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).
Last month’s revelation by a representative of the Russian Armed Forces that the Syrian-manned anti-air systems that his country dispatched to the Arab Republic successfully downed most “Israeli” missiles during a recent strike suggest that the Eurasian Great Power might be recalibrating its de facto alliance with the self-professed “Jewish State”.
Russia and “Israel” have been de facto allies in Syria for over the past half-decade as I argued at length over the years, especially in my top four analyses on the subject here, here (which lists 15 other pertinent ones), here, and here.
To summarize, Russia sought to actively “balance” Iranian influence in Syria which it regards as regionally destabilizing due to its reported role in organizing attacks against the self-professed “Jewish State” from the Arab Republic’s territory. Moscow was motivated by the desire to comprehensively expand its ties with Tel Aviv, which it also expected would improve its geostrategic positioning vis-a-vis Washington by gradually becoming “Israel’s” most significant regional security partner.
It advanced this aim by “passively facilitating” literally hundreds of “Israeli” strikes against the IRGC and Hezbollah there, which importantly were never thwarted by Syria’s Russian-supplied S-300s from a few years back due to what some believe is the Kremlin’s continued refusal to transfer full operational control over these systems to Damascus. The thinking goes that if Syria succeeded in downing any more “Israeli” jets in self-defense, then Tel Aviv would be triggered into launching a disproportionate response against its neighbor that could completely cripple its military and therefore inadvertently reverse Russia’s recent anti-terrorist gains in the country. The Kremlin calculated that it’s better to give “Israel” freedom of the skies than risk that scenario.
This strategy seems to be changing though as evidenced by a Russian Armed Forces representative revealing late last month that the Syrian-manned anti-air systems that his country dispatched to the Arab Republic successfully downed most “Israeli” missiles during a recent strike. This suggests that the Eurasian Great Power might be recalibrating its de facto alliance with the self-professed “Jewish State”. It’s unclear exactly what Moscow’s motivations may be, but some educated hypotheses might suffice for pointing sincere observers in the right direction. These are the recent removal of President Putin’s close friend Netanyahu from power; the ongoing efforts to clinch a “New Detente” with the US; and restoring regional geostrategic balance.
In the order that they were mentioned, the first development might have resulted in the coming to power of influential forces that don’t share Netanyahu’s vision of a de facto Russian-”Israeli” alliance. Those individuals can speculatively be described as more pro-American than pro-”Israeli” in the sense that they’d prefer to put their traditional patron’s interests before their own polity’s. To explain, regardless of however one feels about Netanyahu’s legacy, he was nevertheless very successful in comprehensively improving relations with Russia, which in turn made “Israel” less dependent on the US’ regional security services for defending his polity’s interests. His successor and that man’s team might feel more comfortable returning under the US umbrella.
The second point is pertinent insofar as it’s increasingly clear that the US and Russia are attempting to negotiate a series of “mutual compromises” across a wide array of spheres following June’s Biden-Putin Summit in Geneva. Russia wants to relieve American pressure along its western flank in order to focus more on its “UmmahPivot” for reducing potentially disproportionate dependence on China in the future while the US wants to refocus the bulk of its strategic efforts on more aggressively “containing” China in the “Indo-Pacific”. “Israel”, which is important to both of their interests, might have come to be treated as little more than a piece to be traded by Russia on this “Great Power Chessboard” in exchange for US “compromises” elsewhere.
Finally, this might simply be due to Russia realizing that “Israel” is now far too strong and must therefore be “gently” balanced through increased military (and specifically anti-air) assistance to Syria. After all, one of the primary reasons why Russia de facto allied with “Israel” in the first place is because Iran was becoming too strong in the region and thus had to be balanced according to the Kremlin’s geostrategic calculations. It would therefore be natural for Russia to temporarily recalibrate its balancing strategy in light of succeeding so well with its earlier motivation. This suggests that Russia might eventually oscillate back towards “Israel” if/once Iran regains its momentum, and so on and so forth in accordance with the Kremlin’s Eurasian balancing strategy.
While a lot still remains unclear at the moment, all that can be known for sure is that Russia wanted the world to know that it credibly bolstered Syria’s air defense capabilities, which certainly hints that it’s actively recalibrating its balancing act and in particular the “Israeli” dimension thereof. It’s unknown exactly how far it’ll go and whether it’ll ever cross the Rubicon that many Non-Russian Pro-Russians (NRPRs) have been practically begging for with respect to letting Syria finally use the S-300s to shoot down attacking “Israeli” jets, but it’s obvious that something has changed even though the reasons for this perceptible shift are debatable and could even potentially be a combination of each of the three earlier described hypotheses.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on OneWorld.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Recently the Core Group (US, Canada, France, Spain, Germany, Brazil, UN and OAS) published a note saying Ariel Henry was the prime minister of Haiti. Within 48 hours the other individual claiming the position fell into line behind Henry, who was a member of the US/France/Canada created ‘Council of the Wise’ that appointed the prime minister after President Jean Bertrand Aristide was ousted in 2004.
The Core Group’s bid to unify the PHTK (right wing ‘Bald-Headed’ Party) regime was designed to undercut an effort by a broad group of Haitian political actors to form a consensus government. The Commission pour la recherche d’une solution à la crise is seeking to form a government that would remain in place for a year or two in a bid to stabilize the country and revitalize moribund state institutions. Then it would oversee elections.
But the Core Group wants the PHTK regime to oversee quick elections, which will be easy to manipulate. Something that has happened numerous times in the recent past.
As a result, many Haitian civil society and political actors have criticized the Core Group’s ‘selection of Haiti’s leader by statement’. To understand their concerns, imagine the Jamaican, Congolese, Guatemalan and Filipino ambassadors releasing a collective statement on who should be prime minister of Canada.
The assassination of President Jovenel Moïse reflects the disintegration of Haitian politics after a decade of foreign intervention that empowered the neo-Duvalierist PHTK since an earthquake devastated Port-au-Prince and surrounding regions in January 2010. Instead of dispatching Heavy Urban Search and Rescue Teams to help with relief and medical support after the quake, Ottawa sent 2,000 troops to join over 10,000 US troops deployed to Haiti. As internal Canadian government documents show, they were deployed out of concern over a “popular uprising” amidst the political vacuum and the return of Haiti’s most popular politician, Aristide, from forced exile.
While their massive capacities offered certain logistical benefits, the foreign troops trampled on Haitian sovereignty by seizing control of the airport and port. Simultaneously, the government was sidelined from international reconstruction. In the months after the quake the US and Canada demanded the Haitian parliament pass an 18-month state of emergency law that effectively gave up government control over the reconstruction.
Not viewing then-President Renée Préval as sufficiently compliant, the US and Canada pushed for elections to take place only months after the horrific earthquake. With rubble throughout Port au Prince and hundreds of thousands living in camps, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannondemanded Préval hold elections by the end of the year. In May 2010 Cannon said, “the international community wants to see a commitment, a solid, serious commitment to have an election by the end of this year.” (With far fewer logistical hurdles, it took two years to hold elections after the 2004 US/France/Canada coup.)
As a result of various obstacles tied to the earthquake and a devastating cholera outbreak introduced to the country by negligent UN troops in October 2010, hundreds of thousands were unable to vote during the first round of the November 28, 2010, election. Another factor dampening turnout was the exclusion of Aristide’s Fanmi Lavalas from participating.
Following the first round of voting the US and Canada forced the candidate whom Haiti’s electoral council had in second place, Jude Celestin, out of the runoff. Rather than the candidate of Préval’s social democratic INITE party, US and Canadian officials claimed the extreme right-wing Michel Martelly deserved to be in the second round. A US and Canada dominated OAS electoral mission concluded Martelly was in second place despite, explains the Centre for Economic Policy Research, no “legal, statistical, or other logical basis for its conclusions.” Nevertheless, Ottawa and Washington pushed the Haitian government to accept the OAS’s recommendations. Cannon said he “strongly urges the Provisional Electoral Council to accept and implement the [OAS] report’s recommendations and to proceed with the next steps of the electoral process accordingly.” In an interview Canada’s foreign minister warned that “time is running out”, adding that “our ambassador has raised this with the president [Préval] himself.” As part of their full-court press, Haitian officials had their US visas revoked, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to Port-au-Prince and there were threats that aid would be cut off if Martelly’s vote total was not increased as per the OAS recommendation.
The pressure worked. But only about 20% of voters participated in the second round of elections, which Martelly ‘won’.
Washington and Ottawa backed Martelly as he failed to hold constitutionally mandated elections and became ever more violent. As president, Martelly surrounded himself with former Duvalierists and death squad leaders who’d been arrested for rape, murder, kidnapping and drug trafficking. When brutal dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier returned to Haiti after 25 years, Martelly told the New York Times no one wanted him prosecuted except for “certain institutions and governments” abroad.
During repeated visits Canadian foreign minister John Baird praised Martelly for “going in the right direction” and operating “a really functioning government.” In 2013 Baird and minister for the Americas Diane Ablonczy met Martelly and his Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe in Port-au-Prince saying, “we share with Haitian leaders the goal of seeing a self-sustaining economy with opportunity for all Haitians and a greater role for private-sector actors, including Canadian companies.” Ottawa backed Martelly until protests forced him to leave office at the end of his five-year mandate.
They also helped Martelly make the little-known Jovenel Moïse his successor. The US and Canada pushed to move forward with the second round of voting after mass protests broke out over election irregularities. When the second round was finally canceled Global Affairs put out a statement headlined “Ministers Dion and Bibeau concerned by postponement of Haiti’s presidential elections.” A subsequent audit of the election results found that 92% of polling place tally sheets had significant irregularities and a stunning 900,000 of the 1.5 million votes cast were from ‘accredited poll observers’ who could vote at any voting station.
In a new election a year later barely one in five eligible voters participated. According to official figures, Moïse received less than 600,000 votes — just 9.6 percent of registered voters. Voter suppression was widespread.
Beyond direct efforts to dampen turnout, elections had largely lost their legitimacy. Many Haitians believed then and believe today that no matter who receives the most votes the tallies will be ‘arranged’ to suit the ruling candidate. And if a pro-poor candidate wins, their agenda will be stifled or they will be overthrown.
This belief is based upon experience. In the most credible election in Haitian history, Aristide’s Fanmi Lavalas won more than 70% of the votes for 7,000 positions. In the May 2000 legislative and municipal elections they took an unprecedented 89 of 115 mayoral positions, 72 of 83 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and 18 of 19 Senate seats.
Knowing they had no chance of gaining power via the ballot box in the foreseeable future, the foreign backed opposition parties cried foul. After initially describing the elections as “a great success for the Haitian population”, the OAS subsequently criticized the counting method in a handful of Senate seats (as has been done in previous selections, the electoral council determined the 50 percent plus one vote required for a first-round victory by calculating the percentages of the top four candidates.) The opposition boycotted the subsequent presidential election, which they had no chance of winning. A USAID poll of 1,002 Haitians conducted on the eve of the November 2000 presidential election showed that Aristide was far and away the most popular politician and Fanmi Lavalas was the preferred party by an incredible 13 to one.
In one of the most impressive feats of 21st-century imperial propaganda, supposed ‘irregularities’ in the May legislative and municipal election became the justification for destabilizing and ultimately overthrowing Aristide. In other words, the 2004 coup against President Aristide began with an effort to discredit elections he neither participated in nor oversaw.
The US- and Canada-sponsored destabilization campaign included an aid embargo, funding for opposition groups, diplomatic isolation and paramilitary attacks. It culminated with US, French and Canadian troops invading the country to physically remove the president.
Incredibly this was all planned, in broad outline, in advance, in Canada.
In 2003 Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government organized the “Ottawa Initiative on Haiti” where high-level US, French and OAS officials discussed ousting Haiti’s elected president, re-creating the dreaded army and putting the country under UN trusteeship. Thirteen months after the meeting Aristide was forced out and Haiti was under UN occupation. The military was subsequently re-created.
The current Core Group traces its roots to the 2003 Ottawa Initiative on Haiti meeting. Some have labeled it a “fourth branch” of the Haitian government. But the Core Group’s success at rallying the PHTK behind Ariel Henry demonstrates its influence may be greater than that.
The vast majority of Haitians are right to be angry at foreign interference in their country. Look at where it has led.
*
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).
Imagine it: a national classification system that not only categorizes you according to your health status but also allows the government to sort you in a hundred other ways: by gender, orientation, wealth, medical condition, religious beliefs, political viewpoint, legal status, etc.
This is the slippery slope upon which we are embarking, one that begins with vaccine passports and ends with a national system of segregation.
It has already begun.
With every passing day, more and more private businesses and government agencies on both the state and federal level are requiring proof of a COVID-19 vaccination in order for individuals to work, travel, shop, attend school, and generally participate in the life of the country.
No matter what one’s views may be regarding the government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, this is an unnerving proposition for a country that claims to prize the rights of the individual and whose Bill of Rights was written in such a way as to favor the rights of the minority.
By allowing government agents to establish a litmus test for individuals to be able to engage in commerce, movement and any other right that corresponds to life in a supposedly free society, it lays the groundwork for a “show me your papers” society in which you are required to identify yourself at any time to any government worker who demands it for any reason.
Such tactics can quickly escalate into a power-grab that empowers government agents to force anyone and everyone to prove they are in compliance with every statute and regulation on the books. Mind you, there are thousands of statutes and regulations on the books. Indeed, in this era of overcriminalization, it is estimated that the average American unknowingly breaks at least three laws a day.
This is also how the right to move about freely has been undermined, overtaken and rewritten into a privilege granted by the government to those citizens who are prepared to toe the line.
It used to be that “we the people” had the right to come and go as we please without the fear of being stopped, questioned by police or forced to identify ourselves. In other words, unless police had a reasonable suspicion that a person was guilty of wrongdoing, they had no legal authority to stop the person and require identification.
Unfortunately, in this age of COVID-19, that unrestricted right to move about freely is being pitted against the government’s power to lock down communities at a moment’s notice. And in this tug-of-war between individual freedoms and government power, “we the people” have been on the losing end of the deal.
Now vaccine passports, vaccine admission requirements, and travel restrictions may seem like small, necessary steps in winning the war against the COVID-19 virus, but that’s just so much propaganda. They’re only necessary to the police state in its efforts to further brainwash the populace into believing that the government legitimately has the power to enforce such blatant acts of authoritarianism.
This is how you imprison a populace and lock down a nation.
It makes no difference if such police state tactics are carried out in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America healthy again: the philosophy remains the same, and it is a mindset that is not friendly to freedom.
You can’t have it both ways.
You can’t live in a constitutional republic if you allow the government to act like a police state.
You can’t claim to value freedom if you allow the government to operate like a dictatorship.
You can’t expect to have your rights respected if you allow the government to treat whomever it pleases with disrespect and an utter disregard for the rule of law.
If you’re tempted to justify these draconian measures for whatever reason—for the sake of health concerns, the economy, or national security—beware: there’s always a boomerang effect.
Whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now, rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.
The war on drugs turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with SWAT teams and militarized police. The war on terror turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with warrantless surveillance and indefinite detention for those who dare to disagree.
The war on immigration turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with roving government agents demanding “papers, please.”
This war on COVID-19 is turning out to be yet another war on the American people, waged with all of the surveillance weaponry and tracking mechanisms at the government’s disposal. You see, when you talk about empowering government agents to screen the populace in order to control and prevent spread of this virus, what you’re really talking about is creating a society in which ID cards, round ups, checkpoints and detention centers become routine weapons used by the government to control and suppress the populace, no matter the threat.
No one is safe.
No one is immune.
And as I illustrate in my new novel, The Erik Blair Diaries, no one gets spared the anguish, fear and heartache of living in a police state.
That’s the message being broadcast 24/7 with every new piece of government propaganda, every new law that criminalizes otherwise lawful activity, every new policeman on the beat, every new surveillance camera casting a watchful eye, every sensationalist news story that titillates and distracts, every new prison or detention center built to house troublemakers and other undesirables, every new court ruling that gives government agents a green light to strip and steal and rape and ravage the citizenry, every school that opts to indoctrinate rather than educate, and every new justification for why Americans should comply with the government’s attempts to trample the Constitution underfoot.
Yes, COVID-19 has taken a significant toll on the nation emotionally, physically, and economically, but there are still greater dangers on the horizon.
As long as “we the people” continue to allow the government to trample our rights in the so-called name of national security, things will get worse, not better.
It’s already worse.
We’ve been having this same debate about the perils of government overreach for the past 50-plus years, and still we don’t seem to learn, or if we learn, we learn too late.
Curiously enough, these COVID-19 mandates, restrictions and vaccine card requirements dovetail conveniently with a national timeline for states to comply with the Real ID Act, which imposes federal standards on identity documents such as state drivers’ licenses, a prelude to a national identification system.
Talk about a perfect storm for bringing about a national ID card, the ultimate human tracking device.
In the absence of a national ID card, which would make the police state’s task of monitoring, tracking and singling out individual suspects far simpler, “we the people” are already being tracked in a myriad of ways: through our state driver’s licenses, Social Security numbers, bank accounts, purchases and electronic transactions; biometrics; by way of our correspondence and communication devices (email, phone calls and mobile phones); through chips implanted in our vehicles, identification documents, even our clothing.
Add to this the fact that businesses, schools and other facilities are relying more and more on fingerprints and facial recognition to identify us. All the while, data companies such as Acxiom are capturing vast caches of personal information to help airports, retailers, police and other government authorities instantly determine whether someone is the person he or she claims to be.
This informational glut—used to great advantage by both the government and corporate sectors—has converged into a mandate for “an internal passport,” a.k.a., a national ID card that would store information as basic as a person’s name, birth date and place of birth, as well as private information, including a Social Security number, fingerprint, retinal scan and personal, criminal and financial records.
A federalized, computerized, cross-referenced, databased system of identification policed by government agents would be the final nail in the coffin for privacy (not to mention a logistical security nightmare that would leave Americans even more vulnerable to every hacker in the cybersphere).
Americans have always resisted adopting a national ID card for good reason: National ID card systems have been used before, by other oppressive governments, in the name of national security, invariably with horrifying results. After all, such a system gives the government and its agents the ultimate power to target, track and terrorize the populace according to the government’s own nefarious purposes.
For instance, in Germany, the Nazis required all Jews to carry special stamped ID cards for travel within the country. A prelude to the yellow Star of David badges, these stamped cards were instrumental in identifying Jews for deportation to death camps in Poland.
Author Raul Hilberg summarizes the impact that such a system had on the Jews:
The whole identification system, with its personal documents, specially assigned names, and conspicuous tagging in public, was a powerful weapon in the hands of the police. First, the system was an auxiliary device that facilitated the enforcement of residence and movement restrictions. Second, it was an independent control measure in that it enabled the police to pick up any Jew, anywhere, anytime. Third, and perhaps most important, identification had a paralyzing effect on its victims.
In South Africa during apartheid, pass books were used to regulate the movement of black citizens and segregate the population. The Pass Laws Act of 1952 stipulated where, when and for how long a black African could remain in certain areas. Any government employee could strike out entries, which cancelled the permission to remain in an area. A pass book that did not have a valid entry resulted in the arrest and imprisonment of the bearer.
Identity cards have also helped oppressive regimes carry out eliminationist policies such as mass expulsion, forced relocation and group denationalization. Through the use of identity cards, Ethiopian authorities were able to identify people with Eritrean affiliation during the mass expulsion of 1998. The Vietnamese government was able to locate ethnic Chinese more easily during their 1978-79 expulsion. The USSR used identity cards to force the relocation of ethnic Koreans (1937), Volga Germans (1941), Kamyks and Karachai (1943), Crimean Tartars, Meshkhetian Turks, Chechens, Ingush and Balkars (1944) and ethnic Greeks (1949). And ethnic Vietnamese were identified for group denationalization through identity cards in Cambodia in 1993, as were the Kurds in Syria in 1962.
Despite a belated apology and monetary issuance by the U.S. government, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to declare such a practice illegal. Moreover, laws such as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) empower the government to arrest and detain indefinitely anyone they “suspect” of being an enemy of the state.
So you see, you may be innocent of wrongdoing now, but when the standard for innocence is set by the government, no one is safe.
Everyone is a suspect.
And anyone can be a criminal when it’s the government determining what is a crime.
It’s no longer a matter of if, but when.
Remember, the police state does not discriminate.
At some point, it will not matter whether your skin is black or yellow or brown or white. It will not matter whether you’re an immigrant or a citizen. It will not matter whether you’re rich or poor. It won’t even matter whether you’ve been properly medicated, vaccinated or indoctrinated.
Government jails will hold you just as easily whether you’ve obeyed every law or broken a dozen. Government bullets will kill you just as easily whether you’re complying with a police officer’s order or questioning his tactics. And whether or not you’ve done anything wrong, government agents will treat you like a suspect simply because they have been trained to view and treat everyone like potential criminals.
Eventually, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, when the police state has turned that final screw and slammed that final door, all that will matter is whether some government agent chooses to single you out for special treatment.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
In mid-July, 100 Afghan families from Bamiyan, a rural province of central Afghanistan mainly populated by the Hazara ethnic minority, fled to Kabul. They feared Taliban militants would attack them in Bamiyan.
Over the past decade, I have gotten to know a grandmother who recalls fleeing Talib fighters in the 1990s, just after learning that her husband had been killed.
Then, she was a young widow with five children, and for several agonizing months two of her sons were missing.
I can only imagine the traumatized memories that spurred her to again flee her village today. She is part of the Hazara ethnic minority and hopes to protect her grandchildren.
Girls and mothers, waiting for donations of heavy blankets, Kabul, 2018. [Source: Dr. Hakim]
When it comes to inflicting miseries on innocent Afghan people, there is plenty of blame to be shared.
The Taliban have demonstrated a pattern of anticipating people who might form opposition to their eventual rule and waging “pre-emptive” attacks against journalists, human rights activists, judicial officials, advocates for women’s rights, and minority groups such as the Hazara.
In places where the Taliban have successfully taken over districts, they may be ruling over increasingly resentful populaces; people who have lost harvests, homes, and livestock are already coping with a third wave of Covid-19 and severe drought.
An injured man receives treatment at the Ibn-e-Sina Hospital in Mazar-e Sharif following a bomb attack in Balkh province on June 6, 2021. [Source: Afghanistan-analysts.org]
In many northern provinces, the re-emergence of the Taliban can be traced to the Afghan government’s incompetence, and also to criminal and abusive behaviors of the local military commanders, including land grabs, extortion, and rape.
President Ashraf Ghani, showing little empathy for people trying to flee Afghanistan, referred to those who leave as people looking to “have fun.”
Responding to his April 18 speech when he made this comment, a young woman whose sister, a journalist, was recently killed, tweeted about her father who had stayed in Afghanistan for 74 years, encouraged his children to stay, and now felt that his daughter might be alive had she left. The surviving daughter said the Afghan government could not protect its people, and that is why they tried to leave
President Ghani’s government has encouraged the formation of “Uprising” militias to help protect the country. Immediately, people began questioning how the Afghan government could support new militias when it already lacks ammunition and protection for thousands of Afghan National Defense Forces and local police who have fled their posts.
The main backer of the Uprising forces, it seems, is the formidable National Directorate of Security, whose main sponsor is the CIA.
Some militia groups have raised money through imposing “taxes” or outright extortion. Others turn to other countries in the region, all of which reinforces cycles of violence and despair.
The staggering loss of landmine removal experts working for the nonprofit HALO Trust should add to our sense of grief and mourning.
About 2,600 Afghans working with the demining group had helped make more than 80% of Afghanistan’s land safe from unexploded ordnance strewn over the country after 40 years of war.
Tragically, militants attacked the group, killing ten workers.
Human Rights Watch says the Afghan government has not adequately investigated the attack nor has it investigated the killings of journalists, human rights activists, clerics, and judicial workers that began escalating after the Afghan government began peace talks with the Taliban in April.
Yet, unquestionably, the warring party in Afghanistan with the most sophisticated weapons and seemingly endless access to funds has been the United States. Funds were spent not to lift Afghans to a place of security from which they might have worked to moderate Taliban rule, but to further frustrate them, beating down their hopes of future participatory governance with 20 years of war and brutal impoverishment.
Disabled people from the war are a common sight across Afghanistan. [Source: progressive.org-photo taken by Dr. Hakim]
The war has been a prelude to the United States’s inevitable retreat and the return of a possibly more enraged and dysfunctional Taliban to rule over a shattered population.
The troop withdrawal negotiated by President Joe Biden and U.S. military officials is not a peace agreement. Rather, it signals the end of an occupation resulting from an unlawful invasion and, while troops are leaving, the Biden administration is already laying plans for “over the horizon” drone surveillance, drone strikes, and “manned” aircraft strikes which could exacerbate and prolong the war.
U.S. citizens ought to consider not only financial recompense for destruction caused by 20 years of war but also a commitment to dismantle the warfare systems that brought such havoc, chaos, bereavement, and displacement to Afghanistan.
We should be sorry that, during 2013, when the United States spent an average of $2 million per soldier stationed in Afghanistan, the number of Afghan children suffering malnutrition rose by 50%. At that same time, the cost of adding iodized salt to an Afghan child’s diet to help reduce the risk of brain damage caused by hunger would have been 5 cents per child per year.
We should deeply regret that while the United States constructed sprawling military bases in Kabul, populations in refugee camps soared.
U.S. military base outside of Kabul. [Source: wired.com]
During harsh winter months, people desperate for warmth in a Kabul refugee camp would burn—and then have to breathe—plastic.
Refugee camps provide a stark contract to U.S. military bases. [Source: unhcr.org]
Trucks laden with food, fuel, water, and supplies constantly entered the U.S. military base immediately across the road from this camp.
We should acknowledge, with shame, that U.S. contractors signed deals to build hospitals and schools which were later determined to be ghost hospitals and ghost schools, places that never even existed.
On October 3, 2015, when only one hospital served vast numbers of people in the Kunduz province, the U.S. Air Force bombed the hospital at 15-minute intervals for one-and-a-half hours, killing 42 people including 13 staff, three of whom were doctors. This attack helped greenlight the war crime of bombing hospitals all around the world.
More recently, in 2019, migrant workers in Nangarhar were attacked when a drone fired missiles into their overnight camp. The owner of a pine nut forest had hired the laborers, including children, to harvest the pine nuts, and he notified officials ahead of time, hoping to avoid any confusion. While the workers were resting after an exhausting day of work, 30 were killed and another 40 were badly wounded.
U.S. repentance for a regime of attacks by weaponized drones, conducted in Afghanistan and worldwide, along with sorrow for the countless civilians killed, should lead to deep appreciation for Daniel Hale, a drone whistleblower who exposed the widespread and indiscriminate murder of civilians.
Drone whistleblower Daniel Hale spoke out against the atrocities of the drone war and was sent to jail, while the criminals who ordered the murderous attacks live in luxury. [Source: progressive.org]
Between January 2012 and February 2013, according to an article in The Intercept, these air strikes “killed more than 200 people. Of those, only thirty-five were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets.”
On July 27, Hale was sentenced to four years in prison under the archaic Espionage Act.
We should be sorry for night raids that terrified civilians, assassinated innocent people, and were later acknowledged to have been based on faulty information.
We must reckon with how little attention our elected officials ever paid to the quadrennial “Special Inspector General on Afghan Reconstruction” reports which detailed many years’ worth of fraud, corruption, human rights violations and failure to achieve stated goals related to countering narcotics or confronting corrupt structures.
We should say we are sorry, we are so very sorry, for pretending to stay in Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons when, honestly, we understood next to nothing about humanitarian concerns of women and children in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan’s civilian population has repeatedly demanded peace.
When I think of the generations in Afghanistan who have suffered through war, occupation and the vagaries of warlords, including NATO troops, I wish we could hear the sorrow of the grandmother who now wonders how she might help feed, shelter and protect her family.
Her sorrow should lead to atonement on the part of countries that invaded her land. Every one of those countries could arrange visas and support for each Afghan person who now wants to flee.
A reckoning with the massive wreckage this grandmother and her loved ones face should yield equally massive readiness to abolish all wars, forever.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Kathy Kelly is a peace activist and author whose efforts to end military and economic wars have sometimes led her to live in war zones and U.S. federal prisons. She can be reached at [email protected].
Featured image: An Afghan man and children, suffering hardships from America’s longest war, pose for a portrait in Kabul, Afghanistan, on March 19, 2021. [Source: theintercept.com]
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).
Every very seldom often a book comes along that greatly exceeds expectations. Lawrence in Arabia is one of those books. Scott Anderson’s writing is highly entertaining and highly informative at the same time. It reads in a way that gives the impression more that it is a spy novel rather than an historical study. It is more than just about Thomas Edward Lawrence, although he is the character who all the others orbit around in this perspective. It includes a cast of characters that are wonderfully fallible and incompetent – liars, deceivers, manipulators – at their imperial best.
Cast of Characters
The cast of characters is broadly known for most people who have read histories of World War I, its precedents and aftermaths. Scott Anderson made a wonderful effort in researching the main characters who travelled through the Middle East, sometimes encountering each other, always on the move, always looking for their advantage.
Going in alphabetical order, Aaron Aaronsohn comes first. He is described as an optimist, arrogant, and intelligent, and agronomist who set up many research projects in Palestine mostly to further interest in a Jewish state in the region. He worked both sides, initially serving the Ottoman Empire (of which he was citizen) and later setting up a spy network that proved very effective, but was generally ignored by the British until very late in the war.
The French had their local spy with Colonel Édouard Brémond who handled French policy in the region. As he “juggled two largely contradictory agendas” he came across to Mark Sykes (see below) as having a “deliberately perverse attitude and policy.”
Ahmed Djemal Pasha served as the Governor of Syria – Syria at that time incorporating most of the modern states of the Middle East. His managerial style was “mercurial” as he “Forever oscillated between raging severity and gentle magnanimity, often within the same conversation, he often kept everyone around him permanently off balance.”
Germany had its representative in the Ottoman Empire, Curt Prüfer, the German Oriental Secretary. As head of German intelligence for the region, he was also their master spy, described as being a “consummate charmer” and a “notorious seducer.”
Another one keeping people off balance, Mark Sykes, a British politician and diplomatic advisor on the Middle East, played a strong role in this nest of manipulators. He had a “breezy arrogance”, “was an aristocratic gadfly…and also a liar.” While he had a “fecund mind” he was “forever contradicting positions or policies he had advocated earlier – often mere days earlier.”
And what would the war be without an American State Department “special agent”? William Yale, of the family establishing Yale University, served two other roles: that of military attaché to the Egyptian Expeditionary Force (British), as well as continuing his ‘normal’ line of work as a more or less regular employee of Standard Oil.
‘Other’ Characters
There are of course many other characters, but the above listed assortment carry the main narrative. The most important ‘other’ (as they are mostly considered by western narratives) were the Arab contacts that Lawrence and his coterie interacted with in many different capacities, but always trying to manipulate them to their own advantage.
Faisal Ibn Hussein, Emir of the Hejaz, had to deal with all the double dealings of people like Sykes. At the same time he had many separate Arab tribes and villages he had to work with, ibn Saud being his chief rival. His son Abdullah ibn Huissein played a significant role in the area Lawrence operated in. After the war his dreams and plans for an Arab state were quickly demolished by British and French interests in the region.
As for the British cast of characters, Lawrence thought very little of them. The military is viewed as having “impregnable walls of military idiocy,” – how little things have changed! For the diplomats and politicians they are seen as self-serving, without imagination, essentially a rather dull minded set of people.
Once upon a time in Palestine…
As with most good mystery/spy novels, the cast of characters come together at the end of the story and the various deceits and lies are worked out. All these characters presented themselves at Versailles, where the “war to end all wars” essentially established the setup for WW II and our current situation in the Middle East.
While this is a story of Lawrence in Arabia, it serves amazingly well as an historical review of Palestinian history in that era and how the various factors came together to create the British Palestinian Mandate with vague authorization to settle Jewish immigrants in Palestine.
Mark Sykes played a significant role in this, while he conceded “Arab, Christian and Moslems alike would fight in the matter to the last man against Jewish Dominion in Palestine,” he wanted to use “Zionism as a pro-British vehicle in Palestine”, and held meetings with leading British Zionists without the knowledge of either the Foreign Office or the War Department. The Sykes-Picot agreement, negotiated in relative secrecy, and in contradiction to the McMahon-Hussein Agreement, played a pivotal role in the final Versailles settlements.
Aaronsohn played a significant role, and while he did not advocate fighting per se, he did support force, “The ultimate future of Palestine…was not a British protectorate in which a Jewish minority would be protected, but a de facto Jewish nation. This would be achieved both politically and economically, with Zionists simply buying up all the land between Gaza and Haifa and forcing the fellaheen from the land.”
William Yale wrote of Lawrence’s concerns that “the Arabs have no faith in the word of England and of France, and that they believe only such territory they are able to secure by [their own] force of arms will belong to them.” Lawrence later reflected that in one of his “most prescient comments..that ‘if a Jewish state is to be created in Palestine, it will have to be done by force of arms and maintained by force of arms amid an overwhelmingly hostile population.’”
Well beyond the story of one person, “Lawrence in Arabia” is a finely crafted work providing interesting details and lively characters in these highly significant years for the development of our modern geopolitical world. As an historical spy ‘novel’ it would be a great addition to history classes relating to any of the dimensions discussed above (and more). It can stand alone as a reference and as such creates a level of intrigue and interest leading to the reader wanting and needing to make further inquiries into that history. Alternatively, it is an excellent and necessary perspective on the normally drab histories covering this period of time. It makes history interesting, bringing it down to the very human level of personalities with all their abilities and all their faults – and all the repercussions still active today.
*
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.
Jim Miles 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).
Devastating fires on legally protected land in the Amazon rainforest have surged under Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, according to a new report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
Satellite mapping of blazes and data on illegal deforestation show the number of major fires on embargoed rural land increased from 77 in 2018, immediately before Bolsonaro took office, to 124 in 2020.
The Bureau’s investigation also found that beef from farmers accused of illegal deforestation — and subsequently sanctioned with embargoes — was still making its way into global supply chains, including those serving at least two of the world’s biggest meat companies, JBS and Marfrig.
Embargoes imposed by Brazil’s environment agency, known by its acronym IBAMA, are intended to penalize landowners and allow illegally cleared forest areas to recover. JBS and other major Brazilian meat producers have made commitments not to buy cattle from protected land.
But in one case involving a farmer doing business with the companies, multiple fires were recorded on land that had been embargoed after earlier deforestation.
The Bureau tracked cattle supplied by the farmer implicated in this deforestation to abattoirs run by JBS and Marfrig. The Marfrig abattoir has exported beef to the United Kingdom. The findings raise serious questions about the effectiveness and enforcement of the embargo system and undermine the “deforestation-free” claims of multinational meat companies and their international customers.
The burning of the Amazon has become a global political issue, with Brazil pledging to strengthen environmental enforcement under pressure from the U.S. government. In the U.K., the environment bill going through parliament will require companies to ensure their supply chains are free of links to deforestation.
Under his administration, IBAMA has issued fewer embargoes, sanctioning just 385 areas in the Amazon in 2020, compared with more than 2,500 in 2018. The area of land under embargo has remained roughly the same.
The number of fines issued for illegal burning and deforestation in the Amazon has plummeted, dropping from an average of 4,600 a year between 2012 and 2018 to 2,600 a year in 2019 and 2020.
Area next to the borders of the Kaxarari Indigenous territory, in Labrea, Amazonas state. Taken 17 Aug, 2020. Image by Christian Braga / Greenpeace.
Even before Bolsonaro came to power, fires on embargoed land were a problem. There were 243 major blazes in embargoed areas of the Amazon in 2015 — the worst recent year.
The number of such fires subsequently declined, but the destruction has now ramped up again. Experts say this year’s dry weather could increase the risk of severe blazes when the fire season peaks in August and September.
The Bureau has established that Brazilian meat giants sourced hundreds of cattle from Vilymar Bissoni, a farmer linked to repeated cases of deforestation resulting in multiple embargoes in Mato Grosso state, a major center for beef and soy production.
Records seen by the Bureau and Repórter Brasil show that, between them, JBS and Marfrig bought nearly 1,000 head of cattle from Bissoni over 15 months in 2018 and 2019. Bissoni owns a company with a shareholding in the agribusiness group Bissoni Agropecuária.
Bissoni Agropecuária and related companies run a sprawling network of farms in the municipality of Gaúcha do Norte, with more than 350 square kilometers (135 square miles) of land producing soy and other crops and a beef enterprise with at least 7,000 head of cattle.
Bissoni and other family members connected with the business have been the subject of five environmental embargoes issued between 2009 and 2017, according to public records. At least three, spanning more than 26 km2 (10 mi2), were linked to illegal deforestation.
Unlawful clearing linked to the family business has also resulted in fines totaling more than $1 million.
The Bureau has established that at least three fires — in 2015, 2018 and 2020 — burned within the perimeters of two of these embargoed areas, after the sanctions were imposed.
When approached by the Bureau, the company denied the fires were deliberately set.
Recent satellite images reveal how 6 km2 (2.3 mi2) of forest was destroyed in the vicinity of another farm, Fazenda Vó Jovita, linked to Bissoni Agropecuária, in September 2020. Fires were recorded at this property, which is not currently under embargo, in the same month.
Satellite images show fires on Fazenda Vó Jovita. Image courtesy of Planet Labs Inc
The company told the Bureau: “There was a fire in the indigenous land and in neighbouring areas. We were successful in fighting the fire before it entered our property.”
Records seen by the Bureau reveal that cattle were repeatedly transported from Fazenda Vó Jovita to abattoirs supplying Marfrig and JBS between 2018 and 2019. The Marfrig meat plant that slaughtered the Bissoni cattle had exported to the U.K., highlighting how British consumption of Brazilian beef could inadvertently be helping to drive rainforest destruction thousands of miles away.
JBS and Marfrig’s U.K. customers include Sainsbury’s, Asda, Lidl and other major supermarket chains, as well as wholesalers, some of which supply the country’s National Health Service (NHS).
JBS did not deny doing business with Vilymar Bissoni but said Fazenda Vó Jovita did not correspond with any farm listed on its supplier system. The company said: “JBS does not tolerate any illegal deforestation in the Amazon or other biomes.”
Marfrig confirmed that Bissoni had been a supplier to one of its slaughterhouses, but said the farmer was no longer on its supplier list. The company said the farmer was “fully compliant” with its rules for suppliers at the time of the transactions.
The company said it was committed to zero deforestation in the Amazon biome by 2025 and had introduced a system for monitoring cattle suppliers to reduce the possibility of transferring cattle from “irregular” areas to areas that are complying.
In response to information provided about these supply chain links, an Asda representative said it would stop stocking JBS Brazilian beef in its ‘newly sourced’ canned goods. “We have worked with our supplier to ensure that any newly sourced canned products do not contain any Brazilian beef from JBS by the end of 2021,” an Asda spokesperson said, adding the business is committed to stopping food production linked to deforestation.
A Sainsbury’s spokesperson said, “Sainsbury’s is committed to sourcing sustainably and working together with Global Witness and the wider industry to tackle deforestation and preserve the essential ecosystems in the Amazon and Cerrado.”
Lidl referred to a retail industry statement, which said: “Our members take every effort to ensure the products they sell have no links to deforestation.”
The NHS said its food buying followed government standards for environmental protection, and that since last year it has asked for sustainability strategies from all suppliers for its procurements.
*
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).
This new publication is a masterpiece of research and analysis, and a great contribution to rectifying the false narrative perpetrated by western propaganda which demonizes the DPRK. “Immovable Object” repudiates the massive brainwashing campaign which for more than 70 years has perpetuated a despicable fabrication of the cause of the Korean War from 1950-1953, promulgating Orwellian distortions and lies with almost impenetrable consistency.
This work should be required reading at all educational institutions, globally, as it successfully refutes the too many appalling misconceptions and dangerous and defamatory disinformation which corrupts the thinking about the DPRK by too many people in the West and elsewhere.
The book begins with a phenomenally powerful and convincing documentation of the historic context of the Korean War from 1950-1953, and the author, A.B. Abrams presents irrefutable evidence that the DPRK did not initiate that war and had no motivation to do so.
Further, Dr. Abrams presents compelling evidence that both the United States and the corrupt and fascistic government of Syngman Rhee in the South, were powerfully motivated to provoke and initiate that horrific war because the United States saw it as a springboard to gain control of Northeast Asia, in particular Taiwan, and ultimately to force regime change in the communist People’s Republic of China, replacing Mao Tse Tung with the Chiang Kai-shek. To its infinite shame, the United Nations “coalition” under U.S. military command attacked the DPRK and later China, using overwhelming weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons (dropping thousands of tons of napalm on defenseless Korean civilians, especially women and children), biological weapons (many inspired by the Japanese war criminal, General Ishii, head of Unit 731 in Japan) and had authorized and planned the use of nuclear weapons against the DPRK and China.
Image on the right: Kim Il Sung
The author emphasized that the DPRK received no aid from the USSR or China at the beginning of the war, or prior to the war, because the USSR and China did not want to risk a confrontation with the United States: this refutes any suggestion that the DPRK was acting at the behest of Beijing or Moscow, or that they might have initiated aggression in anticipation of aid from the USSR or China.
However, the author suggests that the initial failure to aid the DPRK was a mistaken strategy by the USSR and China, because if they had provided aid to the DPRK at the beginning, the war could have been ended within three months of its onset, as the Republic of Korea was suffering under the gross venality and repression of the Syngman Rhee regime and the tacit US occupation, and would, in large numbers have welcomed liberation by the DPRK.
The heroism of the DPRK was astounding, and the fact that they were compelled to defend their country without any assistance from the USSR or China at the beginning underscores the wisdom of their policy of “Juche” (self-reliance). On page 28 the author presents the 20 point program (essentially the constitution, it would seem) of the DPRK, issued by Kim Il Sung, Chairman of the Communist Party of Korea in 1946, and the implementation of this program provided a very high level of development for the DPRK, and a very high standard of living for its people, in glaring contrast to the extremely degraded standard of living of South Korea under Syngman Rhee and the US occupation.
The opening five chapters of this book are a masterpiece of accuracy, with multiple pages of quotes from U.S. sources, including the leaders of the U.S. military, confirming the essentially genocidal character of the war. It is difficult and painful to read some detailed passages, as the criminal injustice of the war is both obvious and intolerable.
Chapters 6 and 7 describe, in graphic detail, the barbaric and generally sadistic character of the U.S. military aggressors, and the pathological racism that probably underlies it. However, motivating their cruelty was most probably also arrogant vengeance for their injured pride when they discovered that the North Korean fighters were so skilled that they initially succeeded in defeating the invasion by the excessively armed U.S. military, and such humiliating defeats were unexpected by the U.S, which responded with unspeakable sadism.
The author understates the ideological differences between the two opposing forces during that war. However, the fact that both North Korea and the People’s Republic of China were socialist, and extremely successful examples of the superiority of the socialist development model was undoubtedly one of the primary motives of the U.S. invasion of the DPRK and China. The capitalist determination to “roll-back” socialism by any means seems to be and to have been one of the most powerful and primary bases for US policy since the 1947 “Truman Doctrine of National Security.”
Much of the author’s cited information was publicly available in the United States, even while that war was raging. However, following the victory of the Chinese Communists over both the Japanese and Chiang-Kai-shek in 1949, the panic in the U.S. government over “who lost China” led to the period of McCarthyism in the United States, with the terrorization of Americans by the U.S. government itself, crippling most Americans with the fear of speaking out, lest their work, their homes, their families, their very lives be destroyed by Senator McCarthy and his “House Un-American Activities Committee.”
School teachers were tasked with indoctrinating American children with hatred of communism, hatred of North Koreans and Asians in general. The appalling, stultifying legacy of this fear continues to cripple the capacity for critical thinking, and, indeed, creative thinking among many Americans, and, indeed in many areas of the world. There were a few courageous and notable exceptions, including the great musical play, “South Pacific,” by Rogers and Hammerstein, which attacked the culture of racism, and did reach the hearts of many Americans. The words of the song “You’ve Got To Be Taught To Hate and Fear” are immortal, even today.
Chapter 8 of this book, entitled “Ending the War: Maximum Pressure and a Hard Lesson on American Power”, is, perhaps one of the most damning indictments of Western, particularly U.S. military barbarism in history. When it became clear that a stalemate existed, and that U.S. plans for hegemony over all of Northeast Asia were conspicuously failing, with President Truman refusing General McArthur’s call for the reckless nuclear bombing of North Korea and China, “peace negotiations” for an armistice began. With the U.S. holding enormous air power of unimaginable ferocity, of course, the dragging out of peace negotiations for two years while the saturation bombing of the DPRK and China continued throughout the two years of “negotiation” is an example of cynical cruelty possibly unmatched in human history.
While it is difficult to conceive of atrocity beyond what has preceded, yet the west’s demand for a “policy” of “voluntary repatriation” surpasses everything:
P.216: ”The prisoner of war issue became so heated in light of the wholly unexpected and illegal new Western demands that the signing of the ceasefire was effectively delayed for eighteen months—with Western warplanes, artillery and warships all the while continuing to bombard northern Korea.” “The importance of engineering prisoner defections went beyond the need for a propaganda victory for the West however – and would come to form the basis of the American claim to be a benevolent as opposed to an imperial power. Western rhetoric increasingly placed a new emphasis on moral universalism to frame the rationale of its interventionism abroad in a new light. A world order based on the dominance of Western military might ever-present across the globe would remain as it had in the colonial era—but the pretext for this order and for Western interventionism would change. The West’s wars were now ‘humanity’s wars’ fought on behalf of mankind, and those such as the Chinese and North Koreans who resisted the West were thus portrayed to be acting not only against Western interests—but against the interests of humanity, the ‘international community’ and even their own people. The will of the ‘free world’ and the ‘international community’ and the designs of the West were to be indistinguishable. The first use of this rhetoric, and new justification for Western dominated order and the quashing of independent anti-imperial forces by Western might came in Korea.”
”Hugh Deane, American reporter and former Coordinator of Information and naval intelligence officer on General MacArthur’s staff, reported on the U.S. strategy which necessitated a high number of defections from the armies of the East Asian allied powers:…”President Truman and an increasing number of others in the leadership had come to envisage a substitute for the victory the U.S. had failed to win on the battlefield—a propaganda triumph in line with the rollback doctrine that was prevailing over mere containment. An impressive number of prisoners were to refuse adamantly and publicly to go home to the communist evils awaiting them. To do the brunt of the dirty work in selected compounds (there were 32 of them on Koje, all overcrowded) the U.S. secured some 75 persuaders from Taiwan, mostly from Chiang Kai-shek’s equivalent of the Gestapo, and a larger number of members of terrorist youth groups sent in by the Syngman Rhee government. Some wore neat American uniforms, others were posing as prisoners…Their continuing task was to locate prisoners who wished repatriation and to do whatever was necessary to dissuade them. Control of the food supplies was a powerful means, and that, threats, beatings, slashings and the killing of the most stubborn led to a gratifying number who muttered ‘Taiwan, Taiwan, Taiwan’ when asked the key question…Thus many Chinese who didn’t want to go to Taiwan found themselves there. Of the Chinese prisoners, 6,670 were repatriated to China, 14, 235 were sent to Taiwan.”
John Nuccio, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea (South Korea), himself alleged that the Taiwanese representatives involved in repatriation were “members of Chiang Kai-shek’s Gestapo.” “He passed on reports that Chinese prisoners were being forced to sign petitions in blood and undergo tattooing to prove that they were anti-communists and wanted to go to Taiwan. One report stated: ‘In early 1952 the brigade leader, Li Da’an wanted to tattoo every prisoner in Compound 72 with an anti-Communist slogan…He ordered the prison guards to beat those who refused the tattoo in front of the five thousand prisoners. Some of those who couldn’t stand the beatings gave up and agreed to the tattoo. One prisoner, however, Lin Xuepu, continued to refuse the tattoo. Li Da’an finally dragged Lin up to the stage and in a loud voice asked Lin: ‘Do you want it or not?’ Bleeding and barely able to stand up, Lin, a nineteen year old college freshman, replied with a loud ‘No!’ Li Da’an responded by cutting off one of Lin’s arms with his big dagger. Lin screamed but still shook his head when Li repeated the question. Humiliated and angry, Li followed by stabbing Lin with his dagger… Li yelled to all the prisoners in the field: ‘whoever dares to refuse the tattoo will be like him.’” Muccio would later refer to news on the treatment and coercion of Chinese and Korean prisoners as ‘very disturbing reports of horrors being perpetuated in the prisoners camps,’ for which he said the United States was responsible.”
Asymmetry in possession and control of nuclear weapons, with the West able to dangle the nuclear sword of Damocles over the Chinese and North Korean participants in “negotiations” for the “armistice,” ultimately resulted in an armistice with conditions vastly favorable to the West, and the East Asians essentially forced to relinquish their own interests to a vast degree. This lesson was not lost on either the Chinese or the DPRK, with a spokesman for the Chinese stating: “only when we ourselves have the atomic weapon, and are fully prepared, is it possible for the frenzied warmongers to listen to our just and reasonable proposals for ending the war.” The DPRK has learned the deadly lessons of history, repeated throughout the Korean war of the 1950’s and up to the terrifying example of Libya’s renunciation of their nuclear program. Anyone who fails to respect the DPRK’s need for the only adequate defense against its own destruction must be considered either ignorant or dangerous.
Image below: Comfort women (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
“Immovable Object” continues, in following chapters, to describe the degradation of a majority of South Korean women, forced to prostitution by economic destitution throughout the U.S. military occupation following the war, becoming the equivalent of the “comfort women” they previously were, sexual slaves of the Japanese, and now virtually sexual slaves for the U.S. military occupiers. The self-hatred and total loss of pride in their cultural identity has turned South Korea into the capital of plastic surgery, as South Korean women physically alter their appearance in an effort to emulate the “superior” Western facial features of their conqueror.
One of the book’s most important contributions is its accurate description of the DPRK’s period of almost insurmountable hardship throughout “The 1990’s: An Arduous March and a New World Order,” Chapter 12 of Part Three: “State Survival in the Unipolar Era.”
As the DPRK had been an integrated part of the Soviet economic system, the collapse of the Soviet Union left the DPRK on the verge of economic collapse, with all its economic partners sharing that disastrous economic and social catastrophe. With its people lacking often barest necessities, hitherto provided in economic exchanges with the former Soviet Union, and climate catastrophies in the form of flooding, drowning crops, drowning entire villages and all methods of agricultural production, millions died.
There is a politically sinister Western narrative that accuses the government of the DPRK of intentionally killing millions of its citizens. Only willful ignorance, based on crudest prejudice can make such venal allegations. The large numbers of deaths of victims of a now demolished economic system that had previously sustained the DPRK, exacerbated by climate disasters of staggering proportions, can only be considered an overwhelming national tragedy.
368: “The DPRK’s energy-intensive food production was seriously threatened by the Soviet collapse and the resulting closure of fuel and fertilizer imports from the USSR. Blacklisted as a ‘rogue state’ by the Western Bloc and placed under harsh economic sanctions, the DPRK struggled to import necessary inputs for its agriculture sector from other sources. International organizations such as the World Food Programme responsible for preventing famine remained widely inactive at this time, allowing the crisis to worsen. Although the DPRK was not facing famine, its agriculture was struggling due to the unforeseen political events of the early 1990s. Food shortages in North Korea only reached critical levels when the situation was exacerbated by natural disaster, with independent observers reporting floods of ‘biblical proportions’ and devastated crops, arable land and economic infrastructure. The United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs reported: ‘between July 30 and 18 August 1995 torrential rains caused devastating floods in the DPRK. In one area, in Pyongsan county in North Hwanghae province, 877 mm of rain were recorded to have fallen in just seven hours, an intensity of precipitation unheard of in this area…water flow in the engorged Amnoc River which runs along the Korea/China border was estimated at 4.8 billion tons over a 72 hour period. Flooding of this magnitude had not been recorded in at least 70 years.” “A number of reports indicate that the United States and its allies took more direct measures, alongside their economic sanctions policy to exacerbate crisis in the DPRK during the Arduous March.” “During the Arduous March when food reserves were empty and farming was impossible, the U.S. blocked oil from coming in so 70% of our factories were shut down. We couldn’t produce anything. The state needed produce to distribute to the people but we had nothing. All of a sudden (from 1995) our collective food source was devastated. We simply had no choice but to starve.”
Exploiting this tragic devastation of North Korea, the CIA connived a savagely ugly strategy to destroy even the simplest agricultural efforts of the people of the DPRK to produce food to survive, preying upon the innocence of DPRK citizens.
Previously quoted U.S. reporter Hugh Deane, former Coordinator of Information and naval intelligence officer on General MacArthur’s staff, wrote regarding the causes of the Korean agricultural crisis:
“In 1995 the Yalu River, along the northern border, flooded south as torrential rains fell, causing mountain avalanches and rock slides as well as inundated villages. The Korean People’s Army evacuated many people in peril, dropping down in helicopters when necessary. The 1996 flood came when the earlier flood had not entirely receded and the damage was even more extensive. Close to a million acres of paddy and dry field were covered with mud or otherwise taken out of cultivation. A million tons of stored grain were washed away. Railroads, roads, bridges, dams and irrigation systems suffered, coal mines were flooded, some to such an extent that they have been abandoned. More industries were lost, some soon torn down for scrap. Then this year the usual rainy season was rainless. Nearly all the maize crop, normally a million tons, was lost. The rice crop was reduced, both because of the drought and because there was no fertilizer to apply to it. Such are the circumstances that brought hunger and starvation to a great many.” (Page 369)
Nevertheless, “against the near unanimous expectations of U.S. intelligence, the DPRK did not collapse and would begin a slow recovery from crisis in the late 1990’s.”
During his visits throughout socialist countries, Cuba’s Minister of Industries, Ernesto Che Guevara stated that the DPRK was the most advanced of all countries he saw. This, too, was my own impression when I visited the DPRK in 2017. It is a testament to the almost superhuman strength, intelligence, and resilience of the people and government of the DPRK that they have not only survived, but have created one of the most intellectually sophisticated and humanitarian economic and social systems in history.
Perhaps a clue to the extraordinary success in surviving catastrophic wars, economic and environmental disasters, and egregiously cruel sanctions may be found in the symbol of the DPRK created by Kim Il Sung, a symbol which is unique among socialist countries or any other country throughout the world. Although the symbol of most socialist countries is the sickle and the hammer, representing the agricultural and industrial worker, the symbol of the socialist DPRK has a brush standing in the center of the symbol, emblematic not only of the agricultural and industrial workers, but including the artists and the intellectuals of their society, according them the same prestige as the other two groups in the symbol. This was an act of genius by Kim Il Sung, because by granting such prestige to the artistic and intellectual members of society, their talents were developed and available to help devise methods of withstanding the horrors and almost inconceivable disasters which the DPRK has endured. That unique symbol expresses the attitude of a nation which embraces all that is greatest in humanity, and provides a model and blazes a trail toward a more humane and civilized world order.
Chapters 14, “Introducing Mutual Vulnerability: Implications of North Korea Attaining a Nuclear-Tipped ICBM” through Chapter 19: “Information War: The Final Frontier” describes the multiple methods the west, in particular the U.S. is using to undermine, demoralize, and weaken, by attrition, the economic, social, and cultural strength indispensable for the survival of the DPRK. The violation of the sanctity of the values of the entire DPRK is incessant, as the west continues to devise and concoct more and more devious and covert methods of aggression.
Among the most barbaric and criminal methods of attack against the people of the DPRK are the United Nations Security Council sanctions, which have been attempting to strangle the country, especially those sanctions passed since 2017, which altogether must be described as genocidal. The so-called “humanitarian exemptions” have failed, almost completely, and this disgraceful United Nations policy must change. The famous neurosurgeon, Dr. Kee Park, Director of The Korea Health Policy Project at Harvard Medical School has described, in graphic detail, how his surgery on patients in the DPRK has become impossible, as surgical instruments required for complex neurosurgery operations are prohibited, by the sanctions, from entering the DPRK. Humanitarian medical assistance for the crucial treatment of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis patients has become impossible as the result of the sanctions. The government of the DPRK has welcomed these humanitarian workers so desperately needed by their people. The United Nations Security Council sanctions are obstructing these highly skilled humanitarian workers, especially medical workers, from assisting the people of the DPRK. These Security Council sanctions constitute violation of International Humanitarian Law, and ultimately constitute crimes against humanity.
The author also points out another fact of vital importance: the cost of the nuclear program of the DPRK is vastly less than the cost of maintaining a conventional army, an army which would be needed, overwhelmingly, in the event of another military attack by the U.S. and/or its allies. This often overlooked fact completely undercuts the allegation that the DPRK nuclear program is depriving its people of needed social services. In fact, this nuclear program is freeing up money crucial for these social services. In view of the fact that the overt and covert aggression against the DPRK is unlikely to diminish anytime soon, the DPRK has no alternative other than to protect itself with the only deterrent capacity that would most likely shield them from a repetition of prior military devastation.
“Immovable Object,” interestingly, describes the extreme disinformation regarding the leadership of the DPRK, adding the words of former U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who is quoted saying:
“After meeting Kim Jong Il she expressed her surprise that the way he had been portrayed to her had been completely wrong. ‘He was actually quite charming…He was very, very well prepared, responded without notes, was not only respectful but also interested in what I had to say.’ To her complete surprise the talks were a success” “In an interview nineteen years later, the former State Secretary’s impression remained unchanged, stating: ‘I do think that what is interesting is how smart and informed Kim Jong Il was…he technically knew an awful lot of things. We were actually talking about missile limits at the time. He did not consult his experts. He really was able to talk about various aspects of the programs. And he spent a lot of time on it. It was very interesting. He also could be very gracious. I mean, it was all kinds of dinners and all kinds of things. But I think that he was determined to make some progress…I was surprise by how technically adept and smart he was.’ According to Albright, the success of future negotiations would rely heavily on whether or not American leaders would recognize how adept and capable the North Korean leadership was—in sharp contrast to what briefings based on U.S. intelligence had led her to believe.”
“Immovable Object” describes the people and government of an extraordinarily advanced nation, the DPRK, with objectivity, and even more importantly, with massive, fully credible documentation refuting all bigoted efforts to demonize and destroy this remarkable people by all means. As such, it is a desperately needed contribution to the accurate understanding of North Korea.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Carla Stea is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Global Research’s Correspondent at UN headquarters, New York.
Dr. Malone did not just take Fauci at his words, he did something that mainstream media refuses to do. He deconstructed Fauci’s talking points in ways the average person can easily understand; what he deduced are the very issues I have been writing about for months.
Peter McCullough, MD, MPH speaks with Laura Ingraham about the CDC admitting that vaccinated individuals can transmit Delta and about how Dr McCullough is being sued by BSW Health over media and meeting appearances.
As the inventor of the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine platform, Dr. Robert Malone is one of the most qualified individuals to opine on the benefits and potential risks of this technology.
Mexican Foreign Minister Ebrard, reclaiming Mexico’s sovereignty, further declared Mexico’s determination to re-open full diplomatic and economic relations with North Korea.
The leaked audio of a phone call between a Moderna representative and a woman who developed Guillain-Barre syndrome after receiving the company’s experimental drug has confirmed something many of us already knew: We are witnessing the biggest clinical trial in vaccine history.
Unvaccinated Americans were the talking point of the day on Monday with a slew of figures slamming those who have chosen not to take the coronavirus jabs, assigning blame to them for America ‘going backwards’, likening them to murderers, and suggesting that they are to blame for more deadly variants of the virus emerging.
For decades, in great many countries, the American democracy has been the role model of political regime. In fact, the popularity of the American democracy is such that the basic principles of democracy are integrated even in the constitutions of non-democratic countries.
What threat could possibly be more impactful? Christian breaks down the WEF’s “Cyber Polygon” tabletop exercise, its participants, and predictive programming around a looming large scale cyberattack on critical infrastructure that would unleash a Dark Winter and help to usher in the Great Reset.
When the military mandated the anthrax vaccine and military pilots showed they were willing to throw away careers and pensions in order to avoid the vaccine, it got the military’s attention — maybe they can do the same with COVID vaccine mandates?
A new open-source study concludes that Syrian insurgents carried out the Ghouta sarin chemical attack in August 2013. The explosive findings add to a growing body of public evidence that undermines US-led efforts to blame the Syrian government, which almost led to US military intervention.
The CDC now says even those people fully vaccinated for COVID are able to get, and spread, the virus. According to internal documents obtained by The Washington Post, the CDC said it’s time to “Acknowledge the war has changed.”
Today with the height of imperial arrogance and hubris, the US State Department issued a joint statement to further its plans to destroy Cuba and all the gains it has made in health, education and welfare.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
This morning, Dr. Robert Malone—inventor of the mRNA technology that is used in Covid-19 “vaccines”—confirmed that my worst fears about these experimental boosters might very well be upon us. He deconstructed the cagey announcement that Dr. Anthony Fauci made where he stated that the nasal titers in “vaccinated” people are the same as the unvaccinated population. That dissembling assertion on its own is a bombshell, Dr. Fauci affirmed that folks who got jabbed have no better levels of protection than people who are either hesitant or hostile to getting shot up with experimental gene therapy nostrums.
Dr. Malone did not just take Fauci at his words, he did something that mainstream media refuses to do. He deconstructed Fauci’s talking points in ways the average person can easily understand; what he deduced are the very issues I have been writing about for months. Dr. Malone noted that nasal titers are poor indicators when it comes to determining the concentration of antibodies and that blood-based titers are a better way of assessing whether or not vaccines are actually working as advertised. Dr. Malone then referred to an NBC report passed on by USA Today—which was subsequently deleted—that quoted a high-level government official who attested that “vaccinated individuals could have higher levels of virus and infect others amid the surge of cases driven by the delta variant of the coronavirus”.
This is only shocking to people who have not done their research about mRNA “vaccines” and are in the dark about their checkered history. Past studies on ferrets and cats should have been enough to subject these yet unproven and unsafe boosters to the full 10-15 year timeframe required to develop safe and effective vaccines. Even though the initial results were promising, once the lab animals were challenged with SARS pathogens, they were wiped out as they developed a deadly condition called Antibody-Dependent Enhancement or ADE. Leveraging a virus that was almost certainly man-made, biotech corporations went all in to validate a treatment that works in theory as they gamble with the lives of billions of people in the hopes that everything works out.
Not only are authority figures treating humans like test subjects, they are flat out peddling medical misinformation only to turn around and malign those of us who call out their fabrications. Their latest distortion is that people who are “unvaccinated” are the sources of the mutations when the reality is the complete opposite as Fauci confirmed this week. Last year, Oxford and AstraZeneca teamed up to develop their booster and then deployed them in the UK, South Africa, Brazil and India. Those four countries are the sources of the variants. This is where “vaccine” propagandists will spout the ever disingenuous “correlation is not causation” trope.
Close to 11,405 deaths and more than 62,000 severe injuries attributed to mRNA and adenovirus “vaccines” in the United States alone yet politicians, pundits, medical professionals and the establishment writ large insanely keep conditioning people to get jabbed. Back in April, I wrote an article in which I warned that humanity could very well be facing a global holocaust if ADE emerges among the billions of people who have been “vaccinated” thus far. What Dr. Malone did was authenticate, with qualification, my worst fears. I don’t write this to gloat or to somehow say “I told you so”; I have family members who were “vaccinated” so being proven right about my concerns will come at a cost that I cannot bear to think of.
NIH knew about the risks of Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE) vis-a-vis Covid-19 “vaccines” all along, this is from NIH’s website published Dec 4th, 2020! [click pic to view original source]
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.
Teodrose Fikremariam is the co-founder and editor of the Ghion Journal. Prior to launching the Ghion Journal, he was a political organizer who once wrote a speech idea in 2008 that was incorporated into Barack Obama’s South Carolina primary victory speech. He is originally from Ethiopia and a direct descendent, seven generations removed, of one of Ethiopia’s greatest Emperors Tewodros II.
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).
Peter McCullough, MD, MPH speaks with Laura Ingraham about the CDC admitting that vaccinated individuals can transmit Delta and about how Dr McCullough is being sued by BSW Health over media and meeting appearances.
Video
*
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).
Safety data analysis and reporting in clinical trials of the COVID jabs appear to have been manipulated in at least some cases. One method for manipulating randomized clinical trial safety data is to only analyze the “per protocol” treatment group (those who completed all doses and were fully compliant with the study design) as opposed to “intent to treat” which would include all patients that have signed informed consent
For example, if a participant only accepted one dose and trial protocol called for two, under a “per protocol” analysis, adverse events they experienced would be dismissed and not included in the safety analysis. This is a classic way to manipulate safety data in clinical research, and it’s usually forbidden
Since the COVID shots only have emergency use authorization, they are experimental products and, as such, they are not authorized for marketing
Bioethics are written into federal law. As an experimental trial participant, you have the right to receive full disclosure of any adverse event risks. Full disclosure of risks is not being done, and in fact is being suppressed
Adverse event risks must also be communicated in a way that you can comprehend what the risks are, and the acceptance of an experimental product must be fully voluntary and uncoerced. Enticement is strictly forbidden
As the inventor of the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine platform, Dr. Robert Malone is one of the most qualified individuals to opine on the benefits and potential risks of this technology.
His background includes a medical degree from Northwestern University, a master’s degree from Salk Institute, a bachelor’s degree in biochemistry from UC Davis, a Giannini fellowship in pathology and a post-graduate fellowship in global clinical research at Harvard.
He taught pathology to medical students for about a decade at the University of Maryland and the University of California Davis, and then became an associate professor of surgery at Uniformed Services, University of the Health Sciences, where he launched a major research institute focused on breast cancer and high-throughput screening in genomics for breast cancer.
After that, he helped found a company called Inovio, which has brought forth a number of gene therapy discoveries, including vaccines, and the use of pulsed electrical fields as a delivery method. After 9/11, a colleague at the University of Maryland’s department of business and economic development connected him with Dynport Vaccine Company, a startup that had received a DoD contract to manage its biodefense products.
“That’s when I transitioned from being more of an academic to the advanced development world of clinical research, regulatory affairs, project management, compliance, quality assurance — all of that stuff that goes into actually making a product,” Malone explains.
“It was a huge epiphany that the world really didn’t need more academic thought leaders and [that] I was wasting my time focusing on that. What the world really needed was that people understood the underlying technology and the discovery research world, but also understood advanced development, which is that drug development is a highly-regulated world. And there aren’t very many of those.
So, I set out to become really expert in that latter part and worked with the government, particularly in biodefense and vaccine development, for a couple of decades. And that brings me to the present.
I’ve captured a couple of billion dollars in grants and contracts for companies that I’ve worked with, and clients from the government, from BARDA [Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority], from the Department of Defense and others.”
COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ Are Gene Therapy
I’ve been accused of falsely stating that these COVID shots are not vaccines but gene modifying interventions. However, even Malone agrees with this statement, and as the inventor of the technology, he should know. He points out that in Germany, by law you cannot refer to this technology as a genetic vaccine or gene therapy vaccine. “The German government has specifically outlawed the use of gene therapy-based vaccine as a term,” he says.
With his background, and having received the COVID shot himself, he can hardly be called an “anti-vaxxer” and/or someone who doesn’t believe in gene therapies. Yet, he recently went public with concerns about the safety of rolling out this kind of technology on a mass scale, and the unethical ways in which they’re being promoted.
As has become the trend, he was immediately censored. Wikileaks even went so far as to erase him from the historical section of the mRNA vaccine page and his own personal Wikipedia page was removed. All references to Malone inventing the mRNA technology were removed and attributed to a variety of institutions instead.
Blowing the Whistle
Malone’s public involvement with the COVID jab issue began with a short essay1 reflecting on the bioethics of the current campaign to get a needle in every arm. This essay grew out of a conversation he’d had with a Canadian physician. Malone’s essay catalyzed an interview with Bret Weinstein in June 2021 on the DarkHorse Podcast.
This isn’t the first time Malone has spoken out against unethical behavior in science. He was also a whistleblower in the Jesse Gelsinger death case,2 back in 1999. Gelsinger was a young man who had a rare metabolic disorder called ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency syndrome (OTCD), where dangerous amounts of ammonia build up in your blood.
He’d been diagnosed at the age of 2, and was managing his condition with a regimen of nearly 50 drugs a day. At 17, Gelsinger signed up for an investigational gene therapy. Like the COVID shots, the therapy involved injecting a gene attached to an adenovirus, which would be integrated into his DNA to permanently produce an enzyme that prevents ammonia buildup.
Gelsinger was the 18th person to receive the gene therapy, and while the others had only experienced mild side effects, Gelsinger had a severe response after scientists at the University of Pennsylvania administered adenoviruses doses that were far above what had been approved by the corresponding safety committee.
Gelsinger became disoriented and developed jaundice and acute inflammation, followed by a rare blood clotting disorder and multi-organ failure. He was dead within days. Even a decade later, Gelsinger’s death is still considered the biggest setback for gene therapy.3
“When the Jesse Gelsinger events happened, I also had long been a deep insider in the gene therapy space, so I had specific knowledge of what had happened at Penn — the ethical transgressions, shall we say, that occurred — and had awareness, again, just like now, of the technology,” Malone says. “So, I was able to make sense of things that otherwise were obscure for journalists and even other scientists.”
After speaking out about the ethical transgressions that contributed to Gelsinger’s death (dosing which exceeded approved levels), Malone became a “persona non-grata” in the gene therapy community. In other words, he was blacklisted by his peers and prevented from participating in gene therapy research.
“That’s part of why I went in a different direction with my career and focused on government work and biodefense, supporting the Department of Defense,” Malone says. “The lesson learned for me is that I’m able to be resilient, together with my wife’s support.
Another key lesson was that your friends will support you through times of crisis if you behave with integrity and maintain your friendships and treat people with respect. I also had a lot of support for having spoken out and taken an ethical high road on that and not compromised myself …
It’s part of why I’m comfortable [speaking out now]. People tell me that I come across as balanced and calm. But yes, this is a little bit frightening and once again, [I’m] putting my career on the line. But once again many of my colleagues in the government are grateful that I’m speaking this way. They are not able to have a voice because of their jobs and government policies about speaking out.”
Public Responses to Censorship Make a Difference
As explained by Malone, he’s been heavily censored since his three-hour interview with Brett Weinstein. LinkedIn even deleted his account. However, LinkedIn users all around the world canceled their accounts in protest and wrote the company, explaining their cancellations were in protest of Malone being censored.
The social media uproar culminated in a major news article in a mainstream Italian paper, which appears to have pushed LinkedIn over the edge. LinkedIn eventually reinstated Malone’s account and even sent him a letter of apology.
“I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a company writing a letter of apology after delisting and deleting somebody,” he says. “My sins were ‘profound,'” he says sarcastically, “They were that I outed the chairman of the board of directors of Reuters who is also sitting on the board of Pfizer, for cross-posting the Wall Street Journal article on vaccine toxicity risks, and well, basically for complaining about censorship.
So, they sent me my list of sins with six different posts that were to pretty much anybody’s eye innocuous, which I then took and cross-posted onto Twitter. So, that revealed the absurdity of that … The note [of apology] that I received basically said, ‘Look, we don’t have the expertise to censor you, but if you cross the line, we have the right to summarily delete you again and so mind your manners.'”
The Repurposing of Drugs to Combat Pandemics
In recent years, Malone has been involved in yet another startup company (Atheric Pharmaceuticals), in collaboration with the DoD, that focused on repurposing drugs to combat Zika infection. That company went bankrupt for lack of investor interest in repurposing drugs for treating infectious diseases.
When the COVID-19 outbreak began, he got a call from a colleague who works in the intelligence community in Wuhan, China, who urged him to put together a team to investigate the possibility of repurposing old drugs against COVID.
His team is currently about to enter clinical trials for a number of licensed off-patent drugs. That said, his biggest contribution so far is probably his commentary on the bioethics of what is going on.
“Both my wife and I are deeply ethical people,” he says. “We’re high school sweethearts. We try really hard to live ethical lives and to help our fellow man as well as the animals in our lives. So that’s just the place we come from. It’s bedrock. We’re not rich people.
I recall a long telephone call with the Canadian physician that poured his heart out about the situation in Canada that he’s encountering, both with vaccine administration in primary practice, and also in administering alternative therapies to outpatients, which generally have no therapies available.
I mean, the position is a bit shocking — in the emergency rooms all across the world. Basically, you go to the ER and if your O2 sets are down, pushing towards 80, they say, ‘Well, go [home] and come back when your lips are blue.’ And that’s the essence of it. They don’t really offer anything.
So many physicians, including this gentleman in Canada, have been seeking alternative strategies and they’ve tested and administered these various agents. We’ve heard of fluvoxamine, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine. There are many, many others now, including those that we’re working with (famotidine and celecoxib) that seem to have therapeutic benefit when administered early to shut down this hyperinflammatory response.
So, he shared this and the stories of multiple reports of vaccine adverse events that in his clinical judgment were clearly vaccine related, some of them quite serious, and that the Canadian government would summarily dispose of those as non-related even though in his clinical judgment, they clearly were related.
He spoke about the enticement of children in Canada with ice cream and the willingness of the Canadian government to administer vaccine to children without their parents or guardians consent after enticing them with ice cream cones, and some of the other things that I just found shocking …
It mirrors what we’re seeing across the world, where governments are taking liberties with people’s health and their rights without real legislative authorization to do so in most cases.”
Core Bioethical Principles Are Being Violated
Malone and his wife Jill are both trained in bioethics, so after listening to this Canadian colleague, he decided he could help by writing a lay press opinion piece about the bioethics of experimental vaccines under emergency use authorization.
“I have intimate knowledge of not only the emergency use authorization legislation, the FDA policies behind it, I even know the people that wrote it,” Malone says.
“So, we dove in, refreshed our memories on the whole history of the modern bioethics construct that briefly runs from Nuremberg Trials to the Nuremberg Code, to Helsinki Accord, to the Belmont Report in the United States, and to the common rule that exists in the code of federal regulations.”
In summary, since the COVID shots only have emergency use authorization status, they are experimental products, and as such, they are not authorized for marketing. The core bioethical principles that apply therefore involve three key components:
1. Bioethics are written into federal law — As an experimental trial participant, which is what everyone is at the moment who accepts a COVID shot, you have the right to receive full disclosure of any adverse event risks. Based on that disclosure, you then have the right to decide whether you want to participate.
Adverse event risk disclosure should be provided at the level of detail disclosed in any drug package insert. However, the COVID shots have no such insert or detailed disclosure, and adverse event reports are even being suppressed and censored from the public.
Instead, as explained by the FDA,4 since the COVID shots are not yet licensed,5 rather than providing a package insert, the FDA directs health care providers to access a lengthy, online “fact sheet” that lists both clinical trial adverse events and ongoing updates of adverse events reported after EUA administration to the public.
A shorter, separate, online fact sheet with far less information in it is available for patients — but, provider or patient, you still have to know where to look up each of the three EUA vaccines separately on the FDA website to access those fact sheets.6
2. Adverse event risks must be communicated in a way that you can comprehend what the risks are — This means the disclosure must be written in eighth grade language. In clinical trials, researchers must actually verify participants’ comprehension of the risks.
3. The acceptance of an experimental product must be fully voluntary and uncoerced — enticement is forbidden. “I argue that all of this public messaging that we’ve all been bombarded with … constitutes coercion,” Malone says.
“The most egregious example of this that I’ve ever seen, is the federal government identifying 12 people … and labeling them as the dirty dozen, [saying] that they are responsible for causing death because they are disseminating what the government has determined to be misleading information about vaccines. This is mind boggling to me and to most of my colleagues.”
How Falsehoods Are Getting Top Billing
As you probably know, I am on that “disinformation dozen” list. The irony of this situation is that government officials are really the ones contributing to the deaths by not adhering to bioethical principles that are enshrined in law. It’s a classic case of 1984 Orwellian doublespeak.
“Yeah, you don’t even have to go to dark money. It’s out in the open. There’s this Trusted News Initiative led by the BBC. They announced … last fall that they have integrated Big Tech, Big Media and new media, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, et cetera, into an organization that was intended to control false narratives relating to elections, but they decided to turn it on what they perceived as false narratives for vaccines,” Malone says.
“As if that wasn’t enough, the Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have announced initiatives where they’re making block grants to Facebook, which is then funding these new pop-up fact-checker organizations … [that] are employing methods to smear people and to ban information …
What happens is these fact-checker organizations will make their pseudo fact check, like what I experienced with Reuters — which was transparently false, their fact check — and then the media will recycle the fact check. So that moves up in the Google ranking and they’re citing themselves. That’s what’s going on. And it’s sponsored by the likes of Wellcome Trust and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and they’re quite proud of it.”
Why Target Children and Pregnant Women?
Considering the unknown risks involved, why are governments and vaccine makers pushing so hard for children and pregnant women to participate in this experiment? Both have an extremely low risk for complications from COVID-19, which makes adverse effects of the vaccine all the more unacceptable, if not all together intolerable.
Making matters worse, there’s no process in place to capture all side effects. Somehow, this was left out, and there’s evidence to suggest this was done intentionally.
“I think it’s important for the listenership to recognize that what we have is still an emerging understanding of what the adverse events are,” Malone says. “I could tell you the story of how the cardiotoxicity adverse event was recognized, and it was not through official channels. There is [also] the appearance that the CDC is deliberately under-reporting adverse events to the public.
And there’s the appearance that there was manipulation of safety data analysis and reporting in the Phase 1, 2, 3 clinical trials for some of these products by focusing on patients who had completed the study per protocol, as opposed to those that entered the study as intended to treat.
That’s a subtle distinction, but what it means is that if you’ve only accepted one dose of vaccine under those clinical trial protocols and you have an adverse event, and you decide to drop it out, or they gently suggest that you shouldn’t take the second dose, that information about the adverse events that you received — which would have made you at even higher risk for the second dose — is lost. It’s not included in the safety analysis.
This is a classic way to manipulate safety data in clinical research, and it’s strictly forbidden. So, the FDA is onto that trick. Normally, if I was to do that, I would get slapped down immediately. Why they allow these large drug companies to do this (if, in fact they did) — and you can’t claim that Pfizer didn’t know what they were doing — is beyond me.
Now that we know about the adverse events associated with the cardiotoxicity in adolescents and the damage to the heart and the deaths associated with that, people can start to do calculations based on official CDC data, [but] those data are flawed.
They probably under-report the true adverse event rate by about a 100-fold if you’re relying on the various historic analysis information. But you can look at those data. And if you’re a data scientist, you can do the calculations that the CDC is not doing and not disclosing to us about risk benefit.
The ones that I’ve seen done by well-trained and highly experienced specialists, people that work for the insurance industry that do this for a living … come out literally upside down.”
If the clinical trials did not include patients dropped after Dose 1 in the safety analysis, this would indicate a “per protocol” safety analysis was performed, and therefore that the safety data analyses leading to the emergency use authorizations were not based on rigorous safety assessments.
Multiple patients claiming to have been included in COVID-19 clinical trials have also reported on social media that their reports were excluded from final safety analyses, although this cannot be verified.
Risks Significantly Outweigh Benefits
A study7 posted July 7, 2021, which looked at deaths occurring in children in the U.K. during the first 12 months of the pandemic, found 99.995% of children diagnosed with COVID-19 survived.
By July 19, 2021, in the United States, a total of 335 children under 18 had died with a COVID-19 diagnosis on their death certificate.8 An analysis by Marty Makary and colleagues at Johns Hopkins, together with FAIR Health, showed none of the children under 18 who died and were diagnosed with COVID-19 between April and August 2020 were free of preexisting medical conditions such as cancer.9
Now, while the average healthy child has a minuscule chance of dying from COVID-19, and their risk of developing heart inflammation from the COVID jab is also quite low, the risk associated with the injection is still significantly greater than any risk associated with the natural infection. As explained by Malone:
“That ratio comes out suggesting that there will be more lives lost to receipt of the ‘vaccine’ in a universal vaccine campaign than there would be if all those kids were infected by SARS-CoV-2. This upside-down ratio appears to extend or very close to equivalent at least up to the age of 30.
So, we’re in a position where the data that we have are admittedly flawed. Is that by intent or what? From my standpoint, the data are the data, so I can’t smoke out what somebody within health and human services intended to do, but I can look at the data, and others can.
And the data absolutely do not support a positive risk-benefit ratio for vaccination of infants through young adults, based on any normal criteria. So then why are they doing this crazy stuff? It seems to all be wrapped around the axle of the need to justify universal vaccination.
I argue that this is actually a mid-century policy that goes back to the ’50s and the ’60s polio vaccine campaign, when the government and world health authorities established a position that it was OK to lie, to withhold information about risk for vaccines, because to have the full spectrum of information about the risks of vaccines would cause people to not accept the vaccine.
So, ‘Shut up, we know it’s best for you and don’t question us’ is a firmly authoritarian position. It is intrinsically authoritarian and paternalistic. It’s exactly the kind of stuff that George Orwell wrote about in his book ‘1984.’ It was a warning … of how governments and authoritarian structures will behave and do behave.”
Denial of Vaccine Dangers Has Been Federal Policy Since 1984
Ironically, Malone points out that in the 1984 Federal Register,10 it’s stated that posting information into the federal register about vaccine risks that jeopardizes vaccine I uptake shall be suppressed.
“So, it’s a clear federal policy going back to 1984,” Malone says. “This is the way they’re going to handle things. And they’re going to handle it with the noble lie of saying, ‘No, there are no risks and what we’re doing is fully justified’ …
I don’t think we have to go to imagining some grand conspiracy at Davos between certain individuals. I think this is an emergent phenomena of the intersection of old-school thinking about information management and new-school capabilities and technologies.
I think the CDC, HHS, WHO, and Wellcome Trust or Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, etcetera, have just grossly misread the population, certainly in the United States. And so now we’re in a position where before, according to Del Bigtree, there was about 1% to 2% of people that self-identified as anti-vaxxers, and we’re now [above] 40%. Clearly, about 40 to 50% of the population are just dug in. They’re not going to accept these vaccines.
The White House now finds it necessary to have a special group to identify and target 12 American citizens for what they believe to be vaccine disinformation, and to make a big public press announcement about it. Don’t they have anything else to do? It seems like the world has got bigger problems than Dr. Mercola, but what do I know?
The whole thing is mind-bending. And a lot of people, including many Europeans, are really lit up over this. They remember. European intellectuals are very aware of the dynamics that happened in Germany in the 1930s … I think this could be a turning point in a lot of things.”
The Powers That Be Have Been Given Free Reign
While Malone is not interested in speculating about the intentions behind all this malfeasance, he’s intimately familiar with the power of Big Pharma to manipulate governments. As detailed in other articles, several of the COVID injection makers have a rich history of illegal activity and unethical behavior, and now they have been given free reign to do as they please.
They’re been completely absolved from liability if and when something goes wrong with these injections, and governments are enticing and bullying citizens to participate in Big Pharma’s experiment.
“If you give that kind of liberty and power to a global multinational and absolve them of any accountability, they will serve their stockholders,” Malone says. “They are not geared to serving the rest of us, whatever they may say in their press releases.
That’s just how big pharma behaves, and we’ve chosen this model. Messaging having to do with alternative treatments and the importance of wellness, those are not consistent with the ‘Take this pill, pay your price and shut up’ kind of business model.
Personally, I think that Mr. Gates and his foundation have done enormous irreparable harm to world health community through his actions and his own personal biases. He has really distorted global public health. At some point, there will be books written about this, and I’m sure an enormous number of Ph.D. theses will be granted. But meanwhile, we all have to live with it.”
The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) recently posted more than 50 video presentations from the pay-for-view Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination held online October 16 to 18, 2020, and made them available to everyone for free.
The conference’s theme was “Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century” and it featured physicians, scientists and other health professionals, human rights activists, faith community leaders, constitutional and civil rights attorneys, authors and parents of vaccine injured children talking about vaccine science, policy, law and ethics and infectious diseases, including coronavirus and COVID-19 vaccines.
In December 2020, a U.K. company published false and misleading information about NVIC and its conference, which prompted NVIC to open up the whole conference for free viewing. The conference has everything you need to educate yourself and protect your personal freedoms and liberties with respect to your health.
Don’t miss out on this incredible opportunity. I was a speaker at this empowering conference and urge you to watch these video presentations before they’re censored and taken away by the technocratic elite.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
According to the most recent stats released by the CDC this past Friday, their Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) now has recorded twice as many deaths following the non-FDA approved experimental COVID-19 shots during the past 8 months, than deaths recorded following ALL FDA approved vaccines for the past 30 years.
In spite of these U.S. Government CDC-verified facts regarding the experimental COVID-19 shots, not only are they continuing to administer them, but the big push now is to MANDATE them as a requirement for employment in both government and private sector jobs.
And so far, at least, it seems that the majority of the U.S. public is willing to comply and participate in what can only be labeled mass genocide.
As we reported last week, Israel is now planning to roll out a third injection of the Pfizer shots to those who have already been injected twice and survived, targeting seniors first, and we can certainly expect the same rollout soon here in the U.S. as well.
The July 30th data dump into VAERS, which everyone acknowledges is not the full data of deaths and injuries following COVID-19 shots, reveals 11,940 deaths and 618,648 injuries among 518,770 cases, including 12,808 permanent disabilities, 65,272 emergency room visits, 40,873 hospitalizations, and 11,198 life threatening injuries.
There are also 1,175 premature deaths of unborn children following COVID-19 injections of pregnant women. (Source.)
This has to be the most censored information in the U.S. right now, even though it is based on the government’s own data and own reporting system.
When confronted with these statistics, the CDC’s response is that these reports do not prove causation. They would have everyone believe that all of these deaths and injuries following the COVID-19 injections are just “coincidences.”
Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. (Source.)
However, if you search for deaths following all FDA-approved vaccines for the 30 years prior to the emergency use authorizations of the COVID-19 shots, you will see that there are now about twice as many deaths following the COVID-19 shots compared to deaths following ALL vaccines for the PAST 30 YEARS.
The COVID-19 injections were first given emergency use authorization in early December, of 2020. So the recorded deaths following these shots as of July 23, 2021 is 11,940, in less than 8 months.
But let’s round it off to 8 months, which would equate to an average of 1,492 deaths per month.
From 1/1/1991 through 11/10/2020, there were 6,068 deaths in 359 months, which equates to an average of 17 deaths per month following FDA-approved vaccines.
That’s a 8676% increase of recorded deaths following the COVID-19 shots, compared to deaths following all previous FDA-approved vaccines.
What are the statistical odds that these are all “coincidences”?
Pretty much ZERO. The CDC is lying to you. They serve the pharmaceutical companies, not the American people, and the sooner you figure that out, the better, because your life is at stake, and your life is meaningless to them.
*
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).
Glen Ford, a veteran broadcast, print and digital journalist who hosted the first nationally syndicated Black news interview program on TV before going on to found the Black Agenda Report website, has died, according to reports. He was 71 years old.
Ford’s cause of death was not immediately reported. Several sources announced his death late Wednesday morning, including Margaret Kimberley, an editor and columnist at Black Agenda Report, the weekly news magazine that offers commentary and analysis from a Black perspective which Ford launched and served as its executive editor.
I am sorry to inform you that Glen Ford, founder of Black Agenda Report, and my friend, comrade, and mentor has passed away. We will share more information as we receive it.
— Margaret Kimberley (@freedomrideblog) July 28, 2021
Condolences began pouring in on social media once news of Ford’s death broke.
My dear brother Glen Ford has passed! He kept alive the highest standards of truth-telling and justice-seeking of the Black radical tradition. He was a giant in revolutionary vision, analysis and praxis! We should never forget him! @blkagendareport
To call Ford a career journalist is a vast understatement. According to his bio on the Black Agenda Report website, Ford was reporting the news live on the radio as early as 11-years-old and went on to enjoy a career in journalism for more than 40 years that included working as a Washington bureau chief as well as a correspondent covering the White House, Capitol Hill and State Department.
After getting his start in news radio in Augusta, Georgia, Ford honed his skills at other local news stations and eventually created the “Black World Report,” a syndicated half-hour weekly news magazine that paved the way for the Black Agenda Report to be founded. Years later, in 1977, Ford helped launch, produce and host “America’s Black Forum,” the first nationally syndicated Black news interview program on commercial television.
Glen Ford, co-founder of @blkagendareport, was a fearless, incisive thinker and a kind soul. the news of his passing is heartbreaking. lal salaam.
That led to the creation of “Black Agenda Reports” two years later in a successful effort to focus his syndicated content in the areas of Black women, business, entertainment, history and sports.
The Black Alliance for Peace mourns the passing of Glen Ford (November 5, 1949-July 28, 2021) from an elder to an ancestor. pic.twitter.com/8tLfBQcmSw
— Black Alliance for Peace (@Blacks4Peace) July 28, 2021
About a decade later, Ford branched out into the then-burgeoning popularity of hip-hop culture with “Rap It Up,” the first syndicated hip-hop music show in American history.
After co-founding BlackCommentator.com in 2002, he and the rest of the website’s staff left to launch Black Agenda Report, which remains a popular source of information, news and analysis from a Black perspective.
Rest in Power Glen Ford. We want to send our condolences to his family, and the @blkagendareport family for this tremendous loss. But what a substantial and inspirational life he led in terms of liberatory media work. https://t.co/vo2AIWeg9T
— Millennials Are Killing Capitalism (@MAKCapitalism) July 28, 2021
Born Glen Rutherford in Georgia in 1949, Ford famously has his surname shortened by James Brown, who owned the radio station where Ford got his start in Augusta, Georgia.
#GlenFord Presente! Mobilization4Mumia sends condolences to his family and the staff at Black Agenda Report. His perceptive analyses will be missed. pic.twitter.com/ULrxJeK8hj
— Mobilization4Mumia (@Mobilize4Mumia) July 28, 2021
In an example of how Ford made a point to hold elected officials accountable, he once discussed during an interview in 2009 about the “ethical dilemma” he faced by questioning then-Sen. Barack Obamaabout his presidential agenda and his membership to the Democratic Leadership Council, which Ford — then working with BlackCommentator.com — referred to as “the right wing corporate mechanism of the Democratic Party.” Obama, Ford recalled, responded with a “fuzzy mish-mash of non-answers.” But because Ford “did not want to be seen as the proverbial crabs in a barrel” and affect Obama’s political ascent, he allowed Obama to pass what he called the “bright line test.”
I will forever be grateful to Glen Ford for giving this concept: “the black misleadership class.” Rest In Peace Glen Ford.
Ford said that was a mistake that he would never make again and suggested that it was a lesson well learned.
“I’ve never regretted a political decision as much as having passed Barack Obama when he should have failed the test; and we never made that mistake again,” Ford said in the interview.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: Glen Ford. | Source: Glen Ford / LinkedIn
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released their investigative findings of a recent outbreak of COVID-19 in Massachusetts. [Press Release Here] According to their study, 74% of those infected during the regional outbreak were previously vaccinated.
According to the study, 469 cases were tracked from the Provincetown, MA, outbreak July 3rd through 17th. Of the 469 COVID cases identified, the CDC is claiming 346 (74%) occurred in previously vaccinated people. Specimens from 133 of the patients showed 90% of those cases were the “Delta variant”.
Five people were hospitalized, no-one died during the outbreak. [Read Study Here]
(WaPo) […] the study found that vaccinated individuals carried as much virus in their noses as unvaccinated individuals, strongly suggesting that vaccinated people could spread the virus to each other. (link)
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Comments Off on CDC Study, Most People Infected with COVID During Massachusetts Outbreak Were Vaccinated, 74 Percent of Outbreak Within Vaccinated Population
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).
SIMON BOLIVAR: “The United States seems destined by providence to plague Latin America with misery in the name of liberty.”
In a courageous and desperately needed acknowledgement of truth, Mexico’s Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard, at a United Nations Security Council press stake-out July 16th denounced the destructive impact of the brutal embargo declared against Cuba, a denunciation supported by 184 member states of the United Nations, and in his Security Council speech Ebrard denounced the cruel impact and violation of international humanitarian law caused by “the impact of the sanctions applied in some countries where serious humanitarian crises or situations of great human suffering are created.”
Mexican Foreign Minister Ebrard, reclaiming Mexico’s sovereignty, further declared Mexico’s determination to re-open full diplomatic and economic relations with North Korea. This statement re-asserts Mexico’s independence from control by the Colossus to the North, and restores Mexico’s prestige, which had been shattered by former Mexican President Pena Nieto, who, along with Brazil, Peru and Chile shamefully capitulated to pressure from the United States, and declared the Ambassador of the DPRK Persona-Non-Grata in 2017.
It is significant that this press stake-out by the Mexican Foreign Minister was reported together with his declaration of intent to re-establish full diplomatic and commercial relations with the DPRK, and was published immediately by such mainstream western media as Newsweek and the Bloomberg press. Although the US Mission was officially reported to remain “Mum” in reaction to Mexico’s statement, one can only wonder at the “unofficial” reaction of the US delegation when the Mexican Foreign Minister re-entered the Security Council chamber following his press stake-out.
Mexico is currently a member of the United Nations Security Council, unanimously voted to membership by the Latin American states. Outside the high-level meeting on ‘Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict: Preserving Humanitarian Space,” convened during the July French presidency of the Security Council, Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard stated Mexico’s concerns that:
“We have also said what we believe should be done in the coming months and years in terms of how to address the origins of the conflicts. I would also like to point out that in the meetings we have had this morning we have said that although it is true that the humanitarian space has to do with conflicts… It is also true that humanitarian concerns have to do with inequity in access to vaccines against COVID-19, but they also have to do with the impact of the sanctions applied in some countries where serious humanitarian crises or situations of great human suffering are created. We have said it now in the Council and this must change. Mexico is in favor, then, of all countries committing to protect those who are working for humanitarian causes and is also in favor of all countries acting in accordance with international humanitarian law, which is essential to the work of the United Nations throughout the world.”
Although the press had been advised that the Mexican Foreign Minister would be making the brief statement just quoted, and would not be answering questions, Ebrard graciously accepted and answered several questions from the press, following his statement, and expressed the declaration by President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador that the current disturbances and demonstrations in Cuba are the result of the decades long embargo imposed by the United States, which has destabilized Cuba’s economy, fomenting current unrest.
President Lopez Obrador stated: “Cuba is going through a difficult situation basically attributable to the United States’ blockade.” Indeed, Russia and numerous other countries have accused the US of attempting to incite a “color revolution,” tantamount to regime change in Cuba.
In reply to my own question, referring to Foreign Minister Ebrard’s concern with the “impact of the sanctions applied in some countries where serious humanitarian crises or situations of great human suffering are created,” I mentioned the large numbers of people starving and dying in the DPRK as the result of UN Security Council sanctions, and the abysmal failure of the so-called “humanitarian exemptions” to protect the people of North Korea from the disastrous effect of UN Security Council sanctions; I asked when President Lopez Obrador will be reestablishing full diplomatic and commercial relations with the DPRK. Foreign Minister Ebrard replied:
“We have a position of non-intervention all over the world, we respect all governments, and we want to reopen the relationship with North Korea as well, like any other country.”
On July 23, a full page paid advertisement in the New York Times in a letter to President Biden stated: “Let Cuba Live!” The letter stated:
“We find it unconscionable, especially during a pandemic, to intentionally block remittances and Cuba’s use of global financial institutions, given that access to dollars is necessary for the importation of food and medicine…..” and the letter was signed by such world-famous names as Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, Jane Fonda, Dr. Cornel West, Dr. Pablo Gonzalez Casanova, Chico Buarque, Lula Da Silva, Former President of Brazil, Chris Hedges, Yanis Varoufakis, and a vast number of other notables throughout the world.
It is to be hoped that Mexico’s membership in the Security Council will help to restore some balance and credibility to the Security Council, for too long hijacked by Western nuclear powers.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Carla Stea is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Global Research’s Correspondent at UN headquarters, New York.
Featured image is from Gobierno de Mexico via Frontreras
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The leaked audio of a phone call between a Moderna representative and a woman who developed Guillain-Barre syndrome after receiving the company’s experimental drug has confirmed something many of us already knew: We are witnessing the biggest clinical trial in vaccine history.
During the course of conversation, the Moderna representative admitted that all coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine recipients are “pretty much” part of a drug trial. The audio was released in June by reporter Stew Peters.
Whether the mainstream media admit it or not, COVID-19 vaccines are experimental. No less than the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said so. Natural Health 365 reported that in a “Guidance for Industry” dated May 25, 2021, the FDA and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) specifically referred to COVID-19 vaccines as “investigational.”
Investigational vs. experimental drugs, according to FDA
Those who wonder how different “investigational” is from “experimental,” the FDA explained in their web page that “An investigational drug can also be called an experimental drug.”
It also said: “Before you can be given an investigational drug either through a clinical trial or through expanded access, your healthcare provider must give you additional information about the potential risks and potential benefits of the drug.”
Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson are not liable for any loss or damages caused by these experimental drugs as stated in the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).
The secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is authorized to issue a PREP Act declaration. The declaration provides immunity from liability (except for willful misconduct) for claims of loss caused, arising out of, relating to or resulting from administration or use of countermeasures to diseases, threats and conditions; for claims determined by the secretary to constitute a present or credible risk of a future public health emergency; and for claims to entities and individuals involved in the development, manufacture, testing, distribution, administration and use of such countermeasures.
Pharmaceutical companies to expand size of trial for younger children
The Rockdale Newton Citizen recently reported that Moderna will expand the size of its vaccine trial in younger children but will not seek emergency use authorization for the age group until later in 2021 or early 2022.
“We are actively discussing a proposal with the FDA. The objective is to enroll a larger safety database which increases the likelihood of detecting rarer events,” Ray Johnson, a spokesperson for Moderna, said in a statement.
The original size of the trial included almost 7,000 children ages 6 months to 12 years. However, the company did not say how many additional cases the trial will now include.
Jordan also said that Moderna would likely seek authorization for the vaccine in “winter 2021” or early 2022.
Pfizer will expand its vaccine trials for younger children, as well. A Pfizer representative said it has no updates regarding its previous timelines or details about its pediatric trial. However, the company noted that it began testing its vaccine in children ages five to 11 on June 8, and on children younger than 5 beginning June 21. The trial now included up to 4,500 participants in the United States, Finland, Poland and Spain.
Pfizer also said it expects initial results of the second phase of the trials in September for children ages 5 to 11, and the younger ones shortly thereafter.
President Joe Biden said that children under 12 could be eligible to receive their COVID-19 vaccine “soon.” Parents have been eager to vaccinate their younger children as schools prepare to open face-to-face learning in the fall. The Pfizer vaccine is currently available for children as young as 12, but no vaccine is available for younger children yet.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The growth of neo-colonial tendencies, the current geopolitical developments and the scramble for its resources by external countries in Africa: these are some of the issues researcher and business analyst Lipton Matthews recently discussed with Kester Kenn Klomegah for InDepthNews (IDN). Matthews is associated with Merion West, The Federalist, American Thinker, Intellectual Takeout, Mises Institute, and Imaginative Conservative.
In particular, Matthews gives in-depth views on China’s valuable contribution to various economic sectors especially infrastructure development spanning three decades and on the possible implications of Russia-China collaboration in Africa.
Matthews talks also on the positive prospects and significance of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and advises both African leaders and corporate business leaders to collaborate in strengthening trade networks within the continent, take up the emerging challenges and seize the opportunity to build a better Africa. Here are the interview excerpts.
***
Kester Kenn Klomegah: What do you think of China’s and Russia’s engagement with Africa in general? What would you say comparatively about these two foreign players in Africa?
Lipton Matthews: African experts like Peter Kagwanja and Rahamtalla Mohamed Osman have rubbished the claim that China is colonizing Africa. In general, African leaders perceive China to be the driving force behind modernization in the region. For example, during 2001-2002, China’s Foreign Direct Investment in Sub-Saharan Africa increased by 53% yearly, dwarfing American investment that grew by a mere 14%. Moreover, neither were African countries among those at the UN rebuking China for its treatment of the primarily Muslim Uyghur population in 2020.
Nevertheless, reports deriding China’s influence in Africa are pervasive in the West, but in reality, Africans are appreciative of China’s role in the region. Since the days of the Cold War, developing countries have viewed China as an ally. Therefore, the ascent of China is perceived favourably by African policymakers because it represents the aspirations of the developing world.
Meanwhile, China has greater legitimacy in Africa considering that it did not possess a colonial empire in the region. Likewise, Russia had an empire in Europe, but not in Africa, so the Russians are positioned to portray themselves as liberators. Furthermore, Russians were never a part of the political West and during the Cold War, they collaborated with Africans against Western hegemony. So, consequently, Africans are likely to embrace Russia as an ally and not construe her interference in the region as an act of imperialism.
Though Russia’s investment in Africa is not on the scale of China, it appears that Russian players have identified the region as a source of raw materials and are exploiting the opportunities offered by the continent. Western pundits fail to recognize that Russia and China are harnessing their distinctiveness from the West to acquire political mileage in Africa. The West is losing the battle for dominance in Africa due to ideological reasons. For instance, Westerners preach classical liberalism, whereas Russia and China champion a statist approach to development. Because the doctrines of these powers are consonant with the left-leaning philosophy of Africa, their actions are less likely to invite contempt.
KKK: Do you also think there is an emerging rivalry in geopolitics, consistent confrontation against the United States and Europe (especially France) in Africa and what if China and Russia team up together?
LM: There is always rivalry in geopolitics, but the tactics of Russia and China have been misunderstood. Both countries are playing a spoiler role in Western politics. They intend to foment chaos in Western democracies to accelerate tensions, and in the era of social media, they have been able to do so on a grand scale. Unlike the West, Russia and China are led by brilliant strategists. The Russians and Chinese duped Western strategists into thinking that they want to challenge Western hegemony.
However, they only aim to create spheres of influence that are divorced from Western interference. Russia wants to contain America’s presence in Eastern Europe and China envisions creating a Sino-Centric Order in Asia. For Americans and the broader Western community to deter the rise of China and Russia, they must leverage soft power to obtain the favour of developing countries. Developing countries value the non-interference stance of Russia and China, so if Western countries were to affirm a less moralistic foreign policy they could shift the balance of power in their favour.
Compared to America, China and Russia are technological laggards and paper tigers, but they understand the primacy of ideas. Westerners think that they are fighting a geopolitical war, when they are actually competing for ideological supremacy. For example, Russia is popular in Mali, unlike France, because the former can deploy propaganda to present herself as a victim of Western imperialism, even though Russia was an imperial power and today exerts its clout in Eastern Europe.
Another issue is that, in this case, the colonial power was France and not Russia, so the latter can always project legitimacy. Conversely, Russia and China acknowledge that war is not required to undermine the West, because Western countries no longer believe in themselves. Throughout the West, white people are assaulting Western history and since demoralized people are not motivated to fight wars, China and Russia have already won the battle.
Lastly, China and Russia are unwilling to team up in order to defeat the West, since this is not a necessity. It is obvious that the West is the architect of its demise. Similarly, Russia and China are competing for influence, so it is more feasible for either partner to associate with the West to constrain the potential of her rival. To forestall the rise of her adversaries, West leaders need to employ foreign policy strategists who actually understand ideas and history.
KKK: Is it appropriate when we use the term “neo-colonialism” referring to a number of foreign players in Africa? What countries are the neo-colonizers, in your view?
LM: First, we need to acknowledge that colonialism is not a new phenomenon and neither is it unique to Europeans. History also documents examples of Europeans colonizing predominantly white territories in Europe. For example, Sweden once had an empire in Europe. However, colonization is an expensive endeavour and the association between economic growth and empire is actually negative, according to the late Paul Bairoch.
In fact, many countries have recorded astounding growth without possessing empires. On the other hand, we must disabuse ourselves of the notion that colonialism is inherently exploitative. Most people would prefer sovereignty to colonial rule, but the truth is that colonial status does not impede economic growth and some colonies in Africa experienced faster growth during the colonial era. We should give greater priority to good governance than national sovereignty. It is better to be under the rule of benevolent colonizers than to be the subject of a dictator.
Additionally, in relation to the issue of neo-colonialism concerns are misplaced. China is in the business of maximizing the potential of Africa’s resources, not empire-building. The problem is that governance structures in Africa are weak, so it is easy for China to evade regulations. The perception that China is colonizing Africa is a consequence of Africa’s history of defective governance. In actuality, China through its infrastructural projects is presiding over the modernization of Africa, similar to what Europeans and Americans did in the developing world years ago.
However, the difference is that the Chinese are not imposing their standards on Africans. Yet this could be a disadvantage because linking investment to the implementation of higher standards could result in ameliorating governance structures in Africa thereby increasing the region’s propensity to attract investment. But African leaders appreciate that Chinese investments are not wedded to reforms. Though overall, China’s influence in Africa has been positive.
According to scholars based at John Hopkins University and Boston University, during 2000-2015, China lent $95.5 billion to Africa and 40 per cent of the loans financed power generation and transmission, and the remaining 30 per cent modernized Africa’s dilapidated infrastructure.
Further, despite the narrative that Chinese investments are allotted to extractive sectors, they account for one-third of the total Chinese investment in Africa, according to Dollar et al (2015).The study also notes that China’s share of foreign investment is higher in weak governance states, and as a result, Africa is a prime target since governance is less effective in the region. Therefore, Africa is susceptible to exploitation by China, since several countries failed to improve governance.
KKK: Do you think, with the adoption of African Continental Free Trade (AfCFTA), offers a window of hope for attaining economic independence for Africa? What role Russia can play in this or of what significance is it for potential Russian investors?
LM: First. The relationship between trade openness and economic growth in Africa is positive. Further, the World Bank estimates that by 2035, this project will rescue 68 million people from poverty and increase gross domestic product by $450 billion.
By removing barriers to trade in the region, the agreement will create new entrepreneurial activities and spur innovations in technology. The free trade agreement will even be more beneficial if Africa’s policymakers ensure that intellectual property is not over-regulated. Innovations can occur without intellectual property laws and society is more likely to benefit when ideas are freely released into the public domain.
In order to aid Africa, Russia should assist Africa in transitioning to a knowledge-based economy by promoting technology transfer agreements. Russians must also invest in more R&D collaborations with their African partners. This agreement will revolutionize. Africa’s economy and a richer Africa is a positive for Russian investors. If African is properly managed, then the continent should succeed. [….]
*
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 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).
After the revelation that half a million vegans in the UK could be prevented from having to take mandatory workplace vaccinations due to their beliefs being protected by employment law, actor Laurence Fox publicly announced that he now identifies as “trans vegan.”
“So-called ethical veganism was ruled to be a protected characteristic at a tribunal last year, meaning employers would risk legal action if they order staff to be vaccinated,” reports the Daily Telegraph.
Workers with other religious beliefs could also cite their status as a protected category in order to avoid employers forcing compulsory jabs.
“Some ethical vegans may disagree with vaccinations on the basis that they will inevitably have been tested on animals. Ethical veganism has previously been found by an [employment tribunal] to amount to a belief, capable of being protected,” said a spokesman for the Lewis Silkin law firm.
Although COVID-19 vaccines don’t contain anything derived from animals, they were tested on animals.
Jeanette Rowley, a rights advocate at the Vegan Society, said she had received around 100 messages from concerned vegans who say “they’re very affected, psychologically, to have to confront this dilemma.”
Actor and anti-lockdown campaigner Laurence Fox responded to the news by proclaiming a new identity that is sure to be shared by countless others.
From this day forward I self identify as a trans vegan.
I will only eat plant based food and medium rare sirloin steaks. And chicken, pork scratchings and salami.
“From this day forward I self identify as a trans vegan,” he tweeted.
“I will only eat plant based food and medium rare sirloin steaks. And chicken, pork scratchings and salami,” added Fox.
Fox subsequently reaffirmed his commitment to his new identity by tweeting, “#TransVeganRightsAreHumanRights.”
For millions of Brits, particularly younger people who are more likely to die from vaccine side-effects than the virus itself, their refusal to be intimidated into taking the jab as a condition of work can be boiled down to one statement of defiance.
“We’re all trans vegan now.”
*
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).
Unvaccinated Americans were the talking point of the day on Monday with a slew of figures slamming those who have chosen not to take the coronavirus jabs, assigning blame to them for America ‘going backwards’, likening them to murderers, and suggesting that they are to blame for more deadly variants of the virus emerging.
First up, the White House with Press Secretary Jen Psaki claiming that America is in reverse because “there are still a large population of people in this country who are unvaccinated – and we have the most transmissible variant that we’ve seen since the beginning of the pandemic that more people are getting sick with Covid.”
Fox News' Peter Doocy: "On COVID, Dr. Fauci says we’re going in the wrong direction. Whose fault is that?"@PressSec: “Well, I would say first what he was referring to is the fact that because there are still a large population of people in this country who were unvaccinated…” pic.twitter.com/GzOULaVL54
Psaki announced that travel restrictions will not be lifted because of the Delta variant:
#BREAKING: White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki announces the U.S. will maintain all travel restrictions and NOT be lifting any of them anytime soon because of the Delta variant.
Finally, Psaki did not rule out applying restrictions only to unvaccinated people:
CNN's Kaitlan Collins asks Jen Psaki if unvaccinated Americans should face penalties and be singled out as not able to live the same lives as the vaccinated: "Does the President favor restrictions for unvaccinated people when it comes to restaurants, museums, concerts?" pic.twitter.com/ubgMedQV2Z
Next up was Fauci, who appeared on his favourite softball network MSNBC to announce that unvaccinated Americans will be to blame for the next deadly variant:
CNN’s Lemon Don declared that the unvaccinated should be prevented from having normal lives.
“Don’t get the vaccine. You can’t go to the supermarket. Don’t have the vaccine, can’t go to the ball game. Don’t have a vaccine, can’t go to work. You don’t have a vaccine, can’t come here. No shirt, no shoes, no service. I think that’s where we should be because we can’t to waste our breath on people that are just not going to change,” Lemon decreed, with Chris Cuomo (imagine my shock) wholeheartedly agreeing:
Meanwhile in New York, Cuomo’s brother proclaimed “we have to get in those communities, and we have to knock on those doors, and we have to convince people, and put them in a car and drive them and get that vaccine in their arm. That is the mission.”
NEW – NY Gov. Cuomo: “We have to knock on those doors, and we have to convince people, put them in cars & drive them and get that vaccine in their arm. That is the mission.”pic.twitter.com/nSIVsBuoPo
— Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸 (@mtgreenee) July 26, 2021
The message is clear, ‘we’re all in this together’… except for the unvaccinated.
*
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).
Bad weather is wreaking havoc in parts of the world. The cynical climate alarmist community hopes it will help get Joe Biden’s multi-trillion-dollar climate agenda through Congress.
“Amid summer of fire and floods, a moment of truth for climate action,” editorialized the Washington Post. So let’s look at the “summer of fires and floods.”
Yes, it has been very hot in the Pacific Northwest. Is this global warming, as alarmists want you to believe, or just weather?
The temperature reality is that there is no trend from 1911-2020 in very hot (i.e., 99F+) days in the Pacific Northwest. That’s according to Cliff Mass, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington and no one’s idea of a “climate denier.”
It’s out-of-control wildfire season again, which is being fueled by ongoing drought. Climate alarmists, of course, expect the public to believe that the drought is caused by global warming. But the natural history of the West over the past 1,100 years shows that megadroughts lasting as long as 200 years are the norm rather than the exception.
And since the federal and state governments kicked out the loggers and stopped managing public lands 40 years ago, these wildfires may come back every year until there is nothing left in the West to burn. This is not global warming; it’s a combination of Mother Nature and bad government.
Then there is the catastrophic flooding from torrential rains that have hit Germany, China and India. In none of these places is such rain and flooding novel.
The region of Germany that flooded has a history of flooding that goes back to 1348, long before SUVs were invented. German towns often record this history on buildings.
China is also no stranger to flooding. The torrential rain that recently is no worse than the torrential rain that struck the mainland in August 1975, according to the regional weather bureau. If the flooding has been worse, it’s because land use and poor storm water management have made it so.
And there is no trend in monsoon rains in India, per the most up-to-date recordkeeping from 1871 to 2017.
Despite these inconvenient truths, could these calamities still be due to global warming? Well, there isn’t even much of that right now. According to the most recent NASA satellite data, the average global temperature for June 2021 was slightly below the 30-average.
But don’t expect climate and weather reality to dampen the alarm repeated over and over every day in the media.
President Biden and Democrats plan to pass a $3.5 trillion “stimulus” bill in the fall. About $2 trillion of the spending is earmarked for climate.
Although no one has seen the bill, it reportedly will include a “clean energy standard” that will set mandatory goals for wind and solar power with an aim to eliminating fossil fuels from the electricity grid by 2035. It’s extreme spending and policy that will affect every American and not for the better. Think frozen Texas windmills and California blackouts.
Even if you believe the Democrat and media line on climate, you should realize that global emissions are going up with no end in sight according to a new report the International Energy Agency. Part of the reason that emissions will continue to rise is that new electricity demand can only be met by more fossil fuel generation, according to another new IEA report.
Both Joe Biden and John Kerry have openly admitted that unilateral US action on climate will achieve nothing. China has no plans to cut emissions and the G-20 just failed to agree on quitting coal and climate targets.
Yet Democrats nevertheless insist on massive climate spending and changes to our energy system even though there is no conceivable way they will accomplish their supposed underlying goal of controlling the weather.
We are not living through unprecedented bad weather so much as we are living through unprecedented exploitation of it for bad ends.
*
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.
Steve Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and is the author of “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA.”
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).
Back in 1633 there was a guy named Galileo Galilei who was deemed a nut job by the Catholic Church because of his heretical belief the Earth revolved around the sun. Galileo was sentenced to house arrest and ordered never again to teach his heresy. Centuries later the Church apologized, and Albert Einstein declared Galileo, “the father of modern science.”
In 1846 a Hungarian doctor namedIgnaz Semmelweiswas fired and declared a nut job for his preposterous advocation that hand washing was one of the most important tools in public health, particularly for surgeons. Semmelweis took so much abuse from the medical establishment that he wound up in an asylum.
In the early 40s a cardiologist named Bernard Lown was expelled from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine because he protested medical segregation by altering blood-bottle labels that denoted donors’ race. Decades later Lown invented the defibrillator, which has saved countless lives. In 1973, he founded The Lown Institute, a think tank focused on ground-breaking research to improve the quality of U.S. healthcare.
Some of the greatest minds since the world was flat were scientists and doctors persecuted and shunned because they saw or interpreted things differently. That’s why they are heralded as visionaries. Widely held beliefs often are proven wrong, and on Wall Street the rare few with 20/20 vision profit handsomely. The CEO of Enron graced the covers of business magazines and was heralded by the folks at McKinsey as a business genius until a trader who specialized betting against conventional wisdom studied the company’s regulatory filings and determined it was a fraud. Harry Markopolos, a financial analyst repeatedly warned the SEC that famed investor Bernie Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme, but he too was deemed a nut job.
Jeff Bezos at the turn of the century was uniformly doubted by analysts and the media who said Amazon could never be profitable. Investors who ignored the naysayers likely aren’t reading this commentary.
Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist who prior to Covid was among the most respected in his field, is a modern-day doctor who the medical establishment, the government, and the media want silenced. His views are very controversial, and I don’t have the scientific or medical expertise to evaluate them. But I know quite a bit about one of the hospitals where McCullough trained and one of the cardiologists who trained him.
His name is Joel Kahn, and he was a public champion of my critical reporting about Michigan’s Beaumont Health when it wasn’t yet widely known how extensive cost-cutting had irreparably harmed the company’s flagship hospital. McCullough did his fellowship under Kahn when they both worked at Beaumont. Kahn, who has a considerable national following promoting the merits of a plant-based diet and other heart-healthy lifestyle measures, has supported and advocated McCullough’s views. LinkedIn has censored several of Kahn’s posts highlighting what he says are alarmingly high deaths and other serious complications from COVID vaccines. Kahn admirably doesn’t delete highly critical comments on posts that escape LinkedIn’s censors, including personal attacks calling him a “quack” and advocating the hashtag #canceljoelkahn.
McCullough and Kahn have put themselves at great financial and professional risk. McCullough’s previous employer, a hospital whose foundation established a scholarship in his name, last week sued him for more than $1 million, alleging that McCullough has repeatedly misrepresented to the media he still works there and that it has been harmed by the association. McCullough’s lawyer issued a statement saying the lawsuit was a “politically motivated attempt to silence Dr. McCullough.” The Federation of State Licensing Boards last week issued a warning that physicians who post COVID misinformation on social media could lose their medical licenses, so more punishment could be in the offing.
It’s understandable why McCullough’s former employer, which filed its lawsuit on the same day it announced it was requiring all its employees to be vaccinated, no longer wants anything to do with him. McCullough maintains the COVID vaccine doesn’t protect against the Delta variant and isn’t necessary for people under age 50. He’s also very critical of health authorities for focusing on how best to stop the spread of COVID rather than how best to treat it. A rebuttal to some of McCullough’s positions can be found here.
The corporate media, which is so sycophantic to the Biden Administration that CNN anchor Brian Stelter shamelessly asked press secretary Jen Psaki how reporters could do a better job covering the president, has its own agenda wanting McCullough destroyed. The corporate media is fueling the narrative that the unvaccinated are moronic Trump supporters who watch FOX news, when in fact a significant percentage are Blacks and Hispanics. McCullough has made regular appearances on FOX, including on Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, so discrediting McCullough serves the double purpose of also discrediting FOX, which attracts a considerably bigger audience than the other cable networks.
On paper at least, it’s hard to dismiss McCullough as a quack. According to a bio posted on the US Cardiology Review, he is recognized internationally as a leading authority on chronic kidney disease as a cardiovascular risk state, having published more than 1,000 papers and garnered more than 500 citations in the National Library of Medicine. He also is a founder of the Cardio Renal Society of America, an alliance of cardiologists and nephrologists focused on cardiorenal syndromes. He was previously co-editor of Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine and served as Chair of the National Kidney Foundations’ Kidney Early Evaluation Program, among the largest screening efforts for chronic diseases. Notably, McCullough was a significant philanthropic donor to his former employer. (I wonder whether the hospital will return those funds.)
Kahn has previously sounded alarms that proved prescient. In 2019, he posted a commentary on Medium predicting that interventional cardiologists wouldn’t curtail their lucrative stent procedures despite a massive study documenting they weren’t beneficial for patients who were stable. The influential Journal of the American Medicine two weeks ago published a paper confirming Kahn’s prediction was spot on. Inserting stents are among the most profitable hospital procedures.
My familiarity with Kahn began a year ago last April when I began writing a series of very critical stories for Deadline Detroit about Beaumont and its management, particularly CEO John Fox. Underscoring the degree Beaumont doctors feared Fox, most were afraid to sign a petition protesting his leadership. However, when given the opportunity to respond to an anonymous survey, it was revealed that a majority of doctors had little confidence in Fox and his deputies, particularly those working at the company’s once nationally respected flagship hospital.
Kahn showed courage. Despite having an affiliation with Beaumont, he tweeted my articles and linked to them on social media, giving them a certain validity. Deadline Detroit, an independent online publication, wasn’t known for healthcare reporting and many local residents were suspicious of my reporting because other local outlets ignored it. Kahn’s support allowed my articles to gain traction and without it I’m not sure they would have achieved impact or recognition. I ultimately garnered an award for my coverage.
Courage possibly is in the DNA of Beaumont’s once nationally respected cardiology department. One Harvard-trained cardiologist sent multiple letters to Beaumont’s directors and trustees calling for Fox’s firing and pretty much called him a liar. The co-heads of the cardiology department wrote a letter to the chair of the hospital network warning him they had “serious concerns” about the company Beaumont was outsourcing its anesthesia services to. The warnings weren’t heeded and within three weeks of the outsourcing company taking over, a patient undergoing a routine colonoscopy died from intubation complications and another landed in the ICU because of a pain medication overdose. The outsourcing company, NorthStar Anesthesia, is owned by a holding company whose previous CEO was Jeffrey Zients, who is overseeing the president’s pandemic response.
McCullough, Kahn, and other physicians who are increasingly sticking their necks out and daring to challenge the CDC’s COVID and vaccination data, may all be badly mistaken. However, what history abundantly teaches is that censorship, however noble the original motivation, is never isolated to the original cause. Some governments have already used their “fake news” laws to combat vaccine misinformation for other political purposes.
The U.S. healthcare system is compromised and corrupt, and most doctors today are employees of healthcare networks or companies controlled by private equity. There are some physicians willing to speak out about how the corporatization of healthcare is harming patient safety while driving up prices. Rest assured, if McCullough and Kahn are silenced, so will others whose views the government and medical establishment doesn’t like. The corporate media can be counted on to abet the efforts or turn a blind eye to them, much like they did with my Beaumont reporting.
I, too, have experienced personal and unfounded attacks from powerful healthcare executives. Beaumont’s CEO called me a “psycho,” a “mudslinging machine,” and alleged that I had secret Russian connections. (My response can be found here.) Fox, who has made more than $20 million since being named CEO in 2016 and stands to make tens of millions more if he can successfully merge Beaumont into Spectrum Health, is representative of many MBA suits running U.S. hospitals.
The Biden Administration, the CDC, and Dr. Fauci don’t have the pandemic under control. The real issue isn’t contrarian doctors like McCollough and Kahn, but America’s very poor leadership and the corporate media’s failure to hold the president accountable. Biden promised to end COVID and for those with short memories, here was his plan.
*
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).
Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi and President Bidenannounced this week that Washington will end its combat mission in Iraq by the end of the year. However, these long-serving U.S. soldiers are not coming home: many of the 2,500 American service members are expected to remain in the country for “training and advisory” purposes.
The United States and Iraq had issued a joint statement in April that the U.S. combat mission would be ending, but the timeline remained unclear. The timing of the recent announcement appears intended to boost Kadhimi’s prospects in October’s parliamentary elections — he faces domestic demands to oust U.S. forces, yet remains dependent on American support to maintain some semblance of control.
Many of the militia groups he now struggles to control initially assembled to fight the so-called Islamic State, or Daesh, starting in 2014. The Popular Mobilization Forces, or al-Ḥashd ash-Shaʿbī, many of whose fighters are Iraqi Shi’a, were supported by both the U.S. and Iran to defeat the Islamic State. The mobilization of these militias would not have been necessary if Paul Bremer and the Pentagon had not made the foolish decision to disband Iraq’s military following the U.S. invasion in 2003, as Iraq would still have possessed a functional army.
Washington clearly bears significant responsibility for the ongoing instability and dysfunction in Iraq, a fact that the announcement of $155 million in additional humanitarian aid for Iraq seems implicitly to acknowledge. Yet the U.S. military has consistently botched its missions in Iraq — keeping them in the country is in the interests of neither Americans nor Iraqis.
Renaming the stated goal of U.S. troops in Iraq will have little effect on their vulnerability to attack. Iraqi militia groups determined to evict U.S. troops from their country are increasingly acting without or against orders from Tehran. Ironically, Iran’s control of Iraqi militia groups unraveled following the assassination of Quds Force Commander Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Attacks on American forces have increased at a time when Tehran and Washington are attempting to negotiate a mutual return to the 2015 nuclear deal.
Announcing a troop withdrawal when no troops are in fact to be withdrawn reinforces a broader alarming trend in the forever wars — finding ways to keep American soldiers perpetually deployed, despite the public’s desire for the United States to prioritize investment at home over violence abroad.
Even more concerning are the expanding budget and scope of Pentagon’s “127e” programs, created after 9/11 to provide “support to foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals engaged in supporting or facilitating authorized ongoing military operations by United States special operations forces to combat terrorism.”
These “exceptional” and highly secretive counterterror deployments operate with very little public, congressional or DOD oversight.
The budget of 127e programs has quadrupled since 2005, from $25 million to $100 million annually. These funds are exempt from U.S. human rights conditions, like the “Leahy laws,” which bar the United States from backing foreign units credibly accused of gross abuses.
As became evident with the death of four U.S. soldiers in Niger in October 2017, these unauthorized 127e advisory operations pose a serious risk that combat-equipped U.S. forces will become involved in firefights.
The takeaway should be that, although a U.S. “advisory” mission in Iraq may sound harmless, it maintains the strong likelihood that U.S. forces will be shot at and will shoot back.
When Prime Minister al-Kadhimi came to power in May, he was seen as representing the rejection of overt Iranian influence over Iraq, a sentiment also expressed in widespread protests throughout Iraq starting in October 2019 that demanded an end to both Iranian and American intervention, as well as rampant government corruption. He faces a nearly impossible task, which is made more difficult by the ongoing attacks that are likely to continue as long as U.S. forces remain in his country’s territory — relabeled, or 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.
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).
One of the global challenges of the 21st century is the falling liberal democracy. Indeed, the state of democracy is so alarming that some are talking about the crisis of democracy.
Is the decline of democracy a temporary phenomenon? Is it a more fundamentally structural problem? Can it restore its power and glory of the past?
The slump of democracy is terribly important problem, because it is based on Judeo-Christian way of thinking and the corner stone of the Western civilization.
It is a serious challenging for the West, because the Asian civilization represented by the Chinese political system is becoming more visible and more popular.
Some opinion leaders in the West may fear the possibility that the Chinese authoritarian regime be considered as a possible alternative to the West’s liberal democracy.
In this paper, I will first examine how serious the fall of democracy is. Then I will discuss the factors responsible for the decline of democracy. Finally I will examine if the Chinese political regime is responsible for the decline of democracy…
How serious is the Fall of Democracy?
For decades, in great many countries, the American democracy has been the role model of political regime. In fact, the popularity of the American democracy is such that the basic principles of democracy are integrated even in the constitutions of non-democratic countries.
There are many data showing the retreat of democracy. For instance, the Freedom House has produced alarming data.
In the period, 2005-2020, the number of countries where democracy improved has fallen from 83 to 28, whereas, that of countries where democracy deteriorated rose from 52 to 73. (See this)
The demographic distribution of political regime in 2019 was as follow: pure democracy (4.5%), defective democracy (43.6%), hybrid regimes (16.7%) and authoritarian regimes (35.6%).
According to a survey made for the world as a whole, in 1995, 48% of respondents in 154 countries were dissatisfied with democracy. Now the percentage increased to 58%.
According to a report of Cambridge University, democracy fell in all developed countries, especially in the U.S. Before the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, only 25% of Americans were dissatisfied with democracy, but after 2008, 45% were dissatisfied. (See this) (2020.01.29)
In all well established democracies like the Unites States, democratic governance will continue its inexorable decline and eventually fall. (See this) (2019.09.08)
Many countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia, especially in Europe, people are dissatisfied with democracy and chose authoritarian regime.
The Guardian presents the results of a large scale poll with 50,000 persons in 53 countries carried out by the Alliance of Democracies Foundation in 2021. (See this)
The dissatisfaction with democracy rose further after the pandemic. Before the pandemic in all democratic countries included in the sample, 70% of respondents was satisfies with democracies. But in 2021, the percentage of satisfaction with democracy was 65 % for developing countries, 51% for developed countries, 45% in Europe and 76% in Asia.
One of the messages coming out of the Global Poll is that despite the trend of falling democracy, the love of democracy remains high. In fact, 81% of respondents say that democracy is important for their country, but only 63% say that their country is democratic.
One intriguing outcome of the poll is that, in China, 71% of the respondents say that they have a right amount of democracy.
What are the factors responsible for the Decline of Democracy?
There can be many reasons for the decline of democracy. For some, it is the fault of China. The authors of the Freedom House Report (2021) make this statement without elaboration.
“Beyond the pandemic, Beijing’s exports of anti-democratic tactics, financial coercion, and physical intimidation have led to an erosion of democratic institutions and human right protection in numerous countries.”
But, there is another perception of Chinese influence on the decline of democracy,
“By demonstrating that advanced modernization can be combined with authoritarian rule, the Chinese regime has given hope to authoritarian rules everywhere.” (See this)
On the other hand, only 38% of the respondents of the Global Poll expressed their fear of Chinese influence on democracy. As for the Russia’s influence on democracy, only 28% confirmed such influence.
Then, what are the main determinants of the retreat of democracy? The Global Poll identifies the following three determinants.
First, the US appears to be the most responsible for the retreat of democracy. No less than 44% says that it is the U.S. which is a threat to democracy.
“Since 2020, the perception of the US influence as a threat to democracy around the world has increased significantly, from a net of +6 to a net opinion of +14. This increase is particularly high in Germany (+20) and China (+16)” (theguardian.com)
Second, the high tech companies are significant threat to democracy.
According to the poll, 50% say that high tech companies are a threat to democracy; it is particularly so in the U.S.(62%).
Third, the inequality of income is the threat to democracy. No less than 64 % say that inequality is the threat to democracy.
It goes without saying that the American influence, the domination of large high tech companies and inequality of income distribution are closely interrelated.
The poll makes it clear that the decline of democracy is attributable to the poor management of democracy of leading developed countries implying that the future of democracy depends on the leadership of these countries.
And, the respondents of the poll are very pessimistic about the leadership of the U.S. and European countries.
“With the United States, the biggest promoter of democracy and human right in retreat and the European Union experiencing existential battle, it is uncertain how liberal order can check the rising of the Chinese authoritarian model.” (theguardian.com)
The poll shows ” neither the US nor G7 can simply assure the mantle of defender of democracy.” (theguardian.com)
“In fact, democracy is in decline, because its most prominent examples are not doing enough to protect it”. (The Freedom House Report, 2021)
These quotations are saying that the government of the US and developed democratic country have to find their redemption by doing better job for the protection of democracy.
Here, I must ask why the U.S. has failed in protecting democracy, let alone promoting it. I think that Washington has failed on two fronts. On the one hand, it has failed to make America a true democratic country and on the other, it has failed in propagating democracy in the world.
The most important yardstick of measuring the performance of a democratic government should be its capacity to provide such public goods as foods, clothing, housing, public health, education, people’s security to the people.
The U.S is the richest country in the world. Yet, Washington’s capacity of providing these public goods is dismal. The homeless people are filling streets of cities; 20% of the population has no affordable medical care; more than 25% of school children are starving without school meals: Americans are afraid of going out, because every day, 1.4 cases of armed street violence kill people. In the eyes many democratic countries, the American democracy is no longer their model.
The failure of Washington in protecting democracy and the rise of authoritarianism among democratic countries may make non-democratic countries to feel more satisfied with their authoritarianism.
As we saw above, the major threat to democracy is the combination of large high tech companies and the inequality of income and wealth. This is the unavoidable outcome of neo-liberal economic system of which the U.S. is the champion.
Remember how neo-liberal economic system works
First, the government’ role is minimized, or rather, it is paralyzed.
Second, to make profit, the production is automated and labour cost is minimized through the freezing of wage and abolition of effective labour unions.
Third, competition is limitless. Only the fittest survive, but as the free competition continues the number of fittest shrinks.
The combination of profit making and the limitless competition produces a situation where the income and wealth is bound to be in the hand of a few winners.
Moreover, the decreasing power of the government leads to a serious situation in which the big corporations dictate national economic policies, in which the oligarchy of politicians-bureaucrats-businessmen establishes the culture of corruption and aggravates unequal income distribution.
The inequality of income distribution is measured by the Gini coefficient which varies between zero and 100; the higher the Gini coefficient, the wider becomes the income distribution in favour of the rich.
The Gini coefficient which represents acceptable income distribution is about 35.
But, most of the developed democratic countries have a Gini coefficient varying between 45 and 50. The Gini coefficient for the U.S. is 50. Under such situation, only the transfer of income from the rich to the poor through taxes can provide reasonable amount of welfare to the poor; Washington has failed to do so.
Washington’s approach to the evangelization of democracy is another determinant factor of the decline of democracy. The core of Washington’s propagation of democracy has been the strategy of regime change through coercion and military intervention.
The amazing thing is that the U.S. has coercively intervened 60 times since 1950 in 48 countries, but succeeded only in handful cases in changing regimes. This leads us to question if the attempts were really regime change or something else, for example, the access to raw materials.
There is no doubt that Washington’s regime change operations have been one of factors of the decline of democracy.
Is China responsible for the Decline of Democracy?
In order that China is responsible for the decline of democracy, the Chinese ideology-Confucian socialism- should be global enough to be competitive with American ideology represented by democracy.
Allison summarized well the basic structure of the two sets of values.
Graham Allison, wrote a book: “Destines for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides Trap? Houghton Miffin Harcourt, 2017”
Allison is saying that Western value (democracy) is so different from Chinese values (Confucian socialism) that the Chinese values cannot influence the Western values.
Here is Allison’s view of Western values.
“The United States is a missionary nation derived from the belief that the non-western nations should submit to the western values of democracy, free market, limited government, human right, individualism, the rules of law, and should embody these values in their institutions.” (Allison.14)
Here is Allison’s perception of Chinese values.
“The value of authority, the subordination of individual rights and interests, the importance of consensus, and avoidance of confrontation, saving face, and, in general, the supremacy of the state over society and individuals” (Allison p.138)
In addition, Allison provides a table which shows the difference between the American values and the Chinese values.
In this table, we see how wide the difference between the two sets of values is. The difference is so deep and so wide that it looks impossible to integrate them into one set of values, let alone find reconciliation.
Another point is that the American values are missionary, while the Chinese values are inimitable. In other words, the Chinese political regime cannot be a threat to democracy.
In conclusion, it can be said that the Chinese socialism cannot be responsible for the decline of democracy. The phenomenon of the fall of democracy and rising authoritarianism takes place in democratic countries not non-democratic countries.
Hence, it can be said that the only way to restore democracy does not consists in blaming China but in putting pressure on the government of democratic countries to adopt policies conducive to more equal income distribution and to assure the needed public goods.
*
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. Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics at Quebec University in Montreal (UQAM). He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
This article was originally published in November 2020.
The World Economic Forum warns of a new crisis of “even more significant economic and social implications than COVID19.”
What threat could possibly be more impactful? Christian breaks down the WEF’s “Cyber Polygon” tabletop exercise, its participants, and predictive programming around a looming large scale cyberattack on critical infrastructure that would unleash a Dark Winter and help to usher in the Great Reset.
Jeremy Jurgens, WEF Managing Director:
“I believe that there will be another crisis. It will be more significant. It will be faster than what we’ve seen with COVID. The impact will be greater, and as a result the economic and social implications will be even more significant.”
Klaus Schwab:
“We all know, but still pay insufficient attention, to the frightening scenario of a comprehensive cyber attack could bring a complete halt to the power supply, transportation, hospital services, our society as a whole. The COVID-19 crisis would be seen in this respect as a small disturbance in comparison to a major cyberattack.
To use the COVID19 crisis as a timely opportunity to reflect on the lessons the cybersecurity community can draw and improve our unpreparedness for a potential cyber-pandemic.”
*
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: BI.ZONE CEO Dmitry Samartsev presents at the first Cyber Polygon session at the World Economic Forum annual meeting, January 2020. Source: BI.ZONE
The issue, for me, is not to demonize vaccination the way fundamentalists demonize any alternative to their God, usually by attacking people who dare to talk about it. The issue, for me, is to tell people the truth: There are safer, more effective and less dangerous alternatives to finding the way out of this crisis.
Former US President Donald Trump imposed his “maximum pressure” strategy against Cuba by slapping on more than 240 plus new sanctions and to make matters worse, he added Cuba to the list of “state sponsors of terrorism” again to keep his voter base in the Cuban-American community intact.
For many people desperate to see a return to a life that is more familiar, it is still easy to believe that the upheavals we have experienced since March 2020 and the changes that have been wrought in their train are ‘temporary’, even if they are starting to ‘drag on’ somewhat longer than hoped.
Lawyer Dipali Ojha details the complaint’s long list of charges detailing “offences against entire humanity which are genocide (Mass Murders) of the citizens” related to the covid pandemic and committed by the “Vaccine Syndicate Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation” as well as “bio terrorists,” “Pharma Syndicates,” “Tech Syndicates,” “Tech Bullies” and others.
By the end of 2020 China’s economy was practically working at full speed – and achieving, according to IMF’s – very conservative account – a 2.6% growth for the year. Chinese own and perhaps more realistic projections were closer to 3.5%.
Unredacted contracts for the experimental biological agent known as the “COVID-19 vaccine” between the Pfizer corporation and various governments continue to be revealed.
Lifta for Palestinians, according to this vision, is now a monument, a symbol of the Nakba to feel nostalgic about. At best, it is useful in educating Israeli Jews and the world at large about Israel’s, not Palestine’s, history.
One of America’s leading physicians on the early treatment of COVID-19, his protocols and scientific works are relied upon to help millions around the globe. Along with half of Americans, Dr. McCullough has appropriate concerns over COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy.
We are at the crossroads of one of the most serious crises in World history. We are living history, yet our understanding of the sequence of events since January 2020 has been blurred.
Craig Murray, a former ambassador to Uzbekistan, the father of a newborn child, a man in very poor health and one who has no prior convictions, will have to hand himself over to the Scottish police on Sunday morning.
Of all the figures risen to the level of legends in the United States that faced an assassination in that five year stretch in the 1960s, Malcolm X would definitely qualify as the most controversial.
The forever-head of the US NIAID, Tony Fauci, has repeatedly demanded that the public “trust the science” as he shifts his own science opinion from one positon to another.
According to Dr. Peter McCullough, vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center and known for being one of the top five most-published medical researchers in the United States, COVID-19 vaccines are killing “huge numbers” of people and the government is simply ignoring it.
Hemp fuel and other biofuels could reduce carbon emissions while saving the electric grid, but they’re often overlooked for more expensive, high-tech climate solutions.
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).
VAERS data released today by the CDC showed a total of 518,770 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 11,940 deaths and 63,102 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and July 23, 2021.
Data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed total reports of serious injuries following COVID vaccination, across all age groups, spiked by 14,717 — to 63,000 — compared with the previous week.
The data comes directly from reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date, usually about a week prior to the release date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.
Data released today show that between Dec. 14, 2020 and July 23, 2021, a total of 518,770 total adverse events were reported to VAERS, including 11,940 deaths — an increase of 535 over the previous week. There were 63,102 serious injuries reported during the same time period — up 14,717 compared with the previous week.
In the U.S., 340.4 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of July 23. This includes: 137 million doses of Moderna’s vaccine, 189 million doses of Pfizer and 13 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccine.
Of the 5,612 U.S. deaths reported as of July 23, 14% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 20% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 34% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
This week’s U.S. data for 12- to 17-year-olds show:
The most recent reported deaths include a 13-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 1463061) who died after receiving a Moderna vaccine, a 16-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 1466009) who died after receiving his second dose of Pfizer and a 16-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 1475434) who died with an enlarged heart six days after receiving his first Pfizer dose.
Internal CDC document reveals vaccinated, even if not sick, can spread virus
The CDC now says even those people fully vaccinated for COVID are able to get, and spread, the virus.
According to internal documents obtained by The Washington Post, the CDC said it’s time to “Acknowledge the war has changed.”
The document outlined unpublished data showing fully vaccinated people might spread the Delta variant at the same rate as unvaccinated people, CNN reported.
It concludes the delta variant is “highly contagious, likely to be more severe” and that “breakthrough infections may be as transmissible as unvaccinated cases.”
“‘I think the central issue is that vaccinated people are probably involved to a substantial extent in the transmission of delta,’ Jeffrey Shaman, a Columbia University epidemiologist, wrote in an email after reviewing the CDC slides.
“‘In some sense, vaccination is now about personal protection — protecting oneself against severe disease. Herd immunity is not relevant as we are seeing plenty of evidence of repeat and breakthrough infections.’”
Since January, people who got infected after vaccination make up an increasing portion of hospitalizations and in-hospital deaths among COVID patients, according to the CDC documents. That trend coincides with the spread of the Delta variant.
The Post also reported today on a CDC study revealing three-fourths of people infected in a Massachusetts COVID outbreak were vaccinated. The report bolsters the hypothesis that vaccinated people can spread the more transmissible variant, and may be a factor in the summer surge of infections.
The data, detailed in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, provided key evidence that convinced agency scientists to reverse recommendations on mask-wearing and advise that vaccinated individuals wear masks in indoor public settings in some circumstances, The Post reported.
Thus far, researchers have focused on viral load — a term for how much of the virus is present in infected peoples’ bodies — which can affect transmissibility and severity. Infections with the Delta variant lead to higher levels of virus in the body, even in breakthrough cases in fully vaccinated individuals, the document said.
If vaccinated people get infected anyway, they have as much virus in their bodies as unvaccinated people — that means they’re as likely to infect someone else as unvaccinated people who get infected, CNN reported.
“The bottom line was that, in contrast to the other variants, vaccinated people, even if they didn’t get sick, got infected and shed virus at similar levels as unvaccinated people who got infected,” Dr. Walter Orenstein, who heads the Emory Vaccine Center and who viewed the documents, told CNN.
Biden says federal workers must get vaccinated or submit to regular testing — postal union, others push back
President Biden on Thursday announced all civilian federal employees will be required to show proof of vaccination against COVID or be forced to submit to regular COVID testing, wear masks and socially distance.
Biden also called on state and local governments to use COVID relief funds to give $100 to residents who get vaccinated. In a statement released by the White House, the administration said the new rules were issued because of the Delta COVID variant, and because unvaccinated people present a problem to themselves, their families and co-workers.
“Every federal government employee will be asked to attest to their vaccination status. Anyone who does not attest or is not vaccinated will be required to mask no matter where they work; test one or two times a week to see if they have a — they have acquired COVID, socially distance and generally will not be allowed to travel for work,” Biden said.
Biden directed his administration to apply similar standards to all federal contractors. “If you want to do business with the federal government, get your workers vaccinated,” he said.
In one early sign the policy may not go as smoothly as planned, the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) said it opposes the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate as a condition for employment, arguing it isn’t the role of the federal government to mandate vaccines or other testing measures.
“Maintaining the health and safety of our members is of paramount importance,” the APWU said in a statement issued Wednesday. “While the APWU leadership continues to encourage postal workers to voluntarily get vaccinated, it is not the role of the federal government to mandate vaccinations for the employees we represent.”
The statement quoted CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr:
“Coerced medical interventions have been abhorrent to advocates of liberty and human dignity in every age. The fact that these vaccines are shoddily tested, experimental, unapproved and so risky their manufacturers can neither obtain insurance coverage nor indemnify users against grave injuries or death should magnify our ethical revulsion.”
FDA urges Moderna, Pfizer to include thousands more children in clinical trials
Pfizer and Moderna will expand their COVID vaccine clinical trial to include thousands more children prior to seeking EUA, after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) told the vaccine makers the size and scope of their pediatric studies, as initially envisioned, were inadequate to detect rare side effects.
Citing concerns about the risk of heart inflammation associated with the vaccines, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration asked Pfizer and Moderna to expand the number of children in their clinical trials.https://t.co/p05zkNddjZ
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) July 28, 2021
The rare side effects cited by the FDA included myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis, inflammation of the lining around the heart, multiple people familiar with the trials told The New York Times.
Expanding the pediatric trials means thousands more children as young as 6 months old may soon be recruited and enrolled in COVID vaccine trials. According to the Times, the FDA asked the companies to include 3,000 children in the 5- to 11-year-old group, the group for whom results were expected first.
Moderna’s shot is authorized for emergency use in people 18 and up, and Pfizer’s vaccine is authorized for children as young as 12. No COVID vaccines have yet received EUA approval for children younger than 12.
America’s Frontline Doctors sue UC over vaccine mandates
With supporting declarations from top medical experts and students, America’s Frontline Doctors(AFLDS) filed a civil rights lawsuit in Federal Court against the University of California (UC), targeting the university system’s plan to mandate COVID vaccination for all students regardless of natural immunity.
As The Defender reported July 28, AFLDS, students and even the UC’s own top doctors, are criticizing the rushed mandate as arbitrary, unscientific and medically unnecessary.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs in this civil rights case cite the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s protection of bodily integrity, as well as two California civil rights statutes (Cal. Civ. Code sec. 51, Cal. Gov. Code sec. 11135) that prohibit discrimination on the basis of medical or genetic status.
Accordingly, AFLDS is requesting an injunction to restrain the UC from utilizing coercion and segregation of naturally-immune and unvaccinated people in violation of Federal and State law.
The primary target of the lawsuit is the UC’s unscientific one-size-fits-all vaccine mandate where the UC rejects scientifically accepted prescreening for natural immunity.
The CDC, NIH pull in millions from licensing deals, including COVID-related technologies
Aggregated data for fiscal year 2020 show the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and CDC collected a combined $63.4 million in royalty revenues under a business model that allows the NIH to grant technology licenses to the private sector.
Aggregated data for fiscal year 2020 show the NIH and CDC collected a combined $63.4 million in royalty revenues under a business model that allows the NIH to grant technology licenses to the private sector.https://t.co/wPWEuUYnNx
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) July 28, 2021
Within NIH, the Office of Technology Transfer plays a “strategic role” in supporting patenting and licensing for inventions that emerge from laboratories at the NIH and CDC. In a win-win business model, the NIH routinely grants technology licenses to the private sector for use or commercialization of its inventions, with those licenses then driving billions of dollars in royalties back to the NIH.
In fiscal year 2020 alone — October 2019 through September 2020 — aggregated data for NIH and CDC show the agencies collected $63.4 million in royalty revenues.
Where public health agencies are concerned, COVID appears to be very good for business, with a flurry of unprecedented funding — conveniently mobilized by the pandemic — ushering in profound and likely permanent changes in a public health infrastructure once lamented as weak and fragmented.
As The Defender reported this week, Pfizer now projects $33 billion in COVID vaccine revenues, a sharp increase over earlier projections. The vaccine maker anticipates booster shots, a vaccine designed for the Delta variant and pending authorization of COVID vaccines for children will drive sales even higher next year.
144 days and counting, CDC ignores The Defender’s inquiries
According to the CDC website, “the CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information and learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or unrelated.”
On March 8, The Defender contacted the CDC with a written list of questions about reported deaths and injuries related to COVID vaccines. We have made repeated attempts, by phone and email, to obtain a response to our questions.
Despite multiple phone and email communications with several people at the CDC, and despite being told that our request was in the system and that someone would respond, we have not yet received answers to any of the questions we submitted. It has been 144 days since we sent our first email to the CDC requesting information.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
When the military mandated the anthrax vaccine and military pilots showed they were willing to throw away careers and pensions in order to avoid the vaccine, it got the military’s attention — maybe they can do the same with COVID vaccine mandates?
With the U.S. military announcing plans to mandate the COVID vaccine for all personnel, possibly by Sept. 1, many service members already enduring coercive restrictions for failing to take the “voluntary” vaccine, are concerned about their careers.
To date, 23% to 42% of military members, depending on the branch of service, have not taken the vaccine.
The clinical trials for the three COVID vaccines being administered in the U.S. — Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson — are not scheduled to be completed until 2022 or 2023, when they would then be eligible for review and full licensing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
However, President Biden could issue an executive order to impose a military mandate and waive FDA approval in the event of a health emergency.
Experimental anthrax vaccine precedent
The U.S. military has now, in an unprecedented move, decided to administer an experimental drug to the entire force. Even with the experimental anthrax vaccine scandal, there was never a completed mandate for the entire force.
The Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP) was disrupted by numerous legal challenges in Doe vs. Rumsfeld (2003, 2004, 2006, 2007) for an illegally mandated drug, without full FDA approval and licensure, which was never proven to be effective to protect against inhalation anthrax as required under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) guidelines.
During this legal battle, which lasted years, service members who declined the anthrax vaccine were reduced in rank and pay, and disciplined under the Uniform Code of Military Justice which brought criminal charges resulting in jail and dishonorable discharges for declining a vaccine with serious long-term side effects. Others were forced into early retirement, and lost veteran benefits.
The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) denied a readiness problem or a vaccine safety problem, but Congressional oversight revealed the experimental anthrax vaccine mandate in 2001 provoked a pilot retention crisis.
This, and the anthrax vaccine side effects experienced by military personnel, was summarized in a report issued by the Government Accounting Office (GAO).
As The Defender previously reported, in addition to the legal challenges, the GAO report found the military had a serious retention crisis due to the anthrax vaccine. The most experienced pilots left or planned to leave the military to avoid the anthrax vaccine — they were even willing to walk away from retirement benefits.
According to the GAO report:
“According to our survey, between September 1998 and September 2000, when AVIP was mandatory, about 16 percent of the guard and reserve pilots and aircrew members had transferred to another unit (primarily to non-flying positions), moved to inactive status, or left the military altogether. In addition, 18 percent of those still participating in units indicated their intention to transfer, move, or leave in the near future. About one-fifth of those who had already left did so knowingly before qualifying for military retirement.’”
The pending loss of pilots was undeniable. According to the report, 69% of those pilots who changed their status ranked the anthrax vaccine as the main factor, and 72% of those pilots who planned to leave the military ranked the anthrax vaccine as the main factor.
More than half of the losses and potential future losses of aircrew members in the guard and reserve were pilots. These personnel losses included more experienced positions of flight evaluator, flight instructor and aircraft commander, in whom the military had invested years of training.
In retrospect, there were very few commanders willing to protect the service members from side effects of blindness, vertigo, tremors and blackouts. Col. Felix M. Grieder, commander of the 436th Airlift Wing at Dover Air Force Base, was an exception.
“In 1999, dozens of C-5 pilots from the base reported side effects after taking the shot. One senior officer resigned and 40 percent of the pilots in the Reserve wing left rather than take a shot.
“Concerns by the pilots prompted Col. Felix M. Grieder, commander of the 436th Airlift Wing at Dover, to suspend the inoculation program, making it the first base to do so.”
Not incidentally, all vaccine manufacturers continue to be indemnified for their products leaving the public to assume all the risk of personal injury with little to no meaningful redress.
In 1999, these Anthrax vaccine side effects were correlated with the ingredient of non-FDA-approved squalene in certain lots of vaccines and linked to Gulf War Syndrome.
It took years for DOD, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR), and the FDA to verify that independent lab testing at Tulane University confirmed the presence of squalene, and then blame contamination and not intentional use of the vaccine adjuvant used in animal research.
The GAO pilot survey in 2000 indicated 86% of respondents had experienced a local or systemic reaction to the anthrax vaccine.
Tom Heemstra, a squadron commander forced into retirement for refusing the anthrax vaccine, testified to Congress that the Pentagon acted in abuse of power similar to what is being reported currently with SARS-CoV2 vaccines: “They coerced, intimidated, threatened and punished in order to enforce this program,” Heemstra said.
There was a double standard with anthrax punishments policy which said Reserve and the National Guard personnel could not be court-martialed like active-duty personnel.
Those in the Reserve and Guard units who declined the anthrax vaccine tended to be officers and pilots who flew the majority of refueling and cargo aircraft in the Air Force, and nearly all of these pilots also flew for commercial airlines in their civilian careers.
There are many takeaways from the anthrax program. The DOD’s inability to monitor vaccine reactions in an active surveillance system and reverse an unsound mandate policy in a timely response demonstrated a vulnerability that has not yet been corrected.
Likely, the DOD financial contract commitments for the vaccine in the planning phase outweighed changing course of action with surveillance in the operational phase.
The DOD implemented a policy that harmed health and retention, and the department has even continued a limited anthrax program years after overwhelming evidence of harm and lack of benefit.
Wargaming: Likely Scenarios, Worst-Case Scenarios, & Red Team Assessment
The use of wargaming as a tool to prepare for numerous scenarios is critical for the DOD. Traditional pandemic planning exercises must move beyond strictly how to synchronize response efforts against a pandemic to considering a catastrophic loss to the Armed Forces.
The DOD must expand its thinking on force readiness to include pharmaceutical reaction risks, losses of key skilled personnel and potential wide-scale catastrophic harms from experimental medical countermeasures.
Agency heads, including the Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), and the Assistant Secretary for Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, plus outside independent scientists and researchers must be brought to this effort.
Wargaming scenarios for the implementation of a potential COVID vaccine mandate should include the likely scenario that the drug does not confer individual immunity or herd immunity, per the clinical trial endpoints that indicated symptom reduction was the primary measured outcome.
Evidence of vaccine failure is already demonstrated by high numbers of breakthrough cases before influenza season begins in October 2021.
The development of this scenario must include data showing that young, healthy people in the military have a 99.9% survival rate. It should also include data on how a failure to meet the recently changed definition of herd immunity would not be met.
Incorporate that AR40-562 allows military personnel to show proof of immunity in lieu of vaccination, and include estimates of naturally acquired immunity. A drug that does not confer immunity for a disease with a high survival rate in the military population does not demand a mandate that could result in a retention crisis.
This scenario should also include therapeutics as alternatives to the vaccine, as a protective measure against detrimental groupthink that exclusively perpetuates a single strategy to accomplish the mission of health for a diverse population.
The DOD, when conducting its wargame exercise, must also include the worst-case scenario of acute and chronic adverse reactions disrupting the health of the entire force in service members who have been vaccinated for COVID.
Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) is well documented in the published mRNA research literature. ADE could become epidemic in the winter of 2021, with the pathogenic priming effect established in previous animal studies of mRNA vaccines.
In the established likelihood of a zero-exemption policy under a vaccine mandate for active duty personnel, a policy that would reinforce readiness would allow those who decline the option to transfer to a reserve unit, without UCMJ punishment. If the entire vaccinated force is now susceptible to ADE, then the unvaccinated members in the reserves could backfill critical readiness missions.
Every wargame exercise should always consider the enemy or red team. Coronavirus is not the enemy, despite a media campaign trying to promote it as such. Coronaviruses are endemic, and have been known to affect humans for a long time.
Part of the red team assessment should include the history of the manufactured crisis of anthrax (the vaccine developer was blamed for mailing Anthrax letters and creating the threat to secure a $29 million no-bid vaccine contract with DOD), and the subsequent knee-jerk reaction of DOD to mandate an experimental drug for the entire force.
Policymakers should assess if this is a copycat operation. Both the alleged threat of a virus with a 99.9% survival rate, and the alleged cure of a fast-tracked vaccine using new mRNA technology demand a focused red team assessment.
This should include a scenario whereby a country such as China could co-opt a small number of influential scientists, pharmaceutical companies and news media outlets to ensure that U.S. Government advisors prevent and limit critical reporting on likely injuries across the DOD workforce.
Simulate degradation of the available pilot strength across critical combatant commands where airpower is a key military strength, attrite the numbers and assess the outcomes. This red team assessment should include the possibility that a biowarfare product or synthetically altered viruscould decimate airpower.
VAERS-derived data should be used as a key indicator of potential deaths and injuries that would ground pilots and crews.
The defense manpower assessment should include a detailed identification of the shortfalls and gaps that currently exist in order to prepare and defend against any of these possible scenarios.
Legal response strategy for service members
A legal challenge by individuals or class action suit should include the precedent of Doe v. Rumsfeld.
The COVID vaccine has not been approved by the FDA, which means at this time, a mandate is a direct violation of federal statute and service members have the right to decline.
The vaccine has not demonstrated, in clinical trials or in the real world, the ability to prevent infection or transmission, thus a mandate is a discrimination policy with preference for vaccinated with infection and rejection of unvaccinated with infection. New territory in a legal challenge would include the lack of evidence of a health emergency, a prerequisite for the military to mandate an EUA drug.
How to protect your rights and engage with stakeholders
First, service members should be aware of their vaccine exemption rights in AR40-562 (a joint regulation applying to all branches of the military).
Exemptions include proof of immunity, medical contraindication, administrative exceptions by the commander, and by religious accommodation approval.
Second, if pilots can obtain a Congressional oversight hearing with data on adverse reactions, degradation of readiness status,and retention losses, they can be influential in shaping a more sensible response to the COVID-19 medical countermeasure vaccine for all service members.
With the anthrax vaccine, 16% declination from pilots was the trigger to limit the vaccine mandate to “at risk” units.
Third, commanders have power under AR40-562 to halt the vaccine program in their units if they assess a risk to mission readiness. This requires service members to educate commanders who are currently in lockstep with a climate of coercion, where unvaccinated service members are already reporting alarming work segregation and public access restrictions during the voluntary phase of an EUA drug.
Fourth, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (ASDHA) comprises the chief medical adviser to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. She is assisted by a principal deputy assistant, and three deputy assistant secretaries. It is prudent for citizens to demand evidence from these unelected civilians at the office of ASDHA that they have conducted critical wargames and red team assessment for all aforementioned scenarios regarding the COVID vaccine.
The public should demand this information via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and expect U.S. Congress members to expedite these actions.
The stakes could be too high, the risks too grave, and with the inability to defend our nation during a time of multi-faceted global crisis, incalculable.
*
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.
Pam Long is graduate of USMA at West Point and is an Army Veteran of the Medical Service Corps.
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).
Just yesterday, we discussed the censoring of a commentator by Twitter for merely expressing an opinion over the need for a “pause” on any federal mandates on Covid-19 as new research is studied. Now, a former New York Times science reporter, Alex Berenson, has been suspended for simply citing the results from a clinical trial by Pfizer and raising questions over any vaccine mandate. In the meantime, the White House accused both the Washington Post and New York Times of irresponsible reporting on Covid, but surprisingly Twitter has not suspended those accounts. It is the license of the censor. Twitter is unwilling to let people read or discuss viewpoints that it disagrees with as a corporation. Many on the left, however, have embraced the concept of corporate speech and censorship. It turns out that the problem with censorship for many was the failure to censor views that they opposed. With the “right” censors at work, the free speech concerns have been set aside.
I have little ability to judge the science on such questions. Moreover, I was eager to be vaccinated as was my entire family. I would get the vaccination today with equal enthusiasm. However, I welcome the debate for data. Yet, rather than answer such critics and refute their arguments, many people focus on silencing anyone with dissenting viewpoints like Berenson.
Berenson has been effectively confined to Substack by Big Tech due to his discussing dissenting views on the science surrounding Covid-19. His latest offense against Big Tech came when he posted the results published by Pfizer of its own clinical data. He claimed that the research showed little difference in mortality between those in the trial with a vaccine and those given a placebo.
In the meantime, the White House sent out an all caps condemnation for “completely irresponsible” reporting on the infliction of vaccinated people according to another study.
Ben Wakana, deputy director of strategic communications and engagement for the White House, blasted the Washington Post over its headline about a study of a COVID-19 outbreak in Provincetown, Massachusetts on July 4th. The Post tweet read “Vaccinated people made up three-quarters of those infected in a massive Massachusetts covid-19 outbreak, pivotal CDC study finds.” Wakana responded “Completely irresponsible, 3 days ago the CDC made clear that vaccinated individuals represent a VERY SMALL amount of transmission occurring around the country. Virtually all hospitalizations and deaths continue to be among the unvaccinated. Unreal to not put that in context.”
Completely irresponsible.
3 days ago the CDC made clear that vaccinated individuals represent a VERY SMALL amount of transmission occurring around the country.
Virtually all hospitalizations and deaths continue to be among the unvaccinated.
Wakana addressed the same issue with a New York Times tweet stating “Breaking News: The Delta variant is as contagious as chickenpox and may be spread by vaccinated people as easily as the unvaccinated, an internal C.D.C. report said.” That sent Wakana into all caps: “VACCINATED PEOPLE DO NOT TRANSMIT THE VIRUS AT THE SAME RATE AS UNVACCINATED PEOPLE AND IF YOU FAIL TO INCLUDE THAT CONTEXT YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG.”
VACCINATED PEOPLE DO NOT TRANSMIT THE VIRUS AT THE SAME RATE AS UNVACCINATED PEOPLE AND IF YOU FAIL TO INCLUDE THAT CONTEXT YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. https://t.co/gBkDbJ21xX
Now all three posters (Berenson, The Post, and The Times) were citing studies and accused of not putting them into context. However, only Berenson was suspended.
Obviously, none of these posters should be suspended and Twitter should not be enforcing one of the largest censorship programs in history. However, the silence of free speech supports, academics, and journalists to this hypocrisy is deafening.
The rise of corporate censors has combined with a heavily pro-Biden media to create the fear of a de facto state media that controls information due to a shared ideology rather than state coercion. That concern has been magnified by demands from Democratic leaders for increased censorship, including censoring political speech, and now word that the Biden Administration has routinely been flagging material to be censored by Facebook.
This is why I have described myself as an Internet Originalist:
The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.
If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other internet overlord monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.
*
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).
I’m still trying to wrap my brain around the astonishing shift from the CDC on Tuesday, July 27, 2021. It is not just that the CDC is re-recommending masks for people indoors in many parts of the country, which could include your neighborhood or not, and this could change tomorrow. (Hint: right now, it disportionately affects red states.)
Whether and to what extent you “protect” yourself from disease with a paper strapped to your mouth and nose is now wholly contingent on data reporting and interpretation. It might feel like science but it has a better name: arbitrary power. Out with the Constitution. Out of traditions of law. Out with legislatures and the will of the people.
What’s even stranger was the rationale that the CDC cited to claim that the Delta variant renders the vaccines – the ones that have been hyped with unrelenting propaganda for many months, including stigmatization and demonization of those who refuse – substantially less effective for stopping infection than President Biden was touting just last week.
Our thinking on the subject is supposed to mutate at the same pace as the virus itself. It’s exhausting and triggers anyone’s BS detector. How in the world does the CDC expect anyone to believe anything it says in the future?
To be sure, the claim that breakthrough infections (PCR positives in vaccinated individuals) might be more common than thought could in fact be true. Indeed, I tend to think it is. It is a general principle of immunology that for viruses that mutate quickly, inoculation cannot always keep up as an infection preventive.
This is one reason that these fields have for the better part of 100 years observed that natural immunity is to be preferred if that is an option. It is safer and more globally effective for pathogens that are mild for most people, which is exactly what the science is (pointlessly) showing yet again now. Vaccines are glorious for stable viruses (measles, smallpox), but less comprehensively effective for flus and coronaviruses – which is saying nothing controversial. I should add.
For example, a study from a Houston, Texas, hospital shows that the Delta variant is more transmissible than the wild type or other mutations. “Delta variants caused a significantly higher rate of vaccine breakthrough cases (19.7% compared to 5.8% for all other variants)” and yet there are fewer hospitalizations and deaths – which is another point for traditional virus theory: as a rule of thumb, variants of these pathogens are more prevalent but less severe. We’ve long known that – or did until 2020 when we decided to scrap a century’s worth of public health wisdom.
There is a rumor out there – that’s all it is – that the CDC is relying on some other study out of India that demonstrates that the Delta variant outwits the vaccine, but the study in question pertains to a vaccine not available in the US, has not been peer-reviewed, and was even withdrawn from preprint status so there is no way to check the findings or the data behind them. There are by now more than 100,000 pieces of science out there related to Covid, and they are public. But the one on which the CDC is rumored to follow is not available.
Where it gets interesting is that when a CDC spokesman was asked for the science behind the mandate – we aren’t talking about masking here, but the basic claim that the Delta tends to make an end-run around vaccines – the person said it wasn’t published, as if that were completely normal. What does this mean? Only Anthony Fauci, Rochelle Walensky, and some other big shots at the government agency have access? The millions of other scientists in the world cannot even have access to check out to make sure that the science is sound? And from the interpretation of a small cabal inside some bureaucracy comes the law of the land?
A critical principle of science is peer review, and that at least requires sharing study results that you claim to be definitive. If you don’t do that, people have every reason to dismiss your claims. In the decades since the internet, we’ve seen an ever more intense push to get those journals from behind paywalls and make them publicly available for greater accountability and a better scientific process.
In fact, open science works. A perfect example has been shown this past year when members of the public – including this writer – have enjoyed access to all the science pouring out daily, and happened to take notice of how completely screwed up policy has been in light of the actual evidence. There is zero evidence of a relationship between lockdowns and disease mitigation, zero credible evidence that masks cause a change in the virus trajectory, zero evidence that any of this wreckage of our liberties and rights has been worth it in any case, among many other revelations thanks to open science.
But now we have the CDC making a massive change in the lives of Americans – mandating a piece of clothing around our faces – but flat-out refusing to cite the science behind the claim; either about the variant, its effects, much less the sketchy claims that masks make any difference at all either way. They could have cited the Houston study but did not. Nope. The studies “have not been published yet,” the CDC spokesperson told the Epoch Times.
And we are just supposed to sit by, take our instructions, believe what they say about the science we’ve never seen and they will not share with other scientists, and not complain about it. To be sure, it could be correct that the vaccines are less effective than we have been told all these months, and that’s fine. Just give it to us straight. And yet even the Houston study showing this admits that Delta itself is less deadly.
Isn’t the whole point of this whole Covid kabuki dance to minimize severe outcomes – not cases, not infections, not exposure but hospitalization and death? One would suppose so. But the data games have enabled the disease planners for the better part of a year and a half to keep the shell game going, manipulating data, trends, and various other factors to remix the numbers in ways that fit whatever story they want to tell at the moment. So long as it generates a headline and a policy, we are good to go.
These days, the game is out in the open, brazen, completely undisguised. The science has been reduced to the status of pure diktat. They speak, you obey. If you question it, or even if you are correct too soon, you are toast. The fact-checkers will nail you and you will be body bagged as a subversive and an enemy of the people.
The unscientific nature of this game is summed up in the following realization. The Biden administration is toying with tactics and strategies for disease control that have utterly and completely failed for the 16 months they have been tried. Everwhere in the world! The science as we know it conclusively demonstrates the failure of every bit of the lockdown agenda. And yet here we are, threatened by another round on all sides.
I was curious how our home assistants have handled this newest turn of events that is going to land the nation’s kids in masks again this fall. I asked her. I got in return a tedious rendering of the same bland messaging from 5 different news sources, each nonchalantly telling us the new instructions from some unelected bureaucracy led by people with no experience or skin in the game.
I had the sudden sense that I was playing a bit part – the powerless man in a chair – in some dystopian science fiction movie. The point of the movie is to warn us against a future that we should all work to prevent – to know that such a nightmare would be possible and to therefore guard against any trend in that direction. Such movies exist to remind us how fragile freedom really is.
Sadly, the nightmare is here. It is everywhere. There is no more need for warnings. Now we have to deal with the reality of what we’ve become thanks to the people who once imagined that they could use the power of the state to outwit an enemy that neither we nor they could see or understand. Refusing to admit complete failure, they only double and triple down in a theater of the tragically absurd.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Jeffrey A. Tucker is founder and president of the Brownstone Institute and the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and ten books in 5 languages, most recently Liberty or Lockdown. He is also the editor of The Best of Mises. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture. [email protected]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Following the World Health Organization’s formal declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments around the world quickly mandated the use of face masks in public spaces.
This led to a massive demand shock, prompting factories to begin producing disposable masks at full capacity. The majority of these masks were produced in China, and in April 2020, the country reported a staggering daily production figure of 450 million masks.
Plastic Pollution: A Lesser Known Side Effect
In Ocean Asia’s 2020 report, Masks on the Beach, researchers developed a formula to provide reasonable estimates for the number of disposable masks entering the environment.
Given an annual production figure of 52 billion disposable masks and a loss rate of 3% (the percentage of masks that escape water management systems), Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu notes that the team concluded that nearly 1.6 billion face masks wound up in our oceans in 2020. This amounts to approximately 5,500 tons of plastic pollution.
These masks are commonly made of polypropylene, which easily breaks up into microplastics. While the effects of microplastics on human health are not yet determined, these fragments are incredibly common in our water supply – for example, 94% of U.S. tap water is deemed to be contaminated.
Disposable Doesn’t Mean They’re Gone
Despite their single-use nature, disposable masks are expected to take more than four centuries to decompose while in the ocean. Here’s how this compares to other items we use on a day-to-day basis.
The pandemic has extended well into 2021, and the number of disposable masks polluting our oceans is likely to continue growing.
With this in mind, various companies and organizations are beginning to search for a solution. One noteworthy example is Plaxtil, which is developing a method for recycling surgical masks so that the raw materials can be used for other products.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
A new open-source study concludes that Syrian insurgents carried out the Ghouta sarin chemical attack in August 2013. The explosive findings add to a growing body of public evidence that undermines US-led efforts to blame the Syrian government, which almost led to US military intervention.
Hundreds of people were killed and thousands were wounded when sarin rockets hit multiple sites in the Syria area of Ghouta on August 21, 2013. The US and its allies publicly accused the Syrian government of responsibility, and President Obama threatened to bomb Syria in purported retaliation. But Obama ultimately pulled back after reaching an agreement with Russia to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal.
Since then, a growing body of public information has raised questions about US-led claims of Syrian government guilt. The new open-source study, published by Rootclaim, adds to this evidence.
Based on their trajectories, the study traces all seven missile impact locations back to the most likely launch spot where they all intersected: a small area within insurgent-controlled territory. This location is about 2 km from any impact site — the agreed range calculated by experts for the Volcano rockets used in the Ghouta attack.
Video footage has previously surfaced of insurgents wearing gas masks, firing Volcano rockets, and identifying themselves as members of the insurgent group Liwa Al Islam. The video matches several features of a small field that is located within that insurgent-controlled area where, the study found, the rockets were launched from. That same area, matching the field, was also the source of a little-reported sarin attack by insurgents on Syrian government forces just days after the Ghouta attack.
Guests:
Michael Kobs and Adam Larson. Co-authors of a new study on the 2013 chemical attack in Ghouta.
Saar Wilf. Founder of Rootclaim, which published the Ghouta study.
The study builds on previous revelations that have cast doubt on US-led claims of Syrian government guilt, and pointed instead to Syrian insurgents.
A now widely accepted study from MIT Professor Ted Postol and ex-UN weapons inspector Richard Lloydfound that the range of the Ghouta rockets was outside of Syrian government-controlled territory – making a launch from that area impossible.
Reporting in the London Review of Books, Seymour Hersh revealed that US intelligence collected evidence pointing to Syrian insurgent responsibility for Ghouta attack. The Defense Intelligence Agency reported that al-Nusra in Syria maintained a sarin production cell, “the most advanced sarin plot since al-Qaida’s pre-9/11 effort.” Tests by the British military laboratory Porton Down had found that the sarin used in Ghouta did not match the kind known to exist in the Syrian government arsenal. And US intelligence officials raised the possibility that al-Nusra in Syria had acquired sarin from Turkey in a bid to frame the Syrian government and trigger US government military intervention.
In May 2013, more than ten al-Nusra members were arrested in Turkey, reportedly carrying at least two kilograms of sarin. Two Turkish lawmakers later revealed that a probe into the government’s role in providing sarin to insurgents was compromised.
In 2016, President Obama confirmed that his Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, (along with other U.S. officials) had warned him that allegations of Syrian government responsibility in Ghouta were not a “slam dunk” – a deliberate reference to the phony intelligence that led to the Iraq war.
*
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.
Aaron Maté is a journalist and producer. He hosts Pushback with Aaron Maté on The Grayzone. In 2019, Maté was awarded the Izzy Award (named after I.F. Stone) for outstanding achievement in independent media for his coverage of Russiagate in The Nation magazine. Previously, he was a host/producer for The Real News and Democracy Now!.
Featured image is from The Grayzone
Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.
Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes the mainstream media narratives on Syria.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
In what’s becoming one of the longest running legal dramas in the global gold market, the saga of Venezuela’s ‘frozen’ gold in London continues to roll on, most recently reaching the UK Supreme Court in a 4 day court hearing between 19 – 22 July.
At the core of the legal drama is the question of who has the authority to withdraw Venezuela’s gold reserves which are stored in custody at the Bank of England. Is it the Banco Central de Venezuela (BCV) under the direction of de facto president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, or is it a team directed by self-styled interim president of Venezuela Juan Guaidó, who is backed by the US and UK governments.
Given the multiple developments in this saga over the last few years and the complexity of the matter, a recap is in order.
Between late 2011 and early 2012, the BCV conducted a famous gold repatriation operation, flying 160 tonnes of gold bars that were held abroad, back to Caracas in Venezuela to be stored in the vaults of Venezuela’s central bank. Following the completion of that gold repatriation in January 2012, this still left 4,089 of BCV’s Good Delivery gold bars stored in the Bank of England’s vaults (about 50.8 tonnes).
Sometime after 2012 and until 2018, the BCV then began entering various gold swap transactions, including those with Deutsche Bank and Citibank as counterparts, and also with the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) as a counterpart. To do this, the BCV used most of the gold that it held in the Bank of England vaults in London as collateral for the gold swaps.
Deutsche and Citibank Gold Swaps
One such transaction was a $1.7 billion gold swap with Deutsche Bank, which the BCV let lapse in 2017, thus allowing Deutsche Bank to keep the gold that had been put up as collateral. This was somewhere between 30-40 tonnes of gold.
Another was a gold swap transaction with Citibank, again with the BCV putting up gold as collateral. In April 2018, the BCV paid Citibank $172 million to recover some of that gold from Citi which had been put up as collateral. That then left the BCV, as of April 2018, with a net total of 14 tonnes of gold held at the Bank of England (about 1125 Good Delivery gold bars).
After the Citi gold swap was wound up in April 2018, the BCV then began asking for its gold back from the Bank of England. This is where it gets very interesting.
In November 2018, it became public knowledge that the Bank of England was stalling on the BCV’s request to withdraw 14 tonnes of Venezuela’s gold from London, with the Bank of England using bogus excuses such as transportation insurance costs and anti-money laundering concerns to not fulfill its withdrawal obligation on BCV’s gold custody contract.
However, the real reason for stalling the BCV’s gold withdrawal request was political – in the form of US State Department and US Treasury pressure that was put on the British Foreign office and HM Treasury to block Venezeula’s gold withdrawal and repatriation plan. This stalling was designed to allow time to roll out US sanctions against Venezuela in November 2018 and critically, to move the goalposts and change the rules of the game by allowing time for the Guaidó team (backed by the US and UK) to enter the arena so as to try to win control of the remaining 14 tonnes of BCV gold at the Bank of England.
Blocking tactics included the following. On 30 November 2018, two high profile politicians from the Venezuelan political opposition, Julio Borges and Carlos Vecchio, wrote a letter to the then Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, asking the Bank of England to refuse the gold withdrawal request by the BCV.
At the same time, UK Government officials fronted by the “Venezuela All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG)” attempted to block a meeting between the Bank of England and a Venezuelan team comprising BCV president Calixto Ortega Sánchez and Venezuelan finance minister Simón Zerpa Delgado, who had flown over from Caracas to London in early December.
Although that meeting went ahead, the Bank of England again refused the gold withdrawal request of Ortega Sánchez and Delgado. For more details, see BullionStar article dated 18 December 2018 and titled “Venezuela’s gold in limbo amid tug-of-war at the Bank of England”.
BCV Ups the Ante – 31 Tonnes in Play
December 2018 also saw Venezuela’s central bank up the stakes when it closed out another gold swap transaction with Deutsche Bank, with the BCV paying cash back to Deutsche in return for 17 tonnes of gold which the BCV had put up as loan collateral in 2015. This gold swap closeout thereby boosted the total gold holdings of the BCV at the Bank of England from 14 tonnes to 31 tonnes, more than doubling the amount of gold which the BCV now laid claim to in the Bank of England London vaults.
Gold bar storage at the Bank of England – Each group of bars marked in yellow is approximately 1 tonne (80 bars).
Note, it appears that the BCV added to its 50 tonnes of gold held at the Bank of England some time between 2012 and 2015 since the amount of gold connected to gold swaps with Deutsche Bank and Citibank appears to have at times exceeded 50 tonnes. It therefore looks like the BCV at some point flew some of the gold bars back from Venezuela to London that had been repatriated to Caracas in 2011-2012.
The stalling by the Bank of England also bought time before Maduro’s new presidential term began on 10 January 2019, after which the US political rhetoric was upped against Maduro and little-known Juan Guaidó (the then national assembly leader in Venezuela’s parliament), was claimed to be interim Venezuelan president by a US-UK led group of countries.
By January 2019, it also became clear who in the US Government had been lobbying the UK government when Bloomberg published an article which revealed that “The Bank of England’s decision to deny Maduro officials’ withdrawal request comes after top U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Michael Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton, lobbied their U.K. counterparts to help cut off the regime from its overseas assets”.
Once Guaidó entered the picture, he too began writing letters to the then British prime minister Theresa May and the then Bank of England governor Mark Carney. In his letters, Guaidó claimed that Venezuela’s Maduro aimed to sell the BCV gold. – “I am writing to ask you to stop this illegitimate transaction” said the Guaidó letters, according to Reuters.
Remarkably, Guaido’s letter to Thersea May was his first letter ever to a foreign head of government, which shows the desperation of the US-UK states in attempting to block access to the 31 tonnes of BCV gold in London.
The UK Strategy – Recognition of Guaidó
As part of undermining Maduro and the BCV, the UK Government (Her Majesty’s Government) through it’s Foreign Office, then released a statement on 4 February 2019 saying that it recognised Juan Guaidó as interim President of Venezuela. This then gave the Bank of England the excuse to refuse the BCV’s gold withdrawal request saying that the BCV had not provided sufficient evidence of the authority of the BCV to issue instructions to the Bank of England, and also that the representatives of Guaidó (as claimed interim President of Venezuela and recognised by the UK Government) had also given gold withdrawal instructions.
By late January 2019, Bloomberg reported that communications between the BCV and the Bank of England had broken down:
“talks were unsuccessful, and communications between the two sides have broken down since. Central bank officials in Caracas have been ordered to no longer try contacting the Bank of England. These central bankers have been told that Bank of England staffers will not respond to them, citing compliance reasons, said a Venezuelan official…”
Fast forward to May 2020, and on 14 May 2020 in the High Court of England and Wales, lawyers for the Banco Central de Venezuela (BCV), as claimant, filed a claim against the Governor And Company Of The Bank Of England as defendant, to secure the release of its gold, or alternatively to be paid the sum of Euro 930 million (about US$ 1 billion).
In it’s claim, the BCV stated that by refusing the gold withdrawal request of the BCV, the Bank of England had breached its contractual obligations and that the refusal was a breach of a bailment contract by the Bank of England.
BCV gold accounts at the Bank of England – Accounts 217 & 571. Source
The claim also revealed that since 12 August 2008, the Bank of England had maintained a “gold set-aside account” in BCV’s name, and that as of 14 May 2020, the BCV had two gold accounts with the Bank of England, “namely (i) account 217 Banco Central de Venezuela and (ii) account 571 Banco Central de Venezuela number 2 (together, the “Accounts”).”
When this High Court case was heard over 22 – 25 June 2020, the hearing hinged on deciding who had authority to give instructions to the Bank of England to withdraw the Venezuelan gold, a) the Board of the BCV which had been appointed by Maduro (the Maduro Board), or b) a competing Ad Hoc Administrative Board of the BCV which had been appointed by Guaidó (the Guaidó Board). The case also included a sum of $120 million which Deutsche Bank was required to pay to the BCV on one of the gold swaps, and which was held by Receivers, with Deutsche also claiming that it did not know which ‘Board’ of the BCV to take instruction from.
On 2 July 2020 in his judgement, the judge in the High Court case, Sir Nigel Teare, said that the UK Government had, through it’s 4 February 2019 statement, legally recognised Guaidó as constitutional interim president of Venezuela. This would then have allowed the Guaidó Board to initiate a gold withdrawal request from the Bank of England.
After the judgement was provided in draft form to the lawyers of the two sides, the Maduro Board lawyers asked the Court (judge) to state “explicitly” whether the recognition by Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) of Guaidó was ‘de jure’ (legally recognised regardless of whether it exists in reality) or ‘de facto’ (describing a situation which exists in reality), or both.
Teare replied that while HMG had recognised Guaidó as constitutional interim President of Venezuela, which was consistent with a de jure recognition, that irrespective of the basis for the recognition, HMG had “unequivocally recognised Guaidó as President of Venezuela”, meaning that HM Government no longer recognised Maduro as President of Venezuela.
However, lawyers for the BCV Maduro Board immediately then said that they were going to appeal the judgement in the Court of Appeal, which they promptly did.
From the High Court to the Court of Appeal
In August 2020, the Court of Appeal granted the Maduro Board permission to appeal on the recognition issue (i.e, who is recognised to have authority to give the Bank of England and Deutsche Bank instructions), and in September 2020, the appeal hearing took place in the Court of Appeal between 22 and 24 September 2020 in front of three law lords, namely, Lord Justice Lewison, Lord Justice Males and Lord Justice Phillips.
The Court of Appeal then published its judgement on 5 October 2020. In it’s judgement, the Court of Appeal overturned the judgment of the High Court which had “unequivocally recognised Guaidó as President of Venezuela”, with Lord Justice Males of the Appeal Court saying that the UK’s recognition of Guaidó “is to my mind ambiguous, or at any rate less than unequivocal“.
This Appeal Court ruling then sent the Maduro vs Guaidó case back to the High Court.
However, the Guaidó Board then went to the Supreme Court asking for permission to appeal the Court of Appeal judgement.
Court 1 of the Supreme Court, London
From the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court
On 9 December 2020, the Supreme Court granted the Guaidó Board permission to appeal. The High Court then ordered that it’s proceedings involving the BCV gold should be stayed (suspended) pending the outcome of the Guaidó Board appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court hearing was then scheduled for July 2021,
In early January 2021, the European Union (EU) announced that it did would not continue to recognise Guaidó as Venezuela’s president because Guaidó had lost his position as head of the Venezuelan National Assembly during December 2020 elections, when Maduro regained control of the Venezuelan Parliament.
Five Lords A-Leaping
The Supreme Court appeal hearing began in London on 19 July 2021 and ran for 3 days until 21 July (with 22 July held in reserve if needed), the appelant being the “Guaidó Board” of the Central Bank of Venezuela”, and the respondent being the “Maduro Board” of the Central Bank of Venezuela.
There were no less than five justices (judges) overseeing the hearing, namely, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Hamblen, and Lord Leggatt. The hearing heard the appeal from Guaidó’s side, as well as a cross-appeal from the BCV’s Board.
Like clockwork, the UK Government continued its intervention, coming out with a statement on 19 July through its UK Foreign Office, reiterating that the UK Government (HM Government) recognises Guaidó as president of Venezuela. In fact, a UK Foreign Office representative also made submissions to the Court during the Supreme Court hearing.
The basic goal of the Supreme Court hearing was to examine the nature, scope and effect of the UK Government having recognised Guaidó as interim president, and to determine was it justifiable based on the reality on the ground in Venezuela (with Maduro still in power), and whether there any valid challenge in legal terms that could be made about the recognition of Guaidó by the HM Government.
Anyone interested in viewing the proceedings which took place in the Supreme Court hearing between 19 July and 21 July can actually do so, as there are six videos of the proceedings at this link, i.e. a video of each of the morning and afternoon sessions over 19 – 21 July.
This Supreme Court hearing is now awaiting judgment. As soon as the judgment is handed down by the judges, it will appear on the future judgements page of the Supreme Court website here. It will also appear on the BAILII legal judgements database here. While Supreme Court judgments in the UK can come out anywhere between 3 and 9 months after an appeal hearing, the high profile nature of the BCV – Bank of England – Maduro – Guaidó case means that the judgement is sure to be handed down sooner rather than later and maybe as soon as September or October.
21st Century Piracy?
On 21 July, Maduro commented on the Venezuelan gold in London, saying that the situation of the BCV gold being blocked by the Bank of England amounts to a case of “piracy of the 21st century because that money is from Venezuela.” He continued:
“They are stealing Venezuela’s gold reserves, which belong to the Central Bank of Venezuela, they do not belong to the Government, they belong to an autonomous institute [the BCV] … more than US$ 2 billion in gold, the gold bars deposited in the Bank of England”
On the US / UK claims backing Guaidó, Maduro said that:
“they invent a government of Narnia, a government of fantasy, to steal companies, money, accounts and to steal gold from Venezuela.“
Conclusion
While the Supreme Court judgment will determine who has the authority to withdraw and use 31 tonnes of BCV gold stored under custody at the Bank of England, this case will also have far reaching international implications for all sovereign assets held in the United Kingdom, and particularly monetary gold.
A ruling in favour of Guaidó will mean that the UK Government can at will seize control over state assets of foreign governments held at the Bank of England and elsewhere, and such a ruling would send shockwaves internationally about the notion of sovereign property rights, and how they are treated in the City of London, and wider England and the UK.
A ruling in favour of Guaidó also creates a worrying situation where a government executive (HM Government) can intervene and interfere into the judiciary using claims which have no basis in reality – i.e. Guaidó has no control over the Venezuelan central bank, nor it’s employees, nor is he even recognised by the EU as president of Venezuela, nor is he recognised as president by a vast list of countries including China and Russia, nor is he even leader of the Venezuelan national assembly anymore.
Over 70 sovereign nations hold gold in storage at the Bank of England including many nations in South and Central America and across the Middle East and Asia. If the Supreme Court rules against the BCV and in favour of Guaidó, and creates this precedent that sovereign gold reserves are not safe in London, expect the sound of many phones ringing at the Bank of England from central banks around the world trying to line up their gold withdrawal and repatriation requests. That in itself would be a sight to behold.
While you might think that the five lords a-leaping in the Supreme Court in their judgement will take these critical sovereign property right concerns into account, don’t underestimate the connections between the various strands of the British Establishment across politics, judiciary and the City of London, where the ‘fraternities’ and undisclosed connections between the ‘brothers’ will nearly always be more important than what how an outsider would view the situation.
It would therefore not be surprising if the law lords of the Supreme Court side with the Foreign Office, the Bank of England, and the US State Department, who are all working on the same side to prevent the BCV getting its hands on 31 tonnes of the BCV’s gold bars (worth approximately US $ 1.8 billion at current spot price).
Moral of the story for central banks – Don’t hold gold at the Bank of England if you actually ever want to withdraw it.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: Headquarters of the Venezuelan central bank (BCV) in Caracas, Venezuela (Source: Bullion Star)
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).
Today with the height of imperial arrogance and hubris, the US State Department issued a joint statement to further its plans to destroy Cuba and all the gains it has made in health, education and welfare. Lining up 20 spineless, neo liberal countries beholden to them and led by right wing governments including; Austria, Brazil, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Guatemala, Greece, Honduras, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Republic of Korea, and Ukraine to sign on to the statement that read in part, “we condemn the mass arrests and detentions of protestors in Cuba and call on the government to respect the universal rights and freedoms of the Cuban people, including the free flow of information to all Cubans….. On July 11, tens of thousands of Cuban citizens participated in peaceful demonstrations across the country to protest deteriorating living conditions and to demand change. They exercised universal freedoms of expression and assembly, rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…”
That is rich coming from the country that holds the biggest responsibility for the shortages and hardships in Cuba with its draconian economic blockade on a people that never threatened or attacked them for over 60 years. Exaggeration of the number of people protesting against the Cuban government on July 11 seems to grow by the day in social media along with nonexistent deaths with zero proof like providing names. If you wondered where those millions of dollars in grants that USAID and NED gives out with the sole purpose of undermining the Cuban government went to, well here is a good example; bombarding social media to sew confusion and creating twitter accounts of people that don’t exist, all to fan discontent around the difficult austerity that Cuba has been forced to endure through little fault of their own.
The US is in no position to preach to any country about human rights or deteriorating living conditions. All you have to do is go to just any US city and look in the streets and under the highways where there are millions living in their cars or in tents or in nothing at all, epidemic here nonexistent in Cuba and as the federal moratorium on evictions comes to an end at the US this month there will be tens of thousands more thrown out scrambling to find some help in the few, underfunded, disconnected patchwork of social programs. Millions in the US have no medical coverage while in Cuba health care is free for everyone no matter how costly the procedure.
Violations of human rights? Consider the violence that peaceful protestors regularly meet in the streets of the US facing the latest military grade weapons, police attacks with tear gas, rubber bullets and much more. The protestors in Cuba faced nothing even close to that on June 11. What about the human rights abuses in US war prisons from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo? And aren’t the drone bombings of thousands of civilian deaths in countries in the Middle East and Africa, accelerated by Obama, don’t they constitute supreme human rights violations?
Every country has laws and Cuba does too and they have every right to apply their laws to people who break them as they see fit. According to Cuban media many of those arrested on July 11 have been released and others will stand trial. Who is the US to talk about incarceration when they have more people locked up (disproportionately people of color) per capita than any country in the world? This is the kind of thing that the US excels at. Being a member in good standing in the community of nations, helping each other out, it is 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.
Bill Hackwell and Alicia Jrapko are members of the US chapter of the Network in Defense of Humanity.
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).
Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota is set to introduce legislation on Friday that would establish a guaranteed income program and postal banking services to provide most U.S. adults, including undocumented taxpayers, with a $1,200 monthly check.
The SUPPORT Act is co-sponsored by Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) as well as Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Dwight Evans (D-Pa.), and Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), all members of the CPC.
HuffPost, which first reported the details of Omar’s new bill, noted that the SUPPORT Act “would first create a $2.5 billion grant program to fund local pilots in guaranteed income. These would run in hundreds of communities across the country from 2023 to 2027 and provide findings for a national program.”
According to the news outlet:
The national guaranteed income program would start in 2028, sending $1,200 per month to adults making up to $75,000 per year, or heads of household making up to $112,500 per year, as well as providing $600 monthly per child. The payments would phase out for higher incomes.
Importantly, undocumented people who file taxes with an ITIN number would be eligible. The legislation would also establish a banking system through the postal service for “unbanked, underbanked, and individuals experiencing housing instability” to receive payments.
A 2018 report from the Federal Reserve Board showed that nearly 40% of U.S. adults could not cover a $400 emergency expense.
Because the U.S. has more than enough resources to abolish poverty, Omar argued, allowing it to continue is a “choice” that legislators make.
The lawmaker’s guaranteed income bill comes just days after a new Urban Institute report projected that federal economic relief programs enacted throughout the course of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic—including enhanced unemployment insurance, three rounds of one-time direct stimulus payments, the expanded child tax credit, boosts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and other benefits—will result in a roughly 45% decline in poverty in 2021.
In response to the new findings on the substantial anti-poverty impacts of pandemic-related aid, historian Rutger Bregman said that “this is what basic income advocates have been saying for years: simply giving people money works.”
Whoa check out these graphs. This is what basic income advocates have been saying for years: simply giving people money works. Eradicating poverty is not a utopian fantasy, it's a policy option.https://t.co/lKvWVNl51Qpic.twitter.com/ZEsrVkp1VC
Although 20 million fewer people are expected to be living in poverty at the end of this year compared with 2018 thanks to the increased provision of financial assistance amid the coronavirus crisis, the Urban Institute warned that progress will be reversed if Congress fails to make permanent the initiatives that led to a reduction in economic hardship.
Omar’s bill represents one effort to transform the federal government’s emergency allocation of direct cash support into a long-term policy.
“For too long we have prioritized endless growth while millions are homeless, hungry, or without healthcare,” the lawmaker said in a statement. “We as a nation have the ability to make sure everyone has their basic needs like food, housing, and healthcare met.”
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.
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).
Before the rise of Cuba’s Communist party, there was a US-backed fascist government under the leadership of Fulgencio Batista who ruled Cuba with an iron fist. Batista was elected in 1940 serving a 4-year term. Then Batista’s reign of terror effectively began when he decided to run for re-election in 1952, but when his political party found itself practically in last place during the election with Roberto Agramonte of the Orthodox Party who was in the lead followed by Carlos Hevia of the Authentic Party, he decided to lead a military coup and cancel the elections. The current president at the time, President Carlos Prio Socarras went into exile as a result. So what did Washington do? They immediately recognized Batista’s government and gave him financial and military support among other benefits.
In the meantime, Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution that he originally supported and then made a radical move by cancelling whatever civil liberties the Cuban people had left. Batista had total control over the Cuban economy that was once on equal grounds with Italy in terms of economic growth. One of Batista’s first moves as a typical dictator in Latin America when he gave his full-support to wealthy landowners who owned basically almost all of the sugar plantations on the island.
Image on the right: Fulgencio Batista (Public Domain)
Under Batista, the divide between rich and poor grew although wages rose to keep the Cuban people somewhat temporarily satisfied at least for the time-being. However, government corruption was out of control while the American mafia (both Italian and Jewish) were in control of drugs, gambling and prostitution allowing these criminal enterprises to become profitable industries in Cuba.
Cuba’s situation became so dire that the people began to get angry. So Batista made the decision to take over the media by way of censorship and he even created an anti-communist secret police force that was authorized to use torture and was even given permission to conduct public executions to install fear among the Cuban people.
It is estimated that there were between 10,000 to 20,000 Cubans who were actually murdered with Washington’s full-knowledge of the situation, but hey, to the US establishment that was American-style democracy in action.
Then the birth of TheJuly 26 Movement led by Fidel Castro took place against the US-backed dictatorship with an attack on the Moncada army barracks in Santiago, but was defeated by Batista’s military. As university students and anti-Batista activists continued protests against Batista’s social policies, the secret police forces increased repressive tactics to crush the protests.
It was just a matter of time before the people rose up against the Batista’s tyrannical regime as his actions paved the way for the Cuban revolution of 1959 and that was the consequences of the US government interfering in the politics and economy of a foreign country. It was inevitable.
However, relations between the new Castro government and Dwight D. Eisenhower administration were at first a bit friendly, but when Cuba’s new Agricultural Reform law confiscated lands that were owned and operated by US businesses while sponsoring anti-US revolutionary movements in the Caribbean, the relationship quickly turned sour. An arms embargo was imposed on Cuba on March 14, 1958 which was towards the end of an armed struggle between the fascists led by Fulgencio Batista and the rebels led by Fidel Castro which was the start of a series of embargos that eventual led to today’s protests erupting in Cuba.
The US government has been trying to overthrow Cuba’s communist system since Fidel Castro seized power in 1959, so the Eisenhower administration made a move against Cuba a year later.
So in the summer of 1960, the US started an economic war so they imported less brown sugar from Cuba under the Sugar Act of 1948 allowing Cuba to rely on the Soviet Union who agreed to purchase the sugar.
During that same time period, the US refused to export oil to Cuba making it reliant on crude oil from the Soviet Union, it was a move that prompted US companies to refuse refining Cuba’s oil. Cuba responded to the actions imposed by the US by nationalizing three US-owned refineries that became the Union Cuba-Petroleo. The Eisenhower administration imposed Cuba’s first trade embargo that restricted selling Cuba various products with the exception of food and medicine.
Then in the month of October, tensions rose between Washington and Havana when Castro decided to nationalize all US businesses without compensation. US diplomats were also expelled from Cuba that prompted Eisenhower to cut all diplomatic channels with Cuba on January 1961 allowing the US trade embargo to continue under the Trading with the Enemy Act 1917. Then in April of 1961, President John F. Kennedy gave the green light for the CIA-backed Bay of Pigs Invasion which failed when Cuban forces quickly defeated a covert plan involving Cuban exiles that began under the Eisenhower administration. What was the consequence of those actions by the US government? It led the Cuban government to declare itself socialist aligning itself with the USSR.
The US Congress then passed the Foreign Assistance Act on September 4, 1961 that was part of the Cold War Act that strictly prohibited any form of aid to Cuba and allowed the US President to impose a trade embargo against Cuba. Then on January 21, 1962 fourteen members of the Organization of American States (OAS) voted against Cuba while six member states abstained. Sanctions were followed-up by the OAS on July 26, 1964 but a decade later the sanctions were “rescinded.” Over the years, OAS and Cuban relations eased on the tensions that was inspired by Washington and the suspension of membership for Cuba was finally lifted on June 2009.
Kennedy went as far as to extend extreme measures by executive order by imposing trade restrictions that expanded the embargo to include all imports of Cuban-made products even if the products were made or assembled outside of Cuba. The newly amended Foreign Assistance Act of August 1962 strictly prohibited any country to provide Cuba with humanitarian assistance.
On September 7, 1962 the Cuban embargo was tightened so that all trade with Cuba was restricted except food and medicine. In October 1962, after the scare of the Cuban missile crisis, travel was restricted between the US and Cuba with the Cuban Assets Control Regulations under the Trading with the Enemy Act as a response to the Cuban government hosting Soviet nuclear weapons as Cuban assets in the U.S. were frozen. Since then, Cuba has been struggling to get basic products and other desperately needed necessities.
An article from October 2020 in the Business Standard ‘US trade embargo causes $144 billion losses for Cuban economy’:
The US trade embargo against Cubahas caused more than $144 billion in losses for the island nation’s economy in the past six decades, Foreign Affairs Minister Bruno Rodriguez said.
The burden of mounting financial, economic and trade sanctions, “for a small economy like Cuba’s, is an overwhelming burden” Xinhua news agency quoted Rodriguez as saying at a press conference while presenting the government’s latest tally of the losses
Former US President Donald Trump imposed his “maximum pressure” strategy against Cuba by slapping on more than 240 plus new sanctions and to make matters worse, he added Cuba to the list of “state sponsors of terrorism” again to keep his voter base in the Cuban-American community intact. Trump also imposed a travel ban for American tourists which hurt Cuba’s tourism industry. Trump also banned Cuba from buying important medicines and imposed sanctions on oil imports to Cuba from Venezuela.
As much as I did not like Barack Obama, he did loosen some restrictions on US citizens who wanted to visit Cuba. Obama also removed Cuba from the list of “state sponsors of terrorism” although it was the US government who committed acts of terrorism against Cuba. In fact, anti-Castro terrorist groups such as Alpha-66 was responsible for several hotel bombings in Cuba in the mid-90’s that even killed an Italian tourist and injuring many others.
There were and still are other Anti-Castro terrorist groups operating mostly in South Florida such as Brothers to the Rescue (BTTR), Cuban American National Foundation(CANF) and several others involved in assassination attempts against Fidel Castro and advocated for regime change of the Cuban government.
If you remember one famous terrorist who lived in Miami by the name of Luis Posada Carriles (who actually died a free man in 2018) was apprehended in 2005 as reported by SFGATE.com (formally the San Francisco Chronicle) ‘Arrest of Cuban ex-CIA figure puts Bush in tough political spot’ said that “Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles, a former CIA operative who is wanted in Venezuela for the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner that killed 73 people, was seized by U.S. authorities in Miami on Tuesday.” The report laid out the facts on Posada’s crimes against Cuba:
A strident anti-communist, Posada long has been regarded as a terrorist by Cuba, Venezuela and other nations. But he is a hero to many in Florida’s politically powerful anti-Castro Cuban community, who tend to support Republicans. “He is a fighter, a true believer who has fought for the freedom of his country,” said Jose Hernandez, president of the Cuban American National Foundation in Miami, responding to news of Posada’s arrest.
Posada is accused of masterminding the bombing of a Cubana jetliner over Barbados that killed many members of Cuba’s Pan American Games team on Oct. 6, 1976. Venezuelan authorities arrested Posada after tracing the bomb to two Venezuelans who had worked for Posada’s private security agency in Venezuela
In an interview conducted by the Miami Herald“Posada denied any role in the bombing.”Peter Kornbluh, the director of the Cuba Documentation Project at the National Security Archive at the time claimed that declassified documents from the CIA and FBI link Posada to prior meetings and had planned to place a bomb on the Cubana jetliner, “Posada was involved in an unprecedented crime at the time for the Western Hemisphere,” Kornbluh continued, “President Bush should implement the principles of the war against terror that he espouses — that no nation should harbor terrorists.” The article clearly explained what Posada was involved in:
Posada has had a long history of planning assassinations and planting bombs in Cuban government offices since the early 1960s, when he was trained in demolition and guerrilla warfare by the CIA. The declassified information said the CIA paid him $300 a month in the 1960s and that he worked for the CIA at least from 1965 until June 1976. Over the years, FBI reports associated him with plans to blow up Soviet and Cuban freighters in Mexico, a plot to overthrow the Guatemalan government, and involvement in anti-Castro activities in the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. In the 1980s, he worked with the CIA in El Salvador to ferry weapons to the U.S.-backed Contra Army in its fight against Nicaragua’s Sandinista government.
In 1997, Posada allegedly orchestrated a dozen bombings in Cuba intended to deter the growing tourism trade. An Italian businessman was killed and 11 people wounded as a result. In a taped interview with the New York Times, he said: “It is sad that someone is dead, but we can’t stop”
After Posada was found not guilty and was acquitted in 2011 on charges of lying to immigration officials on how he entered the US and his involvement of terrorism against Cuba in 1997. Cuba called the verdict a “farce” while Venezuela accused the US of harboring a well-known terrorist.
One other episode of US imperialism’s thirst for war against Cuba occurred in 1962 called ‘Operation Northwoods’ which was a false-flag operation proposed by the US Department of Defense (DOD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff that called for the CIA and other clandestine organizations within the US government to carry-out acts of terrorism against the military and civilian targets on US soil to justify a war against Cuba.
The idea was to blame Cuba for the terrorist attacks that also included hijacking planes so that they will be shot down or blowing up a US ship or even orchestrating random terrorist attacks within U.S. cities. They also detailed the possibility of assassinating or sinking boats filled with Cuban refugees, but the plan was flatly rejected by President John F. Kennedy. In 1981, Washington’s endless war on Cuba led to biological warfare with help from the CIA and the US military who had launched an operation by unleashing ‘Dengue Fever’ which is also known as ‘Hemorrhagic fever’ on Cuba effecting more than 273,000 people killing 158 including men, women and children.
On September 6, 1981, The New York Times reported what Fidel Castro had said regarding the US government’s role in biological warfare against Cuba:
”we urge the United States Government to define its policy in this field, to say whether the C.I.A. will or will not be authorized again- or has already been authorized – to organize attacks against leaders of the revolution and to use plagues against our plants, our animals and our people.”
US President Ronald Reagan and his State Department’s response was the following, “Mr. Castro’s charges of possible United States involvement in the epidemic were ”totally without foundation.” The State department blamed Castro’s revolution as the cause of the outbreak
“The Cuban Government has always tried to blame the United States for its failures and its internal problems” continued ”The Cuban revolution is a failure, and it is obviously easier to blame external forces like the United States than to admit those failures.”
Then an all-out assault on the Cuban economy took place years later as the US congress passed the Helms–Burton Act or The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 that strengthened the embargo against Cuba. The law meant to expand the embargo’s jurisdiction where it can apply its “territorial application” that basically penalized foreign companies who do any sort of business with Cuba. US president Bill Clinton finalized the Helms-Burton Act by signing it into law on March 12th, 1996. The passage of the Helms-Burton Act was a response to an incident that occurred on February 24, 1996 when Cuba’s territorial claims had been compromised. Cuba dispatched two fighter jets who shot down two private planes operated by ‘Brothers to the Rescue’ which they describe as a “Miami-based humanitarian international Search and Rescue support group” (codename for terrorists!) which was supposedly on a search mission on international waters.
One important fact on the effects of the US embargo was that it did allow Cuba to resist any US interference in its domestic affairs as the support of the Cuban people grew stronger over time. In other words, if the US would have kept its hands out of Cuba, who knows what kind of government it would have developed without foreign interference, but the world will never know what Cuba could have turned into on its own. Washington’s political establishment, the Military-Industrial Complex, multi-national bankers and corporations and the mainstream media along with Cuban-American community in Miami, New Jersey and elsewhere are continuing to criticize Cuba, some are even calling for a US intervention. Whatever actions Biden takes against Cuba, it will be along the lines of whatever past administrations have done and that is to tighten the screws on Cuba until the people scream uncle, for Uncle Sam that 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.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Silent Crow News.
Timothy Alexander Guzman 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).
Hemp fuel and other biofuels could reduce carbon emissions while saving the electric grid, but they’re often overlooked for more expensive, high-tech climate solutions.
On July 14, the European Union unveiled sweeping climate change and emissions targets that would, according to Gulf News, mean “the end of the internal combustion engine”:
The commission’s draft would reduce permitted emissions from new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles to zero from 2035 – effectively obliging the industry to move on to battery-electric models.
While biofuels are a less high-tech, cheaper and in many ways more effective solution to our dependence on petroleum, the United States and other countries are discussing similar plans to the EU’s and California is already on board. But in a recent article in the Los Angeles Times and related video, Evan Halper argues that we may be trading one environmental crisis for another:
The sprint to supply automakers with heavy-duty lithium batteries is propelled by climate-conscious countries like the United States that aspire to abandon gas-powered cars and SUVs. They are racing to secure the materials needed to go electric, and the Biden administration is under pressure to fast-track mammoth extraction projects that threaten to unleash their own environmental fallout.
Extraction proposals include vacuuming the ocean floor, disturbing marine ecosystems; and mining Native American ancestral sites and pristine federal lands. Proponents of these proposals argue that China controls most of the market for the raw material refining needed for the batteries, posing economic and security threats. But opponents say the negative environmental impact will be worse than the oil fracking that electric vehicles are projected to replace.
Not just the batteries but the electricity needed to run electric vehicles (EVs) poses environmental concerns. Currently, generating electric fuel depends heavily on non-renewable sources. And according to a March 2021 report from the Government Accountability Office, electric vehicles are making the electrical grid more vulnerable to cyber attacks, threatening the portions of the grid that deliver electricity to homes and businesses. If that is true at current use levels, the grid could clearly not sustain the load if all the cars on the road were EVs.
Not just tribal land residents but poor households everywhere will bear the cost if the proposed emissions targets and EV mandates are implemented. According to one European think tank, “average expenses of the poorest households could increase by 44 percent for transport and by 50 percent for residential heating.” As noted in Agence France-Presse, “The recent ‘yellow vest’ protests in France demonstrated the kind of populist fury that environmental controls on motoring can provoke.”
People who can barely make ends meet cannot afford new electric vehicles (EVs), and buying a used EV is risky. If the lithium battery fails, replacing it could cost as much as the car itself; and repairs must be done by pricey dealers. No more doing it yourself with instructions off the Internet, and even your friendly auto repair shop probably won’t have the tools. Except for the high-end Tesla, auto manufacturers themselves are largely losing money on EVs, due to the high cost of the batteries and low consumer demand.
Off the Electric Grid with Clean Biofuel
Whether carbon dioxide emissions are the cause of climate change is still debated, but gasoline-fueled vehicles do pose environmental hazards. There is an alternative to gasoline that does not require sending all our combustion engine vehicles to the junkyard. This is alcohol fuel (bioethanol). Not only are greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol substantially lower than from gasoline, but as detailed in a biofuel “explainer” on the website of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
As we search for fuels that won’t contribute to the greenhouse effect and climate change, biofuels are a promising option because the carbon dioxide (CO2) they emit is recycled through the atmosphere. When the plants used to make biofuels grow, they absorb CO2 from the air, and it’s that same CO2 that goes back into the atmosphere when the fuels are burned. In theory, biofuels can be a “carbon neutral” or even “carbon negative” way to power cars, trucks and planes, meaning they take at least as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as they put back in.
A major promise of biofuels is that they can lower overall CO2 emissions without changing a lot of our infrastructure. They can work with existing vehicles, and they can be mass-produced from biomass in the same way as other biotechnology products, like chemicals and pharmaceuticals, which are already made on a large scale.… Most gasoline sold in the U.S. is mixed with 10% ethanol.
Biofuels can be created from any sort of organic commercial waste that is high in carbohydrates, which can be fermented into alcohol locally. Unlike the waste fryer oil and grease used to generate biodiesel, carbohydrates are supplied by plants in abundance. Methanol, the simplest form of alcohol, can be made from any biomass – anything that is or once was a plant (wood chips, agricultural waste of all kinds, animal waste, etc.). In the US, 160 million tons of trash ends up in landfills annually. Estimates are that this landfill waste could be converted to 15-16 million gallons of methanol.
In the third in a series of national assessments calculating the potential supply of biomass in the United States, the US Energy Department concluded in 2016 that the country has the future potential to produce at least one billion dry tons of biomass resources annually without adversely affecting the environment. This amount of biomass could be used to produce enough biofuel, biopower, and will bioproducts to displace approximately 30% of 2005 U.S. petroleum consumption, said the report, without negatively affecting the production of food or other agricultural products.
Energy Independence
A documentary film called Pumptells the tale of the monopolization of the auto fuel industry by the petroleum cartel, and how that monopoly can be ended with a choice of biofuels at the pump.
Henry Ford’s first car, built in 1896, ran 100% on alcohol fuel, produced by farmers using using beets, apples, corn and other starchy crops in their own stills. He envisioned the family piling into the car and driving through the countryside, fueling up along the road at independent farms. But alcohol was burdened with a liquor tax, and John D. Rockefeller saw a use for the gasoline fuel that was being discarded as a toxic waste product of the kerosene market he had cornered. In 1908, Ford accommodated Rockefeller’s gasoline fuel by building America’s first “flex-fuel” car, the Model T or “Tin Lizzie.” It could be made to run on either gasoline or ethanol by adjusting the ignition timing and air fuel mixture. Rockefeller then blocked competition from Ford’s ethanol fuel by using his power and influence to help pass Prohibition, a Constitutional amendment banning the sale and transport of alcohol.
The petroleum monopoly was first broken in Brazil, where most cars are adapted to run on bioethanol made from sugar cane. Existing combustion engines can be converted to use this “flex fuel” with simple, inexpensive kits. The Brazilian biofuel market dates back to the oil crisis of the 1970s, when gas had to be imported and was quite expensive. With the conversion to biofuels, Pres. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva achieved national energy independence, giving a major boost to the struggling Brazilian economy.
The U.S. push for biofuels was begun in California in the 1980s, when Ford Motor Company was enlisted to design a flex fuel car to help reduce the state’s smog problem. But again the oil industry lobbied against it. They argued that bioethanol, which in the U.S. is chiefly made from corn, was competing for corn as a foodstuff at a time when food shortages were a major concern.
David Blume counters that it is not a question of “food or fuel” but “food and fuel.” Most U.S. corn is grown as livestock feed, and the “distillers grains” left after the alcohol is removed are more easily digested by cows than unprocessed grain. Distillers grains have another advantage over hay as a livestock feed: its easier digestion reduces the noxious cow emissions said to be a significant source of greenhouse gases.
Fuel from a Weed: The Wide-ranging Virtues of Hemp
Opponents, however, continue to raise the “food versus fuel” objection, and they claim that biofuels from corn are not “carbon neutral” when the steps used to create them are factored in. Even the fertilizers needed to grow them may emit CO2 and other greenhouse gases. But corn is not the only biofuel option. There are plants that can grow like weeds on poor soil without fertilizers.
Industrial hemp – the non-intoxicating form of cannabis grown for fiber, cloth, oil, and many other purposes – is a prime candidate not just for fuel but to help save the environment. Hemp has been proven to absorb more CO2 per hectare than any forest or commercial crop, making it the ideal carbon sink. It can be grown on a wide scale on nutrient poor soils; it grows remarkably fast with almost no fertilizer or irrigation; and it returns around 70% of the nutrients used in the growth cycle back to the soil. Biofuels usually require substantially more water than fossil fuels, but hemp needs roughly half the amount needed for corn. Hemp can also be used for “bioremediation” – the restoration of soil from toxic pollution. It helps remove toxins and has been used by farmers to “cure” their fields, even from radioactive agents, metals, pesticides, crude oil, and toxins in landfills.
An analysis published in the journal Science in 2019 concluded that a worldwide tree planting program could remove two-thirds of all the CO2 emissions that have been pumped into the atmosphere by human activities. As reported in The Guardian in 2019, one trillion trees could be restored for as little as $300 billion – “by far the cheapest solution that has ever been proposed.” The chief drawback to that solution is that trees grow slowly, requiring 50 to 100 years to reach their full carbon sequestering potential. Hemp, on the other hand, is one of the fastest CO2-to-biomass conversion tools available, growing to 13 feet in 100 days. It also requires much less space per plant than trees, and it can be grown on nearly any type of soil without fertilizers.
In a 2015 book titled “Cannabis Vs. Climate Change,” Paul von Hartmann notes that hemp is also one of the richest available sources of aromatic terpenes, which are known to slow climate change. When emitted by pine forests, terpenes help to cool the planet by bouncing energy from the sun back into space. In a mature hemp field, the temperature on a hot day can be 20 degrees cooler than in surrounding areas.
Reviving an American Staple
Hemp has many uses besides fuel. Long an American staple, its cultivation was mandated in colonial America. It has been used for centuries in pharmaceuticals, clothing and textiles; it is an excellent construction material; its fiber can be used to make paper, saving the forests; and hemp seeds are , providing protein equivalent by weight to beef or lamb.
The value of industrial hemp has long been known by the U.S. government, which produced an informational film in 1942 called “Hemp for Victory” to encourage farmers to grow it for the war effort. Besides its many industrial uses, including for cloth and cordage, the film detailed the history of the plant’s use and best growing practices.
Henry Ford used hemp as a construction material for his Model T, and Porsche is now using hemp-based material in the body of its 718 Cayman GT4 Clubsport track car to reduce its weight while maintaining rigidity and safety. “Hempcrete” (concrete made from hemp mixed with lime) is a “green” building material used for construction and insulation, including for building “tiny homes.”
[O]ur dependency on petrochemicals has proven hard to overcome, largely because these materials are as versatile as they are volatile. From fuel to plastics to textiles to paper to packaging to construction materials to cleaning supplies, petroleum-based products are critical to our industrial infrastructure and way of life.
… Interestingly, however, there is a naturally-occurring and increasingly-popular material that can be used to manufacture many of the same products we now make from petroleum-derived materials …. That material is hemp.
… The crop can be used to make everything from biodegradable plastic to construction materials like flooring, siding, drywall and insulation to paper to clothing to soap to biofuels made from hemp seeds and stalks.
The authors note that while hemp was widely grown until a century ago, the knowledge, facilities and equipment required to produce it efficiently are no longer commonly available, since hemp farming was banned for decades due to its association with the psychoactive version of the plant.
Fueling a Rural Renaissance
In an effort to fill that vacuum, a recent initiative in California is exploring different hemp varieties and growing techniques, in the first extensive growing trials for hemp fiber and grain in the state since the 1990s. The project is a joint effort among the World Cannabis Foundation, hemp wholesaler Hemp Traders, and Oklahoma-based processor Western Fiber. The Pennsylvania-based Rodale Institute, a nonprofit that supports research into organic farming, has also partnered on a USDA-supported research project on the use of hemp in the development of biochar (charcoal produced by firing biomass in the absence of oxygen). On July 31, the World Cannabis Foundation will host a field day and factory tour in Riverdale, California, where an old cotton gin has been converted to hemp textile manufacture. The event will also feature presentations by a panel of hemp experts.
How to decarbonize 51 billion tons of greenhouse gases annually with hemp technology and regenerative farming will also be the focus of a COP26 “fringe festival” called “Beyond the Green,” to be held in Glasgow, Scotland, in November along with COP26, the 2021 UN Climate Change Conference.
A 2018 article summarizing research from the University of Connecticut concluded that hemp farming could “set a great example of a self-sustainable mini ‘ecosystem’ with minimal environmental footprint.” Henry Ford’s vision was to decentralize industry, with “small [factory] plants … on every stream,” a rural renaissance fueled not with oil but with alcohol. Hemp fuel and other forms of bioethanol are renewable energy sources that can be produced anywhere, contributing to energy independence not just for families but for local communities and even for the country. And it doesn’t place the burden of addressing climate change on the middle or working classes.
*
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).
Lawyer Dipali Ojha details the complaint’s long list of charges detailing “offences against entire humanity which are genocide (Mass Murders) of the citizens” related to the covid pandemic and committed by the “Vaccine Syndicate Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation” as well as “bio terrorists,” “Pharma Syndicates,” “Tech Syndicates,” “Tech Bullies” and others.
Video
*
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).
“Post-Pandemic” for many countries, especially western countries, is a dream. The west will have to wake up fast, if it doesn’t want to fall prey to a destructive plan of chaos, unemployment, bankruptcies, and, yes, famine – shifting of capital from the bottom and the middle to the top – and leaving misery at the bottom.
Not so for China. For China, the post-pandemic era is well under way.
When SARS-CoV-2 hit Wuhan in January 2020, China was prepared. Chinese authorities proceeded with warp-speed to prevent the spread of this new corona disease, by a radical lockdown of Wuhan and extending it to Hubei Province. Later, other areas of risk were locked down, including about 80% of China’s production and manufacturing apparatus. The result was astounding. Within a few months, by about mid-2020, China was in control of Covid, and gradually started opening up crucial areas, including the production process. All the while maintaining strict protection measures.
By the end of 2020 China’s economy was practically working at full speed – and achieving, according to IMF’s – very conservative account – a 2.6% growth for the year. Chinese own and perhaps more realistic projections were closer to 3.5%. IMF growth projections for China in in 2021 stand at 8.4%. China’s economic expansion in 2022 is projected at 5.6%. This is way above any other country in the world.
Compare this with 2020 economic declines way into the red for the US and Europe, of 25% to 35%, and 10% to 15%, respectively. These are real figures. Not necessarily the published ones.
Future expansion in China takes into account that much of the projected growth over the coming years will be internal “horizontal” growth – helping China’s interior and western provinces catching up with infrastructure, research and development, as well as education facilities – increasing the overall level of well-being to reduce the gap with the highly-developed eastern areas.
China’s economic recovery and her industrial apparatus working at full speed, is good for China and good for the world, because China had become in the past four decades or so, the western principal supply chain, mainly the US and Europe. We are talking crucial supplies, such as medical equipment, medication and ingredients for medication – about 80% – 90% used in the west comes from China.
China’s rapid economic growth may be mostly attributed to two main factors: large-scale investments – financed by predominantly domestic savings and foreign capital – and rapid productivity growth. These two features appear to have gone hand in hand.
China remains attractive for investors. In addition to medical equipment, China supplies the west and the world with electronic equipment and is meant to become one of the key developers and exporter of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to accelerate and facilitate research and manufacturing processes, while minimizing negative environmental impacts.
China’s outlook for the future is bright. However, a number of anormal factors have to be considered, like
(i) The unresolved covid issues in the west, which may be reducing demand naturally or by force – possibly import restrictions for goods from China as a way of constant pressure on China;
(ii) Continuation of a direct and indirect trade and currency war on China. To the detriment of the US-dollar, China’s currency, the yuan – and soon the digital yuan as an international payment currency, independent from western controlled monetary transfer modes, is gaining rapidly in status as an international reserve money. According to some estimates, in five years the yuan may account for up to 30% of all world reserves. As a parenthesis, the US-dollar in the early 1990s amounted to more than 90% of worldwide reserve denominations; today that proportion has shrunk to less than 60%; and
(iii) The west, led by Washington, is intent to harm China in whatever way they can. It will not succeed. Washington knows it. But it is a typical characteristic of a dying beast to lash around itself to destroy as much as possible in its surroundings, before it collapses.
Just as an example which the world at large is probably unaware of, China is presently surrounded by about 1,400 US military bases, or bases of other countries which host US military equipment and personnel. About 60% of the US navy fleet is currently stationed in the South China Sea.
Just imagine what would happen, if China or any other super-power, would be surrounding the US with military bases and an aggressive Navy fleet!
China is constantly harassed, sanctioned and slandered with outright lies. One of the prevalent examples of defamations, is her alleged inhuman treatment of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang province. Total population of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in Northwestern China is about 26 million, of which some 12 million are Uyghurs, mostly of Muslim belief.
Uyghur Muslims are regularly recruited by US secret services from across the border with Afghanistan, sent to fight the Jihad in the Middle East, and when some of them return, China makes an effort to re-school and re-integrate them into society.
Could the real reason for this western aggression be, that Xinjiang province, the largest and western-most province of China, is also a principal hub for the two or more main routes of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – trans-Asia Routes, by rail through Pakistan to the Gwadar Port in the Persian Gulf, and possibly by road through the newly to become autonomous Afghanistan, connecting China with Iran?
China is perceived as a threat to western hegemonic thinking – to western-style globalization, which is the concept of a One World Order over a borderless western corporate and banking-controlled world – and because China is well positioned to become the world’s number one economy in absolute terms within a few years.
These are challenges to be kept in mind – in planning China’s future economic development.
In fact, already today China is number one in PPP-terms (purchasing power parity), which is the only indicator that counts, namely how much of goods and services may be acquired with a unit of currency.
Taking these challenges into account, and following her non-aggressive and non-expansive moving-forward style, China may be embarking on a three-pronged development approach. Overarching this tactic may include China’s 2025 Plan and 2035 / 2050 vision: A strong emphasis on economic and defense autonomy.
(i) Outreach and connecting with the rest of the world through President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative, also called One Belt One Road (OBOR) which is patterned according to the ancient Silk Road, more than 2,100 years ago, a peaceful trade route connecting Eastern China, through Asia, Europe and the Middle East.
On a global scale, embraces currently more than 130 countries and over 30 international organizations, including 18 countries of the European Union. OBOR offers their partners participation – no coercion. The attraction and philosophy behind OBOR, is shared benefits – the concept of win-win. OBOR may be the road to socioeconomic recovery from covid consequences and cross-border cooperation for participating countries.
OBOR is also aiming at a multi-polar world – where partner countries would equally benefit through infrastructure, industrial joint ventures, cultural exchange – exploration of new renewable sources of energy – research and education projects – working towards a joint future with prosperity for all.
Here is the distinction between the western and Chinese meaning of “globalization”. In the west, it means a unipolar world controlled by one hegemon, the US of A, with one army called NATO which forcibly holds the west, mainly Europe, together. NATO, with its 2.5 billion-dollars official budget – unofficially a multiple of this amount, reaching into the trillions – spreads already with its tentacles into South America, Colombia.
Together the west, or Global North, is a conglomerate of NATO-vassal-countries with little autonomy, as compared to Chinese globalization – meaning a multi-polar connection of countries, all the while OBOR-linked countries maintain their sovereignty. This is “globalization” with Chinese characteristics.
(ii) In a precautionary detachment from western dependence, China is focusing trade development and cooperation with her ASEAN partners. In November 2020, after 8 years of negotiations, China signed a free trade agreement with the ten ASEAN nations, plus Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, altogether 15 countries, including China.
The so-called Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, or RCEP, covers some 2.2 billion people, commanding about 30% of the world’s GDP. This is a never before reached agreement in size, value and tenor.
China and Russia have a longstanding strategic partnership, containing bilateral agreements that also enter into this new trade fold. The countries of the Central Asia Economic Union (CAEU), consisting mostly of former Soviet Republics, as well as members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), are likewise integrated into the eastern trade block.
The RCEP’s trade deals will be carried out in local currencies and in yuan – no US dollars. The RCEP is, therefore, also an instrument for dedollarizing, primarily in the Asia-Pacific Region, and gradually moving across the globe; and
(iii) China will focus much of her future development on her internal and western regions – increase the standard of wellbeing of populations, infrastructure, research and development – industrial development, joint ventures, including with foreign capital. To achieve a better equilibrium between eastern and western China is crucial for socioeconomic sustainability.
This dual development approach, on the one hand, external trade with close ASEAN associates, as well as with OBOR partners; and on the other, achieving internal equilibrium and wellbeing, is a circular development, feeding on each other, minimizing risks and impacts of western adversary aggressions.
China’s achievements in her 71 years of revolution speak for themselves. They are unmatched by any nation in recent history. From a country largely ruined by western-influenced colonization and conflicts, China rose from the ashes, by not only lifting 800 million people out of poverty, but also by becoming food, health and education self-sufficient.
Coinciding with the 4 March 2021, opening of the Chinese People’s political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), Robert F. Kennedy Jr., late President John F. Kennedy’s nephew, asked the pertinent question, “Can We Forge a New Era of Humanity Before It’s Too Late?” – His answer is simple but lucid: “Unless we move from a civilization based on wealth accumulation to a life-affirming, ecological civilization, we will continue accelerating towards global catastrophe.”
This understanding is also at the forefront of China’s vision for the next 15 to 20 years – and beyond. A China-internal objective is an equitable development to well-being for all; and on a world-scale, a community with shared benefits for all.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO). 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 non-resident Sr. Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing and a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization, Canada.
Featured image: China’s Belt and Road Initiative will be given new momentum with new RCEP trade pact. Photo: iStock
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
“If you were wondering why Ivermectin was suppressed, it is because the agreement that countries had with Pfizer does not allow them to escape their contract, which states that even if a drug will be found to treat COVID-19, the contract cannot be voided.”
Unredacted contracts for the experimental biological agent known as the “COVID-19 vaccine” between the Pfizer corporation and various governments continue to be revealed.
Information security expert Ehden Biber told America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) Frontline News that the first document to recently emerge was discovered by Albanian newspaper Gogo.al. Biber then was able to locate the digitally-signed Brazilian contract, and at least two others, one with the European Commission, and the other with the Dominican Republic.
AFLDS Chief Science OfficerDr. Michael Yeadon responded to the revelations after perusing the Albania contract, saying it “looks genuine.” He continued: “I know the basic anatomy of these agreements and nothing is missing that I’d expect to be present, and I’ve seen no clues that suggests it’s fake.”
Yeadon noted what he found “the most stunning revelation,” citing the clause that stipulates “if there are any laws or regulations in your country under which Pfizer could be prosecuted, you agree to CHANGE THE LAW OR REGULATION to close that off.” (emphasis his)
In a Twitter thread that has since been removed except the first tweet in the thread, Biber explained the significance of the revealed agreements: “Because the cost of developing contracts is very high and time consuming (legal review cycles), Pfizer, like all corporations, develop a standardized agreement template and use these agreements with relatively minor adjustments in different countries.
“These agreements are confidential, but luckily one country did not protect the contract document well enough, so I managed to get a hold of a copy.
“As you are about to see, there is a good reason why Pfizer was fighting to hide the details of these contracts.”
“First,” Biber continues, “let’s talk about the product: The agreement not only covers manufacturing of vaccines for COVID-19 and its mutations, but also for ‘any device, technology, or product used in the administration of or to enhance the use or effect of, such vaccine.’
“If you were wondering why Ivermectin was suppressed, it is because the agreement that countries had with Pfizer does not allow them to escape their contract, which states that even if a drug will be found to treat COVID-19, the contract cannot be voided”
“Supplying the product: ‘Pfizer shall have no liability for any failure to deliver doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates… nor shall any such failure give Purchaser any right to cancel orders for any quantities of Product.’
“‘Pfizer shall decide on necessary adjustments to the number of Contracted Doses and Delivery Schedule due to the Purchaser … based on principles to be determined by Pfizer … Purchaser shall be deemed to agree to any revision.’
“Just to make it clear: ‘Purchaser hereby waives all rights and remedies that it may have at Law, in equity or otherwise, arising from or relating to:.. any failure by Pfizer to deliver the Contracted Doses in accordance with the Delivery Schedule.
“Once again: ‘Under no circumstances will Pfizer be subject to or liable for any late delivery penalties.’
“You can’t return the product, no matter what: ‘Pfizer will not, in any circumstances, accept any returns of Product (or any dose)…no Product returns may take place under any circumstances.’
“Now for the BIG SECRET: $12 per dosage for about 250K units. Funny that this is the price for a small amount of dosages when Pfizer was charging the U.S. $19.50 per dose.
“U.S. taxpayers got screwed by Pfizer, probably also Israel.
“About payment, the country has no right ‘to withhold, offset, recoup or debit any amounts owed to Pfizer, whether under this Agreement or otherwise, against any other amount owed (or to become due and owing) to it by Pfizer or a Pfizer Affiliate.’
“Damaged goods: THE ONLY WAY to get a recall is if you can prove cGMP fault.
“‘For clarity, Purchaser shall not be entitled to reject any Product based on service complaints unless a Product does not materially conform to Specifications or cGMP.’
“This agreement is above any local law of the state.
“Long-term effects and efficacy: ‘Purchaser acknowledges…the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known.’
“Termination for cause: There are clauses about termination possibility, but in fact, as you saw so far, the buyer has almost nothing that can be considered a material breach, while Pfizer can easily do so if they don’t get their money or if they deem so.
“You must pay Pfizer for the dosages you ordered, no matter how much you consumed, regardless if Pfizer got it approved (it was a pre-EU approval) or if they delivered the Contracted Doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates set forth herein.
“‘Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS Pfizer, BioNTech (and) their Affiliates…from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses…’
“The state must defend Pfizer: ‘(Pfizer) shall notify Purchaser of Losses for which it is seeking indemnification… Upon such notification, Purchaser shall promptly assume conduct and control of the defense of such Indemnified Claims on behalf of (Pfizer)’:
“However, ‘Pfizer shall have the right to assume control of such defense… and Purchaser shall pay all Losses, including, without limitation, the reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses incurred.’
“Pfizer is making sure the country will pay for everything: ‘Costs and expenses, including… fees and disbursements of counsel, incurred by the Indemnitee(s) in connection with any Indemnified Claim shall be reimbursed on a quarterly basis by Purchaser’:
“Liability: ‘This shall not include, nor constitute, product liability insurance to cover any third party/patients claims and such general liability insurance shall be without prejudice to Purchaser’s indemnification obligation as set out in this Agreement.’
“There is no limit to the liability of the country in case of ‘the indemnity given by it under Section 8 (Indemnification)’ or if the Purchaser failed to pay Pfizer:
“The Purchaser waives any right for immunity, it give up any law that might cap the obligation to pay damages to Pfizer. Comment: The court in New York has the capacity to hold international assets of a country if the country failed the contract.
“Condition to supply: Purchaser must provide Pfizer protection from liability for claims and all Losses, must implement it via statutory or regulatory requirements, and the sufficiency of such efforts shall be in Pfizer’s sole discretion.
“Confidentiality, part 1: ‘Each Recipient shall safeguard the confidential and proprietary nature of the Disclosing Party’s Confidential Information with at least the same degree of care as it holds its own confidential or proprietary information of like kind’:
“Confidentiality, part 2: ‘Recipient shall disclose Confidential Information only to such of its Representatives who have a need to know such Confidential Information to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement’:
“Confidentiality, part 3: The contract must be kept confidential for 10 years. Why 30 years in Israel?
“‘The provisions of this Section 10 (Confidential Information) shall survive the termination or expiration of the this Agreement for a period of ten (10) years’:
“Arbitration and governing laws: Arbitration must be done in New York, in according to Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, governed by the laws of the State of New York, USA:
“If a specific ministry was assigned to safeguard the contract, they must continue to so: ‘…attempted assignment of rights or delegation or subcontracting of duties without the required prior written consent of the other Parties shall be void and ineffective.’
“I first stumbled upon a document, called KONTRATEN-E-PLOTE which translates to ‘read the full contract’.
“Only later I discovered it was Albanian website that has published it on January 2021. They deserve ALL the credit for the leakage of the document, and journalists around the world deserves the shame for not discovering and reporting it.
“Countries might claim they negotiated a better deal, but based on the evidence we have received from South America it seems this contract is real, and that it’s similar to what was used worldwide.
“‘One Health Ministry official, Yaron Niv, said in a separate Kan interview that each dose cost Israel $62.’ Netanyahu is indeed a magician – he got Israel to pay 5 times more than Albania and made people worship him for this BAD deal.
“This contract is actually worse than it seems.
“Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) is regulated by the FDA. cGMP will tell you NOTHING about mRNA, because we never had cGMP of mRNA vaccine, so you cannot prove cGMP malpractice.
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥MUST READ.
Explains IVM and more. Ha! And the only way to get out of the contract is to prove breaches in GMPs….but we don’t have predetermined standards for these (at least in Jan 2021….still looking for updates) https://t.co/iVRYEhIMow
“Addendum: Former president of Pfizer in Brazil and CEO for Latin America testified to the Brazilian committee that Pfizer demanded the same condition for vaccine purchase from all countries:
“Former president of Pfizer in Brazil and CEO for Latin America Carlos Murillo today said in testimony to the COVID CPI that the clauses proposed by the pharmaceutical company for the offer of vaccines to Brazil are not ‘preeminent’, as stated by the former minister of Eduardo Pazuello Health.
“According to Murillo, Pfizer demanded from all countries the same conditions for the purchase of vaccines against COVID-19. In addition, he said that claims that the drug maker would have demanded state assets such as embassies and military bases as collateral are not correct. ‘It’s distorted information,’ he declared.”
Biber concluded: “To those [who] think it is a fake: My university law professor said laws are like computer code. They use legal functions, and variables, and processes. I worked in Big Pharma, I reviewed many contracts in my career, and this document seems to me as real as can be.
“I wrote this on the 13th of July: ‘Israel has turned into a pharmaceutical Banana Republic, where the priorities of a multinational supersedes the priorities of its citizens. It is no longer the Jewish motherland, it is Pfizerland.”
Israel has turned into a pharmaceutical #BananaRepublic, where the priorities of a multinational supercedes the priorities of its citizens. It is no longer the Jewish motherland, it is #Pfizerland.
Israel's national anthem should include the words:
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).
On June 28, a 22-hour recount was completed due to a legal procedure in an election invalidity lawsuit in YeonSu-Gu, Incheon, South Korea. It has been 14 months since the general elections ended on April 15, 2021. In South Korea, a total of 139 lawsuits have been filed in connection with the last April general elections, starting on April 17, 2020. Many Korean national assembly candidates and civic groups have consensus with the fact 2020 April general election was rigged. Solid evidence was submitted to the court one after another, unfortunately, the Supreme Court has delayed the date of hearing on such proceedings.
Article 225 of Korea’s ‘Public Official Election Act’ stipulates that election lawsuits should be promptly tried, and that the court should handle them within 180 days (six months) from the date when the lawsuit was filed. However, the Supreme Court justices have abandoned the execution of their duties because they did not hold a court hearing on their respective claims, let alone a recount, despite 126 pending cases in the Court. It’s been criticized.
Before re-count on June 28th ‘CCAN: Clean election Citizens’ Action Network’, a civic group monitoring the political election, claimed that four conditions (1) physical ballot checks, (2) QR code checks, (3) voting paper imaging files, and (4) voting paper print status checks, are required. Many media, who have not even appeared on the recount court, are paying attention to the Moon Jae-in administration and are reporting irresponsibly with titles such as “There was no pre-voting fraudulent” and “There was no pre-manipulation…”, but the reality is quite different from that.
Only two of the above conditions were verified incompletely on the 28th and 29th June, and QR codes were simply calculated without precision analysis. It is also unconvincing with common sense that the National Election Commission does not submit the original voting imaging file on the day of the recount.
A serious problem discovered by observers is the printing of ballots. The CCAN analyzed the print status of the recounting observers, including a printing expert, through a image of the ballot. Based on this, it is hard to say that the ballots taken at the recount on the June 28th were printed using the Epson TM-C3400 printer used in the pre-voting on April 10th-11th, 2020. In addition, the ballot paper printed by overlapping the proportional representation ballot on the advance ballot paper secured by the Supreme Court as evidence symbolically shows the fact that the ballot paper is forged. In South Korea, people vote as if they were stamping a ballot by hand, but civic groups claim that the photos taken at the recount booth look as if they were printed through a large printing machine at a printing house.
Many South Korean civic groups, such as “CCAN” on the interim results of the June 28 recount, claim as follows. First, Korea mass media should stop reporting predicting the outcome of the recount and focus now on the salient printing issue. Second, it is necessary to conduct an appraisal of the print status of the ballot papers, which appeared during the recount process on the 28th, causing a lot of suspicion. Third, in particular, the Supreme Court should disclose to the media the paper printed by overlapping the proportional representation ballot on the advance ballot secured by <Evidence No. 5> and undergo objective verification. Fourth, it is necessary to investigate the imaging file collation within a short time with a validated algorithm.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court has not issued a final ruling on the lawsuit. However, as the first recount has been delayed for as long as eight months, it is expected that a conclusion will not be made easily. If the reality of the rigged election is concealed and the credibility of the election collapses, South Korea could return to the authoritarian society before 1987. As there are no general elections in Red China, this could be the first step in the chinesization of the Korean Peninsula.
*
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.
Byoung Ho Kang is a Professor at Pai-Chai University.
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).
Much as I welcome the proliferation of articles on saving the ruins of Lifta from the Israeli development industry, I would much rather read articles that focus on saving these ruins for the purpose of reconstruction by their rightful owners, many of whom are just waiting for such an opportunity, armed with deeds and architectural plans, only a stone’s throw away.
The articles one reads now advocating against Israel’s plans to hand over the site to developers seem to stress the idea that saving the ruins of Lifta from demolition will serve to enrich Israel’s cultural and historical “heritage.” Lifta was added to the 2018 World Monuments Watch list of endangered heritage sites.
Lifta for Palestinians, according to this vision, is now a monument, a symbol of the Nakba to feel nostalgic about. At best, it is useful in educating Israeli Jews and the world at large about Israel’s, not Palestine’s, history. After all, doesn’t Facebook locate where I am from as “From Lifta, Yerushalayim, Israel”?
Israeli Jews in Lifta hold a middle finger to a group of Palestinian children visiting the site. [Blekh | MintPress News]
Even Palestinians being interviewed for these articles do not veer in their narration from a vision of loss seemingly impossible to redeem: “Lifta is a witness of what happened during the Nakba,” says a Palestinian in an article titled “The Fight to Save Lifta, the Last Remaining Palestinian Village.” Another explains:
In December 1947, the Haganah killed a Palestinian business owner in Lifta. Later that month, one of Lifta’s two coffeehouses was ambushed with gunfire and grenades. The attack killed six and wounded seven. Two months into 1948, the Jewish Agency chairman and future first prime minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, boasted of the ethnic cleansing’s success, telling his political party members: “From your entry into Jerusalem through Lifta — Romema, through Mahane Yehuda, King George Street and Mea She’arim — there are no strangers. One hundred percent Jews.
But a recent article in The Guardian on saving Lifta from Israel’s land authority’s plans to “redevelop” the “abandoned” Palestinian village ends with a sentence that finally strikes the right note:
“… many of Lifta’s houses have a small Palestinian flag painted inside their doorframes and a single statement, or wish, inscribed below in Arabic: ‘We will return.’”
Within this article several images are displayed (the usual artistic views of Lifta’s ruins in various seasons and lighting conditions). None show pictures of the Palestinian families of Lifta who live just a few kilometers away in Jerusalem rallying on the grounds of Lifta for their return.
The reader of these articles doesn’t learn about Dr. Salman Abu Sitta’s reconstruction project and the practicality of his plans for return. Perhaps that’s because so many still disbelieve, like the Israeli writer Amos Oz, that Palestinians can or should go back in both “time” and “space.” Oz called Palestinian longing for return an “illness” of “reconstritis,” shoutingat a Palestinian exile from Lifta at a lecture just before Oz died:
If you miss Lifta so much, write a book. Make a film. Write a play. Write up a research. Seek what you have lost in time, not in space… You miss your childhood? That’s OK, but if you start behaving like a 5-year old child [Oz is literally shouting here] because of your childhood longings, you need to be hospitalized!
Well, one such “ill” Palestinian, Dr. Salman Abu Sitta has, in fact, written a book (Mapping My Return: A Palestinian Memoir), but he has also dug up every piece of information and documented the location of hundreds of Palestinian homes and villages before Zionist Jewish forces wiped their existence off the map. What’s more, he is able to demonstrate, with irrefutable facts and figures, that Palestinian return is far from an “ill” fantasy. It is not only possible, but necessary:
The argument which gains currency, especially among people who believe that the Right of Return is legal and just, is the assumption that Israel is fully populated and that any returnees would displace existing Jewish residents. It will be shown that this fear is unfounded and that the return of the refugees is possible with no appreciable dislocation to the Jewish residents.
… But even in the most congested case, only 154,000 Jews may choose to relocate elsewhere in Israel to allow 4,476,000 refugees to return to their homes and end half a century of destitution and suffering. This is a very cheap price Israel should pay for what it has inflicted upon the Palestinians and still cheaper price to pay for a secure future for both peoples.
Abu Sitta’s huge database is being used as the source of inspiration for students of architecture who are rebuilding Palestinian history — reconstructing that which Zionist aggression has destroyed. To see one such reconstruction of Lifta, watch this:
It is this powerful, paradigm-shifting vision I wish upcoming articles on Lifta would develop, because it promises the feasibility of our return.
*
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.
Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank.
She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Left: Palestinians rallying in Lifta, northwest of Jerusalem (Apr 21, 2017). Right: from The Guardian article titled “‘We will return’: the battle to save an ancient Palestinian village from demolition”
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).
One of America’s leading physicians on the early treatment of COVID-19, his protocols and scientific works are relied upon to help millions around the globe. Along with half of Americans, Dr. McCullough has appropriate concerns over COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy.
Dr. McCullough is a prominent graduate of Baylor University with an endowed scholarship in his name; he is commonly associated as a point of pride for Baylor.
The Baylor Scott and White Health System Foundation has been appreciative of Dr. McCullough’s generosity over the years as a major philanthropic donor to the system.
As a current active member of medical staff for both Baylor University Medical Center and Baylor Heart and Vascular Hospital with his office on campus, Dr. McCullough is associated on public internet platforms and groups with countless links and mentions to Baylor Scott and White Health System.
As the national crisis has drawn on the world, Dr. McCullough has been heavily relied upon in the media for his scientific interpretation of the data and his accurate assessment of situation. Dr. McCullough has not falsely represented himself as a spokesperson for Baylor Scott and White nor has he publicly claimed past senior leadership roles at any prior institution. Dr. McCullough’s views have been represented as his own and not those of any organization.
Many fellow physicians, nursing staff, and most importantly patients are outraged over Baylor Scott and White’s attempt to damage Dr. McCullough’s reputation and censor his important views to America and the world during a time of crisis. Free speech and scientific discourse are the bedrock of progress in medicine and Baylor Scott and White’s ill-advised lawsuit is an attack on civil liberties with serious implications on public health and policy far beyond a lawsuit
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).
Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FACC, FACP, FAHA, FASN, FNKF, FNLA, FCRSA
Professor of Medicine, Texas A & M College of Medicine, Baylor Dallas Campus
President, Cardiorenal Society of America
Editor-in-Chief, Cardiorenal Medicine
Editor-in-Chief, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine
Senior Associate Editor, American Journal of Cardiology
Dr. McCullough is an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, and Professor of Medicine at Texas A & M College of Medicine, Dallas, TX USA. He maintains ABIM certification in internal medicine and cardiovascular diseases. He practices both internal medicine including the management of common infectious diseases as well as the cardiovascular complications of both the viral infection and the injuries developing after the COVID-19 vaccine.
Since the outset of the pandemic, Dr. McCullough has been a leader in the medical response to the COVID-19 disaster and has published “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection” the first synthesis of sequenced multidrug treatment of ambulatory patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the American Journal of Medicine and subsequently updated in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. He has 46 peer-reviewed publications on the infection and has commented extensively on the medical response to the COVID-19 crisis in The Hill and on FOX NEWS Channel.
On November 19, 2020, Dr. McCullough testified in the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and throughout 2021 in the Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, Colorado General Assembly, and New Hampshire Senate concerning many aspects of the pandemic response.
Dr. McCullough has had one full-year of dedicated academic and clinical efforts in combating the SARS-CoV-2 virus and in doing so, has reviewed thousands of reports, participated in scientific congresses, group discussions, press releases, and has been considered among the world’s experts on COVID-19.
*
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.
Craig Murray, a former ambassador to Uzbekistan, the father of a newborn child, a man in very poor health and one who has no prior convictions, will have to hand himself over to the Scottish police on Sunday morning. He becomes the first person ever to be imprisoned on the obscure and vaguely defined charge of “jigsaw identification”.
Murray is also the first person to be jailed in Britain for contempt of court in half a century – a period when such different legal and moral values prevailed that the British establishment had only just ended the prosecution of “homosexuals” and the jailing of women for having abortions.
Murray’s imprisonment for eight months by Lady Dorrian, Scotland’s second most senior judge, is of course based entirely on a keen reading of Scottish law rather than evidence of the Scottish and London political establishments seeking revenge on the former diplomat.
And the UK supreme court’s refusal on Thursday to hear Murray’s appeal despite many glaring legal anomalies in the case, thereby paving his path to jail, is equally rooted in a strict application of the law, and not influenced in any way by political considerations.
Murray’s jailing has nothing to do with the fact that he embarrassed the British state in the early 2000s by becoming that rarest of things: a whistleblowing diplomat. He exposed the British government’s collusion, along with the US, in Uzbekistan’s torture regime.
His jailing also has nothing to do with the fact that Murray has embarrassed the British state more recently by reporting the woeful and continuing legal abuses in a London courtroom as Washington seeks to extradite Wikileaks’ founder, Julian Assange, and lock him away for life in a maximum security prison. The US wants to make an example of Assange for exposing its war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and for publishing leaked diplomatic cables that pulled the mask off Washington’s ugly foreign policy.
Murray’s jailing has nothing to do with the fact that the contempt proceedings against him allowed the Scottish court to deprive him of his passport so that he could not travel to Spain and testify in a related Assange case that is severely embarrassing Britain and the US. The Spanish hearing has been presented with reams of evidence that the US illegally spied on Assange inside the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he sought political asylum to avoid extradition. Murray was due to testify that his own confidential conversations with Assange were filmed, as were Assange’s privileged meetings with his own lawyers. Such spying should have seen the case against Assange thrown out, had the judge in London actually been applying the law.
Similarly, Murray’s jailing has nothing to do with his embarrassing the Scottish political and legal establishments by reporting, almost single-handedly, the defence case in the trial of Scotland’s former First Minister, Alex Salmond. Unreported by the corporate media, the evidence submitted by Salmond’s lawyers led a jury dominated by women to acquit him of a raft of sexual assault charges. It is Murray’s reporting of Salmond’s defence that has been the source of his current troubles.
And most assuredly, Murray’s jailing has precisely nothing to do with his argument – one that might explain why the jury was so unconvinced by the prosecution case – that Salmond was actually the victim of a high-level plot by senior politicians at Holyrood to discredit him and prevent his return to the forefront of Scottish politics. The intention, says Murray, was to deny Salmond the chance to take on London and make a serious case for independence, and thereby expose the SNP’s increasing lip service to that cause.
Relentless attack
Murray has been a thorn in the side of the British establishment for nearly two decades. Now they have found a way to lock him up just as they have Assange, as well as tie Murray up potentially for years in legal battles that risk bankrupting him as he seeks to clear his name.
And given his extremely precarious health – documented in detail to the court – his imprisonment further risks turning eight months into a life sentence. Murray nearly died from a pulmonary embolism 17 years ago when he was last under such relentless attack from the British establishment. His health has not improved since.
At that time, in the early 2000s, in the run-up to and early stages of the invasion of Iraq, Murray effectively exposed the complicity of fellow British diplomats – their preference to turn a blind eye to the abuses sanctioned by their own government and its corrupt and corrupting alliance with the US.
Later, when Washington’s “extraordinary rendition” – state kidnapping – programme came to light, as well as its torture regime at places like Abu Ghraib, the spotlight should have turned to the failure of diplomats to speak out. Unlike Murray, they refused to turn whistleblower. They provided cover to the illegality and barbarism.
For his pains, Murray was smeared by Tony Blair’s government as, among other things, a sexual predator – charges a Foreign Office investigation eventually cleared him of. But the damage was done, with Murray forced out. A commitment to moral and legal probity was clearly incompatible with British foreign policy objectives.
Murray had to reinvent his career, and he did so through a popular blog. He has applied the same dedication to truth-telling and commitment to the protection of human rights in his journalism – and has again run up against equally fierce opposition from the British establishment.
Two-tier journalism
The most glaring, and disturbing, legal innovation in Lady Dorrian’s ruling against Murray – and the main reason he is heading to prison – is her decision to divide journalists into two classes: those who work for approved corporate media outlets, and those like Murray who are independent, often funded by readers rather than paid big salaries by billionaires or the state.
According to Lady Dorrian, licensed, corporate journalists are entitled to legal protections she denied to unofficial and independent journalists like Murray – the very journalists who are most likely to take on governments, criticise the legal system, and expose the hypocrisy and lies of the corporate media.
In finding Murray guilty of so-called “jigsaw identification”, Lady Dorrian did not make a distinction between what Murray wrote about the Salmond case and what approved, corporate journalists wrote.
That is for good reason. Two surveys have shown that most of those following the Salmond trial who believe they identified one or more of his accusers did so from the coverage of the corporate media, especially the BBC. Murray’s writings appear to have had very little impact on the identification of any of the accusers. Among named individual journalists, Dani Garavelli, who wrote about the trial for Scotland on Sunday and the London Review of Books, was cited 15 times more often by respondents than Murray as helping them to identify Salmond’s accusers.
Rather, Lady Dorrian’s distinction was between who gets protected when identification occurs. Write for the Times or the Guardian, or broadcast on the BBC, where the audience reach is enormous, and the courts will protect you from prosecution. Write about the same issues for a blog, and you risk being hounded into prison.
In fact, the legal basis of “jigsaw identification” – one could argue the whole point of it – is that it accrues dangerous powers to the state. It gives permission for the legal establishment to arbitrarily decide which piece of the supposed jigsaw is to be counted as identification. If the BBC’s Kirsty Wark includes a piece of the jigsaw, it does not count as identification in the eyes of the court. If Murray or another independent journalist offers a different piece of the jigsaw, it does count. The obvious ease with which this principle can be abused by the establishment to oppress and silence dissident journalists should not need underscoring.
And yet this is no longer Lady Dorrian’s ruling alone. In refusing to hear Murray’s appeal, the UK supreme court has offered its blessing to this same dangerous, two-tiered classification.
Credentialed by the state
What Lady Dorrian has done is to overturn traditional views of what constitutes journalism: that it is a practice that at its very best is designed to hold the powerful to account, and that anyone who engages in such work is doing journalism, whether or not they are typically thought of as a journalist.
That idea was obvious until quite recently. When social media took off, one of the gains trumpeted even by the corporate media was the emergence of a new kind of “citizen journalist”. At that stage, corporate media believed that these citizen journalists would become cheap fodder, providing on-the-ground, local stories they alone would have access to and that only the establishment media would be in a position to monetise. This was precisely the impetus for the Guardian’s Comment is Free section, which in its early incarnation allowed a varied selection of people with specialist knowledge or information to provide the paper with articles for free to increase the paper’s sales and advertising rates.
The establishment’s attitude to citizen journalists, and the Guardian’s to the Comment is Free model, only changed when these new journalists started to prove hard to control, and their work often highlighted inadvertently or otherwise the inadequacies, deceptions and double standards of the corporate media.
Now, Lady Dorrian has put the final nail in the coffin of citizen journalism. She has declared through her ruling that she and other judges will be the ones to decide who is considered a journalist and thereby who receives legal protections for their work. This is a barely concealed way for the state to license or “credentialise” journalists. It turns journalism into a professional guild with only official, corporate journalists safe from legal retribution by the state.
If you are an unapproved, uncredentialed journalist, you can be jailed, as Murray is being, on a similar legal basis to the imprisonment of someone who carries out a surgical operation without the necessary qualifications. But whereas the law against charlatan surgeons is there to protect the public, to stop unnecessary harm being inflicted on the sick, Lady Dorrian’s ruling will serve a very different purpose: to protect the state from the harm caused by the exposure of its secret or most malign practices by trouble-making, sceptical – and now largely independent – journalists.
Journalism is being corralled back into the exclusive control of the state and billionaire-owned corporations. It may not be surprising that corporate journalists, keen to hold on to their jobs, are consenting through their silence to this all-out assault on journalism and free speech. After all, this is a kind of protectionism – additional job security – for journalists employed by a corporate media that has no real intention to challenge the powerful.
But what is genuinely shocking is that this dangerous accretion of further power to the state and its allied corporate class is being backed implicitly by the journalists’ union, the NUJ. It has kept quiet over the many months of attacks on Murray and the widespread efforts to discredit him for his reporting. The NUJ has made no significant noise about Lady Dorrian’s creation of two classes of journalists – state-approved and unapproved – or about her jailing of Murray on these grounds.
But the NUJ has gone further. Its leaders have publicly washed their hands of Murray by excluding him from membership of the union, even while its officials have conceded that he should qualify. The NUJ has become as complicit in the hounding of a journalist as Murray’s fellow diplomats once were for his hounding as an ambassador. This is a truly shameful episode in the NUJ’s history.
But more dangerous still, Lady Dorrian’s ruling is part of a pattern in which the political, judicial and media establishments have colluded to narrow the definition of what counts as journalism, to exclude anything beyond the pap that usually passes for journalism in the corporate media.
Murray has been one of the few journalists to report in detail the arguments made by Assange’s legal team in his extradition hearings. Noticeably in both the Assange and Murray cases, the presiding judge has limited the free speech protections traditionally afforded to journalism and has done so by restricting who qualifies as a journalist. Both cases have been frontal assaults on the ability of certain kinds of journalists – those who are free from corporate or state pressure – to cover important political stories, effectively criminalising independent journalism. And all this has been achieved by sleight of hand.
In Assange’s case, Judge Vanessa Baraitser largely assented to US claims that what the Wikileaks founder had done was espionage rather than journalism. The Obama administration had held off prosecuting Assange because it could not find a distinction in law between his legal right to publish evidence of US war crimes and the New York Times and the Guardian’s right to publish the same evidence, provided to them by Wikileaks. If the US administration prosecuted Assange, it would also need to prosecute the editors of those papers.
Donald Trump’s officials bypassed that problem by creating a distinction between “proper” journalists, employed by corporate outlets that oversee and control what is published, and “bogus” journalists, those independents not subject to such oversight and pressures.
Trump’s officials denied Assange the status of journalist and publisher and instead treated him as a spy who colluded with and assisted whistleblowers. That supposedly voided the free speech protections he constitutionally enjoyed. But, of course, the US case against Assange was patent nonsense. It is central to the work of investigative journalists to “collude” with and assist whistleblowers. And spies squirrel away the information provided to them by such whistleblowers, they do not publicise it to the world, as Assange did.
Notice the parallels with Murray’s case.
Judge Baraitser’s approach to Assange echoed the US one: that only approved, credentialed journalists enjoy the protection of the law from prosecution; only approved, credentialed journalists have the right to free speech (should they choose to exercise it in newsrooms beholden to state or corporate interests). Free speech and the protection of the law, Baraitser implied, no longer chiefly relate to the legality of what is said, but to the legal status of who says it.
A similar methodology has been adopted by Lady Dorrian in Murray’s case. She has denied him the status of a journalist, and instead classified him as some kind of “improper” journalist, or blogger. As with Assange, there is an implication that “improper” or “bogus” journalists are such an exceptional threat to society that they must be stripped of the normal legal protections of free speech.
“Jigsaw identification” – especially when allied to sexual assault allegations, involving women’s rights and playing into the wider, current obsession with identity politics – is the perfect vehicle for winning widespread consent for the criminalisation of the free speech of critical journalists.
Corporate media shackles
There is an even bigger picture that should be hard to miss for any honest journalist, corporate or otherwise. What Lady Dorrian and Judge Baraitser – and the establishment behind them – are trying to do is put the genie back in the bottle. They are trying to reverse a trend that over more than a decade has seen a small but growing number of journalists use new technology and social media to liberate themselves from the shackles of the corporate media and tell truths audiences were never supposed to hear.
Don’t believe me? Consider the case of Guardian and Observer journalist Ed Vulliamy. In his book Flat Earth News, Vulliamy’s colleague at the Guardian Nick Davies tells the story of how Roger Alton, editor of the Observer at the time of the Iraq war, and a credentialed, licensed journalist if ever there was one, sat on one of the biggest stories in the paper’s history for months on end.
PIC1
In late 2002, Vulliamy, a veteran and much trusted reporter, persuaded Mel Goodman, a former senior CIA official who still had security clearance at the agency, to go on record that the CIA knew there were no WMD in Iraq – the pretext for an imminent and illegal invasion of that country. As many suspected, the US and British governments had been telling lies to justify a coming war of aggression against Iraq, and Vulliamy had a key source to prove it.
But Alton spiked this earth-shattering story and then refused to publish another six versions written by an increasingly exasperated Vulliamy over the next few months, as war loomed. Alton was determined to keep the story out of the news. Back in 2002 it only took a handful of editors – all of whom had risen through the ranks for their discretion, nuance and careful “judgment” – to make sure some kinds of news never reached their readers.
Social media has changed such calculations. Vulliamy’s story could not be quashed so easily today. It would leak out, precisely through a high-profile independent journalist like Assange or Murray. Which is why such figures are so critically important to a healthy and informed society – and why they, and a few others like them, are gradually being disappeared. The cost of allowing independent journalists to operate freely, the establishment has understood, is far too high.
First, all independent, unlicensed journalism was lumped in as “fake news”. With that as the background, social media corporations were able to collude with so-called legacy media corporations to algorithm independent journalists into oblivion. And now independent journalists are being educated about what fate is likely to befall them should they try to emulate Assange or Murray.
Asleep at the wheel
In fact, while corporate journalists have been asleep at the wheel, the British establishment has been preparing to widen the net to criminalise all journalism that seeks to seriously hold power to account. A recent government consultation document calling for a more draconian crackdown on what is being deceptively termed “onward disclosure” – code for journalism – has won the backing of Home Secretary Priti Patel. The document implicitly categorises journalism as little different from espionage and whistleblowing.
In the wake of the consultation paper, the Home Office has called on parliament to consider “increased maximum sentences” for offenders – that is, journalists – and ending the distinction “between espionage and the most serious unauthorised disclosures”. The government’s argument is that “onward disclosures” can create “far more serious damage” than espionage and so should be treated similarly. If accepted, any public interest defence – the traditional safeguard for journalists – will be muted.
Anyone who followed the Assange hearings last summer – which excludes most journalists in the corporate media – will notice strong echoes of the arguments made by the US for extraditing Assange, arguments conflating journalism with espionage that were largely accepted by Judge Baraitser.
None of this has come out of the blue. As the online technology publication The Register noted back in 2017, the Law Commission was at the time considering “proposals in the UK for a swingeing new Espionage Act that could jail journalists as spies”. It said such an act was being “developed in haste by legal advisers”.
It is quite extraordinary that two investigative journalists – one a long-term, former member of staff at the Guardian – managed to write an entire article in that paper this month on the government consultation paper and not mention Assange once. The warning signs have been there for the best part of a decade but corporate journalists have refused to notice them. Similarly, it is no coincidence that Murray’s plight has also not registered on the corporate media’s radar.
Assange and Murray are the canaries in the coal mine for the growing crackdown on investigative journalism and on efforts to hold executive power to account. There is, of course, ever less of that being done by the corporate media, which may explain why corporate outlets appear not only relaxed about the mounting political and legal climate against free speech and transparency but have been all but cheering it on.
In the Assange and Murray cases, the British state is carving out for itself a space to define what counts as legitimate, authorised journalism – and journalists are colluding in this dangerous development, if only through their silence. That collusion tells us a great deal about the mutual interests of the corporate political and legal establishments, on the one hand, and the corporate media establishment on the other.
Assange and Murray are not only telling us troubling truths we are not supposed to hear. The fact that they are being denied solidarity by those who are their colleagues, those who may be next in the firing line, tells us everything we need to know about the so-called mainstream media: that the role of corporate journalists is to serve establishment interests, not challenge them.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
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).
“When the government of South Africa began to trample upon the human rights of the people of South Africa they were taken to the U.N. When the government of Portugal began to trample upon the rights of our brothers and sisters in Angola, it was taken before the U.N. Why, even the white man took the Hungarian question to the U.N. And just this week, Chief Justice Goldberg was crying over three million Jews in Russia, about their human rights, charging Russia with violating the U.N. Charter because of its mistreatment of the human rights of Jews in Russia. Now you tell me how can the plight of everybody on this Earth reach the halls of the United Nations and you have twenty-two million Afro-Americans whose churches are being bombed, whose little girls are being murdered, whose leaders are being shot down in broad daylight? Now you tell me why the leaders of this struggle have never taken it before the United Nations.” – Malcolm X (April 3, 1964)[1]
Of all the figures risen to the level of legends in the United States that faced an assassination in that five year stretch in the 1960s, Malcolm X would definitely qualify as the most controversial.
The man who went into prison as a convict for larceny and break and enter and came out a minister within the religion of Islam. He bore the surname to replace his actual family name which was taken from African slaves and replaced with ‘Little,’ a slavemaster’s name. And while still in the Nation of Islam, he advocated for the separation of blacks and white, that blacks are superior to whites, and to the philosophy of non-violence he promoted defense of black people “by any means necessary.”[2][3]
But Malcolm X was a powerful figure who spoke extremely well. And he was a media favorite. He attracted the attention of prominent world leaders including Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Kenneth Kaunda of the Zambian African Congress, and Ahmed Sékou Touré of Guinea. Following a visit to the United Nations General Assembly in September of 1960, even Fidel Castro expressed an interest in meeting privately with him in Cuba.[4][5][6]
The leader backed away from the previous views on racial segregation. He advocated Pan-Africanism, a world-wide movement promoting solidarity among indigenous and diaspora ethnic groups of African descent. He advocated the pursuit of racial justice. [7]
And it just so happens a number of agencies under the auspices of the government, had taken notice of him as well.
The Nation of Islam was not alone in seeking to curtail is influence.
That convergence of factors led to his murder on the stage of the Audubon Ballroom in Manhattan on February 21, 1965.
The Global Research News Hour spends the entire hour of this special program looking at what motivated Malcolm X, what made him a threat to authorities, and how the Nation of Islam attackers on him were manipulated by the FBI and the CIA. Taking us through the entire legend of this figure is the outstanding scholar of all four assassinations of the ‘60s: James DiEugenio.
CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.
WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.
Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.
CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am.
Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The forever-head of the US NIAID, Tony Fauci, has repeatedly demanded that the public “trust the science” as he shifts his own science opinion from one positon to another. What is never mentioned in mainstream media in the West or almost anywhere in the world is the scientific record of the major global vaccine making pharmaceutical giants. In short, it is abysmal and alarming in the extreme. That alone should prohibit governments from pushing radical untested experimental injections on their populations without extensive long-term animal and other testing to assure their safety.
This past April as the US vaccination program was in high gear, the Biden chief covid adviser, 80-year-old Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) since 1984, announced that the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had decided to order a “pause” on giving the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine in order to examine reports of blood clots. It turned out that there were six reported blood clot cases of some seven million who then had had the J&J covid jab. Fauci in his press remarks declared, “one of the things that’s, I think, such a good thing about our system here, is that we’re ruled by the science, not by any other consideration.” There is good reason to question Fauci.
That was supposed to reassure people that the authorities were being ultra-careful with the experimental covid medications which, after all, never have been mass-tested on humans before and have only gotten “emergency use authorization,” provisional FDA approval. The FDA quickly lifted the pause as J&J agreed to print that its vaccine could cause blood clots.
Yet at the same time, rival vaccine makers, Pfizer and Moderna, both using a hyper-experimental genetic treatment known as mRNA, were not being paused by “the science” despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of alarming vaccine-related severe reactions, including official data of several thousand deaths from both, had been recorded by CDC data base, VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System).
According to the CDC such “adverse” events, post-vaccine, include anaphylaxis, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, myocarditis, pericarditis, and death. For the week of July 16 the CDC VAERS reported an alarming 9,125 reported deaths since late December from the COVID-19 vaccinations. Never in history have such high death totals been associated with any vaccine, yet the media is deafeningly silent about this.
Their dismal science record
The wording of Fauci is precise and deliberately manipulative. It suggests that there exists some fixed thing we can call “The Science,” like some Vatican religious dogma, whereas the real scientific method is one of continuous questioning, overturning past hypotheses with newly proven ones, adjusting. Yet when it comes to “Science,” the handful of giant vaccine makers, sometimes known as Big Pharma, a cartel not unlike Big Oil, have a record of fraud, deliberate doctoring of their own tests, as well as widespread bribing of doctors and medical officials to promote their various drugs despite “Science” results that contradict their assertions of safety. A look at the major global pharmaceutical giants is instructive.
J&J
We begin with the Johnson & Johnson Company of New Jersey. On July 21, 2021 J&J and three other smaller drug makers agreed to pay a staggering $26 billion damages to a group of US states for their role in causing America’s opioid epidemic. Of that J&J will pay $5 billion. The CDC estimates that use of the highly-addictive opioids as painkillers caused at least 500,000 deaths between 1999 and 2019. Johnson & Johnson is accused of pushing the deadly painkillers for excessive use and downplaying their addiction risks. They knew better.
The same J&J is in a huge legal battle for knowingly using a carcinogen in its famous baby powder. A 2018 Reuters investigation found J&J knew for decades that asbestos, a known carcinogen, lurked in its baby powder and other cosmetic talc products. The company is reportedly considering legally splitting its baby powder division into a small separate company that would then declare bankruptcy to avoid large payouts. The J&J covid vaccine, unlike that from Pfizer and Moderna, does not use mRNA genetic alteration.
The two global covid vaccine makers which have by far the largest market to date are the two being personally promoted by Fauci. These are from Pfizer in alliance with the tiny German BioNTech company under the name Comirnaty, and from the US biotech Moderna.
Pfizer
Pfizer, one of the world’s largest vaccine makers by sales, was founded in 1849 in the USA. It also has one of the most criminal records of fraud, corruption, falsification and proven damage. A 2010 Canadian study noted, “Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.” That’s serious. Note that Pfizer has yet to make fully public details of its covid vaccine studies for external examination.
The list of Pfizer crimes has gotten longer since 2010. It is currently engaged in lawsuits related to charges its Zantac heartburn medication is contaminated with a cancer-causing substance. As well, Pfizer received the biggest drug-related fine in US history in 2009 as part of a $2.3 Billion plea deal for mis-promoting medicines Bextra and Celebrex and paying kickbacks to compliant doctors. Pfizer pleaded guilty to the felony of marketing four drugs including Bextra “with the intent to defraud or mislead.” They were forced to withdraw their arthritis painkiller Bextra in the USA and EU for causing heart attacks, strokes, and serious skin disease.
Clearly in a move to boost revenue, Pfizer illegally paid doctors kickbacks for “off-label” use of more than one of its drug which resulted in patients being injured or killed. Among them were Bextra (valdecoxib); Geodon (ziprasidone HCl), an atypical antipsychotic; Zyvox (linezolid), an antibiotic; Lyrica (pregabalin), a seizure medication; its famous Viagra (sildenafil), an erectile dysfunction drug; and Lipitor (atorvastatin), a cholesterol drug.
In another court trial, Pfizer subsidiaries were forced to pay $142 million and release company documents that showed it was illegally marketing gabapentin for off-label use. “Data revealed in a string of U.S. lawsuits indicates the drug was promoted by the drug company as a treatment for pain, migraines and bipolar disorder – even though it wasn’t effective in treating these conditions and was actually toxic in certain cases, according to the Therapeutics Initiative, an independent drug research group at the University of British Columbia. The trials forced the company to release all of its studies on the drug, including the ones it kept hidden.”
In 2004 Pfizer subsidiary Warner-Lambert was forced to pay $430 to settle criminal charges and civil liability arising from its fraudulent marketing practices with respect to Neurontin, its brand for the drug gabapentin. Originally developed for the treatment of epilepsy, Neurontin was illegally promoted off-label for the treatment of neurological pain, and in particular for migraine and bipolar disorder – even though it wasn’t effective in treating these conditions and was actually toxic in some cases. Neurontin for unapproved uses made up some 90% of the $2.7 billion in sales in 2003.
A New York Times report disclosed in 2010 that Pfizer “…paid about $20 million to 4,500 doctors and other medical professionals in the United States for consulting and speaking on its behalf in the last six months of 2009.” It paid another $15.3 million to 250 academic medical centers and other research groups for clinical trials. In the US legal practice it is seldom that corporate executives actually doing the criminal deeds are prosecuted. The result is that court fines can be treated as “business costs” in this cynical milieu. In eight years of repeated malfeasance through 2009, Pfizer accumulated just under $3 billion in fines and civil penalties, about a third of one year’s net revenues.
In 2020 as its covid vaccine was in development, Pfizer paid $13,150,000 in lobbying Congress and officials in Washington among others. Also notable is the fact that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation own shares of both Pfizer and their partner in the leading mRNA vaccine, BioNTech of Germany.
Moderna
The third covid vaccine producer today with FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is Moderna of Cambridge, Massachusetts. It has yet to be sued for illegal practices unlike J&J or Pfizer. But that fact is likely only because before its EUA for its mRNA experimental vaccine, in its ten years existence since 2010 it had failed to get FDA approval to market a single medicine, despite repeated failed attempts. However Moderna has a red neon sign that reads “conflict of interest” that should give pause.
Moderna and Fauci’s NIAID have collaborated on development of vaccines using Moderna’s mRNA platform and NIAID of Fauci on coronaviruses including MERS, since at least November, 2015. On January 13, 2020, before the first case of a supposed Wuhan, China “novel coronavirus” was even detected in the United States, Fauci’s NIAID and Moderna signed an updated cooperation agreement which described them as co-owners of a mRNA based coronavirus and that they had finalized a sequence for mRNA-1273, the vaccine now being given to millions for supposedly averting the novel coronavirus. That means that Fauci’s NIAID and perhaps Fauci personally (it’s allowed in the US) stood to reap huge financial benefits from emergency approval of the Moderna jab, yet Fauci has never admitted to the conflict publicly when he was Trump corona adviser, nor as Biden’s.
Ten days later on January 23, 2020 Moderna announced it was granted funding by CEPI, a vaccine fund created by Bill Gates’ foundation along with Davos WEF among others, to develop an mRNA vaccine for the Wuhan virus.
Moderna was created by a venture capitalist, Noubar Afeyan along with Harvard professor Timothy A. Springer, and others. In 2011 Afeyan recruited French businessman and former Eli Lilly executive Stephane Bancel as CEO of the new Moderna. Despite having no medical or science degree nor any experience running a drug development operation, Bancel lists himself as co-patent holder for a hundred patents of Moderna tied to the different vaccines. Beginning in 2013 the tiny Moderna was receiving grants from the Pentagon to develop its mRNA technology. As of 2020 just prior to its receiving emergency use authorization from the US Government FDA, fully 89% of Moderna revenues were from US Government grants. This is hardly an experienced company yet it holds the fate of millions in its hands. As Fauci says, “Trust the Science.”
In February 2016, an editorial in Nature magazine criticized Moderna for not publishing any peer-reviewed papers on its technology, unlike most other emerging and established biotech companies. The company remains ultra-secretive. That same year, 2016 Moderna got $20 million from the Gates Foundation for vaccine development using mRNA.
Up to its receiving EUA approval for its covid mRNA product in December 2020 Moderna had only made losses since its founding. Then curiously, following a March 2020 personal meeting with then-President Trump where Bancel told the president Moderna could have a vaccine ready in a matter of months Moderna luck changed.
On May 15, Trump announced creation of Operation Warp Seed to rollout a COVID-19 vaccine by December. The head of the Presidential group was a 30-year R&D veteran of the large UK drug firm GSK, Moncef Slaoui. In 2017 Slaoui had resigned from GSK and joined the board of none other than Moderna. Under Slaoui’s Warp Speed, some $22 billion of US taxpayer money was thrown at different vaccine makers. Moderna was a prime recipient, a brazen conflict of interest but nobody seemed to care. Slaoui funneled some $2 billion in government funds to his old company, Moderna, to develop the mRNA covid vaccine. Only under public criticism did Slaoui sell his stock in Moderna, making millions in profit from Moderna’s role as a covid vaccine leading candidate. Shortly after resigning at the end of the Trump presidency, Slaoui was fired by his old firm GSK from a company subsidiary following charges of sexual harassment of a female employee.
In February 2020 Trump Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar, invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) to exempt Moderna, Pfizer, J&J and any future covid makers from any and all liability arising from damage or death caused by their vaccines for the Wuhan coronavirus. The legal protection lasts until 2024. If the vaccines are so good and safe, why is such a measure needed? Azar was former head of the US drug giant Eli Lilly. There are some serious questions that must be raised openly regarding the vaccine makers who are now pushing experimental highly controversial gene-edited formulations in human experiments.
*
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.
We call on our readers and all humanity to question this diabolical “vaccine consensus” imposed by our governments, Big Pharma, the World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation. And the mainstream media is complicit.
This article demonstrates unequivocally that mortality and morbidity has increased dramatically as a result of the vaccine. The incidence of Covid positive cases has also increased.
Let us be under no illusions, it’s not only “experimental”, it’s a Big Pharma “killer vaccine” which modifies the human genome. The evidence of mortality and morbidity resulting from vaccine inoculation both present (official data) and future (e.g. undetected microscopic blood clots) is overwhelming.
Here is a must-watch, totally-truthful, science-based, vaccinology-literate video for anyone who is considering getting a booster (or even an initial) dose of any of the still-experimental, still unproven for long-term safety or efficacy, mRNA Covid-19 inoculations. and then quickly forwarded on to loved ones before one of the many powers-that-be finds a way to shut it down.
VAERS – the American version of the Yellow Card reporting system – released new data bringing the total to 463,457 reports of adverse events following Covid vaccines, including 10,991 deaths and 48,385 serious injuries between December 14th 2020 and July 9th 2021.
We bring to the attention of Global Research readers this important interview of Stew Peters with Karen Kingston, which provides evidence of what’s inside the mRNA vaccine vial.
Dr. McCullough has had one full-year of dedicated academic and clinical efforts in combating the SARS-CoV-2 virus and in doing so, has reviewed thousands of reports, participated in scientific congresses, group discussions, press releases, and has been considered among the world’s experts on COVID-19.
Those who warned that Corona “vaccinations“ were the first step towards the genetic manipulation of humans faced harsh attacks from quality media, politicians and activists who denied this and ridiculed the corresponding fears.
For the past few months, hundreds of amateur videos have been popping up all over social media featuring people who have visibly become electromagnetic following vaccination. After many questions were raised by a number of our members about this “supposed” electromagnetic effect in vaccinated subjects, our association decided to take a concrete interest in this intriguing subject.
A Chanceler alemã Merkel – escreve Alberto Negri (il manifesto, 23 de Julho) – resistiu à pressão de três administrações norte-americanas – Obama, Trump e Biden – para que cancelasse o North Stream 2, o gasoduto que flanqueia o North Stream inaugurado há dez anos, duplicando o fornecimento de gás russo à Alemanha.
Em vez disso, “o South Stream, o gasoduto Eni-Gazprom, fracassou”. Conclui correctamente Negri que Merkel “ganhou a partida que nós perdemos”. Surge imediamente a pergunta: Porque é que a Alemanha ganhou e a Itália perdeu?
O título do Washington Post é significativo: “Os EUA e a Alemanha chegam a um acordo sobre gasoduto russo, pondo fim ao conflito entre aliados”. O acordo, assinado pelo Presidente Biden com a Chanceler Merkel, foi e é fortemente oposto por um grupo bipartidário no Congresso, liderado pelo Senador Republicano J. Risch, que propõe uma lei contra o “perigoso projecto russo”.
Portanto, o acordo é, de facto, uma “trégua” (como o define Negri). Foi a razão pela qual a Administração Biden decidiu pôr fim à “discórdia” que azedava as relações com a Alemanha, um importante aliado da NATO. No entanto, a Alemanha teve de pagar “dividendos” ao patrão USA, comprometendo-se – tal como solicitado pela Secretária de Estado, Victoria Nuland – a “proteger a Ucrânia” (de facto, já parte da NATO) com um fundo de investimento de um bilião de dólares para compensá-la pela redução de receitas, dado que os gasodutos gémeos North Stream passam através do Mar Báltico, contornando o seu território. Como contrapartida, a Alemanha tem, pelo menos por agora, permissão USA para importar 55 biliões de metros cúbicos/ano de gás natural da Rússia.
O gasoduto é gerido pelo consórcio internacional Nord Stream AG, constituído por cinco empresas: Gazprom da Rússia, Wintershall e Pegi/E.On da Alemanha, Nederland’s Gasunie dos Países Baixos e Engie da França. A Alemanha tornou-se assim o centro de energia para a distribuição do gás russo através da rede europeia.
A Itália poderia ter desempenhado o mesmo papel com o gasoduto South Stream. O projecto nasceu em 2006, durante o governo Prodi II, com um acordo entre a Eni e a Gazprom. O gasoduto atravessaria o Mar Negro (em águas territoriais russas, búlgaras e turcas) e continuaria por terra através da Bulgária, Sérvia, Hungria, Eslovénia e Itália até Tarvisio (Udine). A partir daí, o gás seria distribuído através da rede europeia.
A construção do gasoduto começou em 2012. Em Março de 2014, Saipem (Eni) adjudicava um contrato inicial de 2 biliões de euros para a construção da secção submarina. Mas, entretanto, quando o putsch da Praça Maidan precipitava a crise ucraniana, a Administração Obama, em concertação com a Comissão Europeia, moveu-se para afundar o South Stream. Em Junho de 2014, chegava a Sófia uma delegação do Senado dos EUA, chefiada por John McCain, e transmitiu as ordens de Washington ao governo búlgaro. Este último anunciou imediatamente o bloqueio dos trabalhos do South Stream, no qual a Gazprom já tinha investido 4,5 biliões de dólares. Desta forma, a Itália perdeu não só contratos no valor de biliões de euros, mas também a possibilidade de ter no seu território o centro de distribuição do gás russo na Europa, o que teria gerado receitas significativas e o aumento de postos de trabalho.
Porque é que a Itália perdeu tudo isto? Porque o governo Renzi (em funções de 2014 a 2016) e o Parlamento aceitaram de cabeça baixa, a imposição de Washington.
A Alemanha de Merkel, pelo contrário, opôs-se a essa exigência. Iniciou-se, então, a “discussão entre aliados” que forçou Washington a aceitar a duplicação do North Stream, mantendo ao mesmo tempo a pretensão USA de decidir de que países a Europa pode ou não pode importar gás natural. Será que um governo italiano ousaria abrir hostilidades com Washington para defender os nossos interesses nacionais? O facto é que a Itália perdeu não só o gasoduto, como também abdicou da sua soberania.
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).
Naval tensions continue to rise in East Asia. Recent American incursions into the Chinese maritime zone have raised concerns among security experts around the world. Another “freedom of navigation” operation has been carried out along the coast of Taiwan, being strongly repudiated by Beijing. Regardless of any legal aspect of such activities, this type of operation tends to unnecessarily escalate international tensions and should be avoided by any nation committed to global peace.
On Thursday, Beijing accused the US of being the main cause of friction in the Taiwan Strait. According to a statement from the Chinese Army, “The US is the biggest destroyer of peace and stability (…) and the biggest maker of security risks across the Taiwan Strait”. The Army spokesman also mentioned that the troops of the People’s Liberation Army Eastern Theater Command are ready to respond to all foreign threats and provocations, defending Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity. This Command is the Chinese Army’s unit responsible for the security of the Taiwan Strait, which is the coastal strip that separates mainland China from the autonomous island.
The statement was a response to the presence of an American warship in the region this week – the seventh to cross the Taiwanese waterway in 2021. The Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, USS Benfold, sailed through the Strait on Wednesday, carrying out an operation that, according to a US Navy statement, shows Washington’s commitment to freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific, as guaranteed by the rules of international maritime law. This same ship performed a similar maneuver two weeks ago when it navigated through the South China Sea, near the Paracel Islands, which are a disputed territory historically claimed by China (which is why the operation was considered a territorial violation by Beijing).
These cases are not isolated incidents. The so-called “freedom of navigation operations” have become a frequent practice in American naval strategy. Such operations are maneuvers performed by military vessels in a “peaceful” way in tense and disputed maritime zones. The aim is supposedly to “guarantee freedom of navigation”, but in practice this tactic affronts the interests of the nations involved in local disputes. Countries that dispute the coasts consider the operations as territorial violations, which generates more tensions and conflicts. There is no contribution to peace and no guarantee of freedom in this strategy – just unnecessary displays of power and invasions of historically disputed territories.
Particularly on the Chinese coast, the US Navy has exponentially increased the frequency of its operations. Since 2016, more than 30 US vessels sailed within 12 nautical miles of China-controlled islands in the South China Sea. In the Taiwan Straits, the situation is analogous: in 2019, American ships navigated the region on nine occasions; last year, there were fifteen operations; this year, seven cases have been reported so far.
The scenario that is forming is one of encirclement campaign, with American military vessels constantly surrounding the Chinese coast. The aim is to prevent the Chinese government from gaining any real influence in its own maritime zone, obstructing territorial claims, and making Chinese sovereignty unfeasible in the local islands. In addition, there is an intimidating factor, with Washington’s most modern warships showing force in that region.
Taiwan has enhanced its importance in American foreign policy. To harm China, Washington has strengthened its cooperation with the autonomous island. Last month, Raymond Greene, deputy head of the de facto embassy of the American Institute in Taiwan, said: “The United States no longer sees Taiwan as a ‘problem’ in our relations with China, we see it as an opportunity to advance our shared vision for free and open Indo-Pacific and also as a beacon to people around the world who aspire for a more just, safe, prosperous, and democratic world”. It is possible that cooperation will evolve to a more advanced stage, perhaps with formal US diplomatic representation in Taipei – which will certainly be responded by China.
As declared in Wednesday’s statement, the Chinese armed forces are willing to act promptly to neutralize any US maneuver classified as a threat. On several occasions in recent months, American ships navigating the South China Sea have been intercepted by Chinese vessels that forced foreign forces to retreat. Certainly, Beijing will have less tolerance for foreign operations and interceptions will become more frequent. In addition, the Chinese presence abroad is expected to grow significantly, especially in the Caribbean and other regions historically occupied by the US Navy, in response to the US presence in Asia. Countries allied to Washington, such as Japan, can also have their coastlines visited by Chinese ships and, with that we will have the perpetuation of naval tensions.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
Featured image is from US-China Perception Monitor
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Tarsell, a licensed clinical professional counselor in Baltimore, recently appeared on the “Right on Point Podcast” with Wayne Rohde, where she said she didn’t initially connect the HPV vaccine to her daughter’s death.
She described how, after doctors failed to find a cause for Christina’s death, she learned about other deaths and began to compare notes with parents who had similar experiences.
Weeks after receiving Gardasil’s HPV vaccine, Abigail Stratton knew something was wrong. She was eventually diagnosed with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and dysautonomia, which left her with life-altering, debilitating health problems.https://t.co/pLTnSNN4RT
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) July 26, 2021
“It became clear to me there were patterns that were reported by these other parents,” Tarsell said. “When I called my doctor to report Christina’s death, my doctor said I should file a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) report.”
An entire year passed after filing the report before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (which manages VAERS) followed up and requested Christina’s medical records.
“I thought by filing the report, calling the CDC and telling them about my daughter’s death, there would be an investigation,” Tarsell said. “But I quickly found that wasn’t the case.”
Tarsell learned Merck had filed its own report with VAERS — a false explanation that Christina had died from a viral infection.
“No one had ever said that was the cause of death,” Tarsell said.
Tarsell engaged in an exchange of letters with Merck, in which she asked what the drugmaker’s basis was for citing a viral infection as the cause of death.
Merck said the information came from Christina’s doctor’s office — but the doctor’s office denied that, Tarsell said.
Tarsell’s experience led her to start researching VAERS. “I wanted to know more about the reporting process, and if there were patterns,” she said. She queried thousands of VAERS reports and began to notice a pattern.
For example, the CDC was labeling ailments such as cervical cancer, lupus, paralysis of the stomach and autoimmune disorders as “non-serious,” said Emily.
“You don’t even have to be a physician to realize those are serious conditions,” Tarsell said.
Her research led her to co-author a study, published in August 2019, in the journal Science, Public Health Policy and the Law.
The study revealed that VAERS adverse event reports counted a significant proportion of “serious” reactions to the Gardasil HPV vaccine as “non-serious,” thus skewing the vaccine’s safety profile.
When VAERS receives a report, its first step is to decide whether the event is “serious” or “non-serious” based on criteria in the Code of Federal Regulations. VAERS reviewers then categorize the report according to specific symptoms from the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities and record them.
If reviewers incorrectly rate an event as “non-serious,” they cease further investigation. If serious adverse events with severe symptoms happen frequently, then reviewers undertake a more rigorous inquiry.
How accurately do the reviewers of VAERS reports distinguish “serious” from “non-serious” adverse events? When it comes to Merck’s Gardasil HPV vaccine, the answer is “not very,” according to the study authors.
Listen to the podcast to hear Emily discuss her legal journey through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and how she sought compensation for the death of her daughter.
*
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).
There are numerous studies which suggest that there is a surge in Covid-19 positive cases among the vaccinated.
According to Dr. Jospeh Mercola:
In the U.K., symptomatic COVID-19 cases among “vaccinated” individuals have risen 40% in one week, reaching an average rate of 15,537 new infections a day being detected. Meanwhile, symptomatic COVID-19 cases among the unvaccinated has declined by 22% and is now at a current daily average of 17,588
Data show countries with the highest COVID injection rates are also experiencing the greatest upsurges in cases, while countries with the lowest injection rates have the lowest caseloads
An Israeli study confirms that “Most of the People Tested Positive Are Vaccinated“
COVID-19 cases have begun to rise in Israel over the last few weeks, reported Reuters. The outbreaks started in schools among unvaccinated children then began spreading to vaccinated adults.
Last week, Israel recorded an average of 775 new daily cases last week, according to data from Reuters.
This is Israel’s highest number of daily new infections since March, Reuters reported.
Unlike in many other countries, most of the people testing positive in Israel are vaccinated, reported The Washington Post.
But this should not be surprising, according to epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina, per The Washington Post.
“The more vaccinated a population, the more we’ll hear of the vaccinated getting infected,” she said.
Authoritative “scientific statement”? .
What analysts fail to mention is that the methodology used to generate these so called positive cases (indicating an increase in covid positive cases among the vaccinated) is dependent upon the WHO sponsored Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) test.
While the estimates of the rRT-PCR have been questioned from the very outset,it is now confirmed by the WHO in a January 20, 2021 advisory that the rRT-PCR test adopted as a means to detecting the SARS-COV-2 virus cases is TOTALLY invalid. In this regard, the WHO is categorical (January 20, 2021): the PCR test at 35+ cycles (amplification) threshold does not under any circumstances constitute a means to detecting SARS-CoV-2.
And consequently all statements regarding trends in covid 19 positive cases among the vaccinated or unvaccinated simply do not make sense. Nor do these statements pertaining to the variants make sense.
There’s nonetheless a contradiction which needs to be addressed. Why do the vaccinated persons exhibit an increase in Covid positive cases?
I would suggest the following. The conduct of sample surveys which differentiate between two distinct categories of individuals:
vaccinated individuals who experience adverse health effects (and seek medical attention)
vaccinated individuals who are in perfect health.
Let us examine the issue from the standpoint of a vaccinated individual (category 1) who goes home and then a week or two later feels sick and seeks medical attention at a health clinic or at the hospital where he/she was vaccinated.
At the clinic, the vaccinated person who seeks medical assistance will invariably be subjected to a medical diagnosis as well as a to routine RT-PCR test, which we know is flawed and invalid.
The vaccinated person tests positive or is diagnosed as a probable Covid positive. And the numbers of covid positive cases assigned to the “vaccinated” goes up.
Even if the patient does not undergo the test, the person may have symptoms of injuries or adverse effects resulting from the vaccine and these symptoms may be tagged as a probable Covid-19 case with or without the test.
And bear in mind, the hospitals are instructed to avoid recording vaccine related injuries and “adverse effects”.
It should be understood that this medical diagnosis and RT-PCR test would not have been administered to a healthy vaccinated person (category 2) who continues a normal life and who does seeks medical attention.
So we are dealing with a statistical issue.
In other words, this does not prove that a probable diagnosis or a recorded Covid positive cases have increased among the vaccinated.
What it suggests is that there is a surge in probable covid-19 cases and/or covid positive PCR results of people who are vaccinated with “adverse effects” and who return to a clinic or a hospital for medical assistance, where medical diagnosis is undertaken and where the RT-PCR test is routinely administered.
To establish the cause of this tendency among vaccinated, a sample survey with the two distinct categories mentioned above should be envisaged.
Is this surge in so-called recorded Covid cases among the vaccinated attributable to the vaccine or to the virus?
What it suggests a priori is that those vaccinated who seek medical attention are casually being diagnosed and test as Covid positive when in fact they may be suffering from the “adverse effects” of the vaccine.
The cause of this phenomenon should be analyzed by a simple sample survey which distinguishes between vaccinated persons who have health problems following the vaccination and who seek medical attention and those vaccinated individuals who are in perfect health.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 30, 2021
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Observers are divided over whether Tunisian President Kais Saied‘s controversial decision on Sunday to suspend parliament for 30 days as well as its members’ legal immunity, remove the Prime Minister, and take over the general prosecutor’s office with support of the military – which blocked off parliament and the state television station – was an anti-constitutional coup or a legal last-ditch effort to save the state per the vague powers vested within him by Article 80 in response to increasingly chaotic socio-economic protests.
The cradle of the theater-wide Color Revolution campaign popularly described nowadays as the “Arab Spring” is once again the center of global attention after Tunisian President Kais Saied’s controversial decision on Sunday. The democratically elected leader who’s only been in office for less than two years suspended parliament for 30 days as well as its members’ legal immunity, removed the Prime Minister who represents the parliament’s largest party Ennahada that’s denied prior accusations of its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and took over the general prosecutor’s office with support of the military, which blocked off parliament and the state television station.
President Saied defended his decision on the basis of the vague powers vested within him by Article 80 and thus presented his efforts as a legal last-ditch attempt to save the state in response to increasingly chaotic socio-economic protests. That relevant part of the constitution reads that “In the event of imminent danger threatening the nation’s institutions or the security or independence of the country, and hampering the normal functioning of the state, the President of the Republic may take any measures necessitated by the exceptional circumstances”. Furthermore, the Speaker of Parliament or thirty of its representatives could call upon the Constitutional Court to review this decision within 30 days of it entering into force.
There are two legal problems with President Saied’s decision: (1) Article 80 doesn’t explicitly stipulate the course of action that he ultimately undertook; and (2) the Constitutional Court for adjudicating such disputes has yet to be established. It’s for this reason that his opponents accused him of staging an anti-constitutional coup. Financial Times quoted senior Ennahda official Saied Ferjani who speculated that the UAE, Egypt, and France were behind President Saied’s move. The Turkish Foreign Ministry, which is considered supportive of Ennahda for ideological reasons due to the group’s alleged alignment with the Muslim Brotherhood that Ankara backs throughout the region, said in a written statement that it’s “deeply concerned” by what just happened.
President Saied’s supporters at home and abroad hailed his decision for supposedly emulating that of Egyptian President Sisi nearly a decade ago when he decisively moved against the Muslim Brotherhood’s control of his country. It’s relevant to mention that the Tunisian authorities also stormed Al Jezeera’s office in Tunis, which has been accused by some of sympathizing with the Muslim Brotherhood due to its Qatari state patron’s support of the group. The optics certainly suggest that this was a coordinated military move legitimized by President Saied’s controversial invocation of the vague powers vested within him by Article 80 to crush what they and their alleged foreign allies seem to regard as the Muslim Brotherhood’s Ennahda proxy.
The domestic and international context in which this happened is also pertinent to keep in mind. Tunisia experienced increasingly chaotic socio-economic protests the day of the decision. The growing destabilization could have naturally presented fertile ground for extremist groups and/or their political proxies to seize power or at the very least provoke further unrest. This isn’t exclusive to Tunisia is but is simply part of the dynamics associated with such protests, especially in the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region per the precedent set a decade ago during the so-called “Arab Spring”. It’s unclear whether the protests were organized or organic, but all that’s important is that they appeared to be reaching a dangerous climax before Sunday evening’s decision.
The international context is such that there’s a theater-wide rivalry occurring at the moment between the Muslim Brotherhood that’s backed by Turkey & Qatar and the comparatively more secular authorities supported by the UAE, Egypt, and France. Libya was the latest flashpoint between them prior to Sunday, but the ideological situation there and elsewhere across MENA can be described as complicated. These societies are divided between very passionate supporters of both camps. There’s also differing degrees of state suppression against their opponents depending on which of them is in power in any given country. Muslim Brotherhood supporters regard secular governments as dictatorships while the latter’s regard the group as terrorists.
As it stands, the secular Tunisian authorities seem to have at the very least temporarily neutralized Ennahda’s political power in parliament with full support from the military, which is also maintaining control of the situation in the streets, but it’s unclear whether this legally constitutes a coup or not due to the fact that the Constitutional Court hasn’t yet been established to adjudicate such. The most accurate assessment that an observer can make is that both camps have compelling points: President Saied’s are correct to claim that the situation was truly “exceptional” and posed an “imminent danger” to the state while their opponents are also right to describe it as an unprecedented political move against Ennahda.
What remains to be unseen is whether the authorities and/or their military backers level charges against Ennahada’s parliamentary representatives whose legal immunity was just suspended together with their peers’. The basis for such can only be speculated upon in that scenario at this time but could possibly involve some sort of accusations related to an alleged attempt to seize power and/or cavort with terrorist groups. Ennahda’s political future is also uncertain since it might theoretically be banned on national security pretexts or at the very least purged of its most popular and/or ideological members on the aforementioned legal basis. Another unknown is whether some Ennahda sympathizers will resort to unconventional warfare/terrorism.
Looking ahead, the next week or two will of course be pivotal per the precept of Steven R. Mann’s 1992 article about “Chaos Theory And Strategic Thought”. He postulated that the initial conditions disproportionately shape the outcome of complex processes such as what the chain of events that President Saied set into motion can be described as. It’ll also be worthwhile to keep an eye on any foreign support that he, the military, and/or Ennahda receive during this time, especially tangible manifestations thereof such as arms. Even in the best-case scenario that nothing dramatic transpires again anytime soon, stability might only be illusory since it’s possible that some members of the opposition will become radicalized by what happened and push back at a later date.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on OneWorld.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
In April 2021, a military court in Burkina Faso indicted former president Blaise Compaoré and thirteen co-conspirators for the murder of Thomas Sankara, the country’s revolutionary socialist leader from 1983 to 1987. Sankara was a pan-Africanist who was committed to continental unity and self-sufficiency for the Burkinabé people, including through the nationalization of Burkina Faso’s mineral wealth and precious metals. For his efforts, the French government conspired with Ivory Coast president Fêlix Houphouët-Boigny to remove him. On October 15, 1987, Compaoré (who up until that point had been a top advisor to Sankara) led the coup against him. As a reward for murdering his former ally at the behest of France, he spent a comfortable 27 years in power until popular uprisings in 2014 forced to him to flee the country.
Guyanese intellectual Walter Rodney argues that the industrialization of Europe was dependent on the expatriation of surplus from the African continent. In short, he wrote, “the development of Europe [was] part of the same dialectical process in which Africa was underdeveloped.” When national liberation movements brought formal colonialism to an end across the continent, this underdevelopment continued, but under the guise of what Ghanaian independence leader Kwame Nkrumah called “neo-colonialism.” Nkrumah writes that “the essence of neo-colonialism is that the State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty [but] its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside.”
The Global North applied pressure on the newly freed countries to keep their markets open, forcing them, sometimes through the murder of popular leaders, to neoliberalize their economies for the benefit of Western capital.
In recent decades, Canada has played an outsized role in this process of underdevelopment—not through the direct overthrow of socialist governments and the propping-up of right-wing dictatorships, but through its exploitative investment in countries which have already had this economic agenda imposed on them by more overtly imperialist powers.
Burkina Faso is one of Africa’s top gold producers—the precious metal accounts for approximately 60 percent of its global exports—and according to the Embassy of Canada to Burkina Faso and Benin, Canada is the largest mining investor in the country. By 2014 Canada became Burkina Faso’s largest source of foreign direct investment. Canadian firms own half the gold mines in the country and mining assets worth over $3 billion (about $2.5 billion USD). For perspective, the Rwanda-based Africa Improved Foods (AIF) estimates that it would cost just $5 billion USD to make the African continent self-sufficient in food production and eliminate hunger. A higher estimate, given by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), argues that an extra $1 billion in aid every year until 2030 would end hunger in Ghana, Malawi, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. According to the latter figure, the value of Canadian corporate holdings in Burkina Faso is equal to two and a half years of hunger elimination in all seven nations.
The Canadian mining industry usually brings social and ecological devastation wherever it chooses to set up shop, such as in the case of the Tarpako mine (owned by Toronto-based High River Gold), the establishment of which meant “the expropriation of peasant land; destruction of traditional gold mining, the main activity of the villagers; the emergence of a water crisis; rise in the cost of living; and intense monitoring by private security guards.” These mines also fuel food insecurity as a result of the removal of peasants from their property and the subsequent destruction of their land, as well as the trafficking and forced prostitution of women from around Africa, especially Nigeria.
The most prominent Canadian companies with investment in gold extraction in Burkina Faso are High River Gold (Toronto), Barrick Gold (Toronto), Iamgold Corporation (Toronto), Tajiri (Vancouver), Roxgold (Toronto), and Semafo (Montreal). Semafo in particular was known for its egregious practices across West Africa: it was very close with the Compaoré regime, engaging in violent strike-breaking in Niger, while evading nearly $10 million in taxes in Guinea. In 2020, the scandal-plagued company was acquired by Endeavour Mining, a multinational based in the Cayman Islands. The Vancouver-based True Gold Mining Inc., which operated a gold mine in Burkina Faso, was also purchased by Endeavour in 2016.
Partly due to the fact Canadian mining companies own $2.5 billion of Burkina Faso’s gold resources, the country remains one of Africa’s most underdeveloped nations. Over 40 percent of people live below the national poverty line. Hunger rates are rising every year, and in 2020 the World Food Program reported that tens of millions people are facing acute food insecurity in Burkina Faso. Development is obviously not a priority of the state: since the overthrow of Sankara’s revolutionary government, the country consistently ranks near the bottom of the United Nations’ Human Development Index (HDI). In 2019, Burkina Faso ranked 182 of 189 countries included in the Index—three places below Yemen, whose famine is commonly cited as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.
One of the most important reasons for Burkina Faso’s dire situation is Compaoré’s reversal of Sankara’s state monopoly on the country’s minerals and precious metals. Almost immediately after taking power in 1987, Compaoré passed neoliberal laws which privatized large sections of the Burkinabé mining industry, continuing the cycle of underdevelopment from which Sankara sought to free his country.
The latest disclosures from the Oslo-based Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) are illustrative of this decline: they show that in 2016, the Burkinabé government received $407 million through the taxation of the gold industry. When one takes into account the fact that Burkina Faso is estimated to contain 154 metric tonnes of gold, one can clearly see the disparity. Over the past decade, the price of a metric tonne of gold has fluctuated significantly, but always hovered around $60 million USD. Therefore, roughly speaking, the government’s taxation program only recoups five percent of the value of its gold industry. When one factors in export revenues, this rises to about 10 percent. Statistics from 2017 confirm these facts: of the 46 tonnes produced in the country that year, 41.4 were sent abroad by multinationals and smugglers. In other words, $2.5 billion of the $2.8 billion produced by the gold industry in 2017—over 90 percent—was taken from the Burkinabé people.
Sankara understood the dynamics of this global looting. In a speech to the UN General Assembly in 1984, he said “it is [African] blood that nourished the rise of capitalism, that made possible our present condition of dependence and consolidated our underdevelopment.” If he had been able to demonstrate what could be accomplished by liberating one’s country from this perpetual poverty, his example would have gained influence across the continent, and the Global North would have lost control of Africa’s resources. It is through the blood of popular leaders and the suffering of working people that underdevelopment persists—and although France and its allies in the region did the dirty work back in 1987, Canadian industry has been parasitically reaping the rewards ever since.
*
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.
Owen Schalk is a writer based in Winnipeg. His areas of interest include post-colonialism and the human impact of the global neoliberal economy.
Featured image: A soldier patrols the streets of Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, October 2018. Photo by Issouf Sanogo.
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).
Lawyers representing a woman suffering from cancer are prepared to face off against Monsanto and its German owner Bayer AG in a California courtroom on Monday in what is set as the fourth trial over allegations Monsanto’s popular Roundup weed killers cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).
Jury selection in the case of Donnetta Stephens v. Monsanto is expected to take several days and the trial itself is expected to last up to eight weeks. Judge Gilbert Ochoa of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County in California is overseeing the proceedings.
Monsanto has lost three out of three previous trials, with a jury in the last trial – held in 2019 – ordering a staggering $2 billion in damages due to what the jury saw as egregious conduct by Monsanto in failing to warn users of evidence – including numerous scientific studies – showing a connection between its products and cancer. (The award was later shaved to $87 million.)
Lawyers for Stephens say that she was a regular user of Roundup herbicide for more than 30 years and it was that extended exposure to the glyphosate-based products made popular by Monsanto that caused her NHL.
Stephens was diagnosed in 2017 and has suffered from numerous health complications amid multiple rounds of chemotherapy since then. Because of her poor health, a judge in December granted Stephens a trial “preference,” meaning her case was expedited, after her lawyers informed the court that Stephens is “in a perpetual state of pain,” and losing cognition and memory.
She is one of tens of thousands of plaintiffs who filed U.S. lawsuits against Monsanto after the World Health Organization’s cancer experts classified glyphosate – the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicides – as a probable human carcinogen with an association to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Judge Ochoa has made several pretrial rulings, including agreeing with Monsanto that federal law regarding pesticide regulation and labeling preempts “failure to warn” claims under state law and Stephens’ lawyers would not be able to pursue such claims.
The plaintiffs still will be able to argue that separate from the labeling issues, Monsanto could have, and should have, warned consumers about the potential cancer risk in other ways, according to Stephens’ lawyer Fletcher Trammell. He and Stephens’ other lawyers will seek to prove their claims that Monsanto made an unsafe herbicide product and knowingly pushed it into the marketplace despite scientific research showing glyphosate-based herbicides could cause cancer.
Monsanto was purchased by Bayer AG in 2018 and is no longer a stand-alone company but is the named defendant in ongoing litigation. Bayer insists, just as Monsanto has for decades, that there is no valid evidence of a cancer connection between its weed killing products and cancer.
Questions for the Jury
Jury selection is deemed a critical part of any trial and as the opposing sides look at the pool of prospective jurors for the Stephens trial they will be screening them for signs of bias. According to a jury questionnaire, among the questions jurors are to be asked are these:
Do you believe most companies’ scientific studies regarding safety are altered to further a specific agenda?
Do you have any opinions about how well most corporations communicate safety information about their products to the public?
Do you, or does anyone close to you, have any health problems or concerns resulting from any products you or they have used or been around?
Do you believe that any exposures to hazardous chemicals, no matter how small, is harmful to humans?
The jurors who are selected will face a daunting amount of evidence, including scientific studies and internal Monsanto records. The list of evidence, in the form of ‘exhibits’ to be presented at trial, runs more than 250 pages and includes many damning Monsanto emails and other documents that led a federal judge who has been overseeing nationwide Roundup litigation to state in a recent order that the trials have provided “a good deal of damning evidence against Monsanto—evidence which suggested that Monsanto never seemed to care whether its product harms people.”
There also will be many witnesses involved in the trial. Stephens’ lawyers have listed 39 people they intend to call to testify, including deposition testimony of Monsanto scientist Donna Farmer, former Monsanto Chairman Hugh Grant, and multiple other Monsanto executives.
Monsanto’s witness list includes many of the company’s executives and scientists as well as former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official Jess Rowland, who has been revealed as an ally and friend to the company in the ongoing litigation. Monsanto has listed a total of 32 individuals as witnesses for the defense.
Bayer Looking for a Win
In the first trial against Monsanto, a unanimous jury awarded plaintiff Dewayne Johnson $289 million; the plaintiff in the second trial was awarded $80 million; and the jury in the third trial awarded more than $2 billion to husband-and-wife plaintiffs. All the awards were reduced sharply by judges involved in the cases but the verdicts assigning blame to Monsanto for the cancers have not been overturned.
Bayer sees the preemption argument as critical to its ability to limit the ongoing litigation liability. The company has made it clear that it hopes at some point to get a U.S. Supreme Court finding that under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the EPA’s position that Monsanto’s herbicides are not likely to cause cancer essentially bars complaints that Monsanto didn’t warn of any cancer risk.
Even as it pursues a preemption ruling, Bayer said last year that it had agreed to pay close to $11 billion to settle existing Roundup cancer claims. But many law firms have dismissed the individual offers for their clients as insufficient, and they continue to press for more trials.
Bayer said recently it is considering pulling Roundup products from the U.S. market for residential users, though not from farm use.
*
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: Yann Avril | Credit: Pixavril – stock.adobe.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).
Iceland’s chief epidemiologist has suggested that some COVID-19 lockdown restrictions may remain in place for as long as fifteen years.
Yes, really.
Þórólfur Guðnason, a doctor who serves as the Chief Epidemiologist of the Icelandic Directorate of Health, was quizzed by journalist Esther Hallsdóttir how long the rules should continue.
Guðnason was,
“Asked if there is no clear way out of the epidemic, now that measures are being proposed despite vaccinations, and whether we could be on the verge of restrictions over the next five, ten or fifteen years.”
His response was in the affirmative.
Despite a 75% vaccination rate, Iceland's top epidemiologist agrees that restrictions may be required for the next "five, ten or fifteen years."https://t.co/ZYixOfPq0O
“It can be quite like that, no one can say with certainty what the future will be like. That’s what we’re always been saying, too, that there’s no predictability in this,” said Guðnason.
“It is nothing new and many people complain that it is not possible to bring predictability in operations and such, but it is not possible when the virus is unpredictable and something new comes up that changes what you thought a few months ago,” he added.
As we previously highlighted, SAGE government advisor and proud Communist Party member Susan Michie went even further, asserting that things like social distancing and mask mandates should last “forever.”
Another doctor in the UK who wants lockdown to remain in place indefinitely lamented that, “sadly, it can’t be forever.”
As we highlighted earlier this month, British author Peter Hitchens warned that if people continued to blithely accept lockdown restrictions, their grandchildren will still be wearing masks in 2050 and no one will remember why.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
We summarize the findings of an animal study which Pfizer submitted to the Japanese health authorities in 2020, and which pertained to the distribution and elimination of a model mRNA vaccine. We show that this study clearly presaged grave risks of blood clotting and other adverse effects. The failure to monitor and assess these risks in the subsequent clinical trials, and the grossly negligent review process in conjunction with the emergency use authorizations, have predictably resulted in an unprecedented medical disaster.
1. Introduction and background
As with any drug, a key consideration for the toxicity of the COVID mRNA vaccines is where exactly in the body they end up, and for how long they will stay there. Such questions, which are the subject of pharmacokinetics, are usually thoroughly investigated and during drug development. Initial studies on pharmacokinetics and also on toxicity are carried out in animals. If the outcome is favourable, similar experiments will be performed on a small number of human volunteers. Only after such preliminary studies have been successfully concluded will proper clinical trials be approved, which will then determine whether the drug or vaccine in question has the desired clinical efficacy.
Because of the officially sanctioned haste and systematic gross negligence in the development and approval of the COVID-19 vaccines, our knowledge of their pharmacokinetics is sketchy. The only somewhat detailed animal study that has reached the public pertains to the Pfizer vaccine [1, 2]. These data were publicized after Pfizer had filed them with the Health authorities in Japan when applying for emergency use authorization of its vaccine in that country.1 These data pertained in particular to the distribution of the vaccine within the body after injection and to its elimination from the body. Even though far from being comprehensive or even adequate, this document has rather far-reaching implications: it shows that Pfizer— as well as the authorities that were apprised of these data— must have recognized the grave risks of adverse events after vaccination even before the onset of clinical trials. Nevertheless, Pfizer’s own clinical trials failed to monitor any of the clinical risks that were clearly evident from these data, and the regulatory authorities failed to enforce proper standards of oversight. This dual failure has caused the most grievous harm to the public.
Before we discuss this study and its implications in detail, we will briefly review how the Pfizer mRNA vaccine works. These explanations also apply to the Moderna mRNA vaccine, whereas the AstraZeneca and the Johnson & Johnson vaccines differ in some aspects.
1.1 How the mRNA COVID vaccines work
The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines consist of a synthetic messenger RNA (mRNA) that encodes the SARS-CoV-2 “spike protein,” which normally is found on the surface of the coronavirus particles. This mRNA is coated with a mixture of synthetic lipids (fat-like molecules) that protect it during transport within the body, and which also facilitate its uptake into the target cells through endocytosis.
After the vaccine has entered a cell, it initially finds itself enclosed by a mem- brane vesicle—a little bubble that was pinched off from the cell membrane. The subsequent accumulation of acid inside this bubble causes the lipids to be stripped off, and the mRNA to be released into the cytosol (the intracellular fluid); this release step is facilitated by the cationic lipid ALC-0315 (see later). The mRNA then binds to ribosomes—the cell’s little protein factories—and induces the synthesis of the actual spike protein molecules. Most of the spike protein molecules will then be transported to the cell surface.
Once it appears there, it will be recognized by B-lymphocytes (B-cells), which will then start making antibodies to it.2 Furthermore, some part of the spike protein can also be cleaved off by proteases on the cell surface and released from the cell. If this happens within the circulation, the released fragment—referred to as S1—can bind to blood platelets (thrombocytes) and activate them. In this manner, the spike protein directly promotes blood clotting.
As with any protein that is synthesized within the cell, a small number of mole- cules will undergo fragmentation, and the fragments will be presented on the cell surface in association with specific (HLA-) carrier proteins. The purpose of this mechanism is immune surveillance—as soon as fragments show up of some protein which the immune system does not recognize as “self,” an immune response will be mounted against that protein and against the cells that produce it. This response is mediated by cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (CTLs, T-killer cells).
In mounting its cytotoxic response, the immune system will not distinguish between a true virus infection and the expression of an mRNA vaccine—as long as the spike protein fragments appear on the cell, the killer cells will be on the march. If the vaccine is expressed in the cells that line the blood vessels—the endothelial cells—the vascular lesion caused by the immune attack will again set off blood clotting. Thus, we have at least two distinct paths toward blood clotting after vaccination.
1.2 The lipid-coated mRNA vaccines acquire an apolipoprotein “corona”
Lipoprotein particles occur naturally in the bloodstream and within the tissues of our body. They consist of a core of lipids that is surrounded with a shell of proteins called apolipoproteins. Their purpose is to transport lipids such as cholesterol and triacylglycerol (regular fat) between organs. For example, a specific type of lipoprotein called chylomicrons transports dietary fats after they have been taken up in the small intestine. Other lipoproteins called VLDL and LDL distribute fats that have been synthesized in the liver to other organs and tissues.
The various apolipoproteins that encase the lipoproteins stabilize the particles, and they also serve as “address tags” that bind to receptor molecules on cell surfaces. This interaction will trigger the uptake of the lipoproteins into those cells. Artificial lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) like those used in the COVID mRNA vaccines can acquire a shell—a “corona”—of the body’s own apolipoprotein molecules [3]. This enables these vaccines to be taken up into the cells of our body, too.
The liver has a central place in lipid and lipoprotein metabolic turnover. Accordingly, liver cells are rich in specific surface receptor molecules which mediate lipoprotein uptake, suggesting that they will efficiently take up LNPs decorated with apolipoproteins also. This is indeed the case. However, other organs have high rates of lipoprotein uptake, too, and they must therefore be expected to accumulate the apolipoprotein-decorated vaccine LNPs as well.
1.3 Receptor-mediated cellular uptake of lipoproteins and of vaccines
This slide illustrates the role of cellular receptors and the apolipoproteins in facili- tating the uptake of vaccines into cells through endocytosis. They bind to the same cellular receptors as the regular lipoprotein particles do, and they subsequently get taken up in the same manner. The subsequent events—release of the mRNA and protein synthesis—have already been discussed above.
1.4 Transcytosis of lipoproteins from the bloodstream into the tissues
All substrate exchange between the tissues and the bloodstream occurs in the capil- laries. In these finest of all blood vessels, the blood is separated from the extracel- lular matrix of the tissues by only one cellular layer—namely, the endothelial cells. The capillary wall permits free passage only to small molecules such as for example blood sugar (glucose) or amino acids. The lipoproteins, which are far larger, must be transported across the capillary wall by transcytosis. In this two-stage process, endocytosis on one side of the cell is followed by exocytosis, that is, by release of the particles, which occurs on the other side.
While this figure shows transcytosis from the bloodstream to the tissue, the process actually works in both directions. In this manner, cells in the tissues can avail themselves of cholesterol carried by circulating LDL, but they can also return surplus cholesterol through the bloodstream to the liver via other lipoproteins (HDL).
Transcytosis will also apply to the “corona”-decorated vaccine LNPs and enable them to reach the tissues in various organs. Reverse transcytosis of vaccine might contribute to its uptake from the muscle tissue into the circulation after injection (see below).
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
“Most of the People Tested Positive Are Vaccinated“: What is the significance of this statement.
What analysts fail to mention is that the methodology used to generate these so called positive cases (indicating an increase in covid positive cases among the vaccinated) is dependent upon the WHO sponsored Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) test.
While the estimates of the rRT-PCR have been questioned from the very outset,it is now confirmed by the WHO in a January 20, 2021 advisory that the rRT-PCR test adopted as a means to detecting the SARS-COV-2 virus cases is TOTALLY invalid.
And consequently all statements regarding trends in covid 19 positive cases of the vaccinated or unvaccinated simply do make sense. Nor do the statements pertaining to the variants.
There certainly is a contradiction which needs to be addressed. But analysts continue to rely on PCR estimates to make their authoritative statements.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 30, 2021
***
Israel — the poster child for COVID-19 vaccination and the first country to reach herd immunity — has seen a recent rise in cases. Recently, most of the people testing positive are vaccinated, reported The Washington Post.
The trend has brought a slew of questions about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines and the implications of new strains for future outbreaks. While these trends initially seem like cause for vaccine skepticism, a closer look at Israel’s current outbreaks shows that vaccines are effective and working — even against the delta variant.
Let’s unpack the situation.
What’s happening in Israel’s coronavirus outbreak?
About a month ago, Israel celebrated what seemed like the end of its domestic pandemic. The country dropped all coronavirus restrictions, including mask mandates and social distancing requirements, reported Reuters. Unfortunately, the celebration was premature.
COVID-19 cases have begun to rise in Israel over the last few weeks, reported Reuters. The outbreaks started in schools among unvaccinated children then began spreading to vaccinated adults.
Last week, Israel recorded an average of 775 new daily cases last week, according to data from Reuters.
This is Israel’s highest number of daily new infections since March, Reuters reported.
The average number of weekly hospital admissions is currently 120 people, according to The Washington Post.
The country has reimposed mask mandates, social distancing requirements and quarantines for everyone arriving in Israel.
Just like in many other countries, the recent outbreak has been driven by the more contagious and “more vaccine-resistant” delta variant, reported The Washington Post.
Who is testing positive for COVID-19 in Israel?
Unlike in many other countries, most of the people testing positive in Israel are vaccinated, reported The Washington Post.
But this should not be surprising, according to epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina, per The Washington Post.
“The more vaccinated a population, the more we’ll hear of the vaccinated getting infected,” she said.
And Israel has one of the most vaccinated populations in the world. About 60% of the nation’s entire population of 9.3 million has received at least one vaccine dose, reported Reuters. Among adults, about 85% have been vaccinated which means that Israel’s vaccinated community is five times larger than its unvaccinated community.
“Countries with high vaccination will see mostly vaccinated people getting ill from COVID,” wrote Arieh Kovler, a political analyst, on Hat Tip.
The people who are not testing positive in the current outbreak are those who have had COVID-19 previously and recovered. These people account for 9% of Israel’s population but less than 1% of recent infections, according to Kovler’s analysis. This has brought new questions about whether natural infections are more protective against the delta variant than vaccinations — but the answer is not yet certain.
What does Israel’s experience show about vaccines?
The Israel Health Ministry’s data analysis has produced some new estimates about the effectiveness of Pfizer vaccines, according to The Washington Post:
In protecting against infection, Pfizer vaccines are 95% effective for the alpha variant but only 64% effective for the delta variant.
In preventing symptomatic COVID-19 cases, Pfizer vaccines are 97% effective for the alpha variant but only 64% effective for the delta variant.
In preventing hospitalization and serious disease, Pfizer vaccines are 97.5% effective for the alpha variant and still 93% effective for the delta variant.
While the Pfizer vaccine is less effective against the delta variant, the vaccine’s effectiveness still far exceeds the 50% vaccine efficacy threshold required for WHO approval, according to the organization’s website.
“Just because a variant emerges that renders the vaccines less effective doesn’t mean those vaccines weren’t effective in the first place,” according to The Washington Post.
What is Israel’s post-vaccination outbreak like compared to pre-vaccination?
While vaccinated people are testing positive and being hospitalized in Israel’s delta outbreak, the current post-vaccination outbreak is only a fraction of the country’s worst pre-vaccination outbreak in January, reported The Washington Post.
Hospitalizations during the current outbreaks are less than one-sixteenth of January’s peak, per The Washington Post. Put differently, Israel is currently averaging 120 weekly hospital admissions. In January, the country averaged 2,000 weekly hospital admissions.
Most importantly, admission to intensive care units for severe COVID-19 cases is less than one-twentieth the number of admissions in January.
Israel: Evidence for vaccine effectiveness against Delta
Percent of cases that turn critically ill is now 1.6%, compared to 4% at a similar stage in the 3rd wave when there were no vaccines
“We estimate that we won’t reach high waves of severe cases like in previous waves,” said Israel’s health ministry’s director-general, Nachman Ash, per Reuters.
What does Israel’s experience mean for other countries?
“Israel is as good an example of vaccine efficacy as just about anywhere in the world,” according to The Washington Post. “The delta variant means the virus will probably continue to spread, even among vaccinated people and even in a strongly vaccinated country, such as Israel.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from America’s Frontline Doctors
His jailing also has nothing to do with the fact that Murray has embarrassed the British state more recently by reporting the woeful and continuing 
