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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

.

.

Ohio Judge Orders Hospital To Treat Ventilated COVID-19 Patient With Ivermectin, see this.

The murderers at West Chester Hospital in Cincinnati would rather patients die than to treat them with Ivermectin.  This is how crazed and brainwashed the Medical establishment is. A judge had to intervene to force the hospital to give Ivermectin treatment to a dying patient.  In America to get competent medical treatment requires wining a court case.

The corrupt public health authorities protecting Big Pharma profits use the excuse that people desperate for Ivermectin but unable to get Ivermectin for humans are harming themselves by taking large doses in formulations for animals.  This, of course, is not a justification for banning the use of doses formulated for people.

Ivermectin Suppressed Covid in Africa where it is used against River Blindness

In an earlier article I pointed out that in malaria-infested countries where the population has traditionally taken HCQ weekly to ward off infection,  Covid cases are rare as HCQ is also a covid preventative and cure.

Now evidence arises from  Japanese researchers that in countries in Africa where Onchocerciasis or River Blindness is endemic, Ivermectin is distributed to the population to prevent or cure infection.  In these countries, there is practically no Covid. 

Researchers divided Africa between countries that have Ivermectin programs for control of River Blindness and those that don’t.  The countries without Ivermectin programs had 4.3 times more cases and 5.7 times more Covid deaths despite having a 220,000,000 smaller population.

The study concludes: 

“Conclusions: The morbidity and mortality in the onchocerciasis [River Blindness] endemic countries are lesser than those in the non-endemic ones. The community-directed onchocerciasis treatment with ivermectin is the most reasonable explanation for the decrease in morbidity and fatality rate in Africa. In areas where ivermectin is distributed to and used by the entire population, it leads to a significant reduction in mortality.” See this. 

The use of Ivermectin in India produced the same result. In the provinces of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Goa where Ivermectin was widely used as a preventative against Covid, cases declined by 98%, 97%, 94%, and 86% respectively. See this. 

In view of these hard facts, it is not only dishonest but also intentional murder when medical authorities and presstitutes assert that HCQ and Ivermectin are unsafe, untested, and recommend against, and actively prevent, their use to control Covid.  

Both HCQ and Ivermectin have been in wide use for decades and are so safe that in most countries they are available as over-the-counter purchases with no prescription required.

Two senior FDA officials have resigned in protest against the politicization of the decision to give Covid Vaccine booster shots by the White House Idiot, CDC, and Fauci, who bypassed FDA where the regulatory power resides. See this. 

The evidence is overwhelming that the mRNA “vaccines” do not protect, produce harmful side effects including death, and spread the virus. 

Therefore, the only reason to give booster shots is to worsen and spread the infection.  In every country that has a majority of its population vaccinated, the vast majority of the new Covid cases are among the vaccinated.  How can more vaccination be the solution?  Is it really possible that public health officials, doctors, and hospital administrators are so brainwashed that they are incapable of thought?  How can they be blind to the clear overwhelming evidence that the Covid vaccination program is a health catastrophe? 

The medical authorities and presstitutes know the facts.  Why do they suppress them?

Why do they lie and falsely assert that the new covid cases are a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” when the most vaccinated countries have the most new cases and most of the new cases are vaccinated people?  This cannot be a mere mistake on the part of medical authorities and the media. If the vaccine provides immunity why are booster shots needed every few months as Fauci now declares?  Each round of booster shots produces new variants immune to vaccines.  This is a policy for pharmaceutical profits and mass sickness and death.

Yet this is what our own government and medical system are doing to us.

I find the audacity of the intentional lie to be extraordinary as the available information makes the lie completely transparent.  Those who are murdering people with their lies show no shame!

This is the triumph of Evil.

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The Jewish Chronicle, a weekly newspaper that was saved from liquidation last year by a consortium led by a former senior adviser to Theresa May, has been exposed as having a quite astonishing record of journalistic failings.

Over the past three years, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), the misnamed and feeble “press regulator” created by the billionaire-owned corporate media, has found the paper to have breached its code of practice on at least 28 occasions. The weekly has also lost, or been forced to settle, at least four libel cases over the same period.

According to Brian Cathcart, a professor of journalism at Kingston University in London, that means one in every four or five editions of the Chronicle has broken either the law or the IPSO code. He describes that, rather generously, as a “collapse of journalistic standards” at the paper.

IPSO, led by Lord Edward Faulks, a former Conservative minister, has repeatedly failed to launch any kind of formal investigation into this long-term pattern of rule and law-breaking by the Jewish Chronicle. He has also dragged his feet in responding to calls from a group of nine individuals maligned by the paper that IPSO urgently needs to carry out an inquiry into the paper’s editorial standards. 

Consequently, IPSO has left itself in no position to take action against the paper, even assuming it wished to. The “press regulator” has not fined the Chronicle – one of its powers – or imposed any other kind of sanction. It has not insisted on special training to end the Chronicle’s systematic editorial failings. And the paper’s editor, Stephen Pollard, has remained in place.

And here one needs to ask why.

Holding the line 

Cathcart’s main explanation is that IPSO, as the creature of the billionaire press, is there to “handle” complaints – in the sense of making them go away – rather than seriously hold the media to account or punish its transgressions.

IPSO has never fined or sanctioned any of its member publications since it was created seven years ago by the owners of the corporate media to avoid the establishment of a proper regulatory body in the wake of the Levenson public inquiry into media abuses such as the phone hacking scandal.

The bar for launching an investigation by IPSO was intentionally set so high – failings must be shown to be “serious and systematic” – that the “press regulator” and its corporate media backers assumed they would plausibly be able to argue that no paper ever reached it.

The Chronicle has put even this sham form of regulation to the severest test.

Cathcart argues that IPSO’s job has been to hold the line. If it tackled the Jewish Chronicle for its serial deceptions and character assassinations, it would risk paving the way to similar sanctions being imposed on Rupert Murdoch’s titles.

Attack dog 

But there is an additional reason why IPSO is so loath to crack down on the Chronicle’s systematic editorial failings. And that is because, from the point of view of the British establishment, those failings were necessary and encouraged.

It is important to highlight the context for the Chronicle’s egregious transgressions of the editors’ code of practice and libel laws. Those fabrications and deceptions were needed because they lay at the heart of the establishment’s campaign to be rid of former Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn.

The Jewish Chronicle served as the chief attack dog on Corbyn and the Labour left, in service of an establishment represented by the Conservative party and the long-dominant right wing of the Labour party.

Whereas the rest of the corporate media tried to discredit Corbyn and the Labour left with a range of early, lamentable claims – that he was scruffy, unpatriotic, sexist, a national security threat, a former Soviet spy – the Jewish Chronicle’s task was more complicated but far more effective.

The paper’s role was to breathe life into the claim that Corbyn and his supporters were anti-semites, and the paper managed it by maliciously conflating antisemitism and the left’s criticisms of Israel as a racist, apartheid state that oppresses Palestinians.

Confess or you’re guilty 

The Chronicle’s job was to initiate the antisemitism libels and lies against Corbyn and his followers that served to feed and rationalise the fears of prominent sections of the Jewish community. Those fears could then be cited by the rest of the corporate media as evidence that Labour was riding roughshod over the Jewish community’s “sensitivities”. And in turn the Labour left’s supposed indifference to Jewish sensitivities could be attributed to its rampant antisemitism. 

It culminated in the McCarthyite claim – now being enforced by Corbyn’s successor as Labour leader, Keir Starmer – that to deny Labour has some especial antisemitism problem, separate from that found more generally in British society, is itself proof of antisemitism. Once accused of antisemitism, as the Labour left endlessly is, one is guilty by definition – the choice is either to confess to antisemitism or be proven an antisemite by denying the accusation. 

Like a victim caught in quicksand, the more vigorously the Labour left has rejected claims that the party is riddled with antisemitism the more it has sunk into the mire created by the Jewish Chronicle and others.

It is therefore hardly surprising that so many victims of the Chronicle’s libels and code violations are Corbyn supporters targeted in the antisemitism witch-hunt. Without these deceptions, the antisemitism claims against the Labour party would have looked even more preposterous than they did to anyone familiar with the evidence.

False accusations 

For those interested, here are those four recent libel cases that went against the Chronicle:

September 2019: “The Jewish Chronicle has paid out £50,000 in libel damages to a UK charity [Interpal] that provides aid to Palestinians after wrongly linking it to terrorism.”

February 2020: “The libel settlement comes after a UK press regulator in December ruled that the paper’s four articles about [Labour activist Audrey] White had been ‘significantly misleading’ and that the paper had engaged in ‘unacceptable’ obstruction of their investigation.”

October 2020: “Nada al Sanjari, a school teacher and Labour councillor, was the subject of a number of articles published by the newspaper in 2019 that claimed she was one of several Momentum activists responsible for inviting another activist who the Jewish Chronicle characterised as anti-Semitic to a Labour Party event.”

July 2021: “The publication falsely accused [Marc] Wadsworth, in an article on its website in March, of being part of a group of current and ex-Labour members targeting Jewish activists in the party.”

It is not hard to spot the theme of all these smears, and many others, which suggest that those in solidarity with Palestinians under Israeli oppression, including Jews, are antisemites or guilty of supporting terrorism. 

Saved from liquidation 

Remember, the 28 IPSO code violations – media euphemism for fabrications and deceptions – are only the tip of the iceberg. It is almost certain that many of those maligned by the Chronicle did not have the time, energy or resources to pursue the weekly paper either through the pointless IPSO “regulation” process or through extremely costly law courts.

And remember too that IPSO found against the Chronicle for breaching its code at least 28 times, even though that code was designed to give IPSO’s member publications every possible benefit of the doubt. IPSO has no incentive to highlight its members’ failings, especially when it was set up to provide the government with a pretext for not creating a truly independent regulatory body.

The reality is that the 180-year-old Jewish Chronicle, or JC as it has remodelled itself, would have gone out of business some time ago had it not been twice saved from liquidation by powerful, establishment figures.

It avoided closure in 2019 after it was bailed out by “community-minded individuals, families and charitable trusts” following massive losses. The identities of those donors were not disclosed.

At the time Stephen Pollard highlighted his paper’s crucial role: “There’s certainly been a huge need for the journalism that the JC does in especially looking at the anti-Semitism in the Labour party and elsewhere.”

Consortium of investors 

Then only a year later the Chronicle had to be rescued again, this time by a shadowy consortium of investors who promised to pump in millions to keep the paper afloat and reimburse those who had donated the previous year.

Why these financiers appear so committed to a paper with proven systematic editorial failings, and which continues to be headed by the same editor who has overseen those serious failings for years, was underscored at the time by Alan Jacobs, the paper’s departing chairman.

He observed that the donors who bailed out the paper in 2019 “can be proud that their combined generosity allowed the JC to survive long enough to help to see off Jeremy Corbyn and friends, one of the greatest threats to face British Jewry in the JC’s existence.”

Corbyn had lost the general election to a Conservative party led by Boris Johnson later that same year.

The public face of last year’s consortium was Sir Robbie Gibb, a former BBC executive and a longtime ally of figures on the Conservative right. He served as Theresa May’s spin doctor when she was prime minister. He was also an early adviser to GB News, a recent attempt to replicate the overtly rightwing Fox News channel in the UK.

Other visible consortium members are associated with the antisemitism campaign against Corbyn. They include former rightwing Labour MP John Woodcock, who cited antisemitism as his reason for quitting the party after it had begun investigating him for sending inappropriate messages to a female staff member.

Another is Jonathan Sacerdoti, a regular “analyst” on the BBC, ITV and Ch4 who previously served as a spokesperson for the Campaign Against Antisemitism, a lobby group set up back in 2014 specifically to discredit critics of Israel as antisemites.

And then there is John Ware, a former Sun journalist turned BBC reporter who fronted probably the single most damaging programme on Corbyn. An hour-long Panorama “special” accusing Labour of antisemitism was deeply flawed, misleading and failed to acknowledge that several unnamed figures it interviewed were also pro-Israel lobbyists.

It would probably be unwise for me to say more about Ware or his publicly stated views on Muslims, shared by the Jewish Chronicle, because he has recently become litigious. He apparently has deep pockets, helping to fund both the rescue of the Chronicle and law suits against critics.

Exceptional indulgence 

But the exceptional indulgence of the Jewish Chronicle, both by IPSO and prominent figures in broadcasting, and the paper’s continuing credibility as a source of news for the wider corporate media, indicates how the antisemitism narrative about Labour served, and continues to serve, the British establishment.

Represented politically by the Conservative party and the Labour right, that establishment was able to reassert its cosy parliamentary duopoly by ousting any meaningful challenge from the Labour left. With Corbyn gone, the threat of real politics has disappeared. We are back to one-party, corporate rule under the guise of two parties.

Which is why IPSO cannot take any meaningful action against the Jewish Chronicle. To do so would pull the rug from under the antisemitism narrative that destroyed Corbyn and is now being used by his successor, Starmer, to purge Labour of the remnants of the left and to distance the party as far as possible from any lingering signs of Palestinian solidarity.

Exposure of the Jewish Chronicle as an editorial wrecking ball aimed at the left would show just how much the paper and the antisemitism narrative it bolstered were key to the Conservative party’s successful smearing of Corbyn that helped to keep him out of Number 10. It would highlight the enduring collusion between the corporate media and the political elite. 

And it would indicate that corporate media is not really an exercise in capitalist, free-market economics, where profitable outlets drive out those that are unpopular. Rather loss-making corporate media such as the Jewish Chronicle are a price the establishment is only too happy to bear as long as those publications fulfil a more important purpose: ensuring that the political and economic climate remains favourable to the ruling class.

The Jewish Chronicle has played its part in destroying Corbyn and the left. Now it will continue that role by policing the public discourse and ensuring that no one like Corbyn ever gets near power again. Those libel payouts were a small price to pay.

*

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

This essay first appeared on Jonathan Cook’s blog: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

.

.

“The color of the Statue of Liberty

Grows ever more deathly pale

As, loving freedom with bullets,

You shoot at yourself, America.”

Yevgeny Yevtushenko, “The Freedom to Kill,” 1970.

On June 5, 1968, a few minutes after midnight, Robert Kennedy was shot and killed at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles while walking through a narrow serving area called “the pantry.” Kennedy had just won the California primary and was on his way to a room where print media reporters were waiting to hear him speak.

In early March, Lyndon B. Johnson had thrown open the race by announcing that he would not seek re-election because of the failure of his Vietnam policy. Kennedy emerged as a leading contender by energizing the youth wing of the party with his calls for sweeping social change.

Kennedy was in many ways a strange liberal icon because he grew up idolizing Herbert Hoover, was closest in his family to his father, Joseph, the millionaire business tycoon, began his career supporting Joseph McCarthy’s anti-communist witch-hunt, called for victory against communism in Vietnam in the early 1960s, and oversaw a terrorist campaign designed to overthrow the Cuban government.

Nevertheless, by the latter part of the 1960s, Kennedy had evolved into a crusader for the poor and dove on Vietnam who was trying to ride the wave of the protest movement into the White House.[1]

Biographers Lester and Irene David wrote that Bobby was the Kennedy who “felt deepest, cared the most, and fought the hardest for humanity—crying out against America’s involvement in the Vietnam War, championing the causes of blacks, Hispanics, and Mexican-Americans, and crusading against the suffering of children, the elderly and anyone else hurt or bypassed by social and economic progress.”[2]

After Kennedy’s death, the Democratic Party became a shadow of its former self, with six of the next nine presidents being Republicans. The Party in this period abandoned its core base—union laborers, minorities, and blue-collar workers—and started catering to Wall Street.[3]

A picture containing text, newspaper Description automatically generated

Newspaper headline announcing Kennedy’s death. [Source: pri.org]

Official Version of Assassination

According to the official version, Kennedy was shot and killed by a lone gunman, Sirhan Sirhan, a 24-year-old Palestinian-born Jordanian citizen who was allegedly aghast by Kennedy’s recent decision to send 50 jet bombers to Israel to do harm to the Palestinians.

According to his mother, Sirhan had been traumatized as a child by the violence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His family home in East Jerusalem was destroyed by an Israeli bombing raid and he had witnessed the death of his older brother, who was killed by a Jordanian military vehicle that was swerving to escape Israeli gunfire.[4]

Professional football player Roosevelt Grier and 1960 Olympic gold medalist Rafer Johnson were among several men who subdued and disarmed Sirhan after a struggle.

Subsequently, he was arrested and convicted of the murder.

The prosecution during his trial—led by World War II hero Lynn “Buck” Compton who was subsequently appointed by Governor Ronald Reagan as Justice of the California Court of Appeals[5]—showed that Sirhan was seen at the Ambassador Hotel on June 3, two nights before the attack, to learn the building’s layout, and that he visited a gun range on June 4.

Alvin Clark, Sirhan’s garbage collector, testified that Sirhan had told him a month before the attack of his intention to shoot Kennedy—a fact seemingly confirmed by diaries that Sirhan kept which showed premeditation.

Sirhan initially confessed to the killing but later claimed to have no memory of it. After the events transpired, he had appeared calm, but not “in complete control of his mind.”

Sirhan’s death sentence was commuted to a life prison sentence and he was denied parole fifteen times, though recommended for release on August 27, 2021 after over fifty years behind bars.

RFK Jr. Believes Sirhan Is Innocent

In a 2018 interview with The Washington PostRobert F. Kennedy, Jr., said that he traveled to meet with Sirhan at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional facility in San Diego County, and, after a relatively lengthy conversation, believed that Sirhan did not kill his father and that a second gunman was involved.

Kennedy Jr.’s view is shared by his sister, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, and by Paul Schrade, regional director of the United Auto Workers (UAW) and one of Bobby’s closest advisers, who was shot the night that he was killed.

A picture containing person, indoor, group, people Description automatically generated

Paul Schrade, a Kennedy family confidante since JFK’s presidency, being interviewed after recovering from being shot on the night Kennedy was killed. [Source: prospect.org]

In 2016, Schrade testified in support of Sirhan’s parole, stating his belief that a second shooter killed Kennedy and that Sirhan was intended to be a distraction from the real gunman by an unknown conspiracy.

A picture containing text, person, person, sign Description automatically generated

Sirhan Sirhan in mugshot. [Source: wikipedia.org]

Kennedy Jr. has pointed out that Sirhan’s appointed lawyer at his original trial, Grant Cooper, was Johnny Rosselli’s personal lawyer. “Roselli,” he said, “was the mobster who ran the assassination program for the CIA against Castro. Cooper pressured Sirhan to plead guilty so that there was no trial.”

Sirhan Sirhan listening to his lawyer Grant Cooper who stands to his right. Co-defense attorney Russell E. Parsons looks on on his left. [Source: murderpedia.org]

Kennedy believes the real assassin was Thane Eugene Cesar, an employee of Lockheed’s Burbank facility—which manufactured the CIA produced U-2 spy plane—and previously Hughes Aircraft who was moonlighting as a security guard for Ace Security Services.

After the shooting, Kennedy Sr. was photographed with Cesar’s clip-on tie next to him, which he had apparently yanked off.

Cesar had told police that he had a hold of Bobby’s right arm when Sirhan began firing at him, and then pulled his gun and grabbed the Senator and fell backwards. Later, however, Cesar changed his story and said that he was shoved by an unknown individual after Sirhan opened fire and drew his gun only after he scrambled to his feet.[6]

In one interview Cesar said he did not see Kennedy get shot and in another—given right after the shooting when doctors had not yet examined Kennedy or issued any statements—stated that he saw Kennedy get shot four times, in the head, chest and shoulder.[7]

Cesar considered the Kennedys “the biggest bunch of crooks that ever walked the earth” and worked for the presidential campaign of Alabama’s segregationist Governor, George C. Wallace.[8]

Before the killing, he had been seen in Las Vegas in the company of a Florida hit man. The man who saw him said Cesar was “owned by Howard Hughes” and was “as tough as they come.”[9]

Hughes was the owner of a major aerospace company and “godfather of Las Vegas” with deep connections to the Republican Party and CIA.[10]

Jim Yoder, who bought the alleged assassination weapons from Cesar after Kennedy’s death, claimed that Cesar worked in off-limits areas at Lockheed, to which only special personnel had access. These areas were under the control of the CIA.

RFK Jr. believes that Cesar was the one that shot his father in the back of the head after hiding in the pantry and waiting for his appearance in the pantry or, alternatively, that he held his father and shot him three times under the arm, while another assassin—a man dressed in a busboy outfit, fired the two shots to Kennedy’s head that killed him—with a gun that was disguised or small enough to remain hidden.[11]

Planning at one point to visit Cesar in the Philippines until he demanded a payment of $25,000, RFK Jr. stated:

“With 77 people in the pantry, every eyewitness said Sirhan was always in front of my father at a 3-6 feet distance. Sirhan fired two shots toward my father before he was tackled. From under the dog pile, Sirhan emptied his 8-chamber revolver firing 6 more shots in the opposite direction 5 of them striking bystanders and one going wild.”

“Cesar was a bigot who hated the Kennedys for their advocacy of Civil Rights for blacks. By his own account, Cesar was directly behind my dad holding his right elbow with his own gun drawn when my dad fell backwards on top of him. Cesar repeatedly changed his story about exactly when he drew his weapon.”

“According to the Coroner, Dr. Thomas Noguchi, all 4 shots that struck my father were ‘contact’ shots fired from behind my dad with the barrel touching or nearly touching his body. As my dad fell, he reached back and tore off Cesar’s clip on tie.”

“Cesar sold his .22 to a co-worker [Yoder] weeks after the assassination, warning him that it had been used in a crime. Cesar lied to police claiming that he’d disposed of the gun months before the assassination.”

Kennedy Jr. concluded, “Police have never seriously investigated Cesar’s role in my father’s killing,” adding that the LAPD unit which investigated his dad’s assassination was “run by active CIA operatives” who “destroyed thousands of pieces of evidence.”[12]

A Lie Too Big to Fail

The case against Sirhan being the lone gunman can be summarized in six key points:

1. More Bullets Were Fired Than Were in Sirhan’s Gun

Sirhan’s gun had eight bullets in it. According to officials, three of Sirhan’s bullets hit Kennedy (a fourth went through his coat), and five bullets struck the other victims.

But one bullet was also lost in the ceiling space. And crime scene photos show investigators pointing to bullet holes circled in doorframes and a ceiling panel.

Investigators found twelve points of entry in the six victims, with three bullet holes photographed in the ceiling.[13] LAPD criminalist DeWayne Wolfer said “it’s unbelievable how many holes there are in the kitchen ceiling.”[14]

Did L.A. police and prosecutors bungle the Bobby Kennedy assassination?

Charles Wright, a police technician, and LAPD officer Robert Rozzi inspect a bullet hole found in a doorframe in a kitchen corridor of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles near where Robert F Kennedy was shot. The bullet was still in the wood. [Source: mercurynews.com]

Marked Bullet Holes in Door Frame

Marked bullet holes in doorframe. [Source: riversong.wordpress.com]

An audio tape made by Polish journalist Stanislaw Pruszynski recorded thirteen shots. Analysis of the tape found that it showed the gunshots to be coming from two separate directions.[15]

2. Kennedy’s Killer Shot Him from the Back, Not the Front

L.A. County Coroner Thomas Noguchi’s report—which mysteriously went missing from the LAPD’s final report—found that Kennedy had been hit by three bullets from the rear, including one in his head behind his right ear. This conclusion rules out Sirhan who was identified by all witnesses as having shot at Kennedy from the front.

Bullet Wound Trajectories

Bullet wound trajectories. Note all three of the bullets believed to have caused his death came from behind him, not in front, ruling out Sirhan as Kennedy’s killer. [Source: riversong.wordpress.com]

3. Kennedy’s Killer Shot Him from Close Range—Sirhan Was Too Far Away

Noguchi, Wolfer and Pasadena criminalist William Harper, drawing on forensic and eyewitness evidence, all concluded that the shots which killed Kennedy came from close range—a point of near direct contact.[16] Sirhan never got anywhere near that close—he was at least three feet away.[17]

4. Two Guns and Two Shooters

Sirhan’s gun was never matched to the bullets that killed Kennedy. William Harper, who survived an assassination attempt on the eve of his scheduled testimony before a grand jury investigating the handling of firearms evidence, concluded that two .22 caliber guns were involved in the assassination.[18]

Evan Freed, a photographer who was standing near Kennedy when the shooting started, said that another man besides Sirhan—who looked like Sirhan but was wearing darker clothing—fired the first shot at Kennedy and that a man made a failed attempt to grab him afterwards and he ran out of the pantry.[19]

Other witnesses confirm the same story, observing a man with a gun under a newspaper and a woman with a polka-dotted dress running out of the room.[20]

Donald Schulman, a runner for Los Angeles TV station KNXT, reported on the air minutes after Kennedy’s assassination that, after Sirhan fired his gun, a security guard—referring to Cesar—fired back and struck Kennedy three times.

Schulman also stated that he spotted two revolvers other than Sirhan’s and that both had been fired—an observation confirmed by testimony and statements introduced at an official hearing in Los Angeles Superior Court.[21]

5. Karl Uecker

One of the most important witnesses was, Karl Uecker, a maitre d’ at the Ambassador Hotel, who was the first one to grab Sirhan during the shooting in an attempt to subdue him. He told filmmaker Ted Charach that Sirhan could not have been the killer. He stated:

“Sirhan at no time was firing from behind Senator Robert Kennedy. No! No! Not an inch from Kennedy’s head—I don’t believe that it was Sirhan’s gun firing back from an upward direction. I think I would have seen it. I was the closest one. In order for Sirhan to get that close to Senator Kennedy from behind he would have had to pass me and didn’t pass me at that point. I had him very tight, pushed against the steam table while Senator Kennedy staggered back and Mr. Schrade dropped to the floor first. So this does not fit with what Mr. Fitts [prosecuting attorney later promoted by Governor Reagan to California’s Superior Court] told the jury.”[22]

“Get the gun, get the gun!”

Karl Uecker in bowtie as he and others subdue Sirhan Sirhan. [Source: rfktapes.com]

Uecker also said that he saw a guard—Thane Cesar—who brandished a gun which was odd. He testified that he had grabbed Sirhan after the second shot, not the fourth shot—which would further prove the existence of a second shooter because Kennedy was shot three times under the arm and twice in the head, and seven bullets were recovered from six victims.[23]

Investigator Lisa Pease wrote that, “if Uecker had grabbed Sirhan after the second shot, then someone else had to have shot Kennedy at least twice, as Kennedy had provably been shot four times from near-contact range.”[24]

6. Kennedy Was Killed from an Elevated Position

Not only was Kennedy shot from the back, but witnesses saw someone shooting at him from an elevated position twelve to sixteen inches above Kennedy’s head, with knee or body on a steam table.

This could not have been Sirhan who was identified by four credible witnesses, including Uecker, as shooting at Kennedy from the floor on a slightly upward trajectory, which made sense since Sirhan was four inches shorter than Kennedy.[25]

Uecker specified further that he pushed Sirhan up on a table after he grabbed him in a headlock; he was not on a table before.

Richard Lubic, a 31-year-old television producer and campaign aide, heard a voice—“Kennedy you son of a bitch”—and then heard two shots from what sounded like a starter pistol at a track meet.

The shots came from a man who had his knee on a small table or air conditioning vent and lifted himself up on his knee to obtain elevation while shooting. He had bare arms when firing; Sirhan was wearing long sleeves.[26]

Sirhan As “Magician’s Assistant”

Some witnesses thought Sirhan was firing a cap gun. The real assassins appear to have waited until Sirhan fired the first shot and people focused on him, and then moved quickly to get the job done.

Sirhan’s function was that of a “magician’s assistant.” He provided the distraction by firing blanks—which were designed to deceive the mind and eye.[27]

The fact that the shooter was elevated would have also been part of the plan, since people’s natural instinct in a crisis is to look around them and not upward.

The Girl with the Polka-Dot Dress

After the shooting, Sandra Serrano, a 20-year-old Pasadena City College student, observed a twenty-something “Hispanic-looking” man wearing a gold sweater and a dark-haired Caucasian girl with a “good figure” and “funny nose” wearing a white dress with black polka dots. The two were running down a hallway to a fire exit.

Serrano had seen the pair with Sirhan earlier in the night, while Vincent Di Pierro said he saw Sirhan and the girl in the polka-dot dress just before Kennedy was shot with wicked smiles.

As the girl was running to the fire exit, she turned to Serrano, laughing, and said. “We shot him! We shot him.” Astonished, Serrano asked “who did you shoot?” and she replied “Senator Kennedy!”

An elderly couple named Bernstein witnessed this exchange and told LAPD Sergeant Paul Sharaga, who put out an all-points bulletin on the pair.

At that point, however, a police radio blackout commenced which, according to Sharaga, lasted between fifteen and twenty minutes.[28]

Afterwards, Detective Inspector John Powers ordered a cancelation of the description of the two suspects, saying that “we don’t want to make a federal case out of it. We’ve got the suspect in custody.”[29] These comments suggest a police cover-up that was planned beforehand.

“Criminal Equivalent of a Potemkin Village”

Tim Tate and Brad Johnson, authors of the 2018 book The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy: Crime, Conspiracy and Cover-Up—A New Investigation, wrote that the LAPD:

“constructed the criminal equivalent of a Potemkin Village [Soviet model villages that masked underlying brutality of the Soviet system]—a Hollywood style set whose façade concealed the truth that evidence was overlooked, destroyed or suppressed, and witnesses were ignored or intimidated into silence. After which L.A. law enforcement locked the whole sorry saga away, hiding their misdeeds and incompetence behind impenetrable walls of official secrecy for two full decades.”[30]

As an example of police malfeasance, no effort was made to perform a ballistics test on Thane Cesar’s .22 caliber gun to see whether the bullets matched those that killed Kennedy.

In addition, a) bullets were planted in Sirhan’s car; b) the crime scene area was never properly roped off; c) hotel employees were allowed to mop up blood from the kitchen floor right after; and d) the LAPD burned more than 2,400 photographs from the crime scene and investigation in a medical waste incinerator before Sirhan’s trial.[31]

The LAPD task force set to investigate the killing—the “Special Unit Senator” (SUS)—was headed by 22-year LAPD veteran Lt. Manuel Pena, who reportedly killed eleven people in the line of duty—more than any other officer in the history of the department.[32]

In November 1967, Pena temporarily retired from the LAPD to work with USAID’s Office of Public Safety in South America, a CIA front headed by known CIA agent Byron Engle.[33]

One of his colleagues was Daniel Mitrione, an Indiana police officer who was kidnapped and killed by left-wing guerrillas in Uruguay in retaliation for his promotion of torture techniques among the U.S.-trained police.[34]

Charles A. O’Brien, California’s Chief Deputy Attorney General, told William Turner that USAID was being used as an “ultra-secret CIA unit” that was known to insiders as the “Department of Dirty Tricks” and that it was involved in teaching foreign intelligence agents the techniques of assassination.[35]

To help oversee the RFK investigation, Pena selected another CIA compatriot, Sgt. Enrique “Hank” Hernandez, a polygraph specialist who was subsequently promoted to lieutenant in recognition of his performance on the SUS.

Hernandez had played a key role in the CIA’s “Unified Police Command,” a training operation for Latin American countries and received a medal from the Venezuelan government for his efforts in helping prevent Fidel Castro’s exportation of the Cuban revolution onto its soil.[36]

[Source: survivorbb.rapeutation.com]

Under Hernandez and Pena’s direction, SUS became what authors William Turner and Jonn Christian termed a “kind of Bermuda triangle” into which reports and major leads on the case—including any that pointed to CIA or FBI involvement—disappeared.”[37]

The SUS at one point requested that the FBI report “any attempts to write stories regarding the assassination which might tend to suggest a conspiratorial aspect.”[38]

The SUS did question the woman with the polka-dot dress, though the tape was made blank and witnesses who had seen her—most notably Sandra Serrano—were intimidated, coerced and smeared.[39]

When Paul Sharaga, the LAPD officer who put in the all-points bulletin, prepared a report, the SUS disposed of it, and it never again surfaced.[40]

The SUS further tried to have Coroner Noguchi commit perjury.

When he refused to comply, it questioned his competency and character and had him suspended—with his findings never seeing the light of day.[41]

Documents assembled by New Orleans D.A. Jim Garrison that pointed to a connection with the JFK assassination were among those—perhaps not surprisingly—ignored.[42]

The LAPD took no action additionally when Roy Donald Murray, a prosperous cotton rancher in the northern California town of Earlimart who hated Kennedy and Cesar Chavez, was overheard by a local police officer in May 1968 boasting about pledging $2,000 to his mafia friends in Las Vegas for an assassination fund.[43]

The FBI also did not follow up on a report by Edward Hugh Pole, who served time with Jimmy Hoffa in the Lewisburg penitentiary and said that Hoffa had boasted to fellow prisoners that he had put a hit out on Bobby Kennedy—who had been the one during his stint as Attorney General to put him in jail.[44]

Show Trial

Lisa Pease referred to Sirhan’s trial as a “show trial.” Key witnesses were never asked to testify, ballistics tests were never ordered, and discrepancies in the LAPD’s story and shoddy investigation went unchallenged by Sirhan’s defense team.

Remarkably, Coroner Noguchi’s report, which detailed the existence of two shooters and specified that Sirhan could not have been the one to deliver the lethal shots, was not entered into evidence at the trial and Sirhan’s lawyer, Grant Cooper, cut short Noguchi’s testimony.

Cooper also cut short the testimony of LAPD criminalist DeWayne Wolfer, who was cited in later probes to have been negligent in his conduct, and who had been photographed pointing to bullet holes in the walls which he now said were not genuine.[45]

Cooper had had a felony indictment hanging over him during Sirhan’s trial, which was withdrawn once the death sentence was passed.[46]

Grant Cooper with co-counsel Emile Zola Berman. [Source: outlet.historicimages.com]

William Pepper, who took over Sirhan’s case in 2010 after serving as the Martin Luther King family lawyer, said that “there can be no reasonable doubt that this conflict influenced, more precisely directed Cooper’s lamentable trial performance.”[47]

Secret Team

In her 2018 book A Lie Too Big to Fail, Lisa Pease suggests that the hit team included a 21-year-old bookstore clerk named Michael Wayne and the girl in the polka-dot dress, who collected press badges which enabled members of the team to go anywhere in the hotel.

Wayne later helped provide a diversion while the assassin(s) got away. Suspiciously, he was found with the business card of Duane Gilbert, a right-wing extremist and militant involved in a previous theft of dynamite.

A picture containing text, person, indoor Description automatically generated

Michael Wayne pictured with Robert Kennedy. [Source: twitter.com]

Throughout the night, the hit teams communicated through radio—with different teams likely prepared for Kennedy in different rooms of the hotel.

One of the team members manned the southwest fire escape so the girl in the polka-dot dress could sneak Sirhan into the hotel that way. A man in a maroon coat stood next to the door all night holding a radio.[48]

When the woman in the polka-dot dress shouted “we shot him” as she and the assassin were making their escape, she may have been trying to alert her cohort at the back door.

Markings of a CIA Special-Op

The secret team appears to have been part of a highly sophisticated intelligence operation that required a large support team and compliance with the with LAPD, L.A. County’s Sheriff’s Department and District Attorney’s Office, state government, the media and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The operation additionally required control of Sirhan’s defense team, access to trained assassins, and access to a patsy that could be hypnotized—which only the CIA could provide.[49]

An Irish filmmaker, Shane O’Sullivan, identified two men photographed at the Ambassador Hotel on the night Kennedy was killed as Bulova Watch Company sales managers attending the company’s convention. O’Sullivan stated that Bulova was a “well-known CIA cover.”

Michael Roman and Frank Owens photographed at the Ambassador Hotel on the night Kennedy was killed. They worked for the Bulova Watch Company which was thought to function as a CIA-front company. Initially the two men were thought to be CIA agents Gordon Campbell and George Joannides. [Source: riversong.wordpress.com]

CIA agent Bradley Ayers and diplomat Wayne Smith, who worked with him at the U.S. Embassy in Havana, identified CIA assassin David Sanchez Morales as the man in a photo taken at the Ambassador Hotel on the night of Kennedy’s killing—though others who knew Morales said it was not.[50]

O’Sullivan featured an interview with Morales’s former attorney Robert Walton, who quoted Morales as having said, “I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard.”[51]

Another important potential CIA connection emerges with the mysterious girl in the polka-dotted dress. Witnesses believe she may have been Patricia Elayn Neal, a high-school drop-out from Red Bluff, California.

In 1973, she married Jerry Capehart, a Korean War veteran who managed Hollywood musical star Rosemary Clooney as well as country singer Glenn Campbell and 1950s rock star Eddie Cochran, with whom he co-wrote some famous songs.

RFK ASSASSIN UNMASKED! - PressReader

Mysterious woman in polka-dotted dress. [Source: pressreader.com]

Capehart’s son, Ray, told researchers that his father told him he had at one time worked for the CIA—and that he had been involved in mind-control experimentation.[52]

Not coincidentally, Sirhan appears to have been subjected to mind-control experiments and programmed to be part of the assassination plot.

Real Life Manchurian Candidate?

In 2010, attorneys acting for Sirhan filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Central District of California which argued that he was “an involuntary participant” in the shooting in the Ambassador Hotel pantry because he had been “subjected to extensive and sophisticated hypno-programming and mind control”—which had turned him into a robot assassin—a real-life “Manchurian Candidate.”

The latter is a reference to a 1962 film made by John Frankenheimer in which an American soldier is programmed in captivity during the Korean War to assassinate a U.S. presidential candidate.[53]

The Manchurian Candidate (1962) Original Movie Poster FRANK SINATRA Film Directed by JOHN FRANKENHEIMER at Amazon's Entertainment Collectibles Store

The Manchurian Candidate [Source: amazon.com]

The Manchurian Candidate film dovetailed with a CIA disinformation campaign that helped convince the public that the North Koreans and Chinese had brainwashed U.S. POWs during the Korean War.

This belief justified the CIA’s efforts to develop truth drugs and advance brainwashing techniques under Operations Artichoke, Bluebird and MK-ULTRA—and to hire hypnotists with the goal of programming people.[54]

One Bluebird memo asked: “Can we create by post-H control an action contrary to an individual’s basic moral principles? Could we seize a subject and in a space of an hour or two by post-H control have him crash an airplane, wreck a train, etc.? Can we alter a person’s personality?”[55]

The answers appear to be yes.

In May 2008, Sirhan was examined by Dr. Daniel Brown, a professor of psychology at Harvard Medical School and expert on hypnosis, who revealed evidence of hypnotically induced altered personality states.

Brown observed Sirhan switch into a personality state that responds in robot-like fashion to certain cues and adopting the behavior of firing a gun at a firing range. While in this state, Sirhan showed a loss of executive control and complete amnesia.[56]

After the assassination, LAPD officers had noticed in Sirhan an eerie calm—as if he did not genuinely know what he had done. Two of the men who had overpowered him during the shooting observed in Sirhan a tranquil look, with his eyes appearing peaceful. When asked by an NBC reporter whether he had planned to kill Senator Kennedy, Sirhan replied “only in my mind. I did it, but I was not aware of it.”[57]

The girl in the polka-dotted dress may have played the role of the queen of diamonds in The Search for the Manchurian Candidate—she was there to trigger Sirhan’s trance.[58]

Dr. Eduard Simson-Kallas, a San Quentin psychologist who worked extensively with Sirhan in 1969, described Sirhan’s comments about Arab-Israeli politics relating to the assassination as “very repetitious” and “spoken like an actor playing a role, reading a script.”[59]

Simson-Kallas believed that Sirhan was indeed a Manchurian Candidate who was “prepared by someone, hypnotized by someone.”[60]

Sirhan revealingly had no memory of writing his diary in which he expressed outrage about Kennedy’s sending jet bombers to Israel two days before he learned about it by reading an article in the newspaper.[61]

There were also statements in the diary denouncing capitalism and pointing to Kennedy as a reactionary, when Sirhan was not known to espouse left-wing views or to even have an interest in politics.

Walter Crowe, Sirhan’s closest friend at Pasadena City College (PCC), had once tried to form a Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) group at the college, but Sirhan was “apathetic” and would not participate.[62]

His diary—written under hypnosis—appears to be a key part of the conspiratorial plot whose aim was not only to have Kennedy killed but also to discredit left-wing views.

R.F.K. must die

Sirhan’s diary which he had no memory of writing and whose statements seemed out of character with his personality. [Source: rfktapes.com]

Before the assassination, Sirhan had disappeared for a three-month period after falling off a horse (he had wanted to be a jockey).[63]

He made frequent trips at the time to Corona—where there was a huge Naval Surface Warfare Center, implying work for the U.S. government.[64] Sirhan’s name appeared at the Corona Police Department firing range, where he was training for his special mission.[65]

Herb Elfman reported to police that Sirhan belonged to a secret hypnosis group and referred them to a local radio station employee, Steve Allison, who managed a radio show that interviewed Dr. William Joseph Bryant (1924-1977) of the American Institute of Hypnosis.

Bryant was a pioneer hypnotist who served as chief of all medical survival training for the U.S. Air Force, or brainwashing section in South Korea during the Korean War.

A consultant on The Manchurian Candidate film, he had a long history of hypno-programming with the CIA.

Within hours of Kennedy’s shooting, he told listeners to a Los Angeles radio station that the suspect had “probably acted under post-hypnotic suggestion.”[66]

Bryant’s possible connection to Sirhan is reflected in a reference that Sirhan made in his diaries to the Boston Strangler, Albert DeSalvo, with whom Bryant had worked. Afterwards, Sirhan had no memory of ever writing about DeSalvo and did not appear to have any knowledge about him.[67]

Researcher Jonn Christian interviewed two prostitutes who claimed Bryant had confessed to them to programming Sirhan.[68]

In March 1977, Bryant was found dead at the age of 51 in the Riviera Hotel in Las Vegas right after he was summoned to appear before the House Select Committee on Assassinations. He was said to have died of natural causes—as he was obese—though no autopsy was performed.[69]

Was CIA-Mob Liaison Robert Maheu the Mastermind?

Two different insider sources told author Lisa Pease that Robert Maheu was the mastermind of the assassination.

A lifelong Republican, Maheu was a top adviser to Howard Hughes. He had mob contacts through Johnny Roselli and ran assassination plots for the CIA. When the CIA leadership decided to recruit the Mafia to murder Fidel Castro, they turned to Maheu.[70]

His company, Robert Maheu Associates—the inspiration behind the Mission Impossible television series—fronted for CIA activities and provided a cover to CIA employees.

Maheu furthermore had friends in the LAPD and Sheriff’s Department, and had run CIA operations in conjunction with the LAPD.[71]

He knew Thane Cesar, who worked for Bel Air Patrol, which Maheu owned. Cesar was listed as a CIA contract agent in a CIA database.

John Meier, a top aide to Howard Hughes from 1966 to 1970, recounted a meeting between Maheu and Don Nixon, Richard’s brother, at the Desert Inn Country Club in Las Vegas on June 6, 1968.

Maheu was all smiles and Don Nixon walked in all smiles. They embraced each other and Don Nixon said “well that prick is dead,” and Maheu said, “well it looks like your brother is in now.”[72] Maheu then joked that they should now be calling Don Nixon “Mr. Vice President.”

This conversation does not prove Maheu was behind Kennedy’s killing, but provides a clear motive—one he shared with his former boss, Howard Hughes.

Hughes wrote to Maheu after the assassination that “the Kennedy family and their money influence have been a thorn that has been relentlessly shoved into my guts since the very beginning of my business activities … I hate to be quick on the draw, but I see here an opportunity that may not happen again in a lifetime. I don’t [sic] aspire to be President, but I do want political strength … And it seems to me that the very people we need have just fallen smack into our hands.”[73]

A SAVAK Hit Job?

Author Robert Morrow, in his 1988 book The Senator Must Die, suggests that Kennedy’s assassin went under the pseudonym Ali Ahmand and worked for Iranian intelligence under the Shah of Iran who had also recruited Sirhan as part of the plot.[74]

According to Morrow, the Kennedys had become enemies of the Shah—who had been installed in power in a CIA-backed coup—when as a Senator, John F. Kennedy uncovered the Shah’s misuse of United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funds and launched an attack on him from the Senate floor.

Bobby Kennedy subsequently snubbed the Shah by bypassing Iran on a goodwill trip around the world, and Kennedy threatened to cut off all aid after his election as president before his father, Joseph, interceded.[75]

When JFK was assassinated, the Shah privately was delighted. In the 1968 election, he poured in millions of dollars in support of Nixon.[76]

Alex Goodaryi, the Shah’s liaison to the U.S. mafia, said that “the mob claimed with Nixon as president, the Shah would be in a position to eventually raise oil prices. Then, with U.S. backing, control the whole Middle East. However, if [Robert] Kennedy won, the Shah would be totally isolated from any further U.S. aid and military support and be subject to worldwide censure.”[77]

According to Morrow’s hypothesis, the Shah ordered Colonel Mansur Rafizadeh, the head of SAVAK, the Shah’s secret police that had been created by the CIA, to eliminate Kennedy, and Rafizadeh recruited Sirhan and the other main culprit, Ali Ahmand, aka Khalid Iqbal.[78]

Iqbal was pictured in a photo at the Ambassador Hotel next to Jesse Unruh, the Speaker of the California State Assembly who was then managing Kennedy’s presidential campaign, wearing a yellow sweater with a camera hanging from a strap around his neck.

Morrow believes that the camera was a disguised gun, and that Sirhan was there to provide a distraction that would enable Iqbal to carry out the killing and afterwards get away with the girl in the polka-dot dress who was his accomplice.[79]

Sirhan fired two shots at Kennedy, was tackled and drew attention, giving space to Iqbal to rapidly pull the lethal camera up behind Kennedy’s ear and shoot him four times behind the ear.

With the crowd turning on Sirhan and pandemonium breaking out, Iqbal then motioned to his accomplice and found his way through the crowd and down a corridor to an exit, after which they jumped into a shiny black car and sped down Wilshire Boulevard away from the hotel.[80]

Although Iqbal’s description matched some eyewitness accounts of the man accompanying the girl in the polka-dotted dress, proof for Morrow’s theory has not been established. Iqbal, whose real name was Khalid Iqbal Khewar, sued The Boston Globe for libel for publishing Morrow’s account and was awarded damages of $1.2 million after winning his case.[81]

Allard Lowenstein

Allard K. Lowenstein was the former Director of the National Student Association (NSA) and Democratic Congressman from Nassau County, New York, from 1969 to 1971, who had led the “Dump Johnson” movement because of Johnson’s support for the Vietnam War.[82]

Anguished by Kennedy’s death, he was able to review Noguchi’s autopsy report specifying that Kennedy had been hit from behind by bullets fired at point-blank range. Lowenstein also scrutinized the trial records, searching for testimony that placed Sirhan’s gun to the rear and within inches of Bobby, and finding that there was none.

Lowenstein followed up by interviewing eyewitnesses who pointed to Sirhan being several feet—rather than inches—removed from Bobby, and to him having been subdued after firing two shots. He found that their stories were consistent with their earlier testimony.

The official response to Lowenstein’s queries by the LAPD was one of stonewalling, and he realized that a propaganda campaign was being fabricated to deliver information that was the exact opposite of the facts.

In March 1980, Lowenstein was shot and killed in his office by a former protégé Dennis Sweeney, who claimed among other crazy things that he had received messages in his head broadcast by a CIA transmitter. After Sweeney shot Lowenstein, Sweeney calmly waited in Lowenstein’s office to be arrested. He was deemed insane and sentenced to a mental hospital.

At the time of the shooting, Lowenstein was on the verge of getting a commitment from President Jimmy Carter to reopen the investigation into the Sirhan case if Carter were re-elected to a second term that November. But as writer Robert Vaughn put it: “Al died, Carter lost to Reagan, and the official veil of silence over the RFK murder has remained intact.”[83]

Kamala Harris and the Continuing Government Cover-Up

In 2012, while serving as California’s Attorney General, Vice President Kamala Harris had Sirhan’s request for a retrial dismissed.

She argued that “overwhelming evidence” existed against Sirhan’s claims that he was hypno-programmed to fire a gun as a diversion.

Harris stated in federal court that

“(Sirhan) cannot possibly show that no reasonable juror would have convicted him if a jury had considered his ‘new’ evidence and allegations, in light of the overwhelming evidence supporting the convictions and the available evidence thoroughly debunking Sirhan’s second-shooter and automaton theories.”

In fact, as this essay has displayed, there is overwhelming evidence supporting—not debunking—Sirhan’s second-shooter theory.

This evidence ranges from eyewitness accounts to the autopsy report to the fact that more bullets were fired than was the capacity for Sirhan’s gun.

There is also circumstantial evidence about the automaton theory which begs for further investigation.

Had Kennedy Lived…..

Harris’s stance is part of a 50+ year effort by government authorities to cover up the truth about Kennedy’s assassination and to protect the powerful persons who coordinated it.

Had Kennedy lived, American history would have turned out differently.

For one thing, the major riots outside the Party convention following the nomination of Hubert Humphrey –which divided and destroyed the Democratic Party—would never have taken place.[84]

A picture containing person, people, group, crowd Description automatically generated

Had Kennedy not been assassinated, the protests outside the Democratic Party Convention in Chicago and their brutal repression, would never have occurred. [Source: inthesetimes.com]

Kennedy might then have replicated his brother’s defeat of Nixon in 1960, and as president ended the Vietnam War, expanded the War on Poverty and scuttled the War on Drugs.

A person holding a sign Description automatically generated with medium confidence

If Kennedy lived, the War on Drugs—Nixon’s signature policy—may have never been declared and America would never have evolved into the police state that it is today. [Source: youtube.com]

Instead of imploding under the weight of Nixonian repression, the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) might have evolved into an influential left-wing caucus in the Democratic Party or a new social democratic party equivalent to the Canadian New Democratic Party (NDP).

This was the nightmare scenario for American conservatives and the corrupt elements of “the deep state,” who in carrying out Kennedy’s assassination, destroyed the hope for a better America that he and his supporters represented.

*

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.

Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. 

He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].

Notes

  1. See Larry Tye, Bobby Kennedy: The Making of a Liberal Icon (New York: Random House, 2017); Lester David and Irene David, Bobby Kennedy: The Making of a Folk Hero (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1986); Edward R. Schmitt, President of the Other America: Robert Kennedy and the Politics of Poverty (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2011). Kennedy to be sure had some neoliberal views, suggesting not long before his death that welfare had “destroyed self-respect and encouraged family disintegration.” 
  2. David and David, Bobby Kennedy, 4. 
  3. Lisa Pease, A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy (Los Angeles: Feral House, 2018). 
  4. Tim Tate and Brad Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy: Crime, Conspiracy and Cover-Up—A New Investigation (London: Thistle Books, 2018) ,101; Mel Ayton, The Forgotten Terrorist: Sirhan Sirhan and the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy(Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books, 2007), 49-73. 
  5. Compton served as an LAPD detective in the 1950s and was connected to the LAPD’s red squad. See Tom O’Neill, with Dan Piepenberg, Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 2019), 233. 
  6. Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 230. 
  7. William Turner and Jonn Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy: The Conspiracy and Coverup (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1993), 167, 168. 
  8. Cesar stated that he “never would have voted for Bobby Kennedy because he had the same ideas as John did, and I think John sold the country down the road. He gave it away to the commies … he literally gave it to the minority.” Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 231. In the 1980s, Cesar supported Ronald Reagan. 
  9. Pease, A Lie Too Big to Fail. According to researcher Alex Botus, Cesar was connected to the California mobster John Alessio. Robert Melanson, Who Killed Robert Kennedy?(Berkeley, CA: Odonian Press, 1993), 42. Cesar told journalist Dan Moldea about diamond purchases he had made for the Chicago mob between 1968 and 1974. 
  10. Robert Maheu and Richard Hack, Next to Hughes: Behind the Power and Tragic Downfall of Howard Hughes by His Closest Advisor (New York: HarperCollins, 1992). 
  11. Pease, A Lie Too Big to Fail, 483. 
  12. Chris Spargo, “Robert F Kennedy was assassinated by Thane Eugene Cesar, declares RFK Jr, who says it was the security guard who fatally shot his father from behind after planning the murder with Sirhan Sirhan,” Daily Mail, September 12, 2019, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7456521/Robert-F-Kennedy-assassinated-Thane-Eugene-Cesar-Sirhan-Sirhan-says-RFK-Jr.html
  13. Pease, A Lie Too Big to Fail, 256; Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 138; Mikko Alanne, “Why the RFK Assassination Case Must Be Reopened,” The Huffington Post, April 4, 2012, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rfk-sirhan_b_1251410. Pease suggested that the number of bullets could be as high as 17. 
  14. Melanson, The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination, 41. Two ceiling tiles were allegedly removed, including several outside of Sirhan’s range of fire. 
  15. Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 191, 195, 196. Nina Rhodes-Hughes, a Kennedy fundraiser, stated that she heard 12-14 shots fired, though the FBI quoted her falsely as having heard eight shots, which she explicitly denied is what she told them. Some claim the sound of shots in Pruszynski’s audio tape may have been sounds of people fumbling or microphones bumping into things. Ayton, The Forgotten Terrorist, 133, 
  16. Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 86, 87; Philip Melanson, The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination: New Revelations on the Conspiracy and Cover-Up, 1968-1991 (New York: Shapolsky, 1991), 34, 35. 
  17. Pease, A Lie Too Big to Fail, 183. Wolfer interestingly later became president of Ace Security Services, the same company which Thane Cesar had worked for on the night of RFK’s assassination. 
  18. Pease, A Lie Too Big to Fail; Lisa Pease, “Sirhan Says ‘I Am Innocent,’” in The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK, and Malcolm X, James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, eds. (Los Angeles: Feral House, 2003), 532; Turner and Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 158. 
  19. William Klaber and Philip H. Melanson, Shadow Play: The Unsolved Murder of Robert F. Kennedy (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2018) 106, 107. Freed related that he was contacted by the FBI afterwards but that they “seemed to be avoiding asking me questions about the 2nd gunman.” According to most witnesses, the second shooter was taller than Sirhan, 
  20. Klaber and Melanson, Shadow Play, 108, 109; Robert Blair Kaiser, “R.F.K. Must Die!”: Chasing the Mystery of the Robert Kennedy Assassination, rev ed. (Woodstock, NY: The Overlook Press, 2008), 73. 
  21. Pease, A Lie Too Big to Fail; Turner and Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, xxiv, 161, 165; Klaber and Melanson, Shadow Play, 98. Schulman specified that the security guard behind Kennedy had fired his gun. He said Kennedy had been shot three times, but the FBI insisted to him that he had been shot twice which was wrong. Curiously, there is no record of him having been interviewed by the LAPD. 
  22. Pease, A Lie Too Big to Fail, 213. 
  23. Pease, A Lie Too Big to Fail, 213. [NOTE: Should 23, 24 and 25 be “Idem.”? They are identical to note 22.] 
  24. Pease, A Lie Too Big to Fail, 213. 
  25. Pease, A Lie Too Big to Fail, 213. 
  26. Pease, A Lie Too Big to Fail, 280. 
  27. Pease, A Lie Too Big to Fail. 
  28. Robert D. Morrow, The Senator Must Die (Santa Monica, CA: Roundtable Publishing, 1988), 203, 204, 211; Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 248, 249, 250; Melanson, The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination, 183, 244. Strangely, the LAPD’s log omits reference to the girl in the polka-dot dress. One witness, Earnest Ruiz, thought he saw the man later come back into the pantry as Sirhan was being removed and was the first to yell “let’s kill the bastard.” An alternative scenario with the woman in the polka-dotted dress is presented in Ayton, The Forgotten Terrorist, 154. 
  29. Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 211. For a reporter’s auest for the truth about the woman in the polka-dot dress, see Fernando Faura, The Polka Dot File on the Robert F. Kennedy Killing: The Paris Peace Talks Connection (Walterville, OR: Trine Day, 2016).
  30. Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 360. 
  31. Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 360; Ayton, The Forgotten Terrorist, 142; The Assassinations, Pease and Di Eugenio, eds., 533. The LAPD also “lost” the records from Sirhan’s blood test and destroyed the doorframes from the crime scene that possessed the bullets. 
  32. Turner and Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 64. LAPD chief of detectives Robert Houghton, in his book Special Unit Senator: The Investigation of the Assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy (New York: Random House, 1970), boasted that Pena had commanded detective divisions, supervised a bank robbery squad, spoke French and Spanish and had connections with various intelligence agencies in several countries. 
  33. On the OPS, see Jeremy Kuzmarov, Modernizing Repression: Police Training and Nation Building in the American Century (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2012). 
  34. See A.J. Langguth, Hidden Terrors: The Truth about U.S. Police Operations in Latin America (New York: Pantheon, 1979). Mitrione’s motto was “the right pain, in the right place, at the right time.” 
  35. Turner and Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 65. FBI agent Roger LaJeunesse claimed that Pena had been carrying out CIA special assignments for at least ten years. This was confirmed by Pena’s brother, a high school teacher, who told television journalist Stan Bohrman a similar story about his CIA activities. 
  36. Morrow, The Senator Must Die, 210. Hernandez had claimed to have administered a polygraph test to Venezuelan dictator Marco Jimenez who was replaced by CIA favorite Romulo Betancourt. Hernandez died in 1972 at age 40. At the time of his death, he had begun to express doubt about the Sirhan lone gunman theory. 
  37. Turner and Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, xxiii. 
  38. Melanson, The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination, 134, 135. 
  39. Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 276; Morrow, The Senator Must Die, 213; Turner and Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, xxiv. 
  40. Morrow, The Senator Must Die, 212. Scharaga subsequently was forced to leave the LAPD. 
  41. Morrow, The Senator Must Die, 223. Thomas Noguchi, Coroner (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983). 
  42. Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 211, 212, 213. The Garrison documents included one obtained from a raid on the right-wing National States Rights Party which had the initials of three people to be eliminated: JFK, MLK, RFK. 
  43. Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 214, 216, 216, 217. 
  44. Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 221, 222. 
  45. Klaber and Melanson, Shadow Play, 91, 92, 93. 
  46. Klaber and Melanson, Shadow Play, 38, 235. Cooper’s strategy in the trial had been to try to avoid the death penalty by pursuing an insanity defense. Cooper stunningly admitted to onetime New York Congressman Allard Lowenstein that, “had he known during the trial” what he had since learned, “he would have conducted a different defense.” The felony was for possessing stolen transcripts of the grand jury proceedings in the Beverly Hills Friar’s Club card cheating case in which Johnny Roselli was one of the defendants. 
  47. Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 346. Famed forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht stated that “any first-year law student would have done a better job than Sirhan’s counsel [Cooper].” 
  48. Pease, A Lie Too Big to Fail; The Assassinations, Pease and Di Eugenio, eds., 599. 
  49. Pease, A Lie Too Big to Fail, 487. Researcher Philip Melanson identified the LAPD as one of the police forces that indeed maintained a clandestine relationship with the CIA. Melanson, The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination. Prosecutor Lynn “Buck” Compton and District Attorney Evelle Younger both had verifiable intelligence ties. So did Jolyon West, a CIA-affiliated psychiatrist who examined Sirhan and proclaimed that Sirhan was the “lone assassin.” 
  50. Manny Chavez, a former U.S. Air Force Intelligence officer who served in Venezuela as a military attaché in 1957-59 while David Morales was assigned to the CIA Station there for a year, said that, after careful study, he was convinced that the person in the photo was not Morales as he knew him up until 1963. Ayton, The Forgotten Terrorist, 169. 
  51. Smith said that, if Morales was there the night Kennedy was killed, he had to have something to do with it. Morales died of a “heart attack” before he was slated to testify before the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978. After Morales fell ill, it took the medics five hours to get him to a hospital and did not provide him any oxygen. His friend Ruben Carbajal told filmmaker Shane O’Sullivan that “the people who killed Morales were the same people he had worked for—the CIA—he knew too much.”Carbajal, however, does not believe that the man identified by Ayers and Smith as Morales was in fact Morales. 
  52. Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 286, 287, 288, 291, 292. Neal died in February 2012 at age 63 from cirrhosis due to her alcoholism. She had dropped out of high school after becoming pregnant and marrying the father, her first husband, who was then shipped off to Vietnam, and may have worked at one time as a prostitute. She moved to Missouri with Capehart after their marriage in 1973 and divorced him after 11 years. Neal’s kids remembered that their mother had been haunted by something in her past and expressed fears about being followed. She maintained an obsession with a polka-dotted dress she kept stored away in her home. Capehart once told the kids that she was the famous girl in the polka-dotted dress, though expressed anger when she put the dress on and was going to wear it in public at a church service. Journalist Fernando Faura interviewed John Fahey, a salesman for the Cal Tech Chemical Company who met the girl in the polka-dot dress at the Ambassador Hotel the morning of RFK’s assassination and spent the day with her driving up the California Coast. Fahey said that she was nervous on that day but did not specify why, and suggested she was looking to escape to Australia and might be able to get safe passage out of the U.S. on a CAT or Flying Tiger airline, which was a CIA propriety. Faura, The Polka Dot Files on the Robert F. Kennedy Killing.
  53. Frankenheimer ironically drove Robert Kennedy to the Ambassador Hotel on the night of his death in his Rolls-Royce after Kennedy stayed at his Malibu mansion. 
  54. See Jonathan Marks, The Search for the Manchurian Candidate: The CIA and Mind Control, rev ed. (New York: W.W. Norton, 1991). 
  55. Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 303. 
  56. Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 235, 324. 
  57. Turner and Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 194; The Assassinations, Pease and Di Eugenio, eds., 533. Two waiters observed Sirhan smiling. Earlier in the evening, a witness observed Sirhan staring at a teletype machine, as though transfixed. 
  58. Turner and Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, xxix. 
  59. Melanson, Who Killed Robert Kennedy? 65. 
  60. Turner and Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 199. 
  61. Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 334. All the other candidates in the 1968 election supported military aid to Israel, marking Sirhan’s motive as generally suspect. 
  62. Melanson, Who Killed Robert Kennedy? 65. 
  63. Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 330, 331. 
  64. Pease, A Lie Too Big to Fail, 409. 
  65. Ibid. Some researchers suspect that Sirhan was hypnotized at the Santa Anita racetrack where he worked as a jockey. Sirhan worked there with Thomas Bremer, whose brother Arthur shot presidential candidate George C. Wallace in 1972 in an attempted assassination that also benefited Richard M. Nixon’s election chances. 
  66. Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 331; Melanson, The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination, 202. 
  67. Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 332. 
  68. Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 334. 
  69. Tate and Johnson, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, 334; Philip Melanson, The Robert Kennedy Assassination: New Revelations on the Conspiracy and Cover-Up, 1968-1991 (New York: Shapolsky, 1991). 
  70. Maheu, Next to Hughes, 108-34. 
  71. Pease, A Lie Too Big to Fail. One of these operations was the manufacture of a pornographic film allegedly showing Indonesia’s socialist leader Sukarno in a compromising position with a female Russian agent. On Maheu’s CIA ties, see also Bayard Stockton. Flawed Patriot: The Rise and Fall of CIA Legend Bill Harvey, (Virginia: Potomac Books, 2006), 17
  72. Pease, A Lie Too Big to Fail, 493. 
  73. Maheu, Next to Hughes, 206-207. After Kennedy’s death, Maheu assisted Hughes in giving Hubert Humphrey a donation of $50,000. 
  74. Morrow, The Senator Must Die. [NOTE: Should there be page numbers here?] 
  75. Morrow, The Senator Must Die, 176, 177. 
  76. Morrow, The Senator Must Die, 178. 
  77. Morrow, The Senator Must Die, 178.
  78. Morrow, The Senator Must Die, 178. 
  79. Morrow, The Senator Must Die, 186. 
  80. Sirhan expected to be arrested but accepted the reward of a sizeable check deposited into his bank account. He believed that he would be regarded as a hero in Jordan and the Arab World. 
  81. Ayton, The Forgotten Terrorist, 159, 160. 
  82. David and David, Bobby Kennedy, 280. 
  83. Robert Vaughn, A Fortunate Life (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2008), 258. 
  84. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who spearheaded the repression of the protests, supported Kennedy. 

Featured image: [Source: washingtonpost.com; collage courtesy of Steve Brown]

CDC/FDA Smoking Gun of Smoking Guns. The RT-PCR Test

September 2nd, 2021 by Jon Rappoport

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

They confess: they had no virus when they concocted the test for the virus; they “contrived” a model by pretending to find what they wanted to find; it’s called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This is the con and the crime that drove millions of lives, and economies, into ruin.

The CDC has issued a document that bulges with devastating admissions.

The release is titled, “07/21/2021: Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.” It begins explosively:

“After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.”

Many people believe this means the CDC is giving up on the PCR test as a means of “detecting the virus.” The CDC isn’t saying that at all.

They’re saying the PCR technology will continue to be used, but they’re replacing what the test is looking FOR with a better “reference sample.” A better marker. A better target. A better piece of RNA supposedly derived from SARS-CoV-2.

CDC/FDA are confessing there has been a PROBLEM with the PCR test which has been used to detect the virus, starting in February of 2020—right up to this minute.

In other words, the millions and millions of “COVID cases” based on the PCR test in use are all suspect. Actually, that statement is too generous. Every test result of every PCR test should be thrown out.

To confirm this, the CDC document links to an FDA release titled, “SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel Comparative Data.” Here is a killer quote:

“During the early months of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinical specimens [of the virus] were not readily available to developers of IVDs [in vitro diagnostics] to detect SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, the FDA authorized IVDs based on available data from contrived samples generated from a range of SARS-CoV-2 material sources (for example, gene specific RNA, synthetic RNA, or whole genome viral RNA) for analytical and clinical performance evaluation. While validation using these contrived specimens provided a measure of confidence in test performance at the beginning of the pandemic, it is not feasible to precisely compare the performance of various tests that used contrived specimens because each test validated performance using samples derived from different gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid sources.”

Translation: We, at the CDC, did not have a specimen of the SARS-CoV-2 virus when we concocted the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2.

Yes, it’s unbelievable, right?

And that’s the test we’ve been using all along.

So we CONTRIVED samples of the virus. We fabricated. We lied.

We made up [invented] synthetic gene sequences and we SAID these sequences HAD TO BE close to the sequence of SARS-CoV-2, without having the faintest idea of what we were doing, because, again, we didn’t have an actual specimen of the virus. We had no proof THERE WAS something called SARS-CoV-2.

This amazing FDA document goes to say the Agency has granted emergency approval to 59 different PCR tests since the beginning of the (fake) pandemic. 59. And,

“…it is not feasible to precisely compare the performance of various tests that used contrived specimens because each test validated performance using samples derived from different gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid sources.”

Translation: Each of the 59 different PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 told different lies and concocted different fabrications about the genetic makeup of the virus—the virus we didn’t have. Obviously, then, these tests would give unreliable results.

THE PCR TESTS USED CONTRIVED SPECIMENS OF THE VIRUS WE DIDN’T HAVE.

BUT, don’t worry, be happy, because NOW, the CDC and the FDA say, they really do have actual virus samples of SARS-CoV-2 from patients; they have better targets for the PCR test, and labs should start gearing up for the new and improved tests.

In other words, they were lying THEN, but they’re not lying NOW. They were “contriving,” but now they’re telling the truth.

If you believe that, I have Fountain of Youth water for sale, extracted from the lead-contaminated system of Flint, Michigan.

Here, once again, I report virology’s version of “we isolated the virus”:

They have a soup they make in their labs.

This soup contains human and monkey cells, toxic chemicals and drugs, and all sorts of other random genetic material. Because the cells start to die, the researchers ASSUME a bit of mucus from a patient they dropped in the soup is doing the killing, and THE VIRUS must be the killer agent in the mucus.

This assumption is entirely unwarranted. The drugs and chemicals could be doing the cell-killing, and the researchers are also starving the cells of vital nutrients, and that starvation could kill the cells.

There is no proof that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup, or that it is doing the cell-killing, or that it exists.

Yet the researchers call cell-death “isolation of the virus.”

To say this is a non-sequitur is a vast understatement. In their universe, “We assume, without proof, we have the virus buried in a soup in a dish in the lab” equals, “We’ve separated the virus from all surrounding material.”

Virology equals “how to spread bullshit for a living and scare the world.” Other than that, it’s perfect.

*

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.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Featured image is from OffGuardian

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

“Democracy” seems to be under threat again, this time in Kabul. We are told that a horrible force is at the helm of power in Afghanistan, the Taliban – yes, the same Taliban that the US-NATO vanquished and dethroned in 2001. The so-called democracy that Western forces had gifted to Afghans was now being forcefully overturned.

On the other hand, the good news is that democracy supposedly remains stable and sturdy in the Western nations that ushered in the era of democracy in Afghanistan from 2001 onwards. There is nothing to worry there. The storming of Washington D.C.’s Capitol Hill in January of this year was simply considered an anomalous instance of an attack on the ‘greatest democracy in the world.’ And the mob assault only served to demonstrate how robust democracy is in America. The solid democratic foundations of the US can withstand anything, so the narrative goes.

Perhaps the only thing democracy cannot withstand is critical self-scrutiny. Ideally, we expect a decent system of governance to be just, fair, transparent, and accountable. Democracy, we are told, is the only form of governance that lives up to these characteristics. This leaves us with the quandary of determining which places are democratic and which are not.

Herein lies the perplexity in such a narrative around politics and governance. Is democracy indeed a reference to such noble and desirable features of governance, or is it, fundamentally, a metaphor for something else?

What seems paramount, therefore, is to begin with an internal critique of the way democracy is ‘performed’ in much of the Western world. Rather than reflecting the interests and concerns of the bulk of these populations, politics is reduced to becoming a spectator sport for the majority. These societies are given the choice to ratify one member of the oligarchic elite or another. This is the ‘freedom to choose’ that is granted in a Western plutocracy – ‘rule by the wealthy’ – misleadingly called a democracy, of course.

Nevertheless, the real critical interrogation of the concept of democracy centrally concerns its discursive deployment in the world today. Does the term really refer to a mode of governance, and certain characteristics of a political order? Or should democracy simply be decoded and explained by its etymology, by the word’s Greek origins as ‘rule by the people’?

Crucial to this discussion is the important question of who gets to anoint societies as democratic or undemocratic. It seems clear that such authority fundamentally emanates from existing global relations of power. The Western world has for centuries constructed caricatures of societies not like theirs. These ‘Others’ are either afflicted by ‘Oriental despotism’ or by authoritarianism – and hence, lack of democracy.

It is incessantly regurgitated that countries such as Russia, Iran, China, Venezuela, and so on are authoritarian, even totalitarian. They are certainly not deemed to be democracies, and are putatively something approximating the opposite. The Western invective does not go much into details or specific, rational criticisms of the efficacy of these nations’ modes of governance. Rather, it is sufficient to merely denounce these countries as being ‘undemocratic.’

We have to put aside for a moment the fact that a country like Great Britain could assert that it was a democracy even when more than ninety percent of British subjects had no right to vote and had absolutely no representation in the nation’s Parliament. Or that the United States could have one of the most ruthless forms of slavery in recorded history, consider more than half of its population to be unworthy political subjects (women), and exterminate the original inhabitants of its territory – and still call itself a democracy.

What is equally scandalous is the hubris of these two Western plutocracies in particular to arrogate to themselves the right to determine which nation is democratic (good) and which is not (bad).

In the case of the ‘graveyard of empires,’ the dominant view of the US-backed Afghan government over the past two decades is emblematic of a well-trodden pattern. No matter how the puppet fiefdom in Kabul had been perceived by both Afghans and much of the rest of the world, the Western expectation has been to see it as the deliverance of democracy via B-52s, cruise missiles, drones, and ‘boots on the ground’ since October 2001. Exiled Afghans parachuted from abroad, along with a motley crew of warlords, were to be the ‘true and authentic voice’ of the people of Afghanistan.

Thus, when the Taliban ousted this government and returned to the seat of power last month, democracy was ostensibly derailed due to the return of totalitarianism. Despotism had replaced democracy.

It is an inconvenient fact that the legitimacy of the leaders of this ‘fledgling democracy’ rested on the barrel of an American gun. The rule of the warlords and exiled Afghans, the militarism, violence, and obscene corruption under foreign occupation, were all sold to us as democracy.

It seems that observers who find such political characterizations as problematic have a point, assuming that democracy is a mode of governance that is just, fair, accountable, and transparent. Whether or not democracies live up to such criteria is always a matter of contestation. But it is abundantly evident that Western designations of being a democracy rarely have anything to do with adherence to these features.

Indeed, almost like clockwork, labels of being anti-democratic are bandied about to the usual suspects: those countries which are deemed to be ‘anti-Western’. Which is why it’s instructive to do a simple exercise: finding a democracy which is anti-Western. They do not – or rather cannot – exist. Democracies can only be pro-Western, a law supposedly as natural as that of gravity.

That seems curious and ironic. Considering that a large part of the world has been at the brunt of violent Western interventionism and varying modes of hybrid warfare, it would be highly likely that democracy – as the professed ‘rule by the people’ – would render many of these societies to indeed choose to be ‘anti-Western’.

It is important to note, however, that the term ‘anti-Western’ denotes a term of ideological propaganda deployed as a caricature of legitimate criticisms of Western foreign policy. The term functions to suppress, obfuscate, and deflect from rational discussion on the criminality of global hegemony.

Nevertheless, if there was any confusion concerning the political weaponization of the bestowed honor of being called a democracy, then the ignominious defeat and collapse of the West’s favored (puppet) ‘democrats’ in Kabul should lay that to rest. Any notion that the ‘Green Zone’ Kingdom of Kabul protected by American marines these past two decades had any popular legitimacy has now become farcical.

The image of former President Ashraf Ghani fleeing Afghanistan with bags of cash should be a metaphor for the sheer vacuity and hollowness of the rhetoric around democracy.

Indeed, the day an anti-Western government will be declared a democracy by Washington and London is when – perhaps – serious discussion about the subject can actually commence.

*

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.

Junaid S. Ahmad teaches Religion and World Politics, and is the Director of the Center for the Study of Islam and Decoloniality, Islamabad, Pakistan.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research

Media Coverage of Fukushima, Ten Years Later

September 2nd, 2021 by Martin Fackler

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Media Coverage of Fukushima, Ten Years Later

Video: Flood Season Ends in Yemen as Fight Season Comes

September 2nd, 2021 by South Front

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In late August, the fight for Yemen has ramped up between the Ansar Allah and the Saudi-led coalition.

The flood season is nearing its end, and fighting is coming back throughout. Since July 2021, an estimated 13,000 families were impacted by torrential rains and flash floods. Dozens reportedly died in the floods, with more reported missing.

The Houthis (as Ansar Allah are known) have launched a series of drone and rocket attacks on targets both inside Yemen and in Saudi Arabia.

The most recent reported attack took place on August 31st. Saudi air defenses intercepted a ballistic missile launched by the Houthis towards Najran area near the Yemeni border.

On the previous day, Houthi drones targeted Abha International Airport located near the cities of Abha and Khamis Mushait, in Asir Province, in southern Saudi Arabia.

Three drones were reportedly intercepted. Still, locals reported that 8 people received light injuries.

Meanwhile, Saudi air defenses reportedly intercepted missiles that targeted the positions of the Kingdom’s coalition in Jizan.

The most notable attack took place on August 29th, when missiles struck the Al-Anad military base in the southern Yemeni Lahij province.

Three missiles were reportedly fired from Taiz International Airport towards the coalition’s position. According to reports, at least 43 Al-Amaliqah fighters and Sudanese mercenaries were killed, more than 56 were injured.

The Saudi-led coalition continues its heavy airstrike activity. Over the last week of August, warplanes have carried out at least 20 airstrikes every single day on various Houthi positions along the frontline and deeper.

In addition, ceasefire violations in al-Hudaydah are a daily occurrence in their hundreds.

Still, despite the airstrike activity, heavy clashes broke out west of Yemen’s Marib.

Dozens were killed on both sides. According to the Yemeni Ministry of Defense, at least 100 Houthis have been killed in heavy fighting with Yemen government troops during the last 3 days of August outside the central city of Marib.

The movement mounted several large attacks on army troops and allied tribesmen in Al-Mashjah, Al-Kasarah, Jabal Murad and Rahabah areas near Marib. 11 Houthis were captured during fighting in Rahabah, south of Marib.

Fighting shows promise to ramp up in the upcoming weeks. The Houthis carry out missile and drone strikes on Saudi-backed forces in central and southern Yemen on a regular basis. Nevertheless, the group rarely claims responsibility for these attacks.

Over the last few years, the Houthis have developed their offensive capabilities with help from their allies, first and foremost Iran. The Saudi-led coalition’s tight siege and repeated strikes on Yemen failed to hider the development of the group.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Venezuela Dialogue Offers Way Out of Crisis?

September 2nd, 2021 by Leonardo Flores

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

There are high hopes surrounding the upcoming round of negotiations between the Venezuelan government and the extreme right-wing of the opposition. The sides are set to meet on September 3 in Mexico after having signed a memorandum of understanding in August.

That document established a 7-point agenda with a broad scope that encompasses elections, political rights and the economy, among others. It calls for lifting the sanctions and ending violent coup attempts. These talks have the potential to end years of political and economic instability caused in large part by U.S. intervention.

Despite the intense pressure imposed by the Trump administration, the Maduro government enters the talks in its strongest position in years. The governing PSUV party swept legislative elections in 2020. The response to the pandemic has been successful, despite dire prognostications. Left-wing victories in presidential elections in Mexico (2018), Argentina (2019), post-coup Bolivia (2020) and Peru (2021) have eased regional pressure. Currently, the threat of an invasion or coup is almost non-existent.

Conversely, the opposition faction in these talks – extremists because they supported the sanctions and attempted several coups while boycotting elections – enters divided and weakened. This coalition includes various opposition parties, including Juan Guaidó’s Popular Will and Henrique Capriles’ Justice First. Capriles, a two-time losing presidential candidate, has broken with Guaidó and no longer recognizes the “interim government”, while fellow party member Julio Borges continues to pretend to be Guaidó’s foreign minister.

For his part, scandals continue to plague Guaidó. It was recently revealed that Guaidó’s team spent $6.5 million in legal fees to challenge ownership of $2 billion in Venezuelan gold held in the Bank of England. The money to pay the lawyers came from accounts frozen by the U.S. government and handed to Guaidó. The legal challenge blocked the gold from being used to buy food and medicine for the Venezuelan people in a deal that President Maduro and the UN Development Programme agreed to in May 2020.

Citgo was among the other assets handed to Guaidó by the Trump administration. The oil company posted $667 million in losses in 2020. Due to the sanctions, its charitable wing, the Simon Bolivar Foundation, was initially blocked from financing treatment for Venezuelan children with rare cancers. The Venezuelan government also saw its attempts to pay blocked by the international finance system. Once Citgo was given to Guaidó’s people, the Foundation was free from the sanctions, yet it decided to stop paying for the treatments. Fourteen children have died while waiting for treatment, victims of both cancer and an economic war.

Guaidó repeatedly defends U.S. sanctions, while 71% of Venezuelans believe they’ve had a negative impact on the country. He also attempted several coups, authorized a contract with mercenaries that could have sparked a civil war, his appointees are mired in corruption scandals and he was photographed with Colombian paramilitaries. It’s no wonder he’s polling at 4%.

Some of his most die-hard supporters are souring on him. In a recent opinion for The Hill, Elliott Abrams, Trump’s special envoy on Venezuela, referred to Guaidó as leading “opposition forces” rather than as interim president.

Abrams believes the Guaidó-led opposition can accomplish three things through these talks: concessions, getting President Maduro to acknowledge the opposition exists and “minimal conditions” for regional and municipal elections in November.

Talk about moving the goalposts! For years the Trump administration insisted it would only consider talks if Maduro first resigned. Now one of the primary enablers of Trump’s disastrous Venezuela policy is asking for the extremist opposition to temper its expectations.

This is a welcome development, as the Trump administration was instrumental in sabotaging attempts at previous dialogues. In 2018, the two sides were about to sign a landmark agreement, when U.S. officials threatened an oil embargo, said a coup would be welcome and refused to recognize elections before they had even been scheduled.

In August 2019, the two sides had barely sat down when the Trump administration imposed an economic embargo on Venezuela’s public sector. This derailed talks between the Guaidó faction and the Venezuelan government, but within a month, President Maduro and other opposition leaders returned to the negotiating table.

These leaders represent the moderate wing of the opposition, moderate in the sense that they reject sanctions and violent coup attempts. Their ongoing dialogue with the government has yielded important results. They received sufficient electoral guarantees that convinced them to participate in the 2020 legislative elections. They negotiated a new makeup of the powerful five-person National Electoral Council, increasing the opposition’s presence from one person to two. The two sides also formed a Special Commission for Dialogue, Peace and National Reconciliation within the National Assembly, where a member of the opposition leads the Foreign Affairs Committee despite not having a majority in the legislature.

Moreover, the Maduro government has granted other concessions. It has partially liberalized the economy, in large part due to the sanctions. It engaged in dialogue with Fedecamaras, the country’s main business association, taking steps to overcome a  historically tense relationship. The government even released the Citgo 6 into house arrest. The U.S. has long called for the full release of these Venezuelans (some of whom have dual citizenship with the U.S. or green cards) who were accused of corruption at Citgo, but granting them house arrest was a significant gesture. In the spring of 2021, the Venezuelan government launched an offensive against irregular forces along its border with Colombia, another long standing complaint of the U.S.

In short, the three things Abrams believes the Guaidó faction of the opposition can achieve have already been achieved by other parties. This placed heavy pressure on Guaidó to sign an agreement and participate in the November 2021 “megaelections”, when the entire country will vote on governors, mayors and municipal councilors. The latter has already happened, as the Guaidó and Capriles factions announced their participation just days before the negotiations are set to resume. More radical aspirations, like a do-over of presidential or legislative elections, appear to be off the table.

The Biden administration is one of several facilitators of the dialogue in Mexico, but the best it can do is stay out of the way. While no new sanctions have been imposed on Venezuela this year, the White House is dragging its feet on a promised review of sanctions. Plus, there is increased pressure from the international community on this issue. In mid-August a group of UN experts declared that the sanctions on Venezuela impinge on the country’s right to development. They also said they constitute a “punishment of civilians.”

The pressure is also coming from Congress. Seventeen Representatives recently wrote to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, calling on him to “alleviate the suffering of the Venezuelan people by taking immediate steps to lift the broad and indiscriminate sanctions.”

It’s unlikely the White House will lift sanctions before the negotiations are concluded. This heartless policy, which has killed tens of thousands, if not a hundred thousand people, is being used as a bargaining chip.

But sanctions relief is only one step the Biden administration must take. Another is returning Venezuela’s embassy and allowing the reopening of consulates. Even the Taliban pledged to protect foreign embassies, but the Trump administration sent armed agents into Venezuelan diplomatic premises prior to handing the buildings over to its hand-picked, self-proclaimed “interim president.”

President Maduro said he would welcome the U.S. top embassy official back into Caracas. President Biden should do the same. This will help thousands of Venezuelans in the United States who have gone without consular representation since 2019. It will also open a direct line of communication between two countries that have not engaged in dialogue in years. While dialogue within Venezuela is necessary, it should be accompanied by talks between Venezuela and the U.S. to ensure stability and a lasting peace.

*

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.

Leonardo Flores is a Venezuelan political analyst and campaign coordinator with CODEPINK. To join CODEPINK’s call for Biden to lift the sanctions, click here.

Featured image: The US government continues to view Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido (left) as the rightful leader of Venezuela, not Nicolas Maduro (right). (Alexandros Michailidis/StringerAl/Shutterstock)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

President Joe Biden’s decision to end the Afghan war – one that should never have been fought in the first place — was correct. Missing from the national discourse, however, is analysis of the illegality of the 2001 U.S.-led NATO invasion of Afghanistan (dubbed “Operation Enduring Freedom”) and resulting war crimes committed by four U.S. presidents and their top officials and lawyers. Once again, the United States has lost a war it started illegally. But as U.S. troops leave Afghanistan, the Biden administration continues to kill — and promises to persist in killing — Afghan people.

Twenty years of the U.S. war and occupation in Afghanistan cost at least $2.26 trillion and resulted in the deaths of more than 2,300 Americans and tens of thousands of Afghan civilians. The “war on terror” George W. Bush launched with his “Operation Enduring Freedom” has included the torture and abuse of untold numbers people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantánamo and the CIA black sites. It has exacerbated right-wing terrorism in the United States and provided the pretext for the ubiquitous surveillance of Muslims and those who dissent against government policy. And whistleblowers who expose U.S. war crimes have been rewarded with prosecutions under the Espionage Act and lengthy prison sentences. We must not forget the illegality, death and destruction that the war in Afghanistan has caused over the decades, lest we repeat our lethal mistakes.

The U.S.-Led NATO Invasion of Afghanistan Was Illegal

Like the U.S. wars in Vietnam and Iraq, Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan was unlawful and led to the commission of torture and targeting of civilians, which constitute war crimes. Those three wars caused the deaths of thousands — even millions — of people, cost trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars, and devastated the countries of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Bush administration began bombing Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, less than one month after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As I explained at the time, the U.S.-led NATO invasion of Afghanistan violated the United Nations Charter, which does not permit the use of military force for retaliation. The Charter mandates that countries settle their disputes peacefully using diplomatic means. But the United States repeatedly rejected diplomatic attempts at peaceful resolution.

On October 15, 2001, The Washington Post reported, “President Bush rejected an offer from Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban to turn over suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden to a neutral third country yesterday as an eighth day of bombing made clear that military coercion, not diplomacy, remains the crux of U.S. policy toward the regime.”

Moreover, in late November 2001, Taliban leader Mullah Omar approached Hamid Karzai, who shortly thereafter became interim president of Afghanistan, in order to negotiate a peace deal. The U.S. rejected that overture. “The United States is not inclined to negotiate surrenders,” Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said. He added that the U.S. did not want to leave Mullah Omar to live out his life in Afghanistan. The United States wanted him captured or killed.

The Charter says that a country can use military force only when acting in self-defense or with permission of the UN Security Council. Neither of those preconditions was present before the United States invaded Afghanistan (or Vietnam or Iraq for that matter).

In order to constitute lawful self-defense, an act of war must respond to an armed attack by another state, according to the Charter. The need for self-defense must be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,” under the well-established Caroline Case. This bedrock principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal, which was conducted in 1945 to 1946 to investigate and prosecute Nazi war criminals, and the UN General Assembly.

The bombing of Afghanistan was not legitimate self-defense under the Charter because Afghanistan did not attack the United States on September 11, 2001. The 9/11 attacks were crimes against humanity, not armed attacks by another state. The hijackers were not even Afghans; 15 of the 19 men came from Saudi Arabia. Moreover, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the U.S. after September 11, or the United States would not have waited nearly a month before initiating its bombing campaign.

Bush’s rationale for attacking Afghanistan was that it was harboring Osama bin Laden and training terrorists, even though bin Laden did not [allegedly] claim responsibility for the 9/11 attacks until 2004. Bush demanded that the Taliban turn over bin Laden to the United States. The Taliban’s ambassador to Pakistan said his government wanted evidence that bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks before deciding whether to extradite him. That proof was not forthcoming so the Taliban did not deliver bin Laden. Bush began bombing Afghanistan.

Although the Security Council had passed Resolutions 1368 and 1373, neither authorized the use of force in Afghanistan. Those resolutions condemned the 9/11 attacks; ordered the freezing of assets; criminalized terrorist activity; mandated the prevention of terrorist attacks and the taking of necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist activity, including the sharing of information; and urged the ratification and enforcement of the international conventions against terrorism.

The U.S. failure to commit to multilateralism — the cornerstone of international law at the heart of the UN Charter — is the fundamental flaw of U.S. policy in Afghanistan.

Since the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court did not come into effect until 2002, the crimes against humanity perpetrated on 9/11 should have been prosecuted in domestic courts under the well-established doctrine of universal jurisdiction, which allows countries to prosecute foreign nationals for the most heinous of crimes. And the Security Council could have established a special tribunal for the 9/11 attacks, like it did in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. But the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan was illegal.

The Commission of War Crimes

The illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and resultant “war on terror” led to the commission of war crimes, including torture and targeting civilians.

Bush’s administration instituted a widespread program of torture and abuse. A 2014 report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence documented the use of waterboarding, which constitutes torture, and other “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Detainees were slammed into walls; hung from the ceiling; kept in total darkness; deprived of sleep, sometimes with forced standing, for up to seven and one-half days; forced to stand on broken limbs for hours on end; threatened with mock execution; confined in a coffin-like box for 11 days; bathed in ice water and dressed in diapers.

On March 5, 2020, the International Criminal Court (ICC) ordered a formal investigation of U.S., Afghan and Taliban officials for war crimes, including torture, committed in the “war on terror.” The ICC prosecutor found reasonable grounds to believe that, pursuant to a U.S. policy, members of the CIA had committed war crimes. They included torture and cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity, rape and other forms of sexual violence against people held in detention facilities in Afghanistan, Poland, Romania and Lithuania.

During the Obama administration, prisoners held at Guantánamo were force-fed, which amounts to torture. Obama’s use of drones to kill people in seven different countries violated the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions.

Donald Trump conducted airstrikes in Iraq and Syria that killed record numbers of civilians, also in violation of the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions.

The Biden Administration Continues the Killing as It Pulls Out of Afghanistan

As Biden completes the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, his administration continues to kill people there.

On Thursday August 26, Islamic State Khorasan (or ISIS-K) detonated a suicide bomb outside the Kabul airport. As many as 170 civilians and 13 U.S. service members were killed. BBC reporter Secunder Kermani cited eyewitnesses who said that a significant number of those killed were shot by U.S. troops “in the panic after the blast.” Indeed, The New York Times reported that Pentagon officials admitted “that some people killed outside the airport on Thursday might have been shot by American service members after the suicide bombing.”

Nevertheless, on August 27, Biden retaliated with a drone strike that apparently killed “an ISIS-K planner,” even though “there was no evidence so far that he was involved in the suicide bombing near the airport on Thursday.” The U.S. Central Command released a statement that said, “We know of no civilian casualties” from the U.S. drone strike. But according to The Guardian, an elder in Jalalabad reported that three civilians were killed and four were injured in the U.S. drone strike.

On August 27, the United Nations Security Council issued a press release affirming that “all parties must respect their obligations under international humanitarian law in all circumstances, including those related to the protection of civilians.” The Council stated that “any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed.” Moreover, the Council “reaffirmed the need for all States to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and other obligations under international law . . . threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts.”

Nonetheless, on August 29, Biden launched another drone strike against suspected members of ISIS-K, blowing up a vehicle apparently containing explosives. At least 10 members of the same family, including six children, were killed. The Central Command called the attack “a self-defense unmanned over-the-horizon airstrike today on a vehicle in Kabul.”

Biden’s administration has pledged to conduct “over-the-horizon” operations in Afghanistan. The U.S. plans to monitor terror threats with surveillance and execute air strikes from beyond Afghanistan’s borders, particularly in the Persian Gulf. But as the Security Council stated, all countries have a legal duty to comply with international law.

The United States must completely refrain from using military force in Afghanistan. As Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-California) said, “the answer cannot be more war and violence. The answer cannot be launching more ineffective and unaccountable counterterrorism operations.” Jacobs added that the United States “owe[s] it to all those who lost their lives to not commit the same mistakes” it made nearly 20 years ago after the September 11 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.

Copyright © Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a member of the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Resident Joe Biden of the White House nursing home has given the green light for Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “booster” shots, which his teleprompter told him will soon become available to help keep people “safe” against the latest “wave” of the plandemic. The only problem is that there is zero science to back this latest injection push.

Rochelle Walensky, the Biden-appointed head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), fully admits that “hope” rather than “data” is behind the booster injection scheme. Nothing in the scientific literature suggests that injecting “fully vaccinated” people with more experimental mRNA chemicals will do anything whatsoever to “flatten the curve,” and yet this illegitimate regime is going forward with it regardless.

“TODAY” show host Savannah Guthrie really laid into Walensky during a recent segment, calling on her to procure some kind of data to show that booster shots will help the current situation. As expected, Walensky could not come up with anything other than her own personal faith that more transhumanist chemicals are what people need to avoid testing “positive” for the so-called “delta variant.”

“So, there’s actually hope – we don’t have data yet,” Walensky openly admitted.

“We do know that the higher levels of protection certainly in the alpha variant resulted in less transmission and we have not yet seen the data, but we are hopeful that the booster will not only protect you, give you a higher level of protection, not just against the delta variant but against a broad range of variants. It might also decrease the level of virus that you have and make it less transmissible.”

Walensky admits that plandemic vaccines are a religion rather than actual science

Walensky appeared on Wolf Blitzer’s CNN show earlier in August, admitting during that interview that Chinese Virus shots do not in any way stop infection or spread. Why is she now claiming otherwise?

The answer, of course, is that Walensky is a liar just like Tony Fauci. Both of these fake “doctors” talk a big game about what they claim to know about “science,” but neither has ever presented a lick of actual evidence to support the notion that jabbing people with “Operation Warp Speed” needles is doing anything other than destroying people’s immune systems while spreading more disease.

Meanwhile, Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccines – meaning he actually knows what he is talking about – is urging caution with regard to the continued administration of these deadly injections.

“RE substituting hope for data on this ‘more is better’ boosting strategy,” Dr. Malone tweeted, blasting Walensky for substituting her faith for actual science.

“We are not mice, we are humans,” Dr. Malone added. “Please respect our lives. Immunology is a complex system. If you are going to insist on exerting authoritarian control regarding mandated jabs, at least get data first!”

In a separate tweet, Dr. Malone emphasized that “more is not always better” when it comes to vaccines.

“Sometimes it can be decidedly worse,” he added, suggesting that the government’s current approach to dealing with the China Flu is seriously misguided. “So please, respect us, our lives, and our health. Policy must be evidence based.”

It is a wonder that Dr. Malone has not been banned from Twitter. His statements, despite his being an actual authority on the matter, directly contradict the narrative being peddled by the likes of Fauci and Walensky, which to the social media “gods” means he is spreading “misinformation.”

“Wishing real hard is not science, but the ‘follow the science’ congregants demand we listen to these clowns,” wrote one commenter at Townhall about Walensky.

*

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 Chemical Violence

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Two active duty members of the U.S. Armed Forces on Aug. 17 filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of themselves and 220,000 active service members who are being forced to get a COVID vaccine despite having had COVID and acquired natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2.

Two active duty members of the U.S. Armed Forces on Aug. 17 filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on behalf of themselves and 220,000 active service members who are being forced to get a COVID vaccine despite having had COVID and acquired natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2.

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

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

Under the military’s regulations (AR 40-562, ¶2-6a.(1)(b):

“General examples of medical exemptions include the following … Evidence of immunity based on serologic tests, documented infection or similar circumstances.”

According to the lawsuit, Dr. Admiral Brett Giroir, HHS assistant secretary, stated in an interview Aug. 24 with Fox News:

“So natural immunity, it’s very important … There are still no data to suggest vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity. I think both are highly protective.”

Yet on the same day, Austin issued a memo mandating the entire Armed Forces be vaccinated, in which he wrote:

“Those with previous COVID-19 infection are not considered fully vaccinated.”

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

Plaintiffs claim Austin, who is not a doctor, changed the DOD’s own regulation without providing “a scintilla of evidence to support it.”

They also allege Austin made the regulation change without going through the required rulemaking process, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act review.

According to the lawsuit, Pfizer’s phase 3 trials — designed to test long-term side effects — are not scheduled for completion until 2023, and that “inexplicably, in the middle of that phase 3 trial, the manufacturer un-blinded the two cohorts, and members of the placebo group were given the opportunity to take the vaccine if they wanted to.”

Plaintiffs claim the FDA allowed Pfizer to turn the study from a placebo-controlled, blinded trial into an open, observational study.

Robert and Mulvihill on Aug. 30 filed a motion for an emergency temporary restraining order against the mandate, asking the court to prevent the DOD from vaccinating them and others who can document they previously had COVID.

Plaintiffs claim if they’re not granted the relief they seek, they will suffer immediate physical harm by being forced to take a vaccine for a virus to which they already have immunity.

In their motion, they also said the mandate constitutes an unconsented physical invasion of the worst kind — with a novel mRNA technology that has not even been tested on people who have acquired natural immunity to the virus, and who have a clear and unequivocal right to the exemption they are seeking under the DOD’s own regulations.

Vaccines could cause physical harm for some

The lawsuit also alleges the COVID vaccines could cause potential harm to the body — including harm caused by the spike protein.

Plaintiffs said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System” (VAERS), which contains adverse event reports for all vaccines administered in the U.S. from July 1,1990, shows a significant increase in adverse events since the rollout of COVID vaccines.

According to the lawsuit, before the FDA introduced COVID Emergency Use Authorization vaccines in December 2020, VAERS had recorded a total of 5,039 deaths and 12,053 permanent disabilities for all prior vaccines. However, for the week beginning Aug.13, VAERS showed 13,068 reports of deaths and 1,031,100 reports of serious adverse events from COVID vaccines alone.

The plaintiffs said they have the right to be free from unwanted physical intrusion and involuntary inoculation against a virus that poses statistically zero threat to people with natural immunity, and to reserve their guaranteed, codified and fundamental rights of informed consent. They allege forcibly inoculating a class of people with natural immunity will provide no benefit and will cause significant and irreparable physical harm and/or death.

Mary Holland, Children’s Health Defense president and general counsel, applauded the lead plaintiffs, Robert and Mulvihill, for standing up to the military’s mandate.

“They raise critical issues that courts must resolve — on medical exemptions for natural immunity, and whether the clinical trials serving as the basis for Pfizer’s licensure were sufficient,” Holland said.

Holland explained:

“The plaintiffs’ case is exceptionally strong, resting as it does on proven natural immunity. Not only do Army regulations provide presumptive exemption to such individuals, but science and common sense require exemption of such people, in the military and out. It is well-established that natural immunity to COVID-19 is far more robust than vaccine-induced immunity, and those with natural immunity are at greater risk of injury if they are vaccinated. It is unfortunate that such a relatively simple matter needs to go to federal court for resolution, but we are delighted that plaintiffs Robert and Mulvihill brought the case. We hope that the court decides in their favor based on firm legal principles.”

Holland said a vaccine mandate for all members of the U.S. military is an “issue of national security” and of supreme importance to all Americans. “These plaintiffs raise challenges that the military brass and the federal government must respond to in open court,” she said.

Vaccinating those with natural immunity to COVID not supported by science

As The Defender reported Aug. 30, natural immunity appears to confer longer lasting and stronger protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization from the Delta variant compared to Pfizer-BioNTech’s two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.

In the largest real-world observational study comparing natural immunity gained through previous SARS-CoV-2 infection to vaccine-induced immunity afforded by the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, people who recovered from COVID were much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms or be hospitalized.

The study, published as a preprint Aug. 25 on medRxiv, showed people who had never been infected with SARS-CoV-2 but were vaccinated in January and February were six to 13 times more likely to experience breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to unvaccinated people who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Researchers noted increased risk was significant for asymptomatic disease as well.

“It’s a textbook example of how natural immunity is really better than vaccination,” Charlotte Thålin, a physician and immunology researcher at Danderyd Hospital and the Karolinska Institute, told Science.

A recent Israeli study affirmed the superiority of natural immunity. Health Ministry data on the wave of COVID outbreaks which began in May 2021, found a 6.72 times greater level of protection among those with natural immunity compared to those with vaccinated immunity.

In June, a Cleveland Clinic study found vaccinating people with natural immunity did not add to their level of protection.

The clinic studied 52,238 employees. Of those, 49,659 never had the virus and 2,579 had COVID and recovered. Of the 2,579 who previously were infected, 1,359 remained unvaccinated, compared with 22,777 who were vaccinated.

Not one of the 1,359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study.

As The Defender reported, a December 2020 study by Singapore researchers found neutralizing antibodies (one prong of the immune response) remained present in high concentrations for 17 years or more in individuals who recovered from the original SARS-CoV-2.

More recently, the World Health Organization and National Institutes of Health (NIH)  each published evidence of durable immune responses to natural infection with SARS-CoV-2.

In March 2020, the NIH’s Dr. Anthony Fauci shared his view (in an email [p. 22] to Ezekiel Emanuel) that “their [sic] would be substantial immunity post infection.”

American Institute of Economic Research reported, it appears in order to promote the COVID vaccine agenda, key organizations are not only “downplaying” natural immunity but may be seeking to “erase” it altogether.

Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and editor-in-chief of MedPage Today, said mandating vaccines for “every living, walking American” is not well-supported by science.

In an interview with U.S. News & World Reports, Makary said there is no scientific support for requiring the vaccine in people who have natural immunity — that is, immunity from prior COVID infection. There is zero clinical outcome data to support arguing dogmatically that natural immune individuals “must get vaccinated.”

Makary explained:

“During every month of this pandemic, I’ve had debates with other public researchers about the effectiveness and durability of natural immunity. I’ve been told that natural immunity could fall off a cliff, rendering people susceptible to infection. But here we are now, over a year and a half into the clinical experience of observing patients who were infected, and natural immunity is effective and going strong. And that’s because with natural immunity, the body develops antibodies to the entire surface of the virus, not just a spike protein constructed from a vaccine.”

Makary said instead of talking about the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, we should be talking about the immune and non-immune.

Vaccinating people who previously had COVID could cause significant harm

Numerous scientists have warned vaccinating people who already had COVID could potentially cause harm, or even death.

According to Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, surgeon and patient safety advocate, it is scientifically established that once a person is naturally infected by a virus, antigens from that virus persist in the body for a long time after viral replication has stopped and clinical signs of infection have resolved.

When a vaccine reactivates an immune response in a recently infected person, the tissues harboring the persisting viral antigen are targeted, inflamed and damaged by the immune response, Noorchashm said.

“In the case of SARS-CoV-2, we know that the virus naturally infects the heart, the inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain,” explained Noorchashm. “So, these are likely to be some of the critical organs that will contain persistent viral antigens in the recently infected — and, following reactivation of the immune system by a vaccine, these tissues can be expected to be targeted and damaged.”

Colleen Kelley, associate professor of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine and principal investigator for Moderna and Novavax phase 3 vaccine clinical trials, said, in an interview with Huffington Post, there had been reported cases in which those who previously had the virus endured harsher side effects after they received their vaccines.

Dr. Dara Udo, urgent and immediate care physician at Westchester Medical Group who  received the COVID vaccine a year after having the disease, had a very strong immune response very similar to what she experienced while having COVID.

In an op-ed published by The Hill, Udo explained how infection from any organism, including COVID, activates several different arms of the immune system, some in more robust ways than others, and that this underlying activation due to infection or exposure, combined with a vaccination, could lead to overstimulation of the immune response.

In a public submission to the FDA, J. Patrick Whelan M.D. Ph.D., expressed similar concern that COVID vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in a way that does not currently appear to be assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.

*

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

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from CHD

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

‘KNOWING WHAT I KNOW FROM 40 years TRAINING & PRACTISE IN TOXICOLOGY, BIOCHEMISTRY & PHARMACOLOGY, to participate in this extraordinary abuse of innocent children in our care can be classified in no other way than MURDER.’

Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former Pfizer vice president and chief scientist for allergy and respiratory, issued a warning to parents in the U.K. with school children between ages 12 and 15 years that the government is planning to inject experimental gene-based COVID-19 “vaccines” into them with or without parental consent, beginning next week. 

Originally posted on a shared Telegram channel with Robin Monotti, Yeadon explained that children are not at any “measurable risk from SARS-CoV-2,” that there is “no benefit whatsoever” from these injections, that they are quite dangerous to young people, and are even proving to be ineffective against the virus. 

Consequently, these shots only present serious risks, and no benefit, and “WILL ONLY RESULT IN PAIN, SUFFERING, LASTING INJURIES AND DEATH.” 

With candor, he stated, “This extraordinary abuse of innocent children in our care can be classified in no other way than MURDER,” and he advised parents with kids in this age range to keep them home from school this fall “no matter what.” 

Finally, he emphasized, COVID “has never been about a virus or public health. It’s wholly about control, totalitarian and irreversible control at that, and they’re nearly there.” 

The full text of the message is below: 

ALERT ALERT ALERT 

ALL PARENTS IN U.K. WITH CHILDREN AGED 12-15 years 

I’ve just been informed via someone senior in the vaccination authorities that they will begin VACCINATING ALL SCHOOL CHILDREN AGED 12 – 15 years old STARTING SEPTEMBER 6th 2021. 

WITH OR WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT. 

Children are at no measurable risk from SARS-CoV-2 & no previously healthy child has died in U.K. after infection. Not one. 

The vaccines are NOT SAFE. The USA reporting system VAERS is showing around 13,000 deaths in days to a few weeks after administration. A high % occur in the first 3 days. Around 70% of serious adverse events are thromboembolic in nature (blood clotting- or bleeding-related). 

We know why this is: all of the gene-based vaccines cause our bodies to manufacture the virus spike protein & that spike protein triggers blood coagulation. 

The next most common type of adverse events are neurological. 

Death rates per million vaccinations are running everywhere at around 60X more than any previous vaccine. 

Worse, thromboembolic events such as pulmonary embolisms, appear at over 400X the typical low rate after vaccination. 

These events are serious, occur at a hideously elevated level & are at least as common in young people as in elderly people. The tendency is that younger people are having MORE SEVERE adverse events than older people. 

There is literally no benefit whatsoever from this intervention. As stated, the children are unquestionably NOT AT RISK & vaccinating them WILL ONLY RESULT IN PAIN, SUFFERING, LASTING INJURIES AND DEATH. 

Children rarely even become symptomatic & are very poor transmitters of the virus. This isn’t theory. It’s been studied & it pretty much doesn’t happen that children bring the virus into the home. In a large study, on not one occasion was a child the ‘index case’ – the first infected person in a household. 

So if you’re told “it’s to protect vulnerable family members”, THAT IS A LIE. 

The information emerging over time from U.K. & Israel is now showing clearly that the vaccines DO NOT EVEN WORK WELL. If there’s any benefit, it wanes. 

Finally, the vaccines ARE NOT EVEN NECESSARY. There are good, safe & effective treatments. 

IF YOU PERMIT THIS TO GO AHEAD I GUARANTEE THIS: THERE WILL BE AVOIDABLE DEATHS OF PERFECTLY HEALTHY CHILDREN, and severe illnesses in ten times as many. 

And for no possible benefit. 

KNOWING WHAT I KNOW FROM 40 years TRAINING & PRACTISE IN TOXICOLOGY, BIOCHEMISTRY & PHARMACOLOGY, to participate in this extraordinary abuse of innocent children in our care can be classified in no other way than MURDER. 

It’s up to you. If I had a secondary school age child in U.K., I would not be returning them to school next month, no matter what. 

The state is going to vaccinate everyone. The gloves are off. This has never been about a virus or public health. It’s wholly about control, totalitarian & irreversible control at that, and they’re nearly there. 

PLEASE SHARE THIS INFORMATION WIDELY. 

With somber best wishes, 

Mike 

*

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 LifeSiteNews

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The retired American General Stanley McChrystal, who previously oversaw US-NATO military operations in Afghanistan, said a decade ago that Washington had a “frighteningly simplistic view” of Afghanistan. McChrystal admitted, “We didn’t know enough and we still don’t know enough. Most of us, me included, had a very superficial understanding of the situation and history”.

It was a stark disclosure by a top level commander, and considering the decades-long involvement of the US in Afghanistan. On 3 July 1979, president Jimmy Carter had officially authorised clandestine CIA aid to the Afghan mujahideen insurgency.

Months prior to July 1979, US government plans were already formulating to bolster the mujahideen – nascent militant extremists – through funding, arms and psychological warfare. Former CIA director Robert Gates wrote,

“The Carter administration began looking at the possibility of covert assistance to the insurgents opposing the pro-Soviet, Marxist government of President Taraki at the beginning of 1979. On March 5, 1979, the CIA sent several covert action options relating to Afghanistan to the SCC [Special Co-ordination Committee]… The SCC met the next day [6 March 1979] and requested new options for covert action”. (1)

The SCC was under the US National Security Council, a main body used by the president regarding military and foreign policy decision making. We can recall that Carter’s White House was reeling at this time, in early 1979, due to the exit of Iran from US control, following a revolution in the oil rich state and that Iran borders Afghanistan. Gates outlined that further discussions took place in meetings, such as on 30 March and 6 April 1979, relating to proposals about sanctioning covert US operations in Afghanistan (2). The ambition was of “sucking the Soviets into a Vietnam quagmire”, a quote attributed by Gates to Walter Slocombe, a US Department of Defense official, who made the remark on 30 March 1979 at an SCC conference.

In April 1979, US advisers were meeting “rebel representatives” hostile to Kremlin policy in Afghanistan (3). This was revealed by CIA and State Department documents, which were discovered by Iranian students in November 1979, during their takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran. Also in April 1979 the US Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, was asking Pakistani military personnel to identify an opposition group in Afghanistan, which would most efficiently utilise American aid. In May 1979, a CIA official met with the Afghan mujahideen commander, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, according to an ex-Pakistani military member in 1988, who said he introduced them. (4)

The official story is that US support for the mujahideen began following the Soviets’ Christmas 1979 invasion of Afghanistan; as one can see, this is completely inaccurate. The USSR’s leader Leonid Brezhnev, in power since October 1964, was worried most of all about US penetration in Afghanistan. The then Soviet states of Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan all shared frontiers with Afghanistan, enhancing the latter’s strategic importance in Russian eyes. From mid-1979, the Kremlin along with Soviet Russia’s largest selling daily, the Moscow-based Pravda newspaper, were publicly announcing a CIA presence in Afghanistan, amid other outside influences in the country.

Focusing on this subject professor A. Z. Hilali of Pakistan, a political scientist and author, observed that,

“Pravda accused Pakistan, China and the United States of fomenting unrest in Afghanistan. The Soviets made repeated charges of interference by Pakistan and China, and claimed that the US itself was interfering in Afghanistan through the CIA”. (5)

The accusations put forward by Moscow turned out to be true. Pakistan, bitter at the Soviets for their ongoing support of India, was ruled at the time by the military autocracy of Zia-ul-Haq. General Zia was ideologically opposed to communism, and he declared from early on his desire that Pakistan should assist the Afghan insurgents. General Zia was backed to an extent by president Carter; but he enjoyed greater support from Carter’s right-wing successor in 1981, Ronald Reagan of the Republican Party.

China was among those countries inciting the revolts in Afghanistan (6). Beijing was unhappy at Moscow’s growing links to China’s neighbours, Mongolia, India and Vietnam. Furthermore, Afghanistan shares a border with China too, but it was still a dubious strategy that Beijing was pursuing. Gates, at this period a US National Security Council staff member, purported the following, “We learned on April 4 [1979] that the Chinese had informed the Afghans that they might supply arms to the Afghan mujahedin” (7). It should be stressed, however, that Beijing encouraged rebellion in Afghanistan only after US covert operations had commenced there, and Chinese funding to the insurgents amounted to a fraction of Washington’s outlay.

It seems most unlikely that China’s past leader Mao Zedong would have interfered in Afghanistan, regardless of his differences with the Soviets. Mao at age 82 had died not long before in 1976, after more than 25 years in office. Mao had been recognised as a reliable friend of Moscow. He even warned the Russians in a frantic telegram, on 21 June 1941, that Nazi Germany would attack the Soviet Union within a matter of hours. (8)

Regarding US support for anti-communist elements in China itself, the 53-year-old Mao said in July 1947, “We made mistakes in our work during the previous period… It was the first time for us to deal with the US imperialists. We didn’t have much experience. As a result we were taken in. With this experience we won’t be cheated again” (9). Chinese author He Di wrote, “Mao described the past 100 years of Sino-American relations as a history of American manipulation of China. The United States was depicted as the head of an imperialist camp and all reactionary forces after the Second World War, and as attempting to colonize China. In short, the United States became the main threat to China’s security in Mao’s mind”. (10)

President Brezhnev was insistent that the decision to send the Red Army into Afghanistan was the correct one. In January 1980 he tried to ease the concerns of Anatoly Dobrynin, the long-time Soviet ambassador to America, who was worried Russian-American relations would now plummet. Brezhnev said unrealistically to Dobrynin, “Do not worry Anatoly, we will end this war in 3 or 4 weeks” (11). A Russian military presence in Afghanistan would last for 9 years, until the final troop withdrawal concluded on 15 February 1989.

US covert actions in Afghanistan draws a parallel with the outright American-led invasion of that country, starting with aerial bombing raids on 7 October 2001. US ground forces then landed in Afghanistan from 18 October 2001, a little over a month following the 9/11 attacks. CIA personnel were present on Afghan soil on 26 September 2001, a mere 15 days after 9/11. (12)

Bush administration plans to invade Afghanistan dated to at least mid-July 2001, about 8 weeks before 9/11 (13); but almost certainly earlier than this; perhaps to March 2001 when, early that month, vice-president Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force was developing maps to highlight Iraq’s oil to be exploited by the US (14). Iraq is separated from Afghanistan by just one country, Iran. A US attack on Afghanistan would, presumably, have been launched regardless of the 9/11 atrocities. Most probably some time in 2002, after a propaganda campaign to subdue the public, such as preceded the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The hated Taliban of today had, in its opening years, been looked upon favourably by the powers-that-be in America (15). It was felt with the Taliban as the new dominant force in Afghanistan by 1996, that the militants could be amenable to US goals in the region. By the summer of 2001, the Taliban was not proving dependable enough. Afghanistan consequently lacked the qualifications to become a US client state and oil and gas corridor.

The Taliban are in some ways descendants of the Afghan mujahideen; the Taliban was founded in autumn 1994 by the Afghan-born guerrilla fighters, Mohammed Omar and Abdul Ghani Baradar (Baradar is the current Taliban chief). At different times in the 1980s, Omar and Baradar comprised part of the US-funded mujahideen in opposition to the Soviet Army, in the hope of toppling the Kremlin-sponsored outfit in Kabul. Omar, who died of tuberculosis in 2013, and Baradar were closely acquainted with Osama Bin Laden, who was born in 1957 into a millionaire family in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (16) (17)

From the early 1980s, Bin Laden was in Afghanistan for extensive periods, and he was on the same side as the extremists propped up by the US and its allies, such as the oil dictatorship of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden provided significant aid and arms to his mujahideen comrades. He sometimes participated in the fighting, such as at the Battle of Jaji in the spring of 1987. In August 1988, Bin Laden was one of the founders of the jihadist organisation Al Qaeda, along with other militants like his mentor Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, who was killed late the following year (1989) in a car bomb attack in Peshawar, Pakistan. The elusive Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda’s boss over this past decade, was also among the group’s original founders.

Bin Laden had connections to both Saudi and Pakistani intelligence, which were in contact with the CIA. He was acquainted with prominent figures like General Hamid Gul, a decorated tank commander and former director-general of Pakistan’s Military Intelligence (MI). In March 1987, General Gul became the head of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the top secret service agency of Pakistan.

From 1987 to 1989, General Gul worked closely with the CIA and had a considerable role in providing support for the Afghan guerrillas fighting Russian soldiers, in return for American supplies and armaments. General Gul eventually became embittered against the US and their policies towards Pakistan, such as the implementation of harsh sanctions. Later on, he said the American plan for invading Afghanistan “pre-dated 9/11”. (18)

By September 1996 the Taliban had captured about 75% of Afghan territory, and the Clinton White House did not object to their takeover. US State Department spokesperson Glyn Davies told the media, on 28 September 1996, that Washington saw “nothing objectionable” about the Taliban instituting draconian acts in Afghanistan (19). On 11 October 1996, the Daily Telegraph summarised the US government position regarding the Taliban, “America has quietly acquiesced in its conquest of Afghanistan”.

There was close co-operation between the Taliban and Al Qaeda from the mid-1990s. This was not surprising as, mentioned earlier, its respective leaders Omar, Baradar and Bin Laden had known each other for years. In autumn 1996, Omar invited Bin Laden to live with him in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Through Bin Laden’s agreement, Al Qaeda temporarily subordinated itself to the dominant Taliban.

In early 1997, the Taliban leadership sanctioned the opening of training camps in eastern Afghanistan, to be used by Al Qaeda. When Bin Laden personally took control of these camps, between 10,000 to 20,000 men underwent training there (20). Some months later, in December 1997 a senior Taliban delegation was flown over firstly to Texas (21). They spent several days in the town of Sugar Land, Texas, at the headquarters of UNOCAL, an American fossil fuel corporation.

UNOCAL executives were trying to persuade the Taliban to agree to the laying down of a pipeline through Afghanistan. The Taliban members also spent time in Nebraska and Washington (22). In the US capital they had discussions with the State Department, the principal subject again being pipeline construction. A well known journalist from Pakistan, Ahmed Rashid, wrote that UNOCAL dispensed with humanitarian aid to the Taliban.

The Bush family had business ties to the Bin Ladens whose patriarch, Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden (1908-1967), generated the family fortune mainly in the Saudi construction industry. In the late 1970s, George W. Bush established an oil company called Arbusto Energy, in which Osama bin Laden’s eldest brother Salem bin Laden was an investor. He died in an airplane accident in Texas in 1988. Another shareholder in Bush’s Arbusto Energy was Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi Arabian billionaire accused on separate occasions of financing terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda (23). Mahfouz died in 2009 from a heart attack.

Journalist Cindy Rodriguez wrote in the Denver Post, “Several Bin Laden family members invested millions in the Carlyle Group, a private global equity firm based in Washington, DC. The company’s senior advisor was Bush’s father, former president George H. W. Bush. After news of the Bin Laden-Bush connection became public, the elder Bush stepped down from Carlyle” (24). In the immediate hours after 9/11, all flights in and out of America were stopped, or almost all. Washington authorised aircraft to fly 140 Saudi nationals in America back to Saudi Arabia. Rodriguez writes that among them were “24 members of the Bin Laden family living in various cities in the US… They were never interrogated”. (25)

Had Osama bin Laden ever been captured alive in Afghanistan or elsewhere, he would surely have had tales to tell. Gary Berntsen, the CIA commanding officer in eastern Afghanistan, said that Washington allowed Bin Laden to get away in December 2001, a few weeks after the US invasion (26). Rodriguez noted that Berntsen was supported in this view by other commanders, and she asked “the more we learn about the ties between the Bush family and the Bin Ladens, questions like this one pop up: Did Bush really want to capture him?” It would seem not.

*

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.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1 Robert M. Gates, From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider’s Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War (Simon & Schuster, 1997) pp. 143-144

2 Ibid., pp. 144-145

3 Steve Galster, Volume II: Afghanistan: Lessons from the Last War, Afghanistan: the Making of U.S. policy, 1973-1990, The National Security Archive, 9 October 2001

4 Ibid.

5 A. Z. Hilali, US-Pakistan Relationship: Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan (Routledge, 1st edition, 2 August 2018) Motives Behind the US-Pakistan Relationship

6 Kinling Lo, “What is China’s relationship with Afghanistan, and how will it change once the US is gone?” South China Morning Post, 18 July 2021

7 Gates, From the Shadows, p. 146

8 Ian Kershaw, Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions That Changed The World, 1940-1941 (Penguin, 1st edition, 31 May 2007) p. 285

9 He Di, “The Most Respected Enemy: Mao Zedong’s Perception of the United States”, The China Quarterly, March 1994, Jstor, p. 4 of 15

10 Ibid., p. 5 of 15

11 Hilali, US-Pakistan Relationship: Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, Motives Behind the US-Pakistan Relationship

12 Griff Witte, “Afghanistan War, 2001-2014”, Britannica, 16 August 2021

13 George Arney, “US ‘planned attack on Taleban’ [Afghanistan]” BBC News, 18 September 2001

14 Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA (Springer 1st ed., 23 June 2017) p. 81

15 John Pilger, The New Rulers Of The World (Verso Books, 20 February 2003) p. 109

16 Saikiran Kannan, “New leadership, resurgence and conquest: Decoding Taliban food chain after Mullah Omar’s demise”, India Today, 17 August 2021

17 Muneeza Naqvi, Eltaf Najafizada, “Here are the Shadowy Taliban Leaders Now Running Afghanistan”, Bloomberg, 19 August 2021

18 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 31

19 Mary Pat Flaherty, David B. Ottaway, James V. Grimaldi, “How Afghanistan Went Unlisted as Terrorist Sponsor”, Washington Post, 5 November 2011

20 Aureo de Toledo Gomes, Michelle Mitri Mikhael, Terror or Terrorism? Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in Comparative Perspective, 14 March 2017

21 BBC News, “Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline”, 4 December 1997

22 Pallabi Munsi, “When Texas Oil Execs Courted The Taliban”, OZY, 23 September 2019

23 Ralph Lopez, “Bush family ties to terror suspects re-opened by 9/11 ’28 pages’”, Digital Journal, 21 February 2015

24 Cindy Rodriguez, “Bush ties to Bin Laden haunt grim anniversary”, The Denver Post, 11 September 2006

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

Featured image is from Fabius Maximus Website


waronterrorism.jpgby Michel Chossudovsky
ISBN Number: 9780973714715
List Price: $24.95
click here to order

Special Price: $18.00

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

 

 

On 28 July 2021, Pfizer and BioNTech posted updated results for their ongoing phase 3 covid-19 vaccine trial. The preprint came almost a year to the day after the historical trial commenced, and nearly four months since the companies announced vaccine efficacy estimates “up to six months.”

But you won’t find 10 month follow-up data here. While the preprint is new, the results it contains aren’t particularly up to date. In fact, the paper is based on the same data cut-off date (13 March 2021) as the 1 April press release, and its topline efficacy result is identical: 91.3% (95% CI 89.0 to 93.2) vaccine efficacy against symptomatic covid-19 through “up to six months of follow-up.”

The 20 page preprint matters because it represents the most detailed public account of the pivotal trial data Pfizer submitted in pursuit of the world’s first “full approval” of a coronavirus vaccine from the Food and Drug Administration. It deserves careful scrutiny.

The elephant named “waning immunity”

Since late last year, we’ve heard that Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines are “95% effective” with even greater efficacy against severe disease (“100% effective,” Moderna said).

Whatever one thinks about the “95% effective” claims (my thoughts are here), even the most enthusiastic commentators have acknowledged that measuring vaccine efficacy two months after dosing says little about just how long vaccine-induced immunity will last. “We’re going to be looking very intently at the durability of protection,” Pfizer senior vice president William Gruber, an author on the recent preprint, told the FDA’s advisory committee last December.

The concern, of course, was decreased efficacy over time. “Waning immunity” is a known problem for influenza vaccines, with some studies showing near zero effectiveness after just three months, meaning a vaccine taken early may ultimately provide no protection by the time “flu season” arrives some months later. If vaccine efficacy wanes over time, the crucial question becomes what level of effectiveness will the vaccine provide when a person is actually exposed to the virus? Unlike covid vaccines, influenza vaccine performance has always been judged over a full season, not a couple months.

And so the recent reports from Israel’s Ministry of Health caught my eye. In early July, they reported that efficacy against infection and symptomatic disease “fell to 64%.” By late July it had fallen to 39% where Delta is the dominant strain. This is very low. For context, the FDA’s expectation is of “at least 50%” efficacy for any approvable vaccine.

Now Israel, which almost exclusively used Pfizer vaccine, has begun administering a third “booster” dose to all adults over 40. And starting 20 September 2021, the US plans to follow suit for all “fully vaccinated” adults eight months past their second dose.

Delta may not be responsible

Enter Pfizer’s preprint. As an RCT reporting “up to six months of follow-up,” it is notable that evidence of waning immunity was already visible in the data by the 13 March 2021 data cut-off.

“From its peak post-dose 2,” the study authors write, “observed VE [vaccine efficacy] declined.” From 96% to 90% (from two months to <4 months), then to 84% (95% CI 75 to 90) “from four months to the data cut-off,” which, by my calculation (see footnote at the end of the piece), was about one month later.

But although this additional information was available to Pfizer in April, it was not published until the end of July.

And it’s hard to imagine how the Delta variant could play a real role here, for 77% of trial participants were from the United States, where Delta was not established until months after data cut-off.

Waning efficacy has the potential to be far more than a minor inconvenience; it can dramatically change the risk-benefit calculus. And whatever its cause—intrinsic properties of the vaccine, the circulation of new variants, some combination of the two, or something else—the bottom line is that vaccines need to be effective.

Until new clinical trials demonstrate that boosters increase efficacy above 50%, without increasing serious adverse events, it is unclear whether the 2-dose series would even meet the FDA’s approval standard at six or nine months.

The “six month” preprint based on the 7% of trial participants who remained blinded at six months

The final efficacy timepoint reported in Pfizer’s preprint is “from four months to the data cut-off.” The confidence interval here is wider than earlier time points because only half of trial participants (53%) made it to the four month mark, and mean follow-up is around 4.4 months (see footnote).

This all happened because starting last December, Pfizer allowed all trial participants to be formally unblinded, and placebo recipients to get vaccinated. By 13 March 2021 (data cut-off), 93% of trial participants (41,128 of 44,060; Fig 1) were unblinded, officially entering “open-label followup.” (Ditto for Moderna: by mid April, 98% of placebo recipients had been vaccinated.)

Despite the reference to “six month safety and efficacy” in the preprint’s title, the paper only reports on vaccine efficacy “up to six months,” but not from six months. This is not semantics, as it turns out only 7% of trial participants actually reached six months of blinded follow-up (“8% of BNT162b2 recipients and 6% of placebo recipients had ≥6 months follow-up post-dose 2.”) So despite this preprint appearing a year after the trial began, it provides no data on vaccine efficacy past six months, which is the period Israel says vaccine efficacy has dropped to 39%.

It is hard to imagine that the <10% of trial participants who remained blinded at six months (which presumably further dwindled after 13 March 2021) could constitute a reliable or valid sample to produce further findings. And the preprint does not report any demographic comparisons to justify future analyses.

Severe disease

With the US awash in news about rising cases of the Delta variant, including among the “fully vaccinated,” the vaccine’s efficacy profile is in question. But some medical commentators are delivering an upbeat message. Former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, who is on Pfizer’s board, said: “Remember, the original premise behind these vaccines were [sic] that they would substantially reduce the risk of death and severe disease and hospitalization. And that was the data that came out of the initial clinical trials.”

Yet, the trials were not designed to study severe disease. In the data that supported Pfizer’s EUA, the company itself characterized the “severe covid-19” endpoint results as “preliminary evidence.” Hospital admission numbers were not reported, and zero covid-19 deaths occurred.

In the preprint, high efficacy against “severe covid-19” is reported based on all follow-up time (one event in the vaccinated group vs 30 in placebo), but the number of hospital admissions is not reported so we don’t know which, if any, of these patients were ill enough to require hospital treatment. (In Moderna’s trial, data last year showed that 21 of 30 “severe covid-19” cases were not admitted to hospital; Table S14).

And on preventing death from covid-19, there are too few data to draw conclusions—a total of three covid-19 related deaths (one on vaccine, two on placebo). There were 29 total deaths during blinded follow-up (15 in the vaccine arm; 14 in placebo).

The crucial question, however, is whether the waning efficacy seen in the primary endpoint data also applies to the vaccine’s efficacy against severe disease. Unfortunately, Pfizer’s new preprint does not report the results in a way that allows for evaluating this question.

Approval imminent without data transparency, or even an advisory committee meeting?

Last December, with limited data, the FDA granted Pfizer’s vaccine an EUA, enabling access to all Americans who wanted one. It sent a clear message that the FDA could both address the enormous demand for vaccines without compromising on the science. A “full approval” could remain a high bar.

But here we are, with FDA reportedly on the verge of granting a marketing license 13 months into the still ongoing, two year pivotal trial, with no reported data past 13 March 2021, unclear efficacy after six months due to unblinding, evidence of waning protection irrespective of the Delta variant, and limited reporting of safety data. (The preprint reports “decreased appetite, lethargy, asthenia, malaise, night sweats, and hyperhidrosis were new adverse events attributable to BNT162b2 not previously identified in earlier reports,” but provides no data tables showing the frequency of these, or other, adverse events.)

It’s not helping matters that FDA now says it won’t convene its advisory committee to discuss the data ahead of approving Pfizer’s vaccine. (Last August, to address vaccine hesitancy, the agency had “committed to use an advisory committee composed of independent experts to ensure deliberations about authorization or licensure are transparent for the public.”)

Prior to the preprint, my view, along with a group of around 30 clinicians, scientists, and patient advocates, was that there were simply too many open questions about all covid-19 vaccines to support approving any this year. The preprint has, unfortunately, addressed very few of those open questions, and has raised some new ones.

I reiterate our call: “slow down and get the science right—there is no legitimate reason to hurry to grant a license to a coronavirus vaccine.”

FDA should be demanding that the companies complete the two year follow-up, as originally planned (even without a placebo group, much can still be learned about safety). They should demand adequate, controlled studies using patient outcomes in the now substantial population of people who have recovered from covid. And regulators should bolster public trust by helping ensure that everyone can access the underlying data.

*

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 Doshi is senior editor of The BMJ.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In a break from the mainstream media narrative, the Associated Press (AP) today said it may be time to retire the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” sound bite — repeated often by government officials, including President Biden, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Dr. Anthony Fauci — because it “doesn’t tell the whole story.”

In an article outlining the flaws and potential consequences of perpetuating the narrative, AP quoted Dr. Eric Topol, professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, who said:

“It is true that the unvaccinated are the biggest driver, but we mustn’t forget that the vaccinated are part of it as well, in part because of the Delta variant. The pandemic clearly involves all people, not just the unvaccinated.”

Branding it “a pandemic of the unvaccinated” could have the unintended consequence of stigmatizing the unvaccinated, Topol said. “We should not partition them as the exclusive problem.”

Dr. Leana Wen, former Baltimore health commissioner and commentator on public health issues, told AP:

“We don’t live in communities where the vaccinated can separate themselves from the unvaccinated, because we are dealing with a highly contagious virus and there is a spillover effect.

“That gets lost when we are just saying it’s a ‘pandemic of the unvaccinated.’”

Republican pollster Bill McInturff, told AP,

“Calling it a ‘pandemic of the unvaccinated’ is certainly not going to increase the compliance among the unvaccinated.”

According to AP, a poll from the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research in July found that 45% of adults who had not yet received a vaccine said they definitely would not get it, and 35% probably would not.

Nearly 2 in 3 (64%) unvaccinated adults said they had little to no confidence the shots are effective against mutations like the Delta variant. Just 3% of unvaccinated adults said they would definitely get vaccinated.

Facts don’t support ‘pandemic of the unvaccinated’ sound bite

To support her assertion the unvaccinated are to blame for new Delta cases, the CDC’s Walensky in a July 16 White House press briefing claimed “over 97% of people who are entering the hospital right now are unvaccinated.”

But as reported by Fox News anchor Laura Ingraham on “The Ingraham Angle,” that statistic is “grossly misleading.” Ingraham referred to an Aug. 5 video statement, in which Walensky inadvertently revealed how that 95% to 99% statistic was created.

As it turns out, to achieve those statistics, the CDC included hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021, when the vast majority of the U.S. population was unvaccinated.

The statistics did not include more recent data, or data related to the Delta variant, which is now the most prevalent strain in circulation.

Studies show COVID vaccines don’t fully protect people from becoming infected with Delta, and those fully vaccinated individuals who do get the virus are spreading it to others, including both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

One study found people fully vaccinated with Pfizer’s vaccine were 6 to 13 times more likely to get Delta than someone with natural immunity.

Some scientists argue a mass vaccination campaign using vaccines that don’t prevent infection or transmission can prolong the pandemic, by creating the perfect conditions for more, and more transmissible, variants to evolve.

*

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 Ghion Journal

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The WayBack Machine at archive.org contains a snapshot from June 12, 2021 of the official Red Cross manual entitled, “COVID-19 Vaccine Blood Donation Guide for Donors”

See this and this.

Here is what the manual says:

“If you receive any type of COVID vaccine, you are not eligible to donate convalescent plasma.”

“One of the Red Cross requirements for plasma from routine blood and platelet donations that test positive for high-levels of antibodies to be used as convalescent plasma is that it must be from a donor that has not received a COVID-19 vaccine. This is to ensure that antibodies collected from donors have sufficient antibodies directly related to their immune response to a COVID-19 infection and not just the vaccine, as antibodies from an infection and antibodies from a vaccine are not the same.”

*

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 Muzamil Mattoo/NurPhoto

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China Announces Massive Greening Plan to Achieve Carbon Goals

North / South Korea COVID Divide

September 2nd, 2021 by John Goss

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The political cartoon depicts the presidents of North and South Korea at the historic 2018 summit. The two heads of state, Kim Jong Un and Moon Jae-in, are seen, the former with a missile in his hand, the latter with the dove of peace in his. This tells us one thing and one thing alone. The cartoon was created in the missile-laden west.

After the Second World War when the Soviet Union and United States of America carved up their spheres of influence, Korea, which had been colonised for 35 years by Japan following the Russo-Japanese war, was divided along the 38th parallel, splitting families and land. A civil war ensued from 1950-53 in which 2.5 million people died with the US supporting South Korea and the Chinese supporting North Korea. No formal peace treaty was signed and the war continued as an ideological platform for east and west to demonstrate their superiority.

The historic summit aftermath was going along swimmingly until the SARS-CoV-2 virus entered the equation the following year. It is a geographical enigma that those living in the South are so vulnerable to this deadly pathogen, while those living in the North are seemingly immune. The following chart shows the cumulative cases so far this year. North Korea is the horizontal line along the bottom – that is no cases.

Sadly South Korea by comparison has not fared so well. Indeed there has been an increase which gives the impression of spiking exponentially and may soon be a vertical line to complement the North’s horizontal line.

What is more the increases in cases coincides with the South’s “vaccination” programme which began in February this year. Not surprisingly exhausted workers in the South plan to strike.

Pyongyang claims to have not confirmed a single case of coronavirus infection, despite widespread scepticism. In its latest report to the World Health Organization last week, the North said it had tested 37,291 people for the coronavirus as of August 19 and that all were negative.

SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST

China has tried to ease the problem of no Covid cases in North Korea by supplying the country with 3 million jabs of Sinovac. Of course if you don’t have Covid for what do you need a vaccine? So, magnanimously, President Kim Jong Un has offered the jabs to countries which do have Covid cases.

North Korea has expressed some doubt over the efficacy of Covid-19 vaccinations, with state media frequently reporting on incidents in the US and Europe where individuals have had adverse reactions to the shots.

BBC

Perhaps we in the west, that is those still asleep, could wake up and see that Kim is right and there is no Covid problem. There is however a vaccination problem. Except we in the west are being controlled by those with an elitist agenda – the big elitist banking families. That is the difference.

There is No “Rothschild Owned Central Bank in North Korea”  

Now can you see where the Covid-19 problem lies?

*

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

Featured image is from the author

US Slips Out of Kabul but Is Vengeful

September 2nd, 2021 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The back-to-back press briefings on August 30 by General Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr, commander, US Central Command and Antony Blinken, Secretary of State, on Afghanistan conveys the picture of a superpower badly bruised and embittered but remaining vengeful. This is bad news. 

Gen. McKenzie said,

“Taliban had been very — very pragmatic and very business-like… they were actually very helpful and useful to us as we closed down operations”. But then, Americans wouldn’t even share with the Taliban the exact time of their “tactical exfiltration”. Nor was there any “discussion of turning anything over.” 

Five plane-loads of US personnel, civilian and military, just made themselves scarce from Afghan soil on August 31, the deadline for vacation of occupation set by the Taliban! What a bizarre way to end the “forever war”! 

The bitterness shows. Before leaving, the US “demilitarised” Kabul Airport. That is, the US disabled the C-RAM systems that provide air defence for the airport against rocket attacks — “so that they’ll never be used again” — and some seven dozen MRAPs (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected light tactical vehicles) — “that will never be used again by anyone” — as well as 27 Humvees tactical vehicles — “that will never be driven again.” 

“And additionally, on the ramp at — at HKIA (Hamid Karzai International Airport) are a total of 73 aircraft. Those (Afghan) aircraft will never fly again when we left. They’ll never be able to be operated by anyone… certainly they’ll never be able to be flown again,” Gen. McKenzie boasted. 

Why such scorched earth policy? The petulance shows. But the four-star general wasn’t even asked to explain why he was so thoroughly pleased with himself. Clearly, the US regards the Taliban as potential enemy and has defanged it to whatever extent possible.

And this, while Gen. McKenzie also acknowledged that the ISIS remains “a very lethal force and I think we would assess that probably there are at least 2,000 hardcore ISIS fighters in Afghanistan now… and that’s going to be a challenge for the Taliban, I believe, in the days ahead.”  

On the other hand, the general also insisted, “We need the (Kabul) airport to be operational and we need the airport to be operational quickly for civilian — you know, for civilian traffic. So we’re going to do everything we can to — to help with that.” 

Therefore, the US didn’t “demilitarise” the equipment necessary for civilian airport operations such as fire trucks and front-end loaders and so on so that Kabul Airport can be operational “as soon as possible” “to continue the evacuation of Afghans and stranded foreigners.  

You don’t have to be a general to know that so long as Kabul Airport is under threat from rocket attacks, no civilian airline will operate there. Yet, the US “demilitarised” the airport! 

Sophistry aside, the fact of the matter is that the US is not in a forgiving mood for being humiliated in such a manner by an insurgent force and made to look “loser” internationally. It will do whatever is needed to make life hell for the Taliban militarily. Après moi, le déluge! 

Gen. McKenzie refused to be drawn into discussion on the US’ future dealings with the Taliban. He was evasive: “I can’t foresee the way future coordination between us (US-Taliban)  would go. I would leave that for — for some future date. I will simply say that they wanted us out; we wanted to get out with our people and with our — and with our friends and partners. And so for that short period of time, our issues — our — our — our view of the world was congruent, it was the same.” 

The embittered tone is self-evident. And the schadenfreude too was on display:

“I do believe the Taliban is going to have their hands full with ISIS-K. And they let a lot of those people out of prisons, and now they’re going to be able to reap what they sowed.” 

“Well, I think that the — the terror threat is going to be very high. And I don’t want to minimise that.” The game plan is to make the Taliban crawl on their knees and beg for help from the NATO to operate the Kabul Airport. 

The US is unlikely to respect Afghan sovereignty and territorial integrity. Afghanistan is of high importance as a strategic hub to pursue the containment of China, Russia and Iran. In the name of counter-intelligence and fight against ISIS terrorism, there is always scope for intervention whether the Taliban government approves it or not. At the same time, the UN Security Council resolution of August 30 gives a handle to pile pressure on the Taliban — although the debate showed Russia and China are on guard already. read more

The US wields much influence among the non-Taliban spectrum of Afghan politics. Unless the Taliban bend to the US wishes, Washington has the option to play the Afghan factions against each other, including the factions within the Taliban. In the US estimation, there is a long way to go for the Taliban to establish dominance in the country. On whole, Gen. Mckenzie sounded sceptical about the Taliban’s future. read more  

Without doubt, the US intelligence has penetrated the Taliban and possibly is even capable of splintering the Taliban. Suffice to say, if push comes to shove, the US can create a Syria-like situation to effectively keep Afghanistan unstable so as to thwart China’s plans for Belt and Road and for exploitation of the country’s vast mineral wealth estimated to be in thr region of $3 trillion.

The Syrian pattern means working through local proxies. The rebels in Panjshir have strong western connection. Amrullah Saleh was trained by the CIA in the 1990s. Ahmad Massoud is a product of Sandhurst and King’s College, London (the latter is famous for “talent spotting”.) Massoud, in fact, has sought western help to fight the Taliban. 

In his press briefing on August 30, Blinken was quite blunt — “while we have expectations of the Taliban, that doesn’t mean we will rely on the Taliban… Going forward, any engagement with a Taliban-led government in Kabul will be driven by one thing only: our vital national interests.” 

The US is putting in place the coercive tools needed to pressure Taliban. In Blinken’s words, “The main point I want to drive home here today is that America’s work in Afghanistan continues.  We have a plan for what’s next.  We’re putting it into action.” read more

No, there isn’t going to be any repeat of the “Vietnam syndrome”. 

*

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: Taliban’s elite Badri 313 military unit takes position after US troop withdrawal from Kabul airport on August 31, 2021. (Source: Indian Punchline)

Haiti’s Debt of Independence

September 2nd, 2021 by Yves Engler

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In the vast history of imperialist exploitation few episodes match the depravity of Haiti’s debt of independence. Military blackmail of a small country by a superpower, prioritizing “property rights” over human rights, racial capitalism, a sellout “light skinned” local bourgeoise and the way our past haunts the present are all part of the story.

After winning their liberation from slavery and colonial rule in a war that killed half the population, Haitians were forced to pay their former masters an astronomical sum for their freedom. This oppressive debt Haiti paid to secure its independence is finally becoming part of the mainstream narrative about that country’s impoverishment. In a startling example of the media recognizing the debt of independence, a 200-word Journal de Montréal introduction to Haiti’s vulnerability to earthquakes noted: “Earthquakes as devastating as that of Saturday in Haiti have already occurred in 2010, 1887, 1842, 1770 and 1751…  This poverty is due in large part to the exorbitant debt Haiti had to pay France for its independence. Converted into today’s money, the debt is equivalent to $30 billion Canadian.”

In recent weeks CNN, Reuters, the New York Times, CBC and others have all referenced the debt of independence. More in-depth reports have also appeared in the Miami Herald (“France pulled off one of the greatest heists ever. It left Haiti perpetually impoverished”), France 24 (“France must return the billions extorted from Haiti”) and ABC News (“How colonial-era debt helped shape Haiti’s poverty and political unrest”).

In a remarkable act of imperial humiliation, two decades after independence Haiti began paying France a huge indemnity for lost property. After years of pressure, 12 French warships with 500 cannons were dispatched to Haiti’s coast in 1825. Under threat of invasion and the restoration of slavery, Francophile Haitian president Jean-Pierre Boyer agreed to pay French slaveholders 150 million francs for lost land and now free Haitians. Paris also demanded preferential commercial agreements and French banks loaned Haiti the money at remarkably high interest rates.

In 1825 the debt of independence represented about 300% of the country’s GDP. While the principal was later reduced, the interest Haiti paid was exorbitant.

It took Haiti 122 years to pay the debt. In 1898 half of government expenditures went to paying France and French banks while that sum reached 80% in 1914. (The debt was bought by US banks during the 1915-34 occupation and the final payments made to them.)

The agreement Haiti made with France had many deleterious impacts. The 50 percent reduction in duties on French goods undercut Haitian industry. To make the first payment of 30 million francs to compensate French slaveowners the government shuttered every school in the country. It has been labeled the first ever structural adjustment program and contributed to the Haitian government’s long-standing under-investment in education.

To find the money to pay France, President Boyer implemented the 1826 rural code, the foundation for “legal apartheid” between urban and rural people. In the countryside, movement was restricted, socializing after midnight banned, small-scale commerce limited, all in the name of increasing export crops to generate cash to pay France. The peasantry paid money to the state, receiving little in return.

Paying French slave owners had another damaging effect. A central motivation in agreeing to the debt was to solidify Haiti’s standing as an internationally recognized independent nation. Instead, it began a vicious cycle of debt peonage that undercut Haitian sovereignty.

To pay the first instalment of the indemnity Haiti took out an onerous loan from French banks. As part of securing debt payments, French bankers set up the Banque Nationale de la Republique d’Haiti in 1880. Effectively the country’s treasury, tax revenue was deposited there and it printed Haiti’s money.

Growing consciousness of the debt of independence is largely due to the Jean-Bertrand Aristide government’s push for restitution. In the lead-up to Haiti’s 200-year anniversary, the Haitian government instigated a commission to estimate the cost of the ransom, which they put at $21 billion. The Aristide government called for its restitution and instigated legal proceedings to force Paris to pay. The demand was part of why France (along with Canada and the US) helped overthrow Aristide in 2004 and the coup government dropped the issue.

In another move that garnered significant attention to the debt, a group of mostly Canadian activists published a fake announcement indicating that France would repay the debt. Tied to France’s Bastille Day and the devastating 2010 earthquake, the stunt forced Paris to deny it. Calling themselves the Committee for the Reimbursement of the Indemnity Money Extorted from Haiti (CRIME), they subsequently launched a public letter signed by many prominent individuals.

While the media should be commended for linking Haiti’s impoverishment to its debt of independence, it would help people make sense of the situation there today if they mentioned another point of history. Right from the beginning most Haitians opposed paying the debt. Only a small elite desperate for international recognition and trade agreed to it. In response to an earlier French push for reparations, leader of Haiti’s north, Henri Christophe said: “Is it possible that they wish to be recompensed for the loss of our persons? Is it conceivable that Haitians who have escaped torture and massacre at the hands of these men, Haitians who have conquered their own country by the force of their arms and at the cost of their blood, these same free Haitians should now purchase their property and persons once again with money paid to their former oppressors?”

For Christophe, and most Haitians, the answer was clear. But the son of a French tailor, Boyer was willing to sell out the revolution and vast majority of Haitians to improve his and the merchant class’ immediate standing. Unfortunately, the light skinned elite who succumbed to France’s demands two centuries ago largely continue to rule Haiti.

The same racial, class and ideological dynamics that led Haitian officials to compensate Paris for defeating slavery and colonialism remain in place today. The media should also talk about that.

*

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.

Yves Engler is the author of 12 books. His latest is Stand on Guard For Whom? — A People’s History of the Canadian Military.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Haiti’s Debt of Independence
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

“We’ll know our disinformation is complete when everything the America public believe is false.”   – William Casey, CIA Director, February 1981

All propaganda succeeds because it satisfies needs that it has first created.  If you follow the daily rat-a-tat mainstream news reports and react to them, you will be caught in a labyrinth that has been set to entrap you.  You will keep finding that your mind will be like a bed that is already made up and your daylight hours filled with nightmares.  What you assume are your real needs will be met, but you will swiftly tumble into the free-floating anxiety that the media has created to keep you on edge and confused.

They will provide you with objects – Covid-19, the U.S. “withdrawal” from Afghanistan, the Russian and Chinese “threats,” the need to crack down on domestic dissidents, 9/11, etc. (an endless panoply of lies) – that you can attach your anxiety to, but they will be no help. They are not meant to; their purpose is to befuddle; to make you more anxious by wondering if currently there is any contrast between the real world and the apparent one. The corporate mainstream media serve phantasmagoria on a 24/7 basis, all shifting like quicksand.  For anyone with a modicum of common sense, this should be obvious.  But then again, as Thoreau put it:

The commonest sense is the sense of men asleep, which they express by snoring.

Perhaps some health expert will soon recommend that 24 hours of sleep a day is optimal, but maybe I am dreaming or being redundant.

For many decades, the corporate mainstream media and the CIA have been synonymous.  They were married down in hell and now daily do the devil’s work up above.  Now that news is conveyed primarily through digital media via the internet, their power to induce electronic trances has increased exponentially.  Linguistic and visual mind control is their raison d’être.  Fear is their favorite tactic.  And since the fear and anxiety of death is the archetypal source of all anxiety, death becomes a core element in their fear-mongering.

In a recent powerful article, Canadian independent journalist Eva Bartlett, a brave and free war correspondent who has reported from inside Syria and Gaza, has shown how the ongoing Covid-19 “fear porn” spewed out by the media has dramatically increased people’s anxiety levels and thrown so many into a perpetual state of near panic.  This, of course, is not an accident.

Fear immobilizes people and drives them into a cataleptic state where clear thinking is impossible.  They become hypnotized in a “private” space that is actually social, an instantaneous identification with the media news reports that are addressed to millions but feel personal and greatly exacerbate the great loneliness that lies at the core of high-tech society.

As I have said before, the new digital order is the world of teleconferencing and the online life, existence shorn of physical space and time and people. A world where shaking hands is a dissident act. A haunted world of masked specters, distorted words and images that can appear and disappear in a nanosecond. A magic show. A place where, in the words of Charles Manson, you can “get the fear,” where fear is king. A locus where, as you stare at the screens, you are no longer there since you are spellbound.

In a high-tech society, loneliness is far more prevalent than in the past.  The technology has imprisoned people behind their screens and now the controlling forces are intent on closing this mechanistic circle if they can.  They call it The Great Reset.

They have spent decades using technology to invade and pare down people’s inner private space where freedom to think and decide resides.

They have repeated ad nauseum the materialistic mantra that freedom is an illusion and that we are amazing machines determined by our genes and social forces.

They have reiterated that the spiritual and transcendent realms are illusions.

And they have pushed their transhuman agenda to assert more and more power and control.

This is the essence of the corona crisis and the push to vaccinate everyone.

Drip by drip, year by year, they have cultivated the necessary preconditions and predispositions for this technological fascism with its nihilistic underpinnings to succeed.

When the inner dimension of existence is lost, there is no way to critique the outer world, its politics, and social structure.  Dissent becomes a useless passion when people instantly identify with the social. Human nature doesn’t change but social structures and technology do and they can be used to try to destroy people’s humanity.  Herbert Marcuse put it clearly long before the latest digital technology:

This immediate, automatic identification (which may have been characteristic of primitive forms of association) reappears in high industrial civilization; its new ‘immediacy,’ however, is the product of a sophisticated, scientific management and organization.  In this process, the “inner” dimension of the mind  in which opposition to the status quo can take root is whittled down.  The loss of this dimension, in which the power of negative thinking – the critical power of Reason – is at home, is the ideological counterpart to the very material process in which advanced industrial society silences and reconciles the opposition.

Once upon a time, people sat together and talked.  They even touched and shared their thoughts and feelings. They conspired in a most natural way apart from the prying eyes and ears of the electronic spies.  Now so many sit and check their cell phones.  They “connect,” thinking they are with it while not knowing they have been lured into another dimension where frenetic passivity reigns and trance states are the rule.

“Propaganda is the true remedy for loneliness,” said Jacques Ellul in his masterpiece, Propaganda.  He was being simultaneously accurate and facetious.  For propaganda provides a doorway to pseudo-community, a place to lose oneself in the group, to satisfy the need to believe and obey in mass technological society where emotional emptiness and lack of meaning are widespread and the need to fill up the empty self is dutifully met by propaganda, which is a drug by any other name, indeed the primary drug.  The empty-self craves ful-fillment, anything to consume to fill the void that a consumer culture dangles everywhere.  Think alike, buy alike, dress alike – and you will be one big happy community.  It is all abstract of course, even as its rational character is irrational, but that doesn’t matter a whit since the fear of “not going along” and appearing dissident plagues people.

Now we have endless digital propaganda that is the “remedy” for loneliness.  Ah, all the lonely people, keeping their masks in a jar by the side of the door together with Eleanor Rigby.  They think they know what their masks are for but don’t know why they are lonely or that they have been played with. Masks upon masks are donned to ward off the fear that is pumped out through the electronic airwaves.  It is doubtful that many ever heard of William Casey or can imagine the breadth and depth of the propaganda that he and his current protégés in the intelligence agencies and corporate media dispense daily.

“When everything the American people believes is false.”  Casey must be smiling in hell.

A grim submissiveness has settled over the lives of millions of hypnotized people in so many countries.  Grim, grim, grim, as Charles Dickens wrote of his 1842 visit to the puritanical Shaker religious sect in western Massachusetts.  He said:

I so abhor, and from my soul detest, that bad spirit, no matter by what class or sect it may be entertained, which would strip life of its healthful, graces, rob youth of its innocent pleasures, pluck from maturity and age their pleasant ornaments, and make existence but a narrow path to the grave….

And yet, the fundamental things still do apply, as time goes by.  Love, glory, loneliness, beauty, fear, faith, and courage.  Lovers and true artists, fighters both, resist this machine tyranny and its endless lies because they smell a rat intent on destroying their passionate love of the daring adventure that is life.  They feel life is an agon, an arena for struggle, “a fight for love and glory,” a case of do-and-die. They have bull-shit detectors and see through the elites’ propaganda that is used to literally kill millions around the world and to kill the spirit of rebellion in so many others.  And they know that it is in the inner sanctuary of every individual soul where resistance to evil is born and fear is defeated. They know too that the art and love must be shared and this is how social solidarity movements are created.

Listen.  The fight is on.  “This Has Gotta Stop.”

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.

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


Edward Curtin is the author of Seeking the Truth in a Country of Lies

To order his book click the cover page.

“Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies is a dazzling journey into the heart of many issues — political, philosophical, and personal — that should concern us all.  Ed Curtin has the touch of the poet and the eye of an eagle.” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“Edward Curtin puts our propaganda-stuffed heads in a guillotine, then in a flash takes us on a redemptive walk in the woods — from inferno to paradiso.  Walk with Ed and his friends — Daniel Berrigan, Albert Camus, George Orwell, and many others — through the darkest, most-firefly-filled woods on this earth.” James W. Douglass, author, JFK and the Unspeakable

“A powerful exposé of the CIA and our secret state… Curtin is a passionate long-time reform advocate; his stories will rouse your heart.” Oliver Stone, filmmaker, writer, and director

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Incantational Bewitchment of Propaganda. “Once upon a Time, People Sat Together and Talked”
  • Tags:

Back to the Future: Talibanistan, Year 2000

September 2nd, 2021 by Pepe Escobar

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Dear reader: this is very special, a trip down memory lane like no other: back to prehistoric times – the pre-9/11, pre-YouTube, pre-social network world.

Welcome to Taliban Afghanistan – Talibanistan – in the Year 2000. This is when photographer Jason Florio and myself slowly crossed it overland from east to west, from the Pakistani border at Torkham to the Iranian border at Islam qillah. As Afghan ONG workers acknowledged, we were the first Westerners to pull this off in years.

Those were the days. Bill Clinton was enjoying his last stretch at the White House. Osama bin Laden was a discreet guest of Mullah Omar – hitting the front pages only occasionally. There was no hint of 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, the “war on terror”, the perpetual financial crisis, the Russia-China strategic partnership. Globalization ruled, and the US was the undisputed global top dog. The Clinton administration and the Taliban were deep into Pipelineistan territory – arguing over the tortuous, proposed Trans-Afghan gas pipeline.

We tried everything, but we couldn’t even get a glimpse of Mullah Omar. Osama bin Laden was also nowhere to be seen. But we did experience Talibanistan in action, in close detail.

Today is a special day to revisit it. The Forever War in Afghanistan is over; from now on it will be a Hybrid mongrel, against the integration of Afghanistan into the New Silk Roads and Greater Eurasia.

In 2000 I wrote a Talibanistan road trip special for a Japanese political magazine, now extinct, and ten years later a 3-part mini-series revisiting it for Asia Times.

Part 2 of this series can be found here, and part 3 here.

Yet this particular essay – part 1 – had completely disappeared from the internet (that’s a long story): I found it recently, by accident, in a hard drive. The images come from the footage I shot at the time with a Sony mini-DV: I just received the file today from Paris.

This is a glimpse of a long-lost world; call it a historical register from a time when no one would even dream of a “Saigon moment” remixed – as a rebranded umbrella of warriors conveniently labeled “Taliban”, after biding their time, Pashtun-style, for two decades, praises Allah for eventually handing them victory over yet another foreign invader.

Now let’s hit the road.

***

KABUL, GHAZNI – Fatima, Maliha and Nouria, who I used to call The Three Graces, must be by now 40, 39 and 35 years old, respectively. In the year 2000 they lived in an empty, bombed house next to a bullet-ridden mosque in a half-destroyed, apocalyptic theme park Kabul – by then the world capital of the discarded container (or reconstituted by a missile and reconverted into a shop); a city where 70% of the population were refugees, legions of homeless kids carried bags of cash on their backs ($1 was worth more than 60,000 Afghanis) and sheep outnumbered rattling 1960s Mercedes buses.

Under the merciless Taliban theocracy, the Three Graces suffered triple discrimination – as women, Hazaras and Shi’ites. They lived in Kardechar, a neighborhood totally destroyed in the 1990s by the war between Commander Masoud, The Lion of the Panjshir, and the Hazaras (the descendants of mixed marriages between Genghis Khan’s Mongol warriors and Turkish and Tajik peoples) before the Taliban took power in 1996. The Hazaras were always the weakest link in the Tajik-Uzbek-Hazara alliance – supported by Iran, Russia and China – confronting the Taliban.

Every dejected Kabuli intellectual I had met invariably defined the Taliban as “an occupation force of religious fanatics” – their rural medievalism totally absurd for urban Tajiks, used to a tolerant form of Islam. According to a university professor, “their jihad is not against kafirs; it’s against other Muslims who follow Islam”.

I spent a long time talking to the Dari-speaking Three Graces inside their bombed-out home – with translation provided by their brother Aloyuz, who had spent a few years in Iran supporting the family long-distance. This simple fact in itself would assure that if caught, we would all be shot dead by the Taliban V & V – the notorious Department for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, the Taliban religious police.

This is how bombed-out Kabul looked like in 2000

The Three Graces’ dream was to live “free, not under pressure”. They had never been to a restaurant, a bar or a cinema. Fatima liked “rock” music, which in her case meant Afghan singer Natasha. She said she “liked” the Taliban, but most of all she wanted to get back to school. They never mentioned any discrimination between Sunnis and Shi’ites; they actually wanted to leave for Pakistan.

Their definition of “human rights” included priority for education, the right to work, and to get a job in the state sector; Fatima and Maliha wanted to be doctors. Perhaps they are, today, in Hazara land; 21 years ago they spent their days weaving beautiful silk shawls.

Education was terminally forbidden for girls over 12. The literacy rate among women was only 4%. Outside the Three Graces’ house, almost every woman was a “widow of war”, enveloped in dusty light blue burqas, begging to support their children. Not only this was an unbearable humiliation in the context of an ultra-rigid Islamic society, it contradicted the Taliban obsession of preserving the “honor and purity” of their women.

Kabul’s population was then 2 million; less than 10%, concentrated in the periphery, supported the Taliban. True Kabulis regarded them as barbarians. For the Taliban, Kabul was more remote than Mars. Every day at sunset the Intercontinental Hotel, by then an archeological ruin, received an inevitable Taliban sightseeing group. They’d come to ride the lift (the only one in town) and walk around the empty swimming pool and tennis court. They’d be taking a break from cruising around town in their fleet of imported-from-Dubai Toyota Hi-Lux, complete with Islamic homilies painted in the windows, Kalashnikovs on show and little whips on hand to impose on the infidels the appropriate, Islamically correct, behavior. But at least the Three Graces were safe; they never left their bombed-out shelter.

Doubt is sin, debate is heresy

Few things were more thrilling in Talibanistan 21 years ago than to alight at Pul-e-Khisshti – the fabled Blue Mosque, the largest in Afghanistan – on a Friday afternoon after Jumma prayers and confront the One Thousand and One Nights assembled cast. Any image of this apotheosis of thousands of black or white-turbaned rustic warriors, kohl in their eyes and the requisite macho-sexy stare, would be all the rage on the cover of Uomo Vogue. To even think of taking a photo was anathema; the entrance to the mosque was always swarming with V & V informants.

Finally, in one of those eventful Friday afternoons, I managed to be introduced into the Holy Grail – the secluded quarters of maulvi (priest) Noor Muhamad Qureishi, by then the Taliban Prophet in Kabul. He had never exchanged views with a Westerner. It was certainly one of the most surrealist interviews of my life.

Qureishi, like all Taliban religious leaders, was educated in a Pakistani madrassa. At first, he was your typical hardcore deobandi; the deobandis, as the West would later find out, were an initially progressive movement born in India in the mid-19th century to revive Islamic values vis-à-vis the sprawling British Empire. But they soon derailed into megalomania, discrimination against women and Shi’ite-hatred.

Most of all, Quereishi was the quintessential product of a boom – the connection between the ISI and the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) party during the 1980s anti-Soviet jihad, when thousands of madrassas were built in Pakistan’s Pashtun belt. Afghan refugees had the right to free education, a roof over their heads, three meals a day and military training. Their “educators” were semi-illiterate maulvis who had never known the reformist agenda of the original deobandi movement.

On the Afghanistan-Iran border at Islam qilla

Reclined on a tattered cushion over one of the mosque’s ragged carpets, Qureishi laid down the deobandi law in Pashto for hours. Among other things he said the movement was “the most popular” because its ideologues dreamed that Prophet Muhammad ordered them to build a madrassa in Deoband, India. So this was Islam’s purest form “because it came directly from Muhammad”. Despite the formidable catalogue of Taliban atrocities, he insisted on their “purity”.

Qureishi dabbled on the inferiority of Hindus because of their sacred cows (“why not dogs, at least they are faithful to their owners”). As for Buddhism, it was positively depraved (“Buddha is an idol”). He would have had a multiple heart attack with Thailand’s Buddhist go-go girls, dancing topless at night and offering incense at the temple the morning after.

Doubt is sin. Debate is heresy. “The only true knowledge is the Koran”. He insisted that all “forms of modern scientific knowledge came from the Koran”. As an example, he quoted – what else – a Koranic verse (the Koran, by the way, in its neo-deobandi, Talibanized version, forbade women to write, and allowed education only up to 10 years old). I could not help being reminded of that 18th century French anonymous – a typical product of the Enlightenment – who had written the Treaty of the Three Impostors – Moses, Jesus and Muhammad; but if I tried to insert the European Enlightenment into (his) monologue I would probably be shot dead. Basically, Qureishi finally managed to convince me that all this religious shadow play was about proving that “my sect is purer than yours”.

Village elders in Herat

Play it again, infidel

Talibanistan lived under a strict Kalashnikov culture. But the supreme anti-Taliban lethal weapon was not a gun, or even a mortar or RPG. It was a camera. I knew inevitably that day would come, and it came on Kabul stadium, built by the former USSR to extol proletarian internationalism; another Friday, at 5 pm, the weekly soccer hour – the only form of entertainment absent from the Taliban’s Index Prohibitorum apart from public executions and mango ice cream.

Jason and me were lodged at the VIP tribune – less than 10 US cents for the ticket. The stadium was packed – but silent as a mosque. Two teams, the red and the blue, were playing the Islamically correct way – with extra skirts under their trunks. At half time the whole stadium – to the sound of “Allah Akbar” – run to pray by the pitch; those who didn’t were spanked or thrown in jail.

Jason had his cameras hanging from his neck but he was not using them. Yet that was more than enough for a hysteric V & V teenage informant. We are escorted out of the stands by a small army of smiling, homoerotic brotherhood, those who were then referred to as “soldiers of Allah”. Finally we are presented to a white-turbaned Talib with assassin’s eyes; he’s no one other than mullah Salimi, the vice-Minister of the religious police in Kabul – the reincarnation of The Great Inquisitor. We are finally escorted out of the stadium and thrown into a Hi-Lux, destination unknown. Suddenly we are more popular with the crowd than the soccer match itself.

At a Taliban “office” – a towel on the grass in front of a bombed-out building, decorated with a mute sat-phone – we are charged with espionage. Our backpacks are thoroughly searched. Salimi inspects two rolls of film from Jason’s cameras; no incriminating photo. It’s now the turn of my Sony mini-DV camera. We press “play”; Salimi recoils in horror. We explain nothing is recorded on the blue screen. What was really recorded – he just needed to press “rewind” – would be enough to send us to the gallows, including a lot of stuff with the Three Graces. Once again we noticed the Taliban badly needed not only art directors and PR agents but also info-tech whiz kids.

Carpet-weaving at the Herat bazaar

In Taliban anti-iconography, video, in theory, might be allowed, because the screen is a mirror. Anyway, later we would know from the lion’s mouth, that is, the Ministry of Information and Culture in Kandahar: TV and video would remain perpetually banned.

At that time, a few photo-studios survived near one of the Kabul bazaars – only churning out 3X4 photos for documents. The owners paid their bills renting their Xerox machines. The Zahir Photo Studio still had on its walls a collection of black and white and sepia photos of Kabul, Herat, minarets, nomads and caravans. Among Leicas, superb Speed Graphic 8 X 10 and dusty Russian panoramic cameras, Mr. Zahir would lament, “photography is dead in Afghanistan”. At least, that wouldn’t be for long.

The 11th century Ghazni minaret with, on the foreground, a Taliban military base

So after an interminable debate in Pashto with some Urdu and English thrown in, we are “liberated”. Some Taliban – but certainly not Salimi, still piercing us with his assassin’s eyes – try a formal apology, saying this is incompatible with the Pashtun code of hospitality. All tribal Pashtun – like the Taliban – follow the pashtunwali, the rigid code that emphasizes, among other things, hospitality, vengeance and a pious Islamic life. According to the code, it’s a council of elders that arbitrates specific disputes, applying a compendium of laws and punishments. Most cases involve murders, land disputes and trouble with women. For the Pashtun, the line between pashtunwali and Sharia was always fuzzy.

A Kuchi nomad caravan going south towards Kandahar.

The V & V obviously was not a creation of Mullah Omar, the “Leader of the Faithful”; it was based on a Saudi Arabian original. In its heyday, in the second half of the 1990s, the V & V was a formidable intelligence agency – with informers infiltrated in the Army, ministries, hospitals, UN agencies, NGOs – evoking a bizarre memory of KHAD, the enormous intel agency of the 1980’s communist regime, during the anti-USSR jihad. The difference is that the V & V only answered to orders – issued on bits and pieces of paper – of Mullah Omar himself.

Rock the base

The verdict echoed like a dagger piercing the oppressive air of the desert near Ghazni. A 360-degree panoramic shot revealed a background of mountains where the mineral had expelled all the vegetal; the silhouette of two 11th century minarets; and a foreground of tanks, helicopters and rocket launchers. The verdict, issued in Pashto and mumbled by our scared official translator imposed by Kabul, was inexorable: “You will be denounced in a military court. The investigation will be long, six months; meanwhile you will await the decision in jail”.

Once again, we were being charged with espionage, but now this was the real deal. We could be executed with a shot on the back of the neck – Khmer Rouge style. Or stoned. Or thrown into a shallow grave and buried alive by a brick wall smashed by a tractor. Brilliant Taliban methods for the final solution were myriad. And to think this was all happening because of two minarets.

To walk over a supposedly mined field trying to reach two minarets was not exactly a brilliant idea in the first place. Red Army experts, during the 1980s, buried 12 million mines in Afghanistan. They diversified like crazy; more than 50 models, from Zimbabwe’s RAP-2s to Belgium’s NR-127s. UN officials had assured us that more than half the country was mined. Afghan officials at the Mine Detention Center in Herat, with their 50 highly trained German shepherds, would later tell us that it would take 22,000 years to demine the whole country.

My objects of desire in Ghazni were two “Towers of Victory”; two circular superstructures, isolated in the middle of the desert and built by the Sassanians as minarets – commemorative, not religious; there was never a mosque in the surroundings. In the mid-19th century scholars attributed the grand minaret to Mahmud, protector of Avicenna and the great Persian poet Ferdowsi. Today it is known that the small minaret dates from 1030, and the big one, from 1099. They are like two brick rockets pointing to the sheltering sky and claiming for the attention of those travelling the by then horrific Kabul-Kandahar highway, a Via Dolorosa of multinational flat tires – Russian, Chinese, Iranian.

The problem is that, 21 years ago, right adjacent to the minarets, there was an invisible Taliban military base. At first we could see only an enormous weapons depot. We asked a sentinel to take a few pictures; he agreed. Walking around the depot – between carcasses of Russian tanks and armored cars – we found some functioning artillery pieces. And a lone, white Taliban flag. And not a living soul. This did look like an abandoned depot. But then we hit on a destroyed Russian helicopter – a prodigy of conceptual art. Too late: soon we are intercepted by a Taliban out of nowhere.

The commander of the base wanted to know “under which law” we assumed we had the right to take photos. He wanted to know which was the punishment, “in our country”, for such an act. When the going was really getting tough, everything turned Monty Python. One of the Taliban had walked back to the road to fetch our driver, Fateh. They came back two hours later. The commander talked to Fateh in Pashto. And then we were “liberated”, out of “respect for Fateh’s white beard”. But we should “confess” to our crime – which we did right away, over and over again.

The fact of the matter is that we were freed because I was carrying a precious letter hand-signed by the all-powerful Samiul Haq, the leader of Haqqania, the factory-cum-academy, Harvard and M.I.T. of Taliban in Akhora Khatak, on the Grand Trunk Road between Islamabad and Peshawar in Pakistan. Legions of Taliban ministers, province governors, military commanders, judges and bureaucrats had studied in Haqqania.

Haqqania was founded in 1947 by deobandi religious scholar Abdul Haq, the father of maulvi and former senator Samiul Haq, a wily old hand fond of brothels and as engaging as a carpet vendor in the Peshawar bazaars. He was a key educator of the first detribalized, urbanized and literate Afghan generation; “literate”, of course, in Haqqania-branded, Deobandi-style Islam. In Haqqania – where I saw hundreds of students from Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan indoctrinated to later export Talibanization to Central Asia – debate was heresy, the master was infallible and Samiul Haq was almost as perfect as Allah.

He had told me – no metaphor intended – that “Allah had chosen Mullah Omar to be the leader of the Taliban”. And he was sure that when the Islamic Revolution reached Pakistan, “it will be led by a unknown rising from the masses” – like Mullah Omar. At the time Haq was Omar’s consultant on international relations and Sharia-based decisions. He bundled up both Russia and the US as “enemies of our time”; blamed the US for the Afghan tragedy; but otherwise offered to hand over Osama bin Laden to the US if Bill Clinton guaranteed no interference in Afghan affairs.

Turn left for the Ministry of Foreign Relations – at the time only recognized by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE

Back in Ghazni, the Taliban commander even invited us for some green tea. Thanks but no thanks. We thanked Allah’s mercy by visiting the tomb of sultan Mahmud in Razah, less than one kilometer from the towers. The tomb is a work of art – translucid marble engraved with Kufic lettering. Islamic Kufic lettering, if observed as pure design, reveals itself as a transposition of the verb, from the audible to the visible. So the conclusion was inevitable; the Taliban had managed to totally ignore the history of their own land, building a military base over two architectural relics and incapable of recognizing even the design of their own Islamic lettering as a form of art.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Saker.

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All pictures taken from The Roving Eye Video Archives. Pepe Escobar, 2000

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch

***

newly published medical study found that infection from COVID-19 confers considerably longer-lasting and stronger protection against the Delta variant of the virus than vaccines.

“The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a ‘Don’t try this at home’ label,” the Scientific American reported Thursday. “The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19.”

Put another way, vaccinated individuals were 27 times more likely to get a symptomatic COVID infection than those with natural immunity from COVID.

The findings come as many governments around the world are demanding citizens acquire “vaccine passports” to travel. New York City, France, and the Canadian provinces of Quebec and British Columbia are among those who have recently embraced vaccine passports.

Meanwhile, Australia has floated the idea of making higher vaccination rates a condition of lifting its lockdown in jurisdictions, while President Joe Biden is considering making interstate travel unlawful for people who have not been vaccinated for COVID-19.

Vaccine passports are morally dubious for many reasons, not the least of which is that freedom of movement is a basic human right. However, vaccine passports become even more senseless in light of the new findings out of Israel and revelations from the CDC, some say.

Harvard Medical School professor Martin Kulldorff said research showing that natural immunity offers exponentially more protection than vaccines means vaccine passports are both unscientific and discriminatory, since they disproportionately affect working class individuals.

“Prior COVID disease (many working class) provides better immunity than vaccines (many professionals), so vaccine mandates are not only scientific nonsense, they are also discriminatory and unethical,” Kulldorff, a biostatistician and epidemiologist, observed on Twitter.

Nor is the study out of Israel a one-off. Media reports show that no fewer than 15 academic studies have found that natural immunity offers immense protection from COVID-19.

Moreover, CDC research shows that vaccinated individuals still get infected with COVID-19 and carry just as much of the virus in their throat and nasal passage as unvaccinated individuals

“High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky noted following a Cape Cod outbreak that included mostly vaccinated individuals.

These data suggest that vaccinated individuals are still spreading the virus much like unvaccinated individuals.

The Bottom Line

Vaccine passports would be immoral and a massive government overreach even in the absence of these findings. There is simply no historical parallel for governments attempting to restrict the movements of healthy people over a respiratory virus in this manner.

Yet the justification for vaccine passports becomes not just wrong but absurd in light of these new revelations.

People who have had COVID already have significantly more protection from the virus than people who’ve been vaccinated. Meanwhile, people who’ve not had COVID and choose to not get vaccinated may or may not be making an unwise decision. But if they are, they are principally putting only themselves at risk.

*

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 Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune.

Featured image: Photo by Thérèse Soukar, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Selected Articles: Never Has a Vaccine Harmed So Many

September 2nd, 2021 by Global Research News

Never Has a Vaccine Harmed So Many

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, September 01, 2021

Israel has blocked vaccinating the Palestinians because Israel doesn’t want to help the remnants of the original population of Palestine as they are in the way of Greater Israel. Consequently, Covid deaths and cases among the unvaccinated in Palestine are low and declining, while among Israelis they are exploding.  Is Israel’s Covid policy going to kill off the Israeli population? 

The Science and Ethics Regarding Risk Posed by Non-vaccinated Individuals: Position Paper

By David Heller, September 01, 2021

The “Israeli Public Emergency Council for the COVID Crisis” has released a position paper detailing what they call flawed assumptions and ethical problems inherent in blaming the unvaccinated for the latest wave of COVID.

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

By Doctors for COVID Ethics, September 01, 2021

Official sources, namely EudraVigilance (EU, EEA, Switzerland), MHRA (UK) and VAERS (USA), have now recorded many more deaths and injuries from the COVID-!9 “vaccine” roll-out than from all previous vaccines combined since records began.

Fauci Considering Booster Shots Every Five Months for All Americans… The Spike Protein Assault Never Ends

By Lance Johnson, September 01, 2021

As Fauci continues to threaten basic civil liberties and body autonomy rights, he is looking for new ways to mandate these COVID shots. Now he wants to mandate boosters every FIVE months.

Three Mass Trauma Events Used to Destroy America: JFK Murder, 9/11 and COVID-19 Genocide

By Joachim Hagopian, September 01, 2021

The standard Hegelian Dialectical formula, constantly interwoven with the elite’s divide and conquer strategy, keeps the masses powerless and blindly ignorant, and its incessant application recycled ad nauseam as the one-two sucker punch against humanity.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Warns America: “We All Need to Resist” Vaccine Tyranny… The Time Has Come!

By Ethan Huff, September 01, 2021

As the United States continues its descent into tyranny – due in large part to widespread complacency, sad to say – the time has never been more urgent for patriotic Americans to take a formidable stand against it.

Address the Spiralling Public Health Crisis by Banning Glyphosate in the EU and Worldwide

By Colin Todhunter, September 01, 2021

The herbicide glyphosate – the most widely used herbicide on the planet – is authorised for use in the EU until December 2022. The EU is currently assessing whether its licence should be renewed.

The Problems with Patents: Controlling Knowledge to Extract Wealth

By Rod Driver, September 01, 2021

There has been a lot of pressure from advanced nations to strengthen patent laws in all poor countries to bring them into line with the US and European systems. Rich countries control most of the world’s patents, so they receive almost all of the royalties.

Kabul Is Not Saigon. Afghanistan: Drug Trade and Belt and Road

By Peter Koenig, August 31, 2021

Why was nothing done to prevent this bloody, atrocious attack? In fact, the Pentagon announced just yesterday that another massive attack was likely, meaning they have information that another mass-killing may take place?

CDC Endorses FDA Approval of Pfizer COVID Vaccine for 16 and Older, Amid Questions About Missing Data and Which Vaccine Is Actually Approved

By Megan Redshaw, September 01, 2021

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Monday said it endorsed its advisory committee’s “recommendation for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech’s licensed vaccine for people 16 and older,” despite statements by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is still authorized only for emergency use.

Afghanistan Collapse Reveals Beltway Media’s Loyalty to Permanent War State

By Gareth Porter, September 01, 2021

In the wake of a remarkably successful Taliban offensive capped by the takeover of Kabul, the responses of corporate media provided what may have been the most dramatic demonstration ever of its fealty to the Pentagon and military leadership. 

The Fake “Delta Variant” and the Fourth Wave: Another Lockdown? Upcoming Financial Crash? Worldwide Economic and Social Sabotage?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 31, 2021

The calling of a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) by the WHO Director General on January 30th was instrumental in launching the coronal crisis. There were 83 positive cases outside China out of a population of 6.4 billion. There was no emergency:  Ironically, the flawed and invalid RT-PCR test was used to estimate those 83 positive cases.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Never Has a Vaccine Harmed So Many

The Australian Truck Blockade Is ON!

September 2nd, 2021 by Before It's News

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Trucks are blockading the highways along most of the QLD border today which is the epicenter of the Vaccine mandate.

Truckies are required to get the experimental vaccine clotshot before entering QLD.  

All information about this blockade has been heavily censored on all platforms except GAB.

This action is expected to go Australia-wide over the next few days.

Support for the truckies is high and they are expected to be joined by the motorcyclists.

Click here for latest updates on road closures at the border.

There are dozens of these……

Accelerated Probiotic Improves Digestion, Boosts Energy & Improves Overall Immunity

Hungerford Road

Queensland Border Full Closure in place. This closure is not a checkpoint.

What to expect:

Road closed to all traffic

Both directions

Delays expected

Observe signage

1 Sep 2021 02:58 pm

Information provided by

Department of Transport and Main Roads

Event ID: 403121

*

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.

Dear Readers,

The Covid-19 mRNA vaccine is “experimental” and “unapproved”. There is a worldwide upward trend in vaccine deaths and injuries. 

In a bitter irony, the official figures are the object of censorship both by the governments and the media. 

The latest figures from official sources are the following (August 30, 2021):

38,488 mRNA vaccine reported and registered deaths in the EU, UK and US (combined) and

6.3 million reported “adverse events”.

These are the reported figures of deaths and injuries.

The real figures are much higher. Barely one percent of vaccine adverse effects are reported.

Assuming that 10% of deaths and adverse events are reported (a very conservative assumption according to Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc, p. 6)

The mRNA “Vaccine” would have resulted in:

AT LEAST 380,000 deaths and 63 million “adverse events” for a combined population of approximately 830 million (UK, EU, US). 

We are faced with a situation where censorship applies to revealing the data from government sources that the governments do not want you to see.

There is No Informed Consent. The governments are LYING.

It’s a killer Vaccine. There is Worldwide upward trend of vaccine related mortality and morbidity which is amply documented. 

Peer reviewed reports confirm the causes  of vaccine related deaths and adverse effects (injuries) including  blood clots, thrombosis, myocarditis, fertility.

Spread the Word.

Referral of the above information by Global Research readers is absolutely crucial.

STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN VACCINATED.

INFORM PEOPLE ACROSS THE LAND ON THE HEALTH RISKS. 

TAKE A FIRM STANCE AGAINST THE VACCINE PASSPORT. 

Global Research seeks your support.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 2, 2021.

 

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation


Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans


Visit our online bookstore:

We thank you for supporting Independent Media!

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on The COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine: Censorship of Official Figures and Health Risks. Support Global Research

Never Has a Vaccine Harmed So Many

September 1st, 2021 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The Israeli People’s Committee Report of Adverse Events Related to the Corona Vaccine, April 2021

This report is from last spring.  The adverse effects of the Pfizer Covid Vaccine in Israel at the present time are much worse.

Summary:

As of January-February 2021 the vaccination program coincides with a 22% increase in overall mortality, making the period the deadliest one in the last decade.

Among the age group of 20-29, the increase in overall mortality is dramatic with a 32% increase in overall mortality, suggesting that the vaccine is more deadly for the young than for the old.

There is a high correlation between the number of people vaccinated per day and the number of deaths per day for all age groups.

The risk of death after the second vaccination is higher than after the first vaccination.

In  our analysis, we have found a relatively high rate of cardiac-related injuries. 26% of all cardiac events occurred in young people below the age of 40, the most common diagnosis in these cases being myocarditis or pericarditis.  Additionally, a high prevalence of massive vaginal bleeding, neurological, skeletal and skin damages have been observed. A significant number of adverse events reported are related to coagulopathy (myocardial infarction, stroke, miscarriages, disruption of blood flow to the limbs, pulmonary embolism).

The reporting of adverse events has been discouraged by health authorities.

See this.

This is amazing. The Israeli public health authorities and government are participating in a “genocide” of the Israeli people. 

Israel has blocked vaccinating the Palestinians because Israel doesn’t want to help the remnants of the original population of Palestine as they are in the way of Greater Israel. Consequently,

Covid deaths and cases among the unvaccinated in Palestine are low and declining, while among Israelis they are exploding.  Is Israel’s Covid policy going to kill off the Israeli population? 

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from National File

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The use of the Hegelian Dialectic of problem, reaction, solution (otherwise known as thesis, antithesis, synthesis) has served the ruling elite as its formulaic playbook for nonstop violence, death, global destabilization, and deepening human enslavement through nonstop perpetuation of false flags as the cabal answer to every perceived, heavily promoted global problem, and the covert, illegally engineered disaster through bankers’ wars, state-sponsored terrorism, economic downturns, assassinations and overthrow coups, right up to today’s promoted viral pandemic as the projected danger and threat posing as its causative reaction to the bogusly identified problem.

The elite’s artificially created reaction rolled out in cahoots with the Mockingbird CIA-controlled press, always saturating media’s staged airwaves with singularly defined false narratives, is extended over a concentrated period of time in order to adequately sell the demonized enemy lurking behind every tragic false flag attack.

If the lie gets robotically repeated often enough, the public will robotically believe almost anything. Former CIA director William Casey once smugly stated:

We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.

This embedded reality is always then used to justify the proposed crime cabal solution that often involves launching another empire war or nefarious authoritarian intervention, stealthily conceding yet more freedom and autonomy slipping away from the sovereign citizenry to the increasingly centralized power and control, invariably delivering draconian measures in the name of “security” that incrementally lead to full-blown fascist totalitarian dictatorship, or the globalist agenda of a cashless, digitalized, godless society living as slaves under the dystopian nightmare of one world government tyranny.

The proposed solution invariably involves defeating the next highly propagandized, demonized bogeyman created enemy that’s used to justify more war, more terrorism, more regime change, more genocide, more assassination, more destabilization, more financial recession/depressions, more pandemic lockdowns, mandated masks and vaccine passports and never-ending unconstitutional infringements on our civil liberties and rights. It will never end until We the People en masse find the collective courage to civilly disobey.

The classic case in point is the widespread private gun ownership in America, despite being a Second Amendment right, as the identified radical left’s problem, next comes the staging of an unending series of false flag mass shooting events as the reaction, eventually gaining enough pressure to pass gun control legislation that ultimately leads to gun confiscation as another “final” solution. I was asked to contribute a chapter to Kevin Barrett’s edited 2016 Orlando False Flag: Clash of Histories, breaking down the staged nightclub shooting utilizing the filtered lens of the Hegelian Dialectic.

The standard Hegelian Dialectical formula, constantly interwoven with the elite’s divide and conquer strategy, keeps the masses powerless and blindly ignorant, and its incessant application recycled ad nauseam as the one-two sucker punch against humanity.

This matrix control formula has been on overdrive bombardment, subversively drilled into the public psyche ever since the first of three modern mass traumas were laid upon American society – the 1963 JFK assassination. Two years before his murder, Kennedy warned US citizens of the shadow Deep State cabal, lurking in subterfuge, accurately depicting his own future assassins plotting his downfall.

Kennedy was wisely resolute in avoiding a catastrophic war in Southeast Asia, expressed his resolve “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds,” and moved to drastically undercut the Federal Reserve’s power and control, returning the function of America’s money supply and printed paper currency back over to the Treasury Department, rather than the Rothschild et al central banking monopoly. Had our president lived, the world undoubtedly would have been far better off. The problem of losing one of America’s greatest leaders has lasting negative repercussions still felt today.

The inside hit jobs on JFK, his brother Robert Kennedy, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr, all less than five years apart, in one fell swoop eliminated America’s most dynamically gifted modern leaders, posing the a serious threat and impediment to the power hungry crime cabal that only grew more brazenly deadly and impugn in its unstoppable addiction for limitless power and control.

Their successful cover-ups only emboldened ruthless, lawless cabal mafia gangsters.

All these tragic losses cut deep wounds of grief and pain into our nation’s psyche. This potent concentration of violence on America’s best and brightest created an enormous problem, proving that powerful, behind the scenes murderers were free to repeatedly get away with silencing America’s most talented moral leadership.

The dialectic reaction of profound loss and grief of our cut down heroes plummeted the United States into years of political, social and economic upheaval, a growing, tragically senseless and increasingly unpopular Vietnam War deeply dividing the country, while youth’s counterculture rebellion and women’s liberation brought radical change in gender roles.

The social engineering in a cultural shift, covertly funded and influenced by the CIA, including CIA control over the mass media.

The era of the late 1960s and 1970s sparked the sexual revolution and mass consumption of drugs. The defiant disenchantment and disillusionment experienced by younger generations, and the public rejection of conservative moral values and mores, created increasing divisiveness and strain of a major generation gap between the young and not-so-young, the embattled civil rights struggle including race riots, acute divide and conquer polarization was largely orchestrated by the elite ruling class. Meanwhile, the violent breakdown of the cohesive nuclear family unit as the social bedrock institution no longer provided youth with a sense of belonging and fundamental security. Communes and alternative lifestyles were the order of the day.

A significant rise in the divorce rates, single parent families and a widening gap between the rich and poor were also unfolding.

The tumultuous sixties and seventies were characterized by radical change, strife and instability. Much of these socioeconomic developments were exacerbated, if not created and triggered by the same Deep State crime cabal players that killed America’s shining lights that no doubt would have helped navigate and mitigate America’s passage through the storm, reducing the level of violence and destruction caused by malevolent forces in power, all the while not-so-hidden in plain sight.

These couple erratic decades of radical sociological shifts and instability might be considered in part linked to a causal reaction to America’s unresolved deep sense of loss, adrift misdirection and malaise. Other than glimpses of Trump populism, every president since JFK has served the ruling elite as a mere puppet, while during the ensuing decades the government has increasingly morphed into a full-blown oligarchy, a far cry from the constitutional republic the founding fathers had ingeniously created.

The power structure’s solution to all this turmoil and colossal change as a reaction to the problem of America’s loss of slain leadership was the 1980s globalization, neoliberalism and consolidation of elitist power and political and economic control. It’s been ongoing ever since reaching a crescendo with the elite’s overplayed despotic hand of a fake virus and biowarfare genocide now in process.

The social and political tumult typified by the radical hippie movement protesting against the war and the radical Black Panthers as well as the American Indian Movement (AIM), rebelling against historical and institutional racism as a reaction to loss of representative leadership and gross inequities was also met by the establishment’s heavy-handed solution – engaging in subversive infiltration, covert surveillance, illegal harassment and even murder by the FBI’s COINTELPRO program (short for counterintelligence program).

Malcolm X at Wayne State University in 1963

This was the early manifestation of usurping targeted individuals’ and groups’ rights of privacy, freedom and civil liberties guaranteed on paper by the US Constitution’s First Amendment.

***

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.

***

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate, former Army officer and author of “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It exposes the faulty military leadership system based on ticket punching up the seniority system ladder, invariably weeding out the best and brightest, leaving mediocrity and order followers rising to the top as politician-bureaucrat generals designated to lose every modern US war by elitist design. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In Los Angeles he found himself battling the largest county child protective service in the nation within America’s thoroughly broken and corrupt child welfare system. The experience in both the military and child welfare system prepared him well for working as a researcher and independent journalist exposing the evils of Big Pharma and how the Rockefeller controlled medical and psychiatric system inflicts more harm than good. As a published author of a 5-book volume series entitled Pedophilia& Empire: Satan, Sodomy & the Deep State, Joachim’s chapters and books are bestsellers on Amazoin child advocacy and human rights categories. The A-Z sourcebook exposing the global pedophilia scourge is available for free at both https://pedoempire.org/ and Joachim’s blogsite at http://empireexposed.blogspot.com/

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Monday said it endorsed its advisory committee’s “recommendation for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech’s licensed vaccine for people 16 and older,” despite statements by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is still authorized only for emergency use.

An advisory panel to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Monday unanimously endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) full approval of the Pfizer and BioNTech COVID vaccine for people 16 years and older, and the CDC immediately adopted the committee’s recommendation.

The endorsement by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) came after the FDA last week granted full approval to Pfizer’s “mRNA vaccine, which is being marketed as Comirnaty,” CNBC reported.

Following the advisory committee’s endorsement, the CDC issued a statement, in which the agency said:

“Today, CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, M.D., M.P.H., endorsed the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ (ACIP) recommendation for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech’s licensed vaccine for people 16 and older.

“This recommendation follows FDA’s decision to fully approve Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.”

The CDC statement made no mention of the Comirnaty brand, but referred to Pfizer-BioNTech’s “licensed” vaccine — even though the FDA approval was limited specifically to the drugmaker’s Comirnaty vaccine.

As The Defender reported last week, documents issued by the FDA relating to the approval of Pfizer’s vaccine contained multiple confusing statements.

The FDA acknowledged (footnote 9):

“Although COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is approved to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older, there is not sufficient approved vaccine available for distribution to this population in its entirety at the time of reissuance of this EUA.”

The FDA did not explain what it meant by “reissuance of this EUA” for the Comirnaty vaccine — which the FDA says is now fully approved.

The FDA said the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine under the EUA should remain unlicensed but can be used “interchangeably” (page 2, footnote 8) with the newly licensed Comirnaty product.

According to the FDA:

“The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.”

Monday’s CDC statement endorsing the FDA’s approval did not reference the FDA’s statements about the legal distinction between the Comirnaty and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, or the FDA’s comments about “insufficient stocks” of the approved Comirnaty vaccine versus a “significant amount” of the EUA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

Pfizer presents only partial data to ACIP 

The ACIP made its recommendation Monday based on updated clinical trial data and further follow-up on safety, beyond the data under review last December when the vaccine received emergency approval.

According to Dr. Matthew Daley, ACIP COVID-19 Vaccines Work Group chair, “when considering recommending a licensed vaccine for use, never before has the ACIP made such recommendations with such a breadth and depth of information.”

However, according to the slides Pfizer presented during Monday’s ACIP meeting on the safety and efficacy of its Comirnaty vaccine, the company provided the advisory group with efficacy and sequencing data only through March 13 — before the Delta variant became the predominant strain in the U.S., and before studies suggested vaccine effectiveness against the Delta variant could be as low as 42%.

In other words, 5.5 months’ worth of data was missing from the data Pfizer presented to the ACIP.

The COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical (VaST) Work Group, which presented during the ACIP meeting, confirmed an increased risk of heart inflammation among vaccinated males under 30, but maintained the shot’s benefits far outweigh any potential risks.

According to the most recent data from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System(VAERS) 2,162 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis in the U.S. have been reported after receiving a COVID vaccine with 1,364 cases attributed to Pfizer.

However, VaST disclosed only 765 cases of myocarditis, and post-vaccination reports were reduced by choosing an age group of 18-39 to study rather than the 16- to 17-year-olds — who experience myocarditis at a higher rate.

Experts with the CDC told committee members most cases of myocarditis have been mild, but it’s too soon to know whether they will suffer any longer term consequences, USA Today reported.

After taking its vote, the committee also discussed whether to support a third booster dose for people who have already received two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines.

The panel said it isn’t clear yet, based on CDC data, whether the recent increase in COVID infections among those already vaccinated is due to waning immunity or the highly contagious Delta variant.

The CDC continues to “strongly advise against giving individuals an additional dose outside of the already recommended and authorized recommendations for immunocompromised persons,” noted the CDC’s Dr. Sara Oliver.

Panel members said the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine remains available to adolescents 12-15 under EUA, and third doses are available under EUA for immunocompromised patients — however, given the FDA statement that the EUA Pfizer and approved Comirnaty vaccines contain the same formulation and can be used interchangeably, it’s unclear why one would be available for 12-year-olds while the other wouldn’t.

As The Defender reported last week, some scientists argued the FDA lacked sufficient data to approve the vaccine, and failed to conduct sufficient scientific debate.

Although COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is approved to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older, there is not sufficient approved vaccine available for distribution to this population in its entirety at the time of reissuance of this EUA.

*

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

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from CHD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on CDC Endorses FDA Approval of Pfizer COVID Vaccine for 16 and Older, Amid Questions About Missing Data and Which Vaccine Is Actually Approved
  • Tags: , , ,

Russia-Egypt Relations: Nuclear Energy Plant Construction

September 1st, 2021 by Kester Kenn Klomegah

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

It was highly unique step forward in October 2019, during the first Russia-Africa Summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi reaffirmed commitment to scale-up cooperation in various economic sectors and particularly expedite work on the special industrial zone and the construction of proposed four nuclear power plants, raising hopes for an increased power supply in Egypt.

Seated in a sizeable conference hall on October 23, Putin told the Egyptian delegation:

“As for our bilateral relations, we continue to implement ambitious projects that have been coordinated by us, including a nuclear power plant and an industrial zone in Egypt. We are working very actively in these areas, and we are planning to invest $190 million in infrastructure development projects and to attract up to $7 billion.”

In his response, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi warmly expressed gratitude for holding the first Russia-Africa Summit, added that relations have had a long history in many fields and spheres, starting with Russia’s support to the liberation movement, its contributions helped many African countries to attain practical results based on mutually beneficial cooperation in Africa.

“I would like to point out that we view Russia as a reliable partner of the African continent. We hope very much that Russia will be working in Africa in all spheres and fields, including in that of the development, as well as in the financing of infrastructure projects on the continent and in particular in energy and road construction,” the Egyptian leader told Putin.

Egypt attaches great importance in its relations with Russia. But what is particularly important for their bilateral relations, Abdel el-Sisi assertively reminded:

“I would like to assure you of our high appreciation of our bilateral relations, which are developing in various formats, especially after we signed a comprehensive cooperation agreement. We sincerely hope that our relations will continue to develop in all fields and spheres.”

“As for the nuclear power plant, we set a high value on our bilateral cooperation. We strongly hope that all topics related to this project will be settled without delay so that we can start implementing the project in accordance with the signed contract. Mr President, we hope that the Russian side will provide support to nuclear energy facilities in Egypt so that we can work and act in accordance with the approved schedule,” he added, in conclusion.

Related Russian ministries, departments and agencies are usually, tasked to coordinate and implement bilateral agreements. In the case of nuclear power, State Atomic Energy Corporation is the main player. According to the description made available on its website, State Atomiс Energy Corporation, popular referred to as Rosatom, is a global leader in nuclear technologies and nuclear energy. It is established 2007 [a non-profit entity type] and headquartered in Moscow.

In fact, Rosatom has shown business interest in Africa. Over the past two decades, at least, it has signed agreements that promised construction of nuclear energy plants and training of specialists for these countries. The Director General, Alexey Likhachev, emphasized these points at the Russia-Africa Summit that Rosatom has already been cooperating with more than 20 African countries, in particular, building the largest “El-Dabaa” NPP in Egypt with an installed capacity of 4.8 GW.

While still there in Sochi, Alexey Likhachev noted that more reliable, affordable and stable energy is the basic condition for achieving sustainable development goals. “We can make a qualitative breakthrough in Africa in terms of technological development and the use of nuclear technology in the next few years,” he said during one of the plenary sessions.

According to Reuters, the Egyptian Electricity and Renewable Energy Minister Mohamed Shaker said earlier at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s ministerial conference that Russia had asked for $12 billion for the nuclear plants, a reliable solution for energy deficit. In this regard, the development of nuclear energy is important for Egypt.

“We made significant strides in the preparation of all strategic agreements [regarding the construction of a NPP in Egypt] with our strategic partner, Russia. We have also completed all technical, financial and legal aspects,” he said.

Shaker said that Egypt decided to build an NPP due to the need to redress the energy balance to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and to save hydrocarbons the country has earmarked for petrochemicals.

“We have few traditional sources of electricity generation. The potential of hydro energy is gradually waning. Following the adoption of a special plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions we stopped using coal plants, however, energy consumption will grow,” according to the Minister.

It raises many questions about practical implementation of the several [paperwork] nuclear agreements that were signed with African countries. According to historical documents from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and information from published media reports, specifically about Egypt, the proposed Russian nuclear plants has a long history, at dating back to Soviet days.

Nuclear deals with Russia

Egypt has been considering the use of nuclear energy for decades. The Nuclear Power Plants Authority [NPPA] was established in 1976, and in 1983 the El Dabaa site on the Mediterranean coast was selected.

Egypt’s nuclear plans, however, were shelved after the Chernobyl accident. However, in 2006, Egypt announced it would revive its civilian nuclear power program, and build a 1,000 MW nuclear power station at El Dabaa. Its estimated cost, at the time, was $12.5 billion, and the plans were to do the construction with the help of foreign investors. In March 2008, Egypt signed an agreement with Russia on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Early February 2015, President Putin and President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi signed an agreement to set up a nuclear plant in Dabaa, on the Mediterranean coast west of the port city of Alexandria, where a research reactor has stood for years. The deal was signed after a comprehensive bilateral discussion held and both expressed high hopes that Russia would help construct the country’s first nuclear facility.

Interfax news agency reported that Sergei Kiriyenko was the Head of the Rosatom state corporation, had presented to the authorities in Egypt, Russia’s proposals on construction of the first nuclear power plant in that country. The proposal is for construction of four power blocks, each with 1,200 megawatts of capacity.

Rosatom and Egypt’s Electricity and Energy Ministry signed the agreement on development of the nuclear plant construction project in February 2015. The project assumes that Russia will provide an intergovernmental loan to Egypt. Commercial contracts would be concluded once the intergovernmental agreements on construction of the facility and on the loan were signed.

In assertive remarks carried by local Russian news agencies, Kiriyenko said at that time that the technical and commercial details of the project were not finalized, but envisaged the new technology with strong safety measures taken into account. That included the lessons learned during the March 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan, as well as a loan requested by the Egyptian government for the project construction.

Russia and Egypt Courtship

Interestingly, Egypt’s dreams of building nuclear plant has spanned several years, with agreement that was signed [as far back in March 2008] during an official visit to the Kremlin by the ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and then through another former Egyptian leader Mohammed Morsi who discussed the same nuclear project with Putin in April 2013 in Sochi, southern Russia.

Mohammed Morsi had sought $4.8 billion loan from International Monetary Fund [IMF], and had also asked for an unspecified amount of loan from Russia to build the nuclear power plant. He hoped Russia would accelerate and expedite efforts, and provide financial backing for the project during his political administration.

The same year, following the revolutionary events and after a wave of mass anti-government actions, the army ousted the Moslem Brotherhood and their leader Mohammed Morsi, resulting in postponing or suspending the nuclear construction agreement. Since July 2013, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has been in power after removing Morsi from office.

It is a well-known fact that Egypt had long ties with the former Soviet Union. Those bilateral diplomatic ties resulted in several development projects in late 1950s including the building of the Aswan dam. During the Soviet times, many specialists were trained for Egypt. Hosni Mubarak, a former pilot, received training in what is now Kyrgyzstan, and further studied at the Soviet Military Academy in Moscow in the 1960s.

Egypt, first, began its nuclear program in 1954 and in 1961, acquired a 2-megawatt research reactor, built by the Soviet Union. Plans to expand the site have been decades in the making but repeatedly fell through. In 2010, that reactor suffered a breakdown, though no radiation was reported to have leaked out.

Renewable Energy Sources

Egypt is classified as having a high power system size [24,700 MW installed generation capacity in 2010 with more than 40 grid-connected plants]. As of 2010, 99% of the Egyptian population has access to electricity.

Since the early 2000s, power outage rates and durations, as well as distribution system losses, have trended downwards indicating that distribution companies have improved their overall customer service quality over the past decade; however, Egypt has seen a great weakening in its supply security. The power system’s generation reserve capacity declined from 20% in the early 2000s to 10% by the 2010s.

The weakening of Egypt’s supply security has caused widespread social issues in the 2010s. To deal with the extremely high demand for electricity, rolling blackouts and power cuts were implemented throughout the summer of 2012 causing great tension between the government and the people of Egypt.

Egypt has Renewable energy projects. The current energy strategy in Egypt [adopted by the Supreme Council of Energy in February 2008] is to increase renewable energy generation up to 20% of the total mix by 2020. The energy mix includes the use of hydropower, solar wind and nuclear.

Hydropower – The majority of Egypt’s electricity supply generated from thermal and hydropower stations. There are four main hydroelectric generating stations currently operating in Egypt. Experts have questioned why Egypt could not maximize the use of the river Nile that stretches 6.695 kilometers, especially for agricultural, industrial and generating energy for the region.

Solar – Egypt has a high solar availability as a result of hot desert climate.

Wind – Egypt has a high potential for wind energy, especially in the Red Sea coast area. As of 2006, 230 MW of wind energy was installed, and again 430 MW of wind power was installed in 2009.

In March 2015, British Petroleum [BP] signed a $12 billion deal to develop natural gas in Egypt intended for sale in the domestic market starting in 2017. Egypt is an important non-OPEC energy producer. It has the sixth largest proved oil reserves in Africa. Over half of these reserves are offshore reserves. Although Egypt is not a member of OPEC, it is a member of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Swinging for Nuclear Power

Nuclear experts have also shown some concern. Lack of electricity supply is a huge restraint on African economies and specifically for Egypt, nuclear power could be an excellent source of large-scale grid electricity. Nuclear is not expensive compared with other energy sources. But for African countries to develop nuclear power, the governments must first establish the necessary legal and regulatory framework.

The project must comply with all international standards and regulation on nuclear power. Africa has a shortage of skills for nuclear power. However, Africa has a shortage of skill for any energy technology, so developing nuclear power would necessarily mean increasing African skills, which is in itself a good thing.

Despite the long technical negotiation process, the current Egyptian leadership, indeed, shows high optimism toward adoption of nuclear power as an important and indispensable source of energy that will underpin sustainable growth of the economy in the country. The four blocks of the nuclear power plant will cost about $20 billion, according a website report of the Egyptian Ministry of Electricity and Renewable Energy.

Apparently, experts expect that such mega-projects would have thorough discussion in parliament, financing sources broadly identified and approved by the government. Egypt has yet to make an official announcement of the tender for the contract to build its nuclear plants. Media reports have also revealed that nuclear companies from China, the United States, France, South Korea and Japan seek to take part in international tender.

Egypt’s Economic Potentials

With over 100 million inhabitants, Egypt is the most populous country in North Africa, popular referred to as Maghreb region and part of the Arab World. Egypt is the third most populous country after Nigeria and Ethiopia in Africa. About half of Egypt’s residents live in urban areas, with most spread across the densely populated centers of greater Cairo, Alexandria and other major cities along the Nile Delta.

The economy has been transforming from one based upon agriculture to an economy with more emphasis on services sector, for example its fast-growing tourism and hospitality, and to some extent manufacturing. It has experienced a fall in Foreign Direct Investment [FDI] to the country.

Egypt’s economy mainly relies on sources of income: tourism, remittances from Egyptians working abroad and revenues from the Suez Canal. Egypt has received United States foreign aid [an average of $2.2 billion per year], and is the third-largest recipient of such funds from the United States.

Remittances, money earned by Egyptians [estimated 2.7 million] living abroad and sent home, reached a record $21 billion, according to the World Bank.  Tourism is one of the most important sectors in Egypt’s economy. More than 15.8 million tourists yearly visited Egypt, providing revenues of nearly $11 billion. The tourism sector employs about 12% of Egypt’s workforce.

With one of the largest and most diversified economies in the Middle East, projected to become one of the largest in the world in the 21st century, Egypt has the third largest economy in Africa. Egypt is a founding member of the United Nations, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the African Union.

*

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

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), is now a frequent and passionate contributor to Global Research. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.

Featured image is from the author

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The “Israeli Public Emergency Council for the COVID Crisis” has released a position paper detailing what they call flawed assumptions and ethical problems inherent in blaming the unvaccinated for the latest wave of COVID.

The first, and possibly most frequently reported flawed assumption is that unvaccinated people get infected with COVID more than the vaccinated. The document cites data showing that “The rate of vaccinated individuals among individuals with verified COVID cases is close to and even identical to their relative proportion in the population even when sorted by age group, and even though the regulations of the Ministry of Health encourage a large number of tests among the unvaccinated.”

The second false assumption, that the unvaccinated infect others more easily than the vaccinated. Data from the CDC, Public Health England, and other studies demonstrate that once infected, the viral load is similar in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Since viral load is the most significant factor in the ability to infect others, both vaccinated and unvaccinated pose a similar risk to pass the virus to others.

The third false assumption is that asymptomatic transmission is common. The paper states “Studies show that the rate of transmission of asymptomatic persons is 20 times lower than that of symptomatic patients (who are tested and isolated anyway, regardless of their vaccination status), so that the likelihood of an asymptomatic healthy person who does not know that they carry the virus to infect another person is significantly lower than 1%”

The paper also points out that high vaccinated countries such as Iceland are also experiencing a new wave of COVID despite their very high (80% – 90%). “Therefore, unvaccinated persons are not what causes the pandemic to continue, nor do they endanger the vaccinated in that aspect. In fact, it seems that the hope of eradicating COVID by achieving “herd immunity” through vaccination of a high-enough percentage of the population has been proven to be unrealistic.”

Putting the burden on the healthcare system from the unvaccinated into perspective, In Israel, about 3% of the hospital beds are for COVID patients. At the time of writing, about 30% of them were occupied by unvaccinated people.

In concluding the scientific arguments, the paper states:

 “There is no scientific evidence whatsoever supporting the claim that non-vaccinated individuals are risking the public’s health in any way more than vaccinated people” and that “vaccination should be treated as a primary means for providing personal protection against severe illness or death, especially for persons at high risk”

Notwithstanding the lack of scientific basis, politicians, health officials, and many in the media continue to blame the unvaccinated for the latest rise of COVID. This raises a number of ethical issues that the council addressed in their paper.

These attacks on individuals’ choice not to take a medical intervention is a slippery slope. Whether it’s someone who has lung disease and continues to smoke, or a heart attack survivor who refuses to alter their diet, or, not to mention some 80% of people who don’t take the vaccine to prevent the seasonal flu. “The mission of the healthcare system is to serve the public, and it must not exercise any consideration that would restrict individual liberty.”

Health decisions should be made freely, otherwise, there will be a loss of trust between patients and healthcare providers: “Public-health policy is effective only when it is based on education and dialogue. Aggressive discourse might result in the loss of trust of significant sectors of the public, and lead to lowering the rates of other routine vaccinations that are of crucial importance.”

Blaming the unvaccinated could “foster the illusion that vaccination protects against contagion” and can result in vaccinated people thinking they are more secure than they really are.

In concluding their position, the Council writes “In a democracy, in whose core are human dignity and human rights, there is no room for calls and incitement of this kind. The right of society to protection prevails over the right of the individual to freedom only when there is a real danger (as is done in the case of violent psychotic patients, or in the very different case of prisoners). It is wrong to restrict a person’s liberty due to a remote potential risk”

“The choice of whether to get vaccinated should remain in the hands of every person, according to their understanding and values. We urge the government to immediately call for an end to the aforementioned aggressive discourse while giving explanations to the public that are scientific and accessible that highlight that individuals who have not yet been vaccinated are not a factor that perpetuates the pandemic and endangers the public.”

*

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 AFD

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Gianni Cohen said her mother, Cheryl Cohen, developed Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease after getting the Pfizer vaccine, and died within three months of her second dose.

Cheryl Cohen, a healthy 64-year-old woman from Florida, died three months after her second dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. According to Chery’s daughter, Gianni Cohen, her mother suddenly developed Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) — a rare, degenerative and fatal brain disorder — soon after she was vaccinated.

In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Gianni said her mother received the first dose of Pfizer on April 5, and her second dose on April 25.

On May 6, Cheryl experienced her first episode indicating “something was neurologically wrong,” Gianni explained. “She had extreme brain fog and confusion. She couldn’t remember where she was driving, and got really scared.”

On May 31, Cheryl called 911 because she was experiencing a severe headache. She was taken to North Shore Medical Center in Homestead, Florida, where she was hospitalized for 10 days.

Gianni said:

“She got taken to this hospital and I don’t know what they considered it, but they kept her for 10 days and released her home. She was in a very very bad state. She said, ‘Hey, I don’t know where I am.’

“My mother had mass confusion and brain fog. She could not do simple things and something wasn’t right. We had to have round-the-clock care with friends and families, thinking this was something that needed to be detoxed from her system.”

Gianni, who at the time did not know Cheryl had been vaccinated, said her mother’s condition grew progressively worse.

“She went from being able to work and do normal everyday activities to being able to do only basic things,” Gianni said. “Before she was vaccinated, she had her own apartment and worked every day as a sales representative. She cooked, cleaned and was in a great place in life.”

Around June 19, Cheryl experienced another severe headache, which became so bad she felt her head was going to explode, so she went to the emergency room and was admitted to the hospital, her daughter explained.

“A few days later, I visited her in the hospital and I couldn’t believe my eyes,” Gianni said. “She couldn’t walk, spoke in broken sentences, wasn’t making much sense, had uncontrollable body movements, was trembling and unable to be still.”

The daily regression was rapid.

“It was mind-blowing, confusing and truly heartbreaking. Watching her brain have no control was hard,” Gianni said.

At first doctors couldn’t find anything medically wrong with Cheryl other than a slightly elevated white blood cell count, Gianni said. But then MRI imaging of the brain showed evidence of prion disease, prompting doctors to immediately perform a lumbar puncture — which ruled out acute infection, tuberculosis, syphilis, multiple sclerosis and other diseases.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), prion diseases are a family of rare progressive neurodegenerative disorders that affect humans and animals. Prion diseases are usually rapidly progressive and always fatal.

The CDC’s website states:

“The term ‘prions’ refer to abnormal, pathogenic agents that are transmissible and are able to induce abnormal folding of specific normal cellular proteins called prion proteins that are found most abundantly in the brain. The functions of these normal prion proteins are still not completely understood. The abnormal folding of the prion proteins leads to brain damage and the characteristic signs and symptoms of the disease.”

On July 12, a second lumbar puncture came back positive for CJD — a prion disease. Cheryl’s tau protein value was 38,979 pg/ml, while the spectrum for CJD positive patients is 0 – 1,149.

Creuzfeldt-Jakob disease

Cheryl was hospitalized for a month before she received her diagnosis of CJD. During that time “it was literally like watching something eat her brain alive,” Gianni said. “While shaking, she managed to get out the words, ‘This is fucking stupid.’”

“I said, ‘Mom, is this the vaccine?’ and she said, “yep.”

Gianni said she was surprised when she found out her mother had been vaccinated, as she comes from a family of un-vaxxers. She believes like many Americans, her mother felt pressured to get vaccinated because of her job and the media pressure.

On July 19, Cheryl was discharged to hospice, where she died on July 22.

“We didn’t know what to do,” Gianni said. “It’s fatal. There’s no repairing what was going on. It’s like fast-acting dementia. It was a really sad thing, so scary, so insane and something [her] doctors hadn’t seen before.”

Medical team says onset of CJD could be tied to COVID Vaccine

Gianni said her mother’s medical team said the onset of CJD could be tied to the COVID vaccine. Dr. Andrea Folds, one of the internal medicine physicians from Adventura Hospital who oversaw Cohen’s case, wrote a case report, which will be submitted Sept. 2 to American College of Physicians Journal.

In a written statement to The Defender, Folds said:

“This case identifies potential adverse events that could occur with the administration of the novel COVID-19 vaccine. Moreover, clinicians need to consider neurodegenerative diseasessuch as prion disease (e.g. sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease), autoimmune encephalitis, infection, non-epileptic seizure, toxic-metabolic disorders, etc. in their differential diagnoses when a patient presents with rapidly progressive dementia, particularly in the setting of recent vaccination.

“Although there is currently no cure for sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (sCJD), early diagnosis is crucial to avoid the unnecessary administration of empiric medications for suspected psychological or neurological disorders.

“Furthermore, tracking adverse events could potentially lead to further characterization and understanding of both the novel COVID-19 messenger ribonucleic nucleic acid (mRNA) vaccine as well as the etiology of sCJD. More importantly, recognizing adverse effects provides individuals with vital information to make a more educated decision regarding their health.”

Prior to Cheryl’s diagnosis, Gianni said another doctor had mentioned someone who had come in with similar symptoms, had been vaccinated, developed a rare disease and was also released to hospice.

Gianni filed a report with the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS ID 1535217), sent medical records to the CDC and gave her mother’s brain to the National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center.

Gianni said no autopsy was performed because the cause of death was confirmed as CJD.

Gianni said the Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Foundation is also aware of her mother’s case but hasn’t updated cases on its website since 2019, making it difficult for others to draw correlations between any arising CJD cases and COVID vaccination, Gianni said.

mRNA vaccines could trigger development of prion diseases, study shows

As The Defender reported July 21, a paper published in February outlined the potential for messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID vaccines to trigger development of prion diseases and related diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple system atrophy and others.

According to the paper’s author, immunologist J. Bart Classen, one-time National Institutes of Health (NIH) contract scientist and proprietor of Classen Immunotherapies, he based his conclusions on analysis of RNA from the Pfizer injection. He did not have enough information on Moderna.

Classen published a second paper July 25, on vaccines associated Parkinson’s Disease — a prion disease signal — using the UK Yellow Card adverse events database and data on the AstraZeneca and Pfizer COVID vaccines.

Classen determined both vaccines had the ability to induce prion disease, and the results of the study were consistent with monkey toxicity studies showing infection with SARS-CoV-2 results in Lewy Body formation –– clumps of abnormal protein particles that accumulate in the brain.

“The findings suggest that regulatory approval, even under an Emergency Use Authorization, for COVID vaccines was premature and that widespread use should be halted until full long-term safety studies evaluating prion toxicity have been completed,” Classen wrote.

Could COVID vaccines accelerate disease already in progression?

It often takes years for abnormal folding of certain proteins to produce prion disease, but Classen suggests COVID vaccines could be accelerating disease progression in individuals who either already have subclinical prion disease or have mild prion disease that has not been properly diagnosed.

There is also evidence indicating the vaccine spike protein can prompt misfolding of essential RNA/DNA binding proteins, called TDP-43 and FUS, and catalyze a toxic “chain reaction.”

Because the spike protein can so quickly set abnormal protein clumping into motion, Classen speculates this “could allow fairly rapid detection of prion disease after immunization.”

At the same time, Classen cautioned flawed adverse event reporting systems will likely fail to capture neurodegenerative diseases that take more time to develop. Most vaccine adverse event reports are for acute events, Classen said, whereas few of the adverse events that occur “years or decades after administration of a pharmaceutical are ever reported.”

Moreover, prion disease symptoms are often non-specific or overlap with other conditions, making diagnosis difficult and underreporting probable.

For these and other reasons, Classen suggests the clinical relevance of his findings “could be logs in magnitude higher” than the Parkinson’s signal he detected through his 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.

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from CHD

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On August 19, Oregon Governor Kate Brown announced sweeping new mandates in response to the delta variant of COVID-19. The new order, administered by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA), mandates masks in all indoor and outdoor settings, regardless of vaccination status. The mask mandate exempts the homeless, children under five years old, people engaged in competitive sports, and those delivering an outdoor speech or performance. The Democrat governor also mandated COVID-19 vaccines for all health care workers, along with teachers and staff in K-12 across the state. The mask mandate took effect on August 19. The vaccine mandate must be completed by October 18, or affected workers would face the prospect of termination.

Just two weeks prior, Brown had announced that school districts would retain local control over health care mandates, and health care workers would maintain their personal choice over the vaccine.

The mandate applies to paramedics and firefighters across Oregon and has caused a firestorm of controversy among rural fire departments. In Aurora, the fire chief said he would rather lose his job than require his employees to receive the vaccine:

The chief of the Aurora Fire District says he would sooner be fired than enforce the new statewide mandate requiring health care workers — including firefights [sic] who also serve as front-line EMTs — to get vaccinated for Covid-19 by Oct. 18.

Chief Joshua Williams, who moved to the Aurora Fire District in May 2018 after a 12-year career in Depoe Bay, made his position clear in a two-page letter posted to the Aurora Fire District’s social media Friday.

“This mandate is un-American, as our state government has been weaponized to the point where people are afraid to take a stand,” Williams said. “I will no longer sit silently on the sideline and watch this happen. I love my job, I love the fire service, and more importantly, I love the people that I work with and serve.”

“I will not abide by the governor’s mandate. Additionally, I will not enforce this mandate on any member of this fire district. In the old America, we used to have choices. Frankly, I do not recognize the country that I live in right now.”

Williams also noted that 25% or more of the firefighters in his district would also quit to avoid a vaccine mandate. He said this would devastate the ability of the Aurora Fire Department to respond to emergencies.

He’s not alone.

In Baker City, the firefighters’ union rep testified to the city council that 100% of the department would resign over the mandate. Baker City Mayor Kerry McQuisten, a Republican gubernatorial hopeful in 2022, told PJ Media: “We started yet another movement in Baker City this week to fight back legally. We had such a crowd come here that they were backed up to the back wall of council chambers and sitting on the floor in front of the rails. Out into the hall. And in front of the building.”

McQuisten described a full-on crisis in rural Oregon caused by the mandate. “This mandatory vaccination on healthcare workers has been extended to our fire department,” she said. “Plus [Brown] has added a $500 a day fine for not just the employer but the manager who is in charge of the building. So fire chiefs everywhere.”

“There’s almost no way to stay in their positions unless all of their staff is forcibly vaccinated,” McQuisten added. “If it’s a rural volunteer fire department, they have zero motivation to stay and take that abuse. Kate Brown is actually making a move that cuts off ambulance services because they are handled by the fire department, not just fires.”

“We had nursing staff testify in droves,” she said. “They will walk. We will not have enough staff locally to handle anything at the hospital. I have heard from two Oregon Department of Forestry offices that they will be gutted. No response crews left for wildfires. And I could go on and on about the rest of the state departments. But it’s the small cities that are going to be destroyed. Comply with the mandate and lose all of our staff. Spend hundreds of thousands of dollars re-recruiting and training. Let people die. Or don’t comply and spend at least tens of thousands of dollars fighting it in court, and probably losing our city manager and fire chief anyway because they can’t be held personally responsible for fines. She’s killing us.”

According to McQuisten, Oregon Health Authority (OHA) has written new policies they claim override any other policy in place in local or regional jurisdictions: There are people who have attempted medical or religious exemptions, and been denied. (They have been re-termed “exceptions.”) “OHA has come out with their own form,” McQuisten said, “which they say overrides the policy of the forms existing with all other state agencies. So we literally have one state agency telling all the other state agencies and cities how they are going to operate.”

That’s on top of the large number of health care workers refusing the vaccine, leaving staffing levels at Oregon hospitals at crisis levels.

Brown pushed back against the push-back, and doubled down on her mandates:

In an interview, she said COVID deaths are “unacceptable and preventable.”

The governor said she wouldn’t retract her mandate that health care workers, school employees and state workers get vaccinated.

“We don’t have a lot of options,” she said in interview with the Malheur Enterprise. “We’re in the midst of a public health crisis.”

She said she has seen no plan from any rural county to contain the rapidly-spreading Delta variant despite insistence from rural legislators, county commissioners and other local officials that pandemic decisions should be left to local communities.

Brown also said she intended to address sheriffs from rural counties who in recent days have been insisting on local control – and declaring they won’t enforce state-ordered mask mandates.

Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin said in a statement Wednesday he won’t enforce a mask mandate he considered “reckless.”

She acknowledged that some would quit over the mandate, but said people were already quitting anyway:

Brown granted the interview after two eastern Oregon legislators, state Sen. Lynn Findley, R-Vale, and state Rep. Mark Owens, R-Crane, pressed her in a letter on Wednesday to drop the mandate. They presented statements from local officials describing how they expect to lose employees and volunteers who don’t want to get vaccinated. In Vale, the local ambulance service said as a result, it could close. In Jordan Valley, the local school district said it would have to shut down.

The governor said she was aware of such concerns.

“There’s no question that there will be some people leaving,” she said.

But the governor noted that employees already are quitting because of the pressures of the pandemic. She said she sees exhausted health care workers and long-term care providers leaving their jobs.

The conflict sets up yet another showdown between the urban and rural parts of Oregon, debates over local control, and whether Oregonians have the right to choose what goes into their bodies. These conflicts, together, could lead to the devastation of Oregon’s rural communities as local emergency services are left unable to respond.

*

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.

Jeff is the author of the book, Behind the Curtain: Inside the Network of Progressive Billionaires and Their Campaign to Undermine Democracy, available at www.WhoOwnsTheDems.com. You can follow him on Twitter @ChargerJeff, Facebook at his author page, Parler at @RealJeffReynolds, and on Gab at @RealJeffReynolds.

Featured image is from the Public Domain

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Oregon Vaccine Mandate Could Lead to Mass Exodus of Firefighters and Paramedics Across the State
  • Tags: , ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

When Dr. Anthony Fauci first elbowed his way to the podium and took the national stage — tiptoeing and reaching up to the microphone — he had an air of authoritarianism about him, a persona of arrogance. When he spoke about separating people by six feet, and shutting down their lives — motioning for governments and corporations to follow suit — his fearful and controlling ways became evident, on display for all the world to see.

But not everyone saw this man for the abusive deceiver he truly is. The bioweapon being replicated in human cells through mRNA vaccination is based off the same gain-of-function virus research that Fauci was a part of, which he lied about for over a year. As Fauci continues to threaten basic civil liberties and body autonomy rights, he is looking for new ways to mandate these COVID shots. Now he wants to mandate boosters every FIVE months.

A cognitively impaired Joe Biden leaked the information during an Oval Office visit with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. When asked about COVID vaccine boosters, Biden said, “The question raised is should it be shorter than eight months? Should it be as little as five months? That’s being discussed. I spoke with Dr. Fauci this morning about that.”

The experimental two-shot protocol that has sickened hundreds of thousands of Americans and killed an unspecified number of people, is just the beginning of a medical holocaust, as a third booster shot is rolled out and a fourth and fifth shot are planned for 2022.

Fauci, the serial manipulator, is perpetuating a holocaust and ushering in a totalitarian hellscape

Locking people in their homes and convincing healthy people that they are dangerous is the superior LIE behind the covid-19 scandal. After governments seized upon this totalitarian power, entire populations were given a coercive ultimatum, that they “cannot go back to normal” until they are vaccinated. Dr. Fauci continues to blame the 90 million Americans who have declined these vaccines for all the ongoing medical problems that are actually caused by the vaccines, including neuro-inflammation, cardiovascular inflammation, blood clots, waning antibodies in the vaccinated and the mutant strains that are being spurred into existence due to the vaccine’s selective pressure.

When pressed by NPR about the “arc of the pandemic,” Fauci suggested that unvaccinated Americans are the reason why the “pandemic” never ends. Dr. Fauci continues to attack healthy and naturally-immune Americans for the health problems perpetuated by government lock downs, oxygen restriction, isolation, germaphobia mindsets, medical malpractice, public health oppression, censorship of treatments and vaccine fraud.

Fauci’s push for vaccine mandates is criminal

Fauci told NPR: “The Pentagon, colleges, universities and even major organizations of places of employment, large corporations may say, this is it. If you want to work for us, you’ve got to be vaccinated.” Fauci continues to cheer on “vaccine mandates.” However, there is no such thing as a “mandatory” vaccine. All medical interventions require CONSENT of the individual. That consent must be absent of coercion, duress, force, fraud, deceit and constraint. All these totalitarian forces are being used against people, and because of this, vaccine injuries are more common than ever. Mandatory vaccination and any threats of discrimination and segregation attached to it, are illegal, and Fauci must be held to account for promoting terrorism and segregation.

On CNN, Fauci mocked informed consent by praising vaccine mandates. He balked at an individual’s freedom to choose natural immunity over failed clot shots and continuous bioweapon injections. “Enough is enough,” Fauci said, “the time has come” for mandatory shots.

Fauci refers to healthy, naturally-immune Americans as “vaccine hesitant,” but there’s really no such thing as “vaccine hesitancy” when individuals have already made a choice. However, there is such a thing as “informed consent hesitancy.” When an employer, government official or medical provider hesitates to inform you of all risks from a needless medical intervention, and refuses to ask your consent for the medical procedure, they are the ones HESITANT to perform all their legal duties. Informed consent hesitancy occurs when an official is trying to mandate something (e.g. vaccination). The official refuses to provide information that could help you make an informed decision. These officials (like Fauci) remain hesitant to provide informed consent because:

  • They only want to promote propaganda to advance their agenda.
  • They are incentivized, bribed or pressured to maximize compliance to the experiment.
  • They refuse to admit they are wrong about the immune system and available treatments.
  • They want to blame innocent people to cover up for their own crimes.
  • They think they own your body.

Because spike protein “boosters” will soon be required every five months, everyone is considered “unvaccinated” again, no matter how many vaccines they took up until this point. If perpetual boosters are needed, the vaccines are a total failure, and everyone must face reality. It’s time to put Fauci in cuffs and let a jury weigh the evidence against him.

*

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 Dangerous Medicine

What Did the US Get Wrong About Afghanistan?

September 1st, 2021 by Clive Stafford Smith

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Much has been said in the past few weeks about the sudden takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban. For all the money spent and blood spilled by the United States, at the end of it all, the corrupt government that was in place garnered so little support that it fell without so much as a whimper.

The “expert analysis” from the Western side seems to miss the central reason for his debacle. But one of my clients in Guantánamo, Sanad al-Kazimi, readily identified it in a recent conversation with me. Few have more reason to regret the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 than he does, as he has suffered for 16 years without charge or trial.

He said he thought President Joe Biden had spoken with wisdom in defending the decision to end the longest war in US history. He reminded me that the Arabs also have the saying, “Better late than never.” But Sanad went on to say he would prefer to move the aphorism one step onwards: “It is often better to be never.” It would have been better never to have invaded Afghanistan in the first place.

There is another tired truism that tells us that the first thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history. What the British dubbed the First Anglo-Afghan War (1839-1842) came to be known as “the Disaster in Afghanistan”. The Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878-1880), the Third Anglo-Afghan War (1919), and the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989) all had one thing in common: They all ended in tears, with nothing but chaos achieved. There was little reason to believe the American-Afghan War (2001-2021) would have a different outcome.

Just before the pandemic, I was in Kabul to gather support for Asadullah Haroon, an Afghan who has languished in Guantánamo for the past 14 years. I talked to people from every side of the chaotic political scene. If there was one thing on which everyone could agree, it was that nobody wanted the invaders to remain. Indeed, they did not want them in the first place.

Yet the US invasion happened in 2001. It was always going to be difficult to turn a killing field into anything more than a cemetery. There are few examples in history where the military invaded a country (labelled “the enemy”) and then turned it into a respected friend.

A rare instance might be the Allied response at the end of World War II. The Germans had committed the most horrific crimes imaginable (the Taliban could never match them, even in a Western neocons’ wildest dreams), the US gave a tiny group of Nazis a fair trial and acquitted a number of them. Then, through the Marshall Plan, the US gave huge sums – more than $100bn in today’s money – to help rebuild Europe, extending this generosity of spirit to West Germany.

It would have taken an extraordinary effort to create a political structure in Afghanistan that could have sloughed off the smell of the foreign imposition, and survived the withdrawal of the US military. It would have taken a truly humane attitude. And that is what we never showed.

First, we responded to al-Qaeda atrocities by torturing prisoners, and sending others half way round the world to Guantánamo. Then we spent a lot more money on bombs than we did on reconstructing the damage they did. Third, we never even pretended to treat the Afghans as equal partners.

In Kabul, I had dinner at the house of Hajji Din Mohammed, an elderly man who had held various positions in government. He had fought against the Russians and with the Americans. I asked him to compare the two. With reference to the Russians, he showed me where they had shot him, and described their phenomenal cruelty.

But he said he respected them in two ways: first, they were intensely loyal to their fellow soldiers, rushing to their aid no matter what the odds. And second, when they were ultimately expelled from Afghanistan, the Russians were loyal to those who had helped them, welcoming them to Moscow. Indeed, he pointed out another person at our dinner who had got all his education at Russian expense.

I asked him about my fellow Americans. He was understandably loath to be rude, but I begged his true opinion.

“The Americans were never even loyal to themselves,” he said. “If their soldiers were pinned down by the Taliban, they had to get some edict from Washington before anyone would help them.”

But then he went on to describe how the Americans treated the Afghans. In an ironic twist of racism, no Afghan citizen was allowed to book a room in the heavily fortified hotel where I was staying, and while I could enter without being searched, my host could not. But more to the point, he said, based on his flowing beard and his battle-scars, the Americans regarded him as a deranged “jihadi”. “No American has shaken my hand as a friend in the past 18 years,” he concluded.

I had already decided that I liked and respected this man, and I was horrified when I heard his words. I immediately asked whether I (as an American) could please shake his hand as a friend. He burst into tears and declared me a blood brother. I would be honoured to be Hajji Din Mohammed’s brother. And so should all Americans. It is just sad that we did not get around to it.

Instead, while we did at least insist on the rights of women, we imported a sense of imperial racism that was redolent of the First Anglo-Afghan War. We rendered life prohibitively expensive without enhancing the wealth of the people (when I wanted to set up a branch of our NGO, it would have cost four times as much in Kabul as it would in Islamabad). And we set up a government that was so legendarily venal and corrupt that the US military referred to it as the V I C E – “Vertically Integrated Criminal Entity”.

Is it surprising that Afghans did not want to indulge in yet another civil war to preserve what we had offered them?

My father was a rampant chauvinist and homophobe; we did not hate him for it; with evolving success, we attempted to change his mind. I have tried many capital cases in America where, to qualify for service, all 12 jurors have to promise they are willing to impose the death penalty. We could argue with them and tell them they were wrong, or we could speak their language and remind them of the Bible teaching, “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.” I found the second course to be much more effective.

We had the same choice when we first visited our conservative Muslim clients in Guantánamo: we could chastise them for the chauvinism they learned in a rural village in Afghanistan and label them “terrorists”. Or we could seek out the best in them. Today, I count my Guantánamo clients among my best friends on the planet. One of them, Asadullah Haroon, wants nothing more than for his 14-year-old daughter Maryam to benefit from a full education.

We have that same choice with the new Afghan government. The US media has already begun vilifying them. For example, as the New York Times reports, Gholam Rulani was detained “in Afghanistan in 2001 with his brother-in-law Abdul Haq Wasiq, a deputy minister of intelligence, after he accompanied Mr Wasiq to a negotiating meeting with US officials. He was brought to Guantánamo the day the prison opened, on January 11, 2002, and was repatriated in December 2007.”

Now, we are told that Mr Rulani, who led a group of Taliban who entered the presidential palace on August 15, said to one of his abusive Guantánamo guards “we will get you on the outside”. That someone being grotesquely mistreated may (or may not) have blurted something like this out to his abuser 15 years ago is hardly surprising. What I can say is that I have a good relationship with my erstwhile clients, and they will gladly engage with an American like me, who stood up for their rights in Guantánamo.

Rather than shout from afar that they are barbarians, it will be more productive to sit down with them, and help them rebuild the country, while strongly supporting Asad when he encourages Maryam’s dream to become a doctor.

*

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.

Clive Stafford Smith is a human rights lawyer and director of the UK charity 3DC, 3dc.org.uk

Featured image: U.S. soldiers fortify an Afghan highway police checkpoint with razor wire in Robat, Afghanistan, on March 19, 2010. TECH. SGT. FRANCISCO V. GOVEA II / U.S. AIR FORCE

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The herbicide glyphosate – the most widely used herbicide on the planet – is authorised for use in the EU until December 2022. The EU is currently assessing whether its licence should be renewed. 

Environmentalist and campaigner Dr Rosemary Mason has just written an open letter to the head of the Pesticides Unit at the, Jose Tarazona.

Mason wrote to Tarazona because the Rapporteur Member States (France, Hungary, the Netherlands and Sweden) tasked with risk assessing glyphosate and appointed by the European Commission in 2019, said on 21 June 2021 that there was no problem with glyphosate-based herbicides.

A tireless campaigner against glyphosate, Mason has produced dozens of lengthy reports over the last decade documenting how her former nature reserve in South Wales was destroyed by glyphosate used on adjoining areas and how that substance is a major contributory factor in spiralling rates of disease – a ‘silent’ public health crisis; silent only because the media and officials fail to acknowledge or report on it.

Indeed, to explain away the huge increases in various cancers and neurological disorders, officials cite ‘lifestyle behaviour’, poor diets or lack of exercise to divert attention from the elephant in the room and government collusion with the agrochemical sector.

Drawing on hundreds of peer reviewed papers and official reports over the years, Mason has described in detail the devastating health and environmental impacts of glyphosate as well as the malfeasance and corruption that has led to this state of affairs.

Mason informs Tarazona that the European Commission has colluded with the US Environmental Protection Agency to allow Bayer to keep glyphosate on the market.

To support her claims, she enclosed a 5,900-word report with her letter informing Tarazona of the environmental devastation and severe public health crisis. Her report brings together recent research and analyses into the toxicity of glyphosate and industry dominance over regulatory processes.

What appears below is the first part of a two-part article based on Mason’s report. This first part briefly highlights aspects of the public health crisis resulting from the use of glyphosate-based herbicides. The second part will argue that glyphosate remains in use due to industry influence over regulatory processes.

*

Toxic Legacy 

Dr Stephanie Seneff, a US scientist who works at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has just published the book ‘Toxic Legacy: How the Weedkiller Glyphosate is Destroying Our Health and the Environment’. She has written an article on her family background and why she wrote the book.

Seneff says:

“This organic chemical compound, C3H8NO5P, is much more toxic to life forms than we have been led to believe. Glyphosate’s mechanism of toxicity is unique and diabolical. It is a slow killer, slowly robbing you of your good health over time, until you finally succumb to incapacitating or life-threatening disease.”

Dr Don Huber, emeritus professor of plant pathophysiology at Purdue University, who has been studying glyphosate for 40 years and genetically modified (GM) Roundup-ready crops for 25 years, said some years ago:

“Future historians may well look back upon our time and write, not about how many pounds of pesticide we did or didn’t apply, but how willing we are to sacrifice our children and future generations for this massive genetic engineering experiment that is based on flawed science and failed promises just to benefit the bottom line of commercial enterprise.”

When UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson was elected in 2019, he stood outside Downing Street and committed himself to:

“… liberate the UK’s extraordinary bioscience sector from anti-genetic modification rules.”

Mason notes that the Department for Envionment & Rural Affairs authorises farmers to use all forms of Roundup (Monsanto’s – now Bayer – proprietary glyphosate-based herbicide) on crops in the UK. Many farmers in the UK claim they cannot do without it and are keen to start using GM Roundup-ready crops post-Brexit.

There is strong pressure on the European Commission from the Glyphosate Renewal Group, a group of manufacturers of glyphosate, who have asked for the licence for glyphosate to be renewed for 15 years from December 2022.

In June 2021, the Rapporteur Member States from France, Hungary, the Netherlands and Sweden apparently gave the green light. They see no signs that glyphosate can cause cancer or any other issue. But evidence is emerging that they used flawed industry science (to be described in part two of this article).

Devastating health impacts

In August 2018, samples of four oat-based UK cereals were sent to the Health Research Institute Laboratories in the US following a newspaper report about US children eating weedkiller in their oat-based cereals. The following are the results of the analysis on the four oat-based cereals sent to the laboratory.

Dr John Fagan, the director of the lab, said:

“These results are consistently concerning. The levels consumed in a single daily helping of any one of these cereals, even the one with the lowest level of contamination, is sufficient to put the person’s glyphosate levels above the levels that cause fatty liver disease in rats (and likely in people).”

Washington State University (WSU) researchers have found a variety of diseases and other health problems in the second- and third-generation offspring of rats exposed to glyphosate. In the first study of its kind, the researchers saw descendants of exposed rats developing prostate, kidney and ovarian diseases, obesity and birth abnormalities.

Michael Skinner, a WSU professor of biological sciences, and his colleagues exposed pregnant rats to the herbicide between their eighth and 14th days of gestation. The dose – half the amount expected to show no adverse effect – produced no apparent ill effects on either the parents or the first generation of offspring.

But, writing in the journal Scientific Reports, the researchers say they saw “dramatic increases” in several pathologies affecting the second and third generations. The second generation had ‘significant increases’ in testis, ovary and mammary gland diseases as well as obesity. In third-generation males, the researchers saw a 30% increase in prostate disease – three times that of a control population. The third generation of females had a 40% increase in kidney disease or four times that of the controls.

More than one-third of the second-generation mothers had unsuccessful pregnancies, with most of those affected dying. Two out of five males and females in the third generation were obese.

Skinner and his colleagues call this phenomenon generational toxicology and they have seen it over the years in fungicides, pesticides, jet fuel, the plastics compound bisphenol A, the insect repellent DEET and the herbicide atrazine. At work are epigenetic changes that turn genes on and off, often because of environmental influences.

Roundup kills bumble bees

Although Mason mainly discusses the health impacts of glyphosate in her report to Tarazona, she did mention at least one disturbing environmental impact. In April 2021, the Journal of Applied Ecology published an article ‘Roundup causes high levels of mortality following contact exposure in bumble bees.’

The article’s abstract stated that pollinators underpin global food production but are suffering significant declines across the world.

It went on to say:

“Pesticides are thought to be important drivers of these declines. Herbicides are the most widely applied type of pesticides and are broadly considered ‘bee safe’ by regulatory bodies who explicitly allow their application directly onto foraging bees. We aimed to test the mortality effects of spraying the world’s most popular herbicide brand (Roundup) directly onto bumble bees (Bombus terrestris audax).”

The authors argue that Roundup products pose a significant hazard to bees, in both agricultural and urban systems and exposure of bees to them should be limited. They added that surfactants, or other co‐formulants, in herbicides and other pesticides may contribute to global bee declines.

They called for pesticide companies to release the full list of ingredients for each pesticide formulation, as lack of access to this information hampers research to determine safe exposure levels for beneficial insects in agro‐ecosystems.

Bayer’s multi-million-dollar headache

Mason asks Tarazona whether he has been following the trials against Monsanto in the US for concealing that its herbicide Roundup caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

She explains to him that three cases have been won against Monsanto/Bayer (Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018) and in 2021 there are thousands more awaiting to have their cases heard in court.

Attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr said in 2018 that Bayer needs more than an aspirin to cure its Monsanto-sized headache.

Kennedy has been involved with some of these cases and has read enough of the scientific literature on glyphosate to conclude that there is cascading scientific evidence linking glyphosate to a constellation of other injuries that have become prevalent since its introduction, including obesity, depression, Alzheimer’s, ADHD, autism, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, kidney and inflammatory bowel disease, brain, breast and prostate cancer, miscarriage, birth defects and declining sperm counts.

He added that strong science suggests glyphosate is the culprit in the exploding epidemics of celiac disease, colitis, gluten sensitivities, diabetes and non-alcoholic liver cancer which, for the first time, is attacking children as young as 10.

As if that is not worrying enough, Kennedy noted that researchers peg glyphosate as a potent endocrine disruptor, which interferes with sexual development in children. It is also a chelator that removes important minerals from the body and disrupts the microbiome, destroying beneficial bacteria in the human gut and triggering brain inflammation and other ill effects.

Although a Monsanto scientist claimed that glyphosate is excreted unchanged from the body, Mason cites a study by Ridley & Mirly (1988) which found bioaccumulation of glyphosate in bone, marrow, blood and glands (including thyroid, testes and ovaries) and major organs (heart, liver, lungs, kidneys, spleen and stomach). The paper was commissioned by Monsanto but was not published.

In a 1990 study conducted by Monsanto between 1987 and 1989 (again unpublished), glyphosate was found to induce a statistically-significant cataractous formation in the eyes of rats. Over the course of the study, cataract lens changes were seen in the low-, mid- and high dose groups in both male and female rats. The pathologist concluded that there was a glyphosate-treated related response for lens changes to the eyes.

Mason notes that the Assessment by the Rapporteur Member States tasked with risk assessing glyphosate have concluded that, based on the available ecotoxicological information glyphosate the current classification “Toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects” should be retained and the current classification as “causes serious eye damage” (H318) should be retained.”

She therefore asks: how can a chemical like glyphosate still be on the market?

Mason notes that, according to the UN’s Global Chemicals Outlook II, glyphosate was at the top of the top ten products used on major crops in the United States, by volume, in 2016. Clothianidin (also manufactured by Bayer) is number ten.

She notes:

“No wonder Bayer doesn’t want to lose its licence for glyphosate or for clothianidin, a long-acting neonicotinoid insecticide that is very persistent in the soil. Both chemicals are on the market illegally thanks to the corrupt EU and US regulatory authorities.

And that is an issue which Mason draws Tarazona’s attention to and will be touched on in the second part of this article.

Readers can access Rosemary Mason’s new report, with all relevant references, here.

Recommended reading for Jose Tarazona and readers who want to dig deeper into the issues: all of Rosemary Mason’s previous reports can be accessed here.

*

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

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

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

Featured image: Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, is the most heavily-used agricultural chemical in history. (Photo: Mike Mozart/Flickr/cc)

 

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Throughout history, the end of wars does not necessarily close the violence against defeated societies. In most cases, winners head the negotiations of the peace process. The talks often involve resentments and always different national interests about the future and the post-war features. 

Amid the great inequality of force correlation, the victors redefine direct or indirectly, on some level, the new kind of insertion of the defeated in the international system and determine some aspects of social life in the conquered territories. The decisions imply economic matters, political aspects, military issues, and others topics. At the edge, even questions about ethical parameters are defined by the result of the conflict.

What is immoral?

Who are the war criminals?

For instance, Robert McNamara, former United States Secretary of Defense (1961-68), said something about it in a documentary. According to him,

“[Curtis Emerson] LeMay said, ‘If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals.’ And I think he’s right. He and I’d say I were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?”.1

Sometimes, the destructuring, or even the destruction, of the defeated society is chosen as a principle of strategic orientation, guiding the post-war life in the territories. In this case, the peace becomes a winners’ instrument of violence, as a punitive peace.

In the First Opium War (1840-42), with the Chinese defeat by the British navy, the Treaty of Nanjing was signed in 1842, and it established that: i) the island of Hong Kong would become an English domain; ii) there would be the opening of five ports; iii) the end of the association of Chinese merchants’ monopoly; and iv) the imposition of a series of indemnities.

The Second Opium War followed the same dynamic, with a new unequal treaty, Tianjin (1858), ratified in the Beijing Convention in 1860. It defined, among other things, the opening of new ports, the granting of extraterritoriality to European foreigners, and the free movement of traders on Chinese territory. The violence was described by the famous French writer, Victor Hugo, mainly the sack of the summer palace, which occurred in the context of the Second Opium War, in a letter to captain Buttler in November 1861. In his words,

The devastation of the Summer Palace was accomplished by the two victors acting jointly. (…) One of the two victors filled his pockets; when the other saw this he filled his coffers. And back they came to Europe, arm in arm, laughing away. Such is the story of the two bandits. We Europeans are the civilized ones, and for us, the Chinese are the barbarians. This is what civilization has done to barbarism.

In the First World War, Germany was defeated by the Triple Entente and its allies, and the famous Versailles Treaty of 1919 settled the terms of the peace.

In its second part, it redrew the borders of Germany, and, in the third, it determined territorial reparations as part of the compensation for the damage caused. It also obligated it to demobilize and significantly reduce its armed forces. In the well-known article 231, the guilt clause, Germany had to take responsibility for the conflict. Based on it, heavy debts of war reparation on behalf of the victors were imposed, keeping Germany in a very vulnerable economic-social situation for many years. The violence of the Versailles peace was analyzed by John Maynard Keynes in his book “The Economic Consequences of Peace“. According to him,

Their preoccupations [of victoriouses], good and bad alike, related to frontiers and nationalities, to the balance of power, to imperial aggrandizements, to the future enfeeblement of a strong and dangerous enemy, to revenge, and to the shifting by the victors of their unbearable financial burdens on to the shoulders of the defeated.“2

One recent case of a punitive peace was the post-Cold War and the breaking up of the USSR in 1991. Although a direct conflict did not occur, not even a negotiation on the new world order, let alone a peace treaty or international agreement, what prevailed in practice was the strategy of the victor to punish the loser. Based on a Shock Therapy Program implemented by orthodox Western economists, such as Andrei Shleifer, Jeffrey Sachs, David Lipton, and Anders Åslund, the dismantling of the Russian economy came about.

According to Numa Mazat, the Shock Therapy Program imposed a policy of price liberalization, the opening of the Russian economy, a recessive economic policy of harsh expenditure control, and an intensive privatization plan of state-owned companies. As a result, throughout the nineties, it caused a violent economic-social crisis: real GDP fell by more than 51% between 1990-1998; investment, 81% between 1991-1998; agricultural production, 45% between 1992-1998; real wages, 58% between 1990-1999; and the number of poor people increased from 2% to 39% between 1988-1995.4 Furthermore, separatist wars, some instigated by foreign powers, broke out in various regions of the country.

In the case of Brazil, would it be possible to consider that the country lived in a background of warfare from 2008 to 2016, although its authorities were not aware of it? A kind of unconventional, hybrid, fourth generation war? If so, could it be correct to regard that Brazil was defeated and, nowadays, it is undergoing a context of punitive peace?

In a previous opportunity, one has discussed the fact that Brazil carried out an independent foreign policy during the Workers’ Party administrations (2003-2016), throughout different initiatives on critical matters in international relations, suffering attacks from the most powerful country in the world, due to geostrategic antagonisms of hard overcoming that arisen with the United States.

The “Brazilian Spring” ended in 2016 with the coup against Rousseff’s elected government. Since then, Brazilian foreign policy has changed abruptly, returning to an old tradition of automatic alignment with Washington. From then on, Brazilian society has become a target of various kinds of violence.

First, there have been economic-social initiatives to redefine some aspects of social life: the flexibilization in labor legislation, withdrawing rights; the reform of social security, removing benefits from the poorest people; the effective reduction of spending on education, and public health. Even before the pandemic, the effects of these actions emerged as an increase in unemployment, inequality, poverty, and hunger. When the virus spread throughout the country, the federal government assumed a denialist and anti-scientific behavior, worsening the situation. As a general result, it is not surprising that, since 2016,

“GDP per capita is lower than before the impeachment, inequality, and poverty are on the rise, and democracy has deteriorated, figures show.”

Second, since 2016, it has taken a destructuring or destruction of various state instruments to the assurance of national security; the achievement of an autonomous insertion in the international system; and the promotion of social and economic development. For example, after the coup, the governments have sponsored the dismantling of Petrobrás, production chains linked to the oil and gas sector, and the naval industry. In favor of foreign companies, the administrations have already altered the oil exploration policy regarding the control on production, destination, and price. They have promoted the decommissioning of national engineering companies which were responsible for the most extensive infrastructure projects in the country. It has engaged in the emptying of public banks (Bank of Brazil, Federal Savings Bank, and National Bank for Economic and Social Development), which are central to the funding of the development of all the economic sectors. It has worked to undermine the federal institutions of education and promotion of scientific research in the country, such as public universities, Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development.

Finally, the third sort of violence focuses more directly on some of the bases that structure the very idea of ​​sovereignty. One could highlight the negotiation for the handout of the Alcântara base to the US, assuming the risk of allowing the most powerful country in the system to install a military position inside Brazilian territory.

In conclusion, Brazil will have to learn through History the nature of the challenges and the dynamics of the conflicts in order to react and rebuild possible paths, leaving a context of a punitive peace for repositioning itself in the international system, as other countries, such as China and Russia, have already done.

*

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.

Mauricio Metri is Professor Associate at the Institute of International Relations and Defense of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Brazil, and the Graduate Program in International Political Economy (UFRJ). Ph.D., Master, and Graduate in Economics.

Notes

1 The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara. Produced and directed by Errol Morris. Sony Pictures Classics. 2003.

2 Keynes, J. M. The Economic Consequences of Peace. Macmillan & Co. Ltd., London, 1919. p. 22).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Violence of the Postwar: Historical Cases of Punitive Peace and the Current Brazilian Situation

Droning Disasters: A US Strike on Kabul

September 1st, 2021 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

No more profoundly disturbing statement was needed.  In the dying days of the official US departure from Kabul, a US drone etched its butcher’s legacy with a strike supposedly intended for the blood-lusty terrorist group ISIS-K, an abbreviation of Islamic State in Khorasan Province.  Its members had taken responsibility for blasts outside Harmid Karzai International Airport that had cost the lives of at least 175 individuals and 13 US service personnel.  Suicide bombers had intended to target “translators and collaborators with the American army”.   

President Joe Biden promised swift retribution.

“To those who carried out this attack, as well as anyone who wishes America harm, know this: We will not forgive.  We will not forget.  We will hunt you down and make you pay.” American “interests and our people” would be defended “with every measure at my command.” 

In his sights was ISIS-K.

“I’ve also ordered my commanders to develop operational plans to strike ISIS-K assets, leadership and facilities.”  A response “with force and precision” would take place “at our time, at the place we choose and a moment of our choosing.”

On August 28, an announcement by the Pentagon was made that two “high-profile” members of the group had been killed in a drone strike in Khorasan Province.  That same day, the President warned that the group was likely to conduct another attack.  The US military was readying itself. 

The following day, to demonstrate such precision and choice, a vehicle supposedly carrying an unspecified number of suicide bombers linked to ISIS-K and speeding towards Kabul airport was struck in a second drone attack.  The site of the attack, being a residential neighbourhood in the city, should have given room for pause to those precisionists in the military.    

The strike was meant to leave a lasting impression upon ISIS-K fighters.  Initially, US officials were pleased to inform the Associated Press that “multiple suicide bombers” had perished in the attack.  “US military forces conducted a self-defence unmanned over-the-horizon airstrike today on a vehicle in Kabul, eliminating an imminent ISIS-K threat to Harmid Karzai International Airport,” stated US Central Command spokesperson Capt. Bill Urban.

The outcome of the strike was apparently something to be proud of.  “Significant secondary explosions from the vehicle indicated the presence of a substantial amount of explosive material.”  But this came with a rounding caveat. “We’re assessing the possibilities of civilian casualties, although we have no indications at this time.”

The story started to congeal over interviews, discussions and threads.  A dribble of information suggested loss of civilian life.  A number quickly emerged in the flood that followed: ten family members had lost their lives.  From the New York Times, there was Matthieu Aikins patching things together.  Bodies were named: Somaya, daughter of Zemari.  Farzard, Zemari’s son, also killed.  The narrative twists, inverts and disturbs more: Zemari’s nephew, Naser, was an Afghan army officer, former guard of the US military.  He had applied for an SIV (Special Immigrant Visa), hoping to flee Afghanistan for the United States.

To the BBC, Ramin Yousufi, a relative of the victims, could only tearfully despair. “It’s wrong, it’s a brutal attack, and it’s happened based on wrong information.”  Questions followed.  “Why have they killed our family?  Our children?  They are so burned out we cannot identify their bodies, their faces.”

At a press briefing on August 30, Army Maj. Gen. William “Hank” Taylor of the Joint Staff tried to make something of yet another messy bungle in the annals of the US military.  “We are aware of reports of civilian casualties. We take these reports extremely seriously.”  John F. Kirby, Pentagon press secretary, was “not going to get ahead of it.  But if we have significant – verifiable information that we did take innocent life here, then we will be transparent about that, too.  Nobody wants to see that happen.”  Urban also stated that the Pentagon was aware of civilian casualties “following our strike on a vehicle in Kabul today.”

The attack had that sheen of atrocious incompetence (Kirby preferred the term “dynamic”), but that would be a misreading.  Killing remotely is, by its nature, inaccurate, though it has a disturbing fan club deluded into thinking otherwise.  The death of civilians, subsumed under the euphemism of collateral damage, is often put down to shonky intelligence rather than the machinery itself.  As Rachel Stohl of the Stimson Centre is a case in point.  “These are precise weapons,” she erroneously observed in 2016.  “The failure is in the intelligence about who it is that we are killing”.    

Drone strikes have demonstrated, time and again, to lack the mythical precision with which they are billed.  Those in proximity to the target will be slain.  Whole families have been, and will continue, to be pulverised.  “Gradually,” the New York Times observed with stunning obviousness in 2015, “it has become clear that when operators in Nevada fire missiles into remote tribal territories on the other side of the world, they often do not know who they are killing, but are making an imperfect best guess.” 

In 2016, research conducted by the Bureau of Investigative journalism found that the lethal returns from the US-UAV program proved to be overwhelmingly civilian.  A mere 3.5% could be said, with any certainty, to be terrorists.

The use of drones in combat is also politically baffling, self-defeating and contradictory.  As Michael Boyle has explained, referring to the use of UAV warfare in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, such a counterterrorism strategy was distinctly at odds in providing, on the one hand, a flow of arms and financial resource to the very governments whose legitimacy they undermined through the use of such strikes.  By all means, we supply you, but have no trust in your competence. 

A mere month after the conviction of whistleblower Daniel Hale, who did more than any other to reveal the grotesque illusion of reliability behind the US drone program, UAV warfare was again shown to be a butchering enterprise praised by the precisionists and found politically wanting.  Those attending the funerals of the slain family members, an event taking place in the shadow of US power in retreat, needed little convincing who their enemy was.

*

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

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

Featured image is a White House photo

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A patent is a way of protecting inventions, and is sometimes called intellectual property. It means that an inventor is the only person allowed to make, use or sell his invention. If others want to use that invention, they have to make payments to the inventor called royalties. For example, Microsoft makes $5-$15 on each Android smartphone because of patents on file structures used within those phones.(1) 

Patents are supposed to have two main purposes:

1) To encourage information to spread. In order for the patent to be granted, the inventor has to provide enough information so that everyone can see how the invention works.

2) To provide a reward for inventors, thus encouraging people to innovate. 

In theory, everyone benefits, but there are many downsides to patents. In practice, corporations exploit the system in order to obtain big profits by controlling information and technology. In earlier posts we discussed some of the ways in which the economy is rigged to make rich people richer. One of those was monopoly profits, where a company is dominant within its industry, and can therefore charge higher prices. Patents are the ultimate example of monopoly, because no-one else is allowed to compete. 

Transferring Wealth from Poor Countries to Rich 

There has been a lot of pressure from advanced nations to strengthen patent laws in all poor countries to bring them into line with the US and European systems. Rich countries control most of the world’s patents, so they receive almost all of the royalties.(2) They are particularly dominant in software, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and bio-technology. Poorer countries cannot afford to pay, so strong patent law denies them access to new technologies, thus slowing development and reinforcing poverty.(3)

When countries join the World Trade Organisation (WTO), they have to agree to WTO patent rules.(4) These rules are written by lawyers from the entertainment, software and pharmaceutical industries. If countries do not have strong patent laws, the US will penalise them. Both Brazil and Thailand were forced to strengthen their patent laws because the US threatened to impose trade sanctions.(5) It is estimated that developing countries pay $45 billion per year to rich countries because of intellectual property laws.(6)

Until a few years ago it was possible to patent almost anything in the US, such as medical procedures, and even the genetic codes for life itself.(7) After some legal cases, the rules were changed so that it is now more difficult to patent things in the US. However, it is still possible to patent seeds. Corporations try to patent something in the US, then use the WTO to claim that the patent is valid everywhere. They have been trying to patent seeds and medicines that have been used by indigenous populations for generations. This is known as biopiracy. The spice, turmeric, has been used as a medicine in India for many years, yet there was a US patent for it. This patent was eventually ruled invalid.(8) Whilst the ruling was important, the patent should not have been granted in the first place.

Until recently, many countries had laws that did not allow the patenting of food, plants, seeds and life-forms.(9) This is no longer the case. Four huge corporations control most of world’s seeds, and three-quarters of the world’s food comes from just 12 plants. The companies are abusing the patent system to try to control the world’s food supply (animals as well as crops). For example, they do not allow farmers to save seeds from one year to the next, forcing farmers to pay royalties each year. This is clearly a transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Additionally, many campaign groups have pointed out that this is dangerous, because there is much less variation in the crops that are grown, and lack of biodiversity makes us vulnerable to large-scale crop failure.(10)

The importance of changing current patent law in order to help poor countries cannot be stressed enough. As one commentator noted

“The foundation of economic development is more productive knowledge.”(11)

For the last few hundred years, copying technology has been a very important means of development. Historically, advanced nations have ignored patent law whenever it suited them in order to help themselves develop by replicating inventions from other countries. More recently it has been important in helping China develop. At the moment, global inequality is increasing. If we allow this system of patenting to continue in its current form, the developing world will find it increasingly difficult to catch up.(12) Copyright (which is related to patents) on software and textbooks is already harmful for developing countries. This type of inequality is not an inherent part of human society. We create and maintain it using artificial rules designed to benefit powerful people and companies in rich countries.

Astute readers will have realised that patents are not consistent with ideas about markets and competition between companies. Patents are about power and control – making excess profits because a company has no competition.(13) Companies want patents when it suits them, and they claim to want free trade when it suits them. Both force poor countries to do things in ways that benefit rich countries and their corporations.

Stifling Innovation 

One of the key ways in which our understanding of science advances is for the same experiment to be carried out many times to make sure that results are correct. Universities are being told that they cannot carry out certain research without paying royalties. This is expensive, so research is stifled.(14)

This has been noted by biomedical researchers. The patenting of genes creates problems for doctors carrying out medical tests. Doctors in England had developed a test to see if someone has the cystic fibrosis gene. A company in Canada claimed that they owned the gene and would expect to be paid every time the test was carried out.(15) This way of thinking makes it harder for countries to provide cheap healthcare for everyone.

The only way to challenge a patent is to go through complex legal proceedings, so ‘patent trolls’ buy patents to extort money.(16) In 2011 the total expenditure on legal fees relating to patents was $29 billion. The legal system is so expensive that it is easier to pay than to contest, leading to many frivolous lawsuits. Ordinary people and small companies cannot afford the costs, so it has become a playground for the rich.(17) These costs are ultimately paid for by consumers.

No-one knows how many inventions there might be that are never invented because of the patent system. Even mainstream insiders have started to talk about how corrupt the system has become. In 2011, Google’s chief legal officer, David Drummond, said that:

“patents…are being used as a weapon to stop innovation”.

Rich countries have debated the importance of controlling technology for centuries. Patents on early steam engines blocked inventors from making their own designs, some of which were superior. As far back as 1785 Britain introduced laws to stop advanced machinery being exported. In a study of dye and chemicals companies in the 19th century, the absence of patents in Germany was identified as a key reason why Germany was more successful than the UK.(18) At the end of the 19th century, Switzerland and the Netherlands actually eliminated patent and copyright protection because of their downsides.(19)

Should We Eliminate All Patents? 

The argument put forward in support of patents is that the rewards are necessary to motivate innovation. However, the evidence suggests that most innovations would take place without patents. There is rarely a discussion in the mainstream media asking the question “would we be better off with fewer or weaker patents, or without patents altogether?” It is taken for granted that we must have the current system. (The discussions in technology magazines are better.) However, research in 2004 showed that society as a whole might be better off with no patents,(20) as the downsides of the system may well be greater than the benefits. We would certainly be better off without most patents.

In earlier posts we discussed the role of society in creating wealth. We all inherit an immense amount of knowledge from the past. The role of any individual or company in developing new ideas is small.(21) We should therefore decrease the rewards that go to inventors. Currently patents last for 20 years. This is an extremely long time to grant a monopoly, which forces everyone else to pay to use new technology. Longer patents mean that society pays more for new inventions whilst big corporations make bigger profits. Whatever the pros and cons of patents in general, long patents are a bad idea. Even Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos, has suggested that software patents should be no more than 3-5 years.(22)

If we do have a patent system, then it has to be a good one that provides benefits to society that outweigh the downsides. Anything that gives more power to big companies should be seen as inherently bad. Alternative systems have been proposed to reward inventors without giving so much power or wealth to corporations. These would allow everyone to replicate inventions for free.

*

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

This article was first posted at medium.com/elephantsintheroom.

Rod Driver is a part-time academic who is particularly interested in de-bunking modern-day US and British propaganda, and explaining war, terrorism, economics and poverty, without the nonsense in the mainstream media. 

Notes 

1) Chris Hoffman, ‘How Microsoft makes $5 to $15 from every Android device sold’, How-to Geek, 5 March 2014, at https://www.howtogeek.com/183766/why-microsoft-makes-5-to-15-from-every-android-device-sold/ 

2) Peter Drahos & John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: Who owns the knowledge economy, 2002

3) ‘Intellectual Property Rights Commission Final Report’, IPR Commission, Sep 2002, at http://www.iprcommission.org/graphic/documents/final_report.htm

cited in Zosia Kmietowicz, ‘Patent Laws Are Keeping Poor Countries In Poverty’, Sept 14, 2002, at https://www.bmj.com/content/325/7364/562.2.extract 

4) WTO patent rules are known as TRIPS. This stands for Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights

5) Mark Curtis, Trade for Life, p.77

6) Ha-Joon Chang, Bad Samaritans, p.141

7) Joel Bakan, The Corporation (dvd)

8) Radhakrishna Rao, ‘War Against Biopiracy’, at www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050401/science.htm

9) Lori Wallach and Patrick Woodall, Whose Trade Organization, p.202

10) Francesca Ratcliffe, ‘Seed patenting and the Threat to Food Security: The losers of the global seed market consolidation’, The Governance Post, 14 Dec 2020, at https://www.thegovernancepost.org/2020/12/seed-patenting-threat-to-food-security/

‘What is the problem’, No patents on seeds!, at https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/background/problem

11) Ha-Joon Chang, Bad Samaritans

12) Michael S. Carolan, ‘The problems with patents: A less than optimistic reading of the future’, Development and Change, March 2009, at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227879654_The_Problems_with_Patents_A_Less_than_Optimistic_Reading_of_the_Future 

13) Drahos and Braithwaite, Information Feudalism

14) E.Richard Gold et al, ‘Are patents impeding medical care and innovation?’, PLoS Med, Jan 2010, at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2795161/ 

15) George Monbiot, Captive State, pp.255-261

16) Steven Levy, ‘The patent problem’, Wired 13 Nov 2012, at https://www.wired.com/2012/11/ff-steven-levy-the-patent-problem/

17) Daniel Thomas, ‘Why the patent system needs a revamp’, Raconteur, 18 Dec 2018, at https://www.raconteur.net/legal/intellectual-property/patents-system/ 

18) Johann Murmann, Knowledge and Competitive Advantage: The coevolution of firms, technology and National institutions, 2004

19) Dean Baker, ‘The reform of intellectual property’, post-autistic economics review, No.32, 5 July 2005, at http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue32/Baker32.htm 

20) Derek Lowe, ‘The problem with patents’, Science, 13 Aug 2015, at https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2015/08/13/the-problem-with-patents 

21) Linda McQuaig, The Trouble With Billionaires

22) Nilay Patel, ‘The ‘broken patent system’: how we got here and how to fix it’, 10 July 2012, at https://www.theverge.com/2011/08/11/broken-patent-system 

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Global corporations are colonising India’s retail space through e-commerce and destroying small-scale physical retail and millions of livelihoods.

Walmart entered into India in 2016 with a US$3.3 billion take-over of the online retail start-up Jet.com. This was followed in 2018 with a US$16 billion take-over of India’s largest online retail platform, Flipkart. Today, Walmart and Amazon control almost two thirds of India’s digital retail sector.

Amazon and Walmart have a record of using predatory pricing, deep discounts and other unfair business practices to attract customers to their online platforms. A couple of years ago, those two companies generated sales of over US$3 billion in just six days during Diwali. India’s small retailers reacted by calling for a boycott of online shopping.

If you want to know the eventual fate of India’s local markets and small retailers, look no further than what US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in 2019. He stated that Amazon had “destroyed the retail industry across the United States.”

Amazon’s corporate practices

In the US, an investigation by the House Judiciary Committee concluded that Amazon exerts monopoly power over many small- and medium-size businesses. It called for breaking up the company and regulating its online marketplace to ensure that sellers are treated fairly.

Amazon has spied on sellers and appropriated data about their sales, costs and suppliers. It has then used this information to create its own competing versions of their products, often giving its versions superior placement in the search results on its platform.

The Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) published a revealing document on Amazon in June 2021 that discussed these issues. It also notes that Amazon has been caught using its venture capital fund to invest in start-ups only to steal their ideas and create rival products and services. Moreover, Amazon’s dominance allows it to function as a gatekeeper: retailers and brands must sell on its site to reach much of the online market and changes to Amazon’s search algorithms or selling terms can cause their sales to evaporate overnight.

Amazon also makes it hard for sellers to reduce their dependence on its platform by making their brand identity almost invisible to shoppers and preventing them from building relationships with their customers. The company strictly limits contact between sellers and customers.

According to the ILSR, Amazon compels sellers to buy its warehousing and shipping services, even though many would get a better deal from other providers, and it blocks independent businesses from offering lower prices on other sites. The company also routinely suspends sellers’ accounts and seizes inventories and cash balances.

The Joint Action Committee against Foreign Retail and E-commerce (JACAFRE) was formed to resist the entry of foreign corporations like Walmart and Amazon into India’s e-commerce market. Its members represent more than 100 national groups, including major trade, workers’ and farmers’ organisations.

JACAFRE issued a statement in 2018 on Walmart’s acquisition of Flipkart, arguing that it undermines India’s economic and digital sovereignty and the livelihoods of millions in India. The committee said the deal would lead to Walmart and Amazon dominating India’s e-retail sector. It would also allow them to own India’s key consumer and other economic data, making them the country’s digital overlords, joining the ranks of Google and Facebook.

In January 2021, JACAFRE published an open letter saying that the three new farm laws, passed by parliament in September 2020, centre on enabling and facilitating the unregulated corporatisation of agriculture value chains. This will effectively make farmers and small traders of agricultural produce become subservient to the interests of a few agrifood and e-commerce giants or will eradicate them completely.

Although there was strong resistance to Walmart entering India with its physical stores, online and offline worlds are now merged: e-commerce companies not only control data about consumption but also control data on production and logistics. Through this control, e-commerce platforms can shape much of the physical economy.

What we are witnessing is the deliberate eradication of markets in favour of monopolistic platforms.

Bezos not welcome

Amazon’s move into India encapsulates the unfair fight for space between local and global markets. There is a relative handful of multi-billionaires who own the corporations and platforms. And there are the interests of hundreds of millions of vendors and various small-scale enterprises who are regarded by these rich individuals as mere collateral damage to be displaced in their quest for ever greater profit.

Amazon

Thanks to the helping hand of various COVID-related lockdowns which devastated small businesses, the wealth of the world’s billionairesincreased by $3.9tn (trillion) between 18 March and 31 December 2020. In September 2020, Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s executive chairman, could have paid all 876,000 Amazon employees a $105,000 bonus and still be as wealthy as he was before COVID. Jeff Bezos – his fortune constructed on unprincipled methods that have been well documented in recent years – increased his net wealth by $78.2bn during this period.

Bezos’s plan is clear: the plunder of India and the eradication of millions of small traders and retailers and neighbourhood mom and pop shops.

This is a man with few scruples. After returning from a brief flight to space in July, in a rocket built by his private space company, Bezos said during a news conference:

“I also want to thank every Amazon employee and every Amazon customer because you guys paid for all of this.”

In response, US congresswoman Nydia Velazquez wrote on Twitter:

“While Jeff Bezos is all over the news for paying to go to space, let’s not forget the reality he has created here on Earth.”

She added the hashtag #WealthTaxNow in reference to Amazon’s tax dodging, revealed in numerous reports, not least the May 2021 study ‘The Amazon Method: How to take advantage of the international state system to avoid paying tax’ by Richard Phillips, Senior Research Fellow, Jenaline Pyle, PhD Candidate, and Ronen Palan, Professor of International Political Economy, all based at the University of London.

Little wonder that when Bezos visited India in January 2020, he was hardly welcomed with open arms.

Bezos praised India on Twitter by posting:

“Dynamism. Energy. Democracy. #IndianCentury.”

The ruling party’s top man in the BJP foreign affairs department hit back with:

“Please tell this to your employees in Washington DC. Otherwise, your charm offensive is likely to be waste of time and money.”

A fitting response, albeit perplexing given the current administration’s proposed sanctioning of the foreign takeover of the economy, not least by the unscrupulous interests that will benefit from the recent farm legislation.

Bezos landed in India on the back of the country’s antitrust regulator initiating a formal investigation of Amazon and with small store owners demonstrating in the streets. The Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) announced that members of its affiliate bodies across the country would stage sit-ins and public rallies in 300 cities in protest.

In a letter to PM Modi, prior to the visit of Bezos, the secretary of the CAIT, General Praveen Khandelwal, claimed that Amazon, like Walmart-owned Flipkart, was an “economic terrorist” due to its predatory pricing that “compelled the closure of thousands of small traders.”

In 2020, Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh (DVM) filed a complaint against Amazon and Flipkart alleging that they favoured certain sellers over others on their platforms by offering them discounted fees and preferential listing. The DVM lobbies to promote the interests of small traders. It also raised concerns about Amazon and Flipkart entering into tie-ups with mobile phone manufacturers to sell phones exclusively on their platforms.

It was argued by DVM that this was anti-competitive behaviour as smaller traders could not purchase and sell these devices. Concerns were also raised over the flash sales and deep discounts offered by e-commerce companies, which could not be matched by small traders.

The CAIT estimates that in 2019 upwards of 50,000 mobile phone retailers were forced out of business by large e-commerce firms.

Amazon’s internal documents, as revealed by Reuters, indicated that Amazon had an indirect ownership stake in a handful of sellers who made up most of the sales on its Indian platform. This is an issue because in India Amazon and Flipkart are legally allowed to function only as neutral platforms that facilitate transactions between third-party sellers and buyers for a fee.

Under investigation

The upshot is that India’s Supreme Court recently ruled that Amazon must face investigation by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for alleged anti-competitive business practices. The CCI said it would probe the deep discounts, preferential listings and exclusionary tactics that Amazon and Flipkart are alleged to have used to destroy competition.

However, there are powerful forces that have been sitting on their hands as these companies have been running amok.

In August 2021, the CAIT attacked the NITI Aayog (the influential policy commission think tank of the Government of India) for interfering in e-commerce rules proposed by the Consumer Affairs Ministry.

The CAIT said that the think tank clearly seems to be under the pressure and influence of the foreign e-commerce giants.

The president of CAIT, BC Bhartia, stated that it is deeply shocking to see such a callous and indifferent attitude of the NITI Aayog whch have remained a silent spectator for so many years when:

“… the foreign e-commerce giants have circumvented every rule of the FDI policy and blatantly violated and destroyed the retail and e-commerce landscape of the country but have suddenly decided to open their mouth at a time when the proposed e-commerce rules will potentially end the malpractices of the e-commerce companies.”

Of course, money talks and buys influence. In addition to tens of billions of US dollars invested in India by Walmart and Amazon, Facebook invested US$5.5 billion last year in Mukesh Ambani’s Jio Platforms (e-commerce retail). Google has also invested US$4.5 billion.

Since the early 1990s, when India opened up to neoliberal economics, the country has become increasingly dependent on inflows of foreign capital. Policies are being governed by the drive to attract and retain foreign investment and maintain ‘market confidence’ by ceding to the demands of international capital which ride roughshod over democratic principles and the needs of hundreds of millions of ordinary people. ‘Foreign direct investment’ has thus become the holy grail of the Modi-led administration and the NITI Aayog.

The CAIT has urged the Consumer Affairs Ministry to implement the draft consumer protection e-commerce rules at the earliest as they are in the best interest of the consumers as well as the traders of the country.

Meanwhile, the CCI it probably will complete its investigation within two months.

*

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Amazon “Economic Terrorism” and “Predatory Prices”: The Destruction of Competition and Livelihoods
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In the wake of a remarkably successful Taliban offensive capped by the takeover of Kabul, the responses of corporate media provided what may have been the most dramatic demonstration ever of its fealty to the Pentagon and military leadership. The media did so by mounting a full-throated political attack on President Joe Biden’s final withdrawal from Afghanistan and a defense of the military’s desire for an indefinite presence in the country.

Biden’s failure to establish a plan for evacuating tens of thousands of Afghans seeking to the flee the new Taliban regime made him a soft target for the Beltway media’s furious assault. However, it was Biden’s refusal last Spring to keep 4,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan on an indefinite basis flouting an aggressive Pentagon lobbying campaign – that initially triggered the rage of the military brass.

The media offensive against Biden’s Afghan withdrawal advanced arguments that the military could not to make on its own – at least, not in public. It also provided the military with important cover at the moment when it was at its most vulnerable for its disastrous handling of the entire war.

Among the most disingenuous attempts at salvaging the military’s reputation was a Washington Post article blaming the Afghan catastrophe on an over-emphasis on “democratic values” while ignoring the the tight alliance between the U.S. military and despotic warlords which drove local support for the Taliban.

Playing the al Qaeda threat card

On the eve of the Taliban takeover of Kabul, the New York Times’s David Sanger and Helene Cooper fired the opening salvo of the Beltway media’s assault on Biden’s decision. Sanger and Cooper began by acknowledging that the U.S. military had “overestimated” the results of its intervention for years, and that the failure of the Afghan government to pay soldiers for months had sapped the will to resist the Taliban.

But they then homed in on Biden’s refusal to keep troops in Afghanistan for counter-terrorism purposes. Recalling that Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark A. Milley had tried in the Spring to compel Biden to maintain 3,000 to 4,500 troops in the country, Sanger and Cooper cited “intelligence estimates predicting that in two or three years, Al Qaeda could find a new foothold in Afghanistan.”

That speculation was based on the assumption that the Taliban would allow such a development despite its well-established record of opposing al Qaeda’s use of its territory to plan terrorism abroad. In fact, the Taliban’s policy went back to before 9/11, when Osama bin Laden formally agreed to honor the Taliban’s restrictions while secretly plotting the 9/11 attacks in Germany rather than in Afghanistan.

In the wake of the U.S. withdrawal, the Taliban has an even stronger motivation to prevent any jihadist organizations from planning international terror attacks from Afghan territory.

To support their broadside against Biden’s withdrawal, the Times’ Sanger and Cooper turned to the retired general with arguably the greatest personal vested interest in an indefinite U.S. military presence in Afghanistan: former U.S. commander in Afghanistan Gen. David Petraeus, who oversaw the war effort from 2010 through 2011 and has since led a group of former commanders and diplomats lobbying for an endless US presence in the country.

Petraeus asserted that Biden failed to recognize the risk incurred by the swift withdrawal” of intelligence drones and close air support, and thousands of contractors who had kept the Afghan Air Force flying.”

Next, Sanger and Cooper turned to Richard Fontaine, the chief executive of one of the most militaristic think tanks in Washington, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS).

As The Grayzone has reported, CNAS has reaped millions in funding from the arms industry and US government institutions to advance Pentagon and military thinking inside the Beltway. Among the many Beltway media insiders that enjoy writers in residence fellowships at the think tank is the New York Times’ Sanger.

For his part, Fontaine compained that the Biden administration had failed to continue providing the contractors that the Afghan Air Force depended on keep its planes in the air. But he failed to acknowledge the obvious point that contractors would be unable to function in Afghanistan without sufficient U.S.-NATO troops to provide military protection on the ground.

On August 16, after the US-backed Afghan government was eliminated, the liberal interventionist magazine, Foreign Policy, chimed in with another attack on Biden featuring interviews with “a dozen people who held posts in Afghanistan.”

According to Foreign Policy, current and former diplomats anonymously expressed “deep anger, shock and bitterness about the collapse of the government they spent decades trying to build.” Several currently-serving officials were quoted — again off the record — about their considering resigning in protest, citing an “overwhelming sense of guilt and fear for the lives of former Afghan colleagues and local staff whom the American government left behind.”

That same day, the New Yorker’s Robin Wright expressed similar anguish over the harrowing images of U.S. defeat in Afghanistan. In an article subtitled, “It’s a dishonorable end that weakens U.S. standing in the world, perhaps irrevocably,” she lamented that the United States “is engaged in what historians may some day call a Great Retreat from a ragtag army that has no air power….”

The U.S. retreat from Afghanistan, Wright asserted, is “part of an unnerving American pattern dating back to the 1970s,” starting with Reagan’s pull-out from Beirut and Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. Echoing those insisting on an indefinite U.S. military role in Afghanistan, Wright claimed that because the Taliban had “won a key battle against democracy in Afghanistan,” the country would “again, almost certainly become a haven for like-minded militants, be they members of al Qaeda or others in search of a sponsor.”

Meanwhile, during an August 21 panel on PBS’s Washington Week, Peter Baker of the New York Times, Anne Gearan of the Washington Post and Vivian Salama of the Wall Street Journal formed a one-note chorus blaming Biden’s hasty withdrawal for the crowds of anguished Afghans desperately seeking to escape the Taliban at Kabul’s airport.

The implicit – and clearly fanciful – premise of the discussion was that the United States could have somehow embarked weeks or months earlier on a sweeping program to rescue tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of interpreters and other collaborators with the U.S. military, and that it could all be done cleanly and efficiently, without triggering any panic.

A second theme pressed by the New York Times’ Baker was that Biden had been heedless of the risks of his policy to U.S. national security. Baker said Biden had made up his mind a decade ago that the U.S. must withdraw from Afghanistan and was determined to do it “regardless of what Gen. Milley and others might have warned him about the danger of a collapse.” Baker made the same argument, along with the others embraced by his big media colleagues, in a long-winded August 20 news analysis.

Flournoy obscures the real cause of military failure

The Washington Post’s national security reporter, Greg Jaffe, took a different tack from most of his Beltway colleagues in his coverage of the Afghanistan endgame. In an August 14 article, Jaffe implicitly acknowledged the widely-accepted fact that the war had been an abject failure, contradicting claims by military leaders. Unfortunately, the reporter offered space for one particularly credibility-deprived former official that was obviously designed to deaden popular hostility toward those responsible for the fiasco.

Among the most questionable characters to lay into Biden’s withdrawal strategy was Michelle Flournoy, who was expected to be appointed as the next Secretary of Defense until Biden froze her out because of her role in advocating the failed troop surge in Afghanistan during the Obama administration.

Flournoy had been Obama’s Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and was responsible for supporting the commanders in the field from the Pentagon. Prior to that role, she co-founded CNAS, the arms industry-backed, Democratic Party-affiliated propaganda mill for the Pentagon and military services.

In a revealing interview with the Post’s Jaffe, the former Pentagon official blamed the failure of the U.S. war in Afghanistan on an excessive commitment to “democratic ideals,” arguing they supposedly blinded the policymakers to the realities on the ground. It all started, she claimed, with “the Afghan constitution that was created in Bonn and…was trying to create a Western democracy.” The policymakers set the bar “on our democratic ideals, not on what was sustainable or workable in an Afghan context,” she added.

But the problem was not an excessive U.S. concern for promoting democracy, but the way that U.S. policy sold out “democratic ideals” to support a group of warlords who represented the essence of anti-democratic despotism.

In explaining the Obama administration’s decision to more than double the totals of U.S. troops, Flournoy claimed that she and other U.S. officials only discovered the festering wound of Afghan corruption when it was too late, fatally dooming the military strategy. “We had made a big bet only to learn that our local partner was rotten,” she insisted.

However, Flournoy deliberately obscured the crucial fact that the U.S. war was based from its very inception on an alliance with a group of corrupt and murderous warlords. The military leadership, as well as the CIA, relied on the warlords because they had militias and were ready to oppose the Taliban. The warlords offered a steady supply of militiamen as police in the provinces and were given well-paid contracts to provide security for the constant flow of convoys to and from U.S. and NATO bases.

But the militia-police maintained their loyalty to their respective warlords, rather than to any civilian government in Kabul, and in return were given a free hand to steal from Afghans, falsely accuse them of crimes, torture them and release them only for a ransom. In many cases, the police extorted money from local families by abducting and raping their wives, daughters and sons — a pattern of abuse documented by Amnesty International as early as 2003.

The Taliban easily ousted the U.S.-supported regime from large parts of Afghanistan’s Helmand province beginning in 2005-06 because of the local population’s hatred of the lawless warlord militias designated by the U.S. military as police. And when U.S. troops re-occupied those districts in 2009, the militias returned to their brutal ways — including abducting and raping pre-teen boys, prompting bitter complaints from the local residents to the U.S. marines and threats to support the Taliban if the U.S. didn’t intervene to stop them.  But the U.S. military never moved to disturb its cozy relationship with the warlords.

So Flournoy’s claim that senior military and Pentagon officials were unaware of the corruption of their Afghan allies until after the Obama administration’s massive commitment of troops is simply devoid of credibility. When she and other key policymakers made their “big bet” later in 2009, they were fully aware that the U.S. was backing a group of powerful warlords whose militia-police were committing heinous abuses against the population that forced Afghans to support the Taliban as their only defense.

The patent falsehoods peddled by the Beltway press corps in response to the Biden withdrawal reveals just how tightly they have become linked to the interests of the military and Pentagon. And its flamboyant opposition to a pull-out favored a solid majority of the American public is yet another factor that will accelerate the decline of an already cratering corporate media.

*

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.

Featured image is from TheFreeThoughtProject.com

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A U.S. drone strike purportedly targeting a suspected ISIS-K vehicle in a residential neighborhood of Kabul, Afghanistan killed at least 10 members of a single family—including six children—as they were getting out of their car on Sunday.

Relatives of the victims told the Washington Post that the strike—which was the second attack the U.S. carried out in Kabul over the weekend—”hit a nearby vehicle” that the Pentagon claims was an “imminent” threat.

The civilian victims of the U.S. strike were all “from a single extended family,” the Post reported.

Samim Shahyad, a 25-year-old journalism student, told the New York Times that the U.S. attack killed his father, his two brothers, four of his young cousins, his niece, and his sister’s fiancé. Shahyad added that three of the victims were girls who were just two years old or younger.

“The American aircraft targeted us,” said Shahyad. “I do not know what to say, they just cut my arms and broke my back, I cannot say anything more.”

One neighbor at the scene of the attack said in an interview with CNN that “not much is left of their house and nothing can be recognized, they are in pieces.” The person estimated that as many as 20 people may have been killed in the U.S. drone strike.

“Yet another reason why the U.S. must leave Afghanistan,” said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. “The military presence, and the civilian deaths it’s brought, has become a key recruiting tool for terrorists.”

Capt. Bill Urban, a spokesperson for the U.S. Central Command, acknowledged in a statement that “there were substantial and powerful subsequent explosions resulting from the destruction of the vehicle” that the U.S. military claimed to be targeting.

Urban suggested that “additional casualties” from the U.S. strike may have been due to “a large amount of explosive material inside” the targeted vehicle.

“It is unclear what may have happened,” Urban added, “and we are investigating further.”

Launched in the wake of a deadly ISIS-K attack on Kabul’s international airport, the drone strike came just two days before the August 31 deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan after two decades of devastating war and occupation.

Despite officials’ claims that the drone assassination program is highly precise and targeted at militants, U.S. strikes have killed hundreds of Afghan civilians in recent years. According to documents leaked by former Air Force intelligence analyst Daniel Hale—who was sentenced to nearly four years in prison last month—nearly 90% of the people killed during one five-month period of a U.S. drone operation in Afghanistan were not the intended targets.

In 2019, the United Nations released a report accusing the U.S. of killing at least 30 Afghan civilians—including 14 children—and violating international humanitarian law with a series of drone strikes in May of that year.

“Maybe now would be a good time to retire phrases like ‘targeted killing’ and ‘precision strike,’ since these phrases have nothing at all to do with what we’re actually doing,” said Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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: Ajmal Ahmadi weeps alone in a room after members of his family were killed in a U.S. drone strike in Kabul, Afghanistan on August 29, 2021. (Photo: Marcus Yam/Los Angeles Times)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Groundwater from at least six Defense Department sites in the Great Lakes region is contaminated with high levels of the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, according to DOD records obtained by EWG.

The chemicals have seeped into the Great Lakes, adversely affecting wildlife, and potentially harming residents’ food supply and livelihoods if they consume fish contaminated with the chemicals. The contamination underscores the need for swift PFAS cleanup by DOD, which used these chemicals in firefighting foams for decades and knew of their harms.

DOD’s records reveal levels of PFAS, including the notorious chemicals PFOA and PFOS, ranging from 5,400 parts per trillion, or ppt, to 1.3 million ppt, in the groundwater at the six sites. There is no enforceable federal drinking water limit for PFAS, but Michigan’s groundwater cleanup criteria and drinking water standards are 8 ppt for PFOA and 16 ppt for PFOS.

The highly contaminated DOD sites include:

  • Wurtsmith Air Force Base
  • Alpena Combat Readiness Training Center
  • Selfridge Air National Guard Base
  • Duluth Air National Guard Base
  • Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station
  • General Mitchell Air National Guard Base

The records also show that PFAS may be present in the groundwater at several other bases near the Great lakes where DOD has not tested to confirm the presence of PFAS, including:

  • Great Lakes Naval Service Training Command
  • Fort Sheridan
  • Gary Army Aviation Support Facility

Suspected PFAS sites along the Great Lakes

PFAS cleanup lags at Great Lakes military bases

DOD’s efforts to clean up PFAS at the affected bases are still in the earliest stages, according to EWG’s review of the department’s records.

PFAS from these sites could be harming the Great Lakes’ wildlife, including lake trout, walleye and smelt, posing potential health risks to anyone who consumes the contaminated fish.

There are no federal guidelines establishing a safe level of PFAS consumption.

PFAS are known as forever chemicals because they build up in our bodies and do not break down in the environment. Studies show that exposure to extremely low levels of PFAS can increase the risk of cancer, harm fetal development and reduce vaccine effectiveness.

Testing fish for PFAS contamination

No national standard exists for testing fish for PFAS. But the Environmental Protection Agency, collaborating with the Navy, aims to finalize a test method this year.

In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration also created its own tests for the presence of 16 PFAS chemicals in foods across eight mid-Atlantic states, focusing on the most commonly consumed foods available in grocery stores, not locally caught or raised foods. The FDA detected PFOS in half of the seafood sampled. Fish from the Great Lakes was not included.

Some studies have found troubling levels of PFOS in Lake Erie trout. A recent study found PFAS concentrations in Great Lakes trout increased from west to east, with the highest concentrations in Lake Erie. The average concentrations ranged from 11 nanograms per gram, or ng/g, in trout from Lake Superior to 136 ng/g in Lake Erie. Other studies have found PFAS in Great Lakes salmon, round gobies and other aquatic species.

The European Food Safety Authority, or EFSA, set a consumption threshold of 4.4 ng/g per week. For a 160-pound person, a safe level of exposure to PFAS in food for an entire week would be 332 ng/g. One 8-ounce serving of lake trout, at 11 ng/g, would be more than seven times this weekly limit, and one trout from Lake Erie with 136 ng/g of PFAS would be almost 100 times more than this weekly limit.

EFSA lowered its level for PFAS in food because new research shows that exposure to PFAS reduces vaccine efficacy. In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, EFSA scientists considered that to be the most critical human health effect.

Several states, including Michigan and Wisconsin, are now offering guidelines to limit consumption of fish contaminated with PFAS. Michigan has started to issue an annual guide for the fishing community that includes the location of contaminated fish populations and the amount of each type that is safe to consume. High PFAS levels in smelt in Lake Superior have led Wisconsin officials to issue a fish consumption advisory.

Decades of contamination at DOD sites

Although PFAS contamination of the Great Lakes is suspected from hundreds of industrial sites throughout the region, DOD sites are a major contamination source.

The potential threat to Great Lakes wildlife from PFAS contamination at DOD sites is a local example of a national problem. The chemicals have been detected at more than 300 military installations across the U.S., and they may be present at hundreds of other military sites.

The primary source of PFAS at military bases is aqueous firefighting film-forming foam, or AFFF, developed by DOD in the 1960s and first required by the Navy and the Marine Corps in 1967. Legacy formulations of AFFF, used for decades, contained PFOS and PFAS precursors that can break down into PFOA and other toxic PFAS.

DOD has long known about the toxic effects of PFAS pollution. In 1973, an Air Force report cited the toxic effects of AFFF on fish and recommended the use of carbon filters for drinking water to prevent contamination. Subsequent Air Force and Navy reports, in 1974, 1976 and 1978, also cited the toxic effects of AFFF on fish.

In 1983, animal studies financed by the Air Force found that some PFAS were toxic. In 1985, Navy experts again cited the toxic effects of AFFF on fish and, in 1989, called for better management of AFFF waste.

In 2000, DOD learned that 3M planned to stop making AFFF, after internal studies showed evidence of its health hazards. A 2001 DOD memo concluded the main ingredient in AFFF was “persistent, bioaccumulating, and toxic.” Months later, an EPA official reiterated to the department the risks posed by PFOS and the entire class of PFAS.

But DOD officials waited another decade to issue a risk alert to service members. It did not take steps to begin to replace AFFF until 2015 – despite a 1991 Army Corps of Engineers recommendation to use nonhazardous substitutes.

Push for PFAS testing at DOD sites

Newer PFAS in replacement foams have been linked to many of the same health effects as those from PFOS, leading Congress to direct the department to phase out the use of fluorinated foams altogether by 2024.

Many viable alternatives to AFFF are already on the market, and already meet the international aviation foam standards used by airports all over the world. As of April 2019, more than 100 fluorine-free foams were available, from 24 manufacturers.

Last month, DOD’s inspector general faulted the department for moving too slowly to address the PFAS contamination crisis.

And earlier this summer, the Senate Armed Services Committee included provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2022 to set deadlines for PFAS testing and reporting at DOD sites but failed to set deadlines for cleanups.

The House Armed Services Committee will take up its version of the bill on September 1. Panel members from Great Lakes states include Reps. Jack Bergman (R-Mich.), Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc.), Lisa McClain (R-Mich.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and Michael Turner (R-Ohio). Slotkin and Turner have introduced legislation to address PFAS contamination and DOD sites and are expected to offer several amendments to the bill.

*

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 EWG

Lawsuit Filed after Biden Opens 79 Million Acres of Gulf of Mexico for Oil

September 1st, 2021 by Center For Biological Diversity

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Immediately following the Biden administration’s decision to offer 79 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas leasing, environmental and Gulf groups today filed a challenge to the lease sale in court.

Earthjustice filed the lawsuit in federal court in the District of Columbia on behalf of Healthy Gulf, Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and the Center for Biological Diversity. It was filed against Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management following the notice of lease sale 257.

“In the aftermath of Hurricane Ida, it is clear that we need to be doing everything we can to transition away from fossil fuels to reduce the impacts of climate change such as stronger, more frequent hurricanes,” said Cynthia Sarthou, executive director of Healthy Gulf. “Continuing to sell leases that allow business as usual is a bad decision.”

“This lease sale is deeply disappointing. The Biden administration has folded to the oil industry based on its campaign of disinformation and political pressure, ignoring the worsening climate emergency we face,” said Brettny Hardy, an attorney with Earthjustice. “Our planet cannot handle more stress from oil and gas production and yet the Biden administration is plowing ahead with a lease sale that will have impacts for decades into the future.”

“We’ll invite more disasters by selling off more of the Gulf to the oil industry,” said Kristen Monsell, oceans legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “As Louisiana recovers from this unprecedented extreme hurricane, it’s obscene to allow business as usual in offshore leasing. Climate change is rapidly intensifying Gulf storms, fueling uncontrollable wildfires in the West and threatening numerous species with extinction. We need to end offshore oil drilling, not burden future generations with this dirty and dangerous folly.”

“Despite campaign promises to be climate and environmental justice champions, the Biden administration has opted to resume oil and gas lease sales,” said Hallie Templeton, deputy legal director at Friends of the Earth. “To add insult to injury, federal officials have violated federal law by relying on outdated and flawed environmental analysis while continuing to treat the Gulf of Mexico as a sacrificial zone to Big Oil. To say we are disappointed is a gross understatement.”

“Frontline communities of the Gulf have been sacrificed to fossil fuel interests for far too long. As Hurricane Ida ravages the Gulf Coast, it’s never been more obvious that these communities deserve better than business as usual and yet another sale of millions of acres of Gulf waters for oil and gas extraction,” said Devorah Ancel, a senior attorney with Sierra Club. “At the very least, the administration has an obligation to evaluate new information on climate change before taking such reckless action. Failing to do so is completely out of step with President Biden’s stated commitment to meaningfully address the climate crisis.”

The environmental analysis of the proposed sale relies on improper modeling to conclude that not having the lease sale will result in more greenhouse gases. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this approach last year. Just a few weeks ago, a federal district court in Alaska found that the same conclusion was deeply flawed after the Department of the Interior tried to rely on it again for a large oil development project in Alaska’s Western Arctic.

The analysis is not only flawed but also out of date. The Interior Department last looked at the environmental impacts of a lease sale in 2017. Since Interior completed its environmental analysis, significant new information has emerged that demonstrates, among other things, the dire state of the climate crisis and the potential for increased harm to endangered species, including the Rice’s whale, one of the most endangered whales on the planet, that is only found in the Gulf of Mexico.

Background

The plaintiff groups had previously sent a letter to Sec. Haaland on legal alternatives to this lease sale. That letter can be found here: Letter to Sec. Haaland, et al. from plaintiff groups on legal alternatives to offering Lease Sale 257.

Last month the United Nations affirmed that the climate crisis is “unequivocally” the result of human influence and that this influence now has a strong hand in climate and weather extremes. The Gulf region has been feeling these extremes as just two days ago the region saw one of the strongest and most rapidly intensifying hurricanes ever to make landfall.

Interior’s own estimates show that the sale will lead to the production of up to 1.12 billion barrels of oil and 4.2 trillion cubic feet of gas over the next 50 years, which will contribute substantial greenhouse gas emissions. Gulf leasing complaint.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Lawsuit Filed after Biden Opens 79 Million Acres of Gulf of Mexico for Oil
  • Tags:

Selected Articles: A Letter to the Vaccinated

September 1st, 2021 by Global Research News

A Letter to the Vaccinated

By Dr. Angela Durante, Prof Denis Rancourt, and et al., August 30, 2021

Giving up civil liberties in exchange for a false sense of safety is futile. We must not accept a descent into medical apartheid in Canada and around the world.

Kabul Is Not Saigon. Afghanistan: Drug Trade and Belt and Road

By Peter Koenig, August 31, 2021

As reported by RT, US military leaders knew “hours in advance” that a “mass casualty event” was planned at Kabul airport. However, accounts from the troops in harm’s way suggest that nothing was done to protect them or the airport. See this.

The Fake “Delta Variant” and the Fourth Wave: Another Lockdown? Upcoming Financial Crash? Worldwide Economic and Social Sabotage?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 31, 2021

There is a sequence of outright lies and fabrications used to justify far-reaching policy decisions in the course of the last 18 months. The biggest lie, which is firmly acknowledged both by scientific opinion and the WHO is that the RT-PCR test used to “detect” the spread of the virus (as well as the variants) is not only flawed but TOTALLY INVALID.

Scandal Behind the FDA “Fake Approval” of Pfizer Jab

By F. William Engdahl, August 31, 2021

What is not being revealed is the cesspool of corruption and conflicts of interest between the FDA and the major drug companies, including Pfizer, that stand behind the rushed approval. And it’s not full approval for Pfizer’s jab, only for BioNTech’s legally different vaccine.

Where Are the Autopsies of People Dying Post COVID Vaccine?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, August 31, 2021

Since autopsies are so incredibly important in the identification of disease and pathological processes, why haven’t healthy people who have died after the COVID jab been autopsied?

Canada: There Was No COVID-19 Pandemic: Dr. Denis Rancourt

By Prof Denis Rancourt, Marine Baudin, and Jérémie Mercier, August 31, 2021

We find that there is no extraordinary surge in yearly or seasonal mortality in Canada, which can be ascribed to a COVID-19 pandemic; and that several prominent features in the ACM/w in the COVID-19 period exhibit anomalous province-to-province heterogeneity that is irreconcilable with the known behaviour of epidemics of viral respiratory diseases (VRDs).

The United Nations and Western Governments Endorse Shocking Vaccine Mandates, Violating Human Bodily Integrity and Autonomy

By Carla Stea, August 31, 2021

United Nations Staff members refusing the vaccination are threatened with six months leave WITHOUT pay! On August 13, the UN Secretary-General issued mandated requirements.

“Where Have All the Flowers Gone”?: “Something Surreal” About the Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal Scenario

By Renee Parsons, August 31, 2021

The credibility of the entire withdrawal tragedy relies on the US government’s open door communications as well as trading messages with its newest best friends, the Taliban as if they are partners in some otherwise malodorous project that defies definition.

Farewell to Canada, “Not with a Bang but a Whimper”

By Mark Taliano, August 30, 2021

Canada will be, arguably already is, totalitarian, and most won’t notice. The jab will kill and injure multitudes more and most won’t notice. The Truth will continue to be rejected.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: A Letter to the Vaccinated

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As I write, 9/11 truth attorneys have appealed a dismissal by a Manhattan judge who, days ago, denied standing to plaintiffs who lost loved ones in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The surviving family members seek to present evidence before a Grand Jury that explosives were used to destroy the World Trade Center.

The 9/11 attorneys and the structural engineers who stand behind them are prepared to prove in court that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency tasked to investigate the collapse of Building Seven (WTC-7), covered up the controlled demolition of the building. Assuming a discovery process happens in a courtroom, anything is possible. The truth may emerge. The question is: will the 9/11 attorneys be granted due process under the US Constitution to introduce the evidence? 

Some of this evidence came to light recently during an independent assessment of NIST’s final report on WTC-7 by a team of engineers at the University of Alaska. 

While visiting Fairbanks in August 2018, I was fortunate to meet the team’s lead engineer, professor Leroy Hulsey. At that time, the team was nearing completion of its work. As we chatted over coffee, Dr Hulsey explained that his engineers ruled out fire as the cause of the WTC-7 collapse early in their investigation. NIST had argued in its report that building fires on the lower floors weakened a critical column (#79) in the northeastern portion of the building, causing it to fail. This allegedly caused two nearby columns (#80 and #81) to fail, setting in motion a “progressive collapse.”

Hulsey’s team found, however, that NIST misrepresented key structural details of WTC-7, invalidating its fire-induced collapse model.

I asked Dr Hulsey if he had access to the original blueprints. He replied that his team had something better, namely, the actual construction records and diagrams. These tell the full story because contractors do not always follow blueprints exactly during construction. Modifications are common.

When Hulsey’s team incorporated the actual structural details of WTC-7 in a computer model and ran simulations of NIST’s collapse scenario, the building did not collapse. The tower withstood the loss of three major columns due to the steel-frame’s redundant strength. The loads were simply transferred to other columns.

His engineers then ran more simulations, each time subtracting another column until they induced a collapse. However, instead of collapsing in the manner that was observed on 9/11, the building tipped over to the southeast. Numerous videos taken from different angles show that the 47-story steel frame tower dropped straight down into its footprint.

After repeated trials, Hulsey’s team concluded that NIST’s progressive collapse scenario was not feasible. At this point, they began exploring other collapse scenarios in an attempt to duplicate the actual event captured on film. There was only one match: the simultaneous failure of every core column, followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of every perimeter column. The pattern should be recognizable because this is the standard sequence employed in controlled demolitions.

Free Fall

The excellent work done by Hulsey’s team reinforces the case for explosives, which was already compelling by 2008. In August of that year, the public was allowed to comment on NIST’s WTC-7 draft report at an open hearing. A physics teacher named David Chandler took advantage of the occasion and asked probing questions that proved so embarrassing that NIST was compelled to modify the language in its final report, released shortly thereafter. In it NIST concedes that WTC-7 dropped in a free fall acceleration. It was a damning admission because the agency had previously acknowledged that free fall is the signature of a controlled demolition.

As we know, Building Seven housed the CIA, the Department of Defense, major securities traders, and the offices of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), where the records of many ongoing SEC investigations into corporate crime were stored, including Enron. All of these records were destroyed on 9/11. The SEC subsequently tabled all of these criminal investigations, which turned out to be very convenient (and profitable) for corporate America.

NIST claims it never found evidence of explosives at the World Trade Center (WTC). The reason, of course, is because the agency never looked, even though this is a standard protocol after large building fires, not to mention the worst terrorist attack in US history.

Independent scientists did look. In 2007, a physicist from Brigham Young University, Dr Steven Jones, reported the discovery of tiny flakes of unexploded thermate in WTC dust samples collected immediately after 9/11.

Thermate differs from its cousin thermite in that it contains elemental sulfur, which has the effect of greatly lowering the melting point of iron. Thermite is composed of iron-oxide and aluminum and is occasionally used in demolition work. Sulfur is sometimes added to speed up the reaction. Jones also found an abundance of tiny iron-rich microspheres in the dust, hard evidence that steel had melted. Other researchers also reported finding microspheres.

The announced discovery of thermate in the WTC dust should have been headline news nation-wide. Yet, there was no mention of it in the New York Times or Washington Post. And the rest of the US media followed their silent “lead.”

Jones continued to study the WTC dust and later co-authored a more detailed paper with Niels Harrit, a Danish chemist, and other scientists. Their peer-reviewed article appeared in an online science journal in 2009. To this day, it has never been rebutted.

The authors identified the constituents of the tiny flakes and found them to be thermitic in nature. The grains of iron-oxide were extremely small, roughly 100 nanometers across, indicating the use of the more explosive form of thermite known as nano-thermite or super-thermite. When the authors ignited the flakes, they found they were more energetic than conventional explosives. These reactions also produced iron-rich microspheres like those found in the WTC dust. 

Nano-thermite was developed by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and was available by April 2000, seventeen months before 9/11.

But nano-thermite and thermate were probably not the only explosives used to bring down the towers. The box columns that supported World Trade Center One and Two were seven inches thick at the base (as reported by NIST). And many of these massive core columns had been severed at or near ground level. In the years after 9/11, a debate raged within the 9/11 truth community about what kind of additional explosives had been used. Many believed thermate/thermite could not reliably have done the job on the gigantic columns.

The powerful blasts that destroyed the core columns just before each tower fell shook Manhattan. The explosions caused a cloud of dust to rise from street level; this was captured on film. And the stupendous noise of the explosions was heard and felt by many thousands of New Yorkers (and recorded) at least as far away as Hoboken, on the west shore of the Hudson River. Yet, all of the eyewitness accounts were dismissed as the wild ravings of conspiracy kooks.

These tremendous explosions no doubt also help to explain the large quantities of molten steel found beneath the WTC ruin. The heat must have been incredible, because, in the days after the attacks, New York City fire fighters pumped millions of gallons of water onto the smoking piles, to no effect. Dogs brought in by first responders to help locate survivors in the wreckage suffered serious burns, and some of the dogs died. Workers on site said their rubber boots melted. Clean up crews were still reporting molten steel as late as February 2002.

Building fires and burning jet fuel cannot explain the iron microspheres and molten steel. Not even close.

An air quality study produced additional evidence. After the attacks, a University of California (Davis) physicist, Dr Thomas Cahill, brought a team to New York and set up air monitoring stations across lower Manhattan. Cahill’s team documented the most toxic air he had ever seen over the course of his long career. In his write up Cahill mentions an anomaly he could not explain: an abundance of nano-sized particles spewing from the WTC ruin. Ordinary building fires do not produce large quantities of nano particulates, which are evidence of extreme temperatures.

After analyzing the data, Cahill issued a dire health warning. Nano particles of glass, chemicals and heavy metals easily infiltrate the human body. They damage the heart and other organs, and even cross the blood brain barrier. Cahill predicted a continuing health crisis for local residents and for clean-up workers, many of whom did not wear protective masks because they were told the air was safe to breathe. In subsequent years, thousands of first responders, firemen, and construction workers suffered life threatening leukemias, other cancers, as well as ischemic heart and lung disease. Many more Americans died as a result of the toxic fumes than perished in the attacks.

Although the evidence I have summarized is legally conclusive, I am in contact with a physicist who has gone even further. He has attempted to arrange for materials scientists to conduct radio-isotopic studies of WTC steel samples. Unfortunately, so far, none of the labs in Europe or Japan have agreed to run the definitive tests, probably because they were warned off by US officials.

Stay tuned. 9/11 attorneys intend to pursue this historic case all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. In the coming days, Americans will learn if the US judicial system is capable of delivering justice to the families of the victims. Only the truth about the 9/11 attacks can heal our nation.

*

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.

Mark H. Gaffney is the author of two books about the September 11, 2001 attacks: The 9/11 Mystery Plane (2008) and Black 9/11 (2nd edition, 2016). Mark can be reached for comment at [email protected]

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As the United States continues its descent into tyranny – due in large part to widespread complacency, sad to say – the time has never been more urgent for patriotic Americans to take a formidable stand against it.

Sharing articles and videos on social media is no longer cutting it as governments, large corporations and school districts continue to tighten the noose with Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) vaccine mandates – which, by the way, are completely unconstitutional.

Appearing on a recent episode of “Brighteon Conversations” with Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. of Children’s Health Defense (CHD) issued a call to everyone in America who still cares about freedom, our Constitution and everything this country was built upon to do something while we still can to stop this nightmare from advancing any further.

“They are so close to completely enveloping us with this totalitarianism that we all need to resist,” Kennedy told Adams and viewers. “And one of the ways that we can resist is that if you refuse and get fired, then you sue. And we want thousands and thousands of people to do this and get the Supreme Court on this.”

Kennedy went on to explain, while visibly trying to hold back tears, that everything our forefathers fought to give us is just about completely eroded away, thanks to the Chinese Virus “Trojan Horse,” which has become the world’s biggest excuse to usher in absolute authoritarianism.

“This is a battle for our country,” Kennedy maintains.

“It’s a battle for our Constitution. We had people who gave us our constitutional rights who were willing to die for it, who believed that there were things worse than death, including living like a slave. And we all have a duty to put our livelihoods on the line, and whatever we need on the line, and say ‘We are going to resist.’”

Be sure to watch the interview from Brighteon below:

Resist all forms of covid medical fascism, even if it costs you

The longer Americans sit around and do nothing in response to the Fauci Flu tyranny that really is enveloping our nation – and the rest of the world, for that matter – the worse things are going to get.

Eventually, things will get so bad that many will come to the stark realization that it is no longer worth living in this kind of system. They will then wish that they had done something sooner to stop it, but by then it will already be too late.

Kennedy and Adams both recommend, as do many patriots, that people step up to the plate now by refusing to support any businesses that require “proof of vaccination” in order to enter. If your employer demands that you get jabbed in order to keep your job, threaten a lawsuit.

Do whatever it takes to stop this, whether that means talking to every single restaurant manager who tries to push the shots on patrons, or even just talking to people on the street about why it is important for the U.S. to always respect medical freedom and the right to bodily autonomy.

Stage protests, boycotts, demonstrations. Be like the French and hold picnics in the street or on the sidewalk in front of restaurants that demand “vaccine passports.” Show the tyrants that you exist, and be as vocal and present as you can possibly be in defense of freedom and liberty.

This is our last chance, America. Make your voice heard again, and again, and again – as many times as is needed to prove that there are still Americans out there who value our country and our constitutional rights, no matter the cost. Otherwise, those rights will eventually be gone.

*

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 NewsTarget.com

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On August 13, the UK government published a response to a freedom of information request in relation to the Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) — the UK’s equivalent of the FDA. The question it was in response to enquired as to whether or not the agency had received funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The answer was yes:

We do receive funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as well as other sources outside government such as WHO. This funding mainly supports work to strengthen regulatory systems in other countries…

The current level of grant funding received from the Gates Foundation amounts to approximately $3 million. This covers a number of projects and the funding is spread across 3-4 financial years. We are an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care.

The story didn’t attract much attention at the time. In fact, not a single newspaper or broadcaster even bothered to cover it, perhaps because there didn’t see much in it. After all, $3 million (with an “m”) is not even that much money these days. And the Gates Foundation (GF) is a charitable organization — the biggest of its kind, with roughly $60 billion in assets — so what could possibly be wrong with it granting funds to an organization in charge of deciding which pharmaceutical products and medical devices reach the market and which don’t? Well, quite a lot, actually.

Blatant Conflict of Interest

Firstly, $3 million may not be a lot of money to the GF but it’s still a substantial sum to the cash-strapped MHRA. Secondly, the Gates Foundation’s roughly $60 billion in assets include, among other things, shares and other forms of investments in some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, whose products the MHRA has to regulate on a regular basis. Those companies include Sanofi, Merck, Eli Lilly and Company and Abbott Laboratories, all of which have developed or are developing covid-19 treatments and/or vaccines that are yet to receive authorisation in the UK. They also include Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech, which together have developed and marketed the most profitable vaccine in history.

This is a blatant conflict of interest. It’s also worth noting that the MHRA’s former CEO, Ian Hudson, now works as a senior advisor at the GF.

When it comes to global healthcare, the GF is anything but a disinterested third party. Its co-founder, Bill Gates, is as committed as ever to intellectual property rights. In January we learned that Gates had played a key role in convincing Oxford University to drop a prior commitment to donate the rights to its vaccine to any global drug maker. The idea was was to provide the vaccine to poorer countries at a low cost or even free of charge. But Gates persuaded the British university to sign a vaccine deal with AstraZeneca instead that gave the pharmaceutical behemoth exclusive rights and no guarantee of low prices.

We have also learnt that Gates was instrumental in blocking attempts by a coalition of countries led by South Africa and India to bring a patent waiver proposal to the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) Council. A waiver would allow poorer countries to produce the vaccines themselves. And that would massively accelerate global take-up of vaccines, which could help in the global fight against Covid. But Gates argued that poor countries were not prepared to scale up manufacturing. A waiver would also eliminate incentives for future research, he said. His argument won the day and even today the TRIPS waiver is still under discussion at the WTO, going nowhere slowly.

In an article for Wired magazine Mohit Mookim, a former researcher at the Stanford Center for Ethics in Society, asks whether we should be surprised that a monopolist-turned-philanthropist maintains his commitment to monopoly patent rights as a philanthropist too?

“Throughout the last two decades, Gates has repeatedly advocated for public health policies that bolster companies’ ability to exclude others from producing lifesaving drugs, including allowing the Gates Foundation itself to acquire substantial intellectual property. This continues through the Covid-19 pandemic.”

Now we learn that the foundation, with its vast holdings in pharmaceutical companies and substantial intellectual property interests, has also been helping to fund the MHRA for the past four years. In other words, an organization that has poured billions of dollars into the research and development of vaccines, other novel treatments and medical devices has also been funding the UK agency responsible for approving those vaccines, novel treatments and medical devices. .

The MHRA is not the only public health agency in the UK to have benefited from the foundation’s largess:

  • Public Health England, a health watchdog set up by the Government in 2013 to protect and improve health and wellbeing and combat health inequalities, has received $7,785,336 from the Gates foundation. The agency is set to close in the coming months and will be replaced by the Orwellian-titled “UK Health Security Agency”.
  • Health Data Research UK has received $3.5 million from the GF since the pandemic began. The organisation has courted controversy in recent months for its role in bringing together the health and biometric data of all 55 million of the NHS’ patients. That data was then supposed to be flogged to any interested third parties, but the plan was scrapped at the last minute due to public opposition.
  • The GF has also partnered with the UK Government’s UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), which began life in 2018 with a budget of £6 billion, ostensibly to support science and research in the UK.

Funding Crisis

As I wrote last week, the UK Government is ramping up its plans to privatise the NHS. This is leaving many parts of the health system starved of funds, which in turn opens up fresh opportunities for private-sector companies, trusts and foundations. The MHRA, like the FDA, is primarily funded by the “user fees” it charges its “customers” (i.e., the companies it regulates).

In the US, user fees fund account for around 65% of the FDA’s operating budget for regulating prescription drugs. In the case of the MHRA, 100% of its budget for regulating medicines comes from user fees. Its other activities are funded by a combination of private and public sources. The MHRA’s regulation of devices is primarily financed by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), with approximately 10% of its revenue derived from fees. The National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) raises around half of its revenue from fees charged for services.

Nonetheless, the MHRA is facing a funding crisis. And it’s largely a result of Brexit. Before the UK’s departure from the EU, in January this year, the MHRA formed part of the European system of medicines approval. Under that system, national regulators can serve as rapporteur or co-rapporteur for any given pharmaceutical application, providing most of the verification work on behalf of all members. It was an important source of fee-income but now it’s dried up. And the government is not replacing it.

As a consequence, the regulator has announced plans to lay off between a fifth and a quarter of its 1,200-strong workforce as part of cost-cutting measures. According to the FT, the goal is to transform how the MHRA operates by redeploying staff to new areas of regulation and science. Documents leaked to the British Medical Journal reveal that the MHRA is offering early redundancy packages to staff from its divisions on vigilance and risk management of medicines (not exactly comforting), licensing, devices, inspection enforcement and standards (also not comforting), as well as its committee secretariat. The document, marked “official sensitive,” also notes that the MHRA’s income is forecast to fall by 15-20% in the next financial year and beyond.

Despite the drastic downsizing, the MHRA says it wants to still serve as a world-class regulator that delivers positive outcomes for patients while modernizing the services it provides to industry. With 15-20 percent less operating income and 20-25 percent fewer workers, that’s likely to be a tall order.

User Fees: A Principal-Agency Problem

User fees are being used more and more to fund medicine regulators around the world. They are seen as a way of shifting some of the financial burden to manufacturers who stand to benefit from the sale of of medicines. But they also raise serious ethical issues. In a 2017 blog post for the BMJ, Joel Lexchin, a professor emeritus at the School of Health Policy and Management at York University, warned that the widespread introduction of user fees had created a principal-agent problem.

When the FDA’s operating budget used to be funded exclusively by the government (up til the early ’90s), there was essentially one principle and one agent in each interaction. Each of their roles was relatively clear. The principle needed something done (in this case, patients in the US needed effective, safe medicines to be approved and ineffective and/or unsafe medicines to be blocked) and the agent (in this case, the FDA) was contracted to do the task. However, since the introduction of user fees a new principal has been added (the pharmaceutical industry) and now the regulatory agency has two principals with directly competing values:

In the case of the public, the primary value is to have effective and safe drugs, but in the case of the pharmaceutical industry, its primary goal is to get its products through the approval system as quickly as possible and to sell those products to as wide an audience as possible. At times, it seems that regulatory agencies prioritize the latter at the expense of the former. Shortly after Canada introduced user fees, the head of the part of Health Canada that regulates prescription drugs issued a memo in which he said that “the client is the direct recipient of your services. In many cases this is the person or company who pays for the service.” The one page document focused on service to industry and relegated the public to the secondary status of “stakeholder” or “beneficiary”…

User fees are reauthorized in the US on a five year cycle. When they came up for renewal in 2007, a number of prominent American commentators, including Marcia Angell, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and Jerry Avorn, a leading pharmacoepidemiologist, opposed its reauthorization and instead called for increased Congressional appropriations in order to allow the FDA to undertake its responsibilities free from any apparent conflict-of-interest.

“Safety in a world of user fees” is of paramount concern, concluded Lexchin. That was was back in 2017. Four years on, we are in the biggest health crisis of our lifetimes and the tasks performed by medicines regulators are more important than ever. New experimental vaccines and therapeutic treatments are rolling off the line in record time. But they’re also being authorised in record time — in some cases despite scant evidence of benefits (e.g., Remdesivir).  And they’re earning record profits for their manufacturers. At the same time, promising repurposed off-patent medicines that do not offer lucrative financial returns are largely being ignored or are even being demonised by our medicines regulators.

In its quest to remain globally relevant as it loses money and staff and in the absence of increased government support, the MHRA will need to raise even more funds from the companies it regulates. Further handouts from the likes of the Gates Foundation will also be welcome, one can imagine. But that, one can imagine, will come with even more strings attached.

*

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

 

***

“Let us resolve that never again will we send the precious young blood of this country to die trying to prop up a corrupt military dictatorship abroad. This is also the time to turn away from excessive preoccupation overseas to the rebuilding of our own nation. America must be restored to a proper role in the world. But we can do that only through the recovery of confidence in ourselves…. together we will call America home to the ideals that nourished us from the beginning.”—George S. McGovern, former Senator and presidential candidate

It’s time to bring all our troops home.

Bring them home from Somalia, Iraq and Syria. Bring them home from Germany, South Korea and Japan. Bring them home from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Oman. Bring them home from Niger, Chad and Mali. Bring them home from Turkey, the Philippines, and northern Australia.

It’s not enough to pull American troops out of Afghanistan, America’s longest, bloodiest and most expensive war to date.

It’s time that we stop policing the globe, stop occupying other countries, and stop waging endless wars.

That’s not what’s going to happen, of course.

The U.S. military reportedly has more than 1.3 million men and women on active duty, with more than 200,000 of them stationed overseas in nearly every country in the world.

Those numbers are likely significantly higher in keeping with the Pentagon’s policy of not fully disclosing where and how many troops are deployed for the sake of “operational security and denying the enemy any advantage.” As investigative journalist David Vine explains, “Although few Americans realize it, the United States likely has more bases in foreign lands than any other people, nation, or empire in history.”

Don’t fall for the propaganda, though.

America’s military forces aren’t being deployed abroad to protect our freedoms here at home. Rather, they’re being used to guard oil fields, build foreign infrastructure and protect the financial interests of the corporate elite. In fact, the United States military spends about $81 billion a year just to protect oil supplies around the world.

The reach of America’s military empire includes close to 800 bases in as many as 160 countries, operated at a cost of more than $156 billion annually. As Vine reports, “Even US military resorts and recreation areas in places like the Bavarian Alps and Seoul, South Korea, are bases of a kind. Worldwide, the military runs more than 170 golf courses.”

This is how a military empire occupies the globe.

After 20 years of propping up Afghanistan to the tune of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives lost, the U.S. military may have finally been forced out, but those troops represent just a fraction of our military presence worldwide.

In an ongoing effort to police the globe, American military servicepeople continue to be deployed to far-flung places in the Middle East and elsewhere.

This is how the military industrial complex, aided and abetted by the likes of Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and others, continues to get rich at taxpayer expense.

Yet while the rationale may keep changing for why American military forces are policing the globe, these wars abroad aren’t making America—or the rest of the world—any safer, are certainly not making America great again, and are undeniably digging the U.S. deeper into debt.

War spending is bankrupting America.

Although the U.S. constitutes only 5% of the world’s population, America boasts almost 50% of the world’s total military expenditure, spending more on the military than the next 19 biggest spending nations combined.

In fact, the Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety.

The American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its breadth and scope, one dedicated to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth.

Since 2001, the U.S. government has spent more than $4.7 trillion waging its endless wars.

Having been co-opted by greedy defense contractors, corrupt politicians and incompetent government officials, America’s expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate of more than $32 million per hour.

In fact, the U.S. government has spent more money every five seconds in Iraq than the average American earns in a year.

Future wars and military exercises waged around the globe are expected to push the total bill upwards of $12 trillion by 2053.

Talk about fiscally irresponsible: the U.S. government is spending money it doesn’t have on a military empire it can’t afford.

As investigative journalist Uri Friedman puts it, for more than 15 years now, the United States has been fighting terrorism with a credit card, “essentially bankrolling the wars with debt, in the form of purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds by U.S.-based entities like pension funds and state and local governments, and by countries like China and Japan.”

War is not cheap, but it becomes outrageously costly when you factor in government incompetence, fraud, and greedy contractors. Indeed, a leading accounting firm concluded that one of the Pentagon’s largest agencies “can’t account for hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of spending.”

Unfortunately, the outlook isn’t much better for the spending that can be tracked.

A government audit found that defense contractor Boeing has been massively overcharging taxpayers for mundane parts, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in overspending. As the report noted, the American taxpayer paid:

$71 for a metal pin that should cost just 4 cents; $644.75 for a small gear smaller than a dime that sells for $12.51: more than a 5,100 percent increase in price. $1,678.61 for another tiny part, also smaller than a dime, that could have been bought within DoD for $7.71: a 21,000 percent increase. $71.01 for a straight, thin metal pin that DoD had on hand, unused by the tens of thousands, for 4 cents: an increase of over 177,000 percent.

That price gouging has become an accepted form of corruption within the American military empire is a sad statement on how little control “we the people” have over our runaway government.

Mind you, this isn’t just corrupt behavior. It’s deadly, downright immoral behavior.

Americans have thus far allowed themselves to be spoon-fed a steady diet of pro-war propaganda that keeps them content to wave flags with patriotic fervor and less inclined to look too closely at the mounting body counts, the ruined lives, the ravaged countries, the blowback arising from ill-advised targeted-drone killings and bombing campaigns in foreign lands, or the transformation of our own homeland into a warzone.

That needs to change.

The U.S. government is not making the world any safer. It’s making the world more dangerous. It is estimated that the U.S. military drops a bomb somewhere in the world every 12 minutes. Since 9/11, the United States government has directly contributed to the deaths of around 500,000 human beings. Every one of those deaths was paid for with taxpayer funds.

The U.S. government is not making America any safer. It’s exposing American citizens to alarming levels of blowback, a CIA term referring to the unintended consequences of the U.S. government’s international activities. Chalmers Johnson, a former CIA consultant, repeatedly warned that America’s use of its military to gain power over the global economy would result in devastating blowback.

The 9/11 attacks were blowback. The Boston Marathon Bombing was blowback. The attempted Times Square bomber was blowback. The Fort Hood shooter, a major in the U.S. Army, was blowback.

The U.S. military’s ongoing drone strikes will, I fear, spur yet more blowback against the American people. The latest drone strike reportedly killed seven children, ages 2 to 10, in Afghanistan.

The war hawks’ militarization of America—bringing home the spoils of war (the military tanks, grenade launchers, Kevlar helmets, assault rifles, gas masks, ammunition, battering rams, night vision binoculars, etc.) and handing them over to local police, thereby turning America into a battlefield—is also blowback.

James Madison was right: “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” As Madison explained, “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes… known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”

We are seeing this play out before our eyes.

The government is destabilizing the economy, destroying the national infrastructure through neglect and a lack of resources, and turning taxpayer dollars into blood money with its endless wars, drone strikes and mounting death tolls.

Clearly, our national priorities are in desperate need of an overhauling.

At the height of its power, even the mighty Roman Empire could not stare down a collapsing economy and a burgeoning military. Prolonged periods of war and false economic prosperity largely led to its demise. As historian Chalmers Johnson predicts:

The fate of previous democratic empires suggests that such a conflict is unsustainable and will be resolved in one of two ways. Rome attempted to keep its empire and lost its democracy. Britain chose to remain democratic and in the process let go its empire. Intentionally or not, the people of the United States already are well embarked upon the course of non-democratic empire.

This is the “unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex” that President Dwight Eisenhower warned us more than 50 years ago not to let endanger our liberties or democratic processes.

Eisenhower, who served as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II, was alarmed by the rise of the profit-driven war machine that emerged following the war—one that, in order to perpetuate itself, would have to keep waging war.

We failed to heed his warning.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, there’s not much time left before we reach the zero hour.

It’s time to stop policing the globe, end these wars-without-end, and bring the troops home.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Featured image is from The Grayzone

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Afghanistan is not exactly history quite yet as there still will be a lot final adjustments on the ground as well as the usual Vietnam-syndrome war of words that inevitably follows on yet another American-engineered foreign catastrophe. But the recriminations will go nowhere as there is certainly enough mud to stick on both major political parties that make Washington their home, and neither wants to be embarrassed to such an extent that anyone will actually demand change.

Regarding Afghanistan itself, I often recall hearing from a CIA friend of mine who served as the last Chief of Station in Kabul in the 1970s before the start of the Mujaheddin insurgency against the Marxist-Leninist government that was then in place eventually forced the US Embassy to close. He remarked how liberated the city was, full of smartly dressed attractive women and well-turned-out men going about their business. Though there was considerable repression in rural areas, education was highly prized by the people in the cities while many aspects of fundamental Islam were made illegal.

All of that came to a crashing halt when the United States and Saudi Arabia supported the Mujaheddin and eventually created al-Qaeda in a bid to damage the Soviets, who had intervened in the country and were backers of the Kabul regime headed by Babrak Karmal. Zbigniew Brzezinski was the “brain” behind the plan, in part to do payback for the Soviet role in Vietnam and in part because Zbig apparently had difficultly in separating his attachment for Poland, at the time part of the Soviet empire, from his role as national security adviser for Jimmy Carter, President of the United States of America.

To be sure, wars that are unsuccessful, like Vietnam and Afghanistan, do generate a certain blowback. It was regularly observed that the 1990-1 US-led Desert Storm operation followed by a victory parade down Fifth Avenue in New York City helped the United States recover from Vietnam fatigue. That meant that it would not hesitate to again use armed force to enforce its often touted “rules based international order,” best translated as US global hegemony.

Some might suggest that the best thing to do about Afghanistan is to learn from it. Hold senior officials and officers responsible for the egregious errors in judgement that led to disaster. But that will never happen as the top levels of the US government operate like a large social club where everyone protects everyone else. A Marine Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Scheller who has called for accountability at senior levels has already been relieved of his command and is leaving the service, a warning from above to others who might be similarly inclined to be outspoken.

So, with all that in mind, the best was to make Afghanistan go away is to begin preparations for the next war. Since that is so, how lucky is President Joe Biden to have a visit at this very critical moment from Israel’s new Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who presented the president with a “new strategic vision” for the Middle East. In preparation for the visit, White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters that the prime minister’s visit “will strengthen the enduring partnership between the United States and Israel, reflect the deep ties between our governments and our people, and underscore the United States’ unwavering commitment to Israel’s security.” Psaki, who conflates the deep ties between the Democratic Party and its Jewish donors with a “partnership,” predictably said everything demanded of her, only stopping short of turning in her application to join the Israel Defense Force (IDF).

Bennett met on the day before the White House meeting with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley and also separately with Secretary of State Antony Blinken. It is not known how many standing ovations were given to Bennett by the simpering US officials, but it is presumed that they were necessary as filler for the event because Austin and Milley in particular are notably inarticulate and poorly informed. The lumpish Austin did, however, echo Psaki in coming out with the usual message, telling Bennett that the Pentagon is absolutely “committed” to ensuring Israel can “defend itself” against the Iranians, that “The administration remains committed to Israel’s security and right to self-defense. That is unwavering, it is steadfast and it is ironclad.”

Bennett was engaged in delivering his timely message that the fall of Afghanistan has actually made everything in that part of Asia more dangerous, meaning that the US and Israel should prepare to fight Iran when it seeks to take advantage of the situation. More to the point, Bennett also made time to meet with the omnipotent Israel Lobby as represented by the head of its most powerful component, Executive Director Howard Kohr of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

The actual discussion with Biden and who-knows-who else in the room was also predictable, minus only that Biden did not feel compelled to go down on his knees as he did with visiting outgoing Israeli President Reuven Rivlin and his chief of staff Rivka Ravitz in early July. Perpetual victim Israel was presented by Bennett as facing hostilities coming from its southern border where Hamas controls the Gaza Strip. Neither Bennett nor Biden mentioned the enormous advantage in military power that Israel already possesses, as was evident in the conflict that took place three months ago, an 11-day war that left 265 dead in Gaza, including many targeted children in apartment blocks, while only 13 died in Israel.

Bennett had two principal objectives. First, he was looking for a commitment from Biden not to re-engage with Iran in the nuclear proliferation treaty Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) unless it is greatly “improved” to include peripheral regional issues as well as eliminating any uranium enrichment. As Iran is prepared to accept the status quo ante and nothing more, Bennett knew perfectly well that his insistence on a broader agreement would be a game-breaker. And second, as a consequence of that expected commitment, he wanted assurances that the US will not withdraw its remaining forces from Iraq and Syria and would support Israel fully if it should choose to attack Iran.

Israel’s Ambassador to the US Gilad Erdan has also been pushing the White House to admit Israel to the so-called Visa Waiver Program, which would allow Israelis to travel freely to the United States without having to obtain a visa. The program usually requires reciprocity which would mean that Israel would in turn have to admit all American travelers, but the Jewish state insists on reserving the right to block Arab and Muslim Americans for no reason whatsoever. It is presumed that Bennett discussed the issue with Blinken.

On the other more important issues, Biden appears to have bought into at least some of what Bennett was selling. In comments made after their meeting, with the Israeli standing beside him, the US President said that “We’re putting diplomacy first and see where that takes us. But if diplomacy fails, we’re ready to turn to other options.” Bennett was pleased by what he was hearing, elaborating on it, “I was happy to hear your clear words that Iran will never be able to acquire a nuclear weapon and that you emphasize that you will try the diplomatic route, but there’s other options if that doesn’t work out.” The other “options” include, of course, intensified covert action intelligence operations, assassinations and a hoped-for bombing attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and weapons sites. Attacking Iran will also have the benefit of demonstrating that Biden is a “tough” leader, surely a consideration at this point when his approval ratings are sinking.

The prime minister also surfaced another proposal for all his interlocutors, including Biden. He wants to upgrade his fleet of F-15 fighter bombers to give his military planners more options if there should be a war with Iran. The US-produced F-35 is the primary fighter for IDF, but the older F-15 can carry significantly more weaponry and bomb load. Bennett has asked Washington to provide an advance on its annual $3.8 billion military assistance package to pay for the improvements. In other words, Israel wants to start a war and have the United States pay for it, possibly in addition to actually doing much of the fighting.

Israel has, in fact, been warning that a war is coming for quite some time, a message that was delivered yet again in a timely fashion as Bennett winged his way to Washington for his meetings. As the prime minister was landing in the US, IDF Chief of Staff Aviv Kohavi held a press conference in which he advised that the Israeli military advancing its “operational plans” against Iran. He observed that the country’s new military budget had funds earmarked specifically to improve IDF capabilities against Iran. Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz also warned on the same day that “The State of Israel has the means to act and will not hesitate to do so. I do not rule out the possibility that Israel will have to take action in the future in order to prevent a nuclear Iran.”

So, the new Israeli premier has laid down the gauntlet and, for the moment, Joe Biden has only tentatively moved to pick it up even if he has in a sense pledged total support for Israel no matter what the Jewish state decides to do. The Israel Lobby meanwhile will be working hard to bring Joe totally into line. And to be sure Biden will have to reckon with the fact that there is a new player in town in the form of a bunch of progressive Democrats who are not in love with Israel, backed up by shrinking public support for Israeli actions resulting from the recent slaughter in Gaza. Nevertheless, a weakened and disoriented Biden will have only limited ability to stand up to an increasingly assertive Israel and its powerful lobby.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

All flags are on half-mast in the US of A. The cause are the 13 American soldiers killed in this huge suicide bombing outside Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul on Thursday, 26 August. 

As it stands, at least 150 people – Afghans, including at least 30 Taliban – plus 13 American military – were killed and at least 1,300 injured, according to the Afghan Health Ministry.

The Islamic State (ISIS) claimed responsibility for the bombing via Amaq Media, the official Islamic State (ISIS) news agency. The perpetrators, the message says, were members of the ISIS-Khorasan, or ISIS-K.

As reported by RT, US military leaders knew “hours in advance” that a “mass casualty event” was planned at Kabul airport. However, accounts from the troops in harm’s way suggest that nothing was done to protect them or the airport. See this.

RT further reports, “The bombing provoked the US into launching two drone strikes, one targeting an alleged “planner” and “facilitator” with the group responsible, and another supposedly wiping out “multiple” would-be suicide bombers but reportedly annihilating a family and children alongside them.

Why was nothing done to prevent this bloody, atrocious attack? In fact, the Pentagon announced just yesterday that another massive attack was likely, meaning they have information that another mass-killing may take place?

In the meantime, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) confirmed that the last three US military transport planes have departed the Hamid Karzai Airport just ahead of the August 31, 2021 deadline, officially ending the American withdrawal from Afghanistan.

“The war is over. America’s last troops have just left Kabul airport,” RT’s Murad Gazdiev tweeted from Kabul, adding that the war lasted “19 years, 10 months and 25 days.

What he didn’t say is that the monetary cost of the war was at least 3 trillion dollars, that about 241,000 people have been killed in the Afghanistan and Pakistan war zone since 2001. More than 71,000 of those killed have been civilians. These figures include (through April 2021) 2,448 American service members; 3,846 U.S. contractors, and some 66,000 Afghan national military and police. See this.

Twenty years of war – and only ten days to defeat the US military.

Really? Is this really the end of the US involvement in Afghanistan? Too many strange events and occurrences are pointing in a different direction.

Let’s have a closer look. The Islamic State – ISIS claims responsibility. As we know by now and since quite a while, ISIS is a creation of the CIA. The sophistication of the attack, the Pentagon non-interference, despite their prior knowledge, might, just might, indicate that this attack may have been a well-coordinated “false flag”?

Who benefits? Cui Bono?

On August 19, 2021, the Washington Post, referring to President Trump’s Peace Agreement with Taliban in Doha, Qatar, in February 2020, reports –

“As President Donald Trump’s administration signed a peace deal with the Taliban in February 2020, he optimistically proclaimed that “we think we’ll be successful in the end.” His secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, asserted that the administration was “seizing the best opportunity for peace in a generation.”

“Eighteen months later, President Joe Biden is pointing to the agreement signed in Doha, Qatar, as he tries to deflect blame for the Taliban overrunning Afghanistan in a blitz. He says it bound him to withdraw U.S. troops, setting the stage for the chaos engulfing the country.”

“But Biden can go only so far in claiming the agreement boxed him in. It had an escape clause: The U.S. could have withdrawn from the accord if Afghan peace talks failed. They did, but Biden chose to stay in it, although he delayed the complete pullout from May to September.”

See full story here.

So, again who benefits from such an atrociously deadly attack, like the one of 26 August at Kabul Airport?

President Biden, though unjustified, can and does blame President Trump for the chaos he left behind by negotiating this “irresponsible” Peace Deal. Why “irresponsible”?  Wasn’t it time after 20 years without apparent “success” – whatever that means, or may have meant at some point in time – to end this senseless bloodshed and destruction of a sovereign Afghan society – let alone the killing of hundreds of thousands of people, most of them civilians?

It seems that Mr. Trump may have done the right thing. Peace over war should always win, on the ground as well as in the minds of people, and foremost of politicians. However, there are several reasons, why Peace is not welcome. And chaos and destruction and death as demonstrated by the 26 August suicide attack, and who knows, maybe more to follow, might justify sending back US troops?

There are several other irons in the fire about which hardly anybody talks and the bought anti-Trump and pro-Biden mainstream media are silent.

The Heroin Trade

There is a multi-multi-billion, perhaps up to a trillion-dollar heroin trade at stake, for the US and for the US and European pharma-industry – the huge and deadly opioid-market.

As reported by Michel Chossudovsky on 21 August 2021,

“One of the key strategic objectives of the 2001 war on Afghanistan was to restore the opium trade following the Taliban government’s successful 2000-2001 drug eradication program which led to a 94% collapse in opium production. This program was supported by the United Nations. (See graph below) 

In the course of the last 19 years following the US-NATO October 2001 invasion, there has been a surge in Afghan opium production. In turn the number of heroin addicts in the US has increased dramatically. Is there a relationship?

There were 189,000 heroin users in the US in 2001, before the US-NATO invasion of Afghanistan.

By 2016 that number went up to 4,500,000 (2.5 million heroin addicts and 2 million casual users).

In 2020, at the height of the covid crisis, deaths from opioids and drug addiction increased threefold.
It’s Big Money for Big Pharma.”

See the full report here.

The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative

Both, China and Russia have already indicated that they would help the new Taliban regime to gain stability – and to develop towards a newly independent, sovereign state. Afghanistan’s border with China, only about 70 km wide, but it forms a crucial connection to China’s western most Province, the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. It is a vital pivot for China’s Belt and Road, or “One Belt One Road” – OBOR – also called the New Silk Road.

While transit routes already go through Pakistan to the Indian Ocean, an OBOR rail and road transit through Afghanistan would connect China directly with Iran, facilitating among other trade, hydrocarbon transport from Iran to China. OBOR would also be an effective development instrument for war destroyed Afghanistan – a reconstruction and economic development scheme for Afghanistan could bring Afghanistan back to a respected nation state – even through the Taliban.

Furthermore, Afghanistan might be prepared for becoming an active member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), one of the world’s most significant political, economic and strategic defense organization. In addition to China and Russia and the Central Asian former Soviet Republics, India and Pakistan are already full members, while Iran, Malaysia and Mongolia are, so far, in observer and associate status.

SCO covers almost half of the world population and controls some 30% of the world’s GDP. Afghanistan would be in a solid and guiding association as an SCO member. Afghanistan’s socioeconomic development and improvement of war-damaged people’s standard of living, could benefit enormously.

Washington however dislikes OBOR with a passion. They see it as Chinese expansionism and competition. It is actually neither. China has in her thousands of years of history never had expansionist trends, or ambitions, and always respected other countries’ sovereignty. OBOR, an ingenious idea of President Xi Jinping, is patterned according to the ancient Silk Road, a trading route of 2100 years ago connecting Asia with Europe and the Middle East.

OBOR is an instrument to help develop and connect the world, while respecting each nation state’s independence and sovereignty.

*

The hugely profitable Heroin Trade and the further development of China’s OBOR – and particularly bringing Afghanistan under the wings of the east through association with the SCO – would spoil America’s multi-multibillion heroin trade, as well as another Middle East country would orient itself to the east – and away from the fangs of the ever weakening and crumbling Anglo-US empire.

Hence, commanding US-created ISIS to sow chaos and death in Afghanistan, blaming the Taliban, might be a good reason for Biden to bring back US troops – to fight a new kind war – fighting for the continuing highly profitable heroin trade and, simultaneously, fighting against OBOR. On top of it all, it would suit the Biden’s and his globalist agenda’s image – and standing in a totally misinformed world.

*

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

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

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


waronterrorism.jpgby Michel Chossudovsky
ISBN Number: 9780973714715
List Price: $24.95
click here to order

Special Price: $18.00

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Within days of withdrawing the last British troops from Afghanistan after 20 years of warfare, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is understood to be undertaking planning in order that the UK can launch airstrikes against ISIS in Afghanistan.  The plans emerged after the Afghanistan branch of ISIS launched a suicide attack at Kabul airport during the chaotic evacuation, which killed a large number of civilians – 90 according to some reports – including two British men, and 13 US troops. Foreign secretary, Dominic Rabb signed a joint statement issued by the US-led coalition against ISIS saying that they would continue to “draw on all elements of national power—military, intelligence, diplomatic, economic, law enforcement—to ensure the defeat of this brutal terrorist organization.”

Head of RAF, Sir Mike Wigston told the Daily Telegraph

“If there’s an opportunity for us to contribute, I am in no doubt that we will be ready to. That will be anywhere where violent extremism raises its head and is a direct or indirect threat to the UK and our allies. Afghanistan is probably one of the most inaccessible parts of the world, and we’re able to operate there.” 

British drone and other aircraft continue to undertake military operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, with more than 50 UK airstrikes (or ‘weapon release events’ as MoD now calls them) in first six months of 2021.  In addition, UK Reaper drones have also been engaged in a covert operation about which government refuses to answer any questions.

It remains to be seen whether ‘planning’ turns into actual operations but launching such air strikes continues to kill innocent civilians.  A US drone strike targeting a car carrying alleged suicide bombers in Kabul on 29 July, reportedly killed 10 civilian members of one family, including a number of children.  According to the New York Times:

“Zemari Ahmadi, who worked for the charity organization Nutrition and Education International, was on his way home from work after dropping off colleagues on Sunday evening, according to relatives and colleagues interviewed in Kabul. As he pulled into the narrow street where he lived with his three brothers and their families, the children, seeing his white Toyota Corolla, ran outside to greet him. Some clambered aboard in the street, others gathered around as he pulled the car into the courtyard of their home.

It was then that they say the drone struck.

At the time of the attack, the Corolla was in a narrow courtyard inside a walled family compound. Its doors were blown out, and its windows shattered.

Mr. Ahmadi and some of the children were killed inside his car; others were fatally wounded in adjacent rooms, family members said. An Afghan official confirmed that three of the dead children were transferred by ambulance from the home on Sunday.”

A US military spokesperson said they weren’t in a position to dispute the civilian casualties but were investigating. They were quick, however, to suggest that casualties must have been due to ‘secondary explosions’. Azmat Khan, the investigative reporter who co-wrote the hugely important report, The Uncounted, looking at civilian casualties from US air war in Iraq, put out a helpful twitter thread detailing the abysmal record of US civilian casualty investigations.  See also, of course, the excellent work of Airwars and its on-going tracking and reporting on civilian casualties.

Where UK drones and other aircraft would be based in order to undertake airstrikes in Afghanistan would be an important issue.  According to the Telegraph, Wigston was “in discussion” with international counterparts about long-term plans to base more RAF units overseas, including the Protector drone which is due to come into service in 2024.

What is seemingly not in doubt, despite the humiliating end of US and UK military operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan, is the willingness to embrace violent military action. There is apparently no need to learn any lessons from the tragedy and failure of the last 20 years of western military operations in Afghanistan or to reflect in any way on the effectiveness of air and drone strikes rather than diplomatic and political solutions.  Forever War, apparently, is the only option there is.

*

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

Featured image: U.S. jets bombing Afghanistan. These attacks will not end despite the formal U.S. withdrawal by September 11th. [Source: wired.com]

Scandal Behind the FDA “Fake Approval” of Pfizer Jab

August 31st, 2021 by F. William Engdahl

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The US Government regulator for drugs, the Food and Drug Administration, has just announced that it has voted full approval for the mRNA genetic vaccine of Pfizer and BioNTech, or did they? This supposed new status is being used by the Biden Administration and many states and companies to impose mandatory vaccinations. The notoriously conflicted Biden covid adviser, Tony Fauci of the NIAID, using that ruling, is calling for national mandatory vaccination for the country.

What is not being revealed is the cesspool of corruption and conflicts of interest between the FDA and the major drug companies, including Pfizer, that stand behind the rushed approval. And it’s not full approval for Pfizer’s jab, only for BioNTech’s legally different vaccine.

“…final stamp of approval”?

On August 23 as the FDA announced full approval for the Pfizer mRNA gene-edited substance. Or not quite, when the full papers of FDA are studied. Fauci, whose NIAID has financial interest in the vaccine, referred to the FDA decision as the “final stamp of approval.” It is however anything but final or an impartial, scientific rigorous medical evaluation. Rather it is a politically-motivated decision by an FDA that is corrupt beyond the imagination of most people.

Backtracking on its statement in 2020 that it would hold normal FDA advisory committee hearings with independent experts to discuss the Pfizer application for full approval, now the FDA told the British Medical Journal that they did not believe a meeting was necessary ahead of granting full approval of what is the most controversial vaccine in modern history. The BMJ quotes Kim Witczak, a drug safety advocate who serves as a consumer representative on the FDA’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, “These [FDA] public meetings are imperative in building trust and confidence especially when the vaccines came to market at lightning speed under emergency use authorization.”

Witczak continued with the alarming note, “It is already concerning that full approval is being based on 6 months’ worth of data despite the clinical trials designed for two years. There is no control group after Pfizer offered the product to placebo participants before the trials were completed.” Read that again, slowly. Pfizer tests destroyed their own control group mid-stream! And its six month rollout of the mRNA jab worldwide has resulted in catastrophic side effects which have been totally officially ignored. Is this “science” Dr Fauci?

The refusal of the FDA and its Acting Director, Janet Woodcock, to convene its Drugs Advisory Committee for discussion of the Pfizer and BioNTech decisions is even more shocking as in June three members of that same panel resigned in protest for being disregarded in another drug approval. NPR network reported, “Three experts have now resigned from a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee after the agency approved an Alzheimer’s drug called Aduhelm against the wishes of nearly every member on the panel.” One of the three, Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, in his resignation letter from the FDA Advisory Committee (June 10, 2021), wrote:

“For both eteplirsen and aducanumab, the decisions by FDA administrators to ignore the Advisory Committee’s clear recommendations led to their approval of two highly problematic drugs that offered little evidence that they would meaningfully benefit patients…With eteplirsen, the AdComm (Advisory Committee) and FDA’s own scientific staff reported that there was no convincing evidence that the drug worked; both groups were overruled by FDA leadership… “

Now the FDA refusal to convene their advisory committee for the Pfizer decision is all the more astonishing in light of the fact that the Government Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in its official VAERS data bank for recording vaccine negative effects has recorded 8,508 reports of fatalities following the Pfizer mRNA shot in the past seven months, a number more than for all vaccines combined in the past 30 years.  By denying a public hearing the FDA avoided any discussion of these alarming fatality numbers, let alone the tens of thousands of serious side-effects including heart attacks, blood clots, miscarriages, permanent paralysis following the Pfizer-BioNTech jabs. The public declaration by Fauci before approval that he expected it, is also unethical influencing, but that is the least of the crimes.

Faked Approval

It seems the FDA executed a clever ruse in which it issued separate rulings for a Pfizer Inc.-BioNTech vaccine which is widely used in the USA, and another ruling for the similar vaccine of Pfizer’s German-based partner and developer of the mRNA platform, BioNTech of Mainz. It is only BioNTech that got FDA approval, but conditioned on completion of a series of further tests on select groups including infants, pregnant women and youth, by 2027. The US vaccine, Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine, only got extension of its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), not full approval!

In their separate letter to Pfizer, the FDA stated,

“…On August 23, 2021, having concluded that revising this EUA is appropriate to protect the public health or safety under section 564(g)(2) of the Act, FDA is reissuing the August 12, 2021 letter of (Emergency Use) authorization in its entirety with revisions incorporated to clarify that the EUA will remain in place for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the previously-authorized indication and uses…”(emphasis added).

Buried in a footnote in the letter the FDA admits there are two legally separate entities and vaccines—Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 Vaccine and BioNTech GmbH of Mainz with its own vaccine trade-named Comrinaty. The FDA writes that “The products are legally distinct with certain differences…” Legally distinct means two separate vaccines. If you find this confusing it is meant to be. Only under an EUA ruling is Pfizer presently exempt from vaccine liability. Some lawyers are calling the FDA ruse a classic “bait and switch” tactic, a form of fraud based on deception.

US vaccinologist and a developer of the mRNA technique, Dr Robert Malone, has accused the FDA of playing a “bureaucratic shell game” with their supposed early approval of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine. He cites the two separate FDA letters,

“There is a letter for Pfizer and a letter for BioNTech. The New York Times and the Washington Post got it wrong. The authorization is not for Pfizer. The authorization is for BioNTech, and it will only be initiated at the time BioNTech product becomes available…”

Adding to the bizarre irregularities, in their two separate letters, one to BioNTech and another to Pfizer, the FDA repeatedly deletes the location of the vaccine manufacturing they approve. Why that? Is it in China where BioNTech has a joint agreement with Fosun Pharma of Shanghai to jointly produce and market Comirnaty vaccine for COVID-19? Why do they need to hide that location data from the public? Would it expose the entire fraud?

FDA-Pfizer Conflicts of Interest

In 2019 Pfizer made a very conflicted appointment to its board of directors. It took Scott Gottlieb, who had just resigned as head of the FDA three months earlier. If this gives an appearance of a huge conflict of interest, it is. Alongside Gottlieb at Pfizer’s Board of Directors sits Dr Susan Desmond-Hellmann, who headed the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation until 2020. The Gates Foundation is behind every single key part of the covid vaccine rush and owns stock in Pfizer to boot.

Another person who links Pfizer and Gates is Prof. Holly Janes, a bio-statistical expert in Gates’ hometown Seattle, at the Fred Huff cancer research center. Janes is also a member of the FDA Vaccine Committee until 2023. Notably, she co-designed the controversial trials for both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines for Fauci’s NIAID from her Seattle center, which is also funded by the Gates Foundation.

Janes is Professor at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division, known as Fred Hutch. Earlier she received Gates Foundation research money for a six year period when she worked for the Gates Foundation from 2006 to 2012 to develop “statistical and study design support for pre-clinical vaccine performance trials.” Prof. Janes also helped develop the program that tracks vaccine data at John Hopkins University.

The person who runs FDA as “Acting Director” is Janet Woodcock. To call her tainted is mild. She has been at FDA since 1986, almost as long as Fauci at NIAID. Woodcock was Biden’s choice to head FDA, but a massive opposition from 28 groups including state attorneys general and citizen groups forced him to name her “acting,” which does not need Congressional scrutiny.

Woodcock was directly responsible for the FDA approval of deadly opioids over the objections of her own scientists and other advisors. Two decades ago as head of the FDA unit responsible, Woodcock was instrumental in the approval of a powerful opioid, Zohydro, even though the FDA’s own scientific advisory committee voted 11-2 to keep the drug off the market because it was unsafe. The online Drugs.com writes, “Hydrocodone (Zohydro) can slow or stop your breathing. Never use Zohydro ER in larger amounts, or for longer than prescribed. .. Swallow it whole to avoid exposure to a potentially fatal dose. Hydrocodone may be habit-forming, even at regular doses.” Woodcock later approved the sale of a high-strength narcotic pill, OxyContin, as “safer and more effective than other painkillers” based on the false claims of the now bankrupt manufacturer, Purdue Pharma. Some 500,000 Americans have since died as a result of opioid addiction.

Woodcock clearly is the key FDA person behind the duplicitous August 23 Pfizer decision, seeing to it that there were no public advisory hearings to review relevant data. It would be relevant to know what discussions or communications went on with her former boss, now Pfizer director, Scott Gottlieb.

Why?

There are many unanswered question in this twisted tale of corruption at FDA and Pfizer. Was this theater rushed through by the Biden Administration to accelerate the forced vaccination of millions of Americans uncertain or skeptical of taking an emergency or experimental jab? Why is there such an incredible pressure from mainstream media and politicians to vaccinate every man, woman and now child in the US? Are the vaccines really safe if there are so many dire cases of adverse events after the Pfizer jab? Why did the FD refuse to allow its independent vaccine committee to weigh in?

It is worth noting that as of August 14 Pfizer does not mandate vaccines for its own employees. Also the Biden White House does not mandate vaccines for its staff. These are all serious issues that demand serious and honest answers.

*

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.

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

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

Featured image is from NEO


seeds_2.jpg

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

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

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

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

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

According to the most recent stats released by the CDC this past Friday, August 27, 2021, their Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) now has recorded more than twice as many deaths following COVID-19 shots during the past 8 and a half months, than deaths recorded following ALL vaccines for the past 30 years.

This has to be the most censored information in the U.S. right now, even though these statistics come directly from official government statistics.

They have now recorded 13,627 deaths, 2,826,646 injuries, and 1,429 fetal deaths from pregnant women who took a COVID shot.

They also report 17,794 permanent disabilities, 74,369 emergency room visits, 55,821 hospitalizations, and 14,104 life threatening events. (Source.)

And all of this has happened in just over 8 months.

From January 1, 1991 to November 30, 2020, the last month before the COVID shots were given emergency use authorization, there were only a total of 6,068 deaths recorded (mostly infant babies) following ALL vaccines. (Source.)

The FDA Has Approved the Pfizer COVID-19 Injection – Deal with it!

I have literally received about 50 emails from people DEMANDING that I change the text on several of our articles that reported the FDA has now given full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech shots, stating that I am wrong, and that the FDA did not actually approve this shot.

Here is one, for example, that I received just as I started writing this article today:

Subject: your wrong assertion that the FDA have approved the Pfizer injection

Message Body:
The Pfizer injection has NOT been approved by Pfizer. Dr E Alexander former White House Covid adviser to Trump government on the Stew Peters show made it clear that it is not the Pfizer injection that has been approved. It is another vaccine that is not available. He says it is a FDA trick. You need to correct this on your site as soon as possible

No, I am not wrong, and no, I am not going to change our articles. YOU are wrong. Here is the FDA Press Release from their website: FDA Approves First COVID-19 Vaccine

If the FDA says it is approved, then it is approved. End of discussion.

And yes, I do understand that there is a lot of controversy around them approving this, and that it is illegal. This is what we have previously published:

The FDA did approve the Pfizer/BioNTech shots, but they also apparently extended the EUA on existing doses of the shot. So now there are apparently two different “vaccines” produced by Pfizer/BioNTech, one under the EUA, and one approved by the FDA yesterday.

The name of the one that the FDA approved is “Comirnaty.” You can read the FDA press release here.

A letter was sent by the FDA to Pfizer extending the EUA on existing doses, and you can read that letter here.

A letter was sent by the FDA to BioNTech approving the “Comirnaty vaccine,” and you can read that letter here.

It appears that even the “Comirnaty” shot is also still covered by an EUA.

So what?

Why do you people think that this is an issue worth arguing about? Do you think that you can use this information in a court of a law and prevent an employer or school from mandating that you get the shot?

Because if that is your motivation for emailing me and demanding that I retract these statements, then you are the fool.

And it doesn’t surprise me, as the message above I quoted shows, that these are mostly deranged Right-wing Trump supporters emailing this to me. They’ll believe just about anything if Trump or one of his high profile supporters say it is so.

Well I have some news for you from one who has fought against the FDA’s criminal actions for about 20 years now: Almost EVERYTHING the FDA does is illegal, and it has never stopped them before, so why would you expect them to stop now, when the stakes are so high and their bosses in Big Pharma are raking in $TRILLIONS for the COVID shots?

In 2019, before anyone even knew what the word “COVID” was, we published this article: Study: 98% of FDA Laws Are Unconstitutional

Some excerpts:

Angela C. Erickson and Thomas Berry of the Pacific Legal Foundation have just published a new report examining illegally issued regulations at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Their study found that:

Unconstitutional rulemaking procedures are rife at HHS, especially at the FDA.

They analyzed who were the people making these rules at HHS in what they claim is the largest study ever done on this subject.

[This] has never been studied before: a large expansion of rulemakers who are not democratically accountable.

These unaccountable rulemakers are not constitutionally authorized to issue final rules that have the force of law.

But, as this study shows, that hasn’t stopped them.

The results of their study found:

that a majority of HHS regulations were illegally issued by low-level officials or career employees who had no authority to do so. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was the most frequent and clear-cut violator.

The FDA’s illegal rules were so numerous that they skewed the results for the rest of HHS.

Among FDA final rules, 98% were issued by career employees who have no constitutional authority to do so.

Read the full report.

Secondly, the courts have already ruled on whether or not an employer can mandate the COVID shots while they were all still under an EUA, and the employees lost. See this article we published on June 14, 2021: Texas Judge Proves Relief from COVID-19 Bioweapon Shots will NOT Come from the Judiciary – Upholds Mandatory Shots for Hospital Workers

Excerpt:

A U.S. District Judge in “Red State” Texas who was originally appointed to his position by former President Ronald Reagan in 1985, has ruled against 117 Houston Methodist hospital employees who were suspended without pay for refusing to take an experimental, non-FDA approved COVID-19 shot as a condition for employment.

Not only did he rule against them, he wrote a scathing opinion mocking them, proving once again that Big Pharma controls the judiciary as well as the Republican Party and so-called “conservatives.”

In November of 2020, before the COVID-19 shots were even given emergency use authorization, we published an article about a “Stay of Action” that was filed against the FDA for using faulty PCR test results in determining if COVID-19 shots were “effective” in stopping “the virus.” See: “Stay of Action” Filed Against FDA to STOP Approval of COVID Vaccine for Using Faulty PCR Tests in Trials

Dr. Mike Yeadon and other European doctors filed something similar against the EMA to stop this from getting approval.

And what was the result? NOTHING.

Anyone who still thinks that we will push back tyrannical medical psychopaths from implementing their plan to enslave everyone by taking them to court to “prove” all of this is illegal, is not living in reality.

There is only one way out of this: massive non-compliance. And here in the U.S., it most certainly will involve using the 2nd Amendment.

Here Come the Endless COVID “Booster” Shots

So while all of these deaths and crippling injuries that are being reported in VAERS following COVID-19 shots should have put a stop to this madness of mass vaccination of experimental shots a long time ago, the exact opposite is now happening: More COVID “booster” shots are on the way, and are already being implemented in Pfizer’s lab-rat country, Israel.

If you have a “Green Pass” in Israel because you got both Pfizer COVID-19 shots, it will soon expire if you don’t get a 3rd Pfizer “COVID-19 booster shot.”

After being confronted with the fact that widespread vaccination isn’t enough to stop COVID (just look at Israel’s case numbers), public health authorities in the tiny Mediterranean country have decided that the best solution is to double-down on the jabs by defying the WHO and demanding all citizens must get a third jab. Talk about moving the goalposts…

As Israel’s government expands availability of Pfizer-produced COVID booster shots to all inoculated residents age 12 and older, it has also decreed that all those who don’t opt for the third jab will lose their green pass privileges come October, according to a report in RT.

Effective from October 1, the “green pass” required for entry into some gatherings and public places will expire not only six months after the holder receives a second dose, but also six months after their third jab.

Read the full article at ZeroHedge News.

Here is Australia’s Chief Health Officer Dr Kerry Chant stating that Australians need to get used to “COVID vaccines” for years to come:

Chief Health Officer Dr Kerry Chant said health authorities would likely vaccinate NSW residents on a regular basis in the long term, or until vaccines are developed which provided more permanent COVID-19 immunity.

‘We need to get used to being vaccinated with COVID vaccines for the future … I can’t say COVID is not going to be with us forever,’ Dr Chant told reporters on Monday.

‘As a public health doctor we always want to have diseases go, to be totally eliminated, but that is not on the horizon in the near future.

‘Booster doses and repeat doses will be part of that.’

And here it is directly from the tyrant’s mouth. The CEO of Pfizer has already admitted that they are developing booster COVID shots for future variants that are not even here yet:

Meanwhile, existing, now “approved” COVID shots, will be given to children ages 5 to 11 by September.

And tell me again why it is so important that I need to go back and edit all of our articles that say the FDA has now fully approved the Pfizer COVID-19 shots because they “actually didn’t”?

You fools need to move on and start worrying about your children, especially if you are putting them in schools, because they are the target now, and no court of law is going to save you or your children.

Just ask the people in Florida who trusted that their Red State Governor had ended mandatory school masks.

*

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

Featured image is from HIN

Where Are the Autopsies of People Dying Post COVID Vaccine?

August 31st, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Dr. Jane Orient published a commentary in July 2021, asking why there is no information from autopsies of healthy people who died unexpectedly from the COVID-19 jab

Information from death certificates is notoriously inaccurate; autopsies are needed to inform public health policy and help people decide how they want to proceed with the genetic therapy injection program

As the death toll numbers reported to VAERS mounts daily, it is well over the rate of more than the number reported for 70 vaccines combined over 30 years and 500 times deadlier than the flu vaccine

Treatment for COVID-19 improved after Germany released data from 12 autopsies showing ventilators were likely a contributing cause of death

If you or a loved one took the shot and now regret it, there are options to help protect your health

*

Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, published a commentary July 7, 20211 asking an important question about the rising number of deaths being reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in conjunction with the COVID-19 injection program.

Her credentials2 are many: She’s a clinical lecturer in medicine at the University of Arizona College of Medicine. She received her medical degree from Columbia University and is the author of several books. And, as president of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness and chairman of the Public Health Committee of the Pima County (Arizona) Medical Society, she asks: Why haven’t there been autopsies of healthy people who are dying unexpectedly after receiving a COVID jab?

It’s a reasonable and logical question since autopsies often reveal important information about diseases and illnesses — and it’s information that can help guide future medical treatment to reduce the risk of long-term disability and death after the vaccine.3 After all, without autopsy results, the ability to treat cardiovascular diseases,4 cancers,5 hereditary diseases like hypertrophic cardiomyopathy6 and even catch murderers7 would be incompetent.

Dr. Dylan Miller chairs the autopsy resource committee for the College of American Pathologists. He spoke with a reporter from The Wall Street Journal, saying,8 “We think we always know what’s going on inside our patients, but that’s a fallacy. There’s as much to be gained from an autopsy as ever.”

The nature of an autopsy is diagnosis.9 It can help family members come to terms with what caused a loved one’s death, identify unknown diseases and offer clinicians an opportunity for a greater understanding of what happened before a patient dies. It also can provide a valuable educational opportunity for health officials and even students, who study disease processes.

It’s been over eight months since the first COVID-19 vaccine was administered in the U.S. in December 2020.10 Since then, VAERS reports show there have been over 12,000 people who have died after the shot.11 Since autopsies are so incredibly important in the identification of disease and pathological processes, why haven’t healthy people who have died after the COVID jab been autopsied?

Lack of Autopsy Results May Mean Data Are Hidden

At the time of Orient’s published commentary,12 she quoted a death toll after the COVID shot of nearly 7,000 people as reported in VAERS. This was in early July. By the end of July that number had risen to 12,366 people.13 That’s a jump of over 5,000 people in less than 30 days who reportedly had died after the COVID injections.

Orient comments that while it’s the best system available now for recording adverse events from vaccines, VAERS is likely missing 90% or more of the actual number of individuals who are hospitalized, have suffered anaphylactic reactions, have Bell’s Palsy, had heart attacks or had life-threatening reactions. The lack of accurate recording also includes the actual number of people who have died after receiving an injection.

When it comes to death certificates, data from The Johns Hopkins Hospital were published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in 2001,14 demonstrating that the accuracy and reliability of the recorded cause of death, on death certificates, was a significant problem, indicating the continued need for autopsies to correctly identify the cause of death.

According to Orient, the death of a 45-year-old mother after receiving the COVID-19 shot that was required for her to start work at the same institution, Johns Hopkins University, will likely not be investigated by autopsy. Additionally, the hospital has not paused their demand for the injection program for mothers and potential mothers who want to work at the university.

In the past, when an individual died without significant medical illness, they were designated a case for the medical examiner, who would decide whether an autopsy was needed. Any evidence that was related to the death was gathered and considered along with the autopsy report.

The most important reason for requesting and performing an autopsy was to ensure quality health care and at one time was required for hospital accreditation.15 However, that requirement has been dropped, and dropped along with it the number of autopsies routinely performed on patients who have died inside or outside the hospital.

The average rate for autopsies in the 1940s was 50%. That dropped to 41% in 1970, just before the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals removed the requirement that 20% of deaths in the hospital were to be autopsied to maintain accreditation.16

By 2018, experts estimated only 4% of in-hospital deaths were autopsied and only approximately 8% of all deaths. Since an estimated 700,000 die each year in the hospital, this means only approximately 28,000 of those deaths are autopsied. Experts have proposed three explanations for the falling rates, including:17

  • Fear of finding mistakes leading to a malpractice lawsuit
  • Lack of reimbursement for an autopsy
  • The belief that medical technology has made autopsies obsolete

However, it’s important to note that knowledge of why a person dies after vaccination will not help the family recover damages since the pharmaceutical industry is immune from liability.18,19 Even so, this information should be used to inform public health policy and help people decide how they want to proceed with the genetic therapy injection program.

Death Certificates Are Notoriously Inaccurate

Orient also notes that death certificates, which researchers use to gather statistics on the cause of death, “are known to be extremely unreliable.”20 An evaluation of 494 death certificates at The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions21 in 2001 showed 41% had improperly completed forms and the reliability and accuracy of the death certificates listing cause of death was a significant problem.

A study published in the Southern Medical Journal22 also found “major discrepancies” between the death certificates issued in the hospital and the information gathered on autopsy.

In 25% of the cases, the death was erroneously attributed to acute myocardial infarction, while an autopsy showed the deaths were actually from sepsis, cerebral hemorrhage, pneumonia and cardiac tamponade. Autopsy showed there were 52 myocardial infarctions that caused death, but death certificates accurately documented only 27. The researchers concluded:

“1) Death certificates are often wrong. 2) The time-honored autopsy is more valuable than ever. 3) Physicians need to write better death certificates and correct them. 4) Death certificate-based vital statistics should be corrected with autopsy results. 5) Vital statistics should note deaths confirmed by autopsy. 6) More autopsies would improve vital statistics and the practice of medicine.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s document on understanding death data quality, hospitals and health care providers should use the following criteria when filling out cause of death on a patient’s death certificate:23

“When a person dies, the cause of death is determined by the certifier — the physician, medical examiner, or coroner who reports it on the death certificate.

Certifiers are asked to use their best medical judgment based on the available information and their expertise. When a definitive diagnosis cannot be made, but the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty, certifiers may include the terms “probable” or “presumed” in the cause-of-death statement.”

In other words, data being reported about cause of death can be manipulated with a “probable” or “presumed” assumption if the certifier makes a subjective evaluation and believes the “circumstances are compelling.” This poor degree of accuracy only adds to the already notoriously inaccurate information found on death certificates.

Treatment for COVID-19 Improved After Autopsy Results

As Orient points out, there were tens of thousands of patients who died from COVID disease after being placed on ventilators before a small series of 12 autopsies done in Germany showed that most of these patients had blood clots and using a ventilator may have caused more damage.24

The improvement and treatment modalities for COVID-19 came after patients had been autopsied. Mechanical ventilation can easily damage lung tissue because it forces air into the lungs. Patients with COVID-19 who were ventilated had at best a 50-50 chance of surviving.25

However, risk analysis being reported indicated this chance of survival was higher than what was being seen clinically. China reported26 of 22 patients on ventilators, 86% of them did not survive the treatment. A British study found two thirds of patients on mechanical ventilation died and a study of 320 mechanically ventilated patients in New York showed 88% of them died.

COVID-19 Jab: More Death Reports Than All Vaccines Combined

Imagine if you would, a vaccine so “safe” officials are threatening those who won’t take it for a disease so deadly most people must be tested to know if they have it. Autopsies and accurate death certificates are part of an evaluation of safety for treatment protocols. If a reasonable safety standard had been in place, the campaign to inject the world would have stopped in early January 2021.

The voluntary reported death rate from the shots now exceeds that of more than 70 vaccines combined over 30 years and shows that it’s 500 times deadlier than the flu vaccine,27 which historically has been the most hazardous.

Trial Site News28 reports that Pfizer documents submitted to the European Medicines Agency [EMA] reveal the company “did not follow industry-standard quality management practices during preclinical toxicology studies … as key studies did not meet good laboratory practice (GLP).”

Neither reproductive toxicity nor genotoxicity (DNA mutation) studies were performed, both of which are considered critical when developing a new drug or vaccine for human use. The problems now surfacing matter greatly, as they significantly alter the risk benefit analysis underlying the vaccines’ emergency use authorization.

On the flip side of the risk-benefit analysis is the fact that effective treatment protocols have been developed by infectious disease specialists29 who have a high rate of success and therefore negate the need for emergency use authorization of a dangerous gene therapy injection program.

Unfortunately, people not only are dying from the shot itself, but data now show countries that have launched a massive vaccination campaign have more cases of COVID-19.30 In fact, data from the CDC show 74% of people who recently became sick with COVID-19 in Massachusetts were fully vaccinated.31

In a report from CNBC, the reporter announced that “public health experts” point out the majority of breakthrough cases in fully vaccinated people that lead to hospitalization and death are occurring in the elderly and those with comorbid conditions.32

In other words, the shot has increased the risk for severe disease in the very populations of people the shot is supposed to protect. In addition, the CDC changed how they count breakthrough cases in vaccinated individuals:

“As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause. This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance.”

Autopsy on Vaccinated Man Raises Questions

The case33 of an 86-year-old man who died after his first dose of the mRNA COVID-19 injection, but before he received the second, is posing questions about the safety, side effects, immunogenicity and possibility of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) after receiving just one dose.

Writing in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, study authors said the man died from acute renal and respiratory failure. Although he tested positive for the virus two days before he died, his autopsy attributed his death to acute bronchopneumonia and tubular failure. “These results might suggest that the first vaccination induces immunogenicity but not sterile immunity,” study authors said.

In a Twitter feed, however, at least one doctor34 questioned the circumstances under which the patient died, and suggested that the vaccine may set the stage for antibody dependent enhancement (ADE). ADE occurs when antibodies help a virus infect cells, rather than prevent it.

“This is a very important case, as it highlights the difference in the body’s immune response to sarscov2 after vax but before fully neutralizing titers,” AMM MD tweeted. “It also makes me wonder if this isn’t what is happening in breakthrough covid cases (develop covid months after complete vaccination, when immunity is waning). This could all serve as evidence for antibody dependent enhancement.”

What Can You Do if Someone You Love Dies Unexpectedly?

If someone you love dies unexpectedly after receiving the COVID shot, you have the right to ask for an autopsy. The medical examiner for your county is charged with maintaining public health.

If your loved one had no previous underlying medical conditions, there’s a higher likelihood you can convince the medical examiner to do an autopsy that may reveal how the genetic therapy affected the vascular and organ systems of your loved one.

If you or a loved one received the vaccine and you’re looking for information on how to protect yourself, please watch the video above. If you don’t have a chance to watch it in its entirety search for it or bookmark it on BitChute under “How Covid-19 Shots Might Reduce Lifespan — Drs. Vladimir Zelenko And Joseph Mercola” In the interview we talk about the acute, subacute and long-term risks associated with the shot.

As you may know, this article will no longer be available 48 hours after being published. I would encourage you to copy and paste the information so you can share it with friends and family. Although I’ve published several steps you can take to help protect your health, because the information is no longer freely available, I’ll share a list here:

  • In the first three months after the shot there is a higher risk of blood clots. A natural anticoagulant with great promise is n-acetyl cysteine (NAC), as it has anticoagulant35 and antithrombotic effects.36 This means it prevents clots and breaks up those that have formed.
  • In the subacute phase it’s important to avoid antibody dependent enhancement (ADE). The key is to implement a prophylactic protocol. Any symptoms of upper respiratory infection should be treated immediately. COVID is a multiphase disease. The first phase lasts five to seven days and is most easily treated. After Day 7, it typically progresses to the inflammatory phase, which requires different treatment.
  • A combination of a zinc ionophore such as quercetin, hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, plus zinc is an important component of early treatment and prevention. If you want to use either hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin and live in a state that restricts their use, look for online telehealth options.

    The American Frontline Doctors is one resource. Most only charge $90 for a consultation and you will be able to get the prescription that you need. Do not use Ivermectin from veterinary sources as it may be contaminated and is not designed for human use.

  • Optimize your vitamin D level in the range of 60 ng/mL to 80 ng/mL year-round. After a blood test to determine your current level, consider the Grassroots calculator to determine the necessary dose.
  • Vitamin C is another important component, especially if you’re taking quercetin, as they have synergistic effects. To effectively act as a zinc ionophore, quercetin needs vitamin C.

The take-home message here is that if you’ve gotten the jab, consider yourself high risk for COVID and implement a daily prophylaxis protocol. This means optimizing your vitamin D, and taking vitamin C, zinc and a zinc ionophore daily, at least throughout the cold and flu season.

It would also be useful to do a daily sauna, ideally one that can heat up to 170 degrees Fahrenheit. Additionally, nebulized hydrogen peroxide may help. If you would like to watch a video on this protocol, you can view all of them here on Substack. If you’re having post-vaccination symptoms, you could consider:

  • Low-dose interferons such as Paximune, to stimulate your immune system
  • Peptide T (an HIV entry inhibitor derived from the HIV envelope protein gp120; it blocks binding and infection of viruses that use the CCR5 receptor to infect cells)
  • Cannabis, to strengthen Type I interferon pathways, which are part of your first line of defense against pathogens
  • Dimethylglycine or betaine (trimethylglycine) to enhance methylation, thereby suppressing latent viruses
  • Silymarin or milk thistle to help cleanse your liver

*

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, 12, 20 WND, July 7, 2021

2 The Heartland Institute

3 Academic Pathology, 2019;6: 2374289519834041

4 Human Pathology, 1998;28(12)

5 Cancers, 2021;13(3)

6, 8 Wall Street Journal, March 9, 2015

7 Dallas Morning News, April 23, 2018

9 Yale School of Medicine, Pathology: Reason for an Autopsy

10 BBC, December 14, 2020

11 OpenVAERS

13 OpenVAERS, July 30, 2021

14, 21 Archives of Internal Medicine, 2001;161(2)

15 American Society for Clinical Pathology

16, 17 Circulation 2018;137:2686

18 PHE.gov, Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act

19 CNBC, December 17, 2020

22 Southern Medical Journal, 2006;99(7)

23 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Understanding Death Data Quality

24 University of Minnesota May 7, 2020

25, 26 Reuters, April 23, 2020

27 Trial Site News, May 25, 2021

28 Trial Site News, May 28, 2021

29 FLCCC Alliance

30 YouTube, May 13, 2021

31 CNBC, July 30, 2021

32 YouTube, July 19, 2021, Minute 00:25

33 Int J Infect Dis. 107: 172–175. June 2021

34 Twitter AMM, MD. August 21, 2021

35 Blood Coagulation and Fibrinolysis, 2006;17(1)

36 Circulation, 2017;136(7)

Featured image is from Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

When the FDA announced full approval of Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID vaccine, the media predicted an avalanche of mandates — but the FDA’s own Fact Sheet for the vaccine states it is “your choice to receive or not receive” the vaccine.

On Aug. 23, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued its approval (also known as a license) for Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID vaccine.

The FDA documents related to the vaccine’s approval are as difficult to understand as the new brand name is to pronounce.

According to the FDA, although Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine is now approved, considerable amounts of the vaccine will remain under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

Also, the approval of the Comirnaty vaccine was limited to adults over age 16 receiving their first two doses.

Vaccination with the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech or the Comirnaty vaccine in the 12- to 15-year age group, or providing a third booster dose of either, are still considered an unapproved use — however, those uses remain authorized under EUA.

FDA made some clear but cagey statements about the differences between the Comirnaty vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech EUA vaccine.

For example:

“The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.”

What does that statement mean? What, specifically, are the “certain differences” that make the two vaccines “legally distinct”?

The FDA did not explain this in any of the documents provided last week to the public.

Two important facts about EUA drugs and vaccines   

We know there are some important differences between EUA drugs and vaccines, and fully licensed drugs or vaccines.

We also know these two facts about EUA products:

  1. EUA vaccines are designated as experimental or investigational products under U.S. law. As such, they cannot be mandated. You have the right to refuse, without suffering consequences.
  2. EUA vaccines have a huge liability shield that protects everyone involved with the product from being sued. If you are injured by an EUA vaccine, the only way to obtain compensation for damages is to apply to the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which might cover unpaid medical expenses and lost wages only. However, only 3% of claims made have been compensated, and so far the program has approved no claims for COVID vaccine injuries.

Some say the CICP, which is run through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service and does not give petitioners the right to a judge or jury, withholds due process from injured Americans.

Yet this is the only pathway by which an injured party can seek help after receiving an EUA vaccine or drug.

It’s right there in the fact sheet — FDA says it’s ‘your choice’

Legally, in order to mandate a vaccine, the vaccine must be fully approved. However, once a vaccine for use in adults moves from an EUA product to a licensed everyday product, it loses its liability shield.

We believe it is likely the FDA was instructed to find a way to both license the Pfizer vaccine — so mandates would be legally supported — while also retaining the vaccine’s liability shield.

The FDA could not find a way to do this under existing law. So instead, as we reported Aug. 24 in The Defender, the agency chose to create confusion regarding the legal status of the two Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.

In a document we discuss here for the first time — the fact sheet required to be given to recipients of either the Comirnaty or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine — the FDA acknowledges the facts we have just presented.

But the FDA also has added something new — the final sentence of the fact sheet states:

“This EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and COMIRNATY will end when the Secretary of HHS determines that the circumstances justifying the EUA no longer exist or when there is a change in the approval status of the product such that an EUA is no longer needed.”

According to this fact sheet, the FDA also has designated the licensed Comirnaty vaccine as an EUA product. By doing so, the FDA has guaranteed the Comirnaty vaccine the same liability shield as the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

However, that means the Comirnaty vaccine cannot be mandated. The FDA admits this in the fact sheet, where it states:

“WHAT IF I DECIDE NOT TO GET COMIRNATY (COVID-19 VACCINE, mRNA) OR THE PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE?

“Under the EUA, it is your choice to receive or not receive the vaccine. Should you decide not to receive it, it will not change your standard medical care.”

The fact sheet is FDA’s admission, buried in the fine print, that no one can currently be mandated to receive any COVID vaccine in the U.S., as all remain under the EUA.

This fact sheet for vaccine recipients is key to avoid being forced to accept an experimental vaccine.

We suggest you print it out, highlight the relevant passages and present it to anyone who tries to force vaccinations on employees.

*

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.

Meryl Nass, MD, ABIM, is an internist with special interests in vaccine-induced illnesses, chronic fatigue syndrome, Gulf War illness, fibromyalgia and toxicology.

Featured image is from CHD

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Romania closes 117 Covid vaccination centres — July 7, Associated Press:

Declining demand for coronavirus vaccinations in Romania has prompted authorities to close 117 vaccination centers and to reduce the schedule at 371 others, health officials said Tuesday.

“In the previous week we re-evaluated the efficiency of fixed vaccination centers. About 80% of fixed vaccination centers vaccinate less than 25% of the vaccination capacity allocated to each stream,” national vaccination committee chief Valeriu Gheorghita said at a press conference Tuesday.

Romania halts most Covid-19 vaccine imports as people shun jabs — The Irish Times, July 1:

Romania has halted the import of most Covid-19 vaccines after a slowdown in its inoculation drive prompted the government to sell more than a million doses to Denmark and seek an extension to the validity of tens of thousands of expired shots.

Romania to start destroying expired COVID-19 vaccines as vaccination numbers drop — Romania Insider, June 25:

Romania could start destroying some of the COVID-19 vaccines received earlier this year as they are set to expire while the population’s interest in vaccination has dropped significantly. [Or more likely those who wanted it, already got it.]

As a result, Romania now holds a surplus of vaccines and will start to destroy some of the unused doses received earlier this year as they will expire soon. About a week ago, the authorities asked the suppliers to send fewer COVID-19 vaccines than planned for the same reason.

Denmark buys 1.1m Pfizer doses from Romania — The Local, June 30

Denmark has bought 1.1m doses of the Pfizer vaccine from the Romanian government, potentially bringing forward vaccinations by two to three weeks.
In a press release on Tuesday evening, Denmark’s health minister Magnus Heunicke said that the slow pace of vaccination in Romania had left the country with doses that it could not use.

Romanian PM doesn’t want different rules for vaccinated, unvaccinated — Universulnet.com, August 28

Prime Minister Florin Citu on Saturday said he wasn’t in favor of introducing different rules for people in public places depending on whether they had had a Covid vaccine or not.

“I am not a fan of the vaccinated, he unvaccinated going separately to the mall,” he said.

“The malls were open last year when we didn’t have a vaccine. It would be hilarious and absurd to close them now, when we have this solution: the vaccine,” he said during a visit to a vaccine center in the northern city of Botosani.

Bulgaria and Romania have low vaccination rates – and low COVID rates — LifeSite News, August 27:

Contrary to the expectations heavily promoted by politicians, media, and public health establishment, Bulgarians and Romanians saw a low number of COVID-19 infections this summer as they continued to refuse to take the COVID vaccines.

In fact, Bulgaria and Romania have some of the lowest rates of COVID infections per 100,000 people in Europe, according to an August 22 statistical analysis of European countries.

“The current vaccination rate in Romania is half compared to that of Bulgaria (0.13 vaccines per 100 inhabitants on average in the last seven days) and 7.5 times lower than the EU average (0.45 vaccines per 100 inhabitants),” according to Romania Insider. “On the opposite end, Denmark has administered 0.94 vaccine doses per 100 inhabitants on average over the last seven days.” Bulgaria and Romania’s vaccination rates since the 2020 release of the jab are not significantly different.

The two countries sandwich Denmark for lowest infection rates on the continent.

While the publication said that “the number of new COVID-19 cases has risen to the highest level since the end of May,” the article fails to provide the necessary context.

Romania’s reported COVID cases peaked at nearly 60,000 in November 2020, before a vaccine was made available.

Through the summer, Romania’s 25 percent vaccination rate did not lead it to experience a surge in infections. “Officials say Romania has received more [than] 16 million doses of several western-made vaccines but less than 55 per cent have been used, as the number of vaccines administered daily has dropped to around 20,000 from 100,000 last month,” the Irish Times reported.

The publication admitted “a slowing infection rate has weakened the impetus for some in Romania to get vaccinated: only 31 new cases of Covid-19 and five deaths were reported on Thursday, adding to a national total of 1.08 million infections and 33,786 fatalities.”

For example, the week of July 5 saw a low of 285 confirmed cases. While the past several weeks of August have seen an increase to almost 4,000 cases in one week, it’s still much lower than pre-vaccination rates and the early months of 2021.

*

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

Featured image is from Anti-Empire

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Romania Stops Vaccine Imports, Shutters Vaccination Centers, Transfers Vaccine Stocks to Denmark, Vietnam, Ireland, S. Korea, Etc.
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Abstract

Background: Reports of waning vaccine-induced immunity against COVID-19 have begun to surface. With that, the comparable long-term protection conferred by previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study comparing three groups: (1)SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who received a two-dose regimen of the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine, (2)previously infected individuals who have not been vaccinated, and (3)previously infected and single dose vaccinated individuals. Three multivariate logistic regression models were applied. In all models we evaluated four outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic disease, COVID-19-related hospitalization and death. The follow-up period of June 1 to August 14, 2021, when the Delta variant was dominant in Israel.

Results: SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

Read the full report here.

*

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

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

 

.

***

Provocative Title. A review by the Daily Mail. Is mainstream media departing from the fake covid consensus??

I fully concur with the opening sentence of this article:

“They’re the figures that have ruled our lives for the past 18 months; decided our freedoms; deepened our fears.”

What the Daily Mail fails to mention, however, is that the figures pertaining to Covid-19 cases as well as to presumed Covid deaths are totally invalid.

More than a Million Covid-19 cases in July, according to the Daily Mail, (see graph below)

ALL THE DATA PERTAINING TO COVID POSITIVE CASES resulting from the RT-PCR Test are INVALID. This is confirmed by the WHO.

Moreover, data on Covid related deaths are FAKE. No autopsy allowed, no post mortem. 

What this means is that comparisons with other causes of death as outlined by the Daily Mail are meaningless.

The governments are lying.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 31, 2021

***

For details and analysis on Covid data including the PCR test and data on mortality see Chapters II and III of  The 2020-21 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset” By Prof Michel Chossudovsky,

***

The Daily Mail Article 

Is It Time to Stop Obsessing over COVID Figures? Statistics Reveal Virus Is Not the Biggest Killer – With Heart Disease, Dementia and Cancer Each Claiming Four Times as Many Lives

They’re the figures that have ruled our lives for the past 18 months; decided our freedoms; deepened our fears.

The Covid dashboard published on the UK Government website has offered the public a window into the state of the UK’s epidemic, displaying daily Covid cases, hospitalisations and deaths, both nationally and regionally, since April 2020. 

Some people have avoided looking at the figures – published at 4pm every day, including weekends. But a surprising number of us have become secretly addicted to poring over them.

Back in January, the dashboard attracted 76 million views in a single day. In more recent months, the dashboard has offered a source of celebration, thanks to the addition of the vaccination tally.

Scientists and politicians alike agree the UK’s Covid dashboard has been a resounding success, allowing the public to draw their own conclusions about the level of threat the virus poses to them.

It’s also been a crucial yardstick for how stretched the NHS is, providing exact figures of how many Covid patients are in each hospital around the country.

But now, with nearly eight in ten Britons protected against getting seriously ill, thanks to the vaccine, are daily Covid figures still necessary?

The Mail on Sunday set about creating our own dashboard featuring the most up-to-date figures for some of Britain’s biggest killers which we compared with the current Covid stats

The Mail on Sunday set about creating our own dashboard featuring the most up-to-date figures for some of Britain’s biggest killers which we compared with the current Covid stats

The most striking finding is that, despite the prevailing focus on the dangers of Covid, it is killing very few people compared to other deadly conditions

Our thanks to the Daily Mail

To read complete article, click here

*

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

  • Posted in English, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Is It Time to Stop Obsessing over COVID Figures? Statistics Reveal Virus Is Not the Biggest Killer – With Heart Disease, Dementia and Cancer Each Claiming Four Times as Many Lives
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

If it were possible to say with absolute scientific authority that vaccinations are the best way for the planet to escape from the Covid-19 death grip, then it might seem plausible – albeit still highly arguable – for governments to demand proof of ‘the mark’ for participating in the global economy. As things stand, however, nothing to date indicates that there are not more effective and reliable means of moving forward.

The relentless push for vaccine passports by opportunistic authoritarians around the globe took a broadside this week as Israeli researchers discovered what had been suspected by many all along: natural immunity acquired via infection, as opposed to vaccinations, provides the best defense against Covid-19 and its seemingly endless array of Greek-coded variants.

The study, which examined up to 32,000 individuals, found that the risk of developing Covid-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated (with the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine), and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher, as compared to those individuals who had acquired natural immunity.

Equally shocking, individuals who were administered two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were almost six-times more likely to contract the Delta variation and seven-times more likely to have symptomatic disease than those who recovered from the disease naturally, according to the study, which is up for peer review.

“This analysis demonstrated that natural immunity affords longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization due to the delta variant,” the researchers said.

So what grounds are left for forcing vaccine passports on people? The simple answer would seem ‘none.’ As a thought experiment, let’s imagine that a radical new mode of transportation still in the early test stages – perhaps some brainchild from the quirky mind of Elon Musk, for example – had proven to have a better than average chance of exploding for no apparent reason.

Under such grim conditions it is doubtful that governments would coerce their subjects into driving such a flawed vehicle since the product itself would be deemed too dangerous to enter the mainstream. So why isn’t the same sort of logic being employed when it comes to being forced to carry a vaccine passport for a vaccine, which has also demonstrated itself to be dodgy at best, disastrous at worst?

The efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine in treating the Delta strain has been measured at just 42 percent, and in some cases even as low as 17 percent. At the same time, thousands of otherwise healthy people have suffered horrible side effects after taking these jabs, up to and including death.

Australian journalist Denham Hitchcock is one of thousands of people who got much more than he bargained for when he got the shot.

“The first week was like any vaccine. Feeling off,” Hitchcock wrote on his Instagram page.

“But nearing the end of the second week my heart started to race, I was getting pins and needles in the arms, extreme fatigue and a very strange sensation of dizziness…By the end of the third week i was getting steadily worse – sharp chest pain – cold shivers and chills – and the dizziness was intense.

“25 days after the shot and probably a little late to hospital – but here I am – diagnosed with pericarditis – or inflammation of the heart due to the Pfizer vaccine.”

Since being in the hospital, Hitchcock says he’s contacted health professionals in Sydney who told him that while his reaction to the vaccine is rare – it’s certainly not isolated.

“One hospital has had well over a dozen cases like me,” he revealed.

Meanwhile, a coroner this week has determined that the death of Lisa Shaw, who worked for BBC Radio Newcastle and passed away in May, was “due to complications of an AstraZeneca Covid vaccination.”

And lest anyone think the Moderna vaccine is without its own problems, Japan this week removed around 1.6 million vials of the vaccine from use after contamination was reported by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. While such things do occasionally happen, the ministry revealed that the substance found in the vials “reacted to magnets and…could be metal.”

Moderna suggested the problem may have come from a “manufacturing issue” from a plant in Spain.

“The company is investigating the reports and remains committed to working transparently and expeditiously with its partner, Takeda, and regulators to address any potential concerns,” a Moderna spokesperson told Nikkei, saying the drugmaker believed a “manufacturing issue” at a plant in Spain was to blame.

Incidentally, the very inventor of the mRNA vaccines, Dr. Robert Malone, who could be providing governments much-needed guidance during the pandemic, has largely been shunned from polite society from the Western hemisphere’s very own medical Taliban as a conspiracy theorist who peddles in “misinformation.”

Getting back to Pfizer, its own lackluster performance apparently means little to regulators as the drug maker just won approval by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to administer its vaccine, which will be distributed under the brand name Comirnaty. Now pressure will certainly ratchet up against those who have second thoughts about the magic juice as many public and private institutions – from schools and workplaces to government agencies – push for a mandatory vaccine regime. This would include society’s youngest and most vulnerable demographic, the children.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, for example, is pressuring the National Health Service to begin vaccinating children as young as 12, and despite the fact that the youth have shown amazing imperviousness to the virus. The UK looks set to join the United States, Spain, France and Germany as countries where inoculating the young is quickly becoming standard operating procedure – and with zero democratic debate.

Nobody, however, should be led to believe that things will return to normal once everyone has rolled up their sleeves for the shot. After all, these ‘vaccines’ do not prevent people from getting infected by Covid, and, as studies have shown, may actually precipitate infection. This shocking shortcoming of the jabs, far from sidelining their use in favor of other preventive measures, has allowed the vaccine makers to roll out an endless supply of booster shots, as gleefully discussed at a recent Pfizer stockholder meeting.

Albert Bourla, Pfizer Chairman of the Board & CEO, remarked that “the dynamics in the COVID more and more indicate a potential that we will have a clearly repeated business…Now we still don’t have data about the immunity of our vaccine because it is early. But we do see that the people that have the disease, more and more publications indicate that after several months, the immune response goes down. So there is a need to boost.” Those giddy remarks were made back in February, before the Pfizer vaccine has acquired FDA approval.

In other words, the sky is the limit for Big Pharma as far as profits from vaccinations go. And despite the inherent risks of getting the jab, the Western world’s assembly of petty tyrants, short-sighted leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and U.S. President Joe Biden are pushing ahead with plans for vaccine passports.

Such an initiative, which flies in the face of freedom and liberty, denies individuals the right to refuse medical treatment – and treatment that is loaded with unacceptable risk. And just because one of the drug makers has secured FDA approval for their product, this will not help individuals who are injured, or worse, from the vaccines. The drug makers are indemnified from any lawsuits that may arise from the victims of their product.

This dire situation has placed the citizens of so-called democracies into the unenviable situation where they must choose between signing up to a lifetime of imperfect shots and boosters to participate in a large swath of the economy, or remain something of a social pariah for the rest of their lives. It is a choice that no citizen of a democratic system should ever be forced to make.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Politicians Have No Right Demanding ‘Vaccine Passports’ When the Vaccines Themselves Are Fraught with Risk
  • Tags: ,