch well into the small hours – all the more so with Labour leader Keir Starmer well behind in the polls, and obsessed with stoking divisions inside his own party.
The second reality
Now let’s turn to the second reality, the one increasingly experienced by the majority of the British people. There are long queues outside petrol stations as Britain faces a fuel crisis hauntingly similar to the 1970s. Many petrol stations, including my local station, are actually closed.
Crops are rotting in the fields. Supermarket shelves are empty. Covid-19 is back on the rise, with deaths creeping steadily up. There are growing fears for the British economy, with inflation on the rise and public finances out of control. There’s talk of a winter of discontent, comparable to the chaotic winter of 1978-79, which created the conditions for Margaret Thatcher’s election victory the following spring.
Can the euphoric political/media bubble on display in central Manchester coexist with the grim realities of declining living standards and desperation outside? It is important to understand that so far, the Johnson government has been protected against the consequences of this pileup of economic disasters.
For all its horror, the coronavirus pandemic did the Johnson government a monumental political favour. It concealed the economic consequences of Brexit. For the last 18 months, it has been impossible to tell whether the pandemic or Brexit was responsible for Britain’s mounting problems.
Now, they are becoming obvious for all to see. There are no Eastern European workers to pick the crops; European lorry drivers are unavailable now that Britain has left the single market. On Thursday, Chancellor Rishi Sunak brought to an end the furlough scheme that protected workers against lost income because of the pandemic.
On Wednesday – by coincidence, the date Johnson is expected to deliver his conference speech – universal credit will be slashed by £20 ($27) a head, the biggest cut in the history of the welfare state. The move will plunge many people into poverty and desperation.
Media complicity
Crucially, Johnson has so far been able to rely heavily on the protection of the mass media. Britain’s big right-wing newspaper groups all backed Brexit, and they all supported Johnson when he ran for Tory leader.
They need him to succeed. If he fails, they will look stupid and lose credibility, and their readers will lose faith. Meanwhile, the supposedly impartial BBC, intimidated by government bullying, has failed to stand up to the government.
So, the mass media have largely averted their gaze from Johnson’s problems – and when they have been forced to pay attention, they have largely absolved the prime minister of blame. Anyone who doubts this analysis should contemplate the kind of media coverage that Jeremy Corbyn would have been receiving over the past few weeks if he had won the last general election.
It would have been gory. He would have been personally blasted for each and every disaster. He would have been mocked and humiliated in brutal front-page denunciations. There would be a campaign for him to quit.
Johnson, by contrast, is held up as a hero who successfully survived a brush with death after contracting Covid-19 to successfully lead Britain out of Europe and through the coronavirus crisis. Johnson’s political triumph is indeed remarkable. This weekend, he dominates the Conservative Party, having won an 80-seat majority in the House of Commons – and there will much talk of a snap general election and 10 more years of a Johnson premiership.
But this euphoria is based on lies, made possible only thanks to the complicity of a tainted mass media. Next week will be Johnson’s greatest moment of political triumph as Tory leader. He should enjoy it. Outside the Conservative Party bubble, life is getting harder, and the triumphalist media/political establishment cannot ignore this desperation for much longer.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Peter Oborne won best commentary/blogging in 2017 and was named freelancer of the year in 2016 at the Online Media Awards for articles he wrote for Middle East Eye. He was also named as British Press Awards Columnist of the Year in 2013. He resigned as chief political columnist of the Daily Telegraph in 2015. His latest book, The Assault on Truth, was published in February 2021. His previous books include The Triumph of the Political Class, The Rise of Political Lying, and Why the West is Wrong about Nuclear Iran.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The decision to keep secret the files relating to deaths caused by British army use of ‘baton rounds’ in the 1980s only augments the agony the victims’ families have suffered, writes RICHARD RUDKIN
Just when you think this Tory government couldn’t get any nastier, somehow they always seem pull something out the hat to prove us wrong.
It appears they have now blended in their Tory trademark of “heartlessness” along with a disturbing desire for “secrecy and cruelty” by denying a number of family’s access to vital historic files.
The files that are held at the National Archives at Kew could provide answers surrounding deaths caused by injuries sustained from plastic bullets, also known as baton rounds, during the “Troubles.”
One case in particular is Paul Whitter, who was just 15, when a plastic bullet fired in 1981 by a Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) constable in Derry struck Paul on the back of the head causing severe damage. Sadly, Paul died 10 days later.
In 2007, the Ombudsman report into his death criticised the police investigation and concluded that the firing of the baton round was wrong and unjustifiable. No attempt was made to arrest the boy, no warning was given and the bullet was fired from less than the permissible range of 20 metres.
Despite this, the family of Paul Whitters will have to wait until 2059 to access the files.
However, it is not just this family affected by this decision to deny access to files. The Pat Finucane Centre, which has performed outstanding work in helping families bereaved as a result of the conflict, has discovered that other files relating to deaths caused by the use of plastic bullets during the Troubles are to remain closed until 2071.
In a statement made to the BBC, a spokesperson for the Northern Ireland Office stated: “A very small proportion (of files) have to be kept closed because they relate to issues such as sensitive personal information, relations with other countries on National Security.”
Understandably, sometimes restricting access may be necessary, but in this case we are talking about a 15-year-old child. Moreover, it raises questions about why the government finds it necessary not just to restrict access but to do so for such a long period of time, thereby ensuring everyone connected to this and similar incidents, where death has occurred from a plastic bullet, will never be questioned on their statements.
Knowing this, it’s understandable that many people come to the conclusion that the decision to refuse access to these and other files such as Orgreave, Shrewsbury pickets and many others, including events from the Troubles, has the suggestion of “state collusion and cover-up” running through it like a stick of seaside rock.
What information could these files hold that may not only uncover the truth for the relatives but prove damaging to a government agency if declassified?
Is it possible the answer to the question could be found by comparing documents such as “the guidelines for recommended use of plastic bullets” against statements made by members of the security forces that fired them?
Could the files contain information regarding the condition of the “bullets fired?” Is there anything to suggest in the statements any bullets had been “doctored?”
Do the files contain eyewitness accounts that throw doubt that the victim was hit by accident or contradict statements made by the security forces?
These are just a few questions that the files could provide answers to.
Rubber bullets, if used correctly, are not as damaging as “live rounds,” but it is a myth to suggest that they were a “soft option.”
Manufactured from hard rubber, measuring approximately 150mm in length, 38 in diameter and weighing approximately 131 grams, they travelled at about 60 metres per second. Although intended to be a non-lethal alternative for use in riot control, used incorrectly, they could cause serious injury or death.
Surprisingly, this obvious danger never appeared to cross the minds to those in command — that is until 1971 when a British soldier committed an act of pure malice.
On a November morning in Belfast, 51-year-old mother of 11 Emma Groves was looking out the window as British soldiers carried out searches in adjoining houses.
Safely in her home, Groves expressed her right to peacefully protest by putting an Irish folk record on her player and turning the volume up loud.
As she returned to look out the window, a soldier standing outside, no more than eight feet away, possibly angered by the music, took aim and fired a rubber bullet that smashed through the glass hitting her in the face. The injury was so severe, Groves lost her sight in both eyes. Despite this, no action was taken against the soldier who fired the bullet.
Having learned nothing from the criminal action that blinded Groves, it was no surprise that just two years later 11-year-old Francis Rowntree would become the first person to be killed by a rubber bullet during the Troubles.
The rubber bullets that were used from 1970 were eventually replaced by plastic bullets in 1975.
Slightly smaller but of similar weight to its predecessor, the plastic bullet was seen as lower risk due to it not ricocheting like the rubber bullet, but this was only a cosmetic solution.
What really needed to change was the method of use. A clear demonstration of the perils of failing to do so occurred later in the same year when Stephen Geddis, aged 10, became the youngest person to die from injuries sustained from being hit by a plastic bullet
The use of rubber and plastic bullets took the sight of Groves and the lives of 17 people, with over half being children.
If a child’s life is lost due to an accident, it’s tragic, if it’s taken by an act of malice, it’s criminal and no government should be allowed to make a cruel decision that prevents the relatives from discovering which of the two it was.
If the relatives can’t obtain justice because they are denied the truth, how can they possibly find peace?
The answer is they won’t and that has to be wrong.
*
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: Rubber and plastic roundsPhoto: Pic: lns1122/Creative Commons
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Venezuela’s national currency has devalued by over a quarter as the government rolls out a monetary reconversion.
On October 1, the digital bolívar (BsD) replaced the sovereign bolívar (BsS), knocking out six zeroes from its predecessor (1 BsD = 1,000,000 BsS). The two legal tenders will coexist in the coming weeks as the newly minted bills from 5 to 100 BsD, as well as a 1 BsD coin, begin to circulate.
However, the imminent redenomination led to a currency speculation drive, with the black market rate going from 4 million to 4.8 million BsS, or 4.8 BsD, per 1 US dollar in the past week. The exchange value went up further to 5.14 BsD on its first day, meaning that the Venezuelan currency lost 28.5 percent of its value in ten days.
Social media users and analysts decried the speculative frenzy, with Economy Vice Minister William Castillo calling it a “political operation” and blasting opposition commentators who justify “attacks against the economy.”
With the bolívar redenomination, the Venezuelan government has prioritized the need to boost digital operations to facilitate transactions and minimize the risk of cash shortages.
Most bank platforms were up and running on Friday morning, with technical difficulties persisting for the Bank of Venezuela into the afternoon. The public bank, the country’s largest, was recently offline for several days due to what authorities denounced as a cyber-attack originating in the United States. The smaller Bicentenario Bank, also state-owned, suffered an alleged Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack on September 23 but had its services restored in hours.
Quarterly devaluation of the sovereign bolívar since its introduction. Venezuela’s currency has devalued almost entirely but the pace has slowed in recent months. (Venezuelanalysis w/ BCV data).
The new reconversion comes just three years after the introduction of the sovereign bolívar. In August 2018, the Nicolás Maduro government removed five zeroes and replaced the strong bolívar (BsF) as part of a broad set of economic reforms.
At the time, Venezuelan authorities hoped to tackle runaway inflation in the midst of a years-long economic crisis. But the devaluation-inflation spiral continued unabated after a few weeks of stability, forcing the Venezuelan Central Bank to twice introduce new, higher denomination bills. Liberal overtures such as the lifting of currency exchange controls slowed down devaluation but not entirely.
In contrast to 2018, the digital bolívar rollout has not come alongside other economic measures. The price of subsidized fuel reportedly jumped by 100 percent without any official announcement. Nevertheless, filling a 40L tank costs a mere 0.4 BsD, or US $0.08. Privately run gas stations continue to sell gasoline at $0.50 a liter.
The Venezuelan economy has been mired in a years-long crisis that was significantly worsened by wide-reaching US sanctions. GDP has contracted by more than 65 percent, though some forecasts have the country registering growth in 2021 for the first time since 2013.
The Maduro executive has looked to kickstart the economy by offering increasingly favorable conditions for private investment through tax exemptions and deregulation. But legislative initiatives such as the Anti-blockade Law and Special Economic Zones have faced controversy, with Chavista groups and intellectuals arguing that the measures endanger the country’s sovereignty and break with former President Hugo Chávez’s socialist 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.
Featured image: Despite inflation slowing down in recent months, Venezuela is rolling out a second monetary reconversion in three years. (Archive)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The Kingdom of Morocco is a place of hope and promise of honest attempts to make strides commensurate with the humanistic journey. It recognizes in its Constitution, laws, policies, and programs that community participation is the essential ingredient for achieving optimal outcomes, including sustainability and ever-deeper satisfaction among the people.
The premise of the nation’s family code is rooted in not just centuries but millennia, calling for justice and equity in regard to women and men and our gender-based experiences. Morocco has also determined—based on its own historically informed outlook, but also from lessons around the world drawn over time—that concentrating the power of decision-making and control over the affairs that matter the most to people ought to rest among them and in the public administrative tier closest to them. This is also a matter of recognizing human dignity: distant determinations which are imposed are rarely as appropriate as those that people make for themselves and their families alongside their neighbors and community members.
The national commitment for renewable energy is also among the nation’s flagship efforts for a society that lives in balance, not just with each other as a diverse people but also in regards to the relationship with the natural environment. Morocco’s global noteworthy commitment to renewable energy, backed by financial and political will, is indeed inspiring. It is part and parcel of Morocco’s transformational intent in the other vital sectors of society and growth.
Nonetheless, as incredibly major as the country’s opportunities are, the difficulties and inadequacies of their implementation can, at times, be stark and real. Morocco deserves enormous credit for its honesty. One need not look any further than the Special Report for the New Development Model (spearheaded by H.M. the King of Morocco) for the truth in regard to both the promise and its painful lack of fulfillment, concluding with the urgency to chart a recalibrated course of action.
The national commitment to decentralization—or regionalization—that is captured in Article 1 of the Constitution is essential; it provides a system by which localities can identify and implement related projects in keeping with their own priorities. Such community movements occur, particularly in partnership with public and private sectors, the more these channels of cooperation in reaching decentralization can be effective.
Decentralization will remain stalled or will flourish to the extent that communities comprising the country’s municipalities are vibrant and energized in their collaborative course, implementing the development they most seek. The unsatisfactory level of community actions in this regard is the primary reason that decentralization is not providing an empowering structure and necessary difference for the country.
Renewable energy projects, no matter their impressive prominence even with Morocco’s sincere dedication, has not been integrative of community voices, evaluations, and, arguably, benefits—in a manner felt by the local people.
The High Atlas Foundation and its domestic and international multi-stakeholder partners all hold high hopes and expectations for Morocco’s commitment to decentralized renewable energy. They are taking the course that we must first provide opportunities for harnessing empowerment among intended beneficiaries and also engage in participatory planning of initiatives that they most want. We will then see areas where integration of renewable energy can take place within the pathway to development determined by the communities.
As in all genuine, empowering local movements, it begins with an invitation by the community members expressing their desire to fully engage and give the time and energy needed to achieve successful outcomes. Many invitations in our program’s experience are forthcoming, and we decided to focus in the Youssoufia province with a village community in the Jnane Bouih municipality because of circumstances that they face, including severe scarcity of water and evident vulnerability to the impacts of climate change.
Women and men prioritized clean drinking water and a nursery of different endemic fruit-bearing trees and medicinal plants as part of the fulfilling future that they seek. As of today, with the initial phases of empowerment workshops implemented, the registration of their cooperative, and a source of sweet and nourishing water found at a depth of 200 meters, we remain steadfast in the completion of their individual and collective dream.
These local development experiences, viewed comparatively and in the aggregate, reveal the commonality of needs: the difficulty of accessing resources to create change, the gender-based differences in objectives, and the desire to remain in rural communities and not migrate to cities for the sake of bread alone. Experiences examined in these and in other informative ways can actually be helpful in reforming policy. The power of decentralization is not only in its concentration of capacity among the people who drive their own futures and possibilities but also in its ability to bring forward new approaches and policy frameworks that are more commensurate with what people actually want and pursue.
Our experiences in Youssoufia and elsewhere are, in fact, revelatory in that they spotlight the adjustments and programs that can more effectively release the endless energy that people have for improving their lives. The Youssoufia experience is about the immediate needs of its residents. But, it is also about understanding the needs that transcend the countryside and that, when sincerely listened to, can bring about laws backed by resources ushering in the Moroccan promise for all its people.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Yossef Ben-Meir is president of the High Atlas Foundation in Morocco.
Featured image: Imagine women’s empowerment session in Youssoufia (High Atlas Foundation, 2021)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
On May 7, 2021, during the peak of India’s Delta Surge, The World Health Organization reported, “Uttar Pradesh (is) going the last mile to stop COVID-19.”
The WHO noted, “Government teams are moving across 97,941 villages in 75 districts over five days in this activity which began May 5 in India’s most populous state with a population of 230 million.”
The activity involved an aggressive house-to-house test and treat program with medicine kits.
The WHO explained, “Each monitoring team has two members who visit homes in villages and remote hamlets to test everyone with symptoms of COVID-19 using Rapid Antigen Test kits. Those who test positive are quickly isolated and given a medicine kit with advice on disease management.”
The medicines comprising the kit were not identified as part of the Western media blackout at the time. As a result, the contents were as secret as the sauce at McDonald’s.
The WHO continued, “On the inaugural day, WHO field officers monitored over 2,000 government teams and visited at least 10,000 households.”
This news story was published on the WHO Official Website in India. The website details the WHO’s work against COVID-19 in India, including a discussion about their “Online course for Rapid Response Teams.”
Such teams are the very government teams discussed above assigned to conduct the house-to-house test and treat program in Uttar Pradesh. In discussing the role of the Rapid Response Team (RRT), the WHO site reports,
“RRTs are a key component of a larger emergency response strategy that is essential for an efficient and effective response…WHO has produced and published this course for RRTs working at the national, sub-national, district, and sub-district levels to strengthen the pandemic response with support from the National Center for Disease Control, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”
The Rapid Response Teams derive support from the United States CDC under the umbrella of the WHO. This fact further validates the Uttar Pradesh test and treat program and solidifies this as a joint effort by the WHO and CDC. See this.
Perhaps the most telling portion of the WHO article was the last sentence, “WHO will also support the Uttar Pradesh government on the compilation of the final reports.” See this.
None have yet been published.
Just five short weeks later, on June 14, 2021, new cases had dropped a staggering 97.1 percent, and the Uttar Pradesh program was hailed as a resounding success. According to ZeeNews of India, “The strategy of trace, test & treat yields results.”
“The Yogi-led state has also been registering a steep decline in the number of Active COVID Cases as the figure has dropped from a high of 310,783 in April to 8,986 now, a remarkable reduction by 97.10 percent.”
By July 2, 2021, three weeks later, cases were down a full 99 percent. See this.
On August 6, 2021, India’s Ivermectin media blackout ended with MSN reporting. Western media, including MSN, finally acknowledged what was contained in those Uttar Pradesh medicine kits. Among the medicines were Doxycycline and Ivermectin. See this.
On August 25, 2021, the Indian media noticed the discrepancy between Uttar Pradesh’s massive success and other states, like Kerala’s, comparative failure. Although Uttar Pradesh was only 5% vaccinated to Kerala’s 20%, Uttar Pradesh had (only) 22 new COVID cases, while Kerala was overwhelmed with 31,445 in one day. So it became apparent that whatever was contained in those treatment kits must have been pretty effective.
News18 reported, “Let’s look at the contrasting picture. Kerala, with its 3.5 crore population – or 35 million, on August 25 reported 31,445 new cases, a bulk of the total cases reported in the country. Uttar Pradesh, the biggest state with a population of nearly 24 crore – or 240 million – meanwhile reported just 22 cases in the same period.
Two days ago, just seven fresh positive cases were reported from Uttar Pradesh. Kerala reported 215 deaths on August 25, while Uttar Pradesh only reported two deaths. In fact, no deaths have been reported from Uttar Pradesh in recent days. There are only 345 active cases in Uttar Pradesh now while Kerala’s figure is at 1.7 lakh – or 170,000.” See this.
“Kerala has done a much better job in vaccination coverage with 56% of its population being vaccinated with one dose and 20% of the population being fully vaccinated with a total of 2.66 crore – or 26.6 million – doses being administered.
Uttar Pradesh had given over 6.5 crore – or 65 million – doses, the maximum in the country, but only 25% of people have got their first dose while less than 5% of people are fully vaccinated. Given the present COVID numbers, Uttar Pradesh seems to be trumping Kerala for the tag of the most successful model against COVID.”
This author reviewed the reasons behind Kerala’s failed treatment model in two articles, “The Lesson of Kerala” and “Kerala’s Vaccinated Surge.”
By September 12, 2021, Livemint reported that 34 districts were declared COVID-free or had no active cases. Only 14 new cases were recorded in the entire state of Uttar Pradesh. See this.
On September 22, 2021, YouTube hosted a video by popular science blogger Dr. John Campbell detailing the Uttar Pradesh success story. He gave a breakdown of the ingredients and dosages of the magical medicine home treatment kit responsible for eradicating COVID in Uttar Pradesh. The same kit was also used in the state of Goa.
Dr. John Campbell broke India’s Ivermectin Blackout wide open on YouTube by revealing the formula of the secret sauce, much to the dismay of Big Pharma, the WHO, and the CDC. Readers will want to watch this before it is taken down. See mark 2:22.
Each home kit contained the following: Paracetamol tablets [tylenol], Vitamin C, Multivitamin, Zinc, Vitamin D3, Ivermectin 12 mg [quantity #10 tablets], Doxycycline 100 mg [quantity #10 tablets]. Other non-medication components included face masks, sanitizer, gloves and alcohol wipes, a digital thermometer, and a pulse oximeter. See mark 2:33.
Campbell reports that the exciting things in the kit that grabbed his attention were: Zinc, Vitamin D3, Ivermectin, and secondary antibiotic treatment. “Interesting, that’s what the government decided to give.” See mark 3:40
John Campbell has reviewed repurposed drugs for COVID before. He has interviewed both Dr. Tess Lawrie and Dr. Pierre Kory. Repurposed drugs hold the potential for benefitting many conditions, not the least of which include viruses and cancers. See this.
Dr. Campbell noted that there had been no recent cases in 59 Uttar Pradesh districts. In addition, out of 191,446 tests completed in the previous 24 hours, only 33 samples were positive for a test positivity rate of only 0.01%. Dr. Campbell called this low number “staggering.” See mark 5:05.
By September, cases had fallen dramatically. Out of the entire state of 200 million plus inhabitants, only 187 active cases were left compared to the peak in April of 310,783 cases. See mark 5:41.
Dr. Campbell attributes their success to many factors, including early detection and early treatment with kits costing a mere $ 2.65 per person. See mark 6:20.
Notice that Dr. Campbell does not mention a single person who had any toxicity from those ten 12 mg pills of Ivermectin – in the entire state of over 200 million. Not one poisoning was reported. No Indian poison control articles or telephone calls were reported. Out of millions of distributed medicine kits, each containing 120 mg of Ivermectin, not one person in Uttar Pradesh was reported to have had a problem with the drug.
Notice that Dr. Campbell at no time criticizes the medicine kit as “fringe” or ineffective. After all, it would be improper to accuse a WHO-sponsored program such as the Uttar Pradesh test and treat – coordinated by WHO – of being “fringe.” See this.
Contrary to what little we receive – at great expense – from the government in the United States, these kits are efficient and contain gloves, a thermometer, and an oximeter. The last time I purchased an oximeter some ten years ago, it cost some $200.00. This entire kit – including the oximeter – costs only $2.65.
And notice that a government can purchase over one thousand home treatment Ivermectin containing kits for the price of one course of Remdesivir. Remdesivir runs $3,100, and it is an impractical drug as it must be given late in the disease during hospitalization. Moreover, it is a drug that does not save lives.
On the other hand, the Ivermectin kits are highly correlated with eliminating COVID-19 in Uttar Pradesh. Indeed with less than 11% of their population fully vaccinated, the Uttar Pradesh model of test and treat is superior not only to Kerala, with a much higher percent vaccinated. Uttar Pradesh beats the UK, the US, and nearly everywhere else in the world in terms of the lowest active COVID cases.
Rather than turning a blind eye to Uttar Pradesh, perhaps it is time to analyze its success. It is time for all to realize that far from being dangerous, Ivermectin is safer than hand sanitizer or plain Tylenol, judging from the number of United States poison control calls.
Now is precisely the moment to point out that Dr. George Fareed, Dr. Peter McCullough, and Dr. Harvey Risch were correct in their U.S. Senate Testimony on November 19, 2020. They advised that early outpatient treatment was essential and would save hundreds of thousands of American lives if adopted. It wasn’t.
Now is the right moment to notice the onslaught of United States poison control articles attempting to smear Ivermectin, a drug proven safe and effective in the Uttar Pradesh test-and-treat program administered under the auspices of both the WHO and CDC.
It is appropriate to remind the reader that the WHO and CDC possess direct and recent knowledge of Ivermectin use for COVID-19 in India. Moreover, they know better than anyone the colossal effectiveness and overwhelming safety of Ivermectin used in those millions of Uttar Pradesh test and treat kits.
Perhaps it is also time to ask why exactly Dr. Tess Lawrie’s peer-reviewed meta-analysis was given an Altimetric score of 26,697, making it number eight out of some 18 million publications.
This rank is far better than the top 1%, which would only need a ranking of 180,000 for it to rank in the top 1%. It would only need 18,000 for it to rank in the top .1%. Ranking in the top .001% would mean #180. Therefore, at number eight, it is 8/180 of the top .001% or roughly the top 4.4% of the top .001%. This article ranks in the top 5% of the top .001%!
In other words, only seven articles in the world out of those 18 million are ranked higher.
This peer-reviewed paper is one of the most cited of medical references of all time – period. That should alert any reader – immediately – to its historical significance. Dr. Tess Lawrie is a 30-year veteran WHO evidence synthesis expert. Her conclusion is every bit as meaningful as the article’s rank. Here are those words,
“Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using Ivermectin. Using Ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that Ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”
Maybe it is time to ask why Dr. Pierre Kory’s peer-reviewed narrative review of Ivermectin ranks #38 out of the same 18 million publications.
He concludes, “Finally, the many examples of Ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality reduction indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.”
If Dr. Lawrie’s paper is ranked in the top 5% of the top .001% of all such published medical articles of all time, then Dr. Kory’s is not far behind. His is 38/180 of the top .001% or the top 21% of the top .001%
Thus, both articles would rank in the rarified atmosphere of nearly one in a million.
Therefore, the reader must now ask why two magnificent independent reviews from two different continents, coming to the same conclusion, are both ignored by our world’s medical leaders?
Uttar Pradesh is one such population that experienced a considerable drop in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality months AFTER Dr. Kory’s article was published on April 22, 2021. Therefore, one must ask that if Ivermectin so predictably and safely eradicates COVID-19, then why is it not being systematically deployed over all the world, as Dr. Kory and Dr. Lawrie suggest?
Perhaps every reader needs to ask themselves this question – Why is it that BOTH Dr. Lawrie’s and Dr. Kory’s supremely-rated expert review articles, published in the medical literature on PubMed, the National Library of Medicine, are BANNED from Wikipedia?
Although India’s Ivermectin victory over COVID may have been lost on bent-on-vaccinating-everyone Big Pharma and Big Regulators, the message seems to have gotten through to the man on the street. If Google Trends is any indicator, interest in Ivermectin is exploding, and for good reason. We are all being systematically deceived by influential organizations in the name of profits.
Interest in Ivermectin and India is only increasing and has now reached an all-time high. India’s conquest of COVID-19 is concealed no longer. The secret is out. And perhaps, at long last, that much-anticipated WHO Final Report detailing the most successful Pandemic campaign of any place on earth will be published.
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).
Exclusive report from Global Research’s Correspondent Carla Stea at United Nations headquarters in New York City
***
On September 23, 2021, at the Permanent Mission of Venezuela to the United Nations, the Foreign Ministers and other representatives of Algeria, Angola, Belarus, Bolivia, Cambodia, China, Cuba, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Iran, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Nicaragua, the State of Palestine, Russia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Syria and Venezuela met at 8:00AM and adopted a Political Declaration. Perhaps the most crucial point of this Declaration is expressed in point “4.” which states:
Image on the right: DPRK Ambassador Kim Song
“We express our serious concern at the growing resort to unilateralism, in detriment not only of multilateralism, but also of international cooperation and solidarity, which must be deepened now more than ever, including in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, in order to forge collective, inclusive and effective solutions to the common challenges and threats of a Twenty-First Century of interconnectedness. Hence, while renewing our firm commitment with a reinvigorated multilateralism that shall have the United Nations at its centre, we convey our support to nations and peoples subjected to unilateral and arbitrary approaches that violate both the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the basic norms of international law, and renew our call for the full respect to the inalienable right of peoples to self-determination, as well as the territorial integrity and political independence of all nations.”
Perhaps it is inevitable that this Declaration was conceived by the nations in synchronization with the principles of Venezuela, birthplace of Simon Bolivar, the great liberator of Latin America from Spanish Imperialism, and now inspiring some of the most powerful and progressive member states of the United Nations to form an alliance to liberate the United Nations from the unilateralism which is crushing it, and rendering it impotent. This seems to be inherent in point “5” of this Declaration of September 23, which states:
Image below: Venezuelan Ambassador
“We invite those members of the international community that are committed with the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, with the prevalence of legality over force, with the values of dialogue, tolerance and solidarity, as well as with an effective and inclusive multilateralism, in joining our Group of Friends and/or endorsing this Declaration at their earliest convenience, as part of our common efforts to advance our common agenda and to ultimately keep delivering on the promise of the Charter of the United Nations and ensuring that no one is left behind.”
Reading of the Declaration: Venezuelan foreign minister and ambassador
Stealthily, the United Nations “Public-Private Partnerships” are increasing private corporate control of the United Nations, with the corporate “elite” partners exerting exponentially greater influence over United Nations programs, facilitating multiple methods of covertly imposing neoliberal development models through United Nations agencies often disguised as “humanitarian interventions” but indistinguishable from “color revolutions.”
This usurpation of United Nations agencies has vastly increased often suffocating unilateral control over the United Nations member states, the majority of which are often targets of this agenda.
Group photo with Syrian DFM Jafaari at the back
This new “Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations” offers an alternative option to vulnerable targeted member states, and the inclusion of China and Russia in this new organization seeking to re-create balance in “Defense of the United Nations Charter” promises a formidable alternative of hope, and, indeed, power for the increasing number of United Nations member states threatened with subjugation by Western capitalist dominance.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister
*
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.
Carla Stea is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Global Research’s Correspondent at UN headquarters, New York.
All images in this article are from the author; featured image is Venezuelan foreign minister
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).
Although Boris Johnson has pledged to “liberate” the UK from “anti-GM rules” by ditching the European Union’s precautionary stance, it’s important to understand that the deregulatory moves his government has just announced on gene-edited crops apply to England, and England alone.
That’s because, as the BBC reports below, “the issue is devolved and governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland can make their own decision”, and to date every part of the UK with a devolved administration has opposed any growing of GM crops on their territory.
And in response to the Westminster government’s new policy announcement, Scotland and Wales have made it crystal clear that they have absolutely no intention of following England’s unilateral move to deregulate the gene editing of crop plants. Given Northern Ireland has effectively remained within the EU’s single market for goods, it’s almost impossible to see how it could follow England’s unilateral move either.
It’s also worth noting that a majority of people in Scotland and Northern Ireland voted against Brexit and the devolved administrations in both Scotland and Wales are strongly opposed to Boris Johnson’s Tory Party. And, of course, the public consultation on deregulation showed it was highly unpopular among individuals and businesses UK-wide.
That, of course, isn’t the end of the story, because the deregulation of gene editing is a globally coordinated campaign by lobbyists and so there is pressure on the EU to loosen its regulations on gene editing. The EU Commission has begun a process to review its regulatory framework in that light. But there is a lot of anti-GM sentiment in many parts of the EU, as well as in the European Parliament, so despite all the lobbying, the Commission is likely to have a tough fight on its hands to get any deregulatory moves accepted.
1. Disappointment at Defra’s ‘unilateral’ move on gene editing
After weeks of build-up and hints of major changes to the UK’s regulatory framework on the use of gene editing breeding techniques, Westminster will today reveal that its plans will currently be limited to research and development.
However, the Scottish Government, which has previously stated its reservations on the commercialisation of such technology, expressed disappointed at England’s unilateral move on the issue, stating that it would continue to engage with Defra, Wales, and Northern Ireland to ensure that devolved competences were respected in charting the country’s future direction.
[…]
Commenting recently on the issue, the Scottish government’s environment minister, Màiri McAllan said: “Scotland’s policy towards GMOs has not changed, and we have no plans for a similar review.
“As for gene-editing, we are disappointed Defra would choose to move unilaterally on this…the Scottish Government is committed to keeping aligned with the EU, and we are monitoring the EU’s position closely.”
2. Gene-edited crops: ‘No plans’ to relax rules in Wales
There are no plans to relax the regulation of gene-edited crops in Wales, the Welsh government has said.
Under UK government plans rules will be eased to allow gene-edited crops to be tested and assessed in England in the same way as other varieties.
But the Welsh government says it will maintain its “precautionary approach towards genetic modification”.
It will continue to view products produced by gene editing as genetic modified, it said.
The changes are possible because the UK no longer has to follow European Union regulations.
But the issue is devolved and governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland can make their own decision.
[…]
European Union regulations require that gene-edited crops are treated the same as genetically-modified crops.
The Welsh government say they have no plans to revise the regulations.
“Unlike the UK government, we will continue to view products produced by gene editing as genetically modified as set out by the European Court of Justice in 2018,” a spokeswoman said.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
Israel has revoked all Green Passes issued to date, with the new guidelines limiting Covid-19 immunity status only to those who naturally recovered or received their latest vaccine shot within the past six months.
At least 1.5 million Israelis lost their Green Passes as the new rules kicked in on Sunday, according to the Jerusalem Post, while Channel 12 news estimated the number to be close to two million. Those eligible have been issued a replacement certificate.
The new guidelines stipulate that a person retains their immunity status for just six months after receiving their second or third dose of the vaccine. Those with natural immunity also get a pass, but must receive a vaccine shot six months after recovery – or lose the privilege.
Those neither naturally immune nor vaccinated, including children under 12 who are not yet eligible for the jab, can get a limited seven-day pass after a negative PCR test. The results of a rapid antigen test will only be valid for 24 hours.
The Green Pass is a digital certificate that allows Israelis to visit bars, restaurants, swimming pools and other venues, as well as all indoor or outdoor events of more than 100 people. Kids under the age of three are exempt.
Israeli officials, however, have recently been caught admitting that in many situations the pass system is not “medically justified,” but exists to pressure more citizens into getting vaccinated. Israel has indeed largely led the world in vaccinations and boosters. Out of a population of some 9.2 million, over 5.6 million Israelis were vaccinated with two doses and nearly 3.5 million had already received their third jab as of Friday.
The debate over booster shots has been picking up steam globally, as a growing body of evidence indicates that vaccine-induced immunity wanes over time, with some research suggesting the Delta variant mutation may explain the decline in protection.
In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rejected the White House’s call to authorize booster shots for the general adult population, only recommending them for the elderly. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) went a step further, expanding the booster advisory to include “those in high-risk occupational and institutional settings.”
But Israeli authorities have doubled down, not only rolling out boosters for everyone aged 12 and older, but also hinting that further boosters every six months could become a part of “life from now on.”
*
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 America’s Frontline Doctors
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have devised a set of rules pertaining to the classification of infectious disease and death. These rules simultaneously inflate the number of covid cases in the unvaccinated and allow hospitals to classify dead vaccinated people as “unvaccinated” deaths.
The mRNA “experimental” vaccine was launched in mid to late December 2020. In many countries, there was a significant and immediate shift in mortality following the introduction of the Covid-19 vaccine.
Foreign Affairs (FA) magazine, published by the Council on Foreign Relations, has recently published some articles on taking advantage of economic challenges faced by North Korea.
Lack of fresh water is now a global crisis. Water shortages mean food shortages, with hunger creating death tolls substantially exceeding those of the current Covid-19 crisis.
A U.S. Army doctor who is also a specialist in aerospace medicine has made an unprecedented call to Pentagon leaders, asking them to ground all pilots in all services who have gotten a COVID-19 vaccine.
At the opening of the 76 session of the United Nations General Assembly, 20 September, 2021, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres delivered a forceful and terrifying speech, which could only lead to the conclusion that, short of a Herculean global effort to reverse course, planet earth and the human species are on the verge of extinction.
Ochsner Health is now requiring the spouses or domestic partners of all employees be vaccinated, or the employee will pay a $100 per pay period penalty.
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Kristi Dobbs recounted how she’s spent nine months pleading with health agencies to research the neurological injuries she developed after Pfizer’s vaccine, and how she and others are trying to get the word out about the vaccine’s potential risks.
While the world has been set on fire with the flames of vaccine mandates, food and supply shortages, hyperinflation, unemployment, and police state crackdowns, the global cabal sitting atop this wide-reaching catastrophe is steadily implementing plans to reshape and reset the world to their advantage.
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).
Tensions recently spiked between Azerbaijan and Iran after the latter commenced military drills close to their border accompanied by harsh rhetoric from its officials. This includes Supreme Leader Khamenei’s Twitter account posting suchmessages as:
“The security of a country is the fundamental infrastructure for all activities for progress. Those who think that by relying on others they can ensure their security should know that they will soon be struck a blow for entrusting their security to foreigners.”
“The issues concerning Iran’s northwestern neighbors should be resolved wisely by relying on nations, through the cooperation of the armies of neighboring countries & by avoiding the presence of any foreign military forces.”
“In issues concerning the northwest of Iran, the Iranian Armed Forces act with authority & wisdom. It’s good for others to act wisely too & not permit the region to face problems. ‘Those who dig a hole for their brothers will be the first to fall into it.’”
Observers generally agree that four factors explain Iran’s recent moves:
Azerbaijan’s continued de facto alliance with Iranian rival “Israel”
The prospective Zangezur Corridor reducing the importance of Iran for facilitating Azerbaijani-Turkish trade
Azerbaijan’s detainment of Iranian truckers transiting its newly liberated territory en route to Armenia
Recent trilateral military drills in Azerbaijan with Pakistan and Turkey which Iran fears militarizes the region
What these factors have in common is that Iran is increasingly concerned that its national security interests are at stake. The Islamic Republic is now caught in a security dilemma with Azerbaijan following the outcome of last year’s KarabakhWar in spite of politically supporting Baku during that conflict.
Azerbaijan perceives each of these four factors in the following way:
It has the sovereign right to partner with whoever it wants and this isn’t aimed against any third countries
Azerbaijan aims to position itself at the crossroads of Eurasia’s North-South and East-West trade routes
Iranian truckers must comply with Azerbaijani law in the newly liberated territories
Multilateral military drills are regionally stabilizing, predicated on peace, and Azerbaijan’s sovereign right
From the Iranian viewpoint:
“Israel” is using Azerbaijan as an intelligence springboard for destabilizing northern Iran
Iran doesn’t want the Zangezur Corridor fully replacing northern Iran’s role along East-West trade routes
Azerbaijan is arbitrarily detaining Iranian truckers due to zero-sum motivations vis-a-vis Armenia
Iran should have been invited to participate in those drills in order to reassure it of those countries’ intentions
In response, the Azerbaijani retort might be that:
Iran is paranoid and thus possibly playing the “Israeli” card for self-serving domestic reasons
It’s not Baku’s fault that the northern Iranian economy can’t replace that East-West trade route’s role
Iran is sympathetic to Armenia and might be secretly arming it under the cover of regular trucking
Iran wasn’t invited because those three countries don’t fully trust it for reasons that are solely Iran’s fault.
The expected Iranian position would be that:
“Israel” is a credible threat to Iran and Azerbaijan’s close military cooperation with it raises serious suspicions
Nobody predicted the Zangezur Corridor so Iran didn’t have time to adapt to this new connectivity corridor
Iran pursues a regionally balanced policy and politically supported Azerbaijan despite some domestic pressure
Iran’s ties with those three neighbors are complicated and it isn’t entirely to blame for the resultant distrust
If these mutual suspicions persist, the following far-reaching consequences are expected for Eurasia:
The North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) will become politically unviable
The Astana peace process might be adversely affected if Iran believes that Turkey is emboldening Azerbaijan
Iran might stirup anti-Taliban trouble in Afghanistan in order to spite Pakistan by proxy
China and Russia’s complementary Eurasian integration visions will struggle to be fulfilled
Azerbaijani-Iranian tensions aren’t expected to recede due to the following reasons:
Both sides believe they’re acting within their sovereign rights in pursuit of their national security interests
Iran is mostly sidelined from Astana as it is and might even be on its way out of Syria in the coming future
China can simultaneously manage complementary East-West corridors through Azerbaijan and Iran
In the meantime, it would be best if:
Responsible regional stakeholders like China and Russia reaffirm their hopes that tensions can be managed
Irresponsible stakeholders like “Israel” and the US avoid fanning the flames with divisive rhetoric
Azerbaijani and Iranian officials tone down their rhetoric
Both sides unofficially claim victory for domestic political reasons then avoid worsening tensions afterwards
Altogether, it’s clear that Azerbaijani-Iranian tensions will have far-reaching consequences for Eurasia, though they’ll hopefully remain manageable barring the unlikely scenario of a war by miscalculation. Their problems prove that the common cause of Eurasian integration is a lot more difficult to achieve than to discuss.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on OneWorld.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Governments in certain countries, with the support of Big Pharma and the media, are mandating that citizens must vaccinate or be denied the right to enjoy public amenities in society, such as restaurants, cinemas, night clubs, museums, sporting events, etc. Those who wish to travel may be barred by not having documentation of being fully vaccinated. Probably worst of all, people are being fired from their jobs for refusing vaccination. These people who are fearful of the vaccines, in particular the mRNA vaccine, are being denigrated by calling them anti-vaxxers.
First, is the mRNA vaccine even a vaccine? The World Health Organization (WHO) says,
Vaccines train your immune system to create antibodies, just as it does when it’s exposed to a disease. However, because vaccines contain only killed or weakened forms of germs like viruses or bacteria, they do not cause the disease or put you at risk of its complications.
The mRNA vaccines do not contain “only killed or weakened forms of germs like viruses or bacteria.” Even worse, reports of adverse reactions to the mRNA purported vaccines are on the increase, even causing death. So if the mRNA “vaccine” is not by definition a vaccine, then people opposed to being injected with the experimental mRNA “vaccine” can not truthfully be labeled anti-vaxxers.
Second, even if mRNA “vaccines” were accepted to be vaccines, is it still proper to call vaccine skeptics anti-vaxxers?
Is the ad hominem truthful? Assuredly many, if not most, of the people opposed to being jabbed with the mRNA “vaccines” and other experimental vaccines have been willingly vaccinated previously to protect against other infections, among them whooping cough, chicken pox, measles, smallpox, rubella, tetanus, mumps, and perhaps others. Having received so many vaccinations, and having agreed to their children being vaccinated, then how accurate is it to demean these people as anti-vaxxers?
Third, are the vaccine skeptics opposed to others who of their own volition receive vaccines? Vaccine skeptics take action to protect their bodily sovereignty; they do not force others to receive or refuse vaccination. So they are not anti-vaxxers.
Fourth, the vaccines are STILL experimental. On 29 September, Globaldata Healthdcare reported, “Currently, there are over 2,000 COVID-19 clinical trials recruiting patients, with 16% being for vaccines and 84% for therapeutics.” One cannot ethically be mandated to take part in an experiment. Informed consent is required.
Are some people opposed to being vaccinated by any vaccine for COVID-19? Sure, some are.
Others are just opposed to having an experimental mRNA “vaccine” injected into their body.
They have heard that these mRNA “vaccines” are not genuine vaccines; many would, however, accept a traditional vaccine that has been demonstrated experimentally to be safe and effective. These vaccines tend to be most prominent in China, and their usage in the West would cut into the mega-bucks that western pharmaceutical companies are currently reaping. Yet China has declared its COVID-19 vaccines a global public good and has donated its vaccines to various developing countries.
There are many reasons to doubt the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. Many vaccine skeptics are aware of several physicians and scientists cautioning against taking the vaccines.
Dr Gérard Delépine, an oncologist, orthopedic surgeon, and statistician at the Raymond Poincaré Hospital in Paris analyzed the pre- and post-vaccine trends for 14 countries and found overwhelming evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are correlated with new infections and mortality.
In other words, the vaccines appear to be killing people who are getting vaccinated, sadly ironic since people became vaccinated so they wouldn’t suffer or die.
There are reports of vaccinations being associated with blood clots causing death, Bells palsy, central nervous system disorders, eye disorders, menstrual irregularities, etc. There are the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports of tens of thousands having died after receiving being vaccinated.
Some people think the dangers of COVID-19 are overhyped. For example, when examining the data for winter-burden all-cause mortality prior to and since the appearance of COVID-19, there has been no significant difference in deaths from previous years.
People are leery of the information surrounding vaccinations. Is there a cover up? For instance, reporting deaths or injury to VAERS after vaccination can get you fired.
Corporate/state media have been criticized for censoring medical experts who question the vaccine safety, saying “the COVID jabs are causing the proliferation of toxic spike proteins throughout the vascular systems of injection recipients.”
Given all this, is it any wonder that some people are fearful of the COVID-19 vaccines?
And the fear is not limited to the mRNA “vaccines” because vaccine trials are still ongoing, although emergency use authorization had sped up the roll out of vaccines.
The vector vaccine Oxford-AstraZeneca usage was stopped in several countries, especially in Europe; in Canada the National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommended provinces stop using AstraZeneca.
The vector vaccine Janssen/Johnson & Johnson also received emergency use authorization and it has had its problems. In particular, a pause in its use occurred to “investigate whether the vaccine triggers a rare but serious side effect — the development of diffuse blood clots, even though the few individuals who developed the condition had low platelet levels.”
Are the Establishment’s vaccine experts speaking ex cathedra or are they presenting the scientific evidence to support their stance?
Since many of us non-experts are barraged by contradictory information surrounding COVID-19, it is incumbent upon people to do their own research to ascertain the verisimilitude of the reports.
Apply open-minded skepticism. Scrutinize the credentials and expertise of the person(s) reporting, but more so the factually accuracy of their pronouncements along with the morality and logic applied thereto. Are the reports in peer-review science journals or tabloid newspapers? More important than the source, however, is the actual information. Ask is the evidence solid, are the facts accurate, is the logic coherent, and are the conclusions proffered credible? And always ask cui bono? Should anyone be profiting exorbitantly from the ill health of other people?
Another means of demeaning a group is to accuse them of being deniers.
There is a contingent of people who are skeptical that Earth is succumbing to global warming. They are disparaged as climate deniers rather than stating that they are climate skeptics.
Some people have provided a serious scientific rationale for their skepticism; others are not so well versed in science but have listened to or read accounts of why people need not fret an imminent and catastrophic climate change. [1]
And there is the hot-button issue of abortion. Both sides seek to describe themselves as pro-. On the one hand, those who support the woman’s right to choose whether or not to undergo a procedure to terminate the fetus will label themselves as pro-choice (they will steer clear of describing themselves as pro-abortion). The pro-choice people will argue that it is the woman’s body, and she has sovereignty over her body. On the other hand, those who are against terminating a fetus will label themselves as pro-life (they will not describe themselves as anti-abortion). They seek to protect a nascent life form.
If one applies the rationale of the pro-choice crowd, then they should support the right of vaccine skeptics to enjoy dominion over their body and, if the vaccine skeptics so choose, accept their unwillingness to being jabbed.
The vaccine skeptics, however, are in the minority it seems. This is unsurprising given the government, corporate media nexus that pushes for vaccination. Nonetheless, being in the minority is sometimes the best place to be. In the 1960s, the psychologist Stanley Milgram carried out a study into obedience. The subjects were assigned the role of a teacher. They were introduced to a confederate, the learner, who they met outfitted with attached electrodes. During the experiment, the learner would be on the other side of a partition, out of sight of the teacher. The teacher’s job was to give the learner an electric shock each time a mistake was made. The shocks were increased for each mistake, eventually reaching a zone marked danger and finishing in a 450-volt zone marked XXX. An experimenter in a lab coat would prod the teachers to continue administering shocks until the end of the test despite learner hesitancy to shock the obviously distressed learner who was heard moaning, and this prodding continued even after the learner failed to respond. Roughly two-thirds of teachers obeyed the experimenter right through 450 volts. Such is the nature of human obedience — at least, for two-thirds of humans. [2]
Today, people are not only being encouraged to be vaccinated, but those that resist are being coerced. Nowadays, Milgram’s experiments would encounter difficulty receiving permission from a human research ethics committee; regardless, the audacious and draconian force the Establishment employs against the unvaccinated minority poses a grave ethical scenario.
The state actors say the science supports them, but the data they present is scarce. If the science is that strong, then there is no need to silence doctors, scientists, professors, and intellectuals who have reached different conclusions. Bring the two camps together and present the science, data, and evidence in an open and fair debate that allows people to reach an informed and fact-based conclusion. Otherwise, people who resist vaccination have a reasoned right to their skepticism, and are undeserving of ad hominem directed against them. An information war shouldn’t be mired by invective.
*
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.
Notes
To be clear, this writer has noted a definite uptick in heat waves year after year, an increased incidence of storms, reports of glaciers melting, flooding and such events that point to a global warming trend.
See Stanley Milgram, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View (New York: Harper & Row, 1974).
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).
Dr. Carrie Madej joined Stew Peters today and appeared obviously shook by what she had seen after examining Moderna and J&J “vaccine” vials.
*
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).
At the opening of the 76 session of the United Nations General Assembly, 20 September, 2021, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres delivered a forceful and terrifying speech, which could only lead to the conclusion that, short of a Herculean global effort to reverse course, planet earth and the human species are on the verge of extinction. In the words of the Secretary-General,
“I am here to sound the alarm. The world must wake up. We are on the edge of an abyss—and moving in the wrong direction. Our world has never been more threatened or more divided. We face the greatest cascade of crises in our lifetimes… A surplus in some countries. Empty shelves in others. This is a moral indictment of the state of our world.
It is an obscenity….We see the warning signs in every continent and region. Scorching temperatures. Shocking biodiversity loss. Polluted air, water and natural spaces. And climate-related disasters at every turn. We need a 45 per cent cut in emissions by 2030. Yet a recent UN report made clear that with present national climate commitments, emissions will go UP by 16 percent by 2030. That would condemn us to a hellscape of temperature rises of at least 2.7 degrees above pre-industrial levels When people see promises of progress denied by the realities of their harsh daily lives…
When they see their fundamental rights and freedoms curtailed…when they see petty—as well as grand—corruption around them…WHEN THEY SEE BILLIONAIRES JOYRIDING TO SPACE WHILE MILLIONS GO HUNGRY ON EARTH… It will be impossible to address dramatic economic and development challenges while the world’s two largest economies are completely at odds with each other…
We are also seeing an explosion in seizures of power by force. Military coups are back….I fear our world is creeping towards two different sets of economic, trade, financial, and technology rules, two divergent approaches in the development of artificial intelligence—and ultimately two different military and geo-political strategies. This is a recipe for trouble. It would be far less predictable and far more dangerous than the Cold War.”
It is almost impossible to see how the Secretary-General follows the above succinct – and horrifyingly realistic description of imminent global catastrophe with his assertion that he still has hope. He asserts: “Third, we must bridge the gap between rich and poor, within and among countries.” That should have been his first priority.
He adds: “I call on countries to reform their tax systems and finally end tax evasion, money laundering and illicit financial flows.” Here, Guterres might have been more specific, citing recent Pro Publica documents that the multi-billionaires in the United States connive methods of paying zero income taxes to the federal government, while the poor majority pay more than a third of their meagre incomes in federal taxes which do not benefit them.
The Secretary-General’s opening address to the General Assembly is overwhelming in the crises he denounces, yet it is difficult to find any reason for hope, absent the political will that has become a scourge of the world since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The looming new cold war could erupt in World War III between the United States and China, and perhaps the only possible restraint upon Western militarism is the new friendship between Russia and China which, together, are a more formidable opponent than either country would be separately.
Yet it is difficult to know whether Armageddon will be averted. During his September 25 press conference, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was asked his opinion of President Biden’s assertion that the days of military invasion are over. Lavrov replied, irrefutably, that the United States has newer effective methods of imposing its will upon other countries, and overthrowing governments which are independent, replacing them with servile pawns: the new methods of “regime change” are the “color revolutions” such as the one in Ukraine which transformed a fraternal country into a nazi-oriented, Western-controlled enemy.
Unquestionably, the techniques of “color revolutions” have become a pestilence more deadly than the much feared-celebrated Covid-19 pandemic.
Indeed, new forms of censorship, perhaps more subtle, and some tacitly endorsed by the United Nations, slandering as “misinformation” any statement which questions the current global agenda which is, in reality, leading to the “abyss,” are perhaps among the most pernicious and deadly forces driving humanity in “the wrong direction.” Is the United Nations becoming part of the solution – or part of the problem?
*
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.
Carla Stea is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Global Research’s Correspondent at UN headquarters, New York.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
There was a time when time was time and space and speed had some human meaning, for people lived within the limits of the natural world of which they were a part.
As Albert Camus said, “In our madness, we push back the eternal limits, and at once dark Furies swoop down upon us to destroy.”
The destruction is now upon us.
In former days you could cross over to other people’s lives and come back with a different perspective, knowing what was obvious was true and that to exist meant to be composed of flesh and blood like all the others in different places and to be bound by the natural cycles of life and death, spring and fall, summer and winter. There were limits then, on the land, water, and even in the sky, where space too had dimensions and the stars and planets weren’t imaginary landing strips for mad scientists and their partners in celluloid fantasies.
In that rapidly disappearing world where people felt situated in space and time, life was not yet a holographic spectacle of repetitive images and words, a pseudo-world of shadowy figures engaging in pseudo-debates on electronic screens with people traveling from one place to another only to find that they never left home. When the mind is homeless and the grey magic of digital propaganda is its element, life becomes a vast circinate wandering to nowhere. The experience of traveling thousands of miles only to see the same chain of stores lining the same roads in the same towns across a country where the same people live with their same machines and same thoughts in their same lives in their same clothes. A mass society of mass minds in the hive created by cell phones and measured in nanoseconds where the choices are the freedom to choose what is always the same within a cage of categories meant to render all reality a “mediated reality.”
Without roots we are like Sisyphus pushing his rock not up the hill but in circles, only to reach what we think is the end is the beginning again. Runners in the circle game.
People’s roots were what once gave them distinction, a place to stand against the liquid flow of modernity and its disillusionments. These roots were cultural and geographic, material and spiritual. They went deep. Such rootedness was not a panacea, simply a place to take a stand. It gave a bit of stability, the sense of real existing individuals with identities, histories, ground under their feet. It was possible to meet others as different but equally human despite their different roots, and to grasp our common reality. It was the antithesis of globalization, of sameness. It was diversity before there was fake diversity.
The idea of roots has become even more complicated since Simone Weil wrote her well-known book, The Need for Roots, in 1943. Even then she admitted this:
To be rooted is perhaps the most important and least recognized need of the human soul. It is one of the hardest to define.
So I will not try to do so. Like so much in life, it’s reality involves both a yes and a no, like our relationship to time.
For we have always been time-bound creatures, caught in its mystery, and we always will be. This was true before the invention of clocks, although the clock ushered in a technological revolution from which we’ve never looked back. Most people are now on speed going nowhere.
I recently looked back at a series of photographs that my parents had taken of me when I was about two years old. They were shot at our home by a professional photographer and got me thinking about three themes that have always fascinated me and which lie at the center of our world today: cameras, clocks, and mirrors. Each plays a significant part in what Guy Debord called The Society of the Spectacle:
In societies dominated by modern conditions of production, life is presented as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has receded into a representation…The more he identifies with the dominant images of need, the less he understands his own life and his own desires. The spectacle’s estrangement from the acting subject is expressed by the fact that the individual’s gestures are no longer his own; they are the gestures of someone else who represents them to him.
I, the only boy with seven sisters, was dressed for the occasion in shorts and a polo shirt with suspenders. Like a little model. An actor on a stage, a player in the spectacle before the spectacle became all-consuming. Some of the photos were of me standing on a couch in front of a large mirror, double images, some with me looking away and others looking into the mirror. Two boys in a mirror world. Images. A few captured me winding up a metal mechanical toy soldier so he could march across the floor to war. Others were of me looking up at a grandfather clock, focused on the time I couldn’t have understood; seeing the hands of time I couldn’t tell. Those photographs froze me in time as they were meant to do. They lie before me now as afterimages of my earliest memories and my later concerns. Time will decompose the paper they are printed on, just as my memories will disappear with my final journey.
I write these words from the third floor of the old Rogues Harbor Inn to anchor my sojourner’s passage through the mists of time. The old clocks throughout this ancient hotel are all stopped. It is and is not comforting. Yet these words move as I write them but stop when I’m done. They too are a double-edged sword. We want to stop time’s passage but to live as well, and you can’t have both simultaneously. Maybe words are edible, and once they are written they must be eaten. Then they are gone.
After fifty years I have returned to Ithaca, New York for three days and nights. Everything has changed, changed utterly. When I first arrived here half a century ago, I came to spend a few days with Fr. Daniel Berrigan, S.J. on my exit from the Marines Corps and my jettisoning of the mechanical soldier’s life. I had to move out of the photographs.
The boats are still anchored in the sea-like Cayuga Lake along whose west side lies the towns of Ovid and Ulysses through which we passed to taste the wine pressed from the vines whose roots sink deep into this earth. To imbibe the fruit of these vines on a beautiful day is to feel happy. The names evoke the traditions of classical Greece and Rome, but when you study history, you realize that the soil then and now is soaked deep with the blood of innocents.
Walking through the ancient deep gorge that leads to the beautiful Taughannock Falls, the tallest free-falling waterfall east of the Mississippi River at 66 meters, beauty dominates your mind. But when you grasp the history of how the native Iroquois tribes were massacred right here by the European settlers who drove them from their roots in this land, the natural beauty turns a darker shade of red. Your mind flips.
Is there is any place on this blood-soaked earth where a semi-conscious person can rest easy? For beauty is the beginning of terror, is it not, the terrible realization that, as Rilke said, “every angel is terrible”? And we are the terrible angels, exulting in beauty and often loving life so much that it brings us to tears, for we know it will end, and so we kill others to extend our lives, thinking it will bring us peace, even as we falsely cry peace, peace, when there is no peace.
If we think radically and go to the roots (Latin, radix) of human existence, we uncover, our double-consciousness, the tragicomic state of laughter and despair, suffering and happiness that has no end. There is no escape for mortals, even though history is replete with so many failed efforts to transcend the limits of the possible. The modern project to achieve perfection and total control is a technological Faustian effort to transcend our humanity, now with artificial intelligence, digital dementia, and the marriage of the human to the machine. This mad quest goes by many names (Lewis Mumford presciently called it The Myth of the Machine), but it is always directed by ruling elites to gather more power to themselves. Today it is called the Great Reset, using medical technology and “vaccines” as the leading edge of its spear to disembowel our humanity. It may succeed because so many people have lost a rootedness in the lived spiritual experience of a sacred vision of an escape from our enigma. With this loss, they have lost the utopian vision that inspires hope when there is no hope.
The much-maligned English writer, D. H. Lawrence, grasped this in the years after the mass insanity of World War I when he wrote:
We are all spectres….spectres to one another….abstracted reality….Shadow you are even to yourself…abstracted reality….We are not solid. We don’t live in the flesh. Our instincts and intuitions are dead, we live wound round with the winding-sheet of abstraction. And the touch of anything solid hurts us. For our instincts and intuitions which are our feelers of touch and knowing through touch, they are dead, amputated. We walk and talk and eat and copulate and evacuate wrapped in our winding-sheets, all the time wrapped in our winding-sheets.
There’s a man I know very well, who, when his brother-in-law died, was given one of his watches. The brother-in-law had been an accountant who saved everything that passed through his hands, from ticket stubs to scraps of notes and old pens and jewelry that his mother had worn eighty years before, including many of her watches. Everything. His passion to save was countered by his speed at getting to the finish line. He was a champion runner, who had grown up in the Depression and his parents were immigrants who worked hard to survive. The watch had never been used. It was a beautiful wind-up watch the man had won as part of a collegiate four-man two-mile relay track team that had set a world record at a major track meet. The man had, through grit and perseverance, won a track scholarship to this prestigious university where he had excelled at running very fast. The back of the watch was inscribed from the Meet Committee with the date, place, and record time.
My friend used the watch regularly, winding it every morning. It ran a few minutes slow every day, insulting the fleet feet of his brother-in-law, who of course was Greek. One day, while winding the watch, the man dropped it and it stopped. The jeweler said it would be very expensive to repair, so the man decided to set it at 12:00 and leave it at that stop-time. He kept wearing it and when anyone asked him for the time, he’d show it to them, saying it was high noon or midnight at the oasis, or, if they preferred, NOW. Naturally this was received with quizzical looks.
This always made him cry before he laughed.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
***
He is the author of Seeking the Truth in a Country of Lies
“Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies is a dazzling journey into the heart of many issues — political, philosophical, and personal — that should concern us all. Ed Curtin has the touch of the poet and the eye of an eagle.” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
“Edward Curtin puts our propaganda-stuffed heads in a guillotine, then in a flash takes us on a redemptive walk in the woods — from inferno to paradiso. Walk with Ed and his friends — Daniel Berrigan, Albert Camus, George Orwell, and many others — through the darkest, most-firefly-filled woods on this earth.” James W. Douglass, author, JFK and the Unspeakable
“A powerful exposé of the CIA and our secret state… Curtin is a passionate long-time reform advocate; his stories will rouse your heart.” Oliver Stone, filmmaker, writer, and director
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Lack of fresh water is now a global crisis. Water shortages mean food shortages, with hunger creating death tolls substantially exceeding those of the current Covid-19 crisis. According to the United Nations, some 800 million people are without clean water, and 40% of the world’s population is impacted by drought. By one measure, almost 100 percent of the Western United States is currently in drought, setting an all-time 122-year record. Meanwhile, local “water wars” rage, with states, cities and whole countries battling each other for scarce water resources.
The ideal solution would be new water flows to add to the hydrologic cycle, and promising new scientific discoveries and technologies are holding out that possibility.
But mainstream geologists have long contended that water is a fixed, non-renewable resource; and vested interests are happy to profit from that limiting proposition. Declaring water “the new oil,” an investor class of “Water Barons” —including wealthy billionaire tycoons, megabanks, mega-funds and investment powerhouses — has cornered the market by buying up water rights and water infrastructure everywhere. As Jo-Shing Yang, author of “Solving Global Water Crises,” wrote in a 2012 article titled “The New ‘Water Barons’: Wall Street Mega-Banks are Buying up the World’s Water”:
Facing offers of millions of dollars in cash from Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS, and other elite banks for their utilities and other infrastructure and municipal services, cities and states will find it extremely difficult to refuse these privatization offers.
Geologists say that all of the water on Earth, including the atmosphere, oceans, surface water and groundwater, participates in the natural system called the “hydrologic cycle,” a closed circuit in which water moves from the surface to the atmosphere and back again. Rainwater falls, becoming groundwater which collects in aquifers (underground layers of porous rock or sand), emerging as rivers and lakes, and evaporating into clouds to again become rain. New water called “juvenile water” may be added through volcanic activities, but this addition is considered to be negligible.
The most widely held theory is that water arrived on the planet from comets or asteroids, since any water on Earth when it was first formed would have evaporated in the intense heat of its early atmosphere. One problem with that theory is that comet water is different from Earth water. It has a higher ratio of deuterium (“heavy water” with an extra neutron in it). Asteroids, too, are not a good fit for Earth’s water.
A more likely theory gaining new attention is that Earth’s water comes largely from within. Minerals containing hydrogen and oxygen outgas water vapor (H2O) under intense pressure and heat from the lower mantle (the layer between Earth’s thin crust and its hot core). Water emerges as steam and seeps outward under the centrifugal force of the spinning earth toward the crust, where it cools and seeps up through the fractured rock formations of the crust and the upper mantle.
Another study, reported in New Scientist the same month, showed that Earth’s huge store of water may have originated via chemical reactions in the mantle rather than coming from space. The researchers ran a computer simulation of reactions between liquid hydrogen and quartz in Earth’s upper mantle. The simulation showed that water forms within quartz but then cannot escape, so the pressure builds up – to such high levels that it could induce deep earthquakes. Rather than hydrogen bonding into the quartz crystal structure, as the researchers expected, it was found to disrupt the structure by bonding with oxygen. When the rock melts under intense heat, the water is released, forming water-rich regions below Earth’s surface. The researchers said that water formed in the mantle could reach the surface in various ways — for example via magma in the form of volcanic activity — and that water could still be being created deep inside the Earth today. If so, that means water is a renewable resource.
New Technological Solutions
The challenge is drawing this deep water to the surface, but there are many verified cases of mountaintop wells that have gushed water for decades in arid lands. This water, which could not have come from the rainwater of the conventional hydrologic cycle, is variously called “deep-seated,” “juvenile” or “primary” water. It is now being located and tapped by enterprising hydrogeologists using technological innovations like those used in other extractive industries – but without their destructive impact on the environment.
According to Mark Burr, CEO of Primary Water Technologies, these innovations include mapping techniques using GIS layering and 3-D modeling, satellite imagery and other sophisticated geophysical data collection; radiometrics, passive seismics, advanced resistivity and even quantum physics. A video capturing one of his successful drills at Chekshani Cliffs, Utah, and the innovative techniques used to pinpoint where to drill, can be seen here.
Burr comments that locating “primary water” does not require drilling down thousands of feet. He says that globally, thousands of primary water wells have been successfully drilled; and for most of them, flowing water was tapped at less than 400 feet. It is forced up from below through fissures in the Earth. What is new are the innovative technologies now being used to pinpoint where those fissures are.
The developments, he says, mirror those in the U.S. oil and gas industry, which went from cries of “Peak Oil” deficiency to an oil and gas glut in less than a decade. Dominated for 40 years by a foreign OPEC cartel, the oil industry was disrupted through a combination of scientific advancements (including recognition of abiotic oil and gas formations), technological innovation, and regulatory modernization. The same transformation is under way in water exploration and production.
Water Pioneers
These developments were pioneered in the U.S. by Burr’s mentors, led by Bavarian-born mining engineer and geologist Stephen Riess of San Diego. Riess drilled over 800 wells around the world before his death in 1985 and was featured in several books, including “New Water for a Thirsty World” (1960) by Dr. Michael Salzman, professor of economics at the University of Southern California.
Partnering with Riess until his death was Hungarian-born hydrogeologist Pal Pauer, founder of the Primary Water Institute based in Ojai, California. Pauer has also successfully located and drilled over 1,000 primary water wells worldwide, including over 500 in East Africa. One noteworthy well was drilled high on the top of a mountain in Kenya at Ngu-Nyumu, captured in a short video here. The workers drilled through rock and hit water at 300 feet, pumping at 15-30 gallons per minute. The flow, which is now being captured in a water tank, is still serving hundreds of villagers who were previously hauling water from heavily infested streams in jugs balanced on their heads.
Another remarkable mountaintop project overseen by Pauer involved two wells drilled at a 6,000 foot elevation in the Tehachapi Mountains in California. The drill first hit water at 35 feet. The 7-inch diameter borehole proceeded to eject water at a rate estimated to be over 800 gallons per minute. The event is captured on YouTube here.
Like California, Australia is an arid land with chronic water problems. An Australian company called Sustainable Water Solutions (SWS), a partner of Burr’s Primary Water Technologies, was featured on a local TV news program here. A video of one of SWS’s successful case studies detailing its methodologies is here.
A rival company is Australian-based AquaterreX Deep Seated Water Technology. According to its website, AquaterreX is an international enterprise employing geology, environmental and earth sciences with a range of proprietary methodologies to identify and analyze geologic, hydrologic, atmospheric, and other data to locate reliable sources of Deep Seated Water with nearly 100% accuracy. Some of the company’s results are shown in a video which describes “deep-seated water” as being stored in a deeper layer of aquifers below those of the conventional hydrologic cycle.
Fresh Water Is Ubiquitous and Renewable
What these researchers call “primary water” or “deep seated water” is classified by the National Ground Water Association (NGWA) simply as a form of “groundwater,” since it is in the ground. But whatever it is called, these newly tapped flows have not been part of the hydrologic cycle for at least the last century. This is shown on testing by the lack of the environmental contaminants found in the hydrologic water cycle. From the time when atomic testing began in the Pacific, hydrologic water has contained traces of tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen used as a fuel in thermonuclear bombs. Primary water shoots up tritium-free —clean, fresh and usually drinkable without filtration.
About 90 percent of our freshwater supplies lie underground, but less than 27 percent of the water Americans use comes from underground sources, which illustrates the under-utilization of groundwater.
Groundwater is a significant water supply source — the amount of groundwater storage dwarfs our present surface water supply.
Hydrologists estimate, according to the National Geographic Society, U.S. groundwater reserves to be at least 33,000 trillion gallons — equal to the amount discharged into the Gulf of Mexico by the Mississippi River in the past 200 years.
At any given moment, groundwater is 20 to 30 times greater than the amount in all the lakes, streams, and rivers of the United States….
Groundwater is a renewable resource. [Emphasis added.]
In some states, such as Texas, property owners have the right to capture the water beneath their property (called the “Rule of Capture”), but this is not true in other states. California, for example, has a complicated system of regulation requiring costly and laborious permits. Granting property owners the right to drill wells on their own property, particularly where the water has been tested and shown to be “deep” or “primary water,” could be a major step toward turning water scarcity into abundance.
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the U.S. needs over $500 billion in infrastructure investment just for drinking water, wastewater, stormwater and dams. But legislators at both federal and state levels have been slow to respond, chiefly due to budget constraints. One proposal is a National Infrastructure Bank (HR 3339) constructed on the model of Franklin Roosevelt’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation (discussed in my earlier article here). When allocating funds for water usage, however, policymakers would do well to consider investing in “primary water” wells.
Tapping into local deep water sources not only can help ease pressures on debt-strapped public treasuries but can bypass the Water Barons and relieve territorial tensions over water rights. Water sovereignty is a critical prerequisite to food sovereignty and to national and regional independence. As noted in a recent Water Todayarticle, quoting James D’Arezzo:
“The fact is, we do not have to severely restrict water usage, if we leverage all the tools at our disposal. There is plenty of water available on the planet and we now know how to find it. We also have newer best practices that can make a dramatic difference in total usage…. If we start acting now, in a short time the headlines about ‘water restrictions’ and grotesque pictures of dead animals and starving children can be replaced with headlines about more food production, smarter use of water and less conflict.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The University of Bristol has fired Professor David Miller, a leading UK critic of Israel and its lobby.
After a years-long campaign of smears by that same lobby, the university said on Friday that, “Professor David Miller is no longer employed by the University of Bristol.”
The statement said only that Miller “did not meet the standards of behavior we expect from our staff,” though it did not elaborate.
Miller told The Electronic Intifada he would be appealing and “fighting it all the way.”
Yet the statement appeared to exonerate Miller from the Israel’s lobby’s deliberately false allegations of anti-Semitism.
An “independent report” by an unnamed lawyer had found that “Professor Miller’s comments did not constitute unlawful speech,” the statement acknowledged.
Miller said the report had actually gone further and that the lawyer’s report had “explicitly determined” his remarks “were not anti-Semitic.”
The Support David Miller Campaign, which has been rallying around the professor, responded that the university was sending a message that “it will protect racists, and [that] Muslims, Black students and Palestinians are not welcome at Bristol.”
In a statement sent to The Electronic Intifada, the campaign said that the university’s decision was “designed to send a chill down the spines of academics around the world who expose Zionist racism.”
The campaign said that Miller’s sacking had come after a “pressure campaign by Israel’s assets in the UK” and accused the university of collaborating with the Israel lobby.
For his part, Miller said that the decision to fire him was “taken under pressure from the Israel lobby” which he said “lobbies for a hostile foreign state. The university has embarrassed itself.”
Appeal
The university said in its statement that Miller “has a right of internal appeal which he may choose to exercise and nothing in this statement should be taken to prejudge that.”
The university “does not intend to make any further public comment at this time,” it said.
Bristol University further claimed that it was committed to an environment preserving “academic freedom.” But in what seemed a Freudian slip, it also said that “we take any risk to stifle that freedom seriously.”
An academic expert in propaganda and political pressure groups, Miller has been a key critic of the Israel lobby for the last decade, as well as of Zionism, the state’s racist official ideology.
At the start of 2021, pro-Israel lobby groups ramped up their campaign against him.
At the end of February, Israel itself also got involved, mobilizing one of its online troll armies to flood social media conversations with calls for Miller to be fired.
Act.IL – which is directed and funded by an Israeli ministry – issued a mission calling for attacks on an opinion piece published by Al Jazeera defending Miller.
With no evidence, the troll army’s operators smeared Miller as guilty of “blatant Jew-hatred” and called on their users to attack the Al Jazeera piece online.
Soon after, the university announced it had launched an “investigation” into Miller.
More than 300 academics and public intellectuals pushed back, signing an open letter to the university in support of Miller and his work.
Signatories included Noam Chomsky, Palestinian scholar and activist Sami al-Arian, dissident Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, filmmaker Ken Loach and comedian Alexi Sayle.
“We feel duty-bound to express our solidarity with Professor Miller and to oppose such efforts to crush academic freedom,” the letter stated.
It says that Miller is the target of “well-orchestrated efforts” to misrepresent his views “as evidence of anti-Semitism.”
In February, Miller wrote in a piece for The Electronic Intifada that “Britain is in the grip of an assault on its public sphere by the state of Israel and its advocates.”
“Meaningful conversations about anti-Black racism and Islamophobia have been drowned out by a concerted lobbying campaign targeting universities, political parties, the equalities regulator and public institutions all over the country.”
*
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: Professor David Miller (CAGE/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).
The US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has awarded Boeing a $220 million contract to configure Taiwan’s Harpoon Coastal Defense Systems (HCDS).
According to the Department of Defense, the system includes Harpoon Block II Update Grade B Canister Launch All Up Round Missiles, the HCDS launch system, and Harpoon weapon station test and production equipment. The work will be carried out within and outside the US and is expected to be complete by July 2023.
$2.4 Billion Harpoon Sale
The development comes a year after the US government approved the $2.4 billion sale of 100 HCDS to Taipei, which included 400 RGM-84L-4 Harpoon Block II Surface Launched Missiles with a maximum range of 75 miles (125 kilometers), four RTM-84L-4 Harpoon Block II Exercise Missiles, 411 containers, 25 radar trucks, spare parts, and support and test equipment.
The approval came within a week of the Trump administration announcing a $1.8 billion deal with the island territory that included, “11 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) M142 Launchers, 135 AGM-84H Standoff Land Attack Missile Expanded Response (SLAM-ER) Missiles and related equipment, and six MS-110 Recce external sensor pods made by Collins Aerospace for jets.”
Harpoon Block II
According to the US Navy, the Harpoon’s “active radar guidance, low-level, sea-skimming cruise trajectory, terminal mode sea-skim or pop-up maneuvers and warhead design, assure high survivability and effectiveness.” First deployed in 1977 with the navy, the missile was later adapted for B-52H bombers.
The missile’s latest iteration, the Harpoon Block II, uses a 500-pound warhead for sea and land-based targets such as “coastal defense sites, surface-to-air missile sites, exposed aircraft, port/industrial facilities and ships in port.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: A Harpoon missile is launched from the USS Shiloh, September 15, 2014. Image: US Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kevin V. Cunningham
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
This is just getting beyond ridiculous now. Ochsner Health [Website Here] is a healthcare provider/system that delivers healthcare services to the people of Louisiana, Mississippi and the Gulf South. Ochsner Health is now requiring the spouses or domestic partners of all employees be vaccinated, or the employee will pay a $100 per pay period penalty. (Source Link)
Hopefully some employee of Ochsner Health will file a lawsuit fast. The basis for the lawsuit could likely be framed around punitive employee punishment based on “marital status”, a clear violation of existing civil rights law. Why stop at spouses? Why not kids or other dependents? What about all other vaccines before COVID? Why now?
By current federal and most state statutes, no employer is legally permitted to discriminate against any employee based on marital status. A penalty against a spouse for non compliance with an employer vaccine mandate is a punitive action only against married persons. Find a court that will look at this as a violation of the discrimination clause, because it only targets married employees. Let’s see what happens.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Comments Off on Forced Vaccinations Get Worse – Louisiana Health System Now Requires Spouses of Employees to Get Vaccinated, or Pay a Non-Compliance Penalty for Vaxx Violations Every Pay Period
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).
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) grilled HHS Sec. Xavier Becerra during a Senate Health Committee hearing on Thursday.
Watch the video below.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Author’s Note:This “Open Letter” was emailed to Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and was also faxed to his offices.FaxZero.com lets you send up to five free faxes per day to most U.S. Senators, Representatives, and Governors.
You can tell them how you feel about the “vaccines”, mandates, health passports, lockdowns, masks and other coercive measures.
To: The Honorable Senator Ron Johnson
Dear Senator Johnson:
On September 29th, you joined Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and other Republicans to co-sponsor new legislation that would block federal vaccine mandates by using the U.S. Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause.
In introducing the bill, you said: “The Biden administration’s decision to mandate vaccines for working Americans is an outrageous trampling of civil liberties and a dangerous precedent for what a U.S. president can unilaterally impose on the American public.The American people deserve transparency and as much information as possible from the federal government so they may make an informed choice about their own health.”
“I’m happy to co-sponsor Senator Scott’s ‘Prevent Unconstitutional Vaccine Mandates for Interstate Commerce Act’ that would prohibit federal agencies from requiring anyone to show proof of COVID-19 vaccination to do business across state borders. No one should be pressured, coerced, or fear reprisal for refusing treatment, including the Covid-19 vaccine.”
This well-intentioned piece of legislation, if it ever becomes law, would have only a limited impact on tens of millions of Americans whose lives are being destroyed by federal, state, city, and private businesses’ vaccination mandates now forcing people to get the dangerous, often lethal COVID-19 injections or lose their jobs and livelihoods.
On September 30, you presented a chart and data before the Senate which showed that the vaccines are not working as advertised.And you declared:“Our federal agencies have not been transparent. They have not given the American public information that we need to make an informed choice.”
This is commendable and very true as far as it goes, but unfortunately it merely scratches the surface of the problems we face.
Senator Johnson, there is an urgent need for you to hold a press conference or make a major speech before Congress to tell the American people what is really going on with respect to the vaccines and the pandemic.
America is presently on a suicidal course.Unless that course is reversed very soon, there will be no more Republic—physically or otherwise.
The following is the gist of what the American people urgently need to hear, all of it backed by overwhelming, irrefutable evidence:
The COVID-19 “vaccines” (genetic-modification agents) do not work.They are killing and severely damaging millions of people, both in the United States and around the world, as the data from CDC/VAERS and the adverse-events reporting systems for the UK and the European Union prove.
These so-called “vaccines” all need to be taken off the market immediately.All of them should have been withdrawn by February 2021, when it became empirically obvious that these defective products are massively injuring and killing people.
Requiring America’s men and women in military uniform to take these dangerous jabs is treasonous and suicidal.Forcing these shots on children (who have 100% natural recovery) is deeply immoral and criminal and violates the Nuremberg code of ethics.Imposing federal and local mandates to force employees and other citizens to get these risky, often deadly shots is unscientific, illegal, and frankly insane.
The vaccines do NOT provide immunity and do NOT prevent transmission of the virus.They only claim to offer transient “protection” lasting 4-6 months against mild symptoms of the illness.Countless people who got the jab are subsequently diagnosed with COVID-19 sickness.Furthermore, the vaccines interact with the virus to foster new variants that escape immunity.In other words, the vaccines are spreading disease andpeople who got jabbed can be super-spreaders, as the CDC admits.The vaccines are totally the wrong approach to the situation.
The fraudulent PCR test is an acknowledged scam—as per the CDC’s and WHO’s admission.The test gives false-positive readings up to 97% of the time.The fear-mongering data promoted by the government and the mainstream media is junk data.Many inexpensive, highly effective remedies are available to treat Covid sickness.No vaccines were ever necessary, and no one should take these harmful genetic cocktails.
Senator, it takes a courageous statesman to stand up and tell the American people the truth.All of the above statements can be verified many times over.They have the full support of thousands of respected mainstream physicians, immunologists, virologists, epidemiologists, vaccine specialists, and medical researchers who have called for the immediate withdrawal of all the genetic “vaccines” (Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson).As you know, their voices are censored by the news media and Big Tech.
As the harmful effects of the “vaccines” kick in over the next few months and years, millions more Americans will be seriously damaged—and killed—by these products.
Anyone who gets a “booster” shot is exponentially increasing their risk of bad side effects and death.
A whole generation of our youth will have a high incidence of myocarditis because of the damage these injections have already caused.
Countless women risk sterility because of these injections.
Senator Johnson, if I may be blunt, the time for half-measures is over.This is a dire national emergency.Please do the right thing.There is very little time left.The “vaccines” have nothing to do with public health, they are indeed ‘bioweapons’ and they are all about imposing authoritarian control and medical tyranny on the American people.
Please stand up in the Senate or hold a press conference—either alone or with fellow Congressmen—and tell the American people the unvarnished truth.A 360-degree course correction is urgently needed, or this country is doomed.
Below I have summarized the key points and provided links to relevant articles, videos, and documents.Kindly review this material, share it with colleagues, and do act upon it.
The American people and the world will thank you for your honesty, integrity, and courage.Don’t let this vaccine holocaust continue.
Sincerely,
Walter Gelles
Concerned Citizen & Independent Journalist
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The CDC released more data today into VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) which shows that there are now 1,969 fetal deaths among pregnant women who received a COVID-19 shot. (Source.)
By way of contrast, I performed the exact same search in VAERS for all non-COVID-19 vaccines for the past 30 years, and it returned a result of 2,183 fetal deaths from pregnant women following vaccination for the past 30 years. (Source.)
So there have been nearly the same amount of fetal deaths following COVID-19 shots during the past 10 months, as there have been for the past 30+ years that VAERS has been in existence!
And how has the CDC responded to this data?
This past week the CDC published recommendations for all pregnant women to get a COVID-19 shot!
CDC Statement on Pregnancy Health Advisory
Media Statement
For Immediate Release: Wednesday, September 29, 2021
Today, CDC issued an urgent health advisory to increase COVID-19 vaccination among people who are pregnant, recently pregnant (including those who are lactating), who are trying to become pregnant now, or who might become pregnant in the future to prevent serious illness, deaths, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
The CDC health advisory strongly recommends COVID-19 vaccination either before or during pregnancy because the benefits of vaccination for both pregnant persons and their fetus or infant outweigh known or potential risks. Additionally, the advisory calls on health departments and clinicians to educate pregnant people on the benefits of vaccination and the safety of recommended vaccines.
According to CDC data, only 31 percent of pregnant people have been vaccinated against COVID-19 and vaccination rates vary markedly by race and ethnicity. Vaccination coverage is highest among Asian people who are pregnant (45.7 percent), but lower among Hispanic or Latino pregnant people (25 percent), and lowest among Black pregnant people (15.6 percent).
Attribute the following to CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, M.D., M.P.H.
“Pregnancy can be both a special time and also a stressful time – and pregnancy during a pandemic is an added concern for families. I strongly encourage those who are pregnant or considering pregnancy to talk with their healthcare provider about the protective benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine to keep their babies and themselves safe.” (Source.)
Everyone acknowledges and agrees that VAERS is vastly under-reported, but now we have an expert analysis on just how under-reported adverse events are from Dr. Jessica Rose. Her conservative estimate based on a careful analysis of the data is that the events recorded in VAERS need to be multiplied by X41.
That would mean that a conservative estimate of the true numbers of fetal deaths would be 80,729 when their mothers are injected with a COVID-19 shot.
Wake up people!! We are watching a eugenic plan of controlling the world’s population unfold before our very eyes, and it is pure insanity for any pregnant woman to voluntarily agree to get a COVID-19 shot that will risk her life, and the life of her unborn baby.
Rochelle Walensky and her cohorts at the CDC, along with the criminals at the FDA, NIH, and many other government health organizations need to be arrested immediately to stop this attack against the citizens of the United States with experimental gene therapy injections.
***
Stories of Pregnant Women Who Took a COVID-19 Shot
Alexandra Laigle
According to her Facebook Page, Alexandra Laigle apparently made a decision to get a COVID-19 shot while pregnant based on “Preliminary Studies” that she could pass antibodies on to her unborn child.
Pediatric Nurse Brags About Getting COVID Vaccine While Pregnant – Baby is Stillborn 8 Days Later
Mrs. Mary Pat Voll is a pediatric nurse in Altamonte Springs, Florida, according to her Facebook page. She posted a photo of herself holding a vaccine card, with the caption “pregnant and vaccinated” on February 22.
She wrote that she considered all factual information and weeded out “conspiracy theories” before getting the first and second shots. Mrs. Voll was 21 weeks pregnant at the time. Her baby was stillborn eight days later, according to a subsequent Facebook post.
Wisconsin Resident Doctor has Miscarriage 3 Days After Being Injected with Experimental COVID mRNA Shot
Dr. Sara Beltrán Ponce graduated from the Medical College of Wisconsin in 2019. She is completing her residency in Radiation Oncology at the same Milwaukee college. Her profile on a website called SheMD says she is “passionate about medical education, public health, and mentorship, particularly for women interested in radiation.” She is married with one daughter and had another child on the way – until yesterday.
Dr. Beltrán Ponce tweeted on January 28 that she is 14 weeks pregnant and “fully vaccinated.” She repeated many of the most common talking points related to COVID-19 and vaccines in the tweet chain.
She tweeted an update about her pregnancy less than a week later, stating that she had a miscarriage.
The miscarriage happened at 14 1/2 weeks, indicating it was three days after she got the first or second mRNA shot.
As you can see from Dr. Sara Beltrán Ponce’s update tweet announcing the death of her unborn baby, she didn’t dare connect it to the COVID injection, because to do so would have probably shipwrecked her career as a medical doctor, because she would have been labeled as an “anti-vaxxer” and therefore “anti-science.”
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have devised a set of rules pertaining to the classification of infectious disease and death. These rules simultaneously inflate the number of covid cases in the unvaccinated and allow hospitals to classify dead vaccinated people as “unvaccinated” deaths.
Hospitals and laboratories are required to follow these rules and report official covid-19 data based on these rules. It appears that these rules were designed in a way to conceal the number of covid cases in the vaccinated and to conceal the number of deaths caused by the covid-19 vaccines.
This medical fraud and morbid treachery allows the CDC to continue on with the false narrative that the nation is suffering from a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” People who die from the vaccine are used as props to falsely advertise the need for more of these deadly vaccines.
Suspicious CDC Rules Obfuscate Hospital Data, Deceiving The Nation
When an individual receives their first dose of a covid-19 vaccine, they are still classified as “unvaccinated” for several weeksafter the shot. If they test positive for covid-19 in the month following the injection, they are officially registered as an “unvaccinated case.”
If the vaccine elicits physical symptoms of disease (as was reported in 50 percent of recipients in the clinical studies), this sickness is classified as a healthy immune reaction to the vaccine or is advertised as a milder sickness compared to a hypothetical case of covid.
Even though there is no way to compare a vaccine injury with a hypothetical, nonexistent case of illness, vaccinated patients are told to accept this conjecture as fact. It doesn’t matter how many drugs the patient needs to manage the pain after they get sick from the vaccine. It doesn’t matter how many times the vaccinated patient needs to see a doctor or seek the ER after being vaccinated.
The vaccinated patient is told that these issues are much better than a potential covid infection.
After three to four weeks, a vaccinated patient is instructed to return for a second dose. Even after they take the second dose, they are not considered “fully vaccinated.” If the doubly vaccinated patient has a reaction to the vaccine or tests positive for covid-19 in the following two weeks after the second dose, they are still considered “unvaccinated.”
According to the CDC’s rules, no one is counted as “fully vaccinated” until a full 14 days have passed from the second injection of Pfizer or Moderna’s mRNA vaccine, or 14 days have passed after the first dose of the Johnson & Johnson shot.
This rule conveniently hides 80 percent of the deaths that occur after vaccination and slyly mis-attributes these deaths as “unvaccinated deaths.”
This fraudulent rule inflates the unvaccinated death toll and hides the real medical issues that are the result of covid shots.
The vast majority of deaths occur within the first two weeks after vaccination, yet all these deaths are advertised as “unvaccinated deaths.”
CDC’s Covid Testing Fraud Creates An Illusion Of Outbreaks In The Unvaccinated
The CDC’s morbid distortion of death is not the only process that obfuscates data and deceives the nation. The CDC also devised a different set of testing guidelines for the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. The CDC is pushing many industries to punish the unvaccinated at their place of employment and education, forcing them to take more frequent covid-19 test swabs and nasal probes.
CDC guidance allows laboratories to use a cycle threshold (CT) of 40 or greater for the unvaccinated.
The CDC recommends that laboratories use a CT of 28 or less for the vaccinated.
This disparate testing guideline minimizes the risk of false positives for the vaccinated, but continues to generate a pandemic of false positives in the unvaccinated, artificially raising the number of cases for the unvaccinated.
The CDC forces healthy people to take falsely calibrated covid tests, resulting in false reports of outbreaks.
Meanwhile, the CDC only reports covid cases in the vaccinated if these cases are 15 days past the second dose vaccine and only if these cases result in hospitalization or death.
This fraud is further exacerbated by another cavalier rule by the CDC, which allows hospitals to claim covid-19 is the cause of hospitalization or death, when it cannot be ruled out or is suspected of causing the illness.
Covid-19 was the sole cause of death for only six percent of the reported covid-19 deaths in 2020, revealing widespread medical fraud. Former CDC chief, Robert Redfield blew the whistle in a hearing by the House Oversight and Reform Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis.
He said hospitals are given a “perverse economic incentive” to inflate covid deaths in the unvaccinated.
All this medical fraud, force and deception paints a harrowing picture: the CDC is part of a VAX-all agenda and is desperately trying to cover up for crimes against humanity.
*
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).
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Kristi Dobbs recounted how she’s spent nine months pleading with health agencies to research the neurological injuries she developed after Pfizer’s vaccine, and how she and others are trying to get the word out about the vaccine’s potential risks.
Kristi Dobbs, a 40-year-old dental hygienist from Missouri, said she can no longer work after being injured by Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. She has spent the past nine months pleading with U.S. health agencies to research the neurological injuries she and others are experiencing in hopes of finding a treatment.
Since getting the vaccine, Dobbs has seen 16 different medical providers. She’s been on 22 different medications to address more than 20 different symptoms — none of which she had prior to getting the vaccine.
Dobbs said she and others who developed neurological injuries after getting a COVID vaccine shared their experiences with a reporter, in hope of raising awareness about their experiences.
But the story never ran because, according to the reporter, a “higher up” at Pfizer pressured the news agency to drop it.
Dobbs got her first and only dose of Pfizer’s vaccine on Jan. 18. She immediately experienced an adverse reaction on-site at the hospital clinic where her vaccine was administered.
“I had barely sat down in the monitoring area after the inoculation and felt an odd tingling sensation running down my left arm, where I had just received the jab,” Dobbs wrote. “I immediately had a pre-syncope episode, where I thought I was going to pass out, heart palpitations, increased pulse, increased respirations and a blood pressure spike that was within a stroke-worthy reading.”
Dobbs was monitored for an additional 45 minutes. When her blood pressure dropped to a manageable range, she was released.
Dobbs said the people monitoring her brushed off her symptoms as a panic attack or hot flash. But she had never been afraid of vaccines, blood draws or needles. “I gave injections in the mouth as a hygienist, so it was no big deal to me,” Dobbs said.
Three days later, Dobbs woke up in the middle of the night and thought her whole bed was shaking, but her husband said he didn’t feel it. She also noticed shaking and trembling in her left hand, but thought maybe it was due to having coffee.
The next day, Dobbs felt a stabbing pain in her left scapula, and shaking and trembling sensations in both hands. As each day progressed, her symptoms worsened. “By day 10, I was in excruciating pain,” Dobbs said.
On Jan. 28, Dobbs went to a chiropractor in St. Louis to see what was causing the stabbing pain in her scapula and the radiating pain and tremors in both arms. The chiropractor thought she had a rib out, so he adjusted her.
The next morning Dobbs woke up with extreme pain and tremors throughout her entire body.
Dobbs wrote:
“On January 30, I’m in urgent care with stabbing pain in my left scapula regions, full body tremors, paresthesias from head to toe, swollen lymph nodes, tinnitus, dizziness, headache and an odd internal vibrating sensation.
“Urgent care doctor thinks I am having muscle spasms, and thinks I am stressed because of my mother in law [who was battling cancer] and traveling so much, so he [prescribed] Flexeril and Medrol dose pack.”
On Feb. 1, Dobbs visited a local chiropractor to see if she could help with the symptoms. As they were catching up, the chiropractor noticed Dobb’s tremors, body shakes and “super high” blood pressure.
Dobbs wrote:
“At this point I am having problems regulating my BP, and she knows that this is out of character for me. She asks me what I have done differently since I saw her last and I can’t think of anything, except the Pfizer vaccine.
“BINGO … That’s it, she says! She immediately stops and tells me that I need to get in to see my primary care provider.”
On Feb. 2, when Dobbs saw her primary care provider, she had visible tremors and whole body paresthesia. “[My care provider] had no clue if this could be vaccine-related, but didn’t dismiss the fact,” Dobbs said. “It was too new to tell, and she had no knowledge of any reactions.”
The doctor recommended anti-anxiety medication, ran labs, did a physical exam and sent her on her way. Shortly after, Dobbs experienced issues with heavy legs, and trouble walking and getting up stairs to the point she couldn’t feel pin pricks on her legs.
On Feb. 5, Dobbs went to the ER because she said she felt like she was dying.
She said:
“I had full-body paresthesia, internal tremors/vibrations, essential tremors in my hands, tremors in my arms and legs, fatigue, brain fog, muscle pain and weakness, pelvic pain, irregular menstrual cycles that included heavy bleeding and thick clotting, skin rashes, tinnitus, temperature regulation issues, swollen lymph nodes, loss of appetite, weight loss, dizziness/balance issues, blood pressure regulation issues, neck pain, headaches, heart palpitations, convulsions or pseudo seizure at night and insomnia.”
Like many others who have experienced neurological reactions to COVID vaccines, Dobbs had a CT scan and the results were normal. No other tests were performed.
“Doctors did not dismiss that this was vaccine-related, but they had no clue what to do or how to treat it if it was,” Dobbs said. “I was given another anti-anxiety medication, which did nothing for me, and was referred to a neurologist. In the meantime my vibrations, brain fog and other symptoms intensified.”
Dobbs saw a neurologist on Feb. 12, when the nurse practitioner ordered tests, an MRI and blood work. The MRI was normal, and Dobbs was prescribed another medication. Dobbs began searching for answers on her own.
She said:
“I was searching for answers on my own, and I came across an article in Neurology Today with a comment at the bottom of the article from a retired gastroenterologist who had been injured by the vaccine, and she left her email address. That was the day I knew I was not alone in this vaccine injury journey. I had found Dr. Danice Hertz. She was in contact with a few others injured as well.”
Dr. Hertz said people like her who have been seriously injured by COVID vaccines are being ignored + because health officials won’t research their injuries + potential treatments, they have nowhere to turn.#TheDefender: https://t.co/zL66EdwTnDhttps://t.co/ahmaX2UiPF
Dobbs said she and others started a private social media group to collaborate because their local doctors did not know what to do and “elite doctors” either don’t know what to do or “were unwilling to help us.”
Dobbs said the vaccine injury group grew by 400% in two days and, in under a year, thousands of injured people had found each other. “Soon we all knew we were not alone, yet no one had answers yet,” she said.
“Danice [Hertz] emailed doctors every day for help,” Dobbs said, “and it wasn’t until March 9 she got through to Dr. Avindra Nath at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and I was able to call them and get a telehealth appointment with Dr. Farinaz Safavi.”
Dobbs said Safavi was aware of these neurological vaccine reactions — as the NIH was already seeing patients for injuries like these — and recommended a “whole host of new tests run by my hometown doctor, as well as certain procedures she thought could potentially cure me.”
On April 19, Safavi wrote in an email to Dobbs that information regarding these adverse events would be published soon — and “hopefully, by that time, healthcare providers would have a better idea what to do with these side-effects,” she said.
The NIH requested blood samples, a complete medical release for history and test results that had already been completed. “I sent all of it,” Dobbs said. “We had very good conversations for the next several weeks, and then by early May … nothing. Still to date I have heard nothing from them.”
Dobbs said, “Supposedly she [Dr. Safavi] called the neurologist, but the neurologist said she never called her for recommendations. The immunology allergist never received a call either.”
When Dobbs reached out to Safavi again in May, her tune changed. “It’s like they went from ‘we know it’s the vaccine’ to ‘we’re trying to figure it out.’”
Dobbs explained:
“It’s like as soon as they got what they needed, we were just cut off. Even some of the ladies that went to the NIH for treatment — once they were done with treatment with these same doctors — they were essentially cut off when they weren’t getting better.
“Their exact verbiage to us was ‘you need early and swift intervention after a vaccine reaction.’ But here we are months after an adverse reaction and our hometown doctors have no clue what to do.”
Safavi, in an email to Dobbs on May 24, said she believed Dobbs was experiencing an immune-mediated inflammatory response or some other immune-mediated small fiber neuropathy.
According to Alexander Chamessian, MD PhD, small-fiber neuropathy is a neurological disorder involving widespread damage to the small-diameter somatic and autonomic unmyelinated C-fibers and/or thinly myelinated A-delta fibers.
Patients often experience pins-and-needles or burning pain sensations. Damage to the autonomic small fibers can cause dysfunction in key systems controlling blood pressure, heart rate and gastrointestinal motility.
Dobbs has seen more than 16 different medical providers, including an allergy immunologist, who took blood samples and discovered Dobbs had antiphospholipid antibodies — a group of immune proteins (antibodies) the body mistakenly produces against itself in an autoimmune response to phospholipids.
A dermatologist diagnosed Dobbs with granuloma annulare, an inflammatory skin condition caused by the immune response her body had, which left her with skin lesions.
Dobbs also tested positive for blood-clotting factors, had high inflammatory markers and lab values that indicated her immune system was poorly functioning.
One neurologist believed Dobbs was having an immune inflammatory response to Pfizer’s vaccine, caused by inflamed nerves.
Dobbs had an ultrasound of her kidneys, which showed they were not working properly. “My kidneys were holding onto water, but by the time I saw the urologist a month later the hydronephrosis was clear,” she said.
Dobbs said:
“No one knows what to do for me, or how to treat this vaccine reaction. I have really great doctors here at home, and as they have all said. ‘We don’t really know what to do, but we can try to treat the symptoms.’
“There is no medication or supplement strong enough to ease the pain, or control the constant symptoms that plague me 24/7. There is still no acknowledgement from NIH, CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration], pharmaceutical companies, or any other governmental entity or institute that follows vaccine safety and side effects to date.”
Group conducts survey that shows signal concerns
Dobbs said once they established their Facebook group, the members knew they needed a better way to convey their ailments so others could easily read and identify them.
“From there, we started our own patient-lead surveys, which gave statistical data that was entered into a spreadsheet,” Dobbs said. “We then had a top epidemiologist review the information and compared the numbers to previous vaccinations and injuries. We were all astonished by the numbers.”
The survey assessed reports of paresthesia following COVID vaccination from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and compared it to reports of paresthesia following 2009 swine flu monovalent AS03-adjuvanted pandemic vaccine — a vaccine that was associated with disturbances similar to those experienced after COVID vaccines.
According to the NIH, paresthesia refers to a burning, numbness, skin-crawling or prickling sensation usually felt in the hands, arms, legs or feet, but can also occur in other parts of the body.
Chronic paresthesia is often a symptom of an underlying neurological disease or traumatic nerve damage. Paresthesia can be caused by disorders affecting the central nervous system.
For the survey, VAERS reports of paresthesia following all COVID vaccines were collected, and the rate of reporting per 100,000 vaccinated people was calculated. The total VAERS reports of paresthesia following COVID vaccines as of June 18 were 13,559, with 5,818 attributed to Pfizer, 4514 to Moderna and 1,317 to Johnson & Johnson.
The total number of vaccines administered as of June 25, per CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Tracker, was 178,491,147. The VAERS rate of paresthesia as an adverse event was 7.6 per every 100,000 people.
The rate of paresthesia following the 2009 swine flu monovalent AS03-adjuvanted pandemic vaccine was 7.7 per every 100,000 people — and was found to be the third most frequent adverse event following allergic and local reactions associated with the vaccine.
VAERS reports of paresthesia following all vaccines administered between 2006-2016 were also collected and the rate of reporting per 100,000 vaccinated people was calculated. The number of vaccines administered was obtained from Health Resources and Services Administration data and statistics on vaccine rates.
According to the survey, there were 7,157 VAERS reports of paresthesia between 2006 and 2016, out of a total of 3,153,876,236 vaccinations administered during the same time period.
The rate of paresthesia following all vaccines between 2006 and 2016 was 0.2 for every 100,000 people.
“These data suggest the rate of paresthesia following COVID-19 vaccines is the same as the rate calculated in the De Serres paper on paresthesia following the 2009 swine flu pandemic vaccine and is 38 times the rate seen in all vaccines during a 10-year period of time,” wrote Dr. Eileen Natuzzi, surgeon and public health epidemiologist.
Paresthesia is an unrecognized adverse event following vaccination with the current COVID vaccines, Natuzzi wrote. The data is observational, but suggests a signal of concern that should be studied in more depth.
79% of those surveyed experienced tingling, vibrations and shaking
57% had numbness
53% reported heart issues
45% experienced muscle weakness and pain
44% experienced headaches
43% had fatigue
42% had stomach issues
39% reported brain fog
36% experienced involuntary twitching
29% had tremors
27% reported blood pressure issues
20% reported tinnitus
Pfizer pressures media outlet to pull vaccine injury story
Dobbs said she and others knew they needed to tell their stories, without causing “vaccine hesitancy,” to protect others from the same fate — so members of the group started writing and calling anyone who would listen, including reporters, news agencies and members of Congress.
“This is a hard thing to do without being labeled anti-vax, fear-mongering or a misinformation spreader,” Dobbs said. “But there was nowhere else to turn for help. A lot of us are so injured at this time, that the very thought of getting out of bed was exhausting. We had to persevere, so that we could be seen, heard, believed and most of all helped.”
Dobbs said they tried the best they could as simple Americans to reach out to those who would hear their stories. Finally, a reporter from a small media company was willing to do a story. Dobbs and others from the group participated in a 2-hour and 40-minute interview.
“The story never went anywhere,” Dobbs said. She said the reporter told them a “higher up” at Pfizer made a call to the station and pressured staff there into not covering any other stories about vaccine adverse reactions.
Dobbs said she emailed Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) at the FDA, but never heard anything from him. She never received a response from Nath at the NIH either.
She explained:
“I’ve been working my butt off to try and get my story out because I don’t want this to affect other people, but I don’t see how perfect strangers that were living normal lives found each other through social media, and there are thousands and thousands that have been affected, but you hear nothing about these stories. If it’s so safe then how have we found so many people on our own who have been affected by the vaccine?”
Dobbs did receive an email response from Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA, who said she was sorry to hear about her symptoms and that the FDA would look into the situation. “That was April 18,” Dobbs said. “I haven’t heard anything since.”
Dobbs also reported her adverse event to Pfizer, which did not follow-up, and filed a report with VAERS.
In June, Sen. Ron Johnson(R-WI) gave a few of the group members a platform at a press conference for the media to “hear us, see us and believe us,” Dobbs said. But “they wanted nothing to do with us.”
Dobbs said:
“Their only questions were about who paid for us to get to Wisconsin, and are we going to sue for compensation of injuries. No further questions about lack of medical care, what they could do to help bring awareness, nothing. We did get some other interviews with Newsmax and Fox, but again we were given a small platform for a moment and then hushed again. We move one step forward and get two steps back.”
Dobbs said the group has “tried to do their due diligence by reporting to the big pharmaregulatory agencies, although the NIH has been fully aware vaccine injuries were occurring since February.”
Dobbs said she is working with other researchers — not affiliated with the NIH — who are running totally different blood markers.
“They were initially doing studies on COVID long-haul patients to discover why they were becoming ‘long-haulers’ when they realized people were getting injured by vaccines and experiencing the same symptoms,” Dobbs said.
“The one thing they’re finding that we all have in common is the spike protein in non-classical monocytes,” Dobbs said.
Dobbs wants government acknowledgment and accountability for vaccine injuries
Dobbs still has many of her symptoms, is not well enough to return to work and has a difficult time caring for her family.
“I was never a conspiracy theorist or anti-medicine, but it should not be this hard to get the truth out in 2021,” Dobbs said. “I am not saying the vaccine needs to be stopped, but it’s not as safe or effective as they’re portraying it is.”
Dobbs said she would do anything to make sure others are protected from the same “personal hell” she’s gone through the past nine months, or to save children like Maddie de Garay — a 12-year-old who was paralyzed by Pfizer’s vaccine during the clinical trial.
Dobbs was told specifically not to vaccinate any of her children, which puts her in a tough spot with vaccine mandates. “I believe it would kill me if I got another COVID vaccination and I would never put my children through this … ever,” she said.
However, this also means they’re in the category of people who are discriminated against because they cannot get vaccinated.
Dobbs said:
“The moral of the story is that we’ve been injured by the vaccine, we’ve been searching for months for answers and we are unable to get help. We have reached out to the best doctors in the world and they cannot help us.
“So if you can’t get help from the top doctors in the U.S., how can our hometown doctors help us? We never wanted to start this, we only wanted help, and after not getting help you start to get a little angry. When your body fails, you want to know why.
“We have some researchers willing to help us but they are hindered by a lack of information they need to conduct their research, and there are no adverse reaction clinics where we can go to get treated.”
Dobbs said these reactions need to be investigated and observed. “Then they need to be researched and education needs to be presented. Action needs to be taken for the correct measures to be issued to protect and compensate those of us who have been affected by the COVID vaccines under clinical trials, and under Emergency Use Authorization. Treatment protocols must be implemented in our medical community to give early and proper treatment to those affected,” she added.
Dobbs said she doesn’t want to create vaccine hesitancy, she wants accountability from governing agencies, big pharma and institutes that regulate and roll out vaccines. “The fear-mongering, cancel-culture and misinformation days of those truly injured must stop,” she said.
“I have nothing to gain by giving my testimony of truth to my vaccine injury from the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine,” Dobbs wrote in an email to The Defender. “I was just a small-town country girl raising my family, and enjoying my life as a family caretaker, mother and wife. But I was completely uprooted from my beautiful, normal, happy life. But, my voice matters! My story matters!”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.
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).
Thanks to a Whistleblower that came forth to Attorney Thomas Renz, the public is now seeing, for the first time ever, hard data from the largest database available in the U.S. to study the COVID-19 impact including deaths & injuries; The CMS Medicare Tracking System.
During an extraordinary speech at Clay Clark’s ReAwaken America Tour, Attorney Thomas Renz shocked the crowd of thousands in attendance and millions watching via livestream as he revealed:
That data from the Medicare Tracking System reveals that 19,400 people less than 80 years old have died within 14 days of receiving the COVID-19 Vaccine.
In addition, 28,065 people have died that are over the age of 80 within 14 days of receiving the Covid-19 vaccine.
The Total number of American Citizens that died within 14 days of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine is 48,465 according to hard data revealed in the Medicare Tracking System.
In July Attorney Renz Whistleblower, under penalty of perjury, stated that she estimated at least 45K people had died from the Covid-19 Vaccine. USA Today Fact Checkers and other fact checking services claimed that to be “misinformation.” Today’s revelations solidify that the “Trusted News Initiative” is actually the source of misinformation and propaganda, and that Attorney Thomas Renz Whistleblower was correct all along.
After proving that over 45K people have died from the COVID-19 vaccine, Attorney Renz then moved his attention to focus on the amount of people that are being killed in American hospitals by Dr. Anthony Fauci’s instituted protocol of Remdesivir.
Attorney Renz is also in possession of Remdesivir death data from the Medicare Tracking System that has been withheld by the government from our citizens.
The Remdesivir data reveals of the 7,960 beneficiaries prescribed Remdesivir for Covid-19 2,058 died. That is 25.9%.
46% of people died within 14 days of the Remdesivir Treatment. The Remdesivir Treatment was established in U.S. Hospitals at the direction of Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received Remdesivir. That is 24.6%.
Attorney Renz says ” This begs the question… Why is this the protocol in American Hospitals? Does this appear “Safe and Effective” to you?”
RENZ NURSE WHISTLEBLOWERS REVEAL TWO TIER SYSTEM OF CARE DEPENDING ON YOUR VACCINE STATUS
During Attorney Thomas Renz speech at Clay Clark’s ReAwaken America Tour in Colorado Springs, Colorado Renz also talked about 2 Whistleblower nurses that revealed to him that they have seen a 2 tier system of health care depending on the patients “vaccination status.” “The nurses revealed to me that patients that are vaccinated are getting Ivermectin, which is proven to heal people. But if you are unvaccinated, they put you on Remdesivir in the hopes that you will die” said Attorney Thomas Renz.
THE FDA IS TRACKING VACCINE DEATHS, ALL THE WHILE CLAIMING THE COVID VACCINE IS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE
Also during Attorney Renz’ speech he revealed that the FDA is actively working with CMS real-time data ( CMS Medicare database ) to gather weekly reports on Covid-19 adverse events, despite the fact that the US population is told repeatedly this vaccine is “safe and effective.” Attorney Renz says “This information has never been given to the public, and you will see why they have kept it hidden and never published. It’s very damning, and this data reveals that the FDA knew what was coming, let it happen, and thousands and thousands have died or been injured.”
During his speech Renz revealed in one state alone ( New York ) that the amount of people who experienced adverse events after the Covid shot were in the thousands. Adverse events experienced by people who got the Covid-19 shot in New York State included thousands of cardiovascular events, thousands of cases of people getting Covid, and thousands of deaths. At least 13 side effects are reported in the system. “Remember, these are “side effects” that the government, media, and social media continue to tell the public that are not happening. The mantra of “safe and effective” must stop after today’s information” says Attorney Renz.
A copy of Attorney Renz entire speech along with data from the hidden vaccine tracking system will be posted on his website at www.Renz-Law.com.
*
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).
We may have enjoyed a more equitable and decentralized international system today if not for US intervention on behalf of Microsoft. Big Tech thereafter ushered in a series of techno-social function creeps at the expense of fundamental freedoms.
It was the 1980s. A resurgent Japan was colonizing one civilian market after another through sheer diligence and ingenuity. In terms of quantity and quality, Japanese manufacturers were bankrupting a variety of industrial strongholds, ranging from Swiss watchmakers to US auto giants to Indian textile plants. Whether they be school stationeries, household appliances or nylon saris, quality-with-affordability could only be Made in Japan. America was particularly in deep trouble.
Land of the Sunset Industries
The United States was unable to stem the tsunami of Japanese exports. Trade deficits scaled new heights with each passing quarter and for a time, Japan seemed poised to overtake the US as the preeminent economic superpower. It hardly mattered that the Yen was not challenging the dollar as the global reserve currency.
The Ronald Reagan administration was in a quandary; its laissez-faire policies were benefiting Japanese firms at the expense of US corporations. A volte-face was inevitable, beginning with a protectionist quota imposed on Japanese cars in 1981, followed by a steep 45% tariff on Japanese motorcycles two years later.
While the average American wanted a Japanese bang for the US buck, the automobile heartland of Detroit would have none of it. It even hosted a memorable “charity” saturnalia where participants could pummel a Toyota with a sledgehammer! (Yes, virtue-signalling had pseudo-conservative roots. And that sledgehammer today would be Made in China!)
The only major markets Japan could not penetrate were related to the media (namely, the production of trashy Hollywood flicks) and the military-industrial complex (from which post-WWII Japan was barred from participating).
Bitter trade negotiations between Washington DC and Tokyo yielded protracted concessions. Status quo nonetheless seemed to prevail until a new Japanese innovation threatened to derail US hegemony forever.
The Rise of TRON
Tokyo had unknowingly crossed Washington’s red line when it unveiled The Real-time Operating System Nucleus (TRON) in 1984. Developed by Prof Ken Sakamura and his team at the University of Tokyo, TRON was hailed as the world’s first operating system that was based on “an ideal computer architecture and network, to provide for all of society’s needs.” It would have also rendered many disparate software redundant (mainly American) through a unified, open architecture that promised a “total computer environment.”
This was the kind of hydra which Washington elites regarded as their sole right and manifest destiny. The Japanese operating system would not only interlink a constellation of networked devices worldwide one day, but it would also democratize a new electronic medium for communications. The future of global domination – or alternately the Stygian mess we are in today – hinged on scuttling this project.
A technological casus belli was sought, and it was inevitably found in classic neoconservative fashion. After plumbing the underbelly of Japan in search of an incriminating offence, it was discovered that a subsidiary of Toshiba had joined a Norwegian consortium in selling submarine-related technology to the Soviet Union.
The stage was set for the usual theatrics. In one memorable episode, US congressmen vented their “righteous anger” on a Toshiba radio set with sledgehammers and a symbolic noose. True to the 80s’ Zeitgeist, this was interspersed with the latest US-curated dispatches on an equally righteous Afghan Mujahideen war against the “godless Soviets”. (For the record, this writer – who abhors communism – was rooting for the Soviets while in high school. Any Asian with two functioning brain cells could foresee the blowback from appeasing Islamic militancy).
The US Deep State’s Japan-bashing was widely dismissed as an undisguised form of racism. That there was a deeper, more ominous gameplan afoot was never countenanced by an unsuspecting public. After all, similar hissy fits were not thrown at the guilty Norwegian consortium. French, British, Italian, West German and even US firms that had transferred technology to the “Evil Empire” were given a relatively free pass. Hyper-mediated gaslighting and distractions were a neoconservative political art long before the Democrats had perfected the cult of Wokism.
One OS to Rule Them All
Operating systems were indeed the next great frontier in the race for full-spectrum dominance. By 1985, Japan had a 10-year advantage over the US in software development. TRON would have merged Japanese software with Japanese hardware on computers worldwide. While the Internet had its genesis in the ARPANET in 1969, Japan had begun operationalizing the Widely Integrated Distributed Environment (WIDE) system from 1988 onwards. WIDE interlinked a consortium of companies, universities, and public institutions for wide-area communications via the TCP/IP protocol in use today. At this juncture, the World Wide Web (WWW) was still a concept.
TRON was a game-changer and that game had to be rigged. Washington elites wanted future access to every networked device on earth as a prelude to something more sinister. In 1989, after heavy lobbying from an upstart entity called Microsoft, TRON was subjected to the Super 301 sanctions which effectively excluded it from the US market. Although this action was deemed “temporary”, Japan was forced to apply the brakes on the TRON project or suffer consequences that one can only hypothesise in retrospect. (As a consolation, Sony was probably given the greenlight to acquire a chunk of Hollywood).
Nearly a decade later, in keeping with the software development time lag between Japan and the United States, Windows 95 was born. The world was changed forever and none for the better.
Alongside Microsoft, US starts-ups like Yahoo, Amazon, Google and Facebook etc. rapidly coalesced into a monolithic global kraken that subsumed Big Media, Big Pharma, Big Government, Big NGO and big everything else. Maybe this was the reason why TRON had to be quashed before it went global in the late 1980s.
The Final Frontier
The world currently resembles a digitally-systemized gulag thanks to US Big Tech. The little guy now has as much “choice” and “freedom” as the COVID-19 vaccines he is mandated to take. Special vaccine passports are needed to cross state lines or to enter malls, churches, schools, and government agencies. Or to keep one’s job!
The insatiable global kraken however is not satisfied with controlling networked devices, information flow and human activity; it wants access and control over every human body on planet earth. Initially, this initiative will be couched in terms of “optimising health” through a bodily-embedded device. In the near-future, an Internet of Bodies (IOB) will monitor human physiology, emotions, and thoughts on a 24/7/365 basis. Vaccines therefore may likely give way to something far more intrusive.
The final frontier in this matrix is the serpentine-style Homo Deus (“man becoming god”) delusion. Whether all seven billion people on earth can realistically qualify for this end-of-history deification is highly doubtful. The resources needed just does not exist. This may be the reason why global elites are perennially obsessed with the issue of “overpopulation”. A centralized Artificial Intelligence-based system in the IOB may decide who qualifies for Homo Deus and who does not! Too many “gods” can be problematic as Greek, Roman and other ancient pantheons testify.
Looking back, who could have foreseen that the ham-fisted techno-nationalism of the Reagan administration would have evolved into a global kraken that resembles techno-communism on steroids?
*
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).
These statements had been made by former and current Bank of England Governors Mark Carney and Mervyn King respectively and should not be ignored as the world sits atop the largest financial bubble in human history reminiscent of the 1929 bubble that was triggered on black Friday in the USA which unleashed a great depression across Europe and America.
Anyone trying to promote the idea that COVID-19 is the cause of the oncoming collapse of the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives time bomb masquerading as a trans Atlantic economic are either misinformed or outright liars. While not much can be done to help the later category, the far more numerous members of humanity who find themselves in the first category must be made aware of this fact, and learn some quick elementary lessons in world history. Fast.
During this week’s Coronavirus Investigation Committee hearing hosted by Dr. Reiner Fullmich, Canadian Patriot Review founder Matthew Ehret was invited to provide a historical backdrop to the time bomb created by radical Malthusians who took over western policymaking between 1968-1972 converting the world economy from an industrial model into a “post-industrial” consumer society cult.
Just as a generation of baby boomers were coming of age, an appreciated fight was waged between two opposing conceptions of humanity and nature led by nationalists like JFK, Charles de Gaulle and Enrico Mattei on the one side and globalist agents such as Kissinger, Schwab, Maurice Strong and Zbigniew Brzezinski on the other.
Where one paradigm was committed to an open system view of economics – premising foreign, cultural and economic policy on the idea that creative discoveries and constant technological progress must governed all strategic planning, the other closed system paradigm held an opposing view that humanity must learn to adapt to scarcity.
This presentation introduces 100 years of economic history and demonstrates that the solutions being proposed to put out the fire by those same arsonists who lit the matches today are identical to what the world faced in 1923, and also in 1933 as a “central bankers” Great Reset was pushed for the world depression driven by fascism, population reduction and world government.
Why the first two attempts at world government failed to succeed, and how this current third attempt may also be prevented is the topic of the following presentation.
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).
‘Guile’ and ‘cunning’ are two words that seldom feature in the modern vernacular, yet we need them now – because our species is under an unprecedented level of sustained attack – and it is guile and cunning that is being used to disguise this attack as some form of benevolent protection. The hypnotic effect this deception is having on mankind threatens to render our species extinct.
Who would guess? After all, those who believe what they read in the press and see on TV are sure they are being ‘saved’ not sacrificed.
Saved from Covid, global warming, the Russians and of course ‘terrorists’.
While individuals in possession of a reasonable degree of awareness recognise that those calling the shots are trying to pull-off some grand plan which will leave them in charge of all the material avenues of daily life. What Klaus Schwab, director of the World Economic Forum likes to refer to as “you’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.”
Which properly translates as “We’ll own everything and you’ll be fortunate if your still alive”.
Yet this is actually just one level of a multi pronged attack being prepared against humanity. It goes a lot deeper.
At the deeper level we are brought up against a struggle with our own minds to grasp the magnitude of the dark agenda proposed for life on earth.
Many amongst us cannot even begin to fathom the fact that this is not just a new attempt to introduce a totalitarian dictatorship, but is in fact all out war on the life force itself. An attempt to render our very DNA for ever changed – engineered – into something wholly alien to that which drives the evolutionary dynamic of life on earth.
The origins of this anti-life persuasion stretch back a long way. They start with a refusal to recognise the essential spiritual composition of all matter. That at its essence, life – in all its animate and inanimate forms – is a manifestation of that which was brought to birth by a cosmic entity of pure spirit – over a great span of time – during which it evolved itself into what we call ‘matter’.
Matter is pure spirit congealed into material substance. That is why Jesus is cited as saying “Split wood, and I am there.” Our ancient rocks, soils, ferns, protozoa, aerobic microorganisms, insects, reptiles – and eventually man – form a grand diversity and continuum of expressions of one omnipotent cosmic source point we call God.
Initially, the life expression here on earth was of a very simple nature and lacked any form of self awareness. Yet all seemingly inanimate matter contains the seed of animation. It is, after all ‘all energy’ – but the fact that we cannot see the whirling atoms that form the composition of a rock does not mean they are not actual. That it is not alive.
The creative source point of all life is present even in the most ancient mountains and minerals of our planet.
All these are aspiring to become more than they are. They all have the capacity for constant movement towards a higher expression of themselves. Thus they ‘transform’ and move on, as it were, into subtler forms of expression of their original form. This is the true meaning of the word ‘evolution’.
We – mankind – are at the upper edge of this process of evolution, but we are still informed by all stages that got us here. We recognise them as being gradually evolving expressions within the development of our unique psycho-spiritual and physical propensities.
Thus we can today, if we so wish, feel ‘at one’ with the natural environment around us, simply because we are it – and it is us. There has never been a separation point, just a continuum of evolving expression of the pure source point from whence ‘life’ was birthed.
However, somewhere along the line, at a well developed stage of the continuum – with the human brain already active, a deviation of the natural evolutionary movement became manifest.
We will not speculate on what exactly that was, but will acknowledge its existence. This deviation could happen due to the ‘free will’ originally accorded to independent ‘thinking’ man.
Free will is the condition we call ‘freedom’ today; however, only when its intention is the continuing manifestation of the great diversity of the species and a further manifestation of its divine origins. A state I call ‘the responsibility of freedom’.
This ‘true freedom’ is precisely what came under attack many millennia ago. The motivation for the attack was based upon the desire that the riches the material world brings to birth should be seen and worshipped solely as inert matter, completely devoid of spirit. In other words, a denial of the existence of a (cosmic) creator which is reflected in all life forms – and a taking ownership of the material world (matter) as a ‘possession’ whose primary objective is personal enrichment.
Thus the divine source was stripped clean from the manifestation of it’s own creation.
From here, gorged on the wealth of three dimensional power, the false aspirants went on – driven by an insatiable infatuation with possession, to try to capture not just the material – but the innate spiritual expression of human and planetary evolution as well.
They saw that in spite of their taking a controlling influence over mankind, the life force remained irrepressible. This aroused a deep jealously in ‘the one who would be god-king’; and the only way of satiating this jealousy was to reek vengeance on this freedom loving life force. A force that would not allow itself to come under the control of a godless authority.
Great wars were set in motion by the jealous ones. The core of each was ‘divide man against himself’. Let him destroy himself.
But even the carnage reeked by this evil ploy did not completely vanquish the true human, driven as he/she is by the upwardly rising spirit of aspiration, resonant echo of the One Pure Spirit. That great mystery which stimulates the desire to consciously realise one’s oneness with Source.
So we arrive at today.
Today the jealous ones, bruised, but more vindictive than ever – thanks to their past failures – aim to attack and distort the very DNA of life itself. In order to splice into it the codes of their spirit-less digital mechanistic void, so as to create the ‘ex-human’ robotic designer-slave – that which has all its faculties genetically engineered, to the synthetic point of no return. No return to nature. No way home.
Thus the murderers seek to enthrone themselves as god-kings of their satanic empire.
Now they have declared open war on Earth as well as humanity – and are going for the jugular.
While this very small and very sick cabal leads the way, their army of foot soldiers trudge along behind, gazing into their mobile phones and wide screen TV’s, awaiting the next instructions. Their designer-slave minds already given over to the slow march into spiritual oblivion. Their bodies bent with denial. Their souls’ vital transmissions suffocated under a heavy blanket of uncontrolled and poisoned thinking, whose chief ingredient is – fear.
We know the plan – and we know of human-kind’s retrograde passivity which has been responsible for allowing this plan to get as far as it has.
We have learned that the Covid jab, chemtrails-aluminium, WiFi and fluoride combine to calcify the pineal gland and block its function as chief receptor of the higher vibrational cosmic energies.
We have learned that GMO and pesticides do a very similar thing to the plant kingdom which is here to nourish us. And we know that a great part of the food chain carries the burden of this toxicity.
We know that all such brutal attacks on this living planet and its occupants stem from a grossly distorted perception of what Life is all about. A reversal, in fact.
But we also know one more thing. That a rising tide of awakening humanity has recognised the deception and is now establishing a formidable resistance. And in doing so has discovered its inner powers and found the will to directly challenge the architects of destruction.
We start to understand how times of profound darkness can be precursors of times of searing illumination. How a great metamorphosis of life on earth is in the air.
A manifestation that will bring with it that which we nurture in our hearts and envision in our minds. We, guardians of the flag of truth and vanguard of a new society built on honour, wisdom, justice and truth.
It’s a battle royal, make no mistake. The road to peace is not secured via passivity and wishful thinking. Not at all. Not even prayer.
The great Indian Sadhu, Prabat Rajan Sarkar stated it this way “There is no other way of establishing peace than by fighting against the reasons that disturb the peace.”
So fight we will, until we win.
*
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.
Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, international activist, entrepreneur and holistic teacher. He is co-founder of HARE The Hardwick Alliance for Real Ecology see https://hardwickalliance.org/Julian’s acclaimed book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through’ is particularly recommended reading for this time: see www.julianrose.info
He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from American Friends Service Committee
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
On September 9th,Joe Biden made the announcement that all employers with more than 100 workers would be required to enforce a national worker vaccine mandate. The White House stated that OSHA would, “develop a rule that will require all employers with 100 or more employees to ensure their workforce is fully vaccinated.”
However, following the announcement we noted OSHA was not taking any steps needed to engage with business interests to trigger the first-step in the organization of a process to initiate a rule-making process.
I’m only talking about the basic guidance aspect. The labor discussions with internal and external customers of the DoL, OSHA, etc. to set a calendar for how to implement “guidance”, just that part. There was nothing, and there is nothing.
Finally today, three weeks later, a stenographer for the regime asked the question. Pay close attention to the White House response: [13:45 Prompted] WATCH:
As noted in the obtuse response, the White House has no idea what the current plan is for OSHA to create this rule that will require a national mandate for private sector workers. The emphasis is on voluntary compliance as an outcome of the decree that a mandate would be forthcoming.
Folks, this looks like a complete con job, pushed by the Biden administration to provide cover for corporations to create a mandate on their own. Meaning the intent of the announcement was to create momentum for increased vaccinations, while the Biden regime never did or does intend to use OSHA as a national enforcement mechanism.
There are three elements: (1) Federal worker mandate; (2) Federal contractor mandate; and the big controversial one, (3) a national worker mandate for companies with over 100 employees.
Focusing on #3, the big one. The only material from the White House on the BIG CONTROVERSIAL national worker mandate is a small paragraph on the WH COVID PLAN section:
That’s it folks. Three weeks later, and that’s the sum total of everything about the biggest economic and workforce disruption in the history of the nation. That one paragraph posted on September 10th.
Why is this important?
Well, the U.S. Department of Labor website has ZERO mentions of this national mandate. ZERO, nothing… nada, zilch. [SEE HERE]
Looking at the OSHA COVID information portal, used by employers and legal execs, will show you the exact same result. Nothing. [SEE HERE]
Notice there’s no date for DoL or OSHA delivery of any employer guidance or details. Nothing.
Think about this. This is the largest nationwide change to employment eligibility requirement in U.S. history. Nothing else is even close… and yet, if you didn’t watch the Biden announcement or read the media discussion about the Biden announcement, you wouldn’t be able to find a single detail about it – anywhere.
This is not normal; not even close to normal… even for the federal government.
If there was a federal intent to actually force American workers to get forcibly vaccinated as a condition of employment, there would be daily updates from a massive inter-agency network of compliance offices, regulatory agencies and private sector business interests giving updates and briefings. And yes, that pertains only to the anticipated guidance part, not to the actual setting of a deadline and working through the implementation phase of the national mandate.
I’m only talking about the basic guidance aspect. The labor discussions with internal and external customers of the DoL, OSHA, etc. to set a calendar for how to implement “guidance”, just that part. There’s nothing.
The absence of even a scintilla of material to indicate the White House or any federal agency is organizing an action plan of how to structure the guidance itself is telling. The silence of the machine tells us it is not turned on. The bureaucracy has not been triggered. The machinery of the federal government has not been instructed to begin any process to execute on the instruction that OSHA will, “develop a rule that will require all employers with 100 or more employees to ensure their workforce is fully vaccinated.” Nothing.
The silence is deafening.
It appears the Department of Labor has no intention of ever even triggering the process to get OSHA to begin evaluating how they could even begin to pull this off…. and again, for emphasis, I’m only talking about the tiny step of delivering initial guidance to employers that would indicate to them that OSHA was developing a rule.
There’s no deadline for OSHA to generate the guidance – and there’s certainly no deadline for the OSHA rule itself, which will come as an outcome of that initial guidance part.
Some have speculated that Joe Biden’s big White House announcement was nothing more than a distraction. There’s no way for them to ever get over the hurdles that would come from immediate employer backlash on the federal mandate; and they have no intent on even trying. Meaning, it was all a big distraction -never intended execute- and always intended to clear the national conversation of all Biden-centric controversies and reset the administration.
That speculation looks exactly correct.
If 80 million Americans are unvaxxed, and even if only a quarter of those are Main Street employed, the entire social and economic system would grind to a halt if 20 million heavily productive people quit working for 100+ employee companies and went to work much smaller operations. Remember, this is the workforce that was called “essential workers” last year. They were essential for a reason.
A grocery chain cannot lose 20 essential people per store, + warehouse and distribution, and still function. A WalMart cannot lose 50 essential workers per store, + warehouse and distribution, and still function. A hospital or hotel cannot lose 20 to 50 essential workers per operation and still function.
Ford? GM? Auto-workers in general? Labor Unions? AFSCME? SEIU? Police, Fire, Emergency First Responders? I cannot see a reasonable scenario where the national worker vaccination mandate is even feasible with an eligible 80+ million unvaccinated holding out.
A week after the announcement CTH said, “I would not be surprised to see nothing more ever said about this “National Employment Vaccine Mandate””, and indeed, until today nothing was ever said about it. When questioned today, the White House says that private companies are already moving forward “on their own” without federal rules in place for enforcement.
That now looks like it was the intended plan all along.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All images in this article are from The Last Refuge unless otherwise stated
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
“It’s completely understandable that people want to get on with their lives, but we will not be going back to the old normal.” – WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus
“Many of us are pondering when things will return to normal…The short response is: never. Nothing will ever return to the ‘broken’ sense of normalcy that prevailed prior to the crisis because the coronavirus pandemic marks a fundamental inflection point in our global trajectory.” – Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum
***
20 More Reasons Why a COVID-19 Pandemic Never Existed
As demonstrated throughout the first article in this series, the so-called pandemic that changed the course of human history is nothing like we’ve been told by “official” sources and mainstream media marionettes.
The real pandemic being perpetrated against humanity is one of unprecedented tyranny, lies, and corruption.
While the world has been set on fire with the flames of vaccine mandates, food and supply shortages, hyperinflation, unemployment, and police state crackdowns, the global cabal sitting atop this wide-reaching catastrophe is steadily implementing plans to reshape and reset the world to their advantage. Aided by the current crop of political dictators, Big Tech tyrants, medical mafiosos, and a whole host of public-private partners, the agenda to rob us of everything (remember, you’ll own nothing and be happy) including the right to refuse medicine is happening at warp speed. They have been planning this for a couple of centuries. We are experiencing the poisonous fruits of their efforts in a real live drill for control of the planet.
Remember, the reason we are in this plight is because of the declared state of emergency issued by President Trump and continued under the Biden regime. Leaders from many other countries also followed the same script. Again, if the “pandemic” can be proven to be fraudulent, then all emergency executive orders and mandates must be immediately revoked!
It is important that this information is shared so that the pandemic illusion can be completely shattered. These additional 20 facts will further invalidate that this emergency ever truly existed.
#21 – Hydroxychloroquine was sidelined to make sure vaccines were the only available treatment for COVID-19.
On March 30, 2020 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the emergency use of Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine to treat COVID-19. On June 15, 2020 the EUA was revoked and the FDA “determined that Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA.” This revocation took place despite the fact that the NIH knew Hydroxychloroquine was effective in treating coronaviruses as early as 2005.
The National Pulse reported that a document no longer available from the FDA regarding “emergency use authorization” of potential COVID-19 treatments appeared to suggest that Hydroxychloroquine satisfied the criteria for the classification, but would have stood in the way of other lucrative drugs and a vaccine.
The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) even sued the FDA for withholding from the public some 60 million doses of Hydroxychloroquine that were donated by drug manufacturers to treat coronavirus patients.
Please see the following list of studies proving that Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19 here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
#22 – Props were used to make the “pandemic” look worse than it actually was.
In March 2020, U.S. states and countries around the world began constructing makeshift hospital facilities to accommodate the expected surge of COVID-19 patients. New York anticipated needing an extra 87,000 beds as the Javits Center was converted into a hospital by the Army Corp of Engineers. The U.S.S. Comfort was also deployed to New York City while the U.S.S. Mercy was deployed to Los Angeles. This was all a sham, meant to trick the public into thinking the situation was much more dire than reality. An article in the Navy Times revealed the truth about these makeshift facilities, stating:
By the time of Comfort’s departure, the approximately 1,200-person crew and 1,000-bed hospital had treated just 182 patients, of which approximately 70 percent had COVID-19, according to Capt. Patrick Amersbach, commanding officer of the Comfort’s Medical Treatment Facility.
Underutilization of added medical resources in New York City is not unique to the Comfort. Thousands of hospital beds made available in a converted convention center have gone largely unused after quick assembly by the Army Corps of Engineers.
The Javits Center, which was initially envisioned as a 2,500-bed field hospital for non-COVID-19 patients, converted to coronavirus-only hospital shortly after going operational. Still, the highest number of patients treated at the convention center at one time topped out at close to 500.
Similarly, the U.S.S. Mercy had only treated 77 non-infected patients by the time it departed the port of Los Angeles.
#23 – Big Tech, the White House, the media, and governments worldwide joined to censor information.
Facebook, Twitter, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Reddit, and YouTube issued a joint statement about combating fraud and misinformation about the virus, basically admitting collusion to censor views that dissent from the official narrative. In an interview on CNN, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki justified censorship of opinions not supported by “authoritative sources,” stating “anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy. And so, removing information is another really important part of our policy.” Countless individuals, organizations, medical professionals, and political figures were censored, suspended, or completely de-platformed for expressing opinions or citing factual information that poked holes in the story spun by entities like the WHO, CDC, FDA, the White House, and United Nations.
Solving a “pandemic” is not like a mathematical equation where there can only be one right answer. Censorship of differing views and factual information is not a scientific principle, but a totalitarian one that actually violates the scientific method.
#24 – Surprise! COVID-19 doesn’t just infect humans.
Animals including tigers, dogs, cats, gorillas, goats, and even fruit and Coca-Cola all tested positive for COVID-19. Since coronaviruses are very common and were “discovered” in the 1960s, doesn’t this reinforce that these tests are pointless for diagnosing illness, but perfect for creating hysteria and the justification for draconian measures?
The only people who need masks are those who are already infected to keep from exposing others. The masks sold at drugstores aren’t even good enough to truly protect anyone, Fauci said.
“If you look at the masks that you buy in a drugstore, the leakage around that doesn’t really do much to protect you,” he said. “People start saying, ‘Should I start wearing a mask?’ Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask.”
In a Dave Rubenstein Show interview in May 2019, Fauci called mask wearing “paranoid” and advised against it as protection against infectious diseases.
An article by Bill Hennessy documented the New England Journal of Medicine’s stance on masks, citing:
We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to COVID-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
So, why are we ordered to wear masks? Symbolism. From the same article in NEJM:
It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals.
On April 3, 2020 the initial sentiment around universal masking was reversed when President Trump announced that the CDC recommended that citizens wear cloth face masks in public to stop the spread of the virus. States then began issuing mask mandates even for children, and the controversy about their usage has never gone away.
There have been hundreds of face mask studies. One of the best compilations can be found on Life Site News, where they cite 47 studies that confirm masks are ineffective for COVID-19 and 32 additional studies that confirm they have negative health effects. So, the overwhelming scientific consensus confirms what we were told from the very beginning: masks do not work! Wearing a face mask is nothing more than virtue signaling and blind obedience to today’s scientific cult leaders.
#26 – There are several other reasons that could explain the sickness and death supposedly caused by COVID-19.
Nitrogen Dioxide exposure. A research article in Science Direct, originally published in April 2020, concluded that chronic exposure to Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) could have contributed to COVID-19 fatalities in places like Italy, Spain, France, Germany, and “maybe across the whole world.”
Air Pollution.Harvard scientists discovered that a small increase in long-term exposure to air pollution (fine particulate matter – PM5) led to a large increase in the COVID-19 death rate. Wuhan (China), New York City, Lombardy (Italy), and many of the initial coronavirus hotspots also have extremely high levels of air pollution. Could people who were poisoned by air pollution have been misdiagnosed with COVID-19? See also here.
Vitamin B1 deficiency (beriberi) and tuberculosis. A fascinating series of articles by health journalist Bill Sardi document how COVID-19 symptoms such as “racing heart, chronic headache, crushing fatigue and even shortness of breath can only be explained by a deficiency of vitamin B1. No coronavirus, flu bug, or any other infection produces the symptoms observed with COVID-19.” See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Sardi also posited that COVID-19 diagnoses could also be cases of tuberculosis since many of the symptoms are the same.
Prominent medical researcher Knutt M. Wittkowski criticized the lockdown approach saying, “With all respiratory diseases, the only thing that stops the disease is herd immunity. About 80% of the people need to have had contact with the virus, and the majority of them won’t even have recognized that they were infected, or they had very, very mild symptoms, especially if they are children. So, it’s very important to keep the schools open and kids mingling to spread the virus to get herd immunity as fast as possible…”
Researchers at Well Being Trust and the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care estimated that 75,000 people could die from alcohol, drug abuse and suicide, calling them “deaths of despair.”
The application of lockdowns was arbitrary and inconsistent. Why were liquor and cannabis stores allowed to stay open when churches were forced to close? Why were some businesses (mostly big box stores and major corporations) deemed essential while others were shuttered and forced to apply for government handouts just to survive?
If lockdowns worked, the “pandemic” should have ended as early as summer 2020! Much more could be said on this topic, but I think you get the point.
#29 – Quarantining healthy people is tyrannical and goes against all conventional wisdom.
The Great Barrington Declaration, signed by close to 60,000 scientists and medical professionals and over 800,000 lay people, advised that only the sick should be quarantined. The declaration states, “The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.”
Focused Protection has been standard practice for every previous epidemic or pandemic situation. Healthy people should be free to resume normal life and risk exposure. National and regional lockdowns which quarantine the healthy with the sick are nonsensical and have only served to prolong the “pandemic” situation.
#30 – Risk to children is extremely minimal.
A study by Iceland company deCode Genetics revealed that“children under 10 are less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill…even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents.”
Data from WorldOMeter showed that children aged 0-17 years have a 0.02-0.06% share of world COVID-19 deaths, which is essentially zero.
A New England Journal of Medicine article advocated for schools to reopen for in person learning, stating “From a clinical standpoint, most children 1 to 18 years old experience mild or no illness from COVID-19 and are much less likely than adults to face severe consequences from the infection.”
Scott Atlas, former member of Trump’s coronavirus task force, stated “We know who is at risk. Only 0.2 percent of U.S. deaths have been people younger than 25, and 80 percent have been in people over 65; the average fatality age is 78.
A JAMA Pediatrics study of North American pediatric hospitals flatly stated that “our data indicate that children are at far greater risk of critical illness from influenza than from COVID-19.”
#31 – Though often vilified, marginalized, and censored, other treatments for COVID-19 exist and are proven to be effective, including:
#33 – George Floyd protests proved “COVID-19 prevention measures” had nothing to do with public health.
The protests that erupted over the death of George Floyd violated social distancing and, in many instances, mask wearing rules. The protests were encouraged by leftist politicians and mainstream media. Other events where crowds gathered such as the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in South Dakota or organized lockdown protests were deemed “super spreader” events and widely condemned by these same leftists. This blatant hypocrisy shows that this is a political pandemic more than anything else.
#34 – Public officials’ hypocrisy in violating their own rules also prove “COVID-19 prevention measures” had nothing to do with public health.
I’ll just list some of their names; you probably know the instance(s).
Bureaucrats have created “rules for thee, but not for me” and love to openly flaunt their self-perceived superiority every chance they get!
#35 – There is strong evidence that the coronavirus “pandemic” was pre-planned.
Besides the widely known Event 201 pandemic exercise, governments have been conducting exercises to prepare for a global pandemic for a long time. I have already documented the many exercises, documents, legal proceedings, and conferences that have taken place (please see The Back Story and The Ramp Up from my COVID Chronicles series). Since all this planning has been taking place for at least 20 years, why did everything go so poorly?
#36 – Governments have tried to inflate illnesses into pandemics when not justified before.
You would think that with the foreknowledge gathered during the various pandemic exercises conducted over the last two decades, something simple like shutting down air travel in the place where the outbreak first occurred would have been one of the first priorities. However, that did not happen. Why is that?
#38 – Constant confusion and misinformation from public health and government officials keep people fearful and bewildered.
Remember the mantra “order out of chaos” because this is the modus operandi of the “global elite.” They have purposefully sowed confusion and chaos regarding the nature of the “virus,” where it originated, how it is transmitted, its lethality, how variants emerge, how the tests work, whether one can develop natural immunity, if masks work and if so, how many need to be worn, and on and on. They continually contradict previous statements that seemed definitive at the time, keeping the naïve public constantly off balance and in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance. Why anyone still trusts anything coming out of their constantly lying orifices is completely baffling! Nevertheless, many still do trust, and their ignorance and obedience serve to perpetuate the “pandemic” and the slippery slope to complete tyranny!
#39 – The “pandemic” ushered in the rise of authoritarian leadership just as predicted in the 2010 Rockefeller Report (see page 18).
By now it should be obvious that from the outset, the entire goal of this “pandemic” has been to inoculate the entire planet with a “vaccine.” Why else would all other treatments (besides Big Pharma-backed ones like Remdesivir) be banned or vilified? Why else would there be so much pressure to roll up one’s sleeve and take the jab? Why else would there be so much propaganda regarding how “safe and effective” COVID-19 vaccines are, when there is so much evidence to the contrary?
Since the vaccination campaigns began, most countries are still not back to normal (especially in places like Australia and Italy). The goalpost keeps getting moved while authoritarian mandates and controls accelerate. It is just like Rockefeller predicted and Schwab and Ghebreyesus have stated – We will not be returning to normal.
The Joke’s On Us
Unless people wake up and realize that this entire “pandemic” has been an excuse to install global governance and increase authoritarian control, these cabalists may get their wish. Now that you are armed with the facts, it is your duty to spread this information far and wide! RESISTANCE IS MANDATORY if you want to live freely.
*
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).
In 1943, the writer and literature professor C.S. Lewis delivered a series of three evening lectures at King’s College, Newcastle. In the third and final part of his lecture series titled “The Abolition of Man,” he spoke of how science can be misused. A literary giant who is known for his pro-Christian texts linked the progress of science to man’s aspiration to dominate nature. Lewis stated, “Man’s conquest of nature, if the dreams of some scientific planners are realized, means the rule of a few hundreds of men over billions upon billions of men.”
Over half a century later, we are seeing “science”, in the hands of the few, being used to reshape the world.
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the disintegration of the global economy which began unraveling in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. In mid 2020, as the economy had yet to recover, the World Economic Forum (WEF) announced its plan for a “Great Reset” to re-engineer the global economy as the world emerged from the pandemic.
Participants in the initiative include international governmental organizations such as the United Nations and its specialized agency the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as well as leading global corporations.
Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of WEF, called the initiative of the Great Reset “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” that opens up a new chapter for human development. Using science and advanced technology such as artificial intelligence (AI), robotics and genetic engineering, its stated goal is said to create a “fusion of our physical, digital and biological identity.”
Merging humans with the machine
Steps toward the merging of digital technologies and biological systems are already taking place with the idea of the immunity passport – a form of documentation that could prove a person has received the required number of shots of an approved Covid-19 vaccine. On August 27, 2021, the WHO released a guiding document for a digital certificate for COVID-19 vaccination status. Funded by organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, it is intended that this digital information system be used to implement a vaccine passport in every country.
A COVID vaccination certificate system has been already rolled out in Israel, some European countries, and in US cities such as New York and San Francisco. Current uses for the vaccine passport include denying those who are unvaccinated access to restaurants, bars, gyms and trains. This program separates people based on health status and creates a system of medical and socio-economic apartheid.
Government issued QR-code health passes could be used to launch a China style authoritarian government program. With the use of big data, face recognition technology and machine learning, China’s social credit system monitors and regulates people’s behavior. It ranks them based on their ‘social credit’, rewarding ‘good’ citizens, while punishing ‘bad’ citizens.
Millions across the world are now protesting against the introduction of a Vax digital ID passport app.
If you don't understand why, please watch this 2min video. 👇
Now, it looks like China’s social scoring technocracy is coming to the West. Under algorithmic governance that enforces obedience and conformity, human beings will become automatons, not being able to make independent decisions about their own actions.
Internet of bodies
The enslavement of humanity in cyberspace is not the end goal. The convergence of biological and digital identity will bring about a radical transformation of human beings. Lewis recognized man’s aspiration to control nature would lead to the abolition of our humanity, and that the timing of this change was not far off:
“The final stage is come when Man by eugenics, by prenatal conditioning, and by an education and propaganda based on a perfect applied psychology, has obtained full control over himself. Human nature will be the last part of nature to surrender to Man. The battle will then be won.”
In the digital age, the advancement of technology is opening up many possibilities for human beings to transform themselves. By experimenting with a range of high-tech innovations, teams behind the Great Reset are now seeking to exploit this uncharted territory.
In July 2020, WEF published the white paper titled, “Shaping the Future of the Internet of Bodies: New Challenges of Technology Governance.” A 28-page document introduced the concept of the internet of bodies (IoB) as “the network of human bodies and data through connected sensors”. It explained how these sensors can be attached to human bodies through consumer wearable devices or “implanted within or ingested into human bodies to monitor, analyse and even modify human bodies and behavior.”
The “utopia” of WEF’s Fourth Industrial Revolution.#VaccinePassports/Digital ID/Wallet for 24/7 surveillance from cradle to grave: where/what you eat, buy, travel, exercise, medical records, internet search & social media history – all analysed for social scoring.
Those who are working to bring related products to market claim that the application of IoB could change human beings as a natural concept. Seizing the power of this technology, this can be viewed as an attempt to claim ownership of human bodies, to gain access to the thoughts, emotions and biorhythmic data of individuals. Their vision seeks to create a post-human society by transforming “the human body into a new technology platform.”
Politicization of public health
Capitalising on the ongoing pandemic, while people are kept in fear and uncertainty, the end game is being played out for man’s final conquest of nature. Those who aspire to eradicate the human race in its natural state steer the societal narrative in order to ensnare the population in their web of control.
Since it declared a global pandemic on March 11, 2020, the WHO has quickly positioned itself as the preeminent global health authority. With its own process of gathering data, research and evaluation, the organization has spearheaded global public health efforts, advising countries on how to respond to the COVID-19 crisis. They have published guidance as to how to minimize the risk of spreading, or catching the virus, together with its own website ‘myth-buster’, which purports to debunk what they deem to be unsubstantiated information or “medical misinformation” online.
In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), working in partnership with the WHO, began to set guidelines and give recommendations. As new rules and restrictions have been put into place, the concept of ‘public health’ has become politicized.
From face mask policies to “lockdown” measures, corporate media framed the issues in a false dichotomy of liberal and conservative talking points. First, major media networks have dismissed anyone questioning the official pandemic narrative as “conspiracy theorists” and accused them of spreading harmful misinformation to the public. Then they indiscriminately labeled them as “Covid deniers,” and branded them as “far right,” or “Trumpers,” and “anti-science.”
Using the rhetoric of ‘protecting the vulnerable’ and elderly populations from the deadly virus, a moral sentiment was provoked. By flooding the media with images of maskless protesters defying a stay at home order and storming into grocery stores, television cable channels have managed to paint those who questioned the official pandemic response as selfish and reckless individuals who only care about their own individual freedom.
Psychological operation
In this politicization of public health, the liberal intelligentsia has tapped into the Democrats’ prolonged sense of victimhood and their deep seated hatred of Donald Trump. Media have successfully exploited the trauma felt by Democrats and Clinton supporters, endured during Trump’s four years in office, and effectively redirected their frustration and anger towards what is now being presented as a new opponent – the irresponsible, virus spreading “Covidiot” who continues to insist on exercising personal liberty.
Hedged into a narrow political spectrum, the political left has been encouraged to perceive conservatives as causing harm and ignoring the greater good. They see the situation as Republican leaders politicizing the pandemic with “FreeDumb” propaganda, as was expressed recently in this article on CounterPunch.
Meanwhile, those who oppose coronavirus restrictions are made to feel that progressives are infringing on the rights of those who do not agree with them. The dissenters develop animosity toward the Democrats who wear masks, in turn engaging in name-calling, such as ‘a bunch of obedient sheep blindly following the orders.’
What we are seeing now is a sophisticated psychological manipulation being conducted on the public.Psychological operations (PSYOPS) are techniques used by military and police forces to convey selected information to influence the perception of adversaries. It works on the values and belief systems of targeted individuals, manipulating emotions and reasoning to reinforce attitudes and behaviors that are favorable to the agendas of operators. This type of weaponized applied behavioral psychology has been used by the U.S. military on the battlefield and political spheres in countries like Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, to demoralize enemy troops, foment civil unrest, and gain support of civilians so as to achieve the U.S. military objectives.
Both Americans and Europeans might be naïve to think that this type of operation will not be carried out against them in a domestic setting, yet coordinated intelligence operations have long been used to influence the public.
Throughout the COVID-19 crisis, psychological warfare has been waged against ordinary people in the U.S. and worldwide. Divide and conquer tactics create a fog of war, using algorithms to target people’s vulnerability and exploit their emotions. In this battle, the issue of vaccines has become a key issue to determine which side of the camps one is in, dividing family, breaking up friendships and marriages alike. These efforts have been reinforced by Silicon Valley tech giants who are actively steering and censoring the global discussion and debate on important public health topics, further manipulating the public and conjuring a fierce political fight on the social media platforms.
Battle for a moral narrative
Governments everywhere have been pushing a pro-vaccine narrative with inadequately supported claims of safety and effectiveness in terms of the product’s ability to stop the infection and spread of Covid-19.
For instance, the clinical trials of the experimental injections have yet to be completed (Moderna’s trials go to 2022, Pfizer’s until 2023) and there have been no studies of medium or long-term consequences (authorities insist there is no time to wait for this data because of the severity of the pandemic crisis) and adverse event risk analysis is woefully incomplete.
Also, recent reports have shown that vaccinated people can still transmit the virus, and it has been reported that the so-called “breakthrough” cases, now overwhelming in the most vaccinated countries, may be caused by vaccination. Furthermore, there is now a growing body of literature showing that natural immunity is superior in strength and longevity to vaccine-induced immunity.
Instead of engaging in fact-based debate to address doctors’ concerns and clarify contradictory reports, the Cable News Network invites in various medical experts who act like spokespeople for Big Pharma.
Insane disinformation propagated by Dr. Leana Wen on national TV. Her and other agencies actions are leading to increasing deaths – she and they are literally citing a FRAUDULENT paper to support their lies as proven in this review https://t.co/PUCPGqTIk2pic.twitter.com/oKMA37X7e9
Concerted efforts of the legacy media have been used to suppress information on early treatment that could be beneficial to the public, paving the way for the perception that a vaccine is the only way to end the pandemic. With a message of “we are all in this together,” we were told we need to accept the government’s mandate “for the public good.”
Discourse that is not founded on medical facts and is wrapped up with the concept of public duty seems to have affected prominent liberal intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, and institutions such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which recently issued a puzzling statement saying that the vaccine mandates further civil liberty.
Their virtue-signalling has influenced public opinion on the political left. Organized networks of self-righteous social justice activists have been quickly formed online to engage in the shaming and guilt-tripping of fellow citizens who dare to question or comment negatively on official policies, or who refuse to take the vaccine.
For instance, comedian and political commentator Jimmy Dore faced backlash on social media when he shared his own experience of adverse side effects after receiving his second dose of the Moderna Covid vaccine. In an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan, he said that people started to call him an ‘anti-vaxxer,’ and that he was pressured not to share any more information about his reactions.
Demonization of unvaccinated
The moral battle that has been engineered maintains its structure through marginalizing a certain population and assigning them negative attributes. From black, indigenous, and people of color, and other immigrants, governments have often used minority groups as a means of social control and source of blame for a country’s domestic problems. In the wake of 9/11, American Muslims were scapegoated for the terrifying reality of terrorism on U.S. soil. Now, in this Covid crisis, the unvaccinated have become a target for demonization. By using the phrase “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” President Joe Biden has portrayed unvaccinated people as those who pose a threat to public health, stopping society from moving forward.
Placing blame on the unvaccinated has helped spread a new type of discrimination. In some hospitals, doctors have begun to refuse to treat the unvaccinated, making those who are vaccinated a priority when resources are scarce. Vilification of those who have not gotten a shot has increased, such as when The Atlanticpublished an article from former Obama Homeland Security official Juliette Kayyem calling for unvaccinated people to be put on the No Fly List.
This type of discrimination can escalate quickly. Arne Duncan, who served as former President Obama’s Education Secretary for seven years, compared unvaccinated Americans to suicide bombers at the Kabul airport. In his tweet, he noted that anti-mask and anti-vax people “blow themselves up, inflict harm on those around them, and are convinced they are fighting for freedom.”
These wild imaginations have been acted out in other Western countries. In France, a woman who tried to enter a shopping mall without proof of vaccine passport was violently beaten by the security forces.
Paris police beat woman who tried to go shopping at the mall without a vaccine passport.pic.twitter.com/twZiKIpX2P
On the streets of Paris, police are using teargas during their confrontation with the protesters opposing the vaccine passport. Similar scenes can be seen in other countries.
New domestic terrorism
Now, with the rise of the allegedly highly contagious Delta variant, governments are intensifying their fight against the coronavirus. Accompanied by media fear mongering, the drumbeat for ‘the war on Covid-19’ is getting louder.
Earlier this month, on September 9, President Biden announced his intention to expand the executive branch’s power to require all federal workers to get vaccinated, while this mandate does not extend to members of Congress. He also stated his intention to force all private businesses with over 100 employees to get COVID vaccinations or be tested for coronavirus at least once a week.
During his announcement the President heaped even more disdain on the unvaccinated, saying they are “keeping us from turning the corner” and “making people sick, causing unvaccinated people to die.” He then said that the fight against the virus requires defeating those who are reluctant to get a shot, and that he intended to make them roll up their sleeves.
Biden’s forceful Covid-19 vaccine speech came at a time when his administration introduced the government’s new strategy to confront domestic terrorism. Journalist Whitney Webb reported that despite its stated aim of tackling “right-wing white supremacists”, the policy targets anyone who criticizes the government’s authority.
But who are the unvaccinated, now being treated like a dangerous virus that needs to be dispatched? In reality, they are not confined to some fringe element of society. They represent a broad range of professionals including police officers, military members, firefighters, teachers and students. They are physicians, nurses and other ‘essential’ workers who put their lives on the frontline during the pandemic – and are now told to take a jab or lose a job.
Silenced majority
The politicians and media pundits call those who are refusing to take doses “anti-vaxxers.” But many of them are not strictly anti-vaccine. Rather, they are anti government (or corporate) mandating of the vaccine. Most have had other vaccines previously, and vaccinated their children. Many have even taken the Covid vaccine. They are also those who came to a decision that a Covid-19 vaccine is not right for them, whether it is for medical, personal health or religious reasons. They believe in medical freedom and choose natural remedies; to eat wholesome food and work with the body’s innate capacity for healing. They are individuals who are standing up for bodily autonomy with the conviction that the government has no right to inject things that they don’t want into their body.
‼️This is — without a doubt — the best articulation as to the ethical problem posed by mandatory vaccines or vaccine passports.
Dr. Julie Ponesse explains the dilemma in a persuasive manner.
Mass media depict them as right-wing extremists, but they do not belong to either the left or the right. They are a silenced majority, being betrayed and abandoned by elected leaders and now being pushed into political exile.
Despite health officials calling them anti-science, many of them believe in science and hold a view that science requires rigorous studies and open debate. They are those who have acquired natural immunity because they already had the virus. They are people who were injured after the first dose and the doctor advised not to take a second dose. They are people whose immune systems are compromised and who cannot take a shot, even if they want to. They are parents who are concerned that their little children are categorized as disease reservoirs and do not want to accept medical treatment from manufacturers and healthcare providers that are shielded from legal liability.
While the vaccinated represent a largely privileged class in a society, among the majority of unvaccinated are poor and people of color from marginalized communities. Black people have been showing hesitancy because they distrust the government based on historic injustices like the Tuskegee experiment and other past experience of abuse at the hands of the government.
Awakening human heart
The war on Covid is a war on humanity. In this pandemic crisis, we have been made to be afraid of an invisible virus. The fear has frozen our hearts, making us afraid of our own neighbors. With the practice of social distancing, we have been conditioned to see each other as a threat from which we need to protect ourselves. Now, career politicians who have never once cared about public health are telling us that we have to sacrifice our freedom to bring society back to normal. They are now further dividing us into a new class of ‘vaxxed’ or ‘non-vaxxed’ to make us fight against one another.
With the vaccine mandate and digital ID, the movers of the Great Reset aim to open a new chapter for a society without humanity. Under the slogan “Build Back Better,” political leaders and activists around the world engage in a campaign, promising to create a fairer and greener future. Yet, the system that is built on exclusion of some brothers and sisters, separation and hatred can’t create a truly sustainable world that acknowledges the sacredness of all living beings.
In his book, Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis talked about the concept of progress, saying, “If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road.”
Hence, we can best evolve as a species through each of us returning to a path of nature and choosing to abide by the laws of human nature.
The future of civil society requires human beings who freely lay claim to their responsibility as stewards of this planet. Our willingness to confront our fears with courage can awaken our sense of shared humanity. This is the heart of our democracy that accepts diverse opinions and remains open to our radical differences. Through ordinary people, heart to heart in solidarity, a new network is being created that can bring a triumph of the human spirit.
*
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).
Another piece US anti-Ivermectin puzzle may have emerged. In late September, Pfizer announced that it’s launching an accelerated Phase 2/3 trial for a COVID prophylactic pill designed to ward off COVID in those may have come in contact with the disease.
Coincidentally (or not), Pfizer’s drug shares at least one mechanism of action as Ivermectin – an anti-parasitic used in humans for decades, which functions as a protease inhibitor against Covid-19, which researchers speculate “could be the biophysical basis behind its antiviral efficiency.”
Lo and behold, Pfizer’s new drug – which some have jokingly dubbed “Pfizermectin,” is described by the pharmaceutical giant as a “potent protease inhibitor.”
As Zero Hedge readers might recognize, that’s exactly what ivermectin, the prophylactic used for a number of reasons in both humans and animals, does. And unlike Pfizer’s experimental drug, ivermectin already may have saved hundreds of thousands of lives from India to Brazil.
We aren’t the only ones to have put this together, as twitter users have commented on the similarities. The timing – which coincides with the whole “horse dewormer” smear campaign – just seems odd.
The similarity between Pfizer’s upcoming offering and Ivermectin has not gone unnoticed.
In other news, Pfizer is testing Ivermectin, now renamed PF-07321332, to help with Covid. They have done this so they can make this drug more expensive than Ivermectin, despite the fact, they are the same drug…..
After a crafted "horse dewormer" smear campaigns on a 35yr old safe, effective, off-label drug, i.e. Ivermectin, media brazenly started to praise unproven pills for which Pfizer & Merck are pushing EUA following that of experimental vaccines. https://t.co/fhopikcPVP
But Pfizer, Moderna and their executives have already shown the world with their actions that they see COVID as “manna from heaven” – to quote legendary defense attorney Johnny Cochran – a new ‘profit center’ that will keep shareholders in butter brickle, especially since the companies have quietly raised prices on their vaccines.
But since a large portion of the American market has rejected the vaccines, Pfizer needs another medication that can be used to treat them as well (otherwise, the company is missing out on nearly one-third of the American market).
According to Reuters, Pfizer said on Monday it has “started a large study testing its investigational oral antiviral drug for the prevention of COVID-19 infection among those who have been exposed to the virus.”
Pfizer isn’t the only drugmaker hoping to develop a prophylactic treatment for COVID exposure (especially since variants raise the possibility that vaccinations just might not be enough). Merck and Swiss rival Roche have been racing to develop an easy-to-administer antiviral pill of their own – so the clock is ticking for Pfizer.
Reuters explains that the mid-to-late-stage study will test the Pfizer drug’s – known as PF-07321332 ability to prevent COVID symptoms in up to 2,660 healthy adult participants aged 18 and older who live in the same household as an individual with a confirmed symptomatic COVID infection.
The drug, designed to block the activity of a key enzyme needed for the coronavirus to multiply inside the human body, will be administered along with a low dose of ritonavir, an older medication widely used in combination treatments for HIV infection.
At present, Gilead’s much-hyped but not-all-that-effective IV drug remdesivir is the only approved antiviral treatment for COVID in the US. Several antibody cocktails have also been widely tested and trials are ongoing – including Merck and partner Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, which recently launched a late-stage trial for experimental COVID prophylactic, molnupiravir.
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).
Foreign Affairs (FA) magazine, published by the Council on Foreign Relations, has recently published some articles on taking advantage of economic challenges faced by North Korea. On 29 July, FA says, “Change is underway on the Korean Peninsula. FA posits that sanctions have worked for the US, as can be gleaned from the article’s title:
“A Grand Bargain With North Korea: Pyongyang’s Economic Distress Offers a Chance for Peace.”
The title is also disingenuous in the extreme since former US secretary-of-state Colin Powellmade it clear:
“We won’t do nonaggression pacts or treaties, things of that nature.”
FA posits a re-prioritization in North Korean governance whereby the military will now play second fiddle to the economy. This, says FA, “sets the stage for efforts to resuscitate North Korea’s dying economy.”
Why is North Korea’s economy in the predicament that it is? FA, presumably attributes the economic difficulties to military overspending. But FA’s analysis downplays the deleterious effects of sanctions spearheaded by the United States against North Korea. It does admit to this further down in the article, and it also points to the adversity imposed by “COVID-19 restrictions … and a relentless series of natural disasters.” However, why would anyone sanction a country beset by natural disasters and disease? And North Korea, despite whatever skepticism, does not list itself as having any COVID-19 cases.
FA notes,
“Kim’s criticisms of U.S.-South Korean joint military exercises and his country’s firing of cruise missiles and short-range ballistic missiles have also been more notable for their level of self-restraint than for escalating tensions on the peninsula.”
However, North Korea has already demonstrated that it has a nuclear weapon and that it has long-range delivery capability. It is obvious that if any actor were to attack North Korea that the aggressor would be punished. Any reading of this exposes a hypocrisy, on the one hand North Korea is considered “notable for their level of self-restraint” and not “escalating tensions on the peninsula.”
On the other hand, the US and South Korea conducted joint military exercises in late August. Is this self-restraint or is it provocation? Was not the seizure, announced by the US Justice Department in July, of a tanker that transports oil to North Korea a provocation?
FA points at food shortages in North Korea. However, it is important to remember that during US intrusion into the Korean civil war, the US wiped out the economic and agricultural basis of North Korea and killed millions of North Koreans. Following its aggression of North Korea, North Koreans have been forced to endure hardship to remain independent of their attacker. Absent this historical background, one might be fooled by FA’s attempt to create an image of American benevolence when it writes: “Kim [Jong-un] is treading carefully on the military front so as not to foreclose the opportunity for dialogue with the United States, which could serve as a guarantor of his country’s future economic security.”
North Korea does not need an economic guarantor, it needs the US to stop sabotaging North Korea’s economic efforts.
FA preposterously dreams:
For U.S. President Joe Biden and South Korean President Moon Jae-in, Pyongyang’s shift represents an opportunity. They should aim to resolve North Korea’s underlying security concerns—particularly its economic security—in return for progress on denuclearization, the reduction of Pyongyang’s dependence on China, and North Korea’s eventual integration into the U.S.-led liberal international order with the close support of South Korea.
FA posits North Korea handing over its defense and integrating into the “U.S.-led liberal international order” with the close support of South Korea while at the same time poking a stick in the eye of China. North Koreans are extremely aware of their history and how the US separated the Korean people, conducted a scorched earth campaign in the northern part of the peninsula, and they are well aware that China came to fight alongside them to defeat the US. It is risible that anyone would posit that North Korea would relinquish its independence, its juche, and ally, to be led by its aggressor.
FA argues,
“Achieving superior joint military and diplomatic power is what will enable the allies to deter Kim’s threats, allowing for a new approach to North Korea that can pave the way to a lasting peace.”
How will the US achieve this? To threaten North Korea with “superior joint military and diplomatic power”? Peace from the barrel of a gun and deadly sanctions? North Korea succeeded in achieving nuclear capability to punish any military attack against it. In the meantime, North Korean chairman Kim Jong-un can achieve economic development by joining the Chinese-initiated BRI and further opening up to Russia.
FA pushes increased militarization of South Korea, by having South Korea ease access to US military forces in the country. FA complains that South Korean domestic political pressure is a barrier to freer military training in the country.
FA portrays the US-South Korean summit in May where the US committed to providing South Korea with COVID-19 vaccines as sending “a powerful signal to South Koreans that the United States is placing a high priority on the relationship.”
It noted, “Like many Asian countries, Seoul is having troubling sourcing vaccines. But unlike its neighbors, South Korea has so far refused to turn to a ready supplier: China.” The article states, “Part of the problem is that the South Korean government is still eagerly and persistently seeking vaccine supplies from the United States.” China’s Global Timesreported, “After the World Health Organization (WHO) officially approved two Chinese-made COVID-19 vaccines, South Korea became the first country to fully exempt travelers vaccinated with shots of Sinopharm and Sinovac from its original mandatory two-week quarantine” on 1 July. It seems a prudent move to maintain good relations with South Korea’s largest trading partner, China.
FA has further scorn for China. It accused China of “bullying” South Korea over its apoplexy regarding the deployment of the US Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system in 2016 — a system which can be used against China.
The US places military armaments a continent away from US shores — a hop, skip, and jump from China — and FA accuses China of bullying? How would the US feel if such a missile-interceptor system were placed in Cuba by China?
FA promoted an end-of-war declaration that “would not be linked in any way to a peace treaty.” Other steps are demanded before consideration of a peace treaty between the parties. One is a non-starter: the verified destruction of nuclear weapons by North Korea. Of course, only by North Korea, the US will keep its nuclear weapons. As a test of the US’s word, imagine the American reaction if North Korea agreed to denuclearize, as long as the US also destroys its nuclear weapons, as is required by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty’s article 6, which the US signed on to.
*
In a September article, “The Last Chance to Stop North Korea?: U.S. Aid Could Help Revive Nuclear Diplomacy,” FA seems to have had its druthers about the late July article that envisioned coercing North Korea through “superior joint military and diplomatic power” and now supports humanitarian aid as the way to denuclearization.
The subtitle should give pause to most informed readers. First, consider what is meant by “nuclear diplomacy” in this context. It means that a country (especially the northern half of a country) that was devastated by an American scorched earth campaign, one that used bioweapons and chemical weapons — and even threatened attack with nuclear weapons, should disarm itself of a deterrent while the aggressor maintains its nuclear arsenal. Furthermore, just what is US aid? The Democratic Republic of Korea does not need US aid; it needs an end to US-led international sanctions against the country.
Despite noting US participation with South Korea for military exercises, FA writes that “the Biden administration should not take comfort in the relative lack of [North Korean] provocations” recently.
This wording seems particularly one-sided. Are the South Korean and US military maneuvers (including training previously of a decapitation unit) not provocative? Is the stationing of US troops in South Korea not provocative? Consider what the reaction would be if North Korea held military exercises off the American coast?
FA attempts to evoke fear of the North Korean menace:
“… these [North Korean] tests aren’t the only troubling signs. … the reprocessing of plutonium and enriched uranium for an arsenal of bombs now estimated to number between 20 and 40. … The direction is clear: North Korea wants to have a modern force that can engage in nuclear warfighting, that can threaten the United States with missiles that can carry multiple warheads and are impervious to ballistic missile defenses, and that can survive and retaliate credibly against a U.S. preemptive attack.” [italics added]
This appears to be just a risible posturing. How is it that North Korea would threaten the United States? Through the mere development of its military capability? Such logic would apply to every country that seeks to upgrade its military. Are all these countries then threatening the US? Moreover, would it be responsible for a government to allow its defensive capability to lag behind that of a belligerent parked next door? A belligerent that eschews a peace treaty. A belligerent that refuses to adhere to a no-first use of nuclear weapons as North Korea does?
The FA article then complains that the improved military capability “would make it more difficult for the United States to preemptively strike a missile before its launch. These are all capabilities that make North Korea’s nuclear deterrent more survivable and impervious to a U.S. first strike.” A contradiction arises; now the writer has positioned the US as a preemptive threat. So, in essence, the writer defies all logic by preposterously postulating that a country enhancing its survivability and deterrence against a preemptive external attack makes it the threat.
But FA has a solution on “how to stop North Korea before it crosses this threshold”: “getting diplomacy back on track through humanitarian assistance that includes American COVID-19 vaccines and food aid, both of which the country needs.”
Providing US aid would serve American hegemonic aims in that it “would reduce Chinese influence in Pyongyang.” Seems to be rather self-serving aid. Sanction a nation, intercept North Korean shipping at sea, then take advantage of any economic deterioration to pose as a generous benefactor by proffering aid.
To its credit, the September FA article does not suggest a militaristic or sanctions-based approach; instead it suggests a humanitarian approach, but a purportedly humanitarian approach that secures American geo-strategic aims.
*
Does one dare trust the word of the United States? Look no further than what happened to Muammar Gaddafi and Libya when it abandoned its nuclear weapon program, what happened when Saddam Hussein’s Iraq allowed inspections for weapons or mass destruction, or when Syria’s Bashar al-Assad surrendered Syria’s chemical weapons.
As A.B. Abrams expressed with crystal clarity in his excellent book, Immovable Object: North Korea’s 70 Years at War with American Power, that North Koreans are well aware of how American imperialism works, of its military depravity, and its proclivity for disinformation. North Korans have demonstrated resistance, resilience, and self-reliance. It has served them well since the armistice was signed on 27 July 1953. North Korea is an economically sanctioned country, yes, but it is not an economically stunted country. North Korea has achieved so much. It provides tuition-free education right through university, universal health care, preschools, and housing and jobs for all its citizens. It is a country that despite the destruction it suffered from US-led UN warring has achieved military deterrence and social development that Americans can only dream of. It is an independent country neither rich, but neither poor.
*
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.
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).
672 European financial institutions have financial relationships with 50 businesses that are actively involved with illegal Israeli settlements. These financial institutions provided US$ 114 billion in the form of loans and underwritings and held investments to the amount of US$ 141 billion in shares and bonds of these companies. This is the key finding of a new research report published today by a cross-regional coalition of Palestinian and European NGOs, which looked at financial flows between January 2018 and May 2021..The “Don’t Buy into Occupation” (DBIO) coalition is a joint project between 25 Palestinian, regional and European organisations based in Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom (UK), including FIDH and its member leagues Al-Haq and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights. The coalition investigates the financial relationships between businesses involved in the illegal Israeli settlement enterprise in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) and European Financial Institutions (FIs). [1]Providing economic oxygenIsraeli settlements are illegal under international law and constitute acts which incur individual criminal liability as war crimes and crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Yet European financial institutions continue to invest billions into companies that are actively involved with the Israeli settlement enterprise.
Research by the DBIO coalition shows that between 2018 and May 2021, 672 European financial institutions, including banks, asset managers, insurance companies, and pension funds, had financial relationships with 50 businesses that are actively involved with Israeli settlements. [2] US$ 114 billion was provided in the form of loans and underwritings. As of May 2021, European investors also held US$ 141 billion in shares and bonds of these companies.
These businesses and financial institutions play a critical role in facilitating the economic viability growth of the Israeli settlement enterprise.
“The involvement of these corporations with the settlements – through investments, banking loans, resource extraction, infrastructure contracts and equipment and product supply agreements – provides them with the indispensable economic oxygen they require to grow and thrive.” – Michael Lynk, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967 (Via Twitter)
Corporate responsibility
These businesses, creditors and investors have a responsibility to ensure that they are not involved in violations of international law and are not complicit in international crimes, and to address any adverse human rights impacts arising from their business activities and financial relationships.
Companies are expected to have a rapid response and to consider responsible disengagement. International financial institutions, including banks and pension funds, have a responsibility to use their leverage to ensure their investee companies act responsibly and in line with international law standards, and to divest from those who are unable or unwilling to do so.
Recently, several financial institutions and companies have taken up their responsibility by divesting from business enterprises linked to Israeli settlements. The two most recent and important examples are those of Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP) and the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG). KLP is Norway’s largest pensions company, who in July 2021, divested from 16 companies linked to Israel’s settlement enterprise. In a similar vein, GPFG announced in September 2021 that it will exclude three companies that are actively involved with Israeli settlements. The 19 companies excluded by KLP and GPFG were listed in the UN database of businesses involved in certain activities relating to Israeli settlements in the OPT, mandated by the Human Rights Council in 2016, and published in February 2020.
*
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).
We bring to the attention of our readers, this outstanding analysis by Yohan Tengra of the Awake India Movement.
Thanks to Brian Shillhavy of Health Impact News for having brought this article to our attention
*
Introduction
Who is India’s Anthony Fauci? The mainstream media does not even know the names of the members who sit in India’s National task force, but in this article I, Yohan Tengra, have exposed not just the names of those who are sitting in this task force, but also how they are financially connected to the pharmaceutical industry and vaccine mafia.
This task force has been responsible for the aggressive push to lockdown, mandatory mask requirements, forced testing of asymptomatics, dropping ivermectin and hcq from the national protocol, suppressing vaccine adverse events, and a lot more!
Along with the task force, I have also exposed how India’s prominent public health personalities, who regularly appear in the media and TV, like Srinath Reddy, NK Arora, VK Paul, Gagandeep Kang, Vijayraghavan, Balram Bhargava, Randeep Guleria, are connected to the Gates Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Wellcome Trust, USAID, the World Bank, and other aspects of the global deep state.
Other topics covered in this piece:
– How task force members get the science on Covid-19 totally wrong, which proves that their conflicts influence their recommendations
– India’s illegal HPV vaccine trials, ICMRs role in it, and how a similar incident repeated with the Covaxin Phase 3 trials
– How Gates foundations baby PHFI gets funding from the vaccine mafia, and holds deep influence in controlling India’s health policies
– How this research is the basis on which a legal notice has been sent to the Health Minister, calling for prosecution and removal of all the people who are exposed to have conflicts of interest
– When the accused have been confronted about conflicts of interest in the past, how have they responded?
– How the accused have lied on record about not having conflicts of interest
This piece is the culmination of my research into India’s medical deep state that I’ve been conducting since the last 2 years. Journalists reading this, who regularly bring these cast of characters on to discuss the medical aspects of the covid-19 pandemic must confront them with hard questions and facts which are explored in this article.
Disclaimer
If you are new to the arena of researching global conspiracies, and don’t understand what the New World Order/Great Reset/ Agenda 2030 Sustainable development really is, and/or don’t understand the players/forces behind it and how they work, I’d recommend you first view/read the material I’ve posted below, before proceeding with the article, so that you can get full value out of it.
1) Documentary series & articles exposing Bill Gates and his role in hijacking the public health system, among other areas:
2) Documentary series which explores the forces behind the New World Order (like the Rockefellers which you will see referenced below a lot), their eugenics origins and agenda of wanting to reduce the number of “inferior” people in the world, Agenda 2030 Sustainable development, the Climate Change Scam, and other related subjects: https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
3) Exposing the role of organizations like USAID in advancing the globalist agenda –
9) How the Rockefeller Foundation, USAID, Ford Foundation, and others were behind pushing covert eugenics operations in India, in the name of family planning and population control – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlPAL7sHU8w
PHFI, a public private partnership started by Ex Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Rajat Gupta, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation & Srinath Reddy, has received millions of dollars of funding from pharmaceutical companies, vaccine manufacturers, & dubious philanthropic organizations, which use philanthropy as a front to push hidden agendas which profit vested interests. It was started with initial funding of 65cr given by the Gates Foundation, and 65cr given by the Indian Government, along with a later grant of 35 crores.
This so called PPP has received funding over the years from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Rockefeller Foundation, World Bank, PATH, Diamond Jubilee Trust of the Queen of England, USAID, Wellcome Trust, Abbott, Mckinsey, Eli Lily, Glaxosmithkline, Bayer, NIH, & Google!
Despite receiving nearly 100 crores from taxpayer money, & having top government bureaucrats sitting on the PHFI governing board, PHFI did not submit itself to the RTI Act, 2005 for the first 6 years of its existence. When it was taken up to the Central Information Commission by a person named Kishan Lal in 2012, the CIC Chief Shailesh Gandhi ruled that it was a public authority under the RTI Act, and hence it must submit itself to the RTI act.
When Journalist Kapil Bajaj filed an RTI to know the composition of the PHFI board when it was created (2006), the President of PHFI, Srinath Reddy, actually sent him an evidently forged document, which is a punishable offense under the RTI Act. The document is dated 2006, but the designations of some of the members on the board are clearly written many years after 2006. You can find a copy of this document here.
In the year 2013-2014, PHFI lost 82 crores to a bank FD scam, which included the taxpayer money it received from the Government of India, and the organization also found itself ensnared in another controversy when a complaint was made against it to the CBI for lobbying and conflict of interest in getting one of its courses accredited from Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute. Despite having lost so much of our taxpayer money, it has still not submitted itself to a CAG audit, and did not take action against those under whos watch the funds were embezzled.
A summary of this can be found in an article written by journalist Kapil Bajaj here.
PHFI has claimed since inception that top Government bureaucrats have sat on its board, including Secretaries of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Director Generals of ICMR, and Director General of Health Services, MOHFW. However, whenever RTI’s have been sent by activists to these Government Departments, they always mention that no permission or order has been issued to allow these government servants to sit on the PHFI board.
It is not clear as to whether Government bureaucrats sitting in the PHFI board are getting paid by PHFI (RTI’s have been filed to uncover this), but the President, Srinath Reddy, who used to work in AIIMS before he became PHFI president, is reportedly drawing in a salary of 1 crore per annum from the PHFI! If it is revealed in the future that Government bureaucrats on the PHFI board are getting salaries from the funders of PHFI (i.e. pharmaceutical companies, vaccine manufacturers, & fraud philanthropists like Gates, Rockefellers,etc) then that would amount to a serious conflict of interest of such government representatives.
PHFI was mainly created with the motive to start public health universities in India, create a public health cadre in India, and suggest health related policies to the Government. PHFI has created many Indian Institutes of Public Health (IIPH’s) all over the country. Land from many states has been allotted to PHFI and grants from various state governments have also been given, but after PHFI lost so much money to the FD scam, it has not been able to build many of the universities that it was originally supposed to, and a lot of its universities are currently running on rented premises.
Many government members as well as heads of billionaire business houses, fake philanthropic bodies & pharmaceutical companies have sat on the PHFI Governing Body in the past, and some continue to sit on the Governing body of PHFI. Those who are sitting in the PHFI board as of March 2020 have been highlighted below in bold letters. Members who are sitting on the PHFI Governing Body as well as Executive committee for the year ending March 2021 have still not been published on the website, despite many months having passed. List of members is referenced below:
– K Srinath Reddy (President of PHFI since 2006)
– S Ramadorai (Former Vice Chairman ,TCS )
– Mr Lav Agarwal, Joint Secretary of MOHFW
– JVR Prasada Rao (UN Secretary General Special Envoy for AIDS)
– Balram Bhargava (DG – ICMR)
– Prof Dr. Sunil Kumar (DGHS, MOHFW)
– David Fleming (Ex Director of Global Health Strategies at the Gates Foundation)
– Rajat Gupta (Former Partner, Mckinsey & Co., sat on the boards of Gates Foundation & Rockefeller Foundation in the past)
– Dr Sanjay Tyagi (Ex Director General of Health Services, MOHFW)
– Dr. Soumya Swaminathan (Ex Director General, ICMR)
– Prof K Vijayraghavan (Ex Secretary, Department of Biotechnology)
– Prasanna Hota (Ex Secretary MOHFW)
– Nirmal Ganguly (Ex DG, ICMR)
– Ranjit Pandit (Ex Senior Director, Mckinsey)
– K Sujatha Rao (Former Secretary, MOHFW)
– RK Srivastava (Ex DGHS, MOHFW)
– Y Venugopal Reddy (Former Governor of RBI)
– Vishwa Katoch (Ex Director General ICMR)
– TKA Nair (Former Advisor to PMO)
– RA Mashelkar (Chairman Reliance Innovation Council, CSIR Chief)
– Rati Godrej (Industrialist)
– Mr KRS Jamwal (Executive Director of TATA Industries)
– Harpal Singh (Fortis)
– Uday Khemka (SUN Group)
– Amartya Sen (Married into the Rothschild Family)
– Dr. Montek Singh Ahluwallia (Former Deputy Chair of Planning Commission)
– Timothy Evans (Ex Director for Health, Nutrition, & Population, World Bank)
– Shiv Nadar (HCL)
– Mr Bhanu Pratap Sharma (Ex Secretary, MOHFW)
– Dr Jagdish Prasad (Ex DGHS, MOHFW)
– Ashok Alexander (Former Director BMGF)
– Narayan Murthy (Infosys, member of Gates’ Giving Pledge)
– Rohini Nilekani (Member of Gates’ Giving Pledge, partner with Gates & Rockefeller Foundation in many projects)
– A K Shivakumar (UNICEF)
– Gary Darmstatd (Ex Director of Gates Foundation)
– Anand Mahindra (Mahindra Group)
– Mukesh Ambani (Reliance)
– Prashant Vasu (Mckinsey)
– David Lynn (Director, Wellcome Trust)
– Mr Gautam Kumra (Director at Mckinsey)
– PK Pradhan (Ex secretary MOHFW)
Members from PHFI which have been influencing all Covid-19 & Covid-19 vaccine related policies in India
Prof. K Srinath Reddy President, President of PHFI
PM Narendra Modi & PHFI President Srinath Reddy Greeting Each Other
He continues to provide technical expertise during Covid-19. Prof. Reddy is a member of the following national and international committees:
1) National COVID Technical Taskforce convened by ICMR. See this.
2) Founding Board Member of IHME (Institute of Health Metrics & Evaluation), alongside Tedros Ghebreyesus(IHME – an organization to which the Gates Foundation gave a massive founding grant, and huge subsequent funding) See this
3) Professional Organization Representative in NTAGI. See this
4) Honorary Advisor on Health to the Governments of Odisha and Andhra Pradesh with Cabinet Rank in both states.
5) Member of Leadership Council of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, see this
6) Chair/Member of Several WHO Panels 7) Physician to 2 prime ministers of India
– Chaired High Level Expert Group on Universal Health Coverage, setup by Planning Commission & funded by Rockefeller foundation, see this
8) Queen Elizabeth Medal Recipient
9) Part of Post-COVID strategy paper for the health system, by the National Security Council Secretariat.
10)Part of the Executive Group of the Steering Committee of WHOs SOLIDARITY Trial, see this
11) Member, Group of Experts for COVID-19 Response under the CM of Punjab
12) Technical Expert, Government of Haryana, see this
13) Speaker at events hosted by Nudge & the Rockefeller Foundation, see this
14) Member of Lancet Covid-19 Commission’s India Regional Task Force, who’s founding donor is the Rockefeller Foundation, see this
15) His father was a politician from the Congress Party
Subhash Salunke, Director of IIPH Bhubhaneshwar (Indian Institute of Public Health started by PHFI) and Senior Advisor, PHFI
1) Technical COVID Support to Government of Odisha
2) Technical support to Government of Maharashtra
3) The technical team at the Indian Institute of Public Health, Bhubaneswar is assisting efforts of the Government of Odisha
Prof Sanjay Zodpey, Director of IIPH Delhi
1) Prof. Sanjay Zodpey, is a part of the National Task Force for COVID-19 at ICMR of the Epidemiology and Surveillance research group. 2) He is the Technical Advisor for COVID-19 related activities for Nagpur Division. He is suggesting appropriate measures to be taken to contain the pandemic in the Division.
3) He is a member of the working group which is working on execution of specific tasks related to population based studies and prophylaxis studies to generate evidences of AYUSH interventions in dealing with the COVID 19 crisis, which will be initiated by Ministry of AYUSH and will be implemented by RCs, academic institutes and other partners in different parts of the country.
Prof GVS Murthy, Director of IIPH Hyderabad
1) Technical Support to the Government of Telangana
Dr Jayaram, Registrar at IIPH Hyderabad
1) Technical Support to the Government of Telangana. The technical team at the Indian Institute of Public Health, Hyderabad is assisting efforts of the Government of Odisha. The students are activitely engaged and have been recruited as epidemiologists at the district level.
Dr. Dileep Malavankar, Director of IIPH Gujarat
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, then chief minister of Gujarat, at the bhoomi pooja of PHFI’s Indian Institute of Public Health-Gandhinagar campus in 2007.
1) The technical team at IIPHG led by Dr Dileep Mavalankar is supporting efforts of the Government of Gujarat.
Dr Sandra Albert, Director of IIPH Shillong
1) Member of the Working group on Epidemiology Survey and Documentation constituted by the Interdisciplinary AYUSH Research and Development Task Force on Covid-19. Notification No. A.17020/1/2020-E.1 of Ministry of AYUSH
2) Prof Sandra Albert is a member of the State Level Medical Expert Committee constituted by the Government of Meghalaya
3) Technical team members at IIPH Shillong Dr Rajiv Sarkar, Badondor Shylla and Uniqueky Mawrie are members of the technical support group of the State response team for COVID-19, Government of Meghalaya.
Dr Giridhara Babu, Head – Life Course Epidemiology, PHFI, IIPH – Bangalore Campus
1) Member, Lancet Covid -19 Commission India Task Force
2) Member Karnataka State Government State Vision Group
3) Co-Chair, BBMP Task force on COVID-19 Public Health Response, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru.
4) National level: Member of Epidemiology, Surveillance, & Research group constituted by ICMR National Task Force for COVID-I9
5) Member, Karnataka State Government Technial Analysis Committe: COVID19
6) Member, Karnataka State Government Expert Committee for COVID19
7) Member, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Expert Committee for COVID19
8) Consultation to state Governments of Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab & Telengana
9) Member of Lancet Covid-19 Commission’s India Regional Task Force, who’s founding donor is the Rockefeller Foundation, see this
My video with Kapil Bajaj exposing PHFI in great detail: English Hindi
Illegal HPV Vaccine Trials – History Repeats?
Many years ago, a parliamentary standing committee in India produced a scathing report regarding illegal trials which were conducted by the NGO PATH, that were funded by the Gates Foundation. There were serious lapses in the trial which amounted to a gross violation of the human rights of the subjects involved.
Back then, it accused the ICMR of gross misconduct and conflict of interest. Here is an excerpt from the report :
“It was unwise on the part of ICMR to go in the PPP mode with PATH, as such an involvement gives rise to grave Conflict of Interest. The Committee takes a serious view of the role of ICMR in the entire episode and is constrained to observe that ICMR should have been more responsible in the matter. The Committee strongly recommends that the Ministry may review the activities of ICMR functionaries involved in PATH project.
The Committee from its examination has found that DHR/ICMR have completely failed to perform their mandated role and responsibility as the apex body for medical research in the Country. Rather, in their over-enthusiasm to act as a willing facilitator to the machinations of PATH they have even transgressed into the domain of other bodies/ agencies which deserves the strongest condemnation and strictest action against them”
The Supreme Court of India also ruled in 2018 that this parliamentary committee report could be used as evidence in court. See this
Years later, today PATH and the Gates Foundation are still freely operating in the country, and going around funding various public and private projects. No action was taken against the ICMR employees who got into a PPP with PATH, as recommended by the standing committee.
What the standing committee failed to notice at the time is that the ICMR and other Government departments, got into a so called PPP with the pharmaceutical companies, industrialists & fraudulent philanthropic organizations that use philanthrophy as a front to push their hidden agendas. This arrangement is known as PHFI.
Back then, the conflict of interest of ICMR was only limited to the trials that were being conducted. Today, the conflict of interest of the ICMR is enormous, as ICMR Director Balaram Bhargava, and past Directors such as Soumya Swaminathan and Vishwa Mohan Katoch sat on the board of PHFI along with leaders from pharmaceutical companies, the Gates Foundation, industrialists, etc. On behalf of these vested interests, the ICMR is controlling the entire response to the Covid-19 pandemic today, as it setup the task force which directly recommends the Central Government about what measures to take in response to the pandemic.
This issue has come up in the past as well, and was reported in the Indian mainstream media. You can read up on that here.
The ICMR also got into a deal with Bharat Biotech, and gets 5% royalty on the sale of the vaccine. The ICMR has inked other deals along with the Gates Foundation as well. These conflicts of interest need to be cut-off, as they are not just influencing the outcome of a clinical trial, but the fine detail of all 135 crore peoples lives today! ICMR guidelines are followed like a religious book all over our country today.
Years later, it seems like history repeats! This time with the phase 3 trial of Covaxin in Bhopal.
Multiple news reports have also highlighted the irregularities in the clinical trial phase of the Covaxin in India, particularly in Bhopal. In an article titled “India’s COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Participants Claim They Were Misled” published on an online portal IndiaSpend
on 12.02.2021, it is reported that individuals were lured to participate in the trial after paying Rs. 750. Death of one person who took the vaccine was also reported. The persons who took the vaccine said that they were not informed that they were part of the clinical trial. The report states asunder:
“A truck came to this locality in December and announced on a loudspeaker that anyone who wanted the COVID-19 vaccine and wanted Rs 750 for taking the vaccine, could go to the nearby People’s University Hospital and take it. I needed the money,” said Parihar. Nearly a dozen people interviewed by IndiaSpend in Gareeb Nagar and Oriya Basti in north Bhopal recounted this same sequence of events.”
“After reports of irregularities in the trials, this reporter visited Bhopal to investigate the allegations made by people living in low-income areas of the city. Many said they did not know they were part of a clinical trial and instead believed they had been given the actual COVID-19 vaccine. For most, the money was the reason they had agreed to take the jab. Many of them said they were illiterate and could not read the forms they had signed.Residents also alleged that they had not been informed about the potential side-effects, or that they could be compensated for serious fallouts such as death or disability. Although Bharat Biotech has issued a press statement claiming that all reported adverse events have been duly recorded, many in the trial did not have mobile phones on which their health conditions could be inquired about. They said they had not been contacted by any other means, either.”
It seems like ICMR has a habit of working with parties that love to break the rules of clinical trials in India and hence violate the rights of the participants who are involved. The parliamentary committee called for strict action against ICMR more than a decade ago, and since no action was taken then, this incident has repeated today. When will justice be served?
Famous Names in India’s Public Health Space
There are other people who are not directly working for PHFI, and don’t sit in the main ICMR Covid-19 task force either, but are influencing Government policies & media messaging on Covid 19 in a big way, and are connected to Bill Gates, Rockefeller Foundation, vaccine & pharmaceutical companies, etc. These include :
1) Dr. Narendra Kumar Arora
– Teaching Faculty at PHFI since 2014
– Member of National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization
– Chairperson, Operational Research Group of National Covid-19 Task Force
– Chairperson of Scientific Advisory Committee of qHPV program between India’s Dept of Biotechnology & Gates Foundation
– WHO Strategic Group Member
– Part of SAGE Group
– Adviser to Bill Gates’ Projects on Immunization
– Member, GACVS
– Adviser to National AEFI Committee in 2017
– Chairperson of National AEFI Committee from 2008-2017
– Member of Scientific Advisory Board, ICMR (2007)
– Rockefeller INCLEN fellowship, 1993
– Contributor to WHO’s Covid19 Vaccine Safety Surveillance Manual
– His research is directly sponsored by the Gates Foundation, see this
– Contributor to India State level Disease Burden Initiative, funded by Gates Foundation, see this
– Involved in the drafting of the revised AEFI causality assessment guidelines, which make it impossible to attribute deaths and new serious adverse events to vaccines. See this
2) Dr. Cherry Gagandeep Kang – Professor at CMC Vellore (Which receives a lot of grants from the Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, etc) See this, this and this
– Head of Wellcome Trust Research Lab at CMC, see this
– Member of Global Health Scientific Advisory Committee in the Gates Foundation, see this
– Vice chair of the board of CEPI (body created & funded by Bill Gates, World Economic Forum, Wellcome Trust, etc), see this
– First Indian to be elected as fellow of the Royal Society, see this
– Chair, WHO SEAR Regional Immunization Technical Advisory, see this
– Most if not all of her research directly funded by the Gates Foundation, Check funding section here
– Conducted a panel discussion with Dr. Santosh Matthew, Country lead for Public Policy and Finance at the Gates Foundation India, see this
– Involved in the drafting of the revised AEFI causality assessment guidelines, which make it impossible to attribute deaths and new serious adverse events to vaccines. see this
3) K Vijayraghavan
– Principal Scientific Advisor to Government of India :
Gates said Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is also a “partner with the government, particularly with the department of biotechnology, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the office of the principal scientific advisor provide advice and help about getting these tools going”. See this
– Member of Covid-19 Task Force Vaccine setup to encourage R&D for vaccine manufacturers. see this
– Chairperson of CEPI’s interim board (Organization Created & Funded by Bill Gates, Wellcome Trust, World economic forum, etc) see this
ITSU was Setup by PHFI in 2012 by a 6.9 million $ grant from Gates Foundation.The Gates Foundation had funded an activity called ‘evidence to policy’ at the Immunisation Technical Support Unit (ITSU), which in turn acted as secretariat of another key body called the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (NTAGI). This was a crucial panel that examines scientific evidence on the effectiveness of new vaccines and recommends their inclusion in the national vaccination programmes.
The Senior Management Team of the ITSU’s key areas of focus consist of the AEFI Secretariat, Implementation of India’s Immunization Program, & the Communications Strategy of the Covid-19 Vaccine Communication Program. Other Partners in deciding the communication strategy of the Covid-19 vaccine program include UNICEF & the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
The funding of the BMGF to the ITSU Secretariat was withdrawn after controversy over influence of vaccine manufacturers in India’s Universal Immunization Programme, but funding to other parts of the ITSU by the BMGF still continues, according to WHO Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan.
PHFI’s FCRA license was also removed by the Ministry of Home Affairs for sometime due to various reasons, including misappropriation of funds, not disclosing FDs, remitting funds abroad, etc.
After this, then PHFI Chairman Narayan Murthy wrote a letter to the PM, Narendra Modi, asking him to restore PHFI’s license as the withdrawal was putting many of the public health programs which PHFI started at risk. Interesting thing to note is that in the article where Murthy’s letter is referenced, the author also reports that the license was cancelled based on input from Intelligence Bureau.
“The Union health ministry is also said to have taken up the matter with Gauba. His predecessor, Rajiv Mehrishi, who was part of the decision to crack down on PHFI, had refused a review after both the Intelligence Bureau and the foreigners division of the home ministry said they had made a watertight case against PHFI. Intelligence Bureau officers said they would not buckle under pressure, for the charges hold ground.“
In his letter, Murthy reminds Narendra Modi of his early support to PHFI : “With the generous support extended by you as the chief minister of Gujarat in 2007, PHFI established the Indian Institute of Public Health-Gandhinagar, aided by the land and financial assistance provided by the Gujarat government. With your blessings, we have now set up a permanent campus at Gandhinagar next to IIT-Gandhinagar. This beautiful campus on the banks of Sabarmati was inaugurated by Gujarat Chief Minister Vijaybhai Rupani in 2016 at the site chosen by you for the bhoomi pooja.”
Srinath Reddy, the President of PHFI had also written to Modi on June 30 2017, calling himself a “foot solider” who was appealing to “his commander in chief to save him from the friendly fire which is misdirected”. “We request you to protect PHFI as it is gravely endangered, and guide it in its future journey with your clear directions,” he wrote. “We were hoping the matter will be resolved soon, especially since the Union health minister and health secretary conveyed their trust and support for the relevance and values of PHFI’s work in public health.”
Also during this period, a journalist interviewed Gates Foundation India’s Director Nachiket Mor. When he was asked to clarify allegations surrounding Gates Foundations role in influencing India’s Immunization Programme, he said :
“The question to ask whoever is making these allegations is, why is there so much insecurity about your own competence? Ultimately, Indians are taking decisions in India’s best interests. If anybody alleges that they are acting under the influence of foreigners, I’d ask them to take a good look in the mirror. Consider some of the people driving these decisions in India. Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, Dr. MK Bhan, Dr. Vijayaraghavan — these are fantastic people. By making such an allegation, you are saying you don’t think these people are competent.”
So basically he wants us to think that the scientists who are being funded by or have great relations with the Gates foundation, are fantastic people! And if we doubt them, then we are doubting our own competence – that will be a cruel joke to you if you make it to the end of this article. After the above taking place, the license was restored later with the rider that PHFI would have to take prior approval from the ministry before receiving funds, among other checks.
Members of Senior Management Team of ITSU include :
1) Pritu Dhalaria , Director of ITSU. Ex Director of PATH’s Immunization Portfolio, Ex-Member of NTAGI, worked at PATH, WHO & Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in the past.
2) Apurva Rastogi, Project Manager at ITSU, Ex Researcher at PHFI
3) Kishore Kumar Bajaj, Senior Operations Manager at ITSU. Has worked at PHFI & PATH in the past.
4) Dr. GK Soni , Team Lead of program implementation at ITSU. Has worked at PHFI in the past
According to PHFI’s own website :
Improving Immunisation Coverage rate among children
Through Immunisation Technical Support Unit (ITSU), PHFI is helping MoHFW in the expansion of immunisation coverage, improvement of quality, and introduction of new vaccines. PHFI has extended support to ‘Mission Indradhanush’ for targeted increase from 65% to 90% rate of coverage of full immunization among children.
Everything to do with the adverse events of the Covid-19 vaccines is handled by the ITSU, right from the drafting of the guidelines which decide which death will be considered to be caused by a vaccine and which will not, to coordinating between various AEFI committees, collecting and organizing data for the groups, etc. Talk about conflict of interest? https://itsu.org.in/aefi/
After the PHFI & Gates Foundation controversy resulted in Gates foundations direct funding of ITSU’s secretariat being withdrawn, the scientists who have been referenced in this report that have grave conflicts of interest were quick to give statements in the media covering up for the vaccine industry.
Excerpt from the article :
“Conflict of interest generally refers to when someone participating in a decision-making process seeks to have a decision made that enhances their best interests in some way, usually a financial benefit,” says K. Vijayraghavan, scientist and secretary, Department of Biotechnology, health ministry.
“At the NTAGI subcommittee, we ask all members to declare their conflicts of interest and this is done. The policy we follow is similar to that of WHO.”
The Big Money, Big Pharma, Big Corruption plot just doesn’t work, adds Dr Soumya Swaminathan, secretary, Department of Health Research, health ministry.
To begin with, the NTAGI is not a ‘body’, but a committee of some of the best scientists, public health experts and civil servants in the country, who take decisions in their independent capacity.
The BMGF may have “big money”, but it is not represented in the NTAGI. And as the largest vaccine manufacturers in the world, India itself is ‘big pharma’. “If our strategy can be influenced, what does it say about our expertise, intelligence or integrity?” asks Dr Soumya.
And, Gates, as an international donor, is key in fulfilling that requirement. “Conspiracy theories, without any evidence, can greatly harm the immunisation programme,” adds Dr K. Srinath Reddy, president of the Public Health Foundation of India in Delhi.
Journalist Kapil Bajaj had sent a list of questions to Ex PHFI Chairman, Narayan Murthy, one of them was regarding how PHFI intends to resolve the conflicts of interest which exist within its governing body. This was Narayan Murthy’s response :
” I do not see any conflict of interest. This institution is about training, research and policy to improve public health delivery in India. The institution has highly-respected and accomplished people to guide it to achieve its objectives. The individuals on the board have demonstrated leadership in excellence. Some have expertise in public health delivery, some have managed non-profits, some have been excellent academicians, some have been top quality government bureaucrats, and, in addition, some have contributed to the endowment for the institution. These people spend their precious time to make this institution a world-class institution. The students who pass out from this institution can join any institution they like and there is no way they will be influenced to join any company founded or financed by any of the board members. For example, just because I am the chairman of IIITB, no student from there was ever influenced by me to join Infosys. Similarly, all over the world, high quality educational institutions invite well-known people to be on their board to leverage their expertise. On the issue of policy research, this institute only recommends policies and it is for the governments to accept or reject it. Further, I have been involved in lots of policy making bodies in my field in India and never once have I put the interest of my company ahead of the country. “
– Part of Union Govts Core Team for Covid 19 Pandemic Response.
– Chairs Empowered Group on Medical Infrastructure & Covid Management Plan
– Chairs National Expert Group on Vaccine Administration for Covid-19
– Reports to PM Modi directly
– Worked as Member of High Level Expert Group on Universal Health Coverage, setup by Planning Commission & funded by Rockefeller Foundation, under the chairmanship of PHFI President Srinath Reddy. This would lay the groundwork for what eventually became the Ayushman Bharat Scheme. (http://uhc-india.org/reports/executive_summary.pdf)
– Board Member of the Partnership for Maternal, New born & childhood health, who’s funders and other board members include the Gates Foundation, USAID, World Bank, WHO,Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson&Johnson, GAVI https://pmnch.who.int/about-pmnch
– Expressed full support for behavior change campaign started by Gates Foundation focused on mask wearing by all & social distancing. The mask-wearing campaign is designed by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in partnership with McCann Worldgroup. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=1634328
– Balram Bhargava started the School of International Biodesign, with the help of Stanford Uni and IIT. According to him : ““We have had funding from various agencies, including national governments and international agencies, the Gates Foundation, the Grand Challenges Canada and the Pfizer Foundation, not to mention private investment from angel investors and others” https://news.rcpsg.ac.uk/engagement/professor-balram-bhargava-awarded-the-presidents-medal/
– Sits on the Board of the International vaccine institute https://www.ivi.int/who-we-are/leadership/board-of-trustees/ which accelerates vaccine research and development worldwide, and is funded by the Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, CEPI, etc.”
– Part of panel discussion hosted by infamous NGO PATH & Rockefeller Foundation on Sarscov2 surveillance in India https://finddx.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Lkc4oC30TbCBWsqBcPtSVw
6) Dr. Randeep Guleria
L-R : Balram Bhargava, Randeep Guleria, Srinath Reddy, VP PHFI, & VK Paul
– Used to be Co-chair of the India AIDS Initiative that was started by the Gates Foundation, along with fellow co-chair Rajat Gupta, and Director of Gates Foundation India, Ashok Alexander. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/2003/10/india-aids-initiative India AIDS Initiative (aka Avahan) was funded to the tune of 200 million dollars over the years!
– Secretary of Health and Family welfare from 2002-2004
– Member of Transitional Working Group, which decided the Operational Mechanism for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS TB & Malaria, who’s chairman used to be fraud Rajat Gupta, & the body itself was started by a donor grant from Bill Gates.
– Gave the Welcome Note at Kerala Health – Making SDG a reality conference, who’s partners inclued World Bank and the WHO. https://keralahealthconference.in/
– Part of the NGO PATH’s webinar on Covid 19 testing in India (the same NGO that conducted illegal vaccine trials in India in the past and still no action has been taken against it https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_NMMJnj6CTcKGfAEro0HfkQ
– Dr. Murhekar also worked with the World Health Organization (WHO) Western Pacific Regional Office as a consultant and professional staff member in Papua New Guinea and the Philippines.
– Part of the NGO PATH’s webinar on Covid 19 testing in India (the same NGO that conducted illegal vaccine trials in India in the past and still no action has been taken against it) https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_NMMJnj6CTcKGfAEro0HfkQ
21) Dr Subhash Salunke
– Senior Adviser to the President of PHFI
– His 30 years’ experience in the Public Health Department spans from Position of Deputy Director to Director General in the Health Services of Maharashtra State
– His stint with the WHO SEARO spanned from being Regional Advisor in 2005 to Assistant Regional Director in 2009, including three years as WHO-Representative to Indonesia
– He was actively involved in formulating projects like “Health System Development” for Maharashtra State that was supported by the World Bank.
– He has shown leadership in designing the HIV/AIDS Control special programme (AVERT) with the assistance of USAID for Maharashtra State
– He was the recipient of an NIH Fogarty fellowship for his PhD in epidemiology under the AIDS International Training and Research Program at the University of California Los Angeles from 2004-2011. https://www.tephinet.org/tarun-bhatnagar
– Contributes as a member of the national team developing Standard Treatment Workflows for the National Healthcare Program AB-PMJAY (background to which is referenced earlier)
Many of the members listed above, lied about not having any conflict of interest in the NTAGI committee meeting
NTAGI (National Technical advisory Group on Immunization) is the expert group in India which approves vaccines that eventually make their way into India’s vaccine schedule. This group is also convening on the Covid-19 vaccines and going through data on their efficacy as well as adverse events.
That in a letter dated 20.01.2021 the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare of Government of India Immunization Division regarding Minutes of the meeting National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) held on 10th December, 2020 had mentioned about declaration by members regarding their conflict of interest.
It reads thus; “All participating NTAGI members and invited attendees had duly filled and signed the confidentially agreement, and declared conflict of interest (if any), and shared these with the NTAGI Secretariat. No conflict of interest was noted.”
The falsity of above declaration is clear from the very fact that the following members are having conflict of interest:
1. Dr. Sunil Kumar Director General of Health Service
2. Dr. Gagandeep Kang Professor, CMC Vellore
3. Dr. K. Srinath Reddy President, Public Health Foundation of India 4. Dr. Samiran Panda Scientist ‘G’ ICMR, New Delhi
5. Dr. Nivedita Gupta Scientist ‘F’ ICMR, New Delhi
6. Dr. N. K. Arora Chair COVID – 19 Working Group, Executive Director, INCLEN International
7. Dr. Balram Bhargava Secretary, Department on Health Research & DG-ICMR
Given all of this, how can the ICMR be involved in the task force, or setting up of the task force? It has a past of colluding with PATH and present of inking many deals with the Gates foundation. Many of ICMRs researchers and scientists are getting funding from the pharmaceutical companies and international “philanthropic” bodies.
ICMR is also involved in funding the trials of both Covaxin as well as Covishield. The ICMR, previously in reply to an RTI query from a news magazine, said the estimated cost incurred by ICMR towards development of Covaxin was `35 crore. However, sources said the figure put out by ICMR was a conservative estimate and the actual cost – when calculated properly in terms of NIV’s human resources, intellectual investment, time and establishment costs – would be much more. It gets 5% percent royaltiesfrom the sale of Bharat Biotech vaccines.
Journalists have been trying to uncover what has been going on inside the task force. Some have tried to pin blame or put responsibility on its members for the decisions taken by the Modi Government, or the lackthereof, but because they could not manage to find the list of the task force members, they could not pin individual responsibility on anyone. However now you, the reader, can go through these articles, and then put them into context with everything that we’ve discussed above. Important excerpts from these articles are highlighted below: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/coronavirus-transmission-covid-19-task-force-national-lockdown-7298468/
“Some members of the Covid-19 task force, a technical expert body that advises the Central Government, are “pushing hard” for a national lockdown, The Sunday Express has learnt. The task force includes experts from premier health institutions, including AIIMS and ICMR, and has met many times during the recent surge. The deliberations of these experts are of significance since the chairperson of the task force, V K Paul, reports to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.”
“The Covid-19 task force is trying to say this very aggressively for the last few weeks. That we should tell the people at the top that we should have a lockdown,” a member said. “A nationwide lockdown rather than what we are doing now, in bits and pieces across states, because of the simple fact that it is spreading all over,” a member said.”
“The fact that India does not know the names of the 21 members of its National Task Force for COVID-19 is emblematic of the colossal failure of both the task force—whose only job seems to be to endorse the decisions of its political masters—and the government to prepare for or take steps to mitigate the inevitable second wave of the pandemic. Should such a task force not be taken to task for its laxity and negligence?”
“WHO is the Indian equivalent of Anthony Fauci, the chief medical adviser to the President of the United States? One would be hard-pressed to answer this question.”
“In keeping with the government’s penchant for not sharing information, the names of the other members of the NTF have not been made public. If at all there is any government body, if not an individual like Fauci, to advise the government on the pandemic, it would be the NTF.”
“Right from the beginning of the pandemic, the NTF has been found grossly wanting in discharging its responsibilities with the scientific integrity required of such a panel. That the higher executive arm of the government wanted it to say only the things it wanted to hear became clear in March 2020 when the government announced the countrywide lockdown. It was done without consulting the NTF even as its members apparently held contrary views given that at that time the caseload in India was only around 500 and a more calibrated region-wise response based on epidemiological data would have been more prudent, but none of them spoke out. The NTF’s silence on the matter would imply that it implicitly endorsed the decision.”
“The NTF’s scientific integrity was also called into question when it did not voice dissent over the unethical Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) given to Covaxin in January in the so-called “clinical trial mode” even as the Phase 3 trials of the vaccine were ongoing and there was not even interim data on its efficacy. And after the vaccine campaign got under way in January, the NTF also does not seem to have advised the Health Ministry to be transparent with regard to the data on adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) or implications thereof on the ongoing vaccination drive.”
“What is highly at once surprising and disconcerting is the fact that, as The Caravan magazine has revealed, even as a second wave loomed large and as the number of cases was surging, the NTF did not meet at all in February or March.”
“However, the Health Ministry’s document, on which all treatment protocols in hospitals across the country are based, was not updated until April 2021. If only the NTF had ensured that an updated document was sent out early on, all the chaos, clamour and the mad scramble for remdesivir, the smuggling, hoarding and black-marketing of the drug and the all-round desperation of hospitals and hospitalised patients could have been prevented. Belatedly, on April 21, three doctors, including Randeep Guleria, Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, had to clarify that remdesivir had very limited therapeutic potential for patients. Only after this, on April 22, did the Health Ministry update its treatment protocol, which now (“based on limited evidence”) advises use of remdesivir in special circumstances in moderate to severe cases (requiring supplementary oxygen) within 10 days of onset of symptoms.”
How Members with Conflict of Interest also get the Science Wrong
One might be innocent enough to think that these ties which the above listed members have wouldn’t interfere with their decisions and recommendations on public health matters, assuming that the members would have the integrity to put people over money and influence. But such people would be terribly wrong in making such assumptions, as can be seen by the outlandish and scientifically incorrect positions taken by many task force members in the public.
After 1.5 years of the pandemic having passed, these facts have been clearly established :
– Lockdowns are not effective, and have many negative consequences
– Asymptomatic people don’t spread disease
– Natural immunity is many times better than vaccine-conferred immunity
– Vaccinations won’t end the pandemic or prevent future waves, as many countries that have reached over 80 percent vaccination rates are continuing to go for more lockdowns/restrictions and boosters.
– The Covid-19 vaccines are not safe as many serious adverse events and deaths have taken place post- vaccination, and their efficacy is based on weak evidence.
– Masks are not effective in stopping virus transmission, and have many negative health consequences.
– The RT-PCR and RAT tests have a high rate of false positives, and the RT-PCR test is not the Gold Standard for diagnosing infectious diseases.
– India has reached herd immunity and can go back to normal, as the last nationwide sero-survey has showed that around 70% people have developed antibodies either after natural infection, or vaccination.
– Effective and safe prevention options as well as cures exist for Covid-19, like Vitamin D, 3 step flu diet, Ivermectin, HCQ+Zinc, MATH+ Protocol, etc.
Now lets see how most of our fellow task force members and other “experts” go against these facts, and continue to promote the agenda of vested interests and the pharmaceutical companies.
Legal Notice Sent to Our Health Minister, Mansukh Mandaviya
Based on the above evidence, and other scientific research that we have been collecting, Advocate Nilesh Ojha & Dipali Ojha, who head the Indian Bar Association, have sent a legal notice to our health minister, asking him to remove all the members who have conflict of interest from the Covid-19 task force, and all other bodies which influence policy making in the health space in India. He has also asked for prosecution of those who have these conflicts, under various sections of the IPC & Indian Law. If no action is taken on this legal notice, Adv. Nilesh Ojha will file a case in the Supreme Court.
The capture of our pubic health agencies by fake philanthropists like Bill Gates, the Rockefellers & their frontmen, and the pharmaceutical/vaccine mafia started in India along time ago, in the year 2006. Since then, incidents like illegal HPV vaccine trial coming to light have put pressure on the perpetrators of the crimes (namely PATH and the Gates Foundation), but due to their tremendous infiltration and capture by these forces of the mainstream media, public health “experts”, government bureaucrats, etc the criminals are still able to conduct themselves in India without any barriers.
It is time to make these task force members and celebrity scientists feel the heat for all their decisions and recommendations that have destroyed the lives of millions of people, pushed millions into abject poverty, and decimated the fundamental right to travel, operate a business, speak freely, breathe & bodily autonomy of all Indians! Tag them personally on twitter, highlight each connection that is made here to the public, send legal notices, file court cases, etc. If you encounter them in person, record a video of them and confront them with these questions. Do whatever is necessary to make this plandemic end, as all the evidence to make it end has been provided to you in this document.
The Covid-19 plandemic is a well planned orchestrated medical fraud, executed by the same vested interests referenced in detail in this article, to usher in a technocratic orwellian global dictatorship, which will be accompanied by a resource grab executed by the elites. As Klaus Schwab, CEO of the World Economic Forum says : “You will own nothing, and you will be happy”. This criminal capture and sabotage of our public health agencies is what has enabled this, as the mafia wants to push mandatory testing, masks, vaccines and lockdowns on the world in order to pursue their New World Order/ Great Reset Agenda, and since they control almost everyone in key positions of power (as shown above), they have been able to do so very easily.
But now that all of this has been put in one place for you, you and Indians at large are hopefully able to see the puppeteering behind the scenes, atleast in the public health sector. Its high time we have throw out and imprison all these corrupt hijacked officials who are putting our health and livelihoods in grave danger, on behalf of the puppet masters who pull their strings. It is time to choose, between freedom or fascism, and act on the facts that we have learnt in this expose, so that we can stop the globalists from achieving their end goal, and are able to cement our goal forever – freedom and respect for the inalienable god given and constitutionally protected rights of every human being.
*
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: VK Paul, Member of NITI Aayog along with Bill Gates
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).
“That is the secret of happiness and virtue–liking what you’ve got to do. All conditioning aims at that: making people like their unescapable social destiny.” – Aldous Huxley, Brave New World [1]
The technological achievement conceived once upon a time as pulp science fiction stories in the 1950s and 60s is now becoming everyday life realities in the early 2020s.
SpaceX rockets putting in place Starlink satellites have already launched 1,800 into orbit. And the company plans to launch 12,000 more. Amazon and OneWeb similarly plans to send up thousands of satellites, all intended to be part of a network providing high speed internet service for remote and rural communities. [2]
Last July, the multi-billionaire investor, magnate and author Richard Branson flew himself and a crew into the edge of space on board a commercial spaceflight signaling a giant leap for civilian space exploration. Billionaire buds Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are following in heels of Branson into this new wild frontier. [3]
The 5G mission, part of the new generation of internet technology, is said to launch connectivity to such a degree as to make autonomous self-driving cars, remote surgery and ‘smart cities’ possible. And the new brand of Artificial Intelligence is advancing to the point that virtual tutors using facial recognition technology could discern a student’s emotional state, determine who in the class is struggling and direct human instructors how to best attend to their individual needs.
These and other breakthroughs of science may elevate us to the kind of optimistic future imagined by the writers of Star Trek or The Jetsons. Or it could hyper-relay us down the chute to tomorrows more like Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World or George Orwell’s 1984.
The horrors of climate change were almost certainly remote from the minds of people whose embracing the fossil fuel industry in the early days. Will this hi-tech innovation primarily benefit the masses, or a tiny fraction of technophilic elites? This question will be at the forefront on this week’s investigation of the Global Research News Hour.
Our first guest, Bruce Gagnon, focuses his attention on the militarization of space, and how the billionaire gold rush in space and the 5G deployments actually assist in this endeavor. He will also briefly talk about the Keep Space for Peace Week events taking place this coming Saturday October 2. (See details here.)
Our next guest, Patrick Wood, expands the conversation around 5G. He will also talk about social credit, AI, and the fleet of individuals known as technocrats who may achieve absolute power once their goal is achieved.
Bruce Gagnon has a 3 decade long history of involvement in the peace movement and active resistance to the militarization of and use of nuclear weapons in outer space. A member of the group Veterans for Peace, he co-founded the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space in 1992 in which he serves as secretary/Coordinator. He has contributed to a number of publications including CounterPunch, Z Magazine, Space News, National Catholic Reporter, Global Research, Asia Times, Le Monde Diplomatique, and Canadian Dimension. He also has a blog and has produced educational videos all of which appear at his group’s site space4peace.org.
Patrick Wood is a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy. He is the author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Antony C. Sutton. He is also a leading expert on the elitist Trilateral Commission. He is a frequent speaker and guest on radio shows across the U.S.
CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.
WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.
Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.
CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am.
Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.
Historians, media pundits and politicians have managed to postulate, and impose it into the history annals, encyclopedias and school books that the Second World War was started in September 1939 by Nazi Germany’s invasion [1] and prompt defeat[2] of Poland.
This version is definitely appealing to several generations of Western leaders in their ongoing anti-Russian paranoia, insinuating an implicit guilt – or at least a degree of complicity – by the Soviet Union, which, in compliance with its treaty with the Germans[3], a few weeks later[4] proceeded to advance to the agreed upon common border with the Third Reich, thus recovering the lands of the Russian Empire that were lost 20 years prior to that during the tumultuous years of WWI, the Russian Revolution and the Civil war.
The fact that Japan, a key participant in the war had started its military campaigns in 1937 and through 1938 had conquered parts of China, Manchuria, and fought the Soviet Union, is typically discarded, either because the conflicts have been fought 1:1 or because this was Asia[5]. We could argue either way but for now let’s close our eyes to that and focus on Europe, center stage of homo sapiens thus far greatest man-made disaster, which we denote as WWII, wherein at least 70 million people from no less than 30 nationalities lost their lives.
Until recently I have been satisfied by above version as I, too, did not know better. Until the moment publications have surfaced about the actual course of events triggering hostilities, including simultaneous[6] armed conflicts and land invasion followed by occupation, between several states[7]. Regardless who wanted to cover for whom, my conclusion was that:
World War II started in October of 1938 by Germany, with the support of Poland and Hungary attacking, invading, and eventually annihilating the sovereign republic of Czechoslovakia!
The Munich Agreement is signed[14] by Chamberlain, Daladier, Mussolini and Hitler, which stipulates that the European Powers agree to break up Czechoslovakia of which Sudetenland is to be annexed by Germany starting on Oct. 1st and to be completed by Oct. 10th; within 3 months Czechoslovakia is to give up its lands on which claims are laid by Poland and Hungary
Here is the sequence of events
A) Preparatory phase
1934 = Mutually assured Non-Aggression Pact Germany-Poland is signed for 10 year period.
1935 = During a visit to Warsaw H. Goering, appointed by Hitler to lead and groom a warming German-Polish relationship, proposes to his hosts to join in a “probable” future expansion to the East promising them a part of Soviet Ukraine as a war trophy /1/.
1938 = March 13th: Austria ceases to exist, and without any objections whatsoever the Austrians become citizens of the Third Reich– a post factum plebiscite is carried out as well.
1938 = March 17th: Encouraged by the success of its ally, Poland presents Lithuania with an ultimatum, demanding that it (i) enacts a change in its constitution wherein Vilnius, occupied by the Poles since 1922, is still mentioned as its capital city, and (ii) gives up that territory. Unless within 24 hours the Lithuanians accept these demands, Poland threatens to attack Kaunas and occupy the remainder of the tiny country.
1938 = Sept. 19th: The Polish Government expresses its agreement with Hitler’s opinion that Czechoslovakia is an artificial creature. Poland also expresses support to Hungary’s claims in its territorial dispute with Czechoslovakia.
1938 = Sept. 20th: Hitler gives official guarantees to Jozef Lipski, Polish Ambassador in Berlin, that in a “probable” Polish-Czechoslovakian military conflict over Czech Teshin region[8] Germany will support the Polish side. Full agreement is reached about coordinated German-Polish military action against Czechoslovakia.
1938 = Sept. 21st:
Large border conflict is provoked in the early morning hours at the German-Czech border.
Poland presents Czechoslovakia with a note demanding solution of the problem with Polish national minority in Czech Teshin, Silesia.
1938 = Sept. 22nd: Polish Government issues an express announcement by which it denounces Polish-Czechoslovakian Treaty about the national minorities. Later that same day Poland presents Czechoslovakia with an ultimatum about annexation of its territories hosting Polish inhabitants.[9]
1938 = Sept. 25th: Various attacks take place in the Teshin region:
At Konska, near Trshinec, the Poles attack (by gunfire and grenades) the barracks of the Czechoslovakian border garrison, as a result of which two buildings are burnt out; after a couple of hours gunfight the attackers withdraw back to Polish inland.
Polish band attacks by gunfire and grenades the railway station of Frystat.
1938 = Sept. 27th: Poland issues a second demand for “return” of Teshin region. During that night the whole of the Teshin region is pierced by the sound of gunfire, including that by machine guns. The official Polish news agency reports that the most bloody confrontations took place in the vicinity of Bohumin, Teshin and Jablunkov, in Bystrica, Konska, Skrshechon. Armed groups of “rebels”[10] repeatedly attack Czechoslovak army’s gun and ammunition depots and Polish airplane routinely violate Czechoslovak air space. The real news is scarcely reported abroad, except for “Pravda” in the Soviet Union /2/11.
1938 = Sept. 29th:
1. The infamous Munich conference begins, in rather peculiar manner: the high representatives of the four Central European Powers deliberate, in the presence of other nations’ observers, but the party whose fate is being discussed and decided upon – and by whose authorization this whole thing proceeds is not questioned at all – is not allowed in; it awaits the news about the verdict in a separate room…
2. Polish diplomats in Paris and London insist on equal approach to the “solution” of Sudeten- and Tesh-in-“problems.” Separately, Polish and German officers conclude agreement on the demarcation line between their respective armies, in case of invasion.
3. German and Polish newspapers report touching scenes of “comrades in arms”-type brotherhood in meetings between Nazis and Polish fascists.[12]
4. A Czechoslovakian border post near Grgava is attacked by a 20 member gang armed with automatic weapons. The attack fails, attackers are repelled and flee to Poland, except a captured wounded man, testifying that the group included many Germans living in Poland…
B. The phase of real actions:[13]
1938 = Sept. 30th:
1. By 01:00h the Munich Agreement is signed[14] by Chamberlain, Daladier, Mussolini and Hitler (see image below), which stipulates that the European Powers agree to break up Czechoslovakia of which Sudetenland is to be annexed by Germany starting on Oct. 1st and to be completed by Oct. 10th; within 3 months Czechoslovakia is to give up its lands on which claims are laid by Poland and Hungary, and to submit to their demands for annexation; all in exchange for guaranteed peaceful coexistence from then on /3, 4/. At 02:45h the representatives of Czechoslovakia Masaryk and Mostny are given to sign the contract of cession of Sudetenland to Germany. Formal notification to the Czech authorities in Prague is given at 06:20h /5/.
2. Polish government issues an ultimatum to the Czechoslovak government with the demand to evacuate within 24 hours its military troops and police units from the disputed Teshin area.
1938 = Oct. 1st:
1. German occupation of Sudetenland begins.
2. Polish occupation of the Czechoslovak Teshin Silesia begins /6-8/.
1938 = Oct. 5th: Regular Hungarian troops cross the border and attack Czechoslovak positions near Jesenske but are forced to withdraw leaving several casualties and prisoners.
1938 = Oct. 6th: Hungarian paramilitary infiltrate Carpathian Ruthenia with the task of sabotage and terror acts to provoke armed conflict.
1938 = Oct. 7th: Hungarian troops attempt to cross Danube near Shturovo, and fail again.
1938 = Oct. 8th: Hungarian paramilitary blow up a bridge over Borozhava River in Ruthenia.
1938 = Oct. 10th:
1. German occupation of Sudetenland completed /9/.
2. Hungarian troops damage railway facilities and murder a railway officer in Borozhava.
1938 = Nov. 2nd:
1. Vienna arbitration: Germany and Italy arbitrate between Czechoslovakia and Hungary; the result is award to Hungary of Czechoslovak lands.
2. Immediate invasion by Hungarian army and occupation of Czechoslovak territories /10, 11/.
1938 = Dec. 1st: Hungary annexes further Czechoslovak lands.
1939 = March 13th: Hungarian army begins occupation of Carpathian Ukraine (Ruthenia).
1939 = March 14th-15th: German army occupies the rest of Czechoslovakia. Very low level of resistance by local troops exhibited occasionally, yet the operation is not entirely bloodless /12/.
1939 = March 16th:
1. Slovakia is created as a German client state.The remainder of once independent Czechoslovakia is split into two German Protectorates: Bohemia and Moravia. (see map below)
2. Hungarian army attacks and captures Khust in Carpathian Ukraine /13/. (see map below)
C. Phase I of World War II completed: Czechoslovakian land is conquered, the state annihilated, its gold reserves transferred into the coffers of Nazi Germany, leader of the never-spelled-out-in-the-open “coalition of the willing trio”
***
Question time:
Every schooled person has heard the story of how Neville Chamberlain was ridiculed for his piece of white paper waived at the airport, of which paper he claimed that it has bought peace (for the British, if anyone) yet a year later upon the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany, the UK declared war on Germany.[16]
Prime Minister Chamberlain, upon his return to England on September 30, 1938, holding aloft the Munich agreement bearing his own and Adolf Hitler’s signatures.
But being aware of the Munich conference does not absolve us from the obligation to think straight: What happened next? What does it mean that three neighbors send troops to attack and occupy their neighbor’s lands, take possession of its assets, subdue its population, call parts of its territory theirs?
Why nobody calls military occupation of a country that has neither called in foreign troops nor agreed with invasion through its borders a war? Aren’t coercion, provocation, serving ultimatums and the like tools of war[17]? Why nobody calls a war a war?
I’d leave you to ponder over these questions, and will just answer a few more myself: Can leaders of the most powerful country in the world have the prerogative to judge, to dictate, to meddle in other countries’ affairs? No!
Can we call Nazi Germany a pariah state for conducting a dozen of European states to join it in its war for USSR’s resources?
Yes, we can!
Can we call USA a pariah state for conducing even more states from around the world to join it in its countless aggressive, unjustified, illegal wars ever since 1991 18? Yes, without a shred of doubt!
Can we call Nazi Germany a pariah state for their genocidal racism (against Russians – claiming they are all members of an Untermensch society – and other Slavs, such as Poles and Czechs; against Jews and Gypsies, etc.)? Yes!
Can we call Israel a pariah state for their genocidal racism (against Palestinians: their own cousins, and autochthonous owners of the major part of the land called Palestine for more than 2000 years), and for their aggressive wars against their neighbors, at least during the last 40 years? Yes!…
Happy Anniversary! And please remember the lessons of history – and learn them, if you haven’t yet!
Too many humans have died in senseless wars, only because their “leaders” have not learned the history lessons.
Today the problem is compounded by: (i) lack of knowledge; (ii) wrong perception of the world (and respectively “the enemy”), due to near perfect brainwashing; (iii) enormous pressure by the financial capital (stirred by the ubiquitous “deep state”); (iv) growing pressure by the MIC; (v) incessantly escalating economic pressure as an intrinsic feature of the prevailing socio-political arrangement, whereby “free market” economy is the norm /17/.
Above considerations call for periodic inquisitive examination and reassessment of all “given truths”, and that means asking questions, first quietly to ourselves, and then to the outside world, loud.
Back to basics: Why 1939 and not 1938?
I don’t think we need to go too far to search for an answer:
On September 29th-30th, 1938 a conference was held in Munich, which resulted in signing a document whereby the four major European states, Germany, Great Britain, Italy and France agreed that Germany should obtain from Czechoslovakia the region of Sudetenland.
Now, did the four doctors ask the patient whether or not he agrees that a couple of limbs should be amputated from his body? No, the representatives of Czechoslovakia were not even in the conference room during the discussion: they were made to wait in one of the next chambers of the infamous building, just to be handed the verdict[19] after the leaders of the quartet had all signed the document[20]. Who has authorized the perpetrators to such diktat?
Nobody: they had simply assumed the prerogative to dictate. Germany and Italy because of their respective Nazi- and Fascist ideology, while France and UK for the most idiotic pretext of them all: to avoid another world war[21] (despite the commitments made earlier to the Czechs and Slovaks to defend their state’s sovereignty, if need be).
The British and French leaders’ idiocy became a common reason for their ridicule by just everybody ever since, given only a year later they were at war anyway. And was it not for the defeat of the Wehrmacht by the Soviet troops, France of today would still be centered at Vichy, while the British Empire would certainly have shrunk significantly, having had sequestered everything save for Albion[22].
In conclusion, the main perpetrators, Germany, Poland and Hungary, had three accomplices, in this international crime: Italy, Great Britain and France.
The first three started WWII in October of 1938 with the conscious assistance by the other trio.
The political correctness and the games of politicking by the winners may have imposed onto historians, journalists, writers and intellectuals the version all of us who belong to the during- and postwar-generations have been taught at school, but it ain’t the whole truth!
And this can not and should not con-tinue any longer as those of us who do not like to live in a world based on lies or partial truths are silently becoming the majority. And silent we can not and should not remain. Here is one voice, for those who care:
We need the truth! If not, mankind will soon degenerate…
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Sources
Платошкин Н.Н., Оккупация Польшей территории Чехословакии в 1938 году, http://history.milportal.ru/2017/01/okkupaciya-polshej-territorii-chexoslovakii-v-1938-godu/
Безудержная наглость польских фашистов; Правда, 27.09.1938, N267, (7592), стр. 1
Agreement concluded at Munich, September 29, 1938, between Germany, Great Britain, France and Italy, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/munich1.asp
Сергей Пискунов, Чехословацкий кризис 1938 г., http://hrono.ru/sobyt/1900sob/1938cseh.php
The Charge d’Affaires Czechoslovakia to the Czechoslovak Minister of Foreign Affairs, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/mun01.asp
Kershaw, Ian (2001). Hitler, 1936–1945: Nemesis. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-04994-7
Shirer, William L. (1990) [1960]. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-72868-7
Польская оккупация Чехословакии – 1938 год., https://nornegest.livejournal.com/516572.html, https://gorod.tomsk.ru/index-1366472876.php, https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1034443.html
Германская оккупация Чехословакии 1939 г., http://hrono.ru/sobyt/1900war/1939cseh.php
Адмирал Миклош Хорти во главе парада венгерских войск в оккупированном городе Кошице, http://waralbum.ru/54050/
von Wegener, Alfred. “The Origins of This War: a German View”. Foreign Affairs (July 1940)
Алексей Рудевич, 7 фактов об оккупации Чехословакии, http://russian7.ru/2014/03/7-faktov-ob-okkupacii-chexoslavakii/
Танки венгерских оккупационных войск входят на улицы чехословацкого города Хуст, htp://waralbum.ru/57574/
Speech by the Prime Minister at Birmingham on March 17, 1939, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk09.asp
Speech by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the House of Lords on March 20, 1939, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/ blbk10.asp
Smedley D. Butler, https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html; see also http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/bacon2.html
James A. Lucas, Study: U.S. regime has killed 20-30 million people since World War Two, CounterCurrents.org, Tue, 24 Apr 2007, 06:35 CDT, http://www.sott.net/article/273517-Study-US-regime-has-killed-20-30-million-people-since-World-War-Two
Few people realize that in fact WWII was a natural continuation of WWI, the war that – despite years of fighting and millions of casualties – has created many more problems than it has solved.
Clearly Hitler was not interested in taking even a part of the island as his plans called essentially for conquering the vast expanses to the East and settling Germans – pure Aryans, that is, according to Nazi theories – there; in addition, the Rudolf Hess adventure early in the game suggests that some British money might have been invested in his venture, too, and certainly in the main project…
Notes
on September 1st
on October 6th
concluded after refusal by France and Great Britain of USSR’s offer to enter into a tripartite alliance
on September 17th, to be exact
Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 falls into the same category of considerations
or almost
for the Americans that would be “nations”
reasonably well developed industrial part of Silesia
On that very day the recruitment of “Teshin corps of volunteers” went on the open. The completed military “volunteer” forma-tions (“militia,” by the present day standards and terminology) to the Czechoslovakian borders to commit provocative incursions and incidents.
that would be today’s “freedom fighters”
At the same time what we call today “fake news” abounds at the hands of the public opinion controllers in the three “free”, “democratic” Central European governments that happen to encircle in a surrounding – strangulating, really – embrace their common neighbor, aiming to – and succeeding, eventually – asphyxiate it. Long live fake news: lucrative business for some, while facilitating a path leading on a downward spiral to inevitable catastrophe! Something new under the Sun lately?
for one time, this is no fake news
constituting international crime par excellence, per our humble opinion
to be punctual, it does carry the date of Sept. 29th (I assume this was done deliberately so that it would leave the impression enough time was given to the Czech officials to arrive in Berlin without much delay for the meeting convened in the evening on the 30th, on which the fate of their state was to be announced to them.)
which is very skillfully labeled “borders guaranteed against unprovoked aggression,” by the champions of bullying and provoca-tion themselves
One can not avoid to be very strongly sympathetic indeed to his /14/ and his colleagues’ /15/ arguments in defense of their ac-tions to preserve peace in Europe at any price. However, the question comes immediately: “Are these people just naive, or is this simply marking the end of an era of traditional politics whereby the landscape was populated mostly by leaders and apparatchiksalike engaged in it by avocation, with the main drive being their traditional, typically Christian, value system, and related beliefs or ideologies? Is their visibly agonizing extinction in the face of the upcoming new wave of evil-minded fanatics and their subservient mediocre yet pragmatic bureaucrats signaling the arrival – after the inevitable military clash and the ensuing ideological vacuum – of the new, “professional” pol-itician: the Orwellian Nomenklaturchik /16/?”
One would question the usefulness of international organizations such as the League of Nations and the UNO, in terms of pre-venting conflicts or at least diffusing existing ones before they turn into real wars. The world has seen that they have been mostly useless, except when – having turned into attractive hub for corrupt-minded international Nomenklaturchiks – playing in the hands of the side commissioning the conflict they become a servile marionette which tips the scale to the selected loser thereby causing worsening effect.
This is not at all to claim that before 1991 the US was behaving as a dovish state: I simply would not like to get bewildered the average reader who in general hardly would have kept track of events going more than 25 years back. For a more comprehensive look at US war effort and the attitude of the military as well as the general public, see in /18, 19/.
at 02:15 h on Sept. 30th
at 01:00 h on Sept. 30th
Few people realize that in fact WWII was a natural continuation of WWI, the war that – despite years of fighting and millions of casualties – has created many more problems than it has solved.
Clearly Hitler was not interested in taking even a part of the island as his plans called essentially for conquering the vast expanses to the East and settling Germans – pure Aryans, that is, according to Nazi theories – there; in addition, the Rudolf Hess adventure early in the game suggests that some British money might have been invested in his venture, too, and certainly in the main project…
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The following text by Chiron Return provides an incisive and carefully documented analysis of the history and early chronology (May 2019- May 2020) of the crisis which is affecting all mankind.
This research also points to relevant events which happened before the official announcements by China and the WHO in January 2020
Our thanks to the authors and research team at Chironreturn.org
***
Note on Sources: The authors and researchers have relied upon primary source documents whenever possible. These include official government documents and official statistics, scientific papers, original corporate documents, and direct accounts or statements by officials preserved in video. Where we are relying on secondary sources (newspaper and magazine articles, website articles, news reports, etc.), we have done our best (when necessary) to cross-verify or check against primary sources. If any reader has better sourcing, or sees an issue with a source or factual reference, please contact us at [email protected].
June 2019 — In its Annual Economic Report, the Swiss-based Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the ‘Central Bank of all central banks’, sets the international alarm bells ringing. The document highlights “overheating […] in the leveraged loan market,” where “credit standards have been deteriorating” and “collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) have surged – reminiscent of the steep rise in collateralized debt obligations [CDOs] that amplified the subprime crisis [in 2008].” Simply stated, the belly of the financial industry is once again full of junk. Entries attributed to [vighi] track certain global and globalist economic movements between June and September 2019.
June 13, 2019 — Gov. Andrew Cuomo signs a law ending religious exemption for vaccines in New York State. NPR reports, “The Democratic-controlled Legislature approved the measure, which also eliminates other nonmedical exemptions for schoolchildren across the state.”
“We are facing an unprecedented public health crisis,” said Sen. Brad Hoylman, the legislation’s sponsor. How exactly does he know this six months before it begins? “The atrocious peddlers of junk science and fraudulent medicine who we know as anti-vaxxers have spent years sowing unwarranted doubt and fear, but it is time for legislators to confront them head-on.” What has this got to do with the religious exemption?
August 7, 2019 — Kary Mullis, the 1993 Nobel Prize-winning inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) device, dies of cancer and cirrhosis. The immediate cause was pneumonia. To our knowledge, gained from personal and not public sources, there are no mysterious circumstances surrounding his death. See article. See New York Times obituary.
In this book chapter, Mullis describes his invention of the device back in the 1980s. The invention was the property of his employer Cetus, who sold the patents for the device to Hoffman-La Roche in 1991 for approximately $300,000,000, the highest sale for a patent at the time.
Mullis had spent much of his later life challenging presumptions about the use of the PCR as a medical diagnostic tool, and also explaining that the HIV = AIDS theory has never been demonstrated through scientific research and has many strikes against it. The PCR is best known to the public as the “viral load” test that could not determine infection much less measure virus or predict the onset of symptoms. See long version of interview with Gary Null. Or see short version.
Mullis asserted many times that the PCR is not a diagnostic tool, it is a research tool. In other words, its use is for pure science, not to diagnose a case of disease or an infection.
While there are many reasons for this, the medical industry was on notice that when the device was used as a diagnostic tool for a disease, it could get 100% false positives. Among other times, this occurred in 2006, when the PCR created the illusion of an epidemic, and a massive crisis, at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical School in New Hampshire.
We have not been able to ascertain which of the many problems with the PCR led to 100% false positives in the Dartmouth-Hitchcock incident; there are many possibilities, including assay design, the cycle-threshold issue, the reverse transcriptase problem, the primer-dimer problem, or some other issue. Regardless, the warning was not followed when the PCR was put to use “diagnosing” infection with SARS-CoV-2, and the problems persisted. In late august 2020, the Times reported that the Covid assay — on which every diagnosis and the case count are based — was getting 90% false positives. See April entries re. Jon Rappoport and Celia Farber’s coverage of the PCR.
[To understand more about how the device is designed to work, please see Four Steps of PCR, a concise explanation of the process. Includes video.]
August 9, 2019 — Bank of International Settlements (BIS) issues a working paper calling for “unconventional monetary policy measures” to “insulate the real economy from further deterioration in financial conditions.” The paper indicates that, by offering “direct credit to the economy” during a crisis, central bank lending “can replace commercial banks in providing loans to firms.” [vighi]
August 15, 2019 — BlackRock Inc., the world’s most powerful investment fund (managing around $7 trillion in stock and bond funds), issues a white paper titled Dealing with the Next Downturn. Essentially, the paper instructs the U.S. Federal Reserve to inject liquidity directly into the financial system to prevent “a dramatic downturn.” Again, the message is unequivocal: “An unprecedented response is needed when monetary policy is exhausted and fiscal policy alone is not enough. That response will likely involve ‘going direct’”: “finding ways to get central bank money directly in the hands of public and private sector spenders” while avoiding “hyperinflation. Examples include the Weimar Republic in the 1920s as well as Argentina and Zimbabwe more recently.” [vighi]
August 22-24, 2019 — G7 central bankers meet in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, to discuss BlackRock’s paper along with urgent measures to prevent the looming meltdown. In the prescient words of James Bullard, President of the St Louis Federal Reserve: “We just have to stop thinking that next year things are going to be normal.” [vighi]
September 15-16 2019 — The economic downturn is officially inaugurated by a sudden spike in the repo rates (from 2% to 10.5%). ‘Repo’ is shorthand for ‘repurchase agreement’, a contract where investment funds lend money against collateral assets (normally Treasury securities). At the time of the exchange, financial operators (banks) undertake to buy back the assets at a higher price, typically overnight. In brief, repos are short-term collateralized loans. They are the main source of funding for traders in most markets, especially the derivatives galaxy. A lack of liquidity in the repo market can have a devastating domino effect on all major financial sectors. [vighi]
September 17, 2019 — The Fed begins the emergency monetary programme, pumping hundreds of billions of dollars per week into Wall Street, effectively executing BlackRock’s “going direct” plan. (Unsurprisingly, in March 2020 the Fed will hire BlackRock to manage the bailout package in response to the ‘COVID-19 crisis’). [vighi]
September 19, 2019 — Donald Trump signs Executive Order 13887, establishing a National Influenza Vaccine Task Force whose aim is to develop a “5-year national plan (Plan) to promote the use of more agile and scalable vaccine manufacturing technologies and to accelerate development of vaccines that protect against many or all influenza viruses.” This is to counteract “an influenza pandemic”, which, “unlike seasonal influenza […] has the potential to spread rapidly around the globe, infect higher numbers of people, and cause high rates of illness and death in populations that lack prior immunity.” As someone guessed, the pandemic was imminent, while in Europe too preparations were underway (see here and here). [vighi] [Please see this video from Sept. 20, 2019, where someone in the public predicts that a pandemic is imminent.]
September 29, 2019 — Prof. Yu Chuanhua of Wuhan University told the Health Times that records he reviewed showed two cases in mid-November, and one suspected case on September 29, 2019. At about the same time as Chuanhua’s interview, the Chinese CDC issued an order forbidding sharing of information about the COVID-19 epidemic without approval by CDC China. Shortly thereafter Prof. Chuanhua re-contacted the Health Times to say the November cases could not be confirmed. [CSHL]
October 18, 2019 — Event 201 is staged in New York City. This is a “pandemic exercise” — a kind of high-level moot dramatization played out by bankers, NGOs, the media, scholars, public officials, public and private sector biggies, the works. They enact a drill for the world’s first ever global coronavirus pandemic (such was unprecedented at the time). The fake pandemic involves zoonotic transmission, which means from animal to human. The charade includes shutdowns of the internet to prevent the spread of disinformation, and news reports from a fictional network based on CNN cooked up for the game. Its three sponsors are among the top-tier leaders of the Covid scenario as it played out just eleven weeks later. No part of the exercise involves taking care of sick people or providing information how to do so.
Here is how Event 201 describes itself: “The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hosted Event 201, a high-level pandemic exercise on October 18, 2019, in New York, NY. The exercise illustrated areas where public/private partnerships will be necessary during the response to a severe pandemic in order to diminish large-scale economic and societal consequences.” See this link as well.
November 2019 — Three researchers from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick enough in November 2019 that they sought hospital care, according to a previously undisclosed U.S. intelligence report that adds weight to the origins of the Covid-19 virus. [wsj, reported in May]
November 13, 2019 — Impeachment hearings begin before the House Intelligence Committee.
December 2019
December 1, 2019 — Symptom onset date of first patient identified with Covid- 19, claimed to have been caused by an allegedly zoonotic coronavirus. This claimed virus was said to have emerged in China, and was soon known as 2019-nCoV.
None of the index patient’s family members developed fever or any respiratory symptoms. No epidemiological link was found between first patient and later cases (of the family cluster). None of the family members had contacts with Wuhan markets or animals, no history of contact with animals, visits to markets including the Huanan seafood wholesale market in Wuhan, or eating game in restaurants. [crowe 16] The man had not been to Huanan seafood wholesale market. His family was unaffected, and no epidemiological link was found between him and the other laboratory-confirmed cases as of January 2. [wiki][lancet]. Bookmark all that! See Dec. 2.
On this day, China’s new Vaccine Administration Law goes into effect. The stated purpose of this law is to ban black market vaccines. It has the effect of up-ending the biologic industry in China. “The vaccine law introduces a mandatory liability insurance system to ensure victims are compensated more efficiently. Whereas compensation was previously paid to victims by the government, the new system will require vaccine producers and insurance companies to pay.”
December 2, 2019 — [citizen.co.za] Chinese ambassador to South Africa, Chen Xiaodong, said, “The local government in China got the first Covid report on December 2, 2019. They got test samples of the first Covid patients on the 30th.”
Note: On Dec. 2, there is said to be one person unremarkably sick in the hospital with then-unknown, unnamed “Covid” — in all of China — a pandemic is not supposed to be a thought on anyone’s mind at this time. He already has respiratory issues, so there’s nothing at all special about him being in the hospital. Why are top government officials, or any government officials, concerned about this one patient on this date? — efc
December 2-3, 2019 — World Health Organization holds a Global Vaccine Safety Summit in Geneva. “At the Summit, WHO will present the Global Vaccine Safety Blueprint 2.0 strategy 2021-2030 to key stakeholders and collect their input for the final version, due for publication in the new year.”
December 4, 2019 — Hearings begin before the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff.
December 6, 2019 — [The Kissinger Center] convened a bilateral meeting from December 6 to December 7 of the America and the Future of World Order Project (AFWO) Study Group and a delegation from the Chinese People’s Institute of Foreign Affairs to discuss the American and Chinese views of world order. No reference to Covid, virus, pandemic noted.
December 8, 2019 — According to the NIH timeline, which has only scant details of events in December, “The number of new patients voluntarily presenting themselves to hospital continued to increase (Bryner, 2020). Hospitals report new one to five cases with similar symptoms on average each day. [How many hospitals and where?] However, this being a new virus, some sources quoted December 8 as the first day where the first patient in the city of Wuhan sought medical help for pneumonia-like symptoms. At this time, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC, 2020c). contended that many dimensions, which were known today, like the need for social distancing, human-to-human infections, lack of vaccine or cure, and many such issues, were unknown, and the precautionary measures taken then were routinely delivered. Also, during these early stages of the onset of the virus, there was no clear evidence of how many people were affected. For this reason, information from Chinese authorities (Wuhan City Health Committee, 2020) and those of the WHO (WHO, 2020a) stated that the December 8, 2019, marked the onset of the first 41 cases that were tested and which were later confirmed positive with COVID-19, then known as 2019-nCoV.”
December 10, 2019 — Symptoms of three more allegedly laboratory-confirmed cases began on this date. These patients are known because they became hospitalized and thus sampled. Two of these three had no direct exposure to the Hunan Seafood Wholesale Market, while the other did. [wiki] How there were “laboratory confirmed cases” on December 10 is unclear, and there are no notes on the lab or the assay.
December 11, 2019 — Scientists at University College London’s Genetics Institute found almost 200 recurrent genetic mutations of the new coronavirus — SARS-CoV- 2 — which the UCL researchers said showed how it is adapting to its human hosts as it spreads. “Phylogenetic estimates support that the COVID-2 pandemic started sometime around Oct. 6, 2019 to Dec. 11, 2019, which corresponds to the time of the host jump into humans,” the research team, co-led by Francois Balloux, wrote in a study published in the journal Infection, Genetics and Evolution. [wef].
December 12, 2019 — The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission claims this date to be the earliest original onset date of the 59 patients with unexplained viral pneumonia. The latest onset date claimed by the Commission was Dec.29, 2019. [bobby] [nih timeline] How is it viral and also unexplained?
The House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 12 spent more than 14 hours in a highly partisan and at times emotional debate deliberating over two articles of impeachment, accusing Trump of abusing the power of his office and with obstructing Congress. The following day, the panel approved each article on a party-line 23-17 vote, making Trump just the fourth president in American history to face impeachment by the House.
December 15, 2019 — In Wuhan, the 5th and 6th “laboratory-confirmed cases” say they first felt symptoms on this date. Both patients had exposure to the Huanan Market. [wiki] What laboratory and what confirmation?
December 16, 2019 — The first documented COVID-19 hospital admissions worldwide were linked to this date in Wuhan. This was reported in February 2020. [wiki]. More than 700 historians sign a letter to the House of Representatives urging members to impeach Pres. Donald Trump as a “clear and present danger to the Constitution.” See news report. See original letter.
December 21, 2019 — Four lower respiratory tract samples, including bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid (BALF), were collected from patients with pneumonia of unknown cause who were identified in Wuhan and who had been present at the Huanan Seafood Market close to the time of their clinical presentation. [bobby]
December 22, 2019 — Carcinogenic hexavalent petroleum — affectionately called green slime — leaks onto a highway in Madison Heights, Michigan, a Detroit suburb.
December 23, 2019 — Joint Public Health Emergencies Incident drill at the port- cruise ship. [chinese time-coordinates-event, screen shot, eric, prob ben or bobby]
December 24, 2019 — Chinese lab worker Little Dog claims in his Medium article that the first patient samples were taken on this day.
December 26, 2019 — According to CDC timeline sourced to WHO — Over 8,000 people worldwide became sick with SARS and more than 700 died during 2003 outbreak. The sequence from the patient in Wuhan is strikingly similar to the virus that caused SARS and the lab goes on to inform the Wuhan Central Hospital doctors and the city’s CDC. (If it’s strikingly similar, how is this a “novel virus”?)
December 27, 2019 — Blood sample from a man in France tested rt-PCR positive for COVID-19. This led doctors to postulate that the virus was circulating earlier in France. They did not consider the possibility that it was a false positive, especially because the man had not recently travelled, nor is known to have come in contact with someone form Wuhan which according to COVID-19 dogma, was the only location of the virus at that time. [crowe 42] How did the virus get in the blood of a patient?
December 29, 2019 — According to the NIH timeline, as hospitals continued to receive more patients with unknown ‘pneumonia-like symptoms’, fear of the outbreak is already spreading, especially among the social media (WeChat) use within China, more so Wuhan (Secon, 2020). Li et al. (2020) explained that during the period beginning December 1, 2019, the recurrence of the words “SARS” and “shortness of breath” in the social media started to increase, and by December 29, it had peaked. Meanwhile, in the hospitals, doctors were observed to concede that there might be a new virus of unknown etymology in Wuhan, presenting symptoms of acute respiratory syndrome. The reporting is affirmed by availability of the first four cases officially confirmed.
The four cases were linked to the Huanan (Southern China) Seafood Wholesale Market, believed to have been the source of the virus. [This is later disproven]. While only four cases had been pointed, by this date, Bryner (2020) reports that already, over 180 people in Wuhan had been infected, but since doctors had not earmarked them as suspected cases noting that there were no suspicion of this“unknown” disease. The 180 cases were only identified after doctors cross-verified records. The suspicion after reporting the four cases was that they were not suffering from SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), which was still in surveillance since it broke in 2003. With the possibility of an unknown outbreak, at this time, the concern was to establish the transmissibility, severity, and other issues that may be related to this new virus (Adhikari et al., 2020). [nih]
Monday, December 30, 2019 — Dr. Li Wenliang, ophthalmologist, age 34, sends message to fellow medics. He says there are seven cases of SARS at Wuhan Central Hospital, all connected to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [Wiki chronology].
Tuesday, December 31, 2019 — WHO China national office was informed of 27 [STAT] cases of pneumonia in Wuhan, Hubai [CD, Ras]. Only fifteen turn out to test positive for the sequence that becomes the “novel coronavirus.” Many details in [Avian Flu Diary AVFLU]. China says seven cases seriously ill. National Health Commission experts arrive in Wuhan [possibly Jan. 1]. According to Qu Shiquian, a vendor at Huanan Market, Chinese authorities are said to disinfect the Huanan Market. Stallholders are told to wear masks [Wiki chronology].
“On 31 December 2019, WfHO was informed of cases of #pneumonia of unknown cause in Wuhan City, #China. A total of 44 cases have been reported: 11 patients are severely ill, while the remaining 33 are in stable condition.” [pw] Note, there are 233 “health centers” in Wuhan, presumably meaning hospitals. [naturef]
Official notice quoted in Avian Flu Diary [AVFLU].
Update / December 31, 2019, 2:45 PM
The Wuhan Municipal Health and Health Committee issued a notification on the pneumonia epidemic. The preliminary analysis of the cases was viral pneumonia. All cases have been isolated for treatment, no obvious human-to-human transmission has been found, and no medical staff infection has been found.
According to the “Beijing News” report, Wuhan Health and Health Commission has released news that 27 cases have been found, seven of which are in serious condition, and the remaining cases are stable and controllable. Two patients are expected to be discharged in the near future.
The clinical manifestations of the cases were mainly fever, a few patients had difficulty breathing, and chest radiographs showed bilateral lung infiltrative lesions.
Note: At no time during the month of December or any time thereafter is there a record, in any country, of a toxicological team being dispatched to investigate sources of the presumed outbreak other than biological. We have not seen any reference to a tox team being sent to the Huanan fish market; only biological samples were taken, which all tested negative. Tox investigation is supposed to be standard procedure for an outbreak, as ruling out potential chemical causes is a necessary step in validating the presumption of a biological pathogen.
January 2020
Wednesday, January 1, 2020 — Per the NIH timeline, “Until this date, the number of those reported to have shown the signs of the disease in question still remains unknown, but consensus builds around the number of cases to be 41.”
WHO requested information on the reported cluster of atypical pneumonia cases in Wuhan from the Chinese authorities. WHO activated its Incident Management Support Team (IMST), as part of its emergency response framework, which ensures coordination of activities and response across the three levels of WHO (Headquarters, Regional, Country) for public health emergencies [WHO]. What is the criteria for activation of this team? Chinese CDC reports that its Experts Team reached Wuhan to investigate “unusual phenomena” associated with a viral infection [CCDC].
Huanan wet market is closed by authorities in China for “cleaning” and “investigation.” In May 2020, George Gao, the director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, said animal samples collected from the seafood market had tested negative for the virus, indicating that the market was the site of an early superspreading event, but it was not the site of the initial outbreak.
Thursday, January 2, 2020 — The WHO Representative in China wrote to the National Health Commission, offering WHO support and repeating the request for further information on the cluster of cases. WHO Informed Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN) partners about the cluster of pneumonia cases in the People’s Republic of China. GOARN partners include major public health agencies, laboratories, sister UN agencies, international organizations and NGOs [WHO].
According to a study published in The Lancet, By Jan 2, 2020, 41 admitted hospital patients had been identified as having laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection. Most of the infected patients were men (30 [73%] of 41); less than half had underlying diseases (13 [32%]), including diabetes (eight [20%]), hypertension (six [15%]), and cardiovascular disease (six [15%]). Median age was 49·0 years (IQR 41·0–58·0). 27 (66%) of 41 patients had been exposed to Huanan seafood market. One family cluster was found. Common symptoms at onset of illness were fever (40 [98%] of 41 patients), cough (31 [76%]), and myalgia or fatigue (18 [44%]); less common symptoms were sputum production (11 [28%] of 39), headache (three [8%] of 38), haemoptysis (two [5%] of 39), and diarrhoea (one [3%] of 38). [nih, lancet]. Note: some of this is contradicted by Rasnick; there are many inconsistencies in the reports of exactly how many were sick, when. Rasnick says that a total of 15 of about 44 people said to be sick with the virus tested positive for the allegedly offending sequence.
By Jan 2, 2020, 41 admitted hospital patients had been identified as having laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection in Wuhan, China. [NCBI] Which lab, which assay, which hospitls?
Friday, January 3, 2020 — Chinese officials provided information to WHO on the cluster of cases of ‘viral pneumonia of unknown cause’ identified in Wuhan. Chinese CDC later claims that on this day, “the first full genome of 2019-nCoV was born.” [ccdc]
Saturday, January 4, 2020 — Chinese CDC says that “the first 2019-nCoV specific rRT-PCR was developed.” WHO tweeted that there was a cluster of pneumonia cases — with no deaths — in Wuhan, and that investigations to identify the cause were underway [WHO]. This is the “social media” post referenced by Drosten that got him going assembling an assay for a coronavirus that within days becomes the official WHO test. STATNews reports that on January 3, China increases case count to 44 and is tracking 121 contacts of them. STATNews reports that the infections “are linked to a large seafood market where it is believes some exotic animals are also sold for consumption.” [STAT]
January 5, 2020 — GenBank submits origin of sequence what is claimed to be Human SARS Coronavirus-2 (Covid-19), given the accession number MN908947. This is for review by Wu, et al.
This sequence is cited in the Corman-Drosten in Eurosurveillance as the source of in silico (theoretical) primers for their PCR assay (sometimes called the German test, or Charité for the institution where the design was done; which are the same design as the WTO assay). However, Corman in the C-D paper, says he has also used the sequence from the original SARS-CoV (from 2003) as the basis of his PCR primers (not a novel virus) and may be citing MN908947 to give the impression of a novel virus. China gives no information about the actual origins of this sequence: what patient, exactly what the symptoms were, or what the outcome was. [DailyMail]
And this identification appears in a CDC document explaining certain facts about its PCR design, as the source of the primers for a “mimicked human specimen” based on MN980947 with much other manipulation of the sequence. In other words, what are called tests for SARS-CoV-2 are really using SARS-CoV (the original) and MN908947 as the sources of its RNA primers. The former is now harmless and the latter cannot infect anyone as it is a manipulated computer sequence that does not exist in nature. The reason for using it is because nobody has an actual sample of SARS-CoV-2: no government that has been asked, using open records laws, can produce evidence of having such a sample.
Further, there is no purified isolate gathered from many patients, and no set of experiments conducted to determine that MN908947 is in fact the disease-causing agent to the exclusion of all else.
Note: The sequence MM908947 is central to the covid scenario. In essence it is “covid” though very little has been written about it. I did find this article.
Continuing January 5, According to The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission— As of 8:00 on this date, the city reported 59 patients with unexplained viral pneumonia diagnosed, including 7 severely ill patients, and the vital signs of the remaining patients were generally stable. [bobby]
WHO published its first Disease Outbreak News on the alleged new virus, containing a risk assessment and advice, and reporting on what China had told the organization about the status of patients and the public health response on the cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan. [pw] They say on Twitter, “On 31 December 2019, WHO was informed of cases of #pneumonia of unknown cause in Wuhan City, #China. A total of 44 cases have been reported: 11 patients are severely ill, while the remaining 33 are in stable condition.” Nobody has died as of this date.
January 7, 2020 — Novel coronavirus termed “2019-n-CoV” was announced by China as the causative agent of the 44 cases of pneumonia even though viral- specific nucleic acids were found on only 15 patients. China says that “corona-like virus particles was observed by electron microscopy.” [ccdc] [rasnick]
“After rigorous probes, tests, analysis, and other medical practices, the Chinese authorities made a global announcement (Huang et al., 2020) that they have successfully identified the virus as a novel coronavirus, similar to the one associated with SARS and the middle east respiratory syndrome (MARS). Prior to this ground breaking discovery, the officials had 2 days earlier, on January 5, ruled out that the virus they were dealing with was either SARS or MARS, hence concluding that it was indeed a new type of virus. Upon its successful identification, it was tentatively named as ‘2019-nCoV’. The identification came after Chinese scientists successfully isolated the virus from one of the patients quarantined in a hospital in Wuhan (Huang et al., 2020). According to an article by Singhal (2020), the identified virus had greater than 95% (>95%) homology with the bat coronavirus and was also greater than 70% similarity with the virus responsible for causing SARS (SARS-CoV).”
None of these tests involved the necessary steps of “isolation, purification characterization and full sequencing” of intact, wild, live virion from multiple patient samples, nor fulfillment of Koch’s or Rivers’ postulates, nor the meeting of the Gold Standard for the use of the PCR. No such steps or experiments are mentioned anywhere. Rather, the steps taken involve the “reassembly” of what are claimed to be viral nucleotides from presumed patient samples. [Little Dog] These are then published without chain of custody or patient notes (such as symptoms or outcome). Additionally, though the virus is said to be the result of zoonotic transfer, no original host or intermediate animals are ever identified.
China’s paramount leader and CCP general secretary Xi Jinping claimed he had learned of the epidemic on this date and issued a request for information on activities to contain the spread of the disease. However, the original public announcement of this on January 7, 2020 meeting did not mention the epidemic, and Xi’s claim was unsupported by the evidence, according to an article published on February 15th, 2020 by Xi Jinping himself. [wiki]
January 8, 2020 — The article: “Pneumonia of unknown etiology in Wuhan, China: potential for international spread via commercial air travel” submitted January 8 and subsequently published January 14 in the Journal of Travel Medicine. By Isaac I. Bogoch, Alexander Watts, Andrea Thomas-Bachli, Carmen Huber, Moritz U.G. Kraemer and Kamran Khan. “There is currently an outbreak of pneumonia of unknown etiology in Wuhan, China. Although there are still several unanswered questions about this infection, we evaluate the potential for international dissemination of this disease via commercial air travel should the outbreak continue.” [pw] [similar article from JTTM here.]
January 9, 2020 — WHO reported that Chinese authorities have determined that the outbreak is caused by a novel coronavirus. WHO convened the first of many teleconferences with global expert networks, beginning with the Clinical Network.
Patient 2 died on this date (China). No biopsy specimens were obtained. [bobby].
From the NIH timeline: On January 9, 2020, Chinese officials reported to the WHO that they have finally identified the virus, and subsequently, the WHO made the official announcement (WHO, 2020e) of the same to the world. [nih]
January 10, 2020 — Viral genome sequence was released by China and given GenBank MN908947 [c-d]. This is a partial, in silico sequence of the N gene [db]. WHO issued a comprehensive package of technical guidance online with advice to all countries on how to detect, test and manage potential cases, based on what was known about the virus at the time. This guidance was shared with WHO’s regional emergency directors to share with WHO representatives in countries [who]. Also see this 2018 paper relating to 2003 SARS. Dr Li Wenligng, Chinese eye doctor, is said to have started coughing. He says his parents also took ill and were taken to the hospital. Tests negative several times. What about his parents?
Official media announcement is picked up by ScienceMag.org.
— BetaCoV/Wuhan/IVDC-HB-05/2019 ID: EPI_ISL_402121 by Zhu et al. – submitted to GISAID [benjamin]
— BetaCoV/Wuhan/IVDC-HB-01/2019 ID: EPI_ISL_402119 by Zhu et al. – submitted to GISAID [Benjamin]
“From Jan 10, 2020, we enrolled a family of six patients who travelled to Wuhan from Shenzhen between December 29, 2019 and January 4, 2020. Of six family members who travelled to Wuhan, five were identified as infected with the novel coronavirus.” David Crowe writes, “Two grandparents) patients 1 and 2), the daughter and son-in law) patients 3 and 4), a 10-year old grandson and a 7- year old granddaughter (patients 5 and 6) flew to Wuhan on 12/29/19. On the first day, the grandmother (1) and her daughter (3) visited a baby boy with pneumonia, known as Relative 1, in a hospital in Wuhan (the hospital is not named, but the implication is the child had this new disease). They mingled with four other local relatives, of which two had also spent extensive time in the hospital. *Notably the infant’s symptoms resolved one or two days after the visit, and he returned home.” [crowe 16]
A Shanghai laboratory had sequenced the virus’ genome. German scientists (meaning Corman and Drosten) produced the first polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay based on this sequence, and others including SARS-CoV-I, a week later. This is called the “German test” or the “Charité” test, which is one and the same as the WTO test design.
[virology] A viral genome sequence was released for immediate public health support via the community online resource. [Wuhan-HU-1, GenBank accession number MN908947, see entries above]
January 11, 2020 — WHO tweeted that it had received the genetic sequences for the novel coronavirus from the People’s Republic of China and expected these to soon be made publicly available. Chinese media reported the first death from the novel coronavirus [who tweet].
From Wiki timeline: A viral genome sequence was shared to GENBANK and Virological.org by Professor Zhang Yongzhen of the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre through the auspices of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was before the government’s official disclosure of the same to WHO, occurring the day after the National Health Commission released several viral sequences to GISAID.
— BetaCoV/Wuhan/WIV04/2019 ID:EPI_ISL_402124 by Zhou et al. – submitted to GISAID. This is a sequence of unknown origin published by China. [benjamin]
— BetaCoV/Wuhan/IPBCAMS-WH-01/2019 ID: EPI_ISL_402123 by Ren et al. – submitted to GISAID. This is a sequence of unknown origin published by China. [benjamin]
— BetaCoV/Wuhan/IVDC-HB-04/2020 ID: EPI_ISL_402120 by Zhu et al. – submitted to GISAID. This is a sequence of unknown origin published by China. [benjamin]
— MN908947.1 – published on www.virological.org [benjamin]. This is a sequence of unknown origin published by China.
On January 11, the Chinese health officials report that a 61-year-old man who had been admitted in one of the hospitals in Wuhan had died. From the report (Ravelo and Jerving, 2020), the man had other underlying health conditions such as chronic liver disease and abdominal tumors, but the cause of his death was attributed to 2019-nCoV. By the time of his death, he was reported to have suffered from issues such as respiratory failure and severe pneumonia, septic shock, and multiple organ failure. He was also observed to have suffered from severe acid-based metabolism disorder and cirrhosis. His hospital treatment included antiinfection, ventilator- assisted breathing, life support, and other treatments, but with no positive results. His death was marked as the first known death from this new virus. [nih]
In regard to new cases, health officials did not record any other case except the 44 cases that had been received up to January 3. They also expressed that according to an epidemiological survey (WHO, 2020e), there was no clear evidence that the disease could be transmitted from human to human. However, they affirmed that all the cases in hospital were of people who had been exposed to the Wuhan Seafood market. [nih]
On this day, the first 2019-nCoV virus genome sequence was deposited in the GENBNK (the NIH database that where all public genetic sequences are stored) and shared with virologist.org (an online hub for prepublication of data, where the public can freely access for public health–related activities and research) and also uploaded to the platform “Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data” (GISAID) (ECDC, 2020b), through a collaboration of a number of organizations including the Shanghai Public Health Clinic Centre, the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention among others. All this happened before the information on discovery of the genome sequence was officially shared with the WHO. However, the details were to be shared with the WHO the following day together with other viral sequences that were to be shared with GISAID (Holmes, 2020). In parallel, Chinese Health officials were considering to temporarily close down the Chinese laboratory that was the first to share the coronavirus genome with the world. The laboratory was closed on the following day (January 12) (Pinghui, 2020). [nih]
WHO received further detailed information from the National Health Commission China that the outbreak is associated with exposures in one seafood market in Wuhan City. (note information was also received on the 12th).
January 12, 2020 — Saturn conjunct Pluto in Capricorn.
— MN908947.1 – made public on GenBank. This is a sequence of unknown origin published by China.
From Wiki timeline: In China, more than 700 close contacts of the 41 confirmed cases, including more than 400 healthcare workers, had been monitored, with no new cases reported in China since 5 January.[42][38][52][69] Respiratory wards in Wuhan hospitals began reaching capacity around 12 January, with some people being denied care.[70] The WHO published initial guidance on travel advice, testing in the laboratory and medical investigation.[52] The WHO said that “The [Chinese] government reports that there is no clear evidence that the virus passes easily from person to person”.[71]
January 13, 2020 — WHO convened the first teleconference with the diagnostics and laboratories global expert network. [Are there notes on this?] The Ministry of Public Health in Thailand reported an imported case of lab-confirmed novel coronavirus from Wuhan, the first recorded case outside of the People’s Republic of China. WHO publishes first protocol for a RT-PCR assay by a WHO partner laboratory to diagnose the novel coronavirus [WHO].
Ministry of Public Health, Thailand reported the first imported case of lab-confirmed novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) from Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
January 14, 2020 — MN908947.2 – replaces MN908947.1 on GenBank [benjamin]
WHO held a press briefing during which it stated that, based on experience with respiratory pathogens, the potential for human-to-human transmission in the 41 confirmed cases in the People’s Republic of China existed: “it is certainly possible that there is limited human-to-human transmission.” WHO tweeted that preliminary investigations by the Chinese authorities had found “no clear evidence of human-to- human transmission.” [wiki]
In its risk assessment, WHO said additional investigation was “needed to ascertain the presence of human-to-human transmission, modes of transmission, common source of exposure and the presence of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases that are undetected” [WHO]. From Wikipedia timeline: WHO sent a tweet which said “preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in Wuhan, China.”[77] According to Reuters in Geneva, WHO said there may have been limited human-to-human transmission of a new coronavirus in China within families, and it is possible there could be a wider outbreak.[78][wiki]
WHO’s technical lead, Maria Van Kerkhove, noted in a press briefing there may have been limited human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus (in the 41 “confirmed cases”), mainly through family members, and that there was a risk of a possible wider outbreak. The lead also said that human-to-human transmission would not be surprising given our experience with SARS, MERS and other respiratory pathogens. [pw]
January 15, 2020 — The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Japan (MHLW) reported an imported case of laboratory-confirmed 2019-novel coronavirus from Wuhan, Hubei, Province, China [bobby]
The NHC unveiled the first version of guidelines on diagnosis and treatment for pneumonia caused by novel coronavirus along with the guidelines on prevention and control measures. [bobby]
January 16, 2020 — The Pan American Health Organization/WHO Regional office for the Americas (PAHO/AMRO) issued its first epidemiological alert on the novel coronavirus. The alert included recommendations covering international travelers, infection prevention and control measures and laboratory testing.
About the new cases, provincial and municipal experts based on the patient’s clinical manifestations, epidemiological history, and the results detected using the newly issued diagnostic kits issued by the country, newly identified 4 cases of pneumonia infected by the new coronavirus. [bobby]
January 17, 2020 — MN908947.3 – replaces MN908947.2 on Genbank [benjamin]
Four cases were cured and discharged, 17 new cases were added, and there were no deaths. [bobby]
The WHO publishes its PCR protocols, based on the Corman-Drosten test.
January 18, 2020 — Five cases were cured and discharged, 59 new cases were added, and 1 case dead. [bobby]
In the United States, retrospective NAT of archived respiratory samples in the Seattle region have suggested introduction of SARS-CoV-2 virus into the Seattle, Washington, area between Jan. 18 and Feb. 9. [article source]
January 19, 2020 — On January 19, 2020, a 35-year-old man presented to an urgent care clinic in Snohomish County, Washington, with a 4-day history of cough and subjective fever. On checking into the clinic, the patient put on a mask in the waiting room. After waiting approximately 20 minutes, he was taken into an examination room and underwent evaluation by a provider. He disclosed that he had returned to Washington State on January 15 after traveling to visit family in Wuhan, China. The patient stated that he had seen a health alert from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) about the novel coronavirus outbreak in China and, because of his symptoms and recent travel, decided to see a health care provider. [nejm]
CDC officials initially said the spark that started the U.S. outbreak arrived during a three-week window from mid-January to early February. Officially, the first U.S. infection was a traveler— a Washington state man who returned from Wuhan on January 15th and sought help at a clinic on this date. [apnews.com]
January 20, 2020 — WHO conducted field visit to Wuhan China to learn about the responses to 2019 novel coronavirus. The mission was part of the ongoing close collaboration between WHO and Chinese national, provincial and Wuhan health authorities in responding to 2019-nCoV. WHO publishes its first guidance on how to handle patients believed to be infected.
National IHR Focal Point (NFP) for Republic of Korea reported the first case of novel coronavirus in the Republic of Korea [bobby]
A total of 201 cases of pneumonia in China have been confirmed; 282 “confirmed” cases of 2019-n-Cov have been reported from four countries including China (278 cases), Thailand (2 cases), Japan (1 case) and the Republic of Korea (1 case). [bobby]
January 21, 2020 — The United States of America (USA) reported its “first confirmed case” of the novel coronavirus. This was the first case in the WHO Region of the Americas [WHO]. The only available assay at this time is Corman-Drosten, distributed by WHO. See Jan. 19 above.
Corman-Drosten paper submitted to Eurosurveillance.
According to BBC News [4] and Google Statistics [5] there were 6 deaths world-wide on January 21st 2020 – the day when the manuscript was submitted. Why did the authors assume a challenge for public health laboratories while there was no substantial evidence at that time to indicate that the outbreak was more widespread than initially thought? [retraction paper]
WHO experts from its China and Western Pacific regional offices conducted a brief field visit to Wuhan *(also noted under January 20th)? [pw]
The Chinese government has released the primers and probes used in the rT-PCR test kit. [bobby]
January 21-24 2020 — The World Economic Forum’s annual meeting takes place in Davos, Switzerland, where both the economy and vaccinations are discussed. WEF was a cosponsor of Event 201.
January 22, 2020 — Wuhan bans sale and breeding of wild animals [cbs]. Gee, it’s about time.
WHO mission to China issued a statement saying that there was evidence of human-to-human transmission in Wuhan but more investigation was needed to understand the full extent.
WHO director-general convened an Emergency Committee (EC) under the International Health Regulations (IHR 2005) to assess whether the outbreak constituted a public health emergency of international concern. The independent members from around the world could not reach a consensus based on the evidence available at the time.
They asked to be reconvened within 10 days after receiving more information. “We have it totally under control.” — President Trump, in an interview, on Jan. 22.
January 23, 2020 — Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR by Victor Corman, Christian Drosten, et al, is published by Eurosurveillance with just 24 hours peer review. The paper is the scientific basis for the existence and pathogenicity of the 2019-nCoV virus, as well as providing the fatally flawed PCT test design adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO).
The paper is finally refuted in November by an international consortium of scientists and researchers, who expose 10 fatal flaws in the assay design. These include the inability to detect whether a sample is from a human, defective primer design, issues with the cycle threshold, conflict of interest, lack of peer review, and many others. The 22 authors demand that the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted byEurosurveillance. The publication secretly convenes a committee to address the retraction demand, which Dr. Steve Bustin revealed in a Planet Waves FM interview in early 2021.
On this date, Wuhan, a city of more than 11 million [9.5 million?], was cut and locked down off by the Chinese authorities. Wuhan’s transit shutdown.
January 24, 2020 — The Lancet publishes a paper by Huang et al revealing that 13 of the original 41 cases had no contact with the Huanan wet market in Wuhan, making the “wet market origin” story implausible or impossible.
An article in Science characterizes the findings: ‘The paper, written by a large group of Chinese researchers from several institutions, offers details about the first 41 hospitalized patients who had confirmed infections with what has been dubbed 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). In the earliest case, the patient became ill on 1 December 2019 and had no reported link to the seafood market, the authors report. “No epidemiological link was found between the first patient and later cases,” they state. Their data also show that, in total, 13 of the 41 cases had no link to the marketplace. “That’s a big number, 13, with no link,” says Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University.’
Zhu-Gao paper is published by New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). “China novel coronavirus research and investigating team” including George Gao, head of Chinese CDC (Howard University educated). Gau is on the Global Monitoring Preparedness Board, connected to Fauci et al. He is also the Chinese guy on Event 201. They also define sequence as less than 90%, 2019-nCoV, the “likely causative agent” is probably this virus [Benjamin.] However, they admit that it does not fulfill Koch’s Postulates.
Illinois health officials announced the first confirmed case the novel coronavirus infection in the state of Illinois, also the second confirmed case in the United States. The case was a woman in her 60s who had returned from a December 25 – January 13 visit to Wuhan, China, the place of origin of the outbreak, where she had frequently visited a hospitalized relative and other relatives with respiratory illnesses.[13] On January 30, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed that the first known human-to-human transmission in the U.S. of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (then known as 2019-nCoV) had occurred in Chicago. According to the CDC, the woman who was the first Illinois case had transmitted the virus to her husband, who was confirmed as the second Illinois case and the sixth U.S. case after testing positive. He was isolated at the same hospital as his wife.[15]
David Crowe writes,
“A paper in Lancet (not the one referenced above) made a big deal about the presumed first case of person-to person contact in the USA, from a woman who had visited Wuhan in December 2019, to her husband, who stayed in the United Sates. She got sick after returning, and later both her and her husband, who had not travelled to Wuhan, tested positive for COVID-19. Whether he had symptoms or not was impossible to tell because he had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, so had cough and difficulty breathing all the time. What is more interesting is that authorities identified 372 contacts of this couple, and “were able to assess exposure risk and actively monitor symptoms for 347.”
Not one of these people had an emergency room visit with respiratory symptoms within 14 days of contact with the couple. 43 did have some symptoms that could have been COVID- 19, and became “Persons Under Investigation.” 26 had exposures to the couple classified as “medium risk or greater.” But despite the presence of symptoms, contact with the couple, and close monitoring, not one tested positive for COVID- 19. [crowe 16]
The CDC says that it has developed a sophisticated diagnostic test and has sought F.D.A. permission to send it to public labs around the country. CDC Press tele briefing [pw]
January 25, 2020 — Chinese Medical Journal receives submission of Ren paper. Ren paper claims that a novel coronavirus is associated with patient pneumonias but admits that it remains to be seen whether it causes the symptoms. [benjamin]
Less than 90% for reserved RDRP sequence and recommends that it should be classified as a new sequence. Some of the people, including the main author, are part of [cabal described at the top of the Ren paper]. Little Dog Team — published screen shots of social media accounts when they reported to friends of possible SARS-like outbreak.
Christian Drosten tweets: “Now that we know #nCoV2019 really resembles #SARS (see #Lancet yesterday), here is my reading tip for the weekend: https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/717919/epidemiology-severe-acute-respiratory- syndrome-2003-hong-kong-epidemic-analysis…. This is the essence of how #HongKong stopped it. Look at Figure 5.” The designer of the WHO PCR assay admits that the allegedly “new virus” is not a novel virus.
From the NIH timeline for this day: “Researchers were able to observe a lot of interesting information from the model, which ran from the start of the outbreak until 25th January. Specifically, the researchers estimated that as of 25th January, 40 cases of 2019-NCoV had been exported from China. At the same time, the team estimated that the number of 2019-nCoV cases in China may have been much higher than reported for the whole of January, up to about 20,000 cases of 2019- nCoV in the country as of 25th January 25 (the number reported at the time was nearly 2000). Researchers also estimated that hundreds of people in Wuhan were infected in early December. The model is, however, limited by many factors, as explained by the team on their blog post. They are primarily due to the numbers being used are conservative estimates, the transmission of 2019-nCoV, such as the R0 value and incubation period, being uncertain, asymptomatic infections are not covered and only air travel was included.” [nih]
On Virological.org, Kristian Anderson says that there are 28 full-length genomes and one partial genome claimed to be from 2019-nCoV available on the GISAID platform. Many of the earlier entries were posted by the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and were deleted. Anderson proposes that the earliest common ancestor of the 28 alleged sequences was in October 2019. How were these genomes created without purified, isolated virus, and how did anyone initially know what to look for? [pw]
January 26, 2020 — Editor of the People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), tweeted a claim that the first building of the Huoshenshan Hospital had been completed in only 16 hours. The Daily Beast reported the next day the building shown in the picture accompanying the west was actually a marketing photo of a modular container building sold by the Henan K-Home Steel Structure Company, not an actual hospital. [wiki]
January 27, 2020 — CDC issued narrow guidance on which patients qualified for a test — only those with recent travel to Wuhan or those who had come into contact with an infected person. [pw]
[DailyMail] GenBank: MN996532.1 submits Bat —RaTG13. It was noted a warning that on October 13, 2020 this sequence was replaced by MN996532.2 [bobby] These are sequences of unknown origin provided by China.
January 28, 2020 — Chairman of the Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University and two Chinese nationals were charged with aiding the People’s Republic of China. There are a diversity of criminal charges for selling scientific secrets and lying to a federal investigation, tax evasion and other crimes, among other issues. One of the Chinese nationals, Zaosong Zheng, was charged with stealing 21 vials of biological research and attempting to smuggle them out of the U.S. and aboard a flight to China. Our reporters did their best to unravel this at the time and could not find a direct Covid connection. We cannot rule in, or rule out, that this incident is connected to Covid. However, the criminally indicted chairman, Dr. Charles Lieber, was a “strategic scientist” at Wuhan University of Technology, perhaps just a coincidence; the university has not come up in the Covid story that we have read about. See Department of Justice press release. See NPR coverage.
The most interesting thing about the court papers, in my view, was the description of the depth and complexity of U.S.-China relations where biotechnology is concerned. Read coverage from June 2021 in the Harvard Crimson.
In other news, senior WHO delegation led by the Director-General travelled to Beijing to meet China’s leadership, learn more about China’s response, and to offer any technical assistance. [pw]
Op-Ed by Luciana Borio, the former head of medical and biodefense preparedness at the National Security Council (NSC), and Scott Gottlieb, who led the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from May 2017 to April 2019: Act Now to Prevent an American Epidemic – Quarantines, flu vaccines and other steps to take before the Wuhan virus becomes widespread. “[T]he CDC will struggle to keep up with the volume of screening. Government should focus on working with private industry to develop easy-to-use, rapid diagnostic tests that can be made available to providers.” [The CDC did the opposite, issuing narrow testing guidelines.] [pw]
January 29, 2020 — Little Dog paper published on Medium. It is a personal account of the in silico discovery of 2019-nCoV that had SARS-like qualities. and similarities to bat viruses.
The White House announces a coronavirus task force led by the secretary of Health and Human Services Alex M. Azar II. President Trump attends the group’s first meeting and tweets that the experts “are on top of it.” [pw]
January 30, 2020 — Pasteur Institute claims it has sequenced the whole virus from samples it received on January 24. [science daily] This is not actual sequencing from purified isolate of wild virion; it is assembling nucleotides into a kind of potential, hypothetical “virus,” probably using CRISPR.
January 30, 2020 — A new, affordable (and unspecified) pneumonia vaccine was high on the agenda at the inaugural Global Forum on Childhood Pneumonia in Barcelona. The new vaccine could save many lives from the top childhood killer— and improving access in middle-income countries should be a central focus, says Médecins Sans Frontières, or Doctors Without Borders, an international humanitarian medical non-governmental organization of French origin. [Global Health Now]
HHS boss Azar declared a “public health emergency,” announcing travel restrictions —including barring noncitizens who had recently visited China from entering the United States — in an effort to curtail the virus’s spread inside the country. The declaration triggered emergency testing protocols, which increased restrictions on which labs could make a coronavirus test. Any lab would be required to acquire an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA to perform testing for covid- 19. The FDA granted the CDC the first EUA. Late January ‘Criminal Negligence’: Trump Officials Ignored Company’s Offer to Make 7 Million N95 Masks Per Month. The World Health Organization began shipping its tests out to countries during the first week of February. [pw]
According to NIH, The virus has been spread to 17 other countries [25], with number of confirmed cases: Thailand (14), Japan (11), Singapore (10), Australia (9), Malaysia (8), USA (6), France (5), Germany (5), Korea (4), United Emirates (4), Canada (3), Vietnam (2), Nepal (1), Finland (1), Sri Lanka (1), India (1), and Cambodia (1). Using back-calculation method, Nishiura has estimated the cumulative incidence in China in real time, allowing us to update and discuss the extent of transmission at the source [26]. [nih]
All age groups can be infected. According to Bin Cao, the Executive vice President at the Institute of Respiratory Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, 72% confirmed infection cases are aged 40 and above, 64% are male. 40% patients also have other underlying diseases such as diabetes and high blood pressure [27]. [nih]
On January 31, after a planned debate session, the Senate voted against allowing subpoenas to call witnesses or documents with a 51–49 vote.[161] Fifty-one Republican senators voted against calling witnesses, while 45 Democratic senators, two independents (Bernie Sanders and Angus King) who typically vote Democratic, and two Republicans (Mitt Romney and Susan Collins) voted for witnesses.[162] Further attempts to add witnesses, Bolton in particular, via amendments were tabled with similar vote tallies but with Romney and Collins joining their fellow Republicans except for votes specifically calling for Bolton as a witness.[163]
February 2020
Early February 2020 — Stanford University develops its own test for the coronavirus but runs into regulatory roadblocks at the FDA. The U.S. opted to develop its own test, but the distribution was limited. Other countries, like China, developed their own tests as well. In the early weeks of the pandemic, the United States recorded an estimated 15,400 excess deaths, nearly two times as many as were publicly attributed to covid-19 at the time [wapo]
February 2, 2020 — The first alleged coronavirus death was reported outside China. This is in the Philippines. He is 44 years old and was from Wuhan. [pw] BBC also reports that 200 people have died in the outbreak, “the vast majority from Hubai.” BBC also claims that 14,000 have been infected as of this date. [bbc]
February 3, 2020 — WHO releases the international community’s Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan to help protect states with weaker health systems.
The US test was approved by the Food and Drug Administration on February 4 — around two weeks after the first case was reported in Washington State and more than a month after the outbreak was first reported in China.
“Early” CDC test couldn’t distinguish between coronavirus and water. [pw, biz insider]. Repeat, tested positive for water. [Battini explains somewhere how exactly this happened. Water is the negative control — the substance that should always test negative. One way to get a positive test out of water is the primer-dimer issue, with the primers from the test annelling to one another and forming a sub stance that tests “positive.” This may have been what was called at the time test contamination. [see Four Steps of PCR, a concise explanation of the process. Includes video.]
The United States Senate voted 52 to 48 to find Trump not guilty on the charge of abuse of power; all 45 Democrats, Independent senators Bernie Sanders and Angus King, and Republican senator Mitt Romney voted guilty. Romney’s vote marked the first time in American history a senator voted to convict a president of his own party. On the second charge, the Senate voted 53 to 47, in a party-line vote, to find him not guilty on the charge of obstruction of Congress.
February 4, 2020 — FDA issues Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) requiring CDC to retest all positive results. CDC finally started to send kits to state and local health labs on February 5. [pw]
February 5, 2020 — A cruise ship in Japan quarantined thousands. [pw] “On Wednesday, it was confirmed that 10 people on board a cruise ship in Japan had also tested positive, prompting authorities to instruct all passengers to remain inside their cabins. Thousands of people on the Diamond Princess face spending the next fortnight stuck off the Japanese port of Yokohama, as officials attempt to prevent further infection.” [guardian]
The death toll in China has now risen to 490, according to the latest figures from the country’s National Health Commission (NHC). [guardian]
February 6, 2020 — Officials in Santa Clara County, Calif., announced on April 21 that two residents there died of the coronavirus on Feb. 6 and Feb. 17, making them the earliest known dead? victims of the pandemic in the United States. The CDC-manufactured kits were sent to state labs on Feb. 6 and Feb. 7. CDC press release. [pw]
February 7, 2020 — Li Wenliang — the eye doctor who warned people about a new virus — died allegedly from Covid-19 disease at age 34.[8][9] A subsequent Chinese official inquiry exonerated him, and the Communist Party of China formally offered a “solemn apology” to his family and revoked the admonishment of him.
February 10, 2020 — “We’re in great shape, though. We have 12 cases, 11 cases and many of them are in good shape.” –Trump remarks. [pw]
February 11, 2020 — The disease the virus causes was named COVID-19. [pw]. The word “covid” should not exist anywhere before this time, such as in spellcheck, disinfectant packages, etc.
February 12, 2020 — CDC revealed that several labs had difficulty validating the test because of a problem with one of the reagents. A problem with one ingredient in the US tests caused more than half of state labs to receive inconclusive results. Health experts said the glitch was unprecedented. [pw] [science]
“The key problem with the kits is what’s known as a negative control, says Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious diseases at the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL). CDC’s test uses the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay to find tiny amounts of the SARS-CoV-2 genome in, say, a nose swab. To make sure a test is working properly, kits also include DNA unrelated to SARS-CoV- 2. The assay should not react to this negative control, but the CDC reagents did at many, but not all, state labs. The labs where the negative control failed were not allowed to use the test; they have to continue to send their samples to Atlanta.” [science] This seems to be the first reference to potential problems with the WHO- Corman-Drosten assay.
February 11- 12, 2020 — WHO convened a Research and Innovation Forum on COVID-19, attended by more than 400 experts and funders from around the world, which included presentations by George Gao, Director General of China CDC, and Zunyou Wu, China CDC’s chief epidemiologist. [pw]
February 13, 2020 — Azar testified that he intended to implement a pilot program, adding coronavirus surveillance to the existing flu surveillance networks. But it never came to fruition. There were not enough tests to make it happen. [pw]
February 14, 2020 — France announced the first coronavirus death in Europe. Experts share concern that procedures on the quarantined ship will increase infection risk. [pw]
February 16-24, 2020 — The WHO-China Joint mission, which included experts from Canada, Germany, Japan, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, Russia, Singapore and the US (CDC, NIH) spent time in Beijing and also travelled to Wuhan and two other cities. They spoke with health officials, scientists and health workers in health facilities (maintaining physical distancing). The report of the joint mission can be found here: WHO-China Joint Mission report. [pw]
By now the CDC and state public health labs tested nearly 1,600 specimens. As a rule of thumb, two specimens are required per person, meaning that in total, only about 800 people had been tested. That’s roughly 2.4 tests per million people in the United States. [pw]
February 18, 2020 — Even as coronavirus testing remained limited nationwide, the CDC reminded hospitals that they shouldn’t do their own testing without an “emergency use authorization” from the FDA. [pw]
February 19, 2020 — Hundreds left the quarantined Diamond Princess. A scientist onboard the quarantined ship calls conditions “completely chaotic”. [pw, nyt]
February 20, 2020 — A man in Lombardy tests positive after previously leaving the hospital without a test. He is believed to have spread the disease widely before developing severe symptoms. (Italy now has three PCR positives.)
February 21, 2020 — A secretive church was linked to the outbreak in South Korea. [pw]
February 23, 2020 — In Italy, small towns said to be affected by the outbreak are placed under quarantine. Carnival celebrations and some soccer matches are canceled (150 PCR positives as of this date).
February 24, 2020 — Iran emerged as a second focus point. State public health labs made an unusual plea for the FDA to open testing. [pw]
The chief executive of the Association of Public Health Laboratories writes to the F.D.A. that “we are now many weeks into the response with still no diagnostic or surveillance test available outside of C.D.C. for the vast majority of our member laboratories.”
APHL asked FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn for “enforcement discretion” to sidestep the emergency process and allow APHL members labs to use their own tests. On 26 February, Hahn replied that the CDC test could be modified to use just the primers that specifically detect SARS-CoV-2, essentially ignoring the faulty portion of the kits. FDA, in other words, would look the other way to make more widespread testing possible. [science]
CDC has notified labs of FDA’s decision in a letter, but the agency must still file an emergency use authorization with FDA for the protocol change. Once it does, it won’t take long, Hahn promised in his letter to APHL: “FDA has been able to authorize tests for public health emergencies within as little as 1 day upon receipt of the complete validation.” [science]
In New York, the State Department of Health has designed its own test based on the CDC protocol and plans to seek emergency use authorization. [science] It is later revealed that the test utilizes 45 cycles of the PCR, assuring 90% false positives.
February 25, 2020 — Azar boasts to a Senate panel about his agency’s “aggressive response” to the coronavirus. A total of 12 other labs received EUAs from the FDA by late February. [pw] “We have contained this,” White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow insisted to a television interviewer on Feb. 25. “I won’t say airtight but pretty close.” [politico – march 6 2020 lots here]
February 26, 2020 — Latin America reported its first case. On this Wednesday, under pressure from health experts and public officials, the CDC and the FDA told labs they no longer had to worry about the portion of the test intended “for
the universal detection of SARS-like coronaviruses.” After three weeks of struggle, they could now use the test purely to check for the presence of COVID-19. [pw]
February 27, 2020 — “It’s going to disappear. One day — it’s like a miracle — it will disappear.” — Trump remarks [pw]
February 28, 2020 — Infections spiked in Europe. Sub-Saharan Africa recorded its first infection. [pw]
February 29, 2020 — The United States reported the first COVID-19 death. On this Saturday, the FDA announced an “accelerated policy to achieve more rapid testing capacity in the United States,” allowing academic hospital labs capable of performing high-quality testing to develop and begin using their own tests to detect COVID-19. Before now, hospital labs weren’t sent test kits by the CDC and the FDA required an extensive review process even if the hospitals had internally validated their tests. Under the new policy, the FDA review will still be required, but labs will be able to start using their diagnostics once they are internally validated. [pw, propublica]
End of February — By the end of February, the World Health Organization had shipped tests to nearly 60 countries. [politico – march 6 2020 lots here] These are all flawed Corman-Drosten assays.
Undated – Probably February — “Please provide an explanation for why the Covid-19 diagnostic test approved by the World Health Organization was not used,” Sen. Patty Murray, the ranking Democrat on the Senate health committee, who represents the hard-hit state of Washington, asked in a 31⁄2-page letter on the testing fiasco to Pence, Health Secretary Alex Azar, CDC director Robert Redfield, and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn. [politico – march 6 2020 lots here]
“We developed a test very rapidly after China produced the [genetic] sequence. We are in the process of validating that and that’s the test we’re going to be using,” said the CDC’s Stephen Redd, a 30-year veteran of the agency, at a recent briefing, even as members of the presidential task force acknowledged that the pace of testing had lagged. [politico – march 6 2020 lots here]
The WHO test, which adopted a German test as its model [Corman-Drosten], was developed soon after Chinese researchers publicly posted the genome of the coronavirus in January. It shipped millions of tests to countries around the world, but generally only those without the capability to develop their own. The U.S. developed its own test around the same time, but manufacturing and quality control issues soon set it well behind the WHO.
CDC officials acknowledged that one of the three components of the initial test were faulty, but it took weeks before the agency approved a workaround. [the hill, march 17, 2020]
The initial tests didn’t work, and officials are probing whether there was possible contamination. The protocol for who could be tested was restricted to people already known to have been exposed to the virus or who had been in China, even as the epidemic raced to multiple countries like Japan, South Korea, Italy and Iran. [politico – march 6 2020 lots here]
March 3, 2020 — Olympic Committee promises the Tokyo games will go on. Covid19 News commences publication.
March 4, 2020 — Schools and universities are closed in Italy by government orders (3,089 PCR positives as of this date).
March 6, 2020 — Testing controversy between WHO and Trump, seemingly based on a press report in Politico: The disease has now spread to more than 60 countries in six continents, sickening more than 100,000 and killing well over 3,000. “Why the United States declined to use the WHO test, even temporarily as a bridge until the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could produce its own test, remains a perplexing question and the key to the Trump administration’s failure to provide enough tests to identify the coronavirus infections before they could be passed on, according to POLITICO interviews with dozens of viral-disease experts, former officials and some officials within the administration’s health agencies.” [politico – march 6 2020 lots here]
March 8, 2020 — In Italy, several northern provinces are placed under lockdown (7,375 PCR positives as of this date).
March 9, 2020 — In Italy, the lockdown is extended nationwide (9,172 PCR positives as of this date).
March 11, 2020 — WHO’s director general calls Covid-19 a pandemic. Note, at some point prior to this, the definition of that word changed. In Italy, all restaurants and bars are closed (12,462 PCR positives in Italy as of this date).
March 13, 2020 — At 3:33 in the afternoon, with the Moon in Scorpio and five planets in Capricorn, Trump declares a national emergency.
March 15, 2020 — New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio says that city schools will close, elective surgeries will be canceled, and that five people are dead in New York City allegedly due to Covid. See video.
March 16, 2020 — Neil Ferguson of the Imperial College in the U.K., whose work is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, predicts that 82% of the American population will be “infected” with SARS-CoV-2 and that up to 3% will die.
This sensational prediction is off by orders of magnitude; the admitted, actual death rate under the virus scenario was a fraction of a percentage point, similar to seasonal flu, and in the high 90th percentile of “cases” are asymptomatic. Ferguson, who is infamous for this kind of overstatement in his projections, assumes an RO of 2.4, meaning that every “infected” person will convey the virus to 2.4 people.
The predicted result will be more than 2.2 million dead in the United States and 510,000 deaths in the U.K. (if mitigation measures are not imposed, so this served as a successful advertisement for the lockdowns). These numbers are parroted by Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany. [hponline links to other sources]. Here is an analysis of Ferguson’s past failures of statistical modeling.
Trump administration health officials on Tuesday defended the pace of diagnostic testing for the novel coronavirus while pushing back on criticism that the U.S. rejected a test from the World Health Organization (WHO).
The federal government has been criticized for not at least temporarily using the WHO test until the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) created its own. While officials have acknowledged there are still not enough tests to meet demand, they denied refusing other tests.
“No one ever offered a test that we refused,” said Adm. Brett Giroir, assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services. “This was a research-grade test that was not approved, not submitted to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] … there was a small number that we have greatly surpassed in a very short period of time.”
The WHO test, which adopted a German test as its model, was developed soon after Chinese researchers publicly posted the genome of the coronavirus in January. It shipped millions of tests to countries around the world, but generally only those without the capability to develop their own. [The Hill, March 17]
March 21, 2020 — Politico reports that the Justice Department has “quietly” asked Congress for the ability to ask chief judges to detain people indefinitely without trial during emergencies — part of a push for new powers that comes as the novel coronavirus spreads throughout the United States.
Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus coordinator, says that over 90% of people are testing negative for the virus (it is actually far less), but are told they may have Covid, or some other infectious disease– and should wear a mask at home, and self-quarantine at home — even if they test negative. They are concerned that negative may not mean negative, and that there may be some other unnamed, undocumented infectious disease involved. She says that children are the greatest potential risk for asymptomatic spread with no scientific backing to her theory.
Even those who are perfectly healthy are told that they may be sick. This “may be” is technically correct, since anyone could, potentially, have a disease; and as we learn in April, the PCR cannot diagnose, confirm or deny infection, according to its emergency use authorization by the FDA. So, anything goes, anything at all, based on what Birx is saying: medical science by fiat.
March 22, 2020 — In Italy, factories are closed and all nonessential production is halted (59,138 PCR positives in Italy as of this date).
March 24, 2020 — CDC issues an official guidance memo changing the rules for reporting deaths, suspending previous guidelines for the first time in 17 years, allowing many causes of mortality to be counted as “COVID-19” as the underlying cause. In reality, 94% of deaths will be shown by CDC data to have average 2.6 serious underlying causes of mortality. The advisory says:
Should “COVID-19” be reported on the death certificate only with a confirmed test?
COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death [bold emphasis in the original].
Commenting on this guidance, Children’s Health Defense reports that had the old guidelines been followed, “COVID-19” mortality would be 90.2% lower. They write, “On March 24, the CDC decided to ignore universal data collection and reporting guidelines for fatalities in favor of adopting new guidelines unique to COVID-19. The
guidelines the CDC decided against using have been used successfully since 2003.”
March 25, 2020 — The Washington Post reports that hospitals are considering blanket “do not resuscitate” (DNR) orders for Covid patients. The Bezos-owned newspaper reports:
“The conversations are driven by the realization that the risk to staff amid dwindling stores of protective equipment — such as masks, gowns and gloves — may be too great to justify the conventional response when a patient “codes,” and their heart or breathing stops. Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago has been discussing a do-not-resuscitate policy for infected patients, regardless of the wishes of the patient or their family members — a wrenching decision to prioritize the lives of the many over the one.”
March 30, 2020 — USNS Comfort, on loan from the Navy, arrives in New York City to great acclaim, with its 1,000 hospital rooms and 100 operating rooms. The plan is for non-Covid patients to be treated aboard the vessel, and for land-based hospitals to treat Covid patients. It is not used, and leaves one month later.
USA Today reports that there are eight strains of SARS-CoV-2 roaming the planet. This may be the first public reference to the “variant” issue — way back in March 2020.
April 4, 2020 — The New York Times reported that half the world — about 4.4 billion people — is under a stay-at-home order. CDC recommends that Americans all wear cloth masks in public.
The Daily Mail in England reports that the lab-leak theory of where the claimed virus came from “is no longer being discounted.” This controversy never goes away, particularly after it is made public that the United States, under the direction of Anthony Fauci, funded gain of function work through EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
April 7, 2020 — Celia Farber publishes Was the COVID-19 test meant to detect a virus? in Undercover DC. The article includes introductions to PCR inventor Kary Mullis (making his first Covid cameo), and Infectious Myth host David Crowe, plus some relevant HIV/AIDS history which is important background to 2020.
“In one paper,” Crowe says, “I found 37 cycles. If you didn’t get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles, you are considered negative. In another, paper, the cutoff was 36. Thirty-seven to 40 were considered ‘indeterminate’. And if you got in that range, then you did more testing. I’ve only seen two papers that described what the limit was. So, it’s quite possible that different hospitals, different states, Canada versus the U.S., Italy versus France, are all using different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test. So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might have everybody positive.”
This seems to be the first public reference to what becomes known as the cycle threshold (Ct) issue in relationship to Covid. It turns out that New York is using 45 cycles, very close to the “all positive” level of sensitivity. The Ct of any test or jurisdiction is not openly reported, and as Crowe notes, they all vary.
“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”
Translation: A positive test doesn’t guarantee that the COVID virus is causing infection at all. And, ahem, reading between the lines, maybe the COVID virus might not be in the patient’s body at all, either.
From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans” [2]:
“Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”
April 15, 2020 — New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomoorders all 19.5 New Yorkers to cover their faces, claiming it will stop the spread of the virus. The previous week, New Jersey’s Gov. Philip D Murphy issued a similar order.
“Stopping the spread is everything,” Mr. Cuomo said during his daily briefing in Albany. “How can you not wear a mask when you’re going to come close to a person?” On Dec. 15, 2020, the New York State Department of Health (NYS DOH), which serves as a reference for other states and countries around the world, admitted in response to a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request that it did not have a single study on the effectiveness of masks at stopping their spread of disease, or the safety of those who wear them. See article here; lower section, “Sorry, No Science.”
“It erodes popular faith in democracy when public officials insist that their arbitrary policies are ‘science based’ and yet cannot produce a single study to support sweeping mandates,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in response to this disclosure.
“This letter illustrates the hazard of abandoning due process,” he added, in reference to the state’s reply to the FOIL request (which was filed by investigative reporter William Huston).
April 27, 2020 — The Washington Post reports an unusually high all-causes death count for year to date, without a hint that there could be some specific cause besides Covid, rather than mysterious general causes or results of the lockdowns: “In the early weeks of the coronavirus epidemic, the United States recorded an estimated 15,400 excess deaths, nearly two times as many as were publicly attributed to covid-19 at the time, according to an analysis of federal data conducted for The Washington Post by a research team led by the Yale School of Public Health. This is later refuted when all-cause mortality for 2020 is found to be unusually low, if Covid is excluded.
“The excess deaths — the number beyond what would normally be expected for that time of year — occurred during March and through April 4, a time when 8,128 coronavirus deaths were reported.
“The excess deaths are not necessarily attributable directly to covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. They could include people who died because of the epidemic but not from the disease, such as those who were afraid to seek medical treatment for unrelated illnesses, as well as some number of deaths that are part of the ordinary variation in the death rate. The count is also affected by increases or decreases in other categories of deaths, such as suicides, homicides and motor vehicle accidents.”
April 29, 2020 — In the midst of a claimed pandemic, the Pentagon for the first time released three videos of footage they say are authentic images of UFOs, or what are now called “unidentified areal phenomena.”
The Pentagon has officially released three short videos showing “unidentified aerial phenomena” that had previously been released by a private company.
The videos show what appear to be unidentified flying objects rapidly moving while recorded by infrared cameras. Two of the videos contain service members reacting in awe at how quickly the objects are moving. One voice speculates that it could be a drone.
The Navy previously acknowledged the veracity of the videos in September of last year. They are officially releasing them now, “in order to clear up any misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage that has been circulating was real, or whether or not there is more to the videos,” according to Pentagon spokesperson Sue Gough.
April 30, 2020 — USNS Comfort steams out of New York Harbor, the hospital ship having never been used. Nor was the Javits Center used as a hospital, nor were SUNY and CUNY dormitories used to take care of patients. The expected crisis never grew to those proportions, and by April 30 is essentially over.
May 15, 2020 — Los Angeles County Unified School District closes schools.
For a detailed news chronology from May 2020-present please see Covid19 News. Months are listed at the top of the page, as is my portfolio of investigative articles. We are now working on distilling the events of the past 16 months into the format of this chronology. It will take a little while, though with your support we will make it happen.
*
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 document is a work in progress. It updates frequently; the version number is at the top right. We are still working out consistency of the typing style from the many source documents we are quoting (and fixing typing errors). If you have submissions of documented dates of events, please send them to us at [email protected]. You may also donate to the continued development of the chronology project. Thank you.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
As the state prepares to hire a recruiting firm to bring desperately needed health care workers to New Hampshire, some nursing students with safety concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine are leaving their nursing programs over vaccine mandates. A new state law prohibits most of their colleges from requiring a COVID-19 vaccine, but their clinical sites can – and most will have to under the new Biden administration vaccine mandate for health care settings.
“A critical health care workforce shortage is on the horizon in New Hampshire unless these health care organizations drop their rigid policies,” said Rep. Leah Cushman, a Weare Republican who has proposed legislation that would require hospitals and other health care settings to accept exemption requests by clinical students. (The law requires them to consider medical and religious exemption requests, but Cushman said she’s been told they are being rejected without review.) “We can’t afford to stop new nurses from entering the field.”
Mandated vaccines for workers in health care settings has been both celebrated and attacked here and nationally, with opponents warning mandates will lead to large-scale resignations and exacerbate an already dire workforce shortage.
It’s unclear how many New Hampshire nursing students have left their programs over mandates. Rep. Tim Lang, a Sanbornton Republican whose “vaccine freedom” bill prohibits public institutions like the state’s universities from mandating a vaccine, said he knows of at least 18 nursing students who’ve withdrawn from their programs. (The law does not include private schools.) Lang has suggested hospitals offer a testing option instead, but that won’t be allowed under the Biden administration’s new mandate.
Of the nursing programs that responded to Bulletin messages, the Community College System declined to say whether students had left the program, citing student privacy, but acknowledged it’s been an issue; Plymouth State University said no students have withdrawn; and the University of New Hampshire said it is not aware of any vaccine-related issues.
The concerns raised by nursing students in New Hampshire and nationally range from the vaccine’s unknown long-term effects; its fast approval; suspicions the drug companies are motivated by profits, not public health safety; and opposition to mandates.
They are not persuaded by assurances from nearly all public health and government officials of the vaccine’s safety. Nor do they believe officials’ warnings that they are being misled by unproven claims and misinformation.
Nursing student Michelle Hammond said she is one of at least four students who left the nursing program at Lakes Region Community College because of vaccine mandates. She was two semesters shy of graduating from a program she began 15 years ago. Hammond is not opposed to all immunizations and got the flu vaccine last year. She said her resistance to a COVID-19 vaccine grew after she felt health care providers – including hers – didn’t take her concerns seriously.
“I love being a nurse. It’s like being a mom all the time,” Hammond said. “Ethically, I just don’t know if I want to be in that environment where doctors are ignoring the possibility that there are side effects related to the vaccine. We’ve been trying this COVID vaccine long enough to see there are problems.”
Nicole Lheureux, 13 weeks pregnant, said she will leave her program at Plymouth State University if her two clinical sites do not give her a medical exemption. Among other concerns, she said she’s worried the vaccine isn’t safe for her unborn child given that it has not been approved for children under 12. And Jennifer Tuthill, who withdrew from her program at River Valley Community College in Claremont, doesn’t believe the vaccine went through sufficient testing. “There were not even animal trials on these vaccines,” she said. “We are the trial. We are the science experiment.”
All said they felt like their nursing programs did too little to advocate for them.
Nursing programs said they are limited in how much they can intervene because unlike their state colleges, the sites that provide their students hands-on clinical experiences are not prohibited from mandating COVID-19 vaccines. And those sites said their vaccine policies will apply to students and staff.
That means students doing their clinical work within the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health System must be vaccinated by Sept. 30. North Country Healthcare will require vaccines as of next month, as will Concord Hospital, which also owns Franklin Regional Hospital and Lakes Region General Hospital. In announcing the mandate, North Country Healthcare CEO Tom Mee said: “The data continues to reinforce the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines, including the mitigation of new and emerging threats such as the Delta variant. To that end, we confidently know more than ever that vaccination is the best way to end this public health crisis.”
Shannon Reid, spokeswoman for the Community College System, said they are aware the vaccine mandate has become an issue at some clinical sites.
“The colleges can’t dictate the terms under which hospitals and other health care provider sites allow individuals to work in their facilities and the ways in which these facilities seek to safeguard patient safety,” she said in an email. “We are doing our best to work with students on a case-by-case basis, in ways that support their beliefs, individual circumstances, and educational aspirations.”
The vaccination rate among health care workers nationally is estimated to be between 75 and 80 percent, but reliable data can be hard to find for most settings. And while the unvaccinated percentage may seem small, the numbers are not. New York is considering using the National Guard to replace the 16 percent of unvaccinated health care workers who don’t have their first vaccine dose by a Monday deadline, The New York Times reported Saturday. That’s about 70,000 workers.
Currently, nursing homes in all states must report staff vaccination rates to the federal government; according to a state-by-state map from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, many New Hampshire nursing homes report more than 75 percent of staff are vaccinated, but several report rates below that. Beginning in October, staff vaccination rates must also be reported by hospitals.
What’s harder to find are vaccination rates among just nurses because data is often not broken down by position. In July, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that among long-term care facilities, just 56.7 percent of nurses had been vaccinated compared with 75.1 percent of physicians. The rate was much higher – 88 percent – among 4,912 nurses who responded to a recent survey by the American Nurses Association.
When asked in the survey about their and their patients’ vaccine concerns, the nurses’ responses were similar to those voiced by the nursing students who’ve left their programs or are considering it. These included a lack of data about potential long-term effects, pregnancy risks, the vaccine’s effectiveness, and uncertainty about the need to be vaccinated.
Nurses also cited concerns about conflicting media reports of the vaccine’s benefits and risks, a reason many in and outside the health care field also cite for their vaccine hesitancy.
Lheureux, whose concerns include not only health risks to her baby but also an increased risk of miscarriage, relies on two sources of information: her training and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a database of post-vaccination symptoms voluntarily reported by providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public.
Although some believe the database is run by an independent third party, it is co-managed by the CDC and the federal Food and Drug Administration. To search it, users must acknowledge that the reports may be incomplete, “subject to biases,” and have not been verified or investigated to determine whether there is a connection between the vaccination and the reported symptom.
As of Friday, there were 2.5 million reported symptoms for the COVID-19 vaccine, the vast majority of them headache (109,259); fever (91,361); fatigue (90,122); chills (80,520); and unspecified pain (77,522). There was one report of “risk of future preganancy miscarriage.”
Still, Lheureux remains unpersuaded by the CDC’s warnings that COVID-19 virus – not the vaccine – puts pregnant women at greater risk for severe illness. Or that the vaccine is safe for people ages 12 and up, pregnant women included. It’s not a risk she’s willing to take, she said.
“This vaccine came out faster than any other vaccine in our history, and on one hand that is the miracle of modern medicine,” she said. “On the other hand, we don’t have a lot of information on it. I think it has more side effects than are being talked about.”
Lheureux has applied for a medical exemption citing her pregnancy at her two clinical sites, both of which require staff to be vaccinated. If her exemptions are denied and she cannot find another site that does not mandate vaccinations, Lheureux said she will withdraw.
Hospitals not mandating staff vaccinations include Parkland Medical Center in Derry, Portsmouth Regional Hospital, and Frisbie Memorial Hospital in Rochester. But that is unlikely to last under President Joe Biden’s new executive order mandating vaccines, with no testing option, for all health care settings that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding. (Gov. Chris Sununu and Republican lawmakers are challenging that mandate, and the lawmakers have proposed legislation blocking the mandate from being enforced in New Hampshire.)
“We are reviewing the details of President Biden’s plan and will respond accordingly,” said Ryan Lawrence, spokesman for Parkland Medical Center, which like the other two sites is part of HCA Healthcare. “While to this point we have not mandated that our colleagues receive the vaccination, our infectious disease experts have strongly encouraged vaccination as a critical step to protect individuals from the virus.”
Leaving her program was not an easy decision for Hammond, who began her studies 15 years ago but took time off to raise her kids.
“Understand that (a lot) is unknown. I was kind of waiting and being open-minded,” she said. But as she heard about others’ experiences following vaccination, the more fearful she became. Hammond said those symptoms have included leg swelling, rash, and temporary paralysis. Her father-in-law suffered chest pains after receiving the vaccine. There’s no proof the symptoms were caused by the vaccine, but, Hammond noted, there is no proof they weren’t.
“You weigh the risks of side effects against the risk of getting sick from COVID,” she said. “And the fear of side effects scares me more than the fear of getting COVID.”
Tuthill, who was to graduate in December, shares Hammond’s concerns about the vaccine’s side effects, and like Hammond, she has received other vaccines. She’s also firmly opposed to mandates and is upset the CDC and federal Food and Drug Administration have warned against other medical treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. She also suspects the government is downplaying what she believes are legitimate negative effects of the vaccine.
Tuthill sought a medical exemption and asked her nursing program to allow her to do her clinical work online. When none of her attempts worked before she had to commit to her final semester, Tuthill withdrew rather than lose a semester’s worth of tuition.
She persuaded the program to defer her enrollment for a year with hopes vaccine mandates would end by then. But she’s not optimistic they will, and she believes people who share her views will continue to be dismissed.
“A lot of the stuff I am getting is not from mainstream media,” she said. “A lot of what I say would be pooh-poohed because a lot of people out there are not doing their research.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Senior reporter Annmarie Timmins is a New Hampshire native who covered state government, courts, and social justice issues for the Concord Monitor for 25 years. During her time with the Monitor, she won a Nieman Fellowship to study journalism and mental health courts at Harvard for a year. She has taught journalism at the University of New Hampshire and writing at the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
A Yahoo News’ investigation reveals that, through much of 2017, the CIA weighed up whether to use wholly extrajudicial means to deal with the supposed threat posed by Julian Assange and his whistleblowers’ platform Wikileaks. The agency plotted either to kidnap or assassinate him.
Shocking as the revelations are – exposing the entirely lawless approach of the main US intelligence agency – the Yahoo investigation nonetheless tends to obscure rather than shine a light on the bigger picture.
Assange has not been deprived of his freedom for more than a decade because of an unimplemented rogue operation by the CIA. Rather, he has been held in various forms of captivity – disappeared – through the collaborations of various national governments and their intelligence agencies, aided by legal systems and the media, that have systematically violated his rights and legal due process.
The reality of Assange’s years of persecution is far worse even than the picture of a thuggish, vengeful, power-mad CIA painted by Yahoo’s reporting.
More than 30 former senior officials, who either served in the US foreign intelligence agency or the Trump administration, helped to piece together for Yahoo the various components of the CIA’s plan. They show that the agency considered two main options for dealing with Assange in addition to then secret moves laying the groundwork for prosecuting the Wikileaks founder in the US courts.
One plan was to kidnap Assange from the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he had been seeking political asylum since 2012.
The aim was to smuggle him to the US – violating the sovereignty of Ecuador and the UK – in an operation that would have had all the hallmarks of “extraordinary rendition”. That was the illegal procedure the US used after 9/11 to abduct suspects in the “war on terror”, usually so they could be sent to “black sites” where they were tortured and held without judicial oversight.
The other CIA proposal was to assassinate Assange – or, perhaps more accurately, commit extrajudicial murder to silence him once and for all. Poisoning him was reportedly one of the methods considered.
These scenarios need to be borne in mind when we cast our minds back to 2012, to the moment Assange decided to seek sanctuary in Ecuador’s embassy, fearing the wrath of the US at his exposure of its war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Not a single corporate journalist gave credence to his concerns. In fact, they ridiculed them. These latest revelations confirm what was obvious to many of the rest of us: Assange had very good reasons indeed to seek political asylum.
Let us examine that bigger picture obscured by the reporting of the CIA’s plan.
1. The agency’s much greater interest in the Assange case – and its more openly hostile attitude towards him – were a result of Wikileaks’ release of parts of a cache of secret files on the CIA’s hacking capabilities known as “Vault 7”. The agency, considering it “the largest data loss in CIA history”, was deeply humiliated by the exposure.
The misleading impression created by the Yahoo investigation is that until 2017 a standard legal process was being pursued against Assange that only turned rogue after the Vault 7 release, when the CIA wanted vengeance and to intimidate Wikileaks to prevent any further leaks.
In the words of one Trump national security official: “There was an inappropriate level of attention to Assange given the [CIA’s] embarrassment, not the threat he posed in context. We should never act out of a desire for revenge.”
The implication is that, because the CIA’s various extrajudicial plots were never implemented, justice has otherwise been well served in Assange’s case.
But the CIA plans indicate something else entirely. They show that, once the CIA was as infuriated by Wikileaks’ exposure of the agency’s own crimes as the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House already were of theirs, it joined them in getting more actively involved in an existing extrajudicial process meant to finish off Assange and Wikileaks.
‘Don’t you dare’
From the moment Assange’s legal troubles began in late 2010 – when two Swedish women were reported to have launched allegations of rape – nothing followed a standard procedure. As I have previously documented, Assange’s case was treated in exceptional ways by Sweden, the UK, Australia and, always lurking in the background, the US.
My latest: Here are 17 legal abuses Assange has suffered over the past nine years, demonstrating how normal procedures have been systematically violated by Sweden, the UK and US – a fact the corporate media apparently never notices or comments on https://t.co/lTfRj6Zmdo
Swedish police, the country’s media and a second prosecutor all meddled in a case the main prosecutor had already ruled did not involve a criminal offence. The testimony of one of the women – who had been encouraged to go to the police by the other – was effectively hijacked and turned into a rape allegation, seemingly against her wishes.
Inexplicably, Interpol issued a Red Notice for Assange’s arrest, usually reserved for terrorists and dangerous criminals, shortly after Swedish officials had approved his travelling abroad.
In the UK the courts approved an extradition warrant for Assange that had been issued without any Swedish judicial authority. The ruling set such a terrible legal precedent that the agreement on which the extradition was based was amended shortly afterwards to ensure such a ruling could not be made again.
Once Assange fled to Ecuador’s embassy, the UK government surrounded it with huge numbers of police, at great public expense. For a while, government ministers threatened to tear up diplomatic protocols established in law by sending police in to arrest Assange on foreign soil.
A Freedom of Information request shows Britain’s prosecution service pressured Swedish prosecutors not to come to London to interview Assange through 2010 and 2011, thereby creating the embassy standoff that began a short time later. Other evidence shows Swedish prosecutors were regularly interviewing suspects in the UK – only in Assange’s case was that made impossible.
Another of those astounding coincidences. The journalist trying to get information on the Julian Assange case released has been stymied in her Freedom of Information requests *for years* by every single country involved: the UK, Sweden, US and Australia https://t.co/6iBRNhigx4
British prosecutors destroyed emails relating to Assange to circumvent another FoI request, but the few that survive – by mistake – show it meddling directly in a case it should have had no legal stake in.
In one, as Sweden proposed dropping the investigation against Assange in 2013, UK officials warned: “Don’t you dare”. Another revealing email stated: “Please do not think this case is being dealt with as just another extradition.”
‘Legal’ theatre
This and much more took place before the CIA plans exposed by Yahoo were being hatched in 2017. Two years later, Assange was dragged by London police from the Ecuador embassy in a scenario that echoed the CIA’s plan.
Since then, new, even more irregular “legal” proceedings – either for a supposed minor bail violation or for “espionage” in exposing US war crimes – have kept Assange indefinitely locked up in a London maximum-security prison.
The point here is that the idea that the CIA suddenly tried to interfere in a sound, legal process against Assange is laughable.
Everything about the Assange case from the outset has been extrajudicial – in the sense that there has been no legal basis for the proceedings. It has been “legal” theatre, concealing the brute force of an unaccountable superpower angry and fearful that, in the digital age, its secrets and crimes can no longer be concealed from the public.
What the CIA brought to the table was not some new interest in extrajudicial vengeance – that was at the core of Assange’s treatment from the outset – but the specific extrajudicial tools it excels in, such as abduction and murder.
Ultimately, calmer heads prevailed, even in the Trump administration, understanding that a sham “legal” process would better serve and conceal the war the US was waging against the efforts by Assange and Wikileaks to bring greater transparency to state actions and accountability for state crimes.
The campaign to lock away Assange for life is being pursued as enthusiastically by the Biden administration as it was earlier under Trump.
A reminder that the Biden administration will be every bit as repressive and cruel as Trump's in crushing our ability to share information that exposes US crimes.
Assange's torture and permanent jailing is entirely a bipartisan affair https://t.co/OHr9y3z5ed
And the UK courts, including the highest in the land, have been actively colluding in this charade of justice.
CIA score-settling
2. Doubtless, we are now learning of the CIA’s plots against Assange in part because there has been a change of administrations. Presumably, some of this is driven by score-settling from disaffected agents against Mike Pompeo, Trump’s CIA director.
The revelations, after all, are not coming from whistleblowers concerned about justice for Assange. They are being mediated through the CIA community, officials with an intelligence agency mindset that views Assange in the same self-serving terms as Pompeo – as “a non-state hostile intelligence service”. Like Pompeo, these officials see Assange as a “transparency terrorist”.
But what is worthy of note is the fact that Yahoo is the news service delivering us these disclosures.
Three newspapers with huge readerships and vast resources, The New York Times, Guardian and Washington Post, all worked closely with Assange on Wikileaks’ early releases, raking in big profits from the earth-shattering leaks he provided.
All three papers should have a vested interest in ensuring that Assange is not extradited to the US and locked away for life on the pretext that his journalism amounts to espionage, as both the Trump and Biden administrations are claiming.
And perhaps most relevant of all, the three newspapers have long records of drawing on their extensive contacts inside the intelligence services, often allowing themselves to be used to peddle misinformation and psy-ops.
Remember, for example, that it was the New York Times’ reporters Judith Miller and Michael R Gordon who became the US intelligence services’ favoured conduit for the weapons of mass destruction deceptions that provided the rationale for the US to attack, occupy and dismember Iraq.
In the UK, the Guardian has been growing ever closer to the intelligence services since it broke with Assange and Glenn Greenwald, the reporter who brought it the Edward Snowden revelations that the US national security state was conducting illegal mass surveillance of the public.
An investigation, fascinating and horrifying in equal measure, of how the Guardian was gradually co-opted by the UK's security services after it published the Snowden files – a process that has only accelerated since Kath Viner became editor https://t.co/hwXazkgQVF
So how is it that these newspapers, with their wide-ranging sources inside the intelligence community and their historic investment in the Assange case, heard not a peep about this story over the past four years. Is it possible that not one of the 30 or so officials who spoke to Yahoo has also spoken to these newspapers? Why is Yahoo News the one breaking such an important story?
And maybe even more to the point, how is it that these three newspapers have all but ignored Yahoo’s investigation, and so far appear to be doing nothing to follow it up?
The Guardian could barely stifle a yawn as it covered the story as an extended brief online (and offered a slightly fuller report for its Australian readers). But at least it mentioned the story. I have been unable to find any coverage in either the New York Times or Washington Post.
Is the fact that large numbers of senior US officials are admitting that their agency seriously thought about abducting or murdering a journalist these publications worked with on some of the biggest stories of the modern age not hugely newsworthy for them?
But all of this indifference or aversion to reporting on Assange’s horrifying plight is par for the course for these respected, supposedly liberal media outlets.
Two former senior officials of the National Union of Journalists say 'we are incredulous that the present generation of journalists is ignoring this critical travesty' as the US and UK use the Assange trial to demolish the foundations of press freedom https://t.co/FKslZPTcfB
Like the rest of the corporate media, they have largely ignored the extradition proceedings going on in the UK courts over the past year and which are due to reach their climax next month when a final hearing is expected.
The media’s continuing silence can only be understood as complicity in the persecution of a fellow journalist.
Colluding with power
The Guardian’s failings have been particularly egregious, as I have documented before (here and here). The paper has barely concealed its vendetta against Assange – much of it following a falling out with him after one of its senior reporters recklessly exposed a Wikileaks password to a cache of classified documents that has been exploited by Washington in building its so-called “espionage” case against Assange.
My latest: A new Guardian statement denies evidence in court that it is a 'bad faith actor' in US efforts to extradite Julian Assange.
The paper's statement is not only full of deceptions, it deepens the Guardian's betrayal of Assange and journalism https://t.co/4z2R3zflzr
The Guardian has a vested interest – one it has not disclosed – in keeping the spotlight on Assange rather allowing it to shift to its own role.
That is the context for interpreting its pitifully false and malicious story – again provided by intelligence services – tying Assange to a supposed conspiracy between Trump and the Kremlin that has been obsessively advanced by the liberal media.
The Guardian’s report that a Trump aide, Paul Manafort, and unidentified “Russians” repeatedly visited Assange at the embassy, one of the most heavily surveilled spots in the world, without leaving a single trace of their presence should never have made it into print. The simplest checks would have raised dozens of red flags. But the paper has chosen silence rather than correcting or withdrawing the story.
German investigation finds emails between the Guardian and security at the Ecuador embassy about Julian Assange that lead Glenn Greenwald to suggest the paper may have perpetrated intentional 'journalistic fraud' in publishing its infamous Manafort story https://t.co/fdOrb1ioAh
The only conclusion one can draw from their behaviour is that the liberal media, far from being watchdogs on power, regard themselves as adjuncts of power. They feel much closer to the countries’ secret, duplicity-dealing, murderous intelligence services than they do to a fellow journalist being hounded into permanent incarceration.
Net widens
3. The Yahoo report makes clear too that the surveillance operation against Assange and Wikileaks intensified dramatically after Snowden released his confidential documents in 2013 in collaboration with reporter Glenn Greenwald.
The Snowden files showed that the US had begun expanding its ambition to use new digital technology to covertly surveil the rest of the world. Now it was increasingly turning that technological prowess inwards to covertly surveil its own population.
A transparency organisation like Wikileaks, it quickly became obvious, was a major threat to the US intelligence services’ plans.
According to Yahoo’s sources, it was the Obama administration that began surveilling Wikileaks more intensively and threw the net wider to expose its networks.
The CIA was already centrally involved, creating a special “Wikileaks team” that worked closely with other friendly spy agencies – including one can presume the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing states that also comprise Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand. (One official, William Evanina, who recently retired as a top US counterintelligence official, notes the key role the Five Eyes group played in Assange’s case.)
The goal, Yahoo was told by Evanina, its main named source, was to “tie [Wikileaks] back to hostile state intelligence services”. In other words, the aim was to suggest not that Assange was interested in transparency or acting out of principle but that he wanted to undermine the US on behalf of a hostile foreign power.
Assange’s fate was sealed within the Obama administration in summer 2016 when Wikileaks released a cache of Democratic party emails that cast Obama’s chosen successor, Hillary Clinton, in a damning light and showed that the party had rigged its election procedures to stop her main challenger, Bernie Sanders, from winning.
As an aside, the Yahoo report notes that the idea of kidnapping Assange – in violation of Ecuador and the UK’s sovereignty – actually preceded Pompeo’s arrival at the CIA.
Despite Yahoo’s focus on Pompeo, it was actually Obama and the Democratic party’s thirst for vengeance that paved the way for Trump’s appointee to have viable options of either prosecuting Assange for espionage or abducting him.
Obama’s officials immediately tarred Assange as conspiring with Donald Trump, Clinton’s rival for the presidential election. He was thereby dragged into an establishment conspiracy theory, Russiagate, that claimed Trump was serving as a puppet of the Kremlin.
Given the many years, spent under both Obama and Trump, trying to shore up this claim by the most digitally advanced states in the world, it comes as something of a surprise to learn that they came up with nothing.
Evidence of Wikileaks collusion with Russia appears never to have surfaced, even though it became an implicit, driving assumption behind the Russiagate claims.
One unusually honest official, Robert Litt, a former general counsel of the Office of the Director for National Intelligence, observed to Yahoo of the claims made by Pompeo that Assange was acting on behalf of the Russians: “Based on the information that I had seen, I thought he was out over his skis on that.”
Special counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence to back up such a claim. The extradition hearings in London made no plausible case for it either.
The only tangible piece of evidence is the Guardian’s Manafort story mentioned earlier, which proved so embarrassingly ridiculous everyone involved has tried to quietly forget about it.
House of cards
If there was really a case that Assange and Wikileaks were working hand in glove with the Kremlin, it is hard to imagine that no trace of that collusion was ever found.
Instead, Washington built much of its espionage case against Assange on the testimony of Sigurdur Thordarson, a convicted paedophile and financial fraudster, as well as an FBI asset. He now admits his testimony was a fabrication, and that he lied after he was promised immunity from prosecution.
The #Assange case is a bit #JamesBond But this isn't a movie & the lunatic war criminals ARE killing innocents. One plot twist is that a fraudster & paedophile is the FBI's star witness against Assange. I interviewed the journalist who dug out the truth:https://t.co/p93KvdGhvJ
The entire case against Assange has been shown to be a house cards.
Interestingly, Yahoo News’ report shows that, despite the void of evidence, justice department officials were keen to concoct a “legal” case to forestall two dangers that might undermine their efforts to keep Assange incarcerated and preclude them from launching a credible prosecution.
The first was the CIA’s unhinged scenarios that included rendition or a possible Hollywood-style gun battle on the streets of London to prevent Ecuador helping Assange escape the embassy. Were the CIA to be successful, justice department officials fretted, Assange might arrive in the US without any formal or plausible charges levelled against him.
The other was that the UK was rapidly running out of pretexts to keep Assange locked out of view, after police had been allowed to drag him from the embassy in early 2019. (Ecuador’s new president had changed official policy on sheltering Assange, shortly after the IMF agreed an enormous $4.2 billion loan.)
Sweden had already dropped its investigation of Assange in May 2017. So Assange was moved to Belmarsh maximum-security prison on charges relating to a minor bail infraction. Those charges ignored the fact that he had violated his bail conditions only because he was seeking political asylum, as recognised in international law.
The UK judge issued the maximum sentence possible for such an infraction, giving the US time to formulate the espionage case that has provided the pretext for keeping him locked up ever since, in conditions during a pandemic that have put his life at risk.
British collusion
4. Did the UK conspire with the US in all this? The massive police presence around the embassy; the British government’s illegal threats to invade Ecuador’s embassy; the original, highly irregular ruling on extradition; the threatening emails from state prosecutors to Sweden; the complicity in holding Assange in a maximum security prison in London on a debatable bail infraction; and the known role of the Five Eyes group of which the UK is a key member, all strongly suggest it was.
Yahoo reports:
“Former officials differ on how much the UK government knew about the CIA’s rendition plans for Assange, but at some point, American officials did raise the issue with their British counterparts.”
In other words, yes, the UK did know about the most unlawful parts of the CIA’s plans. The question is only how closely was it involved.
One former counter-intelligence official observed:
“There was a discussion with the Brits about turning the other cheek or looking the other way when a team of guys went inside and did a rendition. But the British said, ‘No way, you’re not doing that on our territory, that ain’t happening.’”
The UK could not afford to look publicly complict in illegal US actions that would have treated the streets of London no differently from those of Mogadishu. Instead, all the evidence suggests that Britain conspired repeatedly over a decade to help the US turn its illegal campaign against Assange and Wikileaks into a seemingly “lawful” extradition process through the courts.
Again, according to the Yahoo report:
“White House officials developed a backup plan: The British would hold Assange on a bail jumping charge, giving Justice Department prosecutors a 48-hour delay to rush through an indictment.”
In other words, the UK explicitly followed US instructions in holding Assange over a minor bail infraction.
Evanina confirmed the UK’s collusion with the US efforts to keep Assange permanently incarcerated, telling Yahoo that the pair developed a “joint plan” to prevent Assange being able to walk free from the embassy.
UN torture expert Nils Melzer on how the US, after losing its extradition hearing against Julian Assange, has woven a legal web around him from which he may never be able to extricate himself and win back his freedom https://t.co/kOtP4Ig9ie
The truth is that, appalling as the Yahoo News revelations are, they fail to convey the reality that the US could count on multiple states, not least the UK, to conspire in providing a “legal” veneer to a decade-long, covert war against Assange and Wikileaks for exposing US war crimes.
Even more frightening, all the evidence suggests that the US was also able to manipulate the legal processes in both Sweden and the UK to engineer Assange’s effective incarceration all that time, and to this day.
And even more terrifying, the same evidence suggests that the establishment media in several countries could be relied on, at best, to turn a blind eye to a fellow journalist’s persecution and, at worst, to actively conspire in that persecution.
Yahoo News provided a great service in bringing some of the reality about Assange’s persecution to light. But there is much more to unearth. Sadly, our supposed watchdogs on power appear far too busy feeding at the trough to start sniffing out more of the truth.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Health experts have been left baffled by a big rise in a common and potentially fatal type of heart attack in the west of Scotland.
During the summer there was a 25 per cent rise in the number of people rushed to the Golden Jubilee National Hospital in Clydebank with partially blocked arteries cutting blood supply to the heart.
According to NIH’s U.S. National Library of Medicine, “A blood clot may block an artery or vein in the heart” which could affect a number of major organs, including the legs, lungs, kidney or heart.
The paper reports over the summer Golden Jubilee saw a 25 percent rise in NSTEMI, or non-ST segment elevation, myocardial infarctions, or heart attacks.
The number of so-called STEMI attacks, where there is extensive heart damage, recorded at the Golden Jubilee has remained stable for a decade at about 750 a year. Yet N-STEMI attacks, where there is less tissue damage but an equal risk of death, have increased over the summer.
In a quote to the paper, Golden Jubilee lead consultant cardiologist Mitchell Lindsay listed off numerous possible causes, but curiously neglected one – the Covid vaccine.
There is not any evidence that it is as a consequence of any delayed care or missed opportunity. It is likely to be due to a multitude of factors: people being sedentary with lockdown; stress; people ignoring symptoms because they do not want to present at hospital. There are probably five to ten causes, all linked.
According to Google statistics, 70.3 percent of Scots are vaccinated, with 76.8 percent having received at least one dose.
Meanwhile, on Twitter, users didn’t hesitate to make the correlation between the so-called mysterious heart attack increase and Covid vaccination.
A rise in heart attacks from blocked arteries. If only we knew what people have been doing for the last few months so we could study & solve the ‘mystery.’ Oh, if only there was a clear indicator, a huge flashing arrow pointing to the culprit!
The heart attacks are no mystery to anyone who’s been paying attention to prominent medical doctors who’ve in recent months issued dire health warnings regarding the Covid vaccine.
Perhaps the most distressing warning came from Canadian family physician Dr. Charles Hoffe, who conducted an independent study on his patients and determined that 62 percent had developed microscopic blood clots due to spike proteins contained in the mRNA jab.
Dr. Hoffe said the blood clots could lead to high blood pressure in the lungs, from which vaccinated people could develop right-sided heart failure and die within three years.
“The concern is: because these vessels are now permanently damaged in a person’s lungs, when the heart tries to pump blood through all those damaged vessels there’s increased resistance trying to pump the blood through those lungs.”
“So those people are going to develop something called ‘pulmonary artery hypertension’ – high blood pressure in their lungs, and the concern with that is that those people will probably all develop right-sided heart failure within three years and die because they now have increased vascular resistance through their lungs.”
Time will tell whether Scottish doctors will admit a link to the Covid vaccine if they find that one does indeed exist to these mysterious heart attacks.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
A U.S. Army doctor who is also a specialist in aerospace medicine has made an unprecedented call to Pentagon leaders, asking them to ground all pilots in all services who have gotten a COVID-19 vaccine.
In an affidavit, Lt. Col. Theresa Long lays out her reasoning, with citations and studies, stating that she is doing so under the auspices of the Military Whistleblower Protection Act.
Long then went on to lay out her credentials: She earned “a bachelor’s degree from the University of Texas Austin, completed my medical degree from the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Medical School in 2008” then “served as a Field Surgeon for ten years and went on to complete a residency in Aerospace and Occupational Medicine at the United States Army School of Aviation Medicine” at Fort Rucker, Ala. Long wrote that she’s “been trained by the Combat Readiness Center at Ft. Rucker as an Aviation Safety Officer” and has had additional training in the “Medical Management of Chemical and Biological Causalities at Fort Detrick.” She’s also “board certified in flight Aerospace Medicine and board eligible in Occupational Medicine.”
The Army doc noted that before the COVID-19 pandemic, she underwent “specialized military training from Infectious Disease doctors from the Army, Navy and Air Force on emerging infectious disease threats,” and has “recently functioned as a medical and scientific advisor to an Aviation training Brigade seeking to identify risk mitigation strategies, and bio statistical analysis of SARS- Cov-2 (“Covid 19”) infections in both vaccinated and unvaccinated Soldiers.”
She’s also both diagnosed and treated COVID-19 cases, so again, she’s certainly qualified to offer an opinion.
“I have observed vaccine adverse events following the administration of EUA vaccines, and followed the success of Soldiers who obtained various Covid 19 therapies outside the military. The majority of the service members within the DOD population are young and in good physical condition,” she testified in her affidavit.
“Military aviators are a subset of the military population that has to meet the most stringent medical standards to be on flight status. The population of student pilots I take care of are primarily in their 20s-30s, males and in excellent physical condition. The risk of serious illness or death in this population from SARs-CoV-2 is minimal, with a survival rate of 99.997%,” she continued.
After taking in all the data and observing how the virus does — and, importantly, does not affect — military readiness, Long said she has since formed a professional opinion she is obligated to report to her superiors. The problem, she said, is that no one wants to hear about it.
“I have done so with mixed results in terms of acceptance, rejection and threats of punishment for so sharing,” she wrote.
The doctor went on to quote Army Training Doctrine regulations, which state that “risk decisions” are up to individual commanders to accept or reject, and that they, too, must either act on decisions or pass them further up the chain of command. Either way, she made clear that she is fulfilling her responsibilities in reporting what she has found and the conclusions she has reached.
“The CDC and the FDA are civilian agencies that do not have the mission of National Defense that the DOD has. Guidance and recommendations made by these civilian agencies must be filtered through strategic perspective of national defense and the potential risks recommendations may have on the health of the entire fighting force,” Long testified, adding:
The majority of young new Army aviators are in their early twenties. We know there is a risk of myocarditis with each mRNA vaccination. We additionally now know that vaccination does not necessarily prevent infection or transmission of SARs-CoV-2. Therefore individuals fully vaccinated with mRNA vaccines have at least two independent risk factors for myocarditis after vaccination. Additional boaster shots add more risk. It is impossible to perform a risk/benefit analysis on the use of mRNA as counter measures to SARs-CoV-2 without further data… Use of mRNA vaccines in our fighting force presents a risk of undetermined magnitude, in a population in which less than 20 active-duty personnel out of 1.4 million, died of the underlying SARs- CoV-2.
The problem, she said, is that few of the young aviators would know if they had developed myocarditis, which could affect them negatively — including cause sudden death — while they are flying.
Her opinion:
I personally observed the most physically fit female Soldier I have seen in over 20 years in the Army, go from Colligate level athlete training for Ranger School, to being physically debilitated with cardiac problems, newly diagnosed pituitary brain tumor, thyroid dysfunction within weeks of getting vaccinated. Several military physicians have shared with me their firsthand experience with a significant increase in the number of young Soldiers with migraines, menstrual irregularities, cancer, suspected myocarditis and reporting cardiac symptoms after vaccination. Numerous Soldiers and DOD civilians have told me of how they were sick, bed-ridden, debilitated, and unable to work for days to weeks after vaccination. I have also recently reviewed three flight crew members’ medical records, all of which presented with both significant and aggressive systemic health issues. Today I received word of one fatality and two ICU cases on Fort Hood; the deceased was an Army pilot who could have been flying at the time. All three pulmonary embolism events happened within 48 hours of their vaccination. I cannot attribute this result to anything other than the Covid 19 vaccines as the source of these events. Each person was in top physical condition before the inoculation and each suffered the event within 2 days post vaccination.
“The politicization of SARs-CoV-2, treatments and vaccination strategies have completely compromised long-standing safety mechanisms, open and honest dialogue, and the trust of our service members in their health system and healthcare providers,” she added.
Now, the question becomes, is SECDEF Lloyd Austin going to listen to her? Doubtful.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Comments Off on Army Physician and Aerospace Medicine Specialist Calls on Pentagon to Order All Pilots Who Have Received COVID-19 Vaccine to be Grounded
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The public deserves a complete and transparent accounting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s safety monitoring, including the results of all interim reports and analyses, whether through a Freedom of Information Act request, Congressional order or some other means.
There are 91x the number of deaths and 276x the number of coagulopathy events reported after COVID-19 vaccination than after flu vaccination.
Safety signals were found for 242 adverse events using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) methodology.
Full transparency of CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety monitoring is urgently needed.
On Aug. 30, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to recommend Pfizer/BioNTech’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for people 16 years and older.
In comments I submitted to the committee along with my collaborators, we provided evidence of large safety signals from VAERS, using published CDC methods to analyze the data.
In this article, I describe the safety signals highlighted in our comments, which raise pressing questions about the CDC’s and FDA’s COVID vaccine safety monitoring efforts.
To begin with, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of adverse event reports to VAERS associated with COVID-19 vaccines. The chart below shows the number of deaths for all other vaccines reported to VAERS annually since the system’s inception in 1990, compared to deaths reported for COVID-19 vaccines, from both domestic and foreign sources.
Figure 1. Number of Deaths Reported to VAERS Since 1990
As of early September, there have been 14,506 deaths reported to VAERS for COVID-19 vaccines, compared to 8,673 for the preceding 30 years for all other vaccines. That is already more than 50 times the annual average — and we still have four months left to go until the end of the year.
It is hard to imagine how anyone can look at these numbers and not be at least a little bit concerned. Yet many people are dismissive, saying the unprecedented number of reports is due to the unprecedented number of vaccinations being administered.
I crunched the numbers, and even after taking into account the total number of vaccinations, the number of reports for COVID vaccines still towers over previous years.
See, for example, Figure 2 below, which shows the number of deaths reported per million vaccine doses from 2010-2020 and for COVID-19 vaccines. That’s nearly 40 deaths reported per million COVID vaccines versus an average of 1.6 for all other vaccines from the previous 10 years.
No matter what I did to the data, or what types of adverse events I looked at, I could not make the big jump in COVID vaccine reports go away.
Figure 2. Deaths Reported to VAERS per Million Vaccine Doses Since 2010
So why do the CDC and FDA not seem to be concerned about this? I don’t know, but to try to answer that question, we have to take a step back to talk about VAERS and how the CDC uses it to detect safety signals.
VAERS, which is jointly administered by the CDC and FDA, is typical of all reporting systems used to monitor the safety of medicinal products. Although widely used, there are many known limitations with this type of system. Probably the biggest is that it is passive or spontaneous, meaning it relies on the willingness of people and medical professionals to “spontaneously” submit reports. So reporting rates are low and inconsistent.
READ + SHARE my letter to Dr. Kessler, newly named co-chair of Biden’s #COVID-19 Advisory Committee, requesting he immediately fix Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (#VAERS), system that monitors adverse outcomes following vaccination. #TheDefenderhttps://t.co/Jw77i8NrOA
Another limitation is that reports cannot be used reliably to show a causal connection between a vaccine or medication and an adverse event. So what are they good for?
They are used to provide a kind of early warning system. When enough reports accumulate about a particular type of event, those reports produce a safety signal, like an alarm bell. When the alarm rings, it doesn’t mean there is definitely a problem, but it is supposed to alert authorities to a possible problem and prompt further investigation.
In late January, the CDC released a briefing document outlining the agency’s standard operating procedures for ongoing monitoring of VAERS for safety signals from COVID-19 vaccines.
The document lays out plans to produce weekly reports that would highlight any safety signals found across a range of different adverse events. Although those reports have not been made public, we don’t need to rely on the CDC, as VAERS data is publicly available.
To detect safety signals with new vaccines, I took my lead from a study published by CDC researchers who were trying to detect safety signals for the new H1N1 swine flu vaccines introduced in 2009. The researchers compared VAERS reports for H1N1 vaccines to reports for regular flu vaccines.
So I took a similar approach and compared adverse events reported for COVID-19 to events reported for flu vaccines. This comparison makes a lot of sense, as flu vaccines are the only other type of vaccine administered to adults and the elderly in large numbers.
Of course, because the number of flu and COVID-19 vaccines administered is not the same, it makes sense to look at the number of reports per dose administered, something not specified in the CDC briefing document.
Table 1 (below) shows a comparison of VAERS reports for COVID-19 vaccines versus flu vaccines per million doses administered for a range of different event types and age groups.
Table 1. COVID-to-Flu Ratio Reporting Ratios per Million Vaccine Doses
For each adverse event type, the table shows the COVID-to-flu ratio, which simply shows how many more events were reported per million doses of COVID-19 vaccines compared to the number per million doses of seasonal influenza vaccines.
The comparison is based on all reports to VAERS following COVID-19 vaccines (from Dec. 15 – Aug. 6) to all reports for all seasonal influenza vaccines from the previous five influenza seasons (from 2015/16 to 2019/20).
Keep in mind that for all the analyses, I excluded all reports that came from people with an indication of a SARS-CoV-2 infection, such as a positive test result or even a suspicion of COVID-19 — so the adverse events can’t be blamed on that.
The first thing to notice is that for every type of adverse event for every age group, there were more reports per million doses of COVID-19 vaccines than for flu vaccines. If you look at the bottom row for all age groups (12 and older), you see that for every million vaccine doses administered, there were 19 times more reports to VAERS for COVID-19 vaccines than for flu vaccines, 28 times more serious events, 91 times more deaths, 3 times more reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), 276 times more reports of coagulopathy; 126 times as many reports of myocardial infarction; and 136 times more reports of myopericarditis.
Also notable is the variation across age groups. For example, death and coagulopathy were more preponderant for older age groups, whereas GBS and myopericarditis were more frequent for younger age groups.
The ratios for myopericarditis put the full significance of these results into perspective, since it is an officially recognized side effect of COVID-19 vaccines, especially among men under age 50. See for example this FDA press release and the below slide from an Aug. 30 CDC presentation to the ACIP:
Slide from Aug. 30 CDC presentation to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices
While the COVID-to-flu ratio for myopericarditis among 12- to 17-year-olds in Table 1 is in a league of its own at 1251-to-1, the ratio for the 18- to 49-year-olds is 81-to-1, which is well within the range of many of the other ratios in the table — and even smaller than many of them. (I used the reporting rates per million vaccine doses from the ACIP report, slide 30, to calculate the COVID-to-flu ratios for myopericarditis, which were slightly smaller than my own calculations.)
Because the CDC has acknowledged that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines can cause myocarditis in this age group, a reporting ratio of at least 81 is like an alarm bell going off to warn us of a potential safety problem. And the much larger ratios for coagulopathy and myocardial infarctions are like a 4-alarm fire.
So why does the CDC seem to be unconcerned about these safety signals? Is it possible they haven’t picked up on them?
Admittedly, comparing reports for COVID versus flu after taking the number of doses into account is not the same exact methodology anticipated in the CDC’s briefing document. Although it is arguably superior for a variety of reasons I won’t get into here, just to be sure I went ahead and did the exact same type of analysis outlined in the briefing document and found unambiguous safety signals.
Before showing the results, I need to explain how it works, but to do that we’ll have to get a bit deep in the weeds.
The method is a well-established pharmacovigilance technique based on calculating what’s known as the “Proportional Reporting Ratio” or PRR. To calculate the PRR, you first have to calculate the proportion of each type of event out of all events reported for that vaccine (COVID-19 and flu).
So for example, we take the number of VAERS reports of myocarditis for COVID-19 vaccines and divide that by the total number of all events reported for COVID-19 vaccines. Then we do the same for flu vaccines.
Then, to get the proportional reporting ratio (PRR), we divide the proportion of reports for a given type of event (like myopericarditis) for COVID-19 vaccines by the proportion for flu vaccines.
If the proportion for COVID-19 vaccines is large relative to the proportion for flu vaccines, that sends a signal alerting us to a potential safety problem. A safety signal is defined as a PRR that is greater than 2, statistically significant (with what’s known as a Chi-square value above 4) and has at least three of that type of event reported for each vaccine.
Table 2 below shows the PRR’s I calculated for several different adverse events across different age groups. All of the PRR’s in bold fit the CDC’s definition of a safety signal. This includes all PRR’s for death, except for the youngest age group, all PRR’s for coagulopathy and myopericarditis, and all PRR’s for myocardial infarction, except for the youngest age group because there were no myocardial infarctions reported for influenza vaccines.
Table 2. COVID-19 vs. Flu Vaccines: Proportional Reporting Ratios (PRR’s)
Note that, by default, the PRR method will never detect a safety signal for events that have never been reported for the comparator vaccine — like the zero teenage myocardial infarctions reported for flu vaccines ever compared to 10 for COVID-19 vaccines — which arguably should be seen as an even stronger indication that something is amiss.
The only event that makes up a larger proportion of flu vaccine reports than COVID-19 vaccines is GBS.
Here, too, the PRRs for myopericarditis are instructive. Even though the PRR value for myopericarditis in the youngest age group is off the scale, the values for the 18 to 49 age group is similar to or even lower than the PRR’s for deaths, myocardial infarctions and coagulopathy.
Because the signal for myopericarditis is indicative of an actual, acknowledged safety problem, other signals of similar size might very well be alerting us to actual but unacknowledged problems.
I then went a step further and calculated PRRs for all adverse events submitted to VAERS. I found 242 adverse events that satisfied the definition of a safety signal according to the CDC.
Some of them were minor, like abnormal dreams or vaccination site discomfort. But many of them were very serious and included, in addition to the events shown in Table 2: cardiac arrests; cerebral hemorrhages; cerebrovascular accidents (strokes); renal failure; and vaginal hemorrhages — and that’s just the tip of the iceberg of serious events that show unambiguous safety signals.
An additional 87 types of events didn’t qualify as a safety signal just because they had been reported only once or twice for flu vaccines. An additional 6,159 types of events had never been reported for flu vaccines, despite more than 600 million flu vaccines administered among the age groups I examined.
For these events, it could be argued the safety signal is infinite, since the number of events in the denominator is zero. But instead of raising an alarm, they are by definition considered unworthy of concern.
No matter how I sliced and diced the data, the safety signal for COVID-19 vaccines rang loud and clear. It’s hard to imagine how anyone could miss it. It would be like taking a hike in Arizona and falling into the Grand Canyon because you didn’t see the big hole in the ground.
Some people are dismissive when presented with this evidence. “VAERS data can’t be trusted,” they say. “Anyone can submit a report and some of the reports are fraudulent.”
Yes, anybody can submit a report, and some might be fraudulent. But the CDC hasn’t raised any concerns about this and continues to use VAERS to monitor for safety signals.
A recent study found 67% of VAERS reports were submitted by healthcare workers, and the CDC confirmed that 88% of VAERS myopericarditis reports they examined fit their case definition.
Yes, VAERS is imperfect, but the large majority of reports are legitimate and reliable.
Another objection is that the increase in reporting is artificial. Many people are scared of these new vaccines. Awareness of VAERS is higher than it has ever been. And the government has actively encouraged, and in some cases required, people to report adverse events — so of course VAERS reports are going to increase.
But that doesn’t mean there are really more events. This phenomenon is known as “stimulated reporting.”
Nobody at any of the recent CDC advisory committee meetings raised any concern that VAERS reports were inflated. If the unprecedented increase in VAERS reports was just due to stimulated reporting, CDC researchers tell us we should expect to see COVID-to-flu ratios and PRRs that are roughly similar across different types of events. So if there was a 20-fold increase in reporting of serious events, say, then there should be a similar increase in other types of events.
A brief glance at Tables 1 and 2 clearly shows this is not the case — the reporting rates vary greatly across different types of events, and also across different age groups for the same event.
This is a huge giveaway that the increase — or at least a large portion of it — is not due to stimulated reporting. Indeed, underreporting is usually a bigger concern with data like VAERS, and there are good reasons to think the true number of adverse events is much larger.
But if the safety signal from VAERS is loud and clear and VAERS reports can be trusted, then how is the CDC not picking up on this? Or are they ignoring it? It’s hard to say.
It might have to do with how the CDC handles signals once they are detected. The agency’s protocols call for a thorough clinical review of events that trigger a safety signal in order to determine if the event could plausibly be caused by the vaccine. If that’s the case, it’s conceivable they found safety signals, but then determined that there was no plausible connection and therefore no cause for concern.
What this means in practice, however, is that if the CDC investigators do not understand how these novel vaccines — which use gene therapy technology and have had only limited use in humans — might cause a particular type of adverse event, the presumption is that there is no plausible connection.
For example, the CDC has declared after reviewing over 7,000 reports of deaths reported in the U.S. as of Sept. 7, they were not able to determine a plausible causal relationship for any of them, except for three due to thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) from the Janssen vaccine.
But the methods and criteria they use to make these determinations aren’t published anywhere, assuming they even exist. It would be easier to take their word for it if their decision-making process wasn’t hidden behind a veil of secrecy.
And maybe that’s the biggest problem of all: lack of transparency. VAERS reports are public, which is laudable, but what the CDC does with those reports is mostly hidden from view.
For example, the CDC briefing document outlining plans to monitor VAERS speaks of producing some dozen or more tables every week detailing the agency’s search for safety signals. To my knowledge, none of these have ever been made public.
And keep in mind that VAERS isn’t the only data source the CDC uses for safety monitoring. The other main source is the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), which should be more reliable than VAERS because it uses patient medical records from some of the nation’s largest HMO’s.
There are several ongoing COVID-19 vaccine monitoring initiatives that use the VSD, including “COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Evaluation in Pregnant Women and their Infants,” “Mortality and Vaccination with COVID-19 Vaccines,” “COVID-19 Vaccine Safety, Spontaneous Abortion (SAB) and Stillbirth,” and “COVID-19 Vaccine-Mediated Enhanced Disease (VMED) and Vaccine Effectiveness.”
While these monitoring efforts are certainly praiseworthy, of the five that should have already started yielding initial results and interim reports, only partial results from two of them have been presented to the CDC advisory committee or made public in any way.
Where are the others? And how could forcing workers to get vaccinated ever be justified when so much of the evidence regarding their safety is still missing?
A complete and transparent accounting of the CDC’s safety monitoring is urgently needed, including internal communications and the results of all interim reports and analyses, whether through a Freedom of Information Act request, Congressional order or some other means.
The public deserves to know how the CDC reached the conclusion there was no plausible connection between the COVID-19 vaccines and the thousands of deaths they’ve reviewed, and also why they have failed to detect safety signals — or if they have, why they are being ignored.
Postscript: Since completing this article, I and others submitted comments to the meeting of FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on Sept. 17, which voted 16 to 2 to not approve a booster dose for people under 65 years old, citing a lack of sufficient safety and efficacy data. However the FDA overruled its advisory committee, as did the CDC after its vaccine safety committee recommended against authorizing a third Pfizer dose for anyone other than people 65 and older, long-term care facility residents and certain people with underlying conditions.
*
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.
Josh Guetzkow is a senior lecturer in the Department of Sociology & Anthropology and the Institute of Criminology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
A whistleblower has provided government data documenting 48,465 deaths within 14 days of COVID-19 vaccination among Medicare patients alone, according to medical freedom rights attorney Thomas Renz.
The announcement Saturday was made by the Ohio-based attorney, who remains involved in several major cases brought against federal agencies relating to fraud and violations of medical freedom rights.
In his presentation, Renz expressed his appreciation for whistleblowers who were coming forward to provide the public with such important information from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service (CMS). He described the CMS database as the largest available in the U.S. for the study of COVID-19 trends because it contains the data of approximately 59.4 million Medicare beneficiaries.
One slide showed that the number of “persons who died within 14 days of a COVID-19 vaccine” equated to 19,400 for those younger than 81 years old, and 28,065 for those 81 and over, totaling 48,465 deaths.
“This is raw data,” Renz explained. “There’s no analysis.” And, he emphasized, these death numbers are from less than 20% of the U.S. population.
“Do you want to know why 14 days is important?” he asked. “Because if you die with 14 days, you’re not considered vaccinated.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one is not considered as being “vaccinated” until 14 days after their completed injection regimen, raising the question of whether government authorities have been classifying these fatalities as something other than vaccination-related deaths.
Renz provided screenshots of the “raw data from the Medicare servers,” calling it “a present for the scumbag ‘fact-checkers’ who keep lying.”
“And what I want to know, are you going to fact check the HHS now?” he taunted. “Are you going to fact-check Fauci?”
In July, a whistleblower who works professionally as a computer programmer in health care data analytics, made a declaration under penalty of perjury that CMS data revealed “at least 45,000” vaccine-related deaths due to experimental COVID-19 vaccine injections. USA Today and others “fact-checked” the claim and called it misinformation.
A press release on Renz’s website responds, “Today’s revelations solidify that the ’Trusted News Initiative’ is actually the source of misinformation and propaganda, and that [the] Attorney Thomas Renz Whistleblower was correct all along.”
Since the roll-out of the COVID-19 gene-based vaccines began last December, with adverse reactions, including death, being passively reported on the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), many have believed the actual numbers of injuries to be much higher.
Yet the presumption of significantly higher real numbers is supported by a 2010 Harvard Pilgrim study which found that “fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries” are reported on VAERS. In addition, even vaccine manufacturers have calculated at least a “fifty-fold underreporting of adverse events” on this system.
Further, a recent whistleblower report from Project Veritas reveals medical personnel in federal hospitals confirming the presence of many patients suffering from COVID vaccine injuries, yet “nobody” reports them to VAERS.
Renz also provided evidence affirming that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been using this same CMS data to monitor different types of adverse reactions to the injections in “near real time,” even while these government agencies and the media continue to repeat that this gene-based vaccine is “safe and effective.”
Displaying data of Medicare beneficiaries in the State of New York alone revealed thousands of cardiovascular events, cases of COVID-19, and deaths among a total of 16 tracked adverse events.
“Remember, these are ‘side effects’ that the government, media, and social media continue to tell the public that are not happening,” he said. “They are lying. There is no question they are lying.”
“The mantra of ‘safe and effective’ must stop after today’s information,” Renz said.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
Autonomous weapon systems – commonly known as killer robots – may have killed human beings for the first time ever last year, according to a recent United Nations Security Council report on the Libyan civil war. History could well identify this as the starting point of the next major arms race, one that has the potential to be humanity’s final one.
Autonomous weapon systems are robots with lethal weapons that can operate independently, selecting and attacking targets without a human weighing in on those decisions. Militaries around the world are investing heavily in autonomous weapons research and development. The U.S. alone budgeted US$18 billion for autonomous weapons between 2016 and 2020.
I see four primary dangers with autonomous weapons. The first is the problem of misidentification. When selecting a target, will autonomous weapons be able to distinguish between hostile soldiers and 12-year-olds playing with toy guns? Between civilians fleeing a conflict site and insurgents making a tactical retreat?
Killer robots, like the drones in the 2017 short film ‘Slaughterbots,’ have long been a major subgenre of science fiction. (Warning: graphic depictions of violence.)
The problem here is not that machines will make such errors and humans won’t. It’s that the difference between human error and algorithmic error is like the difference between mailing a letter and tweeting. The scale, scope and speed of killer robot systems – ruled by one targeting algorithm, deployed across an entire continent – could make misidentifications by individual humans like a recent U.S. drone strike in Afghanistan seem like mere rounding errors by comparison.
Autonomous weapons expert Paul Scharre uses the metaphor of the runaway gun to explain the difference. A runaway gun is a defective machine gun that continues to fire after a trigger is released. The gun continues to fire until ammunition is depleted because, so to speak, the gun does not know it is making an error. Runaway guns are extremely dangerous, but fortunately they have human operators who can break the ammunition link or try to point the weapon in a safe direction. Autonomous weapons, by definition, have no such safeguard.
Importantly, weaponized AI need not even be defective to produce the runaway gun effect. As multiple studies on algorithmic errors across industries have shown, the very best algorithms – operating as designed – can generate internally correct outcomes that nonetheless spread terrible errors rapidly across populations.
The problem is not just that when AI systems err, they err in bulk. It is that when they err, their makers often don’t know why they did and, therefore, how to correct them. The black box problem of AI makes it almost impossible to imagine morally responsible development of autonomous weapons systems.
The proliferation problems
The next two dangers are the problems of low-end and high-end proliferation. Let’s start with the low end. The militaries developing autonomous weapons now are proceeding on the assumption that they will be able to contain and control the use of autonomous weapons. But if the history of weapons technology has taught the world anything, it’s this: Weapons spread.
Market pressures could result in the creation and widespread sale of what can be thought of as the autonomous weapon equivalent of the Kalashnikov assault rifle: killer robots that are cheap, effective and almost impossible to contain as they circulate around the globe. “Kalashnikov” autonomous weapons could get into the hands of people outside of government control, including international and domestic terrorists.
The Kargu-2, made by a Turkish defense contractor, is a cross between a quadcopter drone and a bomb. It has artificial intelligence for finding and tracking targets, and might have been used autonomously in the Libyan civil war to attack people.Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, CC BY
High-end proliferation is just as bad, however. Nations could compete to develop increasingly devastating versions of autonomous weapons, including ones capable of mounting chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear arms. The moral dangers of escalating weapon lethality would be amplified by escalating weapon use.
High-end autonomous weapons are likely to lead to more frequent wars because they will decrease two of the primary forces that have historically prevented and shortened wars: concern for civilians abroad and concern for one’s own soldiers. The weapons are likely to be equipped with expensive ethical governors designed to minimize collateral damage, using what U.N. Special Rapporteur Agnes Callamard has called the “myth of a surgical strike” to quell moral protests. Autonomous weapons will also reduce both the need for and risk to one’s own soldiers, dramatically altering the cost-benefit analysis that nations undergo while launching and maintaining wars.
Asymmetric wars – that is, wars waged on the soil of nations that lack competing technology – are likely to become more common. Think about the global instability caused by Soviet and U.S. military interventions during the Cold War, from the first proxy war to the blowback experienced around the world today. Multiply that by every country currently aiming for high-end autonomous weapons.
Undermining the laws of war
Finally, autonomous weapons will undermine humanity’s final stopgap against war crimes and atrocities: the international laws of war. These laws, codified in treaties reaching as far back as the 1864 Geneva Convention, are the international thin blue line separating war with honor from massacre. They are premised on the idea that people can be held accountable for their actions even during wartime, that the right to kill other soldiers during combat does not give the right to murder civilians. A prominent example of someone held to account is Slobodan Milosevic, former president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, who was indicted on charges against humanity and war crimes by the U.N.’s International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
But how can autonomous weapons be held accountable? Who is to blame for a robot that commits war crimes? Who would be put on trial? The weapon? The soldier? The soldier’s commanders? The corporation that made the weapon? Nongovernmental organizations and experts in international law worry that autonomous weapons will lead to a serious accountability gap.
To hold a soldier criminally responsible for deploying an autonomous weapon that commits war crimes, prosecutors would need to prove both actus reus and mens rea, Latin terms describing a guilty act and a guilty mind. This would be difficult as a matter of law, and possibly unjust as a matter of morality, given that autonomous weapons are inherently unpredictable. I believe the distance separating the soldier from the independent decisions made by autonomous weapons in rapidly evolving environments is simply too great.
The legal and moral challenge is not made easier by shifting the blame up the chain of command or back to the site of production. In a world without regulations that mandate meaningful human control of autonomous weapons, there will be war crimes with no war criminals to hold accountable. The structure of the laws of war, along with their deterrent value, will be significantly weakened.
A new global arms race
Imagine a world in which militaries, insurgent groups and international and domestic terrorists can deploy theoretically unlimited lethal force at theoretically zero risk at times and places of their choosing, with no resulting legal accountability. It is a world where the sort of unavoidable algorithmic errors that plague even tech giants like Amazon and Google can now lead to the elimination of whole cities.
In my view, the world should not repeat the catastrophic mistakes of the nuclear arms race. It should not sleepwalk into dystopia.
*
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 term ‘killer robot’ often conjures images of Terminator-like humanoid robots. Militaries around the world are working on autonomous machines that are less scary looking but no less lethal. John F. Williams/U.S. Navy
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Jordan is reopening its border crossing with Syria and resuming flights to Damascus. In Syria, more armed groups are laying down their weapons. But amid these positive developments, the US is hunkering down to inflict more pain.
On September 29, Jordan’s Nassib border crossing to Syria re-opened, meaning a resumption not only of travel but of trade between the two nations. In early October, Royal Jordanian will start flying again to Syria’s capital.
Jordan's state carrier, Royal Jordanian, will resume direct flights to Damascus from Oct. 3 for the first time in nearly a decade in the latest step to restore extensive business ties with Syria hurt by the conflict, officials said.https://t.co/O50nKhlqv5
In Syria’s south, after years of government and allied attempts to restore full peace, the last armed groups have finally laid down their weapons in Daraa, which journalist Vanessa Beeley wrote about after her recent return there.
And while the Biden administration recently changed talking heads in a Syria-related diplomatic position, little else has altered regarding America’s position on the country.
Sanctions against the Syrian people have continued under Biden, and at least 900 US troops continue to illegally occupy Syria.
Same old, same old for Syrians, who have endured 10 years of foreign war and terrorism against their country, as well as ten years of some of the most obnoxious lies and war propaganda.
In their September 13 meeting in Moscow, Presidents Assad and Putin made clear that while Syria continues to work towards restoring stability, doing so has been hampered by the presence of foreign troops not invited by the Syrian government and not under a mandate of the UN.
While speaking diplomatically, it is clear they meant the US and Turkish troops occupying areas of Syria, which – along with the proxy forces they support – bring the opposite of peace to Syrians.
However, type ‘Syria’ into your search engine of choice and you will still come across screaming headlines of inexplicable “violence” in Syria, and stories stating that Syria is “not safe” for the return of refugees. Many of these recent claims emanate from a recent update from the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria.
But this is not true. In fact, since Septmber 2015, nearly one million Syrians have returned to Syria, with another nearly 1.4 million internally displaced refugees resettling, according to the September 27, 2021 bulletin of the Center for Reconciliation of Opposing Sides and Control of the Movement of Refugees.
What the delusional articles omit are the real factors that make life in Syria difficult, and dangerous: the continued presence of Al-Qaeda affiliated groups in Idlib, terrorizing the population and firing on civilian areas in surrounding Hama and Aleppo provinces; and the deadly Western sanctions against Syrians, among other preventable factors.
Starving and thieving Syria
The latest news from the UN commission refers to fuel shortages and food insecurity without a mention of the many brutal Western sanctions against Syrians, once again showing that the supposed impartiality of the UN is non-existent.
I have written repeatedly about the deadly impact of sanctions, noting that they impact Syria’s ability to import medicines or the raw materials needed to manufacture them, plus medical equipment, machines, and materials needed for prosthetics, among other things.
The food insecurity mentioned by the UN commission comes as a direct result of sanctions which “cripple a state’s economy; disrupt the availability of food, medicines, drinking water, and sanitation supplies; interfere with the functioning of health and education systems; and undermine people’s ability to work.”
Deliberating causing the devaluing of the Syrian pound (as US envoy James Jeffrey boasted about) is not targeting the Syrian government; it is targeting the Syrian people. Western leaderships havesaid blatantly that sanctions will continue until Assad is deposed.
More recently, journalist Dan Kovalik was in Syria. He noted that, “10 years ago, abject poverty in Syria affected less than one percent of the population. By 2015, this had risen to 35 percent of the population. The rise in food prices – up 209 percent in the last year – is also noted.”
Indeed, the comparison of pre-war Syria and lack of abject poverty then rings true to what Syrians have told me over and over again in my visits to their country since 2014: that they were living well, in safety, and in harmony.
As for the increasingly debilitating effects of the sanctions, I saw life get increasingly more expensive. Syrians got more desperate during the six months I spent there last year, and again even more so this May and June, with skyrocketing prices meaning Syrians – despite working multiple jobs – can’t afford to put food on the table.
Under the Biden administration, the illegal US forces continue to pillage Syrian oil. Last year, I wrote about this theft of around $30 million a month. In March 2021, Syria’s petroleum minister compared the illegal US forces to “pirates” for plundering Syria’s oil, saying the US occupation has inflicted over $92 billion in damage on Syria’s petroleum sector.
Turkish-backed terrorists imprison, torture, and kill civilians (including children) in northeastern Syria, with Turkish forces themselves routinely shelling Syrian villages. Meanwhile, before his meeting with President Putin, Turkey’s Erdogan sent thousands more troops into Syria.
These are all factors contributing further to Syrians’ hellish circumstances and poverty, as well as factors omitted by most media and UN reports on Syria.
Peace-bringing reconciliation initiatives ignored
When armed groups reconcile with the state, laying down their weapons, they’re largely ignored by Western leaders, media, and the UN.
Indeed, the same UN report mentioned earlier claimed that under Assad’s leadership, there seem to be “no moves to unite the country or seek reconciliation.”
Reconciliations have been ongoing since the Reconciliation Ministry was established in 2012. Although the process is not perfect – the state cannot guarantee that armed groups who promise to cease violence against the state and population will adhere to their word – it is still the most peaceful option of enabling armed Syrian men to reintegrate into society, if they so choose.
How would America deal with such men on US soil? Kill them without blinking, most likely.
I interviewed the minister of reconciliation in 2014 and 2017, after the successes of returning peace to Homs, Aleppo, Madaya, and al-Waer, among others.
The objectives of reconciliation are the obvious restoration of security and enabling Syrians to return to their lives. But also, according to Minister Haidar, helping Syrians resolve their suffering in all respects: “Their security and safety, the economy, social services, education, the large number of martyrs and injured, the kidnapped, the missing, the internally displaced… We are trying to find a solution to each one of these cases. That is the deepest meaning of ‘reconciliation’: to return people to their normal lives.”
In our 2017 conversation, I asked the minister whether Syria had any outside support for reconciliation. Only, he said, from countries who are friends of Syria.
He said even the UN wasn’t interested.
“The UN during this period was siding with the Western policies, and not mentioning the achievement that the Syrian government has reached from these efforts. Western governments were against this project because it considered it a victory for the Syrian government and a major pillar for the unity of the Syrian people and the Syrian territories.”
At the end of our conversation, he made one particularly poignant point: “Most of the people that support the reconciliation process are the martyred’s families. For example, I was in a Latakia suburb and there I met a mother of four martyrs. She said, ‘I lost 4 children and I don’t want other mothers to suffer what I suffered.’”
Incidentally, the minister is also the father of a martyr: his son was gunned down by terrorists in 2012, in what Haidar described as an attempt on his own life.
Daraa, a long-awaited reconciliation
The UN commission called the restoration of peace to Daraa al-Balad an “unfolding tragedy.” That’s right, it is utterly tragic that armed extremists who have shelled, killed, and maimed civilians for years are finally laying down their weapons.
As Vanessa Beeley wrote,
“The armed groups that had committed multiple war crimes and atrocities against Syrian civilians and anti-terrorism armed forces had no intention of relinquishing their campaign of retaliatory crimes against anyone they considered to be loyal to the Syrian government and state. A vicious offensive was unleashed by these extremist gangs formerly associated with terrorist Al-Qaeda and ISIS factions in the southern region.”
Further, it is truly tragic (sarcasm) that those terrorists can no longer shell and snipe the state hospital, preventing civilians from getting medical care, as they have done for years.
As I previously wrote, in May 2018 – before Daraa was fully liberated – I travelled in a hired taxi to areas which were under fire from terrorists, and took a perilous high-speed ride to the state hospital, down a road exposed to terrorist sniping from less than 100 metres away.
The hospital was battered and partially destroyed from terrorists’ mortars, and mostly empty of patients. The director showed me destroyed wards and off-limits areas due to the high risk of snipers.
Al-Qaeda's rescuers never speak of their buddies' bombs on Dara'a streets, including the day I visited in May 2018. Dara'a hospital is battered from their "freedom" bombs and is extremely dangerous to get to, due to snipers. Nope, just hysterical accusations, as per norm. https://t.co/50dq5FlcBw
In that article I noted that upon my return months later, I was able to see just how close the nearby terrorist headquarters had been to the hospital: 50 metres away, hence the extreme risk of being shot while inside the hospital.
So yes, UN and Western media, shed your tears that another reign of terror has come to an end.
And keep ignoring the brutal Western sanctions as you churn out more war propaganda against the Syrian people and ignore positive developments on the ground. Because you care so much for the Syrian people…
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine (where she lived for nearly four years). Follow her on Twitter @EvaKBartlett
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).
We are witnessing an aggressive build-up by the US and its allies for a confrontation with China. The Biden administration is making massive upgrades to the US’s military capacity, and sharply reorienting it to focus on China. At the same time, the US is waging a propaganda war against China and attempting to rally its allies, including the so-called Quad countries of India, Japan and Australia, to form an anti-China bloc. The Australian government has made it crystal clear over recent years that it is very much on board with this US project.
Australia isn’t being dragged along unwillingly by the US. The Australian authorities have been urging the US on. They are delighted by Biden’s approach, seeing him as much more serious and resolute than the erratic Donald Trump. This orientation is not the result of some sort of colonial cringe or hangover by the Australian establishment. Far from it. The Australian military and foreign policy establishment have made a calculated assessment that the imperialist interests of the Australian ruling class will be best served by a wholehearted commitment to the US side in any showdown with China.
This is precisely what the new AUKUS alliance between Australia, the United Kingdom and the US is all about. AUKUS is in not a defensive alliance in any sense. There is no threat of a Chinese attack, let alone a successful invasion of the Australian mainland, any time in the foreseeable future. The Chinese simply do not have that sort of capability now, and will not at any time in the next couple of decades.
No, AUKUS is not about “defending” the mass of the Australian population from being conquered by invading Chinese troops. It is an aggressive alliance, beating the drums of war to maintain US imperialist domination of the Indo-Pacific region.
The agreement for Australia to use US/British technology to build a fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines is the initial step in this new alliance. Defence Minister Peter Dutton has flagged that he would welcome more US troops, warships and first strike military aircraft being stationed on Australian soil.
The new, highly sophisticated submarines will be Australia’s most expensive military expenditure of all time. At more than 7,000 tonnes, they are more than twice the size of Australia’s current Collins class submarines and have a greater operational capacity. They are being built for entirely aggressive purposes. These submarines need to be highly sophisticated, and consequently massively expensive, because their role will be to operate for long periods of time in cahoots with the US Navy off the coast of China, 5,000 km from Australia.
Workers will have to pay the cost of these incredibly expensive nuclear-powered submarines—well over $100 billion to build just six of them, and another $145 billion in maintenance costs over their lifetime. Australia’s military spending has been escalating more rapidly than most other elements of government expenditure for some years. Australia currently has the ninth largest military spending per head of population in the world. Now it will increase even further. As Scott Morrison stated: “Australia’s defence spending, as a share of GDP, will continue to increase because it is not just about submarines. This is about a whole range of other capabilities”.
According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, Australian military spending is set to climb by 68 percent to reach $75.7 billion per year early next decade. By 2030-31 it will account for $9 of every $100 of budget spending. At the same time, federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg is foreshadowing slashing vital areas of government spending, such as education and social welfare, to rein in the mounting debt from the COVID-related expenditures and economic slowdown.
It won’t be the banks and the incredibly profitable mining companies and the growing class of billionaires that are going to bear the burden of this military build-up. The Liberal government is yet again cutting corporate tax rates and taxes on the top income earners. It will be the average working-class taxpayer who has to foot the bill. Meanwhile, the IMF is urging the government to further raise the rate of the highly regressive GST, a move that would further burden working-class people with financing the political priorities of the ruling class.
In any coming war with China, it will also be working-class people who are the main casualties. Any serious war with China, even one waged with conventional weapons, will lead to a horrendous level of deaths.
If the fighting turned into a nuclear war, which is a real risk given that both the US and China would have so much at stake, tens of millions might die. This is the reckless road that the Morrison government is leading us down.
Disgracefully, Labor has backed the AUKUS alliance and the purchase of the fleet of nuclear-powered submarines. This should come as no great surprise, as Labor has long championed the interests of Australian imperialism and increased military spending. It was the Rudd Labor government, after all, that drew up the initial plan for a new submarine fleet.
There needs to be concerted resistance built over the coming years to this relentless military escalation and the sharpening of imperialist tensions. This war drive needs to be stopped in its tracks. The alternative for workers in Australia, the US and China is too catastrophic to contemplate.
*
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).
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan concluded their “historic meeting” in Moscow.
The two discussed Greater Idlib and reached agreement on absolutely nothing of substance. As a result, the situation is as volatile as ever.
Militants will continue shelling both the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), as well as civilians, while the Russia’s Aerospace Forces (VKS) will continue their airstrikes on Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and co.
During the summit, President Erdogan praised the joint work with Russia on Syria after stressing that Turkish-Russian relations are vital for any peace process in the Middle East.
Both presidents repeatedly called each other friends, while agreeing on nothing conclusive. Many observers expected that the summit will see the birth of a new Russian-Turkish agreement to resolve the issue of Greater Idlib. However, it ended without any announcement or even a press conference.
As a result, either a hidden agreement was made that the public wasn’t notified, or the status quo will be kept.
Still, likely as a sign of good will, VKS warplanes didn’t carry out airstrikes on Greater Idlib over the day, but if no actual solution was agreed on the raids are likely to continue.
The situation in the Syrian region is slowly spinning out of control. A Russian-Turkish ceasefire agreement reached last year is barely holding up.
Russia has stepped up its airstrikes on terrorists in the region in the last two months. A large-scale ground operation by the SAA and Russia has been expected for nearly a week. In 2020, the ceasefire agreement was signed precisely to avoid such a significant ground offensive.
To prepare for the potential operation, Turkey deployed more troops in the region, including new artillery and other hardware.
These troops are necessary, because despite most of the militant factions in northeastern and northwestern Syria being backed by Turkey, infighting amongst them is not that uncommon.
On September 28, clashes broke out between two units of the Mu’tasim Division in the Turkish-occupied town of Ras al-Ain in northeastern Syria.
A disagreement over checkpoints located on profitable smuggling routes and the distribution of houses forcibly taken from locals were reportedly the main cause of the clashes, which took place in the central and eastern parts of Ras al-Ain.
The following days will reveal whether best friends Putin and Erdogan agreed on anything to avoid further fighting in Greater Idlib. It is yet to be seen if ceasefire violations by the militants continue and what the SAA and VKS response will be.
*
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).
Independent peer-reviewed scientific evidence proving the so-called virus ‘SARS-CoV-2’ is isolated and purified is required by 05 September 2020, otherwise measures against something which does not exist must end.
We were REFUSED a Parliamentary Petition to enlist public support in order to demand a debate in Parliament on these science issues.
It is unacceptable that WHO advised Public Health England NOT to isolate the virus (see letter to Prime Minister Boris Johnson).
Isolation and purification of a virus and proof it causes so-called ‘Covid19’ disease using Koch postulates have not been achieved and procedures not followed (see letter to PM).
This is a fatal flaw in the basis for policy and given it is not a ‘High Consequence Infectious Disease’ (March 19th announcement), and the tests used are of unknown accuracy, the possibility of a vaccine is hopeless, and the measures directed against it are beyond reason and out of proportion.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
A September 16, 2021 Saskatchewan Government Public Health Measure proclaims:
Effective October 1, a proof of vaccination or negative test requirement will be implemented for all Government of Saskatchewan, ministry, crown and agency employees.
And:
Effective October 1, a provincial requirement of proof of vaccination or a negative test is required for public access to: (the Measure lists) bars, gyms, taverns, nightclubs, concerts, casinos, theatres, museums, fitness centres, conference centres, ticketed indoor sporting events and indoor dining establishments.
What percentage of Saskatchewan’s 550,000 waged and salaried employees must submit to injections?
All Canadian provinces employ armies inside education, health, corrections and transportation ministries. Saskatchewan’s state-owned (Crown) commercial corporations augment its public sector. In ballpark terms, “ministry, crown and agency employees” constitute 15% of Saskatchewan’s workforce.
School Divisions will soon purge their ample workforces of the un-vaxxed.
Post-secondary education institutions have already mandated vaccinations.
Service sector (bars, gyms etc.) employees comprise a significant portion of Saskatchewan’s workforce. They too must submit to injections.
Federal Government agencies are major employers in Saskatchewan; as are municipalities. The Feds are on board the vaccination express; as soon will be: all municipal governments; and, all Saskatchewan-based branches of banking, insurance and media companies.
Thus, after this Health Measure hits, most Saskatchewan workers will face: “get-the-jab-or-lose-your-job.”
The Health Measure warns:
Employees that do not provide proof of vaccination will be required to provide proof of a negative test on a consistent basis.
“Consistent basis” is undefined; as is “fully vaccinated.” With forty thousand Saskatchewanians triply-vaxxed, and hundreds sampling Covid-4; what might “fully-vaxxed” come to mean?
On September 28 Big Pharma kicked-off “Flu Season 21.” A chunk of annual influenza vaccine profits come from “booster shots” sold months after the main jabs; to boost customers through the ‘Season.’
Add Covid-3 and Covid-4 jabs to an amped Flu Season pitching cocktail and booster, and one surmises four mass-injection opportunities betwixt Halloween and Valentine’s.
October 2021 marks the month Saskatchewan’s workforce (including 100,000 vaccination resisters) begin accepting, or rejecting, a regime of monthly mandatory injections.
*
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).
Most Americans do not know that in the United States currently there are approximately 900 Active-duty generals and flag officers to lead 1.3 million troops in the combined armed forces. During World War II, an admittedly different era, there were roughly twice as many flag and general officers for a little more than 12 million active duty troops a ratio of one to 6,000. In the Navy there are 32 flag officers for each ship currently in commission. In 1944, there was one flag officer for every 24 ships.
This development is referred to as “rank creep” which does not improve performance and instead clutters the chain of command by adding multiple bureaucratic layers to decision-making while also costing more due to funding the higher paygrades. And lest one be confused about why there continue to be so many flag officers, possibly concluding that they are needed to provide the leadership to fight wars, it could be pointed out that most of them will never get anywhere near combat even if the U.S. continues its belligerency on a global scale in an effort to establish and enforce its leadership of a fictional “rules based international order.”
It turns out that current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley was, during the latter days of the Donald Trump Administration, talking to his counterparts in China as well as to some folks in Congress who had no love for Trump. Some of the conversations were routine, but others were apparently driven by the notion that Donald Trump just might do something stupid like starting a war unless some restraints were placed on his ability to do mischief. Inevitably, there have emerged major differences of opinion regarding the propriety of what Milley was engaged in, with Democrats in general and Trump haters in particular finding no problem with the intrusion into policy-making while many Republicans have been calling for a thorough investigation to include possible consequences up to and including court-martial.
The various conversations were reported in a just released book “Peril” written by Bob Woodward and, Robert Costa and, based on a claimed 200 interviews, are generally conceded to be accurate by both sides to include the Milley camp plus the journalists involved. Some of the calls at least were made with other officials in the room and on separate phone lines, though there were also conversations with politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, that were clearly considered off-the-record as they dealt with keeping nuclear weapons out of the president’s hands.
Milley, according to the book, reportedly told the Chinese General Li Zuocheng in a back-channel phone call that had as a subject the possibility that the president might order an attack directed against China, something in the nature of a “surprise attack.” He reportedly said
“General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.”
Milley apparently justified the action by stating that he disapproves of surprise attacks in principal and his defenders cite the example of “Pearl Harbor,” which was viewed so repugnantly by the American public that something like a war of extermination became inevitable. Unstated by the Milley supporters, though implicit in their argument, is the assumption that Donald Trump was both ignorant and a loose cannon on deck who would do something stupid like initiating a conflict with China.
Milley also shared his view that Trump had experienced a “mental decline” after the election with Nancy Pelosi in a phone call to her on January 8th, two days after the alleged insurrection at the Capitol. Pelosi reportedly demanded that Milley take the nuclear launch codes away from Trump, which admittedly he did not seek to do. On the same day Milley also reviewed procedures with the senior officers at the National Military Command Center for launching nuclear weapons, insisting that he also had to be involved. To be completely clear, Milley had no legal authority or power to insert himself into the chain of command, though “Peril” reports that he did just that and at a minimum he was acting “extra-constitutionally” in his interpretation of his government role.
But it is the outreach to China is most disturbing. It is indeed possible to regard Donald Trump negatively while at the same time responding rationally with one’s international nuclear armed adversaries. One does not know what Milley intended to do by his phone call, but “Peril” makes the case, without providing any evidence, that “American intelligence showed that the Chinese believed that Mr. Trump planned to launch a military strike to create an international crisis that he could claim to solve as a last-ditch effort to beat Joseph R. Biden Jr.” In any event, it is unlikely that the Milley phone call reassured Li of anything. Indeed, Li and the Chinese government would have only two possible responses to the threat. First would be to shut up shop, batten down the hatches, and sit still for punishment. The other option would be to preemptively strike U.S. forces in and around China which presumably would be used for the attack. Either option could easily lead to a nuclear exchange once things cease to go according to plan, presuming that the surprise attack itself was not intended to include nuclear weapons in the first place.
“If the report of Milley’s intentions is accurate, he should be relieved for cause, for though he did not consummate a criminal act by making that promise, the promise was so fraught with impropriety that an officer who betrayed his government in such fashion should ever be trusted to serve. Indeed, it is likely that had his Chinese counterpart made such a promise to General Milley, he’d have been executed for doing so.”
Beyond the disruption of the chain of command and ignoring the Constitution, there are, of course, some other problems with Milley’s line of thinking. Trump has, to be sure, demonstrated enough irrational behavior to make one suspect that he is not in full possession of all his marbles, but that is not the point. He was elected president of the United States and the U.S. Constitution was set up to ensure civilian control of the military, not vice versa.
And there is no solid evidence, only innuendo, that Trump ever seriously contemplated war with China. Indeed, he ran for office pledging to end the pointless wars that Washington was engaged in in Asia and towards the end of his administration he negotiated an exit from Afghanistan, which Joe Biden then postponed before bungling the evacuation. Trump did indeed assassinate a senior Iranian General and also launched cruise missiles against Syria based on bad intelligence, but otherwise his record is significantly better than that of his predecessor Barack Obama who both initiated and broadened the policy of assassinating American and Afghan citizens overseas by drone and also was party to the overthrow of the Libyan government while also conniving to replace the government of Ukraine.
In any event, in America war is clearly playing politics by other means. President Joe Biden has already declared that he has full confidence in Milley. Several Republican Senators, including Marco Rubio, have instead demanded that he be fired. Given the fact that at least one of the general’s phone calls to his Chinese counterpart could have started a war that might have gone nuclear, he should at least have the integrity to resign and take up his expected board appointment with a defense contractor.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.orgaddress is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]
