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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

UPDATE: Just received this from an accomplished highly intelligent attorney I have known for many years:

“I have just spent 10 hours a day In the hospital with my son since July 2, he is now stable but essentially went into A Fib they cannot fix now because of a clot (vaccine induced I am sure) after being sick 10 days following his second Pfizer shot. It’s too much to go into now, we almost lost him. He’s 32. No history of hypertension or heart problems. Vegetarian.“

It is happening all over. See, for example, this.

There are a huge number of cases of life-threatening reactions to the “safe” vaccine, especially among the young. Yet the social media “fact checkers”, facebook, twitter and google continue to deplatform those who give the alarm. That part of the medical profession that blindly without thought follow the Big Pharma “guidelines” issued by NIH, FDA, CDC, and WHO are accomplices to murder.

The idiot people overcome by orchestrated fear have ruined the health of a large percentage of the population.

In this 25 minute video Dr. Ryan Cole explains the adverse impact on the human body of the spike protein that is characteristic of both the Covid virus and the vaccine. Most people are not in serious danger from the virus. These people should not expose themselves to the danger of the vaccine. See this.

Click screen below to view

 

The failure of public health authorities to treat Covid with known safe inexpensive treatments enabled the generation of fear and panic that supported mass vaccination with an untested and unapproved experimental technology.

This primarily benefited Big Pharma’s profits and government encroachments on civil liberty and has harmed public trust in government and health authorities.

The vaccine adverse reporting system, which at best captures only 10% of vaccine-induced injuries—shows more death and injuries from the experimental Covid vaccine than from all vaccines combined over the past 30 years. Never before in history has a vaccine with such a high death and injury rate been permitted to be administered.

The facts have been kept from the people.

Big Pharma has enough scientists on its payroll and supported by its research grants that their careers force them to serve as advocates for Big Pharma’s agendas.

The presstitutes follow the hired scientists, not the independent ones. The American medical profession in general lost its independence because of Obamacare. After Obamacare hospitals bought up independent practices. One consequence has been the reliance of doctors on NIH, CDC, FDA, WHO guidelines—guidelines heavily influenced by Big Pharma’s interests—instead of thinking for themselves about how to treat patients. As so many medical practitioners are employees of large organizations, relying on official guidelines is a form of protection. In other words, Obamacare produced more bureaucratization of medicine.

It is the doctors and scientists who think for themselves who have devised the cures for Covid and who have raised the questions of the vaccine’s safety. As they are individuals and not large official organizations, they are outgunned by the material interests of the organized groups.

In place of debate and examination of the data there is the suppression of the evidence. Doctors and scientists who raise issues are censored and deplatformed.

A recent example is the resignation of scientists on the board of the professional journal Vaccines to force retraction of a peer-reviewed article that compared deaths from Covid with deaths from the vaccine.

Some who resigned were involved in the development of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine or had research grants from Big Pharma. They claimed the article was faulty because it assumed all deaths following vaccination were caused by the vaccine. Of course, these same scientists did not complain when all deaths from flu, co-morbidities, and all other causes were attributed to Covid in order to create fear in the public that would cause people to line up for the untested experimental vaccine. See this.

Even the inventor of the mRNA technology that is used in the vaccine has been erased for warning of the dangers of the technology. See this.

In the United States today there is no longer any debate or examination of evidence. In universities, in print and TV media, and among scientists funded by interest groups and government, there is no debate. There is an official narrative and everything else is off-limits.

This is how we got a Covid pandemic, which never existed, and this is how we got half the population injected with an experimental technology about which scientists were mistaken. The spike in the vaccine has not remained at the point of injection but against expectations moves throughout the body, concentrating in the ovaries, causing blood clots, spontaneous abortions, and heart inflammation and death among the young never threatened by Covid.

This message cannot get out because so many scientists are owned by Big Pharma, because there is no integrity and independence in the media, because public health authorities have a revolving door with Big Pharma and legislators’ election campaigns are dependent on Big Pharma’s contributions.

The virus is mainly dangerous to elderly people with co-morbidities and impaired immune systems.

The current push to force vaccination on children and young adults in the face of the massive evidence that the vaccine is more dangerous to them than the virus is nothing short of a conspiracy to murder. It proves beyond all doubt that the agenda being served is not a public health agenda.

*

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Licensed to practice law in Germany and the US, trial lawyer for 26 years Reiner Fuellmich is one of four German Corona Investigative Committee members involved in documenting damages from what he calls the invented US/Western “corona crisis.”

Based on what’s already known, he renamed it the “Corona Scandal, stressing:

Responsible parties “must be criminally prosecuted and sued for civil damages.”

Along with over 1,000 lawyers and more than 10,000 medical and scientific experts, he and his team began legal proceedings against the Pharma-controlled CDC and WEF dark forces for all things related to flu/covid crimes against humanity.

Besides masks that don’t protect and risk respiratory harm, PCR tests nearly always wrong when positive, and destructive to normal interactions social distancing, Fuellmich called flu/covid jabs designed to harm health, not protect and preserve it as falsely claimed, in breach of the Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Code and other human rights laws.

Explaining his mission, he said he and other Corona Investigative Committee members began  listening to (evidence presented by) a large number of international scientists and experts…to find answers to questions about” what’s gone on since early last year.

Major cases of corporate “corruption and fraud…pale in comparison (to) the extent of the damage that the corona crisis has caused and continues to cause,” he stressed, adding:

“On a political level, everything must be done to make sure that no one will ever again be in a position of such power as to be able to defraud humanity or to attempt to manipulate us with their corrupt agendas” — especially on what relates to health and well-being.

He cited “three major questions to be answered in the context of a judicial approach to the corona scandal,” as follows:

“1. Is there a corona pandemic or is there only a PCR-test pandemic?” 

“(D)oes a positive PCR-test result mean that the person tested is infected with (flu/covid), or” is the test not designed to measure viral infections part of state-sponsored mass deception on all things covid?

2. Do so-called “anti-corona measures, such as the lockdown, mandatory face masks, social distancing, and quarantine regulations, serve to protect the world’s population from corona, or do these measures serve only to make people panic so that they believe – without asking any questions – that their lives are in danger, so that in the end” Pharma can cash in big on a bonanza of profits? 

3. “Is it true that the German government was (heavily) lobbied” to go along with the made-in-the-USA mother of all scams?  

“Germany is…particularly disciplined…and was (chosen to be) a role model for the rest of the world for its strict and…successful adherence to the corona measures.”

Answers to the above and related issues “are urgently needed” because despite claims of flu/covid hazards to health and well-being to push toxic mass-jabbing, no “excess mortality (occurred) anywhere in the world…certainly not…in Germany.”

Yet measures in place to combat an invented threat “caused the loss of innumerable human lives and have destroyed the economic existence of countless companies and individuals worldwide.”

What’s most important is “establish(ing) facts” based on science from medical and scientific experts, Fuellmich stressed.

Summarizing what he and his team seek to determine is:

“1. How dangerous is the virus really?

2. What is the significance of a positive PCR test?

3. What collateral damage has been caused by the corona measures, both with respect to the world population’s health, and with respect to the world’s economy?”

Positive PCR test results are the foundation on which the mother of all scams is based.

According to numerous “highly respected scientists” and medical experts there’s no “corona pandemic…only a PCR test pandemic” based on false analysis.

In September 2020, former Pfizer chief scientist for allergy and infectious diseases Dr. Michael Yeadon and scientific colleagues said the following:

“We’re basing our government policy, our economic policy, and the policy of restricting fundamental rights, presumably on completely wrong data and assumptions about the coronavirus.” 

“If it weren’t for the test results that are constantly reported in the media, the pandemic would be over because nothing really happened.” 

“There are at least four coronaviruses that are endemic and cause some of the common colds we experience, especially in winter.” 

“They all have a striking sequence similarity to the coronavirus, and because the human immune system recognizes the similarity to the virus that has now allegedly been newly discovered, a T-cell immunity has long existed in this respect.” 

Some “30 per cent of the population had this before the allegedly new virus even appeared.” 

“Therefore, it is sufficient for the so-called herd immunity that 15 to 25 per cent of the population are infected with the allegedly new coronavirus to stop the further spread of the virus. And this has long been the case.”

On PCR tests, Yeadon et al said “(t)he likelihood of an apparently positive case being a false positive is between 89 to 94 per cent, or near certainty.”

What PCR tests actually measure is “the presence of partial RNA sequences present in the intact virus, which could be a piece of dead virus, which cannot make the subject sick, and cannot be transmitted, and cannot make anyone else sick.”

Nothing justified draconian policies to protect against an alleged threat at most too minor to matter.

Fuellmich cited a German paper titled “False Alarm.”

According to him, it concluded that “there was…no sufficient evidence (of) serious health risks” to justify imposition of draconian policies, adding:

Many medical and scientific experts, as well as lawyers and judicial scholars, know that state-sponsored fear-mongering mass deception replaced the rule of law with totalitarian control — with diabolical aims in mind.

US/Western policies instituted to combat an invented viral threat caused enormous public health and economic harm to countless millions — demanding redress. 

Fuellmich believes that all things flu/covid and related facts will be proved true in one or many courts worldwide.

Facts based on science “will pull the masks off the faces of all those responsible for these crimes,” he said, adding:

“To the politicians who believe those corrupt people, these facts are hereby offered as a lifeline that can help (aggrieved parties) readjust…and start the long overdue public scientific discussion (to hold culpable) charlatans and criminals” responsible for their high crimes against humanity.

*

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

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

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on German Trial Lawyer’s Legal Team Suing for Flu/COVID Damages
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Two days before the European Football Championship match between Denmark and Finland, the coach of the Danish national team had announced in the media that he was very worried because UEFA had not provided free COVID vaccines in the run-up to the European Championship and not all players of the participating teams in the European Championship had been vaccinated. This gives the impression that the Danish players, or at least a large proportion of them, were vaccinated. The captain of the Danish national team, Christian Eriksen, collapsed on the pitch during the match between Denmark and Finland on 12 June 2021.

In response to my press enquiry about coach Hjulmand’s statements, the Danish Football Association, or rather the head of the press department, has today – before the semi-final match between England and Denmark – refused to provide information about the vaccination of the Danish players, and in particular they refuse to say that Christian Eriksen, who is known to have had a pacemaker inserted after his collapse, was not vaccinated.

In addition, during the days of the European Football Championships, Danish officials vigorously emphasised that Eriksen had not been infected with Corona before the championship, but just as consistently refused to utter sentences such as „Eriksen was not vaccinated before the championship“, which smacks of an over-specific denial.

On 10 June 2021, two days before the European Championship match between Denmark and Finland with Eriksen’s collapse, the coach of the Danish European Championship team, Hjulmand, was quoted in the Süddeutsche Zeitung as follows:

„The 49-year-old Hjulmand had already criticised the European umbrella organisation UEFA several weeks ago for not supplying all European Championship participants with vaccine in time before the start of the tournament. There are some players who have been vaccinated: They have less to worry about.’“

Kasper Hjulmand’s comments are striking against the background of Eriksen’s collapse and several other reports about severe side effects of the „Corona vaccinations“, especially heart diseases in young and healthy people. For example, two national cricketers from the West Indies, who had been vaccinated three days earlier, collapsed on the field a few days ago during the international match against Pakistan. The British airline British Airways even had to report the death of four pilots after their Corona vaccination.

National coach Hjulmand’s statements motivated me to send a press enquiry on 7 July 2021 to the chief press officer of the Danish Football Association and the press officer responsible for the current European Championship, which is called Euro 2020 because of the postponement, although it will take place in 2021:

„Dear Ms Kjaegaard and Mr Hoyer,

I have a press request with one question and I would like to use your answer in my forthcoming corresponding article.

Question:

There are some German articles citing Danish coach Kasper Hjulmand about a COVID vaccination of Danish and other players of the Euro 2020 like this: ‚The 49-year-old Hjulmand had already criticised the European umbrella organisation UEFA several weeks ago for not providing all European Championship participants with vaccine in time before the start of the tournament. ‚There are some players who have been vaccinated: They have less to worry about.‘. This implies that the Dansih team or at least a majority of the team had been vaccinated before the Euro 2020. Did Christian Eriksen get a vaccination before the EURO 2020 resp. before the Match Denmark-Finland?

Example, German article

Best regards,

Jens Bernert“

The answer from press officer Jakob Hoyer was quite monosyllabic: they do not comment on the vaccination of players. A bad joke in view of the enormous public interest in this matter. The Danish Football Association’s statement also seems rather bizarre because the request to them was about a comment by a Danish Football Association official on the vaccination of players, which went through several media outlets and was never retracted. So they do comment on the vaccination of players – when it suits them.

To my reply that I interpreted his answer as confirmation that Eriksen had been vaccinated before the European Championship match, Hoyer replied that this was no confirmation. When I again asked him to confirm that Eriksen had not been vaccinated, he did not reply at first and then, a little later, he replied in the way you can read at the end of this article.

So we can state that the Danish Football Association officially refuses to confirm that the seriously injured captain of the national team, Christian Eriksen, who we wish a speedy recovery, was not vaccinated before the European Championship or before the match against the Finnish team. And two days before the match, the Danish coach vigorously criticised the lack of vaccinations among the participants in the European Championship. He could hardly have been referring to his own team.

What is the problem with confirming that Eriksen was not vaccinated when he was in fact not vaccinated?

In his final email to me, the Danish Football Association’s press officer describes vaccinations of its players as a „private issue“ that they do not comment on:

„Hi Jens 

We have no comments on players vaccinations as it’s a private issue.
You can quote me on that. 

I have no further comments to you..

Bh
Høyer“

*

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 Blauer Bote Magazin.

Featured image: Eriksen playing for Denmark at UEFA Euro 2012 (CC BY-SA 3.0)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The Taliban’s lightning-fast takeover of Afghanistan in the wake of the US’ full military withdrawal by September 11th presents certain security concerns for India, but the South Asian state only has very limited options for ensuring its relevant interests, none of which credibly involve any conventional military involvement contrary to widespread speculation about this scenario.

India is struggling to ensure its security interests in Afghanistan after the Taliban’s lightning-fast takeover of broad swaths of the country in the wake of the US’ full military withdrawal by September 11th. The South Asian state is concerned that the war-torn nation might become a training ground for Kashmiri militants, or even worse, that some Taliban fighters might consider crossing over the Line of Control (LOC) into the Indian side of Kashmir. It should be kept in mind that the Taliban promised the US as part of last year’s peace deal that it won’t support any foreign militants, nor does it have a track record of expansionist plans outside of its native territory, but India still fears the aforementioned worst-case scenarios.

There’s been widespread speculation over the years and especially in recent weeks that India might provide conventional military assistance to Kabul in order to stem the Taliban’s rapid advance. According to those who ascribe to that scenario, this could possibly involve arms transfers, intelligence support, actual troops, and/or private military contractors (PMCs). The first two options are the most credible since they entail comparatively low costs and almost no risks to India itself. The last two ones, however, are much costlier in all respects. India’s leadership must also certainly understand that if it’s still struggling to contain what it regards as security threats in the part of Kashmir under its control, then it’ll be much more difficult to contain the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Some further elaboration on this insight is required in order to better understand India’s strategic calculations. Those who predict that India might commence some sort of conventional military intervention in Kabul’s support are likely influenced by one or two ideas: that India is pursuing a policy of regional expansionism and/or to trap the country in a deadly quagmire. They’re not mutually exclusive either since accepting the first observation as valid can in turn be instrumentalized through a clever information campaign to influence India into taking the second seemingly natural step of getting itself caught in the Afghan quagmire due to its earlier described fear of the Taliban taking over that country.

No matter how afraid India is of the Taliban conquering Afghanistan, there’s almost nothing that it could do to stop this. Even in the best-case scenario of it dispatching military equipment to the internationally recognized authorities there on an emergency basis and ramping up its intelligence support for their forces, that likely won’t be sufficient to stop the Taliban. At most, all that it could do is temporarily delay what appears to be the inevitable outcome of the war. As for the third and fourth policy options, they’d fully depend on Iran passively facilitating India’s military intervention since there’s no way that Pakistan would support this. The incoming “principalist”/”conservative” administration, however, might not be in favor of doing so.

President-Elect Raisi is predicted to take a stronger stand against the US and its proxies upon assuming office. Although Iranian-Taliban ties are complicated, the Islamic Republic might balk at being portrayed as having anything to do with another foreign military intervention in one of his country’s neighbors, especially one which would indirectly aid American strategic goals. It’s one thing for Iran to assist India’s regional economic integration plans through the Central Asian branch of the stalled North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) and another entirely for it to approve the overflight of Indian forces and/or PMCs to Afghanistan in order to fight the Taliban. Some secret agents might still transit through Iran to enter the country, but not on a large scale.

Under these conditions, the best that India can unilaterally do is the first two options that were earlier discussed. It would be much better for its long-term interests, however, if it explored the possibility of entering into secret talks with the Taliban. Some outlets reported that this happened last month even though New Delhi recently denied it. Nevertheless, that’s the most pragmatic policy that India could follow at the present moment. It shouldn’t wage a proxy war against the Taliban via Kabul and/or its own forces/PMCs, but should prepare for the seemingly inevitable reality of that group returning to power to some extent in the coming future. They might still hold a grudge against India, but some level of dialogue is always better than conflict.

India’s Russian ally is the most reliable partner to facilitate such contact if New Delhi had the political will to see this proposed policy through. Although Moscow still officially regards the Taliban as a terrorist group, it nevertheless pragmatically hosted its representatives several times in the Russian capital over the years as part of its efforts to advance the difficult peace process. If Russia could talk to the Taliban despite that group having emerged from the US-backed Mujaheddin of the 1980s that was responsible for killing approximately 15,000 Soviet soldiers and wounding around 35,000 more, then there’s no reason why India can’t do so as well since it never suffered the same level of losses at their forerunner’s hands.

Speaking of Russian-Indian cooperation on Afghanistan, they could also jointly assist Tajikistan with bolstering its border security in the face of ISIS-K’s presence along this frontier. Dushanbe might feel somewhat uncomfortable accepting Indian military aid considering its recent partnerships with New Delhi’s Chinese and Pakistani rivals so it would be more acceptable for everyone if this assistance is coordinated through the SCO in which they all participate. Afghanistan is an observer in this organization so each member’s intelligence support could potentially be funneled through it in order to avoid any perception among some that one or another country’s relevant assistance to Kabul is somehow aimed against their interests (whether directly or indirectly).

With this in mind, an entirely new plan might begin to take shape. Instead of seeking to defeat the Taliban through proxy warfare, something that’s practically impossible to pull off since not even the world’s most powerful military in history could accomplish this task directly despite its two-decade-long occupation of Afghanistan, India should moderate its security goals to containing the threat of ISIS-K’s expansion into Central Asia. This would enable New Delhi to present itself as a responsible regional security stakeholder, especially if it coordinated such efforts through the SCO, perhaps by following Russia’s lead in this respect if Moscow is the first to propose a multilateral campaign to this effect.

There is nothing that India can realistically do to stop the Taliban from training Kashmiri militants apart from retaining a very limited intelligence presence in post-withdrawal Afghanistan to possibly sabotage such efforts on an extremely limited scale. Truth be told, however, that wouldn’t even be necessary to begin with since the Taliban seems to be working very hard to improve its international reputation and therefore is disinclined to train any foreign militants no matter how sympathetic it may speculatively be to their cause. Going back on its word concerning such a globally significant security matter would immediately raise suspicions about its grand strategic intentions and thus reduce the likelihood of it ever being accepted into the international community.

Considering this, India should reconceptualize its security concerns in Afghanistan. The Taliban will most likely take over the country at some time in the future, after which it’ll be cautiously welcomed into the international community for pragmatic reasons. Refusing to enter into dialogue with the group would therefore be a mistake for India’s regional economic interests. Its threat assessment should shift from the Taliban to ISIS-K, and India should accordingly coordinate its relevant security assistance to the Central Asian Republics and especially Tajikistan through the SCO, ideally under Moscow’s aegis. This proposal would enable India to present itself as a responsible regional security stakeholder while pragmatically defending its regional economic interests.

*

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

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.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Carlos Lazo and a small band of Cuban Americans are on a 1,300-mile pilgrimage from Miami to Washington, D.C., to end the U.S. blockade of Cuba. Despite the blistering summer heat and occasional death threats (including a trucker who tried to run them off the road), the marchers persist. Lazo’s group is called Puentes de Amor, Bridges of Love, and this grueling walkathon is certainly a labor of love.

While right-wing Cubans in Miami call him “comunista,” Lazo has no time for ideology. He is neither for or against the Cuban government; he is for the Cuban people, the Cuban families. And he is disgusted by the cruelty of the U.S. blockade and by politicians who use the Cuban people as a political football–especially during this pandemic.

Lazo portrays Cuba and the U.S. as his parents—Cuba is his mother, the U.S. his father. He sees his job as trying to stop them from fighting and instead to embrace each other. “We try to unite people, whatever their ideology, religion, race or nationality,” Lazo told me. “The important thing is to take down walls that separate us and build bridges between our people.”

Lazo and the marchers set off from Miami on June 27 and will arrive in Washington, D.C., on July 25. All along the journey, they have been meeting with community groups—black farmers, veterans, students—explaining their purpose and their demands. They are calling for a lifting of all restrictions on sending remittances to their families back home; the resumption of flights from the U.S., not only to Havana but to all major Cuban cities (right now U.S. planes can only land in Havana); the reopening of a fully staffed U.S. Embassy and Consulate in Havana instead of the skeletal staff that exists now; a restart to the program of family reunification that Trump suspended in 2017; the granting to U.S. citizens of the right to travel freely to Cuba; and robust economic relations, as well as scientific and cultural exchanges. Despite candidate Biden’s campaign promises to revert to Obama’s openings, the Biden administration insists that its Cuba policy is still “under review.” In practice, it has continued the brutal Trump agenda.

You couldn’t invent a better person than Carlos Lazo—a gregarious high school teacher/veteran who also plays guitar, sings and dances like a Cuban rock star—to lead a movement to change U.S.-Cuba policy. His trajectory reads like a movie script. The son of a cigar maker and a housewife, Lazo grew up in the small fishing village of Jaimanitas, west of Havana, and spent the first 28 years of his life there. After his mother emigrated to the United States, Lazo dreamed of following her. He first tried to leave in 1988 when he and his friend rigged up a makeshift raft. After two days adrift in the ocean, they were picked up by the Cuban Coast Guard. Lazo was thrown in jail, where he spent an entire year for illegally trying to leave the island.

Undeterred, in 1991 he tried again. After four precarious days on a rickety raft with six others, this time they were rescued by the U.S. Coast Guard and allowed to enter the United States.

Lazo spent a few years in Miami working in restaurants, delivering pizzas and driving trucks, but moved to Seattle in 1998 to seek more economic opportunities. There he joined the Washington National Guard and studied nursing. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, he was sent as a combat medic. He participated in the battle of Fallujah and was awarded a bronze star for helping to save lives.

But in 2005, when this decorated veteran was on leave and tried to visit his two sons living in Cuba, he discovered that the Bush administration wouldn’t allow him to go. This was a turning point in his life, when Lazo realized that the U.S. blockade, which has existed in one form or another since the 1960s, was hurting both the Cuban people and Cuban Americans who wanted to visit and help their families back home.

So Lazo began speaking out. In 2007, he testified before the U.S. Senate and met with more than 100 members of Congress. He was featured on CNN and MSNBC and in national newspapers.

When Obama became president and started normalizing relations with Cuba, Lazo thought his political work was over. He got a teaching degree, became a high school Spanish teacher, and threw himself into building a unique cultural exchange program that took his students to Cuba. The “profe,” as he is known, taught his students to sing Cuban love songs and dance salsa, winning the hearts of their Cuban hosts. He called this project the Factory of Dreams.

These glorious exchanges, six in total, came to a crashing halt when Trump entered the White House. Trump tried to please right-wing Cubans in Miami by reversing Obama’s openings and adding 242 additional coercive measures designed to torpedo the Cuban economy.

While the pandemic left a trail of pain and death around the world, Trump insisted on restricting family remittances to Cuba, stopping fuel shipments that supplied electricity to Cuban homes and hospitals, and sabotaging Cuban medical brigades that were helping to save lives around the world. “The planet cried out for solidarity and cooperation,” Lazo fumed, “but Trump responded by trying to suffocate the Cuban people.”

Lazo decided to take action. Despite the raging pandemic in the summer of 2020, he and four family members got on their bikes and rode more than 3,000 miles from Seattle to Washington, D.C., to urge Donald Trump and Congress to lift the blockade. Lazo livestreamed their voyage on Facebook, gaining an enormous following along the way.

Lazo’s cross-country trip inspired a group of Cuban Americans in Miami to begin their own caravan of bicycles and cars on the last Sunday of every month. Starting with just 11 bicycles last July, the Miami caravan has grown to more than a hundred vehicles and bicycles going down Calle Ocho in Little Havana. Carlos teamed up with Miami YouTube personality Jorge Medina (El Proteston) to galvanize hundreds of Cuban Americans. For the older generation of Miami Cubans who, at great personal risk, have been proposing normal relations and opposing the right-wing “haters” of the Cuban government since the 1959 revolution, this infusion of energy is a thrilling development.

Inspired by the success in Miami, there are now monthly caravans taking place in some 30 cities in the United States and scores more throughout the world, including in Cuba itself. Clearly, Lazo’s rejection of hatred and his commitment to building “bridges of love” reflect the sentiments of a growing number of Cuban Americans and their allies.

When the marchers arrive in the nation’s capital, they will be greeted by hundreds of supporters, including Cuban Americans flying all the way from Miami. Lazo plans to stay in Washington to meet with members of Congress and present the Biden administration with a petition signed by more than 25,000 people calling on him to build “bridges of love” between the two countries—just as President Obama started to do when he was in the White House.

Lazo’s pilgrimage shows his understanding that opponents of the blockade in the Cuban community need allies among broader layers of people–the farmers, students, church people, truck drivers, etc.–that he is meeting on the way. He believes the bridges of love go both ways because many groups, besides Cubans, have an interest in ending the blockade. These include farmers who want to sell their crops; tourists eager to enjoy Cuba’s nearby beauty, culture, and history; and scientists and public health officials seeking to collaborate with the island’s advanced medical system and biotech industries. In his pilgrimage, he wants to give a voice to these allies as well.

The mushrooming of caravans across the country, the increasing number of city council resolutions against the blockade, the recent vote of the Longshore Union to condemn it, the $400,000 raised by groups sound the country to send syringes for Cuba’s COVID vaccinations— all show a growing feeling that it’s past time for the Biden administration to re-examine its cynical, electoral calculations in continuing Trump’s restrictions on Cuba.

Lazo is not naive. He is under no illusions that his trek to Washington, D.C., will be enough to change Biden’s policies. But his philosophy is both simple and profound: “Everything you do to make the world better helps to make the world better,” he says. And whether it’s a cross-country bike trip or a 1,300-mile trek in the summer heat, Lazo takes these bold actions with so much joy, love and enthusiasm that others can’t help but follow his lead.

*

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.

Medea Benjamin, cofounder of CODEPINK, is author of several books on Cuba, including No Free Lunch: Food and Revolution in Cuba Today. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Carlos Lazo getting ready to start his march from Miami to Washington, D.C. Credit: Tighe Barry

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

President Joe Biden on Tuesday announced plans to ramp up the federal government’s efforts to get more Americans vaccinated against COVID under a new program that includes “literally knocking on doors,” as Biden puts it.

Speaking from the White House two days after the federal government fell short of its goal of having 70% of adults get their first COVID shot by July 4, Biden said:

“So, please get vaccinated now. It works. It’s free. And it’s never been easier, and it’s never been more important. Do it now — for yourself and the people you care about; for your neighborhood; for your country. It sounds corny, but it’s a patriotic thing to do.”

According to data from the CDC, more than 67% of American adults have received at least one shot and more than 157 million are fully vaccinated.

Under the new program, Biden said the White House will deploy teams of officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Federal Emergency Management Administration and other federal health agencies.

The Biden administration developed a state, county and sub-state level predictions map of hesitancy rates using the most recently available federal survey data.

Biden suggested the unique door-knocking approach was needed now that “we are continuing to wind down the mass vaccination sites that did so much in the spring.”

The program also will make the vaccine available in more healthcare settings, and will provide more assistance to thousands of pharmacies, doctor’s offices and other medical facilities so they can distribute vaccines, Biden said. Vaccines will also be doled out at sporting events, summer events and religious activities, he added.

Biden said the administration will “step up efforts to get vaccines to your family doctors and other doctors who serve younger people so that adolescents ages 12 to  18 can get vaccinated and — as they go for back-to-school check-ups or getting ready for their physicals they need for fall sports,” Biden said.

Biden cited concerns over the COVID Delta variant, which he said is more transmissible and has forced some European countries to return to lockdowns.

The president did not mention any of the safety concerns previously noted by the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, including blood clots and heart inflammation,  associated with the vaccines.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, in a briefing earlier in the day, said efforts would continue to convince vaccine holdouts, but she ruled out any federal mandates for now.

The administration will first target communities with lower vaccination rates, Psaki said. The door-to-door outreach efforts will get information about vaccines to people who haven’t received them yet.

In addition to the door-to-door information campaign, Psaki said other measures would include a “renewed emphasis on getting the vaccines to more primary care doctors,” and increasing access for workers at job sites.

“You don’t just give up just because you haven’t reached every single person,” Psaki told reporters. “We’re going to continue to apply … what we’ve seen have been the best practices over the past several months.”

Plan sparks backlash

Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., criticized the plan, saying it would “accomplish nothing beyond making Americans fear and despise their government.”

Kennedy said:

“It’s a foreboding fork in the road to totalitarianism. We are now moving beyond the propaganda stage into this very coercive program where federal agents appear at American homes with the menacing message: ‘We know who you are and where you live. We have you on our list, we have your medical records, we want your neighbors to know that you are dangerous. We don’t recognize your property or privacy rights. You must take our untested, experimental pharmaceutical product. If you want to end this harassment, you must submit to a risky medical intervention made by an unscrupulous company with no liability and if you die or suffer permanent neurological injury, tough luck!’”

Biden’s announcement also sparked backlash on Twitter.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tweeted:

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton chimed in, tweeting:

One physician tweeted:

Nearly three in 10 Americans (29%) say they are not likely to get vaccinated, including 20% who said they will definitely not do so, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll published last week. The 29% who said they are unlikely to get a vaccine is an increase over the 24% who said the same thing in April.

*

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

Featured image is from CHD

Might COVID Injections Reduce Lifespan?

July 8th, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Evidence suggests people who have received the COVID “vaccine” may have a reduced lifespan as a result of the acute, subacute and long-term effects from the COVID injection

If you’ve gotten the COVID shot, consider yourself high risk for COVID and implement a daily prophylaxis protocol. This means optimizing your metabolic flexibility, vitamin D, and taking vitamin C, zinc and a zinc ionophore on a daily basis, at least throughout cold and flu season

Evidence shows NAC may be used to prevent blood clots and break up any that might already have formed

If you’re low risk for COVID and have not been vaccinated, make sure you have these items on hand and begin treating at the very first signs of cold or flu symptoms

Also buy yourself a tabletop jet nebulizer, some saline solution and food grade hydrogen peroxide. Nebulized peroxide is an excellent go-to both for prevention and treatment, regardless of the stage the respiratory infection is in. For prevention, nebulize every other day. For treatment, use at first signs of respiratory infection

*

Watch the video here.

In this interview, return guest Dr. Vladimir Zelenko discusses an incredibly serious concern, one shared with at least two other highly credible experts — Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a life science researcher and former vice-president and chief scientist of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer, and professor Luc Montagnier, a world-renowned virologist who won the Nobel prize for his discovery of HIV.

Yeadon, Montagnier and Zelenko all believe the COVID-19 shots could reduce life expectancy by several decades, depending on several factors, including whether you’re required to get booster shots. In fact, there may be reason to suspect that many who get the jabs and subsequent boosters could lose their lives within two to three years, as a result of pathogenic priming.1,2

Many may not realize that when I was a youngster I was a Boy Scout, but you might know their motto is “Be Prepared.” It is an approach that has served me well over the years. I am not stating unequivocally that dire outcome will materialize, as my interview next week with Dr. Peter McCullough goes into. However, it would seem prudent to have a good protocol in your hands in anticipation of a worst-case scenario.

So, on that note, Zelenko and I take a deep dive into what can be done to prevent such a fate. Zelenko categorizes the risks of COVID-19 “vaccines” into three categories: acute, subacute and long-term, so let’s begin by reviewing the primary risks found in each of these categories.

Risk Category No. 1 — Acute Risks

The acute phase of harm begins at the moment of injection and likely lasts for about three months or so. Based on reports filed with the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), it’s clear that many cannot survive past the acute phase.

About 6,000 deaths have been reported so far, and death commonly occurs within 48 hours of injection. Many serious disabling events also occur rather rapidly, typically within a few days or weeks. However, Zelenko has a very dismal perspective on the accuracy of the VAERS database. He explains:

“According to a paper published by the Salk Institute in San Diego, they’ve discovered that the spike protein that’s generated through the vaccination itself has negative health effects. It’s toxic … on its own …

There’s plenty of evidence that shows that it spreads from the injection site and goes to the bloodstream, and basically comes into every single cell in the body.3,4

mRNA has a half-life of around one to two weeks, depending on the mRNA, and during that interim, each mRNA molecule makes around 2,000 to 5,000 spike proteins. So, we’re talking about trillions and trillions of spike proteins.

Your entire body becomes a spike protein factory. Several orders of magnitude more than if you were to get COVID, because COVID infects the upper and lower airways primarily. Those are the cells that get infected and begin to produce spike proteins. But here we’re injecting the vaccine and it actually travels to every single cell in your body and converts every single cell in your body into a factory for spike proteins.”

As the mRNA disseminates through your vascular system, the cells lining your blood vessels begin producing spike protein. This is why we’re seeing such a staggering number of reports of people experiencing blood clots from these injections.

According to Zelenko, 40% of these events occur within the first two days after injection. The risk then diminishes, but vascular events such as heart attacks, strokes, renal infarcts and pulmonary infarcts don’t completely peter out until about three months after the last injection.

But these events of the past three months are not being reported to VAERS. It is, of course, possible that people simply aren’t connecting them to the COVID shot they got several months earlier.

How Many Have Actually Died From the COVID Shots?

As noted by Zelenko, underreporting is part of the problem we’re facing. The real number of side effects is impossible to determine, given the fact that the Food and Drug Administration didn’t insist on a robust post-vaccination data collection system, but it’s most certainly higher than what VAERS is listing.

“If you look at the VAERS [vaccine adverse event reporting system], which in my opinion is a piece of garbage … as of today, let’s say says there’s 6,000 deaths associated with taking the vaccine. Well, we need to understand what that actually means,” Zelenko says.

“If you look at the 2009 Harvard study on the VAERS system, they said only 1% of events are actually reported. So, OK … whatever the number is, it’s not 6,000. Maybe only 10% are being reported. I don’t know. But definitely it’s being underreported.

And then there’s two [additional] big problems. There’s evidence coming out that VAERS reports that have been filed are being erased off the server, No. 1. No. 2, I personally know of two dozen cases of deaths associated with the vaccine, and the doctor and/or family members that tried to file a VAERS report, their reports were rejected due to some technicality.

The fact that they all couldn’t make a report, that raises my eyebrows. What percentage of the information are we actually seeing? The answer is, I estimate, there are already around 200,000 dead Americans, directly related to the vaccinations.”

To get to that number, Zelenko assumes only 10%5 of adverse effects are reported. Studies have indicated it could be as low as 1%.6,7 That gives us a death toll of about 60,000, to which he adds another 140,000 given the fact that reports are being scrubbed and refused.

“The point is that it should definitely raise eyebrows and have the public start screaming and saying, ‘We want to know the truth. We want to know the accurate numbers. Stop suppressing the truth … I want to be able to make an informed choice whether or not I want to take this injection.’ And that’s not being given to the people.

My problem is not with the vaccine. My problem is with the government, governing bodies and certain people that are obstructing the flow of life saving information and suppressing the truth from people, and then using coercion to force people to take this vaccine. That’s the nefarious part.

The suppression is so blatant and so overt that doctors with impeccable credentials are being deplatformed for just voicing an opinion. And then you couple that together with proven prehospital treatment approaches and protocols that have been proven to reduce hospitalization and death by 85%, and that information is being suppressed.

So here you have a dual censorship where the positive, hopeful, life-saving information is being suppressed and the dangerous outcomes of the vaccination approach is being suppressed. It’s a perfect setup for genocide.”

Risk Category No. 2 — Subacute Risks

The subacute risk phase, which begins around three months’ post-injection, is exceedingly difficult to quantify. At bare minimum, it’s likely to last several months to a couple of years. The primary concern now is antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), also referred to as pathogenic priming and/or paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE) as it more accurately describes the disease mechanism.

Zelenko believes the mRNA will have degraded by this time, and your cells will hopefully no longer produce spike protein. I believe he may be overly optimistic here, as the synthetic mRNA has been genetically modified to be less perishable, plus it’s encased in a nanolipid to resist breakdown.

I suspect this modified mRNA may remain viable far longer than anyone suspects, thanks to its synthetic nature. What’s more, there’s a mechanism by which the mRNA can be reverse transcribed into your DNA, which would make the spike protein production permanent — and probably intergenerational. I describe this process in “The Many Ways in Which COVID Vaccines May Harm Your Health.”

If Zelenko is correct, then the primary disease agent now switches from the spike protein to the antibodies produced in response to the spike protein. We don’t know how long these antibodies will last, but chances are they’ll stick around for a number of months or years.

While antibody production is the primary purpose of these shots, and the response said to provide you an immune benefit, they can actually be the source of problems.

Animal trials in which conventional coronavirus vaccines were tested have shown coronavirus vaccines routinely cause ADE,8,9,10,11,12 so when the animals are challenged with the real virus they’ve been immunized against, they can get seriously ill and even die. If hospitals start filling up with vaccinated individuals this fall, you’ll know why. They’re suffering the effects of ADE.

“In other words, those antibodies that were produced with the vaccination were pathologic,” Zelenko says. “They were lethal and they led to an exaggerated immune response. That’s what it means, antibody-dependent enhancement. It’s an enhancement of your immune response in a way that it will kill you …

The question is, how safe is it long-term, or in the subacute [phase] from three months to three years? That is a big question mark. Based on animal models — and this is what Dr. Mike Yeadon is saying — it could be absolutely genocidal. It’s the biggest gamble on the survival of humanity in the history of humanity.”

However, as a counter to this view, Dr. Peter McCullough, who is in complete agreement with the engineering of this event and it being one of the most egregious crimes against humanity, is not convinced that there will be a massive die-off in the fall.

He is well-trained in the science and has essentially completed a fellowship in COVID-19 along with being the senior editor of two prestigious medical journals so his opinion also deserves consideration. We will be posting his interview next Sunday, July 11, 2021.

Why Is Humanity’s Survival Being Risked?

The questions on many people’s mind right now are, “Why are lifesaving early treatment approaches suppressed?” “Why are the toxic side effects and death rates of the vaccines being suppressed?” and “Why are entire continents being coerced into taking a vaccine that is both medically unnecessary and unproven in terms of safety and effectiveness?”

Taken together, none of it makes any sense, which is why people like Yeadon, Montagnier, Zelenko and others are raising concerns about global genocide. Is that what this is all about? Is there an alternative interpretation of what’s happening? When you consider the actual data, mass vaccination simply isn’t necessary, so why the frantic push to get a needle in every arm? Zelenko explains:

“There’s something called medical necessity. So, let’s analyze if there’s any medical necessity for this vaccine, and you have to do that in a systematic way based on demographics.

If you look at the CDC’s data, anyone 18 and younger has a 99.998% chance of recovery from COVID-19 with no treatment. [Their risk of dying is] 1 in a million. It’s safer than influenza virus. If you gave me a choice, I would rather my kids have COVID-19 than influenza. So, why would I immunize a demographic that has close to 100% chance of recovery with an experimental vaccine that has already killed more kids than the virus?

If you look at the demographic between 18 and 45, people who are healthy have a 99.95% chance of recovery with no treatment … according to the CDC. Same question, why would I vaccinate a demographic that recovers on its own with no treatment?

Third question, if someone has antibodies — and there’s a plethora of evidence [showing] naturally produced antibodies are much more effective in clearing future viruses than vaccine-induced antibodies … Natural immunity is much better, more effective and safer, than vaccine-induced immunity. So, someone who has antibodies already from having COVID before, why would I vaccinate them? …

Fear is an extremely useful tool in manipulating the behavior of people. And that fear has been used to create a psychological motivation to get vaccinated with a vaccine that, in my opinion, has no medical necessity, has tremendous amount of actual and potential risks, and very questionable efficacy.”

Risk Category No. 3 — Long-Term Risks

Beyond the two-to three-year mark are the long-term risks, which are even more difficult to predict. One particularly difficult risk to predict or quantify is infertility. It’ll take decades before we have the data on reproductive effects. Women in their 20s who get the jab might not get serious about trying to get pregnant until they’re in their 30s.

Teens and young children will have to wait decades before fertility can be ascertained. Of course, by then, it’ll be too late. The damage will be done, and hundreds of millions will be in the same boat.

Zelenko cites research published in The New England Journal of Medicine, which concluded COVID vaccination during pregnancy had no increased risk of miscarriage. However, a closer look at the data set revealed that this was only true for women who got vaccinated during their third trimester. Women who get the COVID jab in their first and second trimester have a 24-fold higher risk of miscarriage.

There are also reports of declining sperm counts and testicular swelling in men, and menstrual cycle disruptions in women of all ages. “There is an absolute effect on fertility,” Zelenko says. We just don’t know to what degree yet.

Overall life expectancy is likely to be affected across the board but, again, it’s very difficult to predict just how many years or decades will be lost. Zelenko, like many other doctors, suspect autoimmune diseases and cancer rates will go up as a result of the jabs. As noted by Zelenko:

“Whether you look at the acute spike protein-induced death, the miscarriages, or the myocarditis in young adults, or you look at the subacute pathogenic priming issue, or you look at the potential long-term effects of infertility, auto immune disease and cancer, you have an absolute setup for a genocide. And that’s why these world-leading thought leaders, scientists, are cautioning people …

Let’s do a thought experiment. If COVID-19 were to infect every single human being on this planet and was not to be treated, what would be the overall global death rate? The answer is less than 1%, and I’m not advocating for that, by the way. That’s a lot of people still.

Now, what is going to be the death rate from global vaccination? That is going to be several orders of magnitude greater. And it actually depends how far out you look. Because if someone’s meant to live 80 years and they live 60 years, how do you quantify that? …

We’re talking about 1.5 to 2 billion people [dying] for no reason, except the agendas of a few psychopaths or sociopaths. Why do I say that? It’s because there have been people advocating for population reduction for decades. I just saw a video from [U.K. prime minister] Boris Johnson’s father … advocating for the reduction of England’s population to 15 million …

This type of ideology exists. In this generation, it’s not really anti-Semitic. What it is, is there’s a small group of sociopaths that believe … they’ve evolved into a superhuman enlightened [state] that entitles them the right to dictate the course of history.

For example, Bill Gates in 2015 said the world population needs to be reduced by a certain percentage because of global warming or whatever. So, my question is a very simple question. He’s one of the main supporters and profiteers of global vaccination. Why would I take a vaccine for my health from someone is advocating for the reduction of the world population?

Another scary individual is Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum. He’s very influential. He wrote the book ‘COVID-19 The Great Reset.’ In 2016, in a French interview … Schwab made an announcement that within 10 years, all of humanity will be tagged with an identifier. If you look at the UN 2030 plan, which was crafted by the World Economic Forum, it says ‘America will no longer be a superpower.’

That’s a stated agenda. Then, my favorite is, ‘You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy. You won’t eat any meat. Fossil fuels will be prohibited. There’ll be a billion refugees, which will have to be integrated into your societies.’ So, my question is, what sociopath feels entitled to make a statement like ‘You will own nothing and you will be happy’?

What entitles this type of individual, or group of individuals, to think that way? Well, they believe that they’re enlightened far beyond the average human or subhuman.”

War Against God

Zelenko, a devout Jew, believes the root of this global takeover is really a war against God. The implication is that life has sanctity, and if life has sanctity, we have human rights, “earned” by our birth alone. This is the source of natural law. And, if we have human rights, handed down by God, then no one has the right to decide how long any one of us should live, or how many people there should be on the planet.

“That’s God’s prerogative,” Zelenko says. “However, if you take that out and view people as no different than an animal, a Darwinist perspective or eugenics perspective, and basically survival of the fittest is the yardstick that you measure the dominance hierarchy of humanity, in that case, these people feel that they are on top of the pyramid, and that entitles them to decide if you and me should live …

I call the [COVID] vaccine ‘Zyklon-V.’ That is the gas the Nazis used to kill my relatives. So to express my sentiments, I call it Zyklon-V. It’s an absolute weapon of mass destruction. People are being lied to, and they’re running into the gas chambers themselves because of the pathogenic fear.”

How to Protect Your Health Post-Jab

If you or someone you know or love got the COVID jab and now have serious regrets, there are definite strategies you can use to protect your health.

It appears if you made it through the first three months OK, then your risk for blood clots is likely radically diminished. To counteract excessive clotting, an anticoagulant may be appropriate. A natural alternative with great promise is n-acetyl cysteine (NAC), as it has both anticoagulant13 and thrombolytic effects,14 meaning it may both prevent clots and break up clots that have already formed. Obviously, do not get any more booster shots.

In the subacute phase, your No. 1 goal will be to avoid ADE. The key to this is to avoid triggering a pathogenic immune reaction, and the only way to do that is to implement some sort of prophylactic protocol, i.e., a COVID, common cold and influenza prevention protocol.

This is especially important for anyone that has received the COVID jab as they are at a high risk of having complications and are under the false impression that they are “protected” when actually they are at increased risk now that they got the jab and need to take extraordinary precautions.

Any symptoms of upper respiratory infection should also be treated immediately, not later. COVID is a multi-phase disease. The first phase is the viral phase, which lasts five to seven days. This is when it’s most easily treated. After Day 7, the disease typically progresses into the inflammatory phase, which requires different treatment.

Zinc supplementation is an important component for prevention and early treatment in the viral stage, as it impairs viral replication. You need to take it with a zinc ionophore, however, such as quercetin, EGCG (green tea extract), hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin.

“The majority of the COVID protocols focus on inhibition of our RNA virus replication. What that means is that for a virus to make copies of itself, it needs to enter the human cell. In the case of RNA viruses, all the COVID, coronaviruses and even the influenza viruses, they use a common pathway called RNA dependent RNA polymerase. That’s a very important enzyme.

That enzyme is what makes copies of the viral genetic material, which then enables for new viruses to be formed and spread. So, if you inhibit the viral RNA replication process, you’ll eliminate viral spreading, viral growth. The beautiful thing about what we found with zinc is that zinc inhibits this enzyme extremely well, if there’s another zinc [molecule] inside the cell.

But zinc cannot really get into the cell on its own. That’s where the concept of zinc ionophores come in. Zinc ionophores opens the door in the cell membrane and allows for zinc to go from outside of the cell, to inside of the cell. And when you increase the concentration of zinc inside the cell, then it can effectively inhibit this enzyme, stopping most if not all, coronaviruses and influenza viruses from replicating.”

If you want to use either hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin and live in a state that restricts their use, look for online telehealth options. The American Frontline Doctors is one resource. They only charge $90 for a consultation and you will be able to get the prescription that you need. Do not use Ivermectin from veterinary sources as it may be contaminated and is not designed for human use.

In addition to zinc and a zinc ionophore, you also need to optimize your vitamin D level. The range you’re looking for is 60 ng/mL to 80 ng/mL year-round. The appropriate dose of oral vitamin D3 is the dose that gets you within that range.

Vitamin C is another important component, especially if you’re taking quercetin, as they have synergistic effects. To effectively act as a zinc ionophore, the quercetin needs vitamin C.

In an effort to make it easier for patients, Zelenko has developed an oral supplement that contains all four: vitamin C, quercetin, vitamin D3 and zinc. It’s called Z-Stack and can be purchased on zstacklife.com. For a downloadable “cheat sheet” of Zelenko’s protocol for COVID-19, visit VladimirZelenkoMD.com

The take-home message here is that if you’ve gotten the jab, consider yourself high risk for COVID and implement a daily prophylaxis protocol. This means optimizing your vitamin D, and taking vitamin C, zinc and a zinc ionophore on a daily basis, at least throughout cold and flu season.

It would also be useful to do a daily sauna. Ideally one that can heat up to 170 degrees Fahrenheit. The best saunas are far-infrared and have low EMFs. Sadly, I don’t know any that go to 170 degrees and are low EMF.

I use one that goes to 170 and then I turn it off and turn on the SaunaSpace four near IR bulb system in the sauna and go in for 20 minutes. This practice activates heat shock proteins which will help remove the spike proteins and improve other damaged proteins in your body.

If you’re low risk for COVID and have not been vaccinated, make sure you have these items on hand and begin treating at the very first signs of cold or flu symptoms.

Nebulized Peroxide and Other Health Promoting Measures

In addition to NAC (to prevent and break up clots), vitamin D, vitamin C, quercetin and zinc, buy yourself a tabletop jet nebulizer, some saline solution and food grade hydrogen peroxide. You’ll want to dilute the peroxide with saline to get a 0.1% solution.

Due to risks to my personal safety we had to remove the nebulized peroxide videos from the site but they are now up on our sustack site and you can view all of them here

hydrogen peroxide dilution chart

Nebulized peroxide is my personal go-to both for prevention and treatment, regardless of the stage the respiratory infection is in. To learn more, download Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery.” As a preventive measure, simply nebulize every other day. Vitamin C is important here too, as it works as a catalyst for the peroxide. A daily dose of 500 milligrams would likely be sufficient for most.

We were forced to remove all the hydrogen peroxide videos that I had previously posted for liability reasons but fortunately they are all now posted on our Substack site. This is important as, in my view, this is the most important step you can take. I would recommend nebulizing a 0.1% solution every day as indicated in the videos, linked below.

There is no danger in doing it every day and likely there is a health benefit. As Dr. Tom Levy describes in one of the videos below, it seems to help improve your bowel movements, which may be a result of eliminating respiratory pathogens that were having negative impact on your microbiome.

Other important health-preserving strategies include the following:

  • Make sure you’re metabolically flexible so that your body can seamlessly transition between burning fat and sugar as your primary fuel. This will allow your innate immune system to function optimally. Time-restricted eating is one surefire way to accomplish this.
  • Avoid processed seed oils in your diet, such as sunflower oil, corn oil, safflower oil or avocado oils. All contain high levels of linoleic acid, which impairs your mitochondrial function, and in upper respiratory infections, it’s the precursor for the Leukotoxin that occurs in these infections.
  • Focus on certified-organic foods to minimize your glyphosate exposure, and include plenty of sulfur-rich foods to keep your mitochondria and lysosomes healthy. Both are important for the clearing of cellular debris, including these spike proteins. You can also boost your sulfate by taking Epsom salt baths.
  • To combat the toxicity of the spike protein, you’ll want to optimize autophagy, as this may help digest and remove the spike proteins. Time-restricted eating will upregulate autophagy, while sauna therapy, which upregulates heat shock proteins, will help refold misfolded proteins. They also tag damaged proteins and target them for removal.

It is important that your sauna is hot enough (around 170 degrees Fahrenheit) and does not have high magnetic or electric fields.

  • If you’re having post-vaccination symptoms, you could consider:

Low-dose interferons such as Paximune, to stimulate your immune system

  • Peptide T (an HIV entry inhibitor derived from the HIV envelope protein gp120; it blocks binding and infection of viruses that use the CCR5 receptor to infect cells)
  • Cannabis, to strengthen Type I interferon pathways, which are part of your first line of defense against pathogens
  • Dimethylglycine or betaine (trimethylglycine) to enhance methylation, thereby suppressing latent viruses
  • Silymarin or milk thistle to help cleanse your liver

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.

Notes

1 Lifesite News April 7, 2021

2 Facebook April 12, 2021

3 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine BNT162 Biodistribution Study

4 Trialsitenews May 28, 2021

5 BMJ 2005;330:433

6 AHRQ December 7, 2007

7 The Vaccine Reaction January 9, 2020

8 Nature Microbiology September 9, 2020

9 Vaccine 2005

10 Frontiers in Immunology February 24, 2021

11 AIMS Allery and Immunology 2020

12 Frontiers in Immunology February 24, 2021 full

13 Blood Coagul Fribrinolysis January 2006; 17(1): 29-34

14 Hardball.parkoffletter.org November 10, 2020 Seheult lecture on NAC

Featured image is from Shutterstock

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The British personnel are said to be based at Al-Ghaydah airport in Mahra province of eastern Yemen, where Human Rights Watch says Saudi forces run a prison camp in which detainees are subject to torture and extraordinary rendition.

British troops are believed to have been based at the airport for months. A local journalist who was embedded with Saudi forces at the airport, Naser Hakem Abdullah Awidh, told Declassified he has seen British troops there this year.

He claimed: “They are a fully-fledged force. We can’t say they are minor.” The British forces allegedly spend their days off conducting tourist trips in civilian clothes to local archaeological sites.

Hameed Zaabnoot, a tribal sheikh who has led sit-in protests against the presence of Saudi forces in Mahra province, told Declassified that staff at Al-Ghaydah airport have seen British troops inside.

Zaabnoot understands that British forces are located in designated parts of the airport. He said:

“The tasks assigned to them so far are military training and logistical support, either for Saudi forces or Saudi-backed militia that are elements from the Southern Transitional Council,” a Yemeni separatist group.

“The number of British forces… is between 20 and 30 instructors, 10 of which are permanent,” Zaabnoot relayed, claiming they are flown into the airport on board Saudi military aircraft and bypass normal visa checks.

“Saudi forces carry out strict security measures against civilian or military personnel inside the airport,” he explained, adding that mobile phones are banned, making it hard for anyone to photograph the British troops.

Saudi special forces prepare to unload a C-130 plane at Al-Ghaydah in January 2018. (Photo: Saudi military)

British ambassador ‘fighting terrorism’

In an interview in Arabic broadcast late last month by Yemen’s Al-Mahriah TV channel, Britain’s ambassador Michael Aron was repeatedly questioned over allegations that UK forces have been seen in the east of the country.

Aron did not deny the allegations, saying,

“We support efforts of fighting terrorism and smuggling. This is our position for a long time,” adding that “we have good and deep relations with the legitimate government”.

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) reportedly has a presence in Mahra province, with Saudi and Yemeni forces recently killing or capturing several members of the group.

For years following 9/11, the UK’s Foreign Office provided Yemen with counter-terrorism training to deal with AQAP, but instructors officially withdrew in 2015 when the British embassy had to close as the war broke out.

US ambassador to Yemen, Christopher Henzel, visited Mahra in December 2020, drawing criticism from Badr Kalashat, a provincial deputy for youth affairs.

Kalashat tweeted that Henzel “visited the American and British forces present at Al-Ghaydah airport”, complaining that it coincided with the anniversary of Yemen’s independence from British colonialism.

Then in March 2021 the former deputy governor of Mahra province, Sheikh Ali Salem Al-Huraizi, said US and UK troops were present at the airport and called for all foreign forces to leave, denying there was a terrorism threat to the area.

Al-Huraizi pledged to “reveal to the world the truth about what is happening in terms of the occupation”. He has since claimed that Saudi and Western forces have built more than 100 underground cells inside the airport.

Torture

Geneva-based advocacy group, SAM for Rights and Liberties, told Declassified that Yemenis are being tortured by the British-backed Saudi forces at the airport.

The group’s president, Tawfiq Alhamidi, said:

“Saudi forces operate the airport’s prison where they receive logistical support and military training by British troops stationed at the airport since the beginning of this year.”

He added:

“There are multiple violations, some of which amount to war crimes such as torture, enforced disappearance, [and] forced deportation beyond the borders of the Republic of Yemen.”

Based on testimony his group has received, Alhamidi said the airport has “large underground structures” that are used by the foreign forces.

He called for the airport to return to civilian hands, saying “it could have played a positive role in alleviating the suffocating blockade” that has left millions of Yemeni children on the brink of famine.

“It would have assisted in freedom of movement outside Yemen, especially for the sick, the elderly, and children,” he lamented. “Turning this facility into a prison where arbitrary detention and torture are practised is a crime under the Geneva Convention and the Rome Convention establishing the [International] Criminal Court.”

Human Rights Watch has accused Saudi forces of responding to protests against their presence in Mahra by having “arbitrarily arrested demonstrators” and torturing them in the airport detention facility.

At least five detainees were forcibly disappeared for months and illegally transferred to Saudi Arabia, the group claimed.

Michael Page from Human Rights Watch said last March the torture and renditions of Mahra residents “is another horror to add to the list of the Saudi-led coalition’s unlawful conduct in Yemen”.

The British government has repeatedly claimed that it is “not a party” to the coalition’s war in Yemen, which seeks to restore the government of Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi that was ousted by the Houthi rebel group.

Despite these denials, the British military plays a key role in sustaining the Saudi war machine, especially in training, advising and supplying the Saudi air force bombing Houthi strongholds.

Members of the elite Special Boat Service were allegedly injured in northern Yemen, and since February 2020 British air defence units have operated radars in Saudi Arabia that track Houthi drones, a deployment costing UK taxpayers £2.3-million so far.

The Saudi takeover of Al-Ghaydah airport was partly prompted by concerns that the Houthis were smuggling weapons into Yemen through Mahra province over the border with neighbouring Oman, where 230 British troops are based.

Declassified asked the Ministry of Defence (MOD) why parliament was not informed about the deployment of troops and whether the UK is a party to the conflict in Yemen.

We also asked if British personnel in Mahra province have reported any allegations about suspected torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with the government’s Torture and Mistreatment Reporting Guidance.

In response, an MOD spokesperson told Declassified: “The UK is not a member of the Saudi-led coalition and we have played no role in setting Saudi-led coalition policy.

“The UK’s defence relationship with Saudi Arabia includes training courses, advice and guidance. This supports the efforts of Saudi Arabia to protect national and regional security, as well as their military’s compliance with international humanitarian law.”

The UK Foreign Office was also asked to comment.

*

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.

Naseh Shaker is a freelance journalist based in Yemen’s capital, Sanaa.

Phil Miller is chief reporter and Mark Curtis is editor of Declassified UK, an investigative journalism organisation that covers the UK’s role in the world. 

Featured image: A Saudi C-130 plane at Al-Ghaydah airport, where British troops are believed to be based. (Photo: Saudi military)

 

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

“The Hindu Kush is an 800-kilometre-long mountain range that stretches through Afghanistan, from its centre to Northern Pakistan and into Tajikistan”

 

***

And it’s all over

For the unknown soldier

It’s all over

For the unknown soldier

– The Doors, The Unknown Soldier

Let’s start with some stunning facts on the ground.

The Taliban are on a roll. Earlier this week their P.R. arm was claiming they hold 218 Afghan districts out of 421 – capturing new ones every day. Tens of districts are contested. Entire Afghan provinces are basically lost to the government in Kabul – de facto reduced to administer a few scattered cities under siege.

Already on July 1st the Taliban announced they controlled 80% of Afghan territory. That’s close to the situation 20 years ago, only a few weeks before 9/11, when Commander Masoud told me in the Panjshir valley, as he prepared a counter-offensive, that the Taliban were 85% dominant.

Their new tactical approach works like a dream. First there’s a direct appeal to soldiers of the Afghan National Army (ANA) to surrender. Negotiations are smooth – and deals fulfilled. Soldiers in the low thousands have already joined the Taliban without a single shot fired.

Mapmakers cannot upload updates fast enough. This is fast becoming a textbook case on the collapse of a 21st century central government.

The Taliban are fast advancing in western Vardak, easily capturing ANA bases. That is the prequel for an assault on Maidan Shar, the provincial capital. If they get control of Vardak they will be literally at the gates of Kabul.

After capturing Panjwaj district, the Taliban are also a stone’s throw away from Kandahar, founded by Alexander The Great in 330 B.C. and the city where a certain mullah Omar – with a little help from his Pakistani ISI friends – started the Taliban adventure in 1994, leading to their Kabul power takeover in 1996.

The overwhelming majority of Badakhshan province – Tajik majority, not Pashtun – fell after only 4 days of negotiations, with a few skirmishes thrown in. The Taliban even captured a hilltop outpost very close to Faizabad, Badakhshan’s capital.

I tracked the Tajik-Afghan border in detail when I traveled the Pamir highway in late 2019. The Taliban, following mountain tracks on the Afghan side, could soon reach the legendary, desolate border with Xinjiang in the Wakhan corridor.

The Taliban are also about to make a move on Hairaton, in Balkh province. Hairaton is at the Afghan-Uzbek border, the site of the historically important Friendship Bridge over the Amu Darya, through which the Red Army departed Afghanistan in 1989.

ANA commanders swear the city is now protected from all sides by a five-kilometer security zone. Hairaton has already attracted tens of thousands of refugees. Tashkent does not want them to cross the border.

And it’s not only Central Asia; the Taliban have already advanced to the city limits of Islam Qilla, which borders Iran, in Herat province, and is the key checkpoint in the busy Mashhad to Herat corridor.

 The Tajik puzzle 

The extremely porous, geologically stunning Tajik-Afghan mountain borders remain the most sensitive case. Tajik President Emomali Rahmon, after a serious phone call with Vladimir Putin, ordered the mobilization of 20,000 reservists and sent them to the border. Rahmon also promised humanitarian and financial support to the Kabul government.

The Taliban, for their part, officially declared that the border is safe and they have no intention of invading Tajik territory. Earlier this week even the Kremlin cryptically announced that Moscow does not plan to send troops to Afghanistan.

A cliffhanger is set for the end of July, as the Taliban announced they will submit a written peace proposal to Kabul. A strong possibility is that it may amount to an intimation for Kabul to surrender – and transfer full control of the country.

The Taliban seem to be riding an irresistible momentum – especially when Afghans themselves were stunned to see how the imperial “protector”, after nearly two decades of de facto occupation, left Bagram air base in the middle of the night , scurrying away like rats.

Compare it to the evaluation of serious analysts such as Lester Grau,  explaining the Soviet departure over three decades ago:

When the Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989, they did so in a coordinated, deliberate, professional manner, leaving behind a functioning government, an improved military and an advisory and economic effort insuring the continued viability of the government. The withdrawal was based on a coordinated diplomatic, economic and military plan permitting Soviet forces to withdraw in good order and the Afghan government to survive. The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA) managed to hold on despite the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Only then, with the loss of Soviet support and the increased efforts by the Mujahideen (holy warriors) and Pakistan, did the DRA slide toward defeat in April 1992. The Soviet effort to withdraw in good order was well executed and can serve as a model for other disengagements from similar nations.

When it comes to the American empire, Tacitus once again applies:

“They have plundered the world, stripping naked the land in their hunger… they are driven by greed, if their enemy be rich; by ambition, if poor… They ravage, they slaughter, they seize by false pretenses, and all of this they hail as the construction of empire. And when in their wake nothing remains but a desert, they call that peace.”

In the wake of the Hegemon, deserts called peace, in varying degrees, include Iraq, Libya, Syria – which happen to, geologically, harbor deserts – as well as the deserts and mountains of Afghanistan.

That Afghan heroin rat line

It looks like Think Tank Row in D.C., between Dupont and Thomas Circle alongside Massachussets Avenue, have not really done their homework on pashtunwali – the Pashtun honor code – or the ignominious British empire retreat from Kabul.

Still, it’s too early to tell whether what is being spun as the US “retreat” from Afghanistan reflects the definitive unraveling of the Empire of Chaos. Especially because this is not a “retreat” at all: it’s a repositioning – with added elements of privatization.

At least 650 “U.S. forces” will be protecting the sprawling embassy in Kabul.  Add to it possibly 500 Turkish troops – which means NATO – to protect the airport, plus an undeclared number of “contractors” a.k.a mercenaries, and an unspecified number of Special Forces.

Pentagon head Lloyd Austin has come up with the new deal. The militarized embassy is referred to as Forces Afghanistan-Forward. These forces will be “supported” by a new, special Afghan office in Qatar.

The key provision is that the special privilege to bomb Afghanistan whenever the Hegemon feels like it remains intact. The difference is in the chain of command. Instead of Gen. Scott Miller, so far the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, the Bomber-in-Chief will be Gen. Frank McKenzie, the head of CENTCOM.

So future bombing will come essentially from the Persian Gulf – what the Pentagon lovingly describes as “over the horizon capability”. Crucially, Pakistan has officially refused to be part of it, although in the case of drone attacks, they will have to overfly Pakistani territory in Balochistan. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan also refused to host American bases.

The Taliban, for their part, are unfazed. Spokesman Suhail Shaheen was adamant that any foreign troops that are not out by the 9/11 deadline will be regarded as – what else – occupiers.

Whether the Taliban will be able to establish dominance is not an issue; it’s just a matter of when. And that leads us to the two really important questions:

1.  Will the CIA be able to maintain what Seymour Hersh initially, and later myself, described as the Afghan heroin rat line that finances their black ops?

2.  And if the CIA cannot continue to supervise opium poppy field production in Afghanistan as well as coordinate the subsequent stages of the heroin business, where will it move to?

Every thinking mind across Central/South Asia knows that the Empire of Chaos, for two long decades, was never interested in defeating the Taliban or fighting for “the freedom of the Afghan people”.

The key motives were to keep a crucial, strategic forward base in the underbelly of “existential threats” China and Russia as well as intractable Iran – all part of the New Great Game; to be conveniently positioned to later exploit Afghanistan’s enormous mineral wealth; and to process opium into heroin to fund CIA ops. Opium was a major factor in the rise of the British empire, and heroin remains one of the world’s top dirty businesses funding shady intel ops.

What China and the SCO want

Now compare all of the above with the Chinese approach.

Unlike Think Tank Row in D.C., Chinese counterparts seem to have done their homework. They understood that the USSR did not invade Afghanistan in 1979 to impose “popular democracy” – the jargon then – but was in fact invited by the quite progressive UN-recognized Kabul government at the time, which essentially wanted roads, electricity, medical care, telecommunications, education.

As these staples of modernity would not be provided by Western institutions, the solution would have to come from Soviet socialism. That would imply a social revolution – a convoluted affair in a deeply pious Islamic nation – and, crucially, the end of feudalism.

“Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski’s imperial counterpunch worked because it manipulated Afghan feudal lords and their regimentation capacity – bolstered by immense funds (CIA, Saudis, Pakistani intel) – to give the USSR its Vietnam. None of these feudal lords were interested in the abolition of poverty and economic development in Afghanistan.

China is now picking up where the USSR left. Beijing, in close contact with the Taliban since early 2020, essentially wants to extend the $62 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) – one of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) flagship projects – to Afghanistan.

The first, crucial step will be the construction of the Kabul-Peshawar motorway – through the Khyber pass and the current border at Torkham. That will mean Afghanistan de facto becoming part of CPEC.

It’s all about regional integration at work. Kabul-Peshawar will be one extra CPEC node that already includes the construction of the ultra-strategic Tashkurgan airport  in the Karakoram highway in Xinjiang, only 50 km away from the Pakistani border and also close to Afghanistan, as well as Gwadar harbor in Balochistan.

In early June, a trilateral China-Afghanistan-Pakistan meeting led the Chinese Foreign Ministry to unmistakably bet on the “peaceful recovery of Afghanistan”, with the joint statement welcoming “the early return of the Taliban to the political life of Afghanistan” and a pledge to “expand economic and trade ties”.

So there’s no way a dominant Taliban will refuse the Chinese drive to build infrastructure and energy projects geared towards regional economic integration, as long as they keep the country pacified and not subject to jihadi turbulence of the ISIS-Khorasan variety –  capable of spilling over to Xinjiang.

The Chinese game play is clear: the Americans should not be able to exert influence over the new Kabul arrangement. It’s all about the strategic Afghan importance for BRI – and that is intertwined with discussions inside the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), incidentally founded 20 years ago, and which for years has advocated for an “Asian solution” for the Afghan drama.

The discussions inside the SCO regard the NATO projection of the new Afghanistan as a jihadi paradise controlled by Islamabad as not more than wishful thinking nonsense.

It will be fascinating to watch how China, Pakistan, Iran, Russia and even India will fill the vacuum in the post-Forever Wars era in Afghanistan. It’s very important to remember that all these actors, plus the Central Asians, are full SCO members (or observers, in the case of Iran).

Tehran plausibly might interfere with potential imperial plans to bomb Afghanistan from the outside – whatever the motive. On another front, it’s unclear whether Islamabad or Moscow, for instance, would help the Taliban to take Bagram air base. What’s certain is that Russia will take the Taliban off its list of terrorist outfits.

Considering that the empire and NATO – via Turkey – will not be really leaving, a distinct future possibility is a SCO push, allied with the Taliban (Afghanistan is also a SCO observer) to secure the nation in their terms and concentrate on CPEC development projects. But the first step seems to be the hardest: how to form a real, solid, national coalition government in Kabul.

History may rule that Washington wanted Afghanistan to be the USSR’s Vietnam; decades later, it ended up getting its own second Vietnam, repeated as – what else – farce. A remixed Saigon moment is fast approaching. Yet another stage of the New Great Game in Eurasia is at hand.

*

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

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Afghanistan in Badakhshan province, seen from the Pamir highway in Tajikistan during my November 2019 Central Asian loop. This district, not far from Ishkashim, is now under Taliban control. Photo: Pepe Escobar  

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Unknown assailants overnight assassinating Haitian President Jovenel Moïse was a horrific act that should be condemned in no uncertain terms. Unfortunately, such violence is unsurprising. As the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) noted in its July 6 press release, Moïse’s actions since usurping power have brought Haiti to a boiling point, with heavily armed gangs being unleashed, both supported by and enabled by the Haitian elite and those international “friends” of Haiti, including the United States, the United Nations, the Core Group and the Organization of American States.

What happens now is the question. Will the Biden administration and other political players use this moment as the pretext for military intervention, as was done in 1915? Will interim Prime Minister Claude Joseph attempt to consolidate power under the pretext of the current state of siege? Will the Core Group find a new willing puppet, more pliable than Moïse, to bring “stability”?

Whatever happens, the Black Alliance for Peace remains steadfast in our call against foreign intervention and occupation of Haiti. And we call on all anti-imperialist and Black internationalist forces to stand with the Haitian people and oppose U.S. and European interventions deployed under the guise of the “Responsibility to Protect.”

*

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.” – John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), British economist, 1936.

All crises have involved debt that, in one fashion or another, has become dangerously out of scale in relation to the underlying means of payment.” – John K. Galbraith (1908-2006), in 1994.

Sooner or later a crash is coming and it may be terrific. The vicious circle will get in full swing and the result will be a serious business depression. There may be a stampede for selling which will exceed anything that the Stock Exchange has ever witnessed. Wise are those investors who now get out of debt.” – Roger Babson (1875-1967), American entrepreneur, economist, and business theorist, on September 5, 1929.

After forty some years of disinflation and declining interest rates, there is some confusion about whether or not this long disinflationary decline is about to end, to be replaced with a creeping up of real wages, prices and interest rates.

This could certainly be the case in the wake of the current post-pandemic economic recovery. In the longer term, we can foresee a context of significant demographic changes, while economic and financial globalization will continue to show signs of abating, and could even be reversed in the years to come.

These changes will produce negative shocks on labor supply and be accompanied by upward price pressures. All of this, of course, in the context of significant climate change and rising adjustment costs.

Similarly, it is also possible that major economies will experience creeping inflation, at least in the coming few years, as this has happened after the economic dislocations of a war.

After World War II, for instance, the six-year period of reconstruction, from 1946 to 1951, was characterized by an average inflation rate of 6.4% in the U.S. This was the result of a combination of both demand-pulled inflation and cost-pushed inflation.

Many governments and central banks had injected a lot of money in the economy during the war, but because of rationing, people were allowed to spend only part of their incomes and were forced to save a higher proportion of their incomes than they otherwise would. Inevitably, saving rates were very high. Consequently, after the war, there was a lot of pent-up demand, and increased spending pushed prices up.

Also, industrial plants had to be refitted to produce private goods, and those costs also pushed up prices. Moreover, the real estate market was especially propelled by the demographic factor of the post-war baby-boom surge and by more accessible mortgages.

Today, in the wake of the war against the 2020-2021 global pandemic, the real estate market is also very hot, again propelled by a demographic phenomenon, this time by record immigration levels, accompanied by generous public emergency income support programs and by super low mortgage rates.

Larger public deficits and growing public debts, and ultra-lax monetary policies by central banks

In order to fight the economic damage brought about by the 2020-2021 pandemic and the subsequent economic lockdowns, governments and central banks in major economies embarked upon aggressive income support programs, larger deficits and higher public debts, combined with important measures of money printing by central banks.

In the U.S., for example, the national debt (excluding total unfunded Social Security and Medicare promises) of the federal government ballooned from $22.7 trillion in 2019, to $28.2 trillion in May 2021, a 24% increase and a level that has pushed the U.S. national debt above 100% of yearly GDP.

Also in the U.S., the Fed purchased massive amounts of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities with newly printed money, as it did during the Great recession of 2008-2009. Indeed, on March 15, 2020, the Fed announced that it would be buying at least $500 billion in Treasury securities and $200 billion in government-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities over “the coming months”.

And, in December 2020, the Fed reiterated its policy of buying monthly ‘at least’ $120 billion of Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities ($80 billion of government debt and $40 billion of mortgage-backed securities), and this “until the economy recovers to ‘full employment’”.

However, there could be a problem in defining ‘full employment’, because millions of workers have decided to exit the labor force or to retire for good during the pandemic and the economic downturn.

Thus, the labor force could be smaller today than before the pandemic, resulting in a tight labor market and labor shortages in some trades, because, according to employers, some workers simply ‘do not want to work’, unless it is from home. Therefore, no matter how long the Fed keeps interest rates to the floor, it’s dubious that all jobs lost during the pandemic recession will come back.

The risk of financial bubbles

However, the massive purchases of securities by the Fed have pushed short-term interest rates to close to zero, while keeping longer-term interest rates artificially low. In so doing, the Fed (and other central banks) has created bubbles in bond prices, in stock prices and in real estate prices. And when such bubbles burst, a severe recession could logically follow.

The Fed’s ultra loose monetary policy of excess liquidity has also resulted in the unusual situation of banks being awash with excess cash that they couldn’t lend profitably, leaving them no other choice but to deposit most of it at the Fed, in the form of excess reserves. As of June 2, 2021, American banks’ deposits totaled $15,802.6 billion (not seasonally adjusted), as compared to only $13,912.2 billion in March 2020, a 12% increase.

As an indication of such an ultra loose monetary policy, the Fed’s balance sheet ballooned during the pandemic, going from $4.17 trillion in late December 2019, to $7.95 trillion in early June 2021, a huge 90% jump.

An extended ultra loose monetary policy can possibly feed inflation, or, if an economy is already in a recession or into an economic downturn, it can produce so much liquidity that the economy becomes mired in a liquidity trap.

A liquidity trap and a debt trap

In my intermediate macroeconomics textbook, here is how I define John Maynard Keynes’ liquidity trap:

The monetary situation that prevails when short-term interest rates are way down and everyone anticipates a fall in the price of bonds and an increase in interest rates, so that any further increase in money supply by the central bank is not spent but is hoarded.

To extricate an economy from a liquidity trap, a central bank can gradually end its purchases of securities and let interest rates slowly rise. On the other hand, fiscal policy can become more aggressive in stimulating investments and aggregate demand.

Currently, central banks in the largest economies are at an impasse, as their persistent policy of artificially keeping interest rates close to zero—with even negative interest rates in Europe—has not only created a liquidity trap, it has also encouraged a general increase in debt levels, possibly creating a debt trap when rates are one day allowed to rise.

Debt trap for monetary policy

Indeed, central banks are not immune from a situation of moral hazard or from a debt trap.

When a central bank pursues an easy money policy and keeps interest rates artificially low (and even pushes them into negative territory) over a long period, it creates an environment that incites not only governments, but also businesses and consumers, to take on heavy or excessive debt loads. This is the well-known case of Japan, where the economy has been bogged down by deflation and economic stagnation for more than a quarter of a century.

Both in Europe and in North America, central banks have been pursuing—since 2008, and even more since March 2020—very aggressive quantitative easing (QE) monetary policies. They have kept interest rates artificially low, a replica of Japanese monetary policy.

For example, in the United States, as in most developed countries such as Canada, total mortgage debt is presently very high, even as some other categories of debt, such as credit card debt, have slightly declined.

In so doing, central banks may have built for themselves a policy debt trap, because they may have reasons to fear that letting interest rates return to their normal level could trigger a wave of bankruptcies, and this would damage the economy. Central banks may have become prisoners of their own ultra loose monetary policy.

Cycle analysis for the real estate market: The Kuznets’ cycle

In the U.S., and especially in Florida and California for obvious demographic reasons, the 18-year Kuznets’ cycle is well and alive. Previous tops in this cycle were in 1987 and 2005, while bottoms occurred in 1993 and 2011. If the cycle is as reliable nowadays as in the past, (with 12-year price upswings and 6-year price contractions), the year 2023 could see another major top unfolding in real estate prices in the U.S.

Considering that Fed chairman Jerome Powell has indicated that it is the Fed’s intention to keep interest rates at rock-bottom levels for months to come, possibly until 2023, this would seem to coincide perfectly with the Kuznets’ cycle rationale.

What does this entail for future inflation, recession, deflation, stagflation and even ‘secular stagnation’?

Let us keep in mind that the 2005 top in real estate prices was followed by the 2007-2008 subprime mortgage crisis and the 2008-2009 Great recession, two crises in which the Fed played a major role.

Now, sixteen years later, it would seem that the Fed is going to keep the bubbles alive until 2023, through its purchases of securities and its ultra loose monetary policy. Therefore, inflation should keep creeping up for some months to come.

When the Fed stops its purchasing program, letting interest rates adjust upwards, this will be the sign that the bond market bubble and the real estate bubble are about to end. The stock market bubble could linger, but not much longer. However, when this happens, a severe economic recession could follow.

Conclusion

The coming years should see major reversals in some important economic trends, especially in demographics and in globalization. The 2023-2025 period, in particular, should be watched closely. It could herald a period of stagflation, that is a period of slower economic growth, rising taxes and creeping cost-push inflation.

Indeed, after that period, the demographic shift could intensify. The 2023-2029 years will see the last baby-boomers retiring, while governments could be facing a looming post-pandemic budgetary crisis arising from the ballooned public debt and the increased costs of caring for an aging population.

Because of a demographic shock to be experienced in most advanced economies in the coming years, labor shortages are likely to linger on, pushing real wages and prices up. Businesses will have a growing incentive to accelerate the use of computer-assisted automation, robotization and artificial intelligence. Such a move will reduce the demand for some categories of labor and may keep some wages in check.

A wholesale reliance on mass immigration cannot solve a labor shortage, except in some well-identified sectors or industries requiring specific skills. The generous refugee and family reunification programs in place in many countries add more to the demand for labor than newly imported workers can do to alleviate the labor supply shortage, besides creating social problems.

Finally, let us also keep in mind that 2029 will mark the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the Great Depression (1929-1939). This could revive talks among economists about a potential era of ‘secular stagnation’, under the influence of negative structural demographic factors and a slowdown in economic and financial globalization.

*

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.

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Environmentalists have known for decades that the “greenest” form of energy available is reduction of useless and harmful energy.  Over 50 years ago, the first Earth Day embodied this with “Reduce; Reuse; Recycle.”  Today, that seems to be replaced with the slogan “Recycle; Occasionally Reuse; and, Never Utter ‘Reduce.’”  Even mentioning the word “reduce” can be met with complaints that “Reduction means ‘austerity,’” as if any type of collective self-control would plunge the world into depths of suffering.

Unquestioning enthusiasm for “alternative energy” (AltE) can open the door for endless consumerism.  It avoids the real problem, which is uncontrolled economic growth.

Overproduction for what purpose?

Acceptance of consumerism hides the twin issues that AltE creates its own negative outcomes and that lowering the amount of harmful production could actually improve the quality of life.  Simply decreasing the amount of toxic poisons required for overproduction would cut down on cancers, brain damage, birth defects and immune system disorders.

No one would suffer from the massive toxins that would be eliminated by halting the manufacture of military armaments or disallowing the design of electrical devices to fall apart.  Very few would be inconvenienced by discontinuing lines of luxury items which only the rich can afford to purchase.

Food illustrates of how lowering production has nothing to do with worsening our lives.  Relying on food produced by local communities instead of food controlled by international corporations would mean eliminating the processing of food until it loses most nutritional value.  It would mean knowing many of the farmers who grow our food instead of transporting it over 2000 miles before it reaches those who eat it.  It would cut out advertising hyper-sugarfied food to kids.

When I first began studying environmentalism over 30 years ago, I remember hearing that if a box of corn flakes costs $1, then 1¢ went to the farmer and $.99 went to the corporations responsible for processing the corn, packaging it, transporting the package and advertising it.  Reduction does not mean “doing without” – it means getting rid of the excess.

Closely linked to food is health.  My book on Cuban Health Care: The Ongoing Revolution points out that the island nation’s life expectancy is longer and infant mortality lower than that in the US while it spends less than 10% per person of what the US does.  Reducing energy devoted to health care does not mean less or worse care.  It means getting rid of the gargantuan unnecessary and expensive components which currently engulf health care.

Electric vehicles (EVs) embody collective environmental amnesia.  Once upon a time, not too many decades ago, people wrote of walkable/bikeable communities and some even put their dreams to the test.  Let’s not crush that dream.  Since AltE has become so popular, the idea of redesigning urban space is being pushed aside so that every person can have at least one EV.  Memory of environmental conservation has fallen into oblivion.

It may not be getting better all the time

Despite the hype about AltE, use of energy is expanding, not contracting.  We are constantly told to buy the latest electronic gadget – and the time period between successive versions of gadgets gets shorter and shorter.  AltE can exacerbate the energy crisis by distracting society from practicing conservation.

The Bitcoin Ponzi scheme reveals the expansion of energy in the service of uselessness.  Jessica McKenzie describes a coal-burning power plant in Dresden, NY.  The plant was shut down because the local community had no use for its energy.  But Bitcoin needs energy to compute its complex algorithms.  So, like Dracula, the coal plant rose from the dead, transformed into a gas burning plant.

What, exactly, are politicians like Joe Biden, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and even Bernie Sanders doing to put the breaks on this expansion of FFs in programs like the Green New Deal (GND)?  Not as much as you might think.  As Noam Chomsky points out in his forward to Stan Cox’ The Green New Deal and Beyond, “… the GND does not challenge the fossil-fuel industry.”  Congressional proposals leave out the most critical part of reducing FFs – limiting the total quantity that can be produced.  Instead, they rely on the false assumption that increasing AltE will somehow cause a decrease in FF use.  Without a “cap” on FF production, AltE simply adds to the energy mix.

Are problems with AltE “minimal?”

Despite stated goals to end FF production by such-and-such a date, the high heat they generate is essential for producing (1) silicon wafers for solar panels, (2) concrete and steel used in construction of windmills and dams, and (3) plastic coverings for industrial windmill blades.  Every type of AltE requires FFs.  Supporters of AltE often say that it is so much smaller as to pale by comparison to direct use of FFs.

Claiming that the amount of FFs used by AltE is trivial ignores both the quantities actually being used now and, most importantly, the uncontrollable corporate urge toward infinite growth.  Hydro-power (dams) is currently the greatest source of AltE and is in line to expand most rapidly.  Ben Gordesky describes research showing that “Canadian large-scale hydro projects have an ongoing carbon footprint that is approximately 40% that of electricity generated by burning natural gas.  These emissions do not include the carbon footprint of dam construction.”  This is not an insignificant amount of FFs used by dams, especially since hydro-power “is expected to grow by at least 45% by 2040.”

Estimates are that “Solar and wind have a carbon footprint of 4% to 8% of natural gas.”  For the sake of simpler arithmetic, let’s say that hydro, wind and solar average 12.5% of the carbon footprint of FFs (even though is it probably much higher).  Then, let’s say that healthy capitalism grows at least 3% annually, which means a doubling in size every 25 years.  If AltE requires 12.5% of the equivalent FFs now, then,

  • in 25 years it will require what is twice that, or 25% of current FF use;
  • at 50 years, it again doubles (to four times its current size), requiring 50% of current FF use; and,
  • at 75 years, the economy doubles (to eight times its current size), reaching 100% of current use.

To put it bluntly, reliance on AltE in no way eliminates FF usage – in only 75 years economic growth would return us to current FF levels.

But would we have to wait 75 years to see current levels of FF restored?  For some parts of the economy, the answer is definitely “No.”  As Stan Cox documents, “… the huge increase in mines, smelters, factories and transportation required for this transition [to EVs] would continue heightened CO2 levels long before any emission savings would be realized.”

It might be possible theoretically to concentrate energy to reach the extremely high temperatures necessary for production of wind turbines and silicon wafers for solar arrays.  Relying on Cox’ calculations, expanding infrastructure to reach 100% AltE by 2030 “… would require a 33-fold increase in industrial expansion, far more than has ever been achieved anywhere and would result in complete ecological devastation.  One little fact regarding this quantity of build-up is that 100% RE would require more land space than used for all food production and living areas in the 48 contiguous states.”

Time for despair?

Is it time to throw up our hands in despair that the only route to preserve humanity is a return to hunter/gatherer existence?  Not really.  Focusing on local, community-based energy can create sufficient production for human needs.

Child Labor in the Democratic Republic of Congo. (Source: Don Fitz)

Many underestimate the ability of low tech devices.  When in high school during the 1960s, my science project was a solar oven that could cook via medium heat.  When I returned from college a few years later, my mom intimated that my dad, an engineer, thought that a solar reflector device could not possibly generate much heat.  So, one morning he used it as a greenhouse for his vegetable seedlings.  When he returned later that day, the plants were fried.

Solar power does not require high-tech based on massive arrays.  Few techniques are more powerful at reducing energy than a passive house design or use of passive solar for existing homes.  It is even possible to run a website via low tech solar without destroying farmland for gargantuan solar arrays.

The story of wind power is somewhat different.  Kris De Decker edits Low-Tech Magazine which spans a variety of ways to heat, cool and provide energy.  An outstanding article covers the sharp contrast between ancient wind mills vs. modern industrial wind turbines:

“For more than two thousand years, windmills were built from recyclable or reusable materials: wood, stone, brick, canvas, metal…  It’s only since the arrival of plastic composite blades in the 1980s that wind power has become the source of a toxic waste product that ends up in landfills.  New wood production technology and design makes it possible to build larger wind turbines almost entirely out of wood again… This would make the manufacturing of wind turbines largely independent of fossil fuels and mined materials.”

A global effort

The corporate obsession with expanding production infects every aspect of exploring, mining, transporting, using and disposing of energy infrastructure.  For decades, this has been painfully obvious for FFs and nuclear power.  The opposition now rippling through AltE is increasingly clear.

Just a very few examples of those challenging FFs includes Ogoni opposition to pumping oil out of Nigeria’s ground, clashes over pipelines at Standing Rock, rebutting Modi’s plan to open 41 coal plants in India and rejection of fracking in Pennsylvania.  Dangers of nuclear power are reflected in demonstrations in Tokyo to remind us of Fukushima Daiichi and struggles by “Solidarity Action for the 21 Villages” in Faléa, Mali against uranium mining for French nukes.  The new outbreak of conflicts over AltE is unfolding via disapproval of massive solar arrays in Klickitat County, WA; the fight against industrial wind turbine projects by the Broome Tioga Green Party, reactions by the Lenca people to the planned Agua Zarca dam in Honduras; efforts to stop Lithium Americas’ open-pit mine at Thacker Pass; and, widespread disapproval of child laborers dying in Democratic Republic of Congo cobalt mines.

In case you did not notice, the two key words common to all of these efforts is “Stop it!”  A better life for all begins with rejecting limitless economic growth by developing technologies that minimize mining, processing, over-producing goods with short durations, and transporting products over long distances.  Instead, we must develop locally-based products that have the least harmful effects.

One of the main problems with tunnel visioning on AltE is that how that approach accepts and perpetuates the ideology of greed, which insists that everyone in the US (and, of course, the world) must adopt the consumerist life-style of the upper middle class.

People believe in preserving what they hold sacred.  For most of us, these include sacred places and beings, the inorganic world, creatures that sleep in water or on land, and human Life.  Corporate profits should not be included among the things we hold sacred.

*

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 first appeared on Green Social Thought.

Don Fitz ([email protected]) is on the Editorial Board of Green Social Thought where a version of this article first appeared.  He was the 2016 candidate of the Missouri Green Party for Governor.  His book on Cuban Health Care: The Ongoing Revolution has been available since June 2020.

Featured image: Water Protectors Occupy Work Sites and Lock Down to Line 3 Enbridge Pipeline.  Thanks to Unicorn Riot. (Source: Don Fitz)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Dr. Walter Rodney (1942-1980) was an acclaimed Pan-African historian and Marxist theoretician from the time he graduated from the London School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in 1966.

Rodney soon took a faculty position at the University of Dar es Salaam in the East African state of Tanzania, which was a center during the 1960s and 1970s for the national liberation movements fighting across the continent against western imperialism.

The historian and political activist was assassinated on June 13, 1980 in the capital of his home country of Guyana, Georgetown, located in South America. Rodney had returned to Guyana in 1974 after being offered a faculty position at the university. Viewing his appointment as a potential threat to the People’s National Congress (PNC) government of then President Forbes Burnham, his job offer was revoked.

Rather than return to Tanzania, another African country or a university in North America, Rodney chose to stay in Guyana and delve into the internal politics of the country. By 1979, Rodney had transformed along with other veteran activists, the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) as a political party in an effort to build unity among the working people of Guyana, who had been largely divided along ethnic lines between the slightly majority East Indian, Asian population pitted against the African descendants.

After the assassination of Rodney, the administration of Burnham claimed that the historian was attempting to plant a bomb outside a government building. His brother, Donald Rodney, was charged with being an accomplice in the alleged crime and sentenced to a term in prison.

Many people within the Left, Pan-African and progressive academic communities were in disbelief of the Guyana government’s explanation related to Rodney’s death. Blame was placed on the Burnham administration which continued to deny involvement.

Over four decades later, with the prodding of his widow, children and comrades within the WPA which remains active in Guyana politics, the government shifted its position recognizing Rodney as an historian while changing his death certificate to indicate he was murdered. The original death certificate stated that Rodney was “unemployed” although he was still working on academic projects by writing a History of the Guyanese Working People, which was published posthumously.

An article published on the recent developments in Guyana says:

“In April this year, the Court of Appeal, set aside the conviction that linked the 69-year-old Donald Rodney to the assassination of his brother. The Court of Appeal also set aside the 18-month sentence for possession of explosives against Rodney, said to have been the only eyewitness to the assassination of his brother, who was the co-leader of the Working People’s Alliance (WPA). In 2014, a Commission of Inquiry declared that Rodney’s death was not a misadventure but rather an assassination and Attorney General Nandalal also told legislators in parliament Thursday (June 10) that the death certificate will be amended to delete the words ‘misadventure’ as the cause of death.”

The person identified during the 2014 tribunal as the individual which lured the Rodney brothers to the location, Gregory Smith, was a security operative of the Burnham administration. This individual was later sent to another Caribbean territory, French Guiana, and never held accountable for the killing. He is reported to have died in 2002.

Since 1980, the writings and lectures of Walter Rodney are still in circulation. Although the situation in Africa, the Caribbean and South America has changed in regard to the level of mass mobilization and political debate, the underlying conclusions of Rodney’s approach to analyzing the historical development and social conditions of the peoples of Africa and the world remains fundamentally sound.

Imperialism is continuing to exploit and dominate the majority of the peoples of the globe while the struggles of working people, the peasantry, youth and revolutionary intellectuals are ongoing. The current battle against the COVID-19 pandemic illustrates clearly once again the marginalization of the peoples of the Southern Hemisphere through the denial of pharmaceutical products including the billions of doses of vaccines needed to aim at protecting population groups from infection, serious illness and death.

The Significance of Walter Rodney in the 21st Century

Rodney’s academic and political work was done during the period of 1966-1980 amid an upsurge in the struggle for national liberation and socialism in Africa and other geo-political regions. Tanzanian President Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, the leader and co-founder of the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU), oversaw not only the independence of his country in 1961 he was a committed force within the efforts to build socialism inside the country and the continent.

In 1967, TANU issued the Arusha Declaration which called for socialist construction in the post-colonial state attempting to overcome the legacy of imperialism and its concomitant results which are impoverishment and general underdevelopment. Rodney had researched the Atlantic Slave Trade and its impact in the Upper Guinea Coast of West Africa for his dissertation at the SOAS. Therefore, he was well acquainted with the challenges facing the continent even after national independence.

By 1968, Rodney had accepted an offer as a visiting scholar at the University of West Indies in Jamaica. During his stay in Jamaica, he held lectures for people within the community attracting broad interests. In August of that same year, Rodney traveled to Montreal, Quebec (Canada) to speak at the Black Writers Conference that was attended by numerous luminaries of the time including Stokely Carmichael, James Baldwin, CLR James and James R. Forman.

In attempting to return to Jamaica, he was denied admission back into the Caribbean-island nation. Youth and workers rose up in rebellion leading to him being banned inside the country for many years afterwards. A series of his lectures in Jamaica was later published under the title: “The Groundings with My Brothers.”

Rodney then returned to the University of Dar es Salaam where he continued historical research resulting in the publication of his most famous work: “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa”, a book issued by the Tanzanian government in 1972. Two years later the book was reprinted by Howard University.

His return to Guyana in 1974, led to his involvement in opposition politics inside the country during the mid-to-late 1970s. Due to his WPA activities, Rodney and several of his comrades were indicted for arson by the Burnham administration in 1979. The impending threat by the government made many of his comrades and colleagues fear that his life would be taken.

Prof. Issa Shivji, who had been a student in Tanzania at the time of Rodney’s arrival in 1966, would later become a faculty member at the University of Dar es Salaam during the early 1970s in the field of law. Shivji recalled in a tribute paid to Rodney in 2012 that at the time of Zimbabwean independence in April 1980:

“On his way to Zimbabwe, and this was a time when the movement was in trouble, he passed through and stayed with one of our comrades here. This comrade told him, ‘Walter stay, don’t go back. Guyana is dangerous.’ There was a case against him in court. Walter said, ‘No, I cannot just run away. I have to go back.’… It’s more believable that he was pulled because he felt he could make his contribution there, in Guyana. And he did, in my view. One can make critical assessments in hindsight, but one of the things we appreciated, and came to learn from, the Party, the WPA, was how it managed to bring together Indian and African youth.” (See this)

Just three years ago in 2018, a series of lectures for a course Rodney developed at the University of Dar es Saleem on the History of Russia, the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and later efforts to build socialism, was finally published after nearly five decades. The book is perhaps the most comprehensive view of the Russian Revolution, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), socialist construction and its relevance to the African independence movements in the struggle for socialism and continental unity.

The announcement by the Guyana government earlier in the year was a welcome development for many people. It was also revealed that a Walter Rodney Chair in the History Department at the University in Guyana will be established. These events illustrate the importance of Rodney’s work and the necessity of the continuation of the study and application of his writings, lectures and political activity.

*

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

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

Featured image: Walter Rodney African historical scholar and political activist (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A friend sent me a link to a Foreign Policy news story about the Turkey / Syria border crossing at Bab al Hawa.  He asked, “Is this accurate?”  What could be wrong with humanitarian aid?

There have been many such stories, both short and long. The essence of them all in western media is that Bab al Hawa must be kept open for humanitarian reasons.  Many of the articles castigate Russia or any other country such as China which might vote to block a renewal of United Nations authorization of the border crossing.

***

UPDATE

On Friday July 9 the UN Security Council unanimously agreed to a one year extension of the Bab al Hawa crossing. As part of the agreement, the UN Secretary General needs to report regularly on what is happening with the aid going into the Al Qaeda dominated zone. Evidently Russia and China thought the time was not right to insist on principle. The problems outlined in this article remain true.

***

There are important facts which western media stories typically leave out or distort. Here are some reasons why the Bab al Hawa border crossing should NOT be renewed.

  • The aid is supporting Syria’s version of Al Qaeda, Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS).  They control the region on the Syrian side of the crossing. They are the foreigners and hard-core extremists who invaded Idlib from Turkey in 2015 plus those who left Aleppo and other cities when the militants were defeated by the Syrian army.   Even if the United Nations inspects all the trucks going into Idlib province in northern Syria, the truck deliveries are ultimately controlled by HTS (formerly called Jabhat al Nusra).
  • The aid is effectively supporting the partition of Syria. Idlib province, and the militants which govern there, seek to separate permanently from Syria. They are attempting to Turkify the region through sectarian education, promoting the Turkish language and even using Turkish currency.
  • The aid violates the United Nations Charter which says all member countries shall refrain from threatening the territorial integrity of another member state. Turkey and the USA are the major violators, since they have military troops illegally occupying Syrian lands. But it is a shame for the United Nations to be complicit through the authorization of aid to the breakaway Al Qaeda dominated region.
  • The aid to northwest Syria is prolonging the conflict instead of helping end it.  It is evident that after failing to militarily overthrow the Syrian government, western powers are now using other means to attack Damascus. They continue to interfere in Syria’s domestic affairs. Led by the USA, they have economically attacked Syria while pouring support into the breakaway northwest region.
  • Western aid to the Al Qaeda dominated region distracts from the pain, damage, and destruction which US and European sanctions have wreaked on most Syrians.  The Caesar sanctions, imposed by the USA amid the Covid19 pandemic, have had a horrendous impact.  By outlawing the Syrian Central Bank and making it nearly impossible to trade with Syria, US sanctions have undermined the Syrian currency.  Many goods have increased in price by 4 and 5 and even 10 times. Like a modern-day gangster, the US has been openly stealing the oil and wheat from eastern Syria.  The US has attacked the electrical grid by prohibiting parts, engineering, or construction to repair or rebuild power plants. “Caesar” sanctions prohibit support for anything government related including schools and hospitals.

According to a December 2020 United Nations General Assembly resolution, Unilateral Coercive Measures such as the “Caesar” law are illegal and a violation of the UN Charter, international law, and international human rights law.  Yet because of US global economic dominance, it is still in force and the US claims the right to prohibit any country, company, or individual from supporting or trading with Syria.  This is what makes US claims to humanitarian concern so ironic and cynical.

  • The western aid to Syrians through Bab al Hawa is discriminatory and serves to divide the country. Before the conflict Idlib province had a total population of 1.5 million persons and the number is LESS today.  Much of the population left when the province was over-run by extremists.  Some fled into Turkey; others fled to Latakia province to the west.  Some opposition militants and their supporters chose to go to Idlib rather than reconcile with the government. For example, when East Aleppo was taken back by government soldiers, there were about thousands of militants and their families transferred – but not hundreds of thousands as was incorrectly predicted in the wave of propaganda before East Aleppo was recaptured. So, in contrast with some estimates, there are one million or fewer persons in Idlib.

The civilians in north west Syria are being effectively bribed to live there through cash payments and vastly greater relief.  One thousand trucks per month are taking aid into northwest Syria.  As noted in in OCHA document, people are “incentivized by access to services and livelihoods.”  This is understandable but the divisive effect is also clear.

In contrast, there are between 14 and 17 million Syrians living elsewhere in Syria. They are receiving little if any of the aid.  Instead, they are bearing the brunt of vicious US unilateral coercive measures.

  • Aid to civilians in Syria should be distributed fairly and proportionally. This can be done with monitoring or supervision by a respected international agency such as the Red Crescent / Red Cross.  In keeping with the UN Charter, western countries should respect the political independence of the Syrian government and stop their continuing interference and efforts at “regime change”.

Weaponizing “Humanitarian Aid”

There are many western NGOs crying out about Bab al Hawa. For example, the International Rescue Committee has raised many millions of dollars which should have gone to help all Syrians but has not. Their literature should be carefully considered however because – according to their 2019 tax returns –  western governments are their main funders at $440M in 2019.  The CEO, David Miliband, is well compensated at over $1 million per year. We can be sure they keep on message with the US State Department.

Humanitarian aid is big business and has been politically weaponized. While there are many well-meaning people working hard, there political agendas at work.

If Russia and other nations in the UN Security Council veto the extension of the Bab al Hawa crossing, there are good reasons 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.

Rick Sterling is an independent journalist based in the SF Bay Area. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Bab El Hawa boarder crossing from Turkey to Syria in March 2006. (CC BY 3.0)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Most of the foreign takfiri fighters held in Syria’s containment camps and living in the country’s north-western Idlib province are spurned by their home countries and their wives and hapless children are rejected for repatriation. Consequently, these people have nowhere to go.

Hundreds of takfiri fighters are imprisoned by the US-backed Syrian-Kurdish-dominated Democratic Forces regime in the northeast while as many as 30,000 are stuck in Idlib.

The 70 per cent of Syria under government control does not want them. Iraq and the 50 countries from which they come reject them. This is true also for Hay’at Tahrir Al Sham, which rules Idlib with an iron hand and the Kurds who hold 25 per cent of Syria’s territory. They are compelled to guard and provide for the takfiris. They are forever prisoners of an unfinished, decade-long war.

Al Hol camp in north-eastern Syria near the Iraq border houses 43,000 mainly women and children of fighters as well as low level fighters: half are Iraqis, a quarter Syrians, and the rest non-Arab foreigners. The UN children’s fund, UNICEF, estimates that 22,000 are children. Since there is no schooling or sports programmes for them, they are growing up without something to do, without a homeland, without a future.

Conditions are crowded and harsh. Residents are constantly confronted by Daesh loyalists seeking to intimidate, impose control and conservative restrictions on them, and secure fresh recruits for their cause. Children as young as four or five are indoctrinated by Daesh and often verbally abuse or throw stones at camp guards and visitors. Al Hol is a hell hole.

The situation is better in the much smaller al-Roj camp in the same area. It houses 1,400 persons, the majority Iraqis but also some Europeans. Daesh does not have a firm grip on Al Roj residents. Iraqis remain in the camp because they have nowhere to go as their villages and homes have been destroyed or former neighbours who were persecuted by Daesh do not want them to return.

Early last month, the Dutch government repatriated a woman, who faced no criminal charges, and three children who had been living in al-Roj camp. This was, however, only the second time Dutch citizens were allowed to go home from northern Syria. Two orphans were repatriated in June 2019. A British woman Shamima Begum, 21, who travelled from London to join Daesh as a teenager, was moved for her own safety from Al Hol to Al Roj. She has lost her British nationality and has been refused permission to return home. Britain is among the countries which do not repatriate their nationals.

US envoy to the anti-Daesh coalition, John Godfrey warned that those held in Syria’s camps “constitute a potential threat to security in the region and beyond”. The US has repatriated 28 of its citizens, of whom 12 are adults and 10 have been prosecuted or are under prosecution.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken called on US allies to repatriate their nationals and escribed the imprisonment of 10,000 suspected Daesh fighters, some 2,000 of whom are foreigners, as “untenable”.

COVID has slowed the repatriation of children. Only about 1,000 have been sent home since the fall of Daesh in Iraq in 2017.

Ironically, the US expresses concern about the residents of internment camps in north-east Syria while Washington and its allies tolerate the rule of Al Qaeda offshoot Hay’at Tahrir Al Sham (HTS) in the north-western province of Idlib.  HTS — which operates under Turkish protection — has consolidated its grip on Idlib over the past year by forcing smaller factions to merge or dissolve and send fighters home. According to Al Monitor, HTS has now tackled Jund Al Sham, a small, mainly Chechen group, headed by Muslim Al Shishani who rejected this demand and asked HTS to allow the faction to remain independent and focus only on the battle with the Syrian army while staying out of provincial social and political affairs.

However, HTS is intent on asserting control over Idlib and eliminating other factions with the aim of establishing a one party administration and a separate, fundamentalist entity in Idlib. This would divide Syria, pose a threat to this region comparable to the false “caliphate” created by Daesh and amount to a takfiri base on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. While HTS may claim it does not intend to export its ideology or fighters, the very existence of such an entity wouldamount to a fundamentalist challenge to regional and European governments.

Meanwhile, Daesh elements are taking advantage of deteriorating conditions in Iraq and Syria to regroup and recruit disaffected young people. While post-war Syrian reconstruction and economic revival have been prevented by US sanctions, in both countries drought, poor harvests, corruption, rising unemployment and increasing poverty are creating an economic crisis. Daesh is making a come back in mountainous northern Iraq and rural western Iraq as well as desert areas of eastern Syria.

Having replaced secular Baathists in Iraq with sectarian Shiites and waged war against the Baath in Syria, weakening the anti-takfiri government, the Western powers incompetently led by the US, cannot deal with the chaos they have created. The hurried US and NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan after 20 years of failing to eliminate the Taliban can only encourage and empower takfiris.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The War on Syria: ISIS-Daesh Taking Advantage of Deteriorating Conditions, Recruiting Disaffected Young People
  • Tags: , , ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Previously solid ground is quickly degrading. The melting of the permafrost is about to cause huge damage to buildings and infrastructure across the country, Russia’s natural resource minister warns.

The heat is on, and it is hitting the Arctic with detrimental consequence. Global warming is now leading to quick and irreversible change in the North. And Russia is among the ones worst affected.

This week, the temperatures in the Russian north again beat records. In Saskylah, a small community in the Arctic Circle, the air temperature reached 31.9 C, the highest measurement since 1936. According to Roshydromet, the Russian meteorology institute, average temperatures along parts of the Russian Arctic coast have since 1998 increased with as much as 4,95 C degrees.

The development is of growing concern in Moscow. The country’s Minister of Natural Resources Aleksandr Kozlov confirms that more than 40 percent of all buildings in the North are now experiencing deformation in their building structure. And the construction of roads and railways is getting increasingly difficult, he said in a round table discussion in late May.

According to Kozlov, the melting ground is today the underlying reason for 23 percent of all technical system failure in the region, and up to 29 percent of oil and gas production facilities can no longer be operated.

Leading Russian researchers estimate that the degrading ground by year 2050 will inflict damages worth about five trillion rubles (€58 billion). That is equal to about 25 percent of the total Russian federal budget.

“What will happen with our towns in ten, fifty, hundred years?” governor of the far northern Yamal-Nenets region Dmitry Artyukhov asked during the conference. He is concerned about the comprehensive ongoing construction works in his region, much of which is made without regionally adjusted technology.

According to Artyukhov, the latest geological maps from the region dates back to the 1980s.

“The construction workers that today come to any project [in the region] do not have a clear-cut document that describes how the permafrost works and what solidity margins that are needed in order to make the buildings last for their due time,” the regional leader said.

The Russian Ministry of Natural Resources this year launches a new state monitoring system for the permafrost.  The system will be based on existing research installations managed by state meteorological authority Roshydromet, and two development phases are envisaged.

The first pilot phase will cover the period 2022-2024 and be based on experiences and methodology applied in Spitsbergen, Franz Josef Land and Severnaya Zemlya, the Ministry of Natural Resources informs.

The permafrost melting is already affecting operators of Arctic infrastructure, including oil and gas installations. Experts have argued that the spill of 21,000 tons of diesel oil in the Taymyr Peninsula in 2020 came after the ground under a major oil storage tank degraded.

Researchers from the Russian Cryosphere Institute believe that the border of the permafrost zone over the last 40 years has moved more than 30 km to the north and that up to 500 square kilometers of land is every year sliding into the Arctic ocean and disappearing.

This process is irreversable, and it is impossible to stop it, Head of the Russian Cryosphere Institute Dmitry Drozdev said.

With the melting of the frozen tundra comes also growing risks of new and lethal diseases. Among the many infectious disease agents preserved in the permafrost is Anthrax.

*

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: Dikson is among the many Arctic towns troubled by melting permafrost. Photo. Thomas Nilsen

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Just as in 2018, Nicaragua is once again the subject of the kind of mass international bad faith news coverage and perception management more usually associated recently with US and allied government offensives against Bolivia, Cuba, Iran, Syria and Venezuela. In Nicaragua’s case the current offensive is aimed at influencing the country’s elections scheduled for next November 7th. Currently, all the opinion polls show that, should President Daniel Ortega stand again for election, he and his FSLN party will win easily with over 60% support against around 20% for the the country’s right wing opposition.

The campaign against Nicaragua’s Sandinista government is clearly intended to encourage punitive coercive economic measures from the US and European Union governments aimed at influencing voter opinion in those November elections against President Ortega and the FSLN. Right now, the main false accusation is that “Ortega” has unjustly imprisoned over twenty opposition leaders, among them several presidential candidates. All US attempts to overthrow governments resisting US and allied government dictates depend on this kind of big lie. The standard big lie is that target governments are unpopular, repressive dictatorships. Invariably, the truth is very different if not the complete opposite.

For example, in 2009, the big lie in preparation for the coup against then Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was that the proposed Fourth Ballot referendum aimed to secure him re-election so as to impose a dictatorship. In Nicaragua’s case, the current big lie is that “Ortega” is arresting opposition leaders to prevent them defeating him in next November’s elections. These big lies only flourish in an essentially fascist culture of corporate dominated government in which truthful information is systematically suppressed and substituted by false beliefs.

Typical Western false beliefs or presuppositions are, for example, that the US and its allies are a force for good in the world, that Western culture is morally superior to others and that capitalism promotes optimal economic and social outcomes. These ridiculous false beliefs are fundamental tenets of Western intellectual life and public discourse. They make possible the kind of psychological warfare repeatedly unleashed against governments that obstruct the wishes of Western corporate elites and the governments they own.

An important component of Western psychological warfare shaping the moral dimension of any given disinformation assault is the essentially class based solidarity with the target country’s imperialist proxies. This neocolonial solidarity operates in reactionary and progressive varieties, both claiming a Western monopoly on freedom, democracy and defence of human rights. Both essentially agree that governments resisting Western demands deserve to be attacked one way or another.

The reactionary variety, prevalent mostly among the business and financial classes and related professionals, insists on abandoning international law in favour of intervention based on Western dictated rules. The progressive variety, prevalent mostly among non profit organizations, academics and other socially oriented professionals, agrees but is more diffident about the means of intervention deployed, demanding alibis to satisfy susceptibilities over humanitarian and human rights concerns. The right wing variety generally favors aggressive, overt or covert military-based solidarity with armed opposition rebellion, while the progressive variety favors smart-power coercive measures prioritizing solidarity with some version of opposition civil society or popular movements.

Nicaragua experienced the first right wing version of neocolonial solidarity during the Contra war of the 1980s when president Reagan declared, with more truth than he realized, that the CIA-run narco-terror campaign was “the moral equivalent of the founding fathers”. Subsequently, ever since the Sandinista FSLN party returned to government in 2007, Nicaragua has experienced principally the progressive version of smart power neocolonial solidarity developed under president Obama. That policy, supporting Nicaragua’s anti-Sandinista opposition, intensified under president Trump and continues unchanged now under “Biden”.

Self-evidently, these varieties of neocolonial solidarity thrive on their respective class loyalties and ideological susceptibilities. In 2018, a massive disinformation campaign covered up the Nicaraguan opposition’s extreme violence and their deliberate campaign of destruction. As Harold Pinter remarked in relation to the 1980s Contra War, even as the opposition violence of 2018 was happening, the murders, the extortion, the arson, the torture, it was made to seem that nothing happened. Now, when the Nicaraguan authorities have acted to preempt a repeat of that failed 2018 coup attempt, a furious psychological warfare assault is taking place to conceal the coup mongering opposition’s treasonous collusion with the US and EU country governments.

As regards progressive and left wing opinion in general, militant foreign supporters of Nicaragua’s ex-sandinista opposition have long been important protagonists covering up the ex.sandinistas’ anti-democratic collaboration with Western imperialist intervention. Even before the 2006 elections, the US authorities had coopted ex sandinistas as collaborators. But when Daniel Ortega and FSLN won those elections, successfully managed the crisis of 2008-2009 and then triumphed in the 2011 elections, US government support for the opposition switched to promoting efforts at outright regime change. Inside Nicaragua, the ex sandinistas, devoid of popular support, abused their non profit networks to camouflage their political opposition to the government and the accumulation of resources necessary to mount the 2018 coup attempt.

That systematic abusive subterfuge has been eliminated and its protagonists held to account. So now foreign supporters of the ex sandinista opposition again cloak their militant, aggressive, politically driven advocacy under phony human rights concerns. In 2018, they did so to cover up the violent role of the ex sandinistas in the failed coup attempt. Now, they falsely allege human rights abuses to cover up ex sandinista US collaborators’ treasonous criminality. The false human rights propaganda motif makes it possible for proponents of the progressive variety of neocolonial solidarity in North America, Europe and elsewhere, to work in parallel with their right wing counterparts. Even many supposedly left wing figures have written articles or signed declarations in support of the ex-Sandinista US collaborators and those people’s right wing allies in Nicaragua. They do so for three main reasons.

Firstly, many supposedly left wing figures attacking the Nicaraguan authorities for defending Nicaragua’s independence and sovereignty have some degree of friendship with the ex-sandinistas now under investigation, so they defend them for essentially personal reasons. Secondly, it is likely that many supposed left wingers supporting the ex Sandinista US collaborators have been duped by the massive psychological warfare assault on Nicaragua without bothering to question it. A third main reason for that kind of neocolonial solidairty from people who should know better, is that they fear alienating their support networks and are simply signaling how virtuous they are so as to avoid criticism.

In any case, the current situation, just like the 2018 coup attempt, categorically defines where everyone’s loyalties lie. People genuinely committed to the principles of sovereign independence and self-determination recognize the Nicaraguan authorities are applying the country’s laws and criminal code to defend the country against US intervention aimed at overthrowing the elected government. People who believe the bogus human rights accusations and claims that the current criminal investigations are driven by electoral considerations are engaging in the kind of neocolonial solidarity regularly deployed to justify yet another operation of imperialist regime change. For anyone foolish enough to credit the ex sandinista leaders denials of complicity with the US government,  this series of photographs should help disabuse them of that false belief.

*

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 Tortilla con Sal.

Stephen Sefton,  author and renowned political analyst based in northern Nicaragua, actively involved in community development work focussing on education and health care, Stephen Sefton 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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

El Gato al Agua, the Spanish national political and current affairs talk show hosted by José Javier Esparza, has given space in its program to the biostatistician and founder of La Quinta Columna to comment on the official interim report of the analysis of the first vaccination vial obtained.

According to Ricardo Delgado, La Quinta Columna has obtained a dozen more from different laboratories and will continue to analyze them. 

Throughout the program it has blown everyone’s mind that between 98% and 99% of the content of the vaccination vials corresponds to graphene oxide.

As the Spanish team have been saying, this is not a vaccine but a dose of pure graphene oxide into the vein.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

Pharma Funded 2,400+ State Lawmakers’ Campaigns in 2020

July 8th, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The top pharmaceutical lobbyist in the 2020 elections was Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which spent $25.9 million at the state and federal level

Big Pharma targets bipartisan lawmakers in influential positions who can affect decisions that affect the industry. Once elected, they are tempted with lucrative job promises after leaving office, known as the “revolving door”

Companies form political action committees (PACs) to circumvent laws that prohibit corporations from donating directly to candidates. Money can be legally shuffled to support their candidate’s reelection

The industry has benefited from a public opinion reversal during the pandemic, moving from criticism over drug prices in early 2019 to becoming popular again in the vaccine effort

Although the cost of drugs is not the center of media attention, Big Pharma has not lowered prices and continues to push for higher revenue

*

Lobbyists are professional advocates whose job it is to influence political decisions. According to the law, a lobbyist cannot pay a politician directly to secure a vote. However, the industry has found several ways of working around this restriction. One way is to organize a fundraiser for the candidate they want to influence.1

The fundraiser helps support the candidate’s reelection and term in office and the lobbyist can talk with a candidate about their legislative concerns. Lobbyists can spend big money to influence decisions that ultimately yield much more money.

For example, one yearlong analysis by the Sunlight Foundation2 found that for every dollar spent influencing politicians, corporations received $760 from the government. This is a 76,000% return on their investment. The Sunlight Foundation examined 14 million records to reach this result. According to the Foundation, in 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court suggested that political donors do not receive anything in return for their donations.3

In the landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, the justices wrote that corporate money spent on federal elections “do[es] not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”4 STAT analyzed data gathered in 2020 and discovered many health care decisions are in the hands of pharmaceutical companies that are making big bucks.

Your Health Care Decision in the Hands of Big Pharma

In a series titled “Prescription Politics,” STAT5 analyzed lobbyist expenditures in the 2020 elections at the state and federal levels. The data showed that the top pharmaceutical lobbyist in 2020 was Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). They earned this spot having spent $25.9 million on lobbying efforts.6

Going back for a minute to the research from the Sunlight Foundation, if their estimation holds true and you do the math, the $25.9 million investment by PhRMA may ultimately net the industry $19.6 billion. One area where many states have fought the pharmaceutical industry is over the high price of drugs.

Lawmakers in Oregon have tried several strategies to lower drug prices and nearly every proposal has failed. When STAT looked at campaign contributions, they found two-thirds of the state legislature in Oregon had cashed at least one contribution check from the drug industry.

An analysis of other states found more dramatic results in Louisiana, California and Illinois. Documentation showed 84.4% of lawmakers in Louisiana, 81.7% in California and 76.3% in Illinois had accepted and cashed a check from the pharmaceutical industry.7

During the 2020 election campaign, the pharmaceutical industry wrote 10,000 checks that totaled more than $9 million. The STAT analysis found in 2019 and 2020, 2,467 state legislators nationwide had used Big Pharma cash to support their campaigns.

While many of the state campaign contributions were relatively small, other state and federal lawmakers cashed much larger checks as the industry focused on donating to legislators in key positions:8,9

  • Chad Mayes — Mayes is the vice chair on the Committee on Health for the California State Assembly10 and he accepted $79,600.
  • Tim Knopp — Vice chair of the Oregon Senate health care committee, Knopp accepted $25,000. This was the largest contribution from a single trade group, PhRMA.
  • Richard Hudson — U.S. Rep. Hudson, R-N.C., holds a seat on the Energy and Health subcommittee,11 which oversees health care legislation. He accepted $139,500. According to Open Secrets,12 his donations from pharmaceutical and health industries totaled $275,980.
  • Thom Tillis — U.S. Sen. Tillis, R-N.C., holds a seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee13 that oversees intellectual property law. He wrote a bill to expand the industry’s patent protection. He accepted $471,489 in pharmaceutical and health industry contributions.14
  • Anna Eshoo — Rep. Eshoo, D-Calif., chairs the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health and has taken more money over her career than any other member of the House in California, totaling more than $1.6 million.15

These are just a few of the state and federal legislators who are taking money from the drug industry to fund their campaigns, which gives the industry a front row seat to influence the lawmaker. Constance Bagley, consultant and former Yale professor, spoke with STAT about campaign contributions, saying:16

“A campaign contribution gets you access. Legislators will say, ‘Well, that doesn’t mean I’m being bribed.’ But frankly, my view is that if you get immediate access if you give a contribution, and you don’t get immediate access if you don’t, it’s hard to say that it’s not getting you something.”

Bipartisan Big Pharma Support Funded Congressional Campaigns

The analysis of the state and federal campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry shows the industry takes a bipartisan approach to influencing legislators. In other words, it is not an ideology the industry supports, but rather their own bottom line.

In 2020, $4.5 million was donated to Democrats on the state level and $4.4 million to Republicans.17Although the industry appears to have an interest in preventing the Democratic Party from controlling the White House and Congress, during 2020 $7.1 million was spent on Republican candidates and $6.6 million was spent on Democratic candidates.18

In the federal elections, STAT found that taking drug money increased the potential the candidates would be elected.19 Once elected, the drug industry and lobbyists continue to extend perks to the legislators by offering them lucrative jobs once they leave office, which has become known as the “revolving door.”

This encourages the lawmakers to protect the best interest of their future employers, the lobbyists who are representing the pharmaceutical industry. Former lobbyist and author Jack Abramoff was convicted on felony charges for fraud and conspiracy as a lobbyist and “became a symbol of the excesses of Washington influence peddling.”20

When interviewed by Lesley Stahl in 2011, he characterized lobbyists’ relationships with lawmakers this way:21

“When we would become friendly with an office and they were important to us, and the chief of staff was a competent person, I would say or my staff would say to him or her at some point, ‘You know, when you’re done working on the Hill, we’d very much like you to consider coming to work for us.’

Now the moment I said that to them or any of our staff said that to ’em, that was it. We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request of our clients, everything that we want, they’re gonna do. And not only that, they’re gonna think of things we can’t think of to do.”

State campaign finance laws differ across the U.S. In some cases, corporations can donate directly to lawmakers and in other states there are no contribution limits. Maribeth Guarino, a health care advocate for the nonprofit Oregon State Public Interest Research Group, talked about the fight in Oregon to lower prescription prices, saying:22

“Pharma is fighting us hard in any way that they can: By campaign contributions, by lobbying, whatever angle they can get to gain a foothold. Oregon has no contribution limits for campaigns. Pharmaceutical companies can spend as much as they think it’ll take to win.”

Political Action Committees Exploit a Legal Loophole

In some states it is illegal for industries, businesses and corporations to donate directly to candidates. However, that has not stopped the industry from finding a legal loophole that allows them to continue to influence candidates. Companies form political action committees (PACs) to raise and spend money that influences elections.

A PAC can give up to $5,000 to a single candidate committee or up to $15,000 each year to a national party committee.23 A PAC can also give $5,000 annually to any other PAC and receive up to $5,000 from any individual, PAC or party committee annually.

According to STAT, these PACs are often funded by contributions from industry executive and corporate leadership. In their analysis of the data, they found that legislators could directly receive campaign contributions from a PAC, and they could also be funneled through the legislators’ separate PAC campaign group.

This allows the industry to donate twice to the legislature — individually and through their PAC. While legislators may create their own PAC, others, like the Blue Dog PAC,24 are affiliated with a group of legislators and are not directly linked to an individual member of Congress.

STAT found that the Pfizer drug company used its PAC to write 1,048 checks in 43 states to lawmakers and candidates.25 A spokesperson from Pfizer said in a statement that the donations are:26

“… part of our overall efforts to advance public policies that support the health needs of the patients we serve. Even during our important work for the development of a safe and effective Covid-19 vaccine, we remained laser-focused on advocating for state laws that support scientific innovation and lower out-of-pocket costs.”

PhRMA wrote fewer checks but spent more money than any other drug industry group, totaling $1.58 million.27 A spokesperson for PhRMA talked about the breadth and depth of the group’s involvement in state and federal legislatures in a statement, commenting they were monitoring 220 bills in Washington and 200 state proposals in 44 states. Each of these bills had an impact on biopharma companies.

In early 2019, the pharmaceutical industry was faced with criticism over drug prices and lobbyists were fighting a wave of bills that sought to cap prices or add transparency requirements.

This changed in 2020 when major drug makers developed a COVID-19 vaccine in record time for which they are not held responsible for related adverse effects or death.28 Guarino commented on the orchestrated reversal in public opinion:29

“They’ve become very popular in the last year because of their efforts to create and develop and deliver vaccines. But when it comes to cost, the public is still frustrated, still paying out of pocket, still hurting.”

Big Pharma Profiting From Pandemic Response

One example of the high drug prices during the pandemic is remdesivir. This antiviral drug was initially evaluated in 2014 for the Ebola outbreak.30 It cost taxpayers $70.5 million, and that number may be higher.31 After disappointing results for Ebola, it was brought out again in the early months of 2020 for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Despite initial estimates showing the cost to produce a finished product was $10,32 drugmaker Gilead charges the government $2,340 and private insurers $3,120.33 The estimate to produce remdesivir was made by The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER).34

ICER revised this cost range to between $10 and $600 for a 10-day course after three producers in Bangladesh and India reported developing the drug in a price range of $590 to $710 for a 10-day course. You’ll find more about Remdesivir and the pricing model in “Remdesivir Is a Scam Like Tamiflu.”

As I wrote in “Just How Powerful Is Big Pharma?” the Wellcome Trust has been a major player in the COVID-19 pandemic and is part of the technocratic globalist network. Wellcome is the largest charity in the U.K. that funds “innovative biomedical research.”35

The director, Jeremy Farrar, holds a position in the U.K. Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies and a board seat with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, which gave $1 billion to COVID-19 vaccine development.

Wellcome is heavily invested in companies manufacturing the vaccine and reported gains of $4.5 billion from investments in 2020, which the BMJ notes36 is “three times more money than the trust gave away in charity.”

The cost of the vaccine to the government has also been called into question. Thus far, the price has been set by government contracts since only governments have been purchasing the COVID-19 vaccine. However, as has been pointed out, different countries pay different prices.37

For example, South Africa paid more than twice the price per dose paid by the European Union and the EU is paying less for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine than the U.S.

Drug companies are playing a long game, looking beyond the current pandemic response and anticipating the vaccine will be as routine as the flu vaccination. A journalist from Managed Healthcare Executive reports Pfizer’s CFO Frank D’Amelio spoke at an earnings call in February 2021, saying:38

“Now let’s go beyond a pandemic-pricing environment, the environment we’re currently in. Obviously, we’re going to get more on price.

And clearly, to your point, the more volume we put through our factories, the lower unit cost will become. So clearly, there’s a significant opportunity for those margins to improve once we get beyond the pandemic environment that we’re in.”

*

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

Notes

1 Represent Us, 5 Crazy Facts About Lobbyists

2, 3 Sunlight Foundation, November 17, 2014

4 Federal Election Commission, Citizen United V FEC, Supreme Court Decision

5, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 25, 26, 27, 29 STAT, June 9, 2021

6 Open Secrets, Industry Profile: Pharmaceuticals/Health Products

9, 11 STAT, June 9, 2021, Federal Full Data

10 California State Assembly Committee on Health

12, 14 Open Secrets, Pharmaceutical/Health Products Donations 2020

13 KHN March 24, 2020

15 Sludge, January 25, 2019

20 New York Times, June 25, 2020

21 Washington Post, November 7, 2011

23 Open Secrets, What is a PAC?

24 Blue Dog Pac

28 CNBC, December 17, 2020

30 ACS Central Science, 2020;6(5)

31 Public Citizen, May 7, 2020

32 Journal of Virus Eradication, 2020;6(2)

33 CNBC, June 29, 2020

34 Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, November 10, 2020

35 Wellcome Trust, October 2009

36 BMJ 2021;372:n556

37, 38 Managed Healthcare Executive, 2021;31(3)

Featured image is from Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As the UK High Court grants limited permission for the US government to pursue its appeal against the decision opposing the extradition of Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) reiterates the call for Assange’s immediate release and for the case against him to be dropped.

On 7 July, the UK High Court gave notice to the parties involved that the US government’s appeal against the extradition decision will be listed for a hearing. No date has yet been given. The US government will be permitted to appeal only on technical grounds, not on the broader merits of the case.

The US appeal is against the decision by UK District Judge Vanessa Baraitser on 4 January, ruling against Assange’s extradition to the US on mental health grounds. Although RSF welcomed the decision against extradition, RSF condemned the court’s failure to take a strong position for press freedom and journalism, as the substance of the ruling – which found largely in favour of the prosecution’s arguments – leaves the door open for further similar prosecutions.

“It comes as no surprise that the UK High Court will consider the US government’s appeal, but Julian Assange should not be in this position in the first place. He has been targeted for his contributions to public interest reporting, and his prosecution in the US would have severe and long-lasting implications for journalism and press freedom around the world. We call again for the Biden administration to drop the appeal and close the case, and for the UK to immediately release Assange from prison, where his mental and physical health remain at high risk,” said RSF’s Director of International Campaigns Rebecca Vincent.

In the US, Assange faces a total of 18 charges — 17 under the Espionage Act, and one under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Assange would be the first publisher prosecuted under the Espionage Act, which lacks a public interest defence. If convicted, Assange could face a total of 175 years in prison. RSF is one of 24 press freedom, civil liberties, and international human rights organisations that has called on the Biden administration to stop pursuing its appeal.

The UK and US are respectively ranked 33rd and 44th on RSF’s 2021 World Press Freedom Index.

*

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 21st Century Wire

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

“We need to openly consider all the costs, benefits, and consequences of military action,” said the two Democratic lawmakers, “and that includes doing everything we can to prevent and respond to civilian harm.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Tuesday called on the U.S. Department of Defense to review “significant discrepancies in civilian casualty counts,” a month after the Pentagon released its annual report on civilian deaths and injuries as a result of U.S. operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Nigeria, and Somalia.

The Massachusetts Democrat spoke out on social media days after joining Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in writing (pdf) to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin III regarding the annual report.

The Pentagon stated in its “Annual Report on Civilian Casualties In Connection With United States Military Operations in 2020” (pdf) findingthat there were “approximately 23 civilians killed and approximately 10 civilians injured” in U.S. military actions last year—numbers which did not match the findings of independent outside researchers including Airwars and Brown University’s Costs of War Project.

“Sources say the real number [of casualties] is almost five times higher,” than the Pentagon reported, said Warren. “Protecting civilians must be a priority—Rep. Khanna and I want Secretary Austin to investigate.”

In their letter, Khanna and Warren cited research from Airwars, a U.K.-based monitoring group run by journalists and international conflict researchers, which reported at least 34 civilian deaths caused by U.S.-led attacks last year in Iraq and Syria alone. The groups also counted between seven and 13 civilian deaths in Somalia.

“The minimum public estimate of civilian deaths caused by U.S. forces during 2020 across five conflict nations was 102 fatalities,” said Airwars in its own annual report last month.

As Common Dreams reported, Airwars and the Costs of War Project found an even greater discrepancy in the Pentagon’s official tally last year after the DoD claimed responsibility for 132 civilian deaths, compared to 1,100 reported by the two groups in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.

This year, the Pentagon claimed responsibility for 20 deaths and five injuries in Afghanistan, but as Airwars reported, the United Nations Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) “attributed 120 civilian casualties (89 killed and 31 injured) to international military forces.”

Warren and Khanna called on Austin “to ensure that U.S. military investigations into civilian casualties give greater weight to external sources of information rather than relying solely on its own internal records and sources when assessing third party reports of civilian harm.”

“Using the same sources of information that were used to plan the strike or raid and to verify its results without seeking information from witnesses or survivors of attacks or by visiting the site of strikes cannot give a clear and accurate account of the civilian casualties,” they wrote.

The lawmakers also questioned the DoD’s approach to officially expressing condolences to the families of victims of U.S. military operations—which the Pentagon’s report suggested officials had not done last year.

Despite the allocation of $3 million for payments to grieving families, Warren and Khanna noted, the Pentagon report “said the department offered zero ex gratia payments in 2020.”

“This is despite repeated authorization and funding from Congress, the congressionally mandated development of a new interim policy on ex gratia, and the large number of cases over many years where the department has confirmed civilian casualties and has a means of contacting survivors,” they wrote. “It’s especially striking this year, given that the DoD could have used its $3 million allocation to offer ex gratia to every single civilian confirmed harmed in 2020, with significant funding to spare.”

Warren and Khanna called on Austin to put into practice the measures proposed in the two Democrats’ bicameral legislation, the Protection of Civilians in Military Operations Act, which they introduced in June 2020, including:

  • requiring U.S. military commanders to select an officer from outside their unit or chain of command to conduct an investigation into civilian casualties arising from that unit’s or command’s military operations;
  • establishing a publicly accessible database for all DoD reports of investigations into the civilian casualties resulting from U.S. military operations, and the results of such investigations; and
  • requiring each commander of a geographic combatant command to establish an uninterrupted line of communication between his or her command and the Chief of Mission in order to field and coordinate reports of civilian casualties resulting from U.S. military operations.

“We need to openly consider all the costs, benefits, and consequences of military action, and that includes doing everything we can to prevent and respond to civilian harm,” said the lawmakers. “Strengthening investigations, accurately and transparently reporting on civilian harm, expressing condolences for harm when it happens, and learning from these incidents to prevent harm in the future are all essential steps that reinforce the importance of protecting civilians as a national security priority and as a moral and ethical imperative.”

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

NATO’s Allied Air Command reported that the military bloc participated in the multinational air combat exercise Anatolian Eagle 2021, which occurred from June 21 to July 2.

Hosted by Turkey at its Third Main Jet Base in Konya, the war games included combat aircraft from Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan and Qatar. All four nations are NATO members or partners.

Earlier the Turkish Defense Ministry also confirmed that NATO was conducting a certification assessment of six F-16s, a Boeing KC-135R Stratotanker and six Stinger air defense teams “committed to the NATO Response Force (NRF)” for the first time during the exercise.

As previously reported, Qatar provided French-made Rafales of the sort recently sold to Greece and India, and Azerbaijan supplied Russian-made combat planes used by Armenia and India: Sukhois and MiGs, respectively, are the very backbone of the Armenian and Indian air forces.

Please note the terminology in this excerpt from the NATO press release on the event: “The exercise was designed to provide training opportunities for combat ready aircrews to increase proficiency and exchange experiences with allied and partner nations.” Allied in NATO language means a NATO member and partner is a member of a NATO military partnership. The latter term is never used in any other capacity.

The transparent, the irrefutable purpose of the two-week exercise was to train the Turkish and Pakistani air forces for encounters with those of Armenia and India and even with NATO member Greece.

NATO was fully aware of that, and in participating in the maneuvers it endorsed alike their intent and probable application.

To editorialize. The growing and at time deafening chorus of voices from both sides of the world and across the political spectrum (such as it is) claiming that the Turkey-Pakistan-Azerbaijan military alliance – we have to have to courage to admit it is now a Turkey-Pakistan-Azerbaijan-Russia axis – is a challenge or counterbalance to NATO need only acquaint themselves with the evidence of the facts, which are amassing daily, that the above alliance represents anything but opposition to NATO. Recent examples abound, they are legion: here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here.

*

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

Rick Rozoff, renowned author and geopolitical analyst, actively involved in opposing war, militarism and interventionism for over fifty years. He manages the Anti-Bellum and For peace, against war website

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

Featured image is from InfoRos

The US Appeals the Assange Ruling

July 8th, 2021 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

It took over half a year, but the US government’s case against Julian Assange continues its draining grind.  Even the Biden administration, which claims to tolerate a free press and truthful dialogue with the fourth estate, has decided to exhaust its legal options in seeking the publisher’s scalp. 

On July 7, the UK High Court of Justice agreed to hear the appeal from the US government on narrow grounds, though no date has been set for those proceedings.  The Crown Prosecution Service, representing the US government, is challenging District Court Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s ruling that Assange not be extradited for health and medical reasons. 

That judgment accepted the defence’s evidence that Assange was a suicide risk, and that the conditions of detention in a US supermax prison facility might well exacerbate it.  There was also a “real risk that … Assange will be subject to restrictive special administrative measures [SAMs].”  The result of such measures would see his mental health “deteriorate to the point where he will commit suicide with the ‘single minded determination’ described by Dr [Quinton] Deeley.”  She was further “satisfied that Mr Assange’s suicidal impulses will come from his psychiatric diagnoses rather than his own voluntary act.”  Given such evidence “it would be oppressive to extradite [Assange] to the United States of America.”

The submissions by the prosecution are not publicly available, but have been reviewed by Kevin Gosztola of Shadowproof.  They contend that the judge erred in law in determining that Assange’s extradition was oppressive.  The judge should have also been forthcoming to the US government of her concerns or “provisional view” of the risk posed to Assange and sought relevant “assurances”. 

This latter point is disingenuous; the case by the US Department of Justice was based on shoddy assertions by prosecutors and expert witnesses who betrayed their ignorance about the role played by SAMs and supermax prison conditions.  But in making their appeal, the prosecutors were all sweetness, suggesting that SAMs would not be imposed on Assange in pre-trial detention or, should he be convicted, in prison.  Feeling the need to draw the line somewhere, they would not promise that other forms of isolation of administrative segregation would not be used.  While Assange would not necessarily find himself incarcerated at the ADX Florence in Colorado, it would depend on any “future act” that would qualify.

As for how Assange would be treated medically, the CPS made another weak promise that he would “receive clinical and psychological treatment as is recommended by a qualified clinician employed or retained by the prison.”

The prosecutors were also willing to give another assurance they refused to test at trial.  Assange would be allowed to avail himself of the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons in brokering a prisoner transfer to Australia.  The DoJ would give their consent to any such arrangement. 

Assange’s defence lawyers were terse in rejecting the contention.  “They had every opportunity to offer such an assurance at the extradition hearing, since the relevant Council of Europe treaty has been in operation for many years.”  Any such proceeding pursuant to the treaty, in any case, “could not take place until the conclusion of the trial and all appellate processes, which are obviously likely to be very prolonged.”  As this was taking place, the publisher would face conditions of isolation “in an alien and hostile environment far from his family.”

The prosecutors further sought to weaken Varaitser’s judgment by again targeting the testimony of Professor Michael Kopelman, whose evidence they had failed to discredit at trial.  That less than noble effort involved claiming that Assange “had a strong incentive to feign or exaggerate his symptoms” aided by his consultation of “scientific journals”.   The prosecution also accused Kopelman of a lack of partiality “by deliberately concealing information that he had been told about Mr Assange’s partner Stella Moris, and their children.”  Judge Baraitser found the concealment “misleading and inappropriate in the context of his obligations to the court, but an understandable human response.”  She accepted Kopelman’s view that “Assange suffers from recurrent depressive disorder, which was severe in December 2019, and sometimes accompanied by psychotic features (hallucinations), often with ruminative suicidal ideas.”

The defence countered in their submission against the appealing prosecutors that Baraitser had not erred in law in concluding that Assange’s “suicidal impulses” would stem from his “psychiatric condition” and would not be the result of “his own voluntary act.”   The “attack” on Kopelman also failed to “recognise the entitlement of the primary decision maker to reach her own decision on the weight to be attached to the expert evidence of the defence on the one hand and the prosecution experts on the other.”

In a statement in response to the High Court decision, Moris responded by recounting the miscellany of glaring defects in the case against her partner: the fabricated testimony of lead DoJ witness Sigurdur Thordarson; nefarious suggestions that Assange be assassinated by US agents; surveillance of his legal team and the theft of legal documents; and, for good measure, threats against the family.  “The case is rotten to the core, and nothing that the US government can say about his future treatment is worth the paper it is written on.” Such a presumption is virtually beyond rebuttal.  

*

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

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

Featured image is from Another Day in the Empire

Graphene Oxide: The Actual Contents Inside Pfizer Vials Exposed!

By Alexandra Bruce, July 07, 2021

Dr Jane Ruby joins Stew Peters to discuss a scientific report that just came out from the University of Almería School of Engineering in Spain entitled, “Graphene Oxide Detection in Aqueous Suspension: Observational Study in Optical and Electron Microscopy”, where it was found that each dose of the Pfizer shot “was found to contain 6 ng of RNA and 747 ng of graphene oxide, which is 99.103% of the medication.

The Covid Outbreak: “Biggest Health Scam of the 21st Century.” Report by 1500 Health Professionals

By United Health Professionals, July 06, 2021

It is not the first time that humanity faces a new virus : it experienced H2N2 in 1957, H3N2 in 1968, SARS-CoV in 2003, H5N1 in 2004, H1N1 in 2009, MERS-CoV in 2012 and faces the seasonal flu virus every year. However, none of the measures taken for SARS-CoV-2 has been taken for these viruses.

Covid-19 and the Falsification of Death Certificates: The CDC’s “More Often Than Not” Clause

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 07, 2021

The underlying cause of death is defined by the WHO as “the disease or injury that initiated the train of events leading directly to death”. What the CDC is recommending with regards to statistical coding and categorization is that COVID-19 is expected to  be the underlying cause of death “more often than not.” The CDC combines these two criteria. “underlying cause of death”, more often than not.

Censored COVID Vaccine Victims Demand Answers in Private Facebook Group

By Alicia Powe, July 07, 2021

As Big Tech, the Biden Administration, Hollywood, politicians, employers and health care providers around the nation galvanize the public to undergo Covid vaccination, the number of casualties who have died or suffer life-threatening effects from the experimental mRNA injections continues to climb.

How College COVID Vaccine Mandates Put Students in Danger

By Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Harvey Risch, and et al., July 07, 2021

More than 520 of America’s 5,300 colleges and universities, approximately 10 percent, have announced students must be fully vaccinated against COVID before they return for fall classes. Among these institutions are the public universities of California and New York, pending full U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of the vaccines. Together, these two systems enroll approximately 1.5 million students.

The Jab Propaganda Falls Apart: “Vaccinated” People Account for 60% of COVID-19 Deaths in the UK

By Teodrose Fikremariam, July 07, 2021

A stunning revelation emerged recently that exposes the lies behind the global “vaccination” campaign in one of the leading nations when it comes to the percentage of people who have been fully jabbed. According to Public Health England data, 43% of Covid-19 fatalities in the UK were people who were fully “vaccinated”. Furthermore, a shocking 60% of Covid-19 deaths are attributed to people who have received at least one dose.

Was Donald Rumsfeld Guilty of ‘Dereliction of Duty’ as Pentagon Chief on 9/11?

By Robert Bridge, July 07, 2021

One question that many people ask with regards to the events of September 11 was why the U.S. Air Force went missing in action for over 90 minutes as four lumbering commercial jets traveled around American airspace at will. Now with the death of Donald Rumsfeld, 88, the world may never know.

Biden Betrays Another Campaign Pledge—Admits that U.S. Will Continue to Bomb Afghanistan

By Nick Mottern, July 07, 2021

On July 2nd, fleeing questions from reporters about U.S. plans in Afghanistan, President Joe Biden sought refuge behind the July 4th Independence Day holiday. Yet he obliquely acknowledged that the U.S. will use some level of “over-the-horizon” air attacks to prevent the Taliban from taking power, attacks that will include drones and manned aircraft, possibly even B-52s.

The Dirty War on Syria: Washington Supports the Islamic State (ISIS)

By White Nettle, July 07, 2021

Reports that US and British aircraft carrying arms to ISIS were shot down by Iraqi forces (Iraqi News 2015) were met with shock and denial in western countries. Yet few in the Middle East doubt that Washington is playing a ‘double game’ with its proxy armies in Syria.

Free Press Advocates Call on Biden to Dismiss Trump’s Appeal Against Assange

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, July 07, 2021

As the father and brother of imprisoned journalist Julian Assange wrapped up their month long “Home Run for Julian” tour through 16 U.S. cities, the government’s principal witness against Assange recanted his testimony. Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, whom the Department of Justice (DOJ) had recruited to build its case against Assange, admitted to the Icelandic newspaper Stundin that he fabricated key allegations in the indictment in return for immunity from prosecution by the FBI in a quid pro quo.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Graphene Oxide: The Actual Contents Inside Pfizer Vials Exposed!
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A stunning revelation emerged recently that exposes the lies behind the global “vaccination” campaign in one of the leading nations when it comes to the percentage of people who have been fully jabbed. According to Public Health England data, 43% of Covid-19 fatalities in the UK were people who were fully “vaccinated”. Furthermore, a shocking 60% of Covid-19 deaths are attributed to people who have received at least one dose.

What this tragic news reveals is something most of us who have been railing against these experimental “vaccines” have been saying for months only to be shouted down and dismissed as “antivaxxers” and “conspiracy theorists”. There is a reason why truly safe and effective vaccines take on the average of 10-15 years to develop, test and garner approval for general use. That was not the case with these biotech corporation nostrums which were rushed into production after only three months of human trials.

As evidenced by the horrific condo collapse in Miami, cutting corners is a recipe for disaster. What is true of buildings is infinitely truer when it comes to the human body. For decades, the standard protocol for determining the safety and efficacy of vaccines required subjecting all pharmaceutical products to undergo clinical trials that had five phases. Each clinical phase entailed rigorous testing, double-blind studies, murder boards and meticulous peer reviews. These steps were essential to eliminate confirmation bias and to ensure perceived short-term benefits were not overcome by long-term risks. These prerequisite steps were bypassed for the first time when it came to Covid-19 “vaccines”, which is why we are seeing record numbers of injuries and deaths associated with them.

The CDC’s own VAERS database shows an explosion in the number of injuries and deaths associated with just children. This same picture is evident among the overall jabbed population

The events we are witnessing in real time should be the basis for Nuremberg Trials 2.0; politicians, pundits, public health officials and medical professionals have maliciously pushed these unproven and unsafe “vaccines” and leveraged their status to condition more than 2 billion people around the world to get jabbed with toxins that could one day lead to a global holocaust. The same way Nazi doctors injected Jews and “undesirables” with experimental drugs, authority figures are coercing tens of millions of Americans and billions around the world to get jabbed without informed consent.

The alarming number of post-“vaccination” injuries and deaths that are being reported in the UK, the United States and beyond are but the tip of the iceberg. As much as I hope and pray that I am wrong, past studies have shown that there are greater body counts to come. Though mRNA “vaccines” were only tested on humans for three months last year, they have been around ever since Messenger RNA was discovered in 1961. Virologists have been testing mRNA boosters on lab animals, specifically ferrets and cats, for more than two decades.

What transpired next is what keeps me awake at night given the number of family and friends who have been “vaccinated”. The lab animals that developed antibodies once they got jabbed were wiped out once their short-lived immunity wore off and they were reintroduced to SARS. What led to their wholesale extermination was a condition called Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE). An autoimmune disease much like HIV/AIDS, ADE hijacks immune systems and turns an organism’s natural defense systems against its own vital organs.

If we actually had a free-press, the breathtaking developments in the UK would be treated as breaking news and politicians would treat this devastating development as the crisis it truly is. To the contrary, the political class and their enablers in mainstream media are bandying talking points stating that 99% of Covid-19 deaths in America are attributed to the “unvaccinated”. What they are omitting from this propaganda  is that they are not using the same PCR [enlargement] thresholds between those who got jabbed and those who refused. Not even Enron stooped to this level of dishonest accounting.

As Dr. Brian Tyson noted in the interview below I conducted with him last week, which was subsequently deleted by YouTube, there is a global conspiracy to bury truths and promote these unsafe and inefficacious experimental gene therapy cocktails they are promoting as “vaccines”. The fact that any hint of dissent and any questions about these boosters, including from renowned doctors who specialize in Covid-19 treatments, is being censored in ways that are truly unprecedented is all the proof we need that there is something afoot beyond protecting the public.

The more the media narratives that are driving this insane mass-“vaccination” campaign start to unravel, the more the establishment double-down. Since facts are not on their side, the only thing they can do is traffic in fear-porn, revert to ad hominem and inflame people’s already frayed emotions. Their latest gambit is the “lambda variant” as they try to scare the hell out of people in order to manufacture “vaccine” consent. What they are not telling us is that it’s the jabs that are most likely causing the mutations to begin with. Last year, Brazil, South Africa and the UK were the countries that the AstraZeneca “vaccines” were tested in. I’m sure it was just a coincidence that those three countries happen to be the source of the three mutations that are ricocheting around the world.

Instead of pressing pause and truly assessing the risk profile of these experimental “vaccines”, the establishment have moved the goal post in order to justify the continued use of these deadly boosters. Their latest talking point is that deaths are to be expected among “vaccinated” people even though a few months ago they were raving about how “safe and effective” these jabs were. They are perfectly prepared to sacrifice you and your children in order to get to their desired outcome. Question is, are you willing to risk irreparable harm or death in order to protect yourself from a virus that has a mortality rate of less than 0.66%?

*

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.

Featured image is from Ghion Journal

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As the father and brother of imprisoned journalist Julian Assange wrapped up their month long “Home Run for Julian” tour through 16 U.S. cities, the government’s principal witness against Assange recanted his testimony. Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, whom the Department of Justice (DOJ) had recruited to build its case against Assange, admitted to the Icelandic newspaper Stundin that he fabricated key allegations in the indictment in return for immunity from prosecution by the FBI in a quid pro quo.

The admissions of Thordarson — that he lied about Assange being a hacker — threatens to unravel the government’s case. “The factual basis for this case has completely fallen apart,” Assange attorney Jennifer Robinson told Democracy Now!

By enlisting Thordarson to construct a case against Assange, the U.S. government “made a deal with the devil,” constitutional law scholar Stephen Rohde stated during the tour’s June 28 Los Angeles panel discussion, in which I also participated.

The superseding indictment that the Trump administration filed in May 2019 charged that Assange and WikiLeaks obtained and published classified material provided by Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, in violation of the Espionage Act. Those charges carry 170 years in prison. But they were vulnerable to attack because of what is called the “New York Times problem.”

The “New York Times Problem”

No journalist or media outlet has ever been prosecuted under the Espionage Act for publishing truthful information. The First Amendment allows journalists to publish material that was illegally obtained by a third person if it is a matter of public concern. The U.S. government has never prosecuted a journalist or newspaper for publishing classified information, which constitutes an essential tool of journalism.

Indeed, the Obama administration, which prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all prior presidents combined, declined to indict Assange. WikiLeaks did what The New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and El País also did. It published articles based on documents Manning had leaked. The Obama administration feared establishing “a precedent that could chill investigative reporting about national security matters by treating it as a crime,” according to Charlie Savage of The New York Times. Obama could not distinguish between what WikiLeaks did and what news media organizations like the Times “do in soliciting and publishing information they obtain that the government wants to keep secret,” Savage wrote. This is the “New York Times problem.”

In light of potential difficulties in convicting Assange as a journalist, the Trump administration filed a second superseding indictment in June 2020, based on Thordarson’s allegations. It aimed to shore up the hacking count under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act charged in Trump’s original indictment. Thordarson said Assange instructed him to commit computer intrusion or hacking in Iceland.

If U.S. prosecutors could portray Assange as a hacker instead of a journalist, they could get around the “New York Times problem.” But now that Thordarson has recanted his testimony, the hacking charge unravels.

Notwithstanding the Obama-Biden administration’s refusal to charge Assange, President Joe Biden has refused to dismiss Trump’s appeal of the British judge’s denial of extradition of Assange to the United States. Magistrate Vanessa Baraitser denied extradition on humanitarian grounds. She ruled that the U.S. prison system was unable to protect Assange from committing suicide since he would be placed in solitary confinement with onerous conditions, although she accepted the Trump administration’s other contentions. Trump appealed the denial of extradition and Biden is continuing that appeal, even though the U.K.’s High Court has not yet decided whether it will even allow the U.S. government permission to appeal. Meanwhile, Assange remains incarcerated in London’s maximum security Belmarsh Prison.

Revelations of U.S. War Crimes

So why are the revelations by Assange and WikiLeaks so threatening to the U.S. government?

In 2010 and 2011, WikiLeaks published evidence of war crimes that the U.S. military had committed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo. That is the basis for 17 charges against Assange under the Espionage Act. Manning provided the documents to WikiLeaks after she tried in vain to enlist her chain of command to investigate the evidence of torture and atrocities that she had uncovered.

The disclosures included 400,000 field reports about the Iraq War, 15,000 unreported deaths of Iraqi civilians, and evidence of systematic torture, murder and rape after U.S. forces “handed over detainees to a notorious Iraqi torture squad,” the documents reveal. WikiLeaks also published the Afghan War Logs, 90,000 reports about the war in Afghanistan, which revealed more civilian casualties by coalition forces than the U.S. military had admitted to. And the Guantánamo Files — 779 secret reports — showed that 150 innocent people had been imprisoned there for years and documented the U.S. government’s torture and abuse of 800 men and boys, in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

But the most notable release by WikiLeaks was the 2007 “Collateral Murder” video, depicting a U.S. Army Apache helicopter gunship in Baghdad target and fire at unarmed civilians. At least 18 civilians were killed — including two Reuters reporters and a man who tried to rescue the wounded. Two children were injured. An U.S. Army tank then drove over one of the bodies, cutting it in half. The video records three separate war crimes that are prohibited by the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Army Field Manual.

Manning was troubled by the comments of U.S. soldiers in the video who referred to their targets as “dead bastards.” She thought the revelations could spark a domestic debate about the role of the military and U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan and Iraq and its effects on the Afghan and Iraqi people.

At the Los Angeles panel, Assange’s father John Shipton called Manning “a historical figure of phenomenal importance” for providing “those magnificent releases” which Assange and WikiLeaks published.

Biden Must Dismiss Trump’s Appeal Against Assange

John described the 8-by-10-foot cell in which Assange spends 23 hours a day. Shipton cited the 2015 finding of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention that Assange had been arbitrarily detained in violation of international law. Before he was sent to Belmarsh Prison more than two years ago, Assange had resided in the Ecuadoran embassy in London under a grant of asylum for seven years. After a change of government in Ecuador, a U.S.-friendly regime ended Assange’s asylum, and the U.K. police arrested him for charges in the indictment filed by the Trump administration.

“I don’t think a lot of Americans recognize what a gross injustice this is,” University of Southern California law professor Jody Armour remarked during the Los Angeles panel discussion. “When you have people from Amy Goodman to Tucker Carlson stepping back and saying … ‘this doesn’t smell right,’ when you have people characterizing someone as a hacker to try to solve the New York Times problem, because it’s not soluble, really.”

Gabriel Shipton, Assange’s brother, characterized the reception they have received during their nationwide tour as an “upwelling of support [that] has taken our breath away.” He is heartened by the Biden DOJ’s response to the Trump subpoenas of journalists’ records and emails targeting reporters from The New York Times and CNN.

Now that Attorney General Merrick Garland “has started to pull those back,” Gabriel noted, that is “very encouraging.” Gabriel is also encouraged by the release of whistleblower Reality Winner from prison and the Supreme Court’s narrowing of the scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Moreover, Gabriel said, when the U.S. government confronts “authoritarian states,” such as Russia, China and Azerbaijan, about their human rights violations, those countries’ leaders point to the U.S.’s hypocrisy when it has targeted Julian Assange, a publisher.

“This is a global problem,” John said. He is reassured by the support for Assange from cross-party groups in Germany, the U.K. Parliament, the Australian Parliament, France, Spain, Italy and the Council of Europe, as well as Austria, Switzerland and Mexico.

“Let us not be fooled,” UN Special Rapporteur Nils Melzer wrote in a 2019 article in Newsweek, arguing that the extradition of Assange must be understood as a direct attempt at “drowning his radical challenge to government secrecy, which holds the power to change world affairs forever.” Melzer added that this is why “the powerful prosecuted Assange with ferocity, while proven war criminals are allowed to walk free.” Melzer ends his op-ed with a call to people in the United States to “use your democratic rights to hold your Government accountable.” Melzer’s investigation revealed that Assange suffered “prolonged exposure to psychological torture” during his confinement in Britain.

In February, 24 human rights organizations — including the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders — wrote a letter to the DOJ, urging it to drop the appeal of the denial of extradition.

On Memorial Day, Biden invoked the global struggle for democracy, declaring that it thrives “when a free and independent press pursues the truth.” In publicizing evidence of U.S. war crimes, Assange and WikiLeaksrevealed the truth for all to see. It is time for Biden to put his actions where his mouth is and dismiss the U.S. government’s appeal of the U.K. court’s denial of extradition of Julian Assange to the United States.

John Shipton stated that by prosecuting Assange, the U.S. government “brought shame upon themselves.” But, he added, “with the freeing of Julian and bringing him home to his family … we are allowed to emerge once more and see the stars.”

*

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

Copyright © Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

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

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

How College COVID Vaccine Mandates Put Students in Danger

July 7th, 2021 by Dr. Peter McCullough

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

More than 520 of America’s 5,300 colleges and universities, approximately 10 percent, have announced students must be fully vaccinated against COVID before they return for fall classes. Among these institutions are the public universities of California and New York, pending full U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of the vaccines. Together, these two systems enroll approximately 1.5 million students.

Other state universities that have enacted vaccine “mandates” include the universities of Michigan and Maryland, as well as Indiana University. Scores of private institutions have also mandated COVID vaccines, including Yale, Stanford, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Cornell, Notre Dame, Emory, Brown, Syracuse, Boston University, and Princeton.

We think that these mandates are unethical, chiefly because they indiscriminately require administering an experimental biological agent in the setting of a clinical investigation to a population that is at greater risk of harm from the drug than from COVID. Our advice to schools that have not yet adopted vaccine mandates is: don’t.

But where participation in the investigational vaccination program is nevertheless required by university policies, there must be sensible, medically sound policies for granting medical exemptions.

Many Exemptions Policies Are Medically Unsound

All the colleges and universities that have announced mandates have also indicated they will grant medical exceptions. Some have publicly made available the criteria according to which they will decide exemption petitions.

We have examined many of these rubrics. The narrow scope of these medical exemptions is alarming: the exemptions are so medically unsound and unduly restrictive that they create a clear and present danger to the health, and potentially, the lives, of students subject to these mandates.

In our professional medical judgment, these published protocols are deficient in at least four crucial respects. Any sound policy for granting medical exemptions from COVID vaccine mandates must avoid all four of these mistakes. A school making any one of them endangers its students. A school making all four is headed for a catastrophe.

Four Major Mistakes These Policies Make

First, none of the schools whose published criteria we have examined include the most elementary medical ground of all: natural immunity from a previous COVID infection. At Rutgers, the state university of New Jersey, the website asks students: “already had COVID? You still need to show proof of vaccination for in-person attendance.”

The Cornell website’s reply to whether students should get vaccinated even with a prior infection is “Yes.” Notre Dame made this especially clear when summer school opened. At first, the university website said that “lab results showing your immunity” would be acceptable proof of a vaccine. Then it abruptly changed. It now states that “lab results showing your immunity…does not include Covid 19 antibody testing.”

The scientific data demonstrate that the natural immunity acquired by previous COVID infection is at least as durable and effective as that provided by the vaccines. The data also shows that those who possess this natural immunity present no greater risk of transmitting the virus to others than those who have been vaccinated.

Every school justifies its mandate by claiming this is the only effective way to maintain a safe campus environment. But jabbing students who are already immune contributes nothing whatsoever to campus safety. All that it does, medically speaking, is create danger.

Requiring the immune to get vaccinated exposes these students to a significant risk of excess adverse reactions, especially of thrombosis and myocardial inflammation, neurologic injury, and possibly of death. Several published studies suggest, moreover, a significantly increased risk of adverse reactions to the vaccine among those previously infected. There is no reason to put the hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of students who possess natural immunity in such danger.

The CDC Is Not a Medical Institution

Cornell said in support of its resolve to vaccinate immune students that “the CDC has recommended that COVID-19 vaccine be offered regardless of a prior COVID-19 infection.” Cornell’s claim illustrates a second crucial mistake made by many schools, namely, relying upon the Centers for Disease Control’s guidelines as if they constitute medical advice applicable in every case. They do not.

The CDC is not a medical institution; it is a public health and disease prevention body. According to the CDC’s own mission statement, the agency focuses on “disease prevention and control, environmental health, and health promotion and health education activities.” It is not qualified and usually does not purport to offer professional medical opinions applicable to specific patients.

From time to time, the CDC offers findings and recommendations that competent medical practitioners often will consider in arriving at a professional medical judgment for a particular patient. In this respect, CDC guidelines are analogous to guidelines from other public health associations or medical societies: they are guidelines, not prescriptions.

In fact, any serious condition or circumstance that justifies exemption from college mandates can be described without reference to the CDC—and would be so described by most competent practicing physicians.

The University of Maryland’s website provides an illustration of the third crucial mistake, an error that includes but goes beyond the second. This third mistake is not just about following this or that CDC “recommendation” as it if it constitutes sound individualized medical advice. It is going all-in on the mistaken conception of the CDC as a super-doctor.

Maryland would limit medical exemptions to “CDC contraindications.” There is no sound medical basis, however, for doing so, especially since (again) the CDC does not practice medicine. The CDC’s list of contraindications was never meant to be comprehensive or exhaustive, but merely representative of the more common situations in which caution is warranted.

Many Reasons to Not Get a COVID Vaccine

For individual patients, physicians have always been granted wide discretionary latitude and appropriate room for clinical judgment, to apply general guidelines and other relevant sources of medical information to the unique needs and circumstances of particular patients. Any physician would find that there are many additional medically reasonable bases for the current COVID vaccines to be contraindicated.

For example, none of the current vaccines have passed fertility, teratogenicity, or mutagenicity testing, thus may be contraindicated in women of childbearing potential or those about to become pregnant. We fear universities have adopted the Maryland approach for public-relations reasons, not on a medical basis. But this is to make a popular sport of students’ safety.

The medical unsoundness of this limitation is apparent from Notre Dame’s published rubric, which expressly distinguishes the criteria for COVID vaccine exemptions from those appropriate to all other vaccines. “For COVID-19 vaccines only,” the university’s website stipulates, the criteria are “[a]pplicable CDC contraindications.”

“For all other vaccines,” the same website says, exemptions may be obtained for “[a]pplicable contraindication found in the manufacturer’s packaging insert for the vaccine(s), or a statement that the physical or medical condition of the student is such that immunization is not considered safe, indicating the specific nature and probable duration of the medical condition or circumstances that contraindicate immunization with the vaccine(s).” In fact, this is the correct reasoning for all vaccine exemptions, including COVID.

Put Yourself in Danger to Find If You’re In Danger?

Fourth and finally: several published rubrics include a limitation that is eminently sound in itself, but which is, in an important way, quite dangerous. It is that exemptions are available where there is “a documented anaphylactic allergic reaction or other severe adverse reaction to any COVID-19 vaccine—e.g., cardiovascular changes, respiratory distress, or history of treatment with epinephrine or emergency medical attention to control symptoms.”

In other words, a severe reaction to a first vaccine shot indicates the second shot should be delayed, and possibly declined altogether. Just so. But the danger arises from this criterion when viewed in connection with the unjustifiably dangerous limitations of exemptions overall. The purpose of any exceptions policy for any vaccine is to avoid such extreme reactions.

Doctors and patients do this all the time by considering the patient’s whole medical history, family history, all of the active ingredients in the drug, and then, in light of the doctor’s professional judgment, making a decision about the overall benefits and perils of getting vaccinated—or not. The Notre Dame criteria cited above “for all other vaccines” capture well this appropriately personalized approach to practicing medicine.

As the same rubric also shows, however, all this is out the window for these college policies regarding COVID. For COVID and this alone, the colleges’ exceptions policies amount to a Catch-22: you must take the vaccine to obtain the data that you need to be exempt from taking it.

We urge colleges and universities to suggest but not mandate vaccination of students. Clearly, students do not generally need vaccination to protect themselves from serious or life-threatening outcomes of COVID-19 or to avoid spreading COVID to others who may be at higher risk. Staff and faculty are free to obtain vaccination to protect themselves.

Thus, there is no clear benefit from widespread vaccination of students that will outweigh the potential, and possibly catastrophic, harm to individual students under this policy.

*

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

The six coauthors of this article are:

Andrew Bostom, MD, MS, an associate professor of family medicine (research) at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University;

Aaron Kheriaty, MD, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California at Irvine School of Medicine and the director of the Medical Ethics Program at UCI Health;

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, 

Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD, a professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health;

Michelle Cretella, MD, the executive director of the American College of Pediatricians; and

Gerard V. Bradley, JD, a professor of law at the University of Notre Dame.

Featured image is from Phil Roeder / Flickr

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The Lancet and Nature have both promoted the natural origin theory for SARS-CoV-2, and protected the theory by refusing to publish counter arguments and/or publishing scientific statements by individuals with serious conflicts of interest

The Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission included Peter Daszak, Ph.D., president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization that collaborated with various universities and organizations on research in China, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). He was recently taken off the Commission due to controversy over his large number of conflicts of interest

The Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission also includes Danielle Anderson, an Australian WIV virologist who left Wuhan shortly before the pandemic broke out. Anderson says she “does not believe” the virus is manmade. Anderson’s Commission biography does not mention that she worked at the WIV

In January 2021, 14 global experts submitted a letter to The Lancet in which they argued that “the natural origin is not supported by conclusive arguments and that a lab origin cannot be formally discarded.” The submission was rejected with the justification that the topic was “not a priority” for the journal

Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet is now being criticized for his long defense and support of the Chinese regime, and is accused of using The Lancet to pursue political causes and stifle scientific debate

*

More than a year ago, in February 2020, a group of 27 scientists wrote a letter published in The Lancet condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”1

Although The Lancet — like other medical journals — requires contributors to disclose financial or personal interests that might be viewed as possible conflicts of interests with their submissions, the 27 authors declared they had “no competing interests.”

June 21, 2021, The Lancet published an addendum admitting that “some readers have questioned the validity of this disclosure, particularly as it relates to one of the authors, Peter Daszak.”2

As a result, The Lancet asked the 27 signers to “re-evaluate” their competing interests and to declare any “financial and nonfinancial relationships that may be relevant to interpreting the content of their manuscript.” So far, Daszak has updated his previous claim of having no competing interests to include a 416-word disclosure statement clarifying that, indeed, he had several conflicts of interest.

First, he is the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization that receives funding from a “range of U.S. Government funding agencies and non-governmental sources.”

Second — and most importantly — Daszak also explained that, although its work with China is currently unfunded, he and the Alliance have collaborated with various universities and organizations on research in China, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Specifically, this work includes studies of bats and viruses, including “the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines.”

The Lancet Accused of Kowtowing to China

The COVID pandemic has brought attention to any number of problems within the academic arena. Disturbingly, we’ve discovered that scientific journals held in high regard for many decades — The Lancet has been around for 198 years — are colluding to censor important facts and stifle scientific debate. The Lancet statement deriding the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory to be ignored is a prime example. As reported by the Daily Mail, June 26, 2021:3

“The Lancet letter, signed by 27 experts, played a key part in silencing scientific, political and media discussion of any idea that this pandemic might have begun with a lab incident rather than spilling over naturally from animals.

It was even reportedly used by Facebook to flag articles exploring the lab leak hypothesis as ‘false information’ … Yet it emerged later that The Lancet statement was covertly drafted by British scientist Peter Daszak — a long-term collaborator with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was carrying out high-risk research on bat coronaviruses and had known safety issues …

Four months later, The Lancet set up a ‘Covid-19 Commission’ to assist governments and scrutinize the origins. It was led by Jeffrey Sachs … Incredibly, he backed Daszak to lead his commission’s 12-person taskforce investigating Covid’s origins — joined by five fellow signatories to The Lancet statement …

Last week The Lancet finally ‘recused’ him from its commission and published an ‘addendum’ to its statement detailing some of his Chinese links. Yet critics say the journal has still failed to admit that six more signatories to that February statement have ties to Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance as directors or partners.

‘It would have been better for The Lancet to have stated that Daszak’s and other signers’ previous declarations were untruthful and to have attached an editorial expression of concern,’ said Richard Ebright, a bio-security expert and professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University in New Jersey.

Now The Mail on Sunday has learned that The Lancet is set to publish a second statement by these signatories that presses the case that Covid probably emerged through natural ‘zoonotic’ transmission from animals to humans.”

Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet is now being criticized for his long defense and support of the Chinese regime, and is accused of using The Lancet to pursue political causes and stifle scientific debate.4

In January 2021, 14 global experts submitted a letter to The Lancet in which they argued that “the natural origin is not supported by conclusive arguments and that a lab origin cannot be formally discarded.” Horton rejected the submission, stating it was “not a priority” for the journal.5

Any medical journal worthy of a good reputation needs to be an open platform for wide-ranging debate. Horton’s refusal to publish the other side of the origins argument has without a doubt damaged the credibility and reputation of the journal. Tory MP Bob Seely told the Daily Mail:6

“The claims of a cover-up over the most important scientific issue of our time grow stronger by the day. It is vital we get to the truth over what appears to have been a cover-up on the pandemic origins with the collusion of journals such as The Lancet.”

Let’s also remember that The Lancet published an entirely fake study claiming hydroxychloroquine was dangerous. This paper using completely fabricated data made the media rounds and led to countries banning the drug’s use against COVID-19.

This too raises serious questions about the journal’s credibility. How was this fraud not discovered during the peer review process? Could it be that The Lancet allowed it because it would help protect the roll-out of profitable new COVID drugs and “vaccines”?

What’s Behind Science Journals’ Censorship?

What could possibly be behind science journals’ decision to silence debate in what appears to be a concerted effort to protect Chinese interests? In a June 18, 2021 article,7 Matt Ridley suggests it might have to do with the fact that “scientific papers have become increasingly dependent on the fees that Chinese scientists pay to publish in them, plus advertisements from Chinese firms and subscriptions from Chinese institutions.”

The Lancet is not alone in its less than objective stance on China. In 2017, the Nature journal admitted it censors articles containing words like “Taiwan,” “Tibet” and “cultural revolution” in its Chinese editions at the request of the Chinese government.8 “In April 2020 Nature ran an editorial apologizing for its ‘error’ in ‘associating the virus with Wuhan’ in its news coverage,” Ridley writes.9

Nature also attached an editorial note to several old articles, saying they were being misused “as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered,” and that “there is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus.”

One of those articles, published in 2015, was titled “Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research.” The research being questioned was done by WIV researchers.

Gaslighting Alert: Abusers Now Play the Victim Card

For the past year and a half, scientists, doctors, reporters and anyone else who dared point out blatant discrepancies in the natural origins narrative have been attacked and painted as quacks and dangerous conspiracy theorists. They’ve been censored, deplatformed and publicly defamed and shamed. Many a fine career has been ruined or seriously tarnished by baseless personal attacks.

Now that undeniable evidence is finally reaching critical mass, natural origin defenders are playing the victim card. For example, Amy Maxmen, Ph.D., a journalist for Nature for the past 13 years, has been covering the SARS-CoV-2 origin debate. In a May 26, 2021, tweet, she stated the “debate over a lab-leak has become toxic and risky.”10

Angela Rasmussen, Ph.D., a natural origin proponent, responded saying that “the origins debate has become a toxic milieu dominated by opportunists, dilettantes, racist/misogynist assholes, and trolls.”11 Rasmussen claims she’s been personally attacked and abused for trying to explain the natural origin theory.

The irony is that the same people who abused others for talking about the lab leak theory are now getting a taste of their own medicine, and they don’t like it. They’re the ones who have been peddling misinformation all along, and as the masses are catching on to the deceit, they’re catching heat.

To deflect and finger-point yet again, abusers are now playing the victim. Another tactic is to claim that attacks on them are attacks on science itself. Dr. Anthony Fauci, for example, has stated this on more than one occasion already.12,13 In a June 2021 MSNBC interview, Fauci said criticizing him was “very dangerous,” and that:14,15

“A lot of what you’re seeing as attacks on me quite frankly are attacks on science because all of the things I have spoken about from the very beginning have been fundamentally based on science … If you are trying to get at me as a public health official and scientist, you’re really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you are attacking science.”

His comments didn’t go over well, based on social media responses.16 Reporter Glenn Greenwald’s Tweet will suffice to summarize the general consensus:17

“Beyond the dangerous arrogance and pomposity of proclaiming ‘anyone who criticizes me is attacking Science’ — thus placing himself off-limits from questioning — he *admitted* he purposely issued false, anti-science, politicized claims … Once you *admit* that you made false statements in violation of The Science™, you don’t then get to equate yourself to The Science™ such that attacks on you are attacks on it.”

Another example is that of Dr. Peter Hotez, one of the most shockingly hateful people in the medical field who has publicly stated he wants to “snuff out” vaccine skeptics and has called for cyberwarfare measures to be deployed against me and others who share vaccine safety information. Coincidentally, this public plea was published in the journal Nature.18

This man, who has spewed all sorts of vile language at parents of vaccine-injured children and called for physical harm and imprisonment of people who don’t agree with the one-size-fits-all vaccine agenda is now complaining about getting bombarded with “anti-vaxx hate speech.”19

Billions of Dollars at Stake

To circle back to the question of why prominent and previously respected science journals are publishing propaganda and suppressing open discussion, the most likely reason — aside from their dependence on Chinese publishing fees and advertising dollars — is the fact that if SARS-CoV-2 is proven to be a manmade virus that escaped from a lab (regardless of its location), billions of dollars in funding for gain-of-function research and even vaccine research could evaporate.

As a publisher of research, it makes sense that journals would be willing to protect the research industry as a whole, and provide a platform for chosen spokespeople — such as Hotez — who shamelessly promote the official narrative, no matter how tenuous or unscientific it might be, or how clear the conflicts of interest.

Here’s another case in point: June 28, 2021, Bloomberg tweeted out a short video featuring Danielle Anderson, an Australian WIV virologist who left Wuhan shortly before the pandemic broke out. Anderson says she “does not believe” the virus is manmade. In response, Hotez tweeted:20

“And we’re in agreement: SARS-2 coronavirus has natural origins, was not produced through GOF [gain-of-function] research, and probably has nothing to do with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Coincidentally, Anderson is also on The Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission,21 the same Commission that Daszak was on. Her Lancet Commission bio22 says nothing about her work at the WIV, only that she is a senior research fellow at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Why is that? Is Anderson’s link to the WIV yet another “random coincidence” that has no bearing on her message? Or is it part of a pattern?

I believe the engineering of viruses and other pathogens is one of the greatest threats to life on earth at this point. We lucked out with SARS-CoV-2, as it turned out to be far less lethal than initially predicted. The next time we might not be so lucky.

As reported in July 2020, China has plans to erect high-security biolabs in all of its 23 provinces, despite concerns about leakage risks.23 Worldwide, there are hundreds of laboratories where this kind of research is taking place on a daily basis. Considering the history of lab leaks, it’s only a matter of time before something truly nasty gets out.

This is why we must get to the bottom of where SARS-CoV-2 came from. We must know if it was manmade because, if so, we need to ban gain-of-function research aimed at making pathogens more dangerous to humans.

Yes, there are harmless gain-of-function experiments, and that’s not what we’re talking about here, although, harmless experiments can, of course, be steps in a process that ultimately results in a dangerous bioweapon. Overall, I think we need to seriously reconsider the need and value of genetic manipulation of viruses and the creation of synthetic ones.

*

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

Notes

1 The Lancet February 19, 2020 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30418-9

2 The Lancet Addendum June 21, 2021 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01377-5

3, 4, 5, 6 Daily Mail June 26, 2021, Updated June 27, 2021

7, 9 Capx.co June 18, 2021

8 Yahoo News November 1, 2017

10, 11 Twitter Angela Rasmussen May 26, 2021

12 New York Post June 9, 2021

13 New York Post June 21, 2021

14 Twitter Stephen Miller June 9, 2021

15, 16 MSN June 9, 2021

17 Twitter Glenn Greenwald June 9, 2021

18 Nature April 27, 2021

19 Houston Chronicle May 7, 2021 (Archived)

20 Twitter Peter Hotez June 28, 2021

21 Covid19commission.org

22 Lancet COVID-19 Commission Danielle Anderson Bio

23 Asia Times July 7, 2020

Featured image is from Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Singapore is planning to become the first country to stop counting COVID-19 cases on a daily basis and just treat it like a normal seasonal Flu.

The south-east Asian country has recorded just 36 deaths since the start of the pandemic, and officials now want to ditch measures such as counting infection numbers each day.

A blueprint has been laid out by three leading members of Singapore’s Covid-19 taskforce to end 18 months of tough restrictions in order to restore quarantine-free travel and public gatherings.

The hope is to let people “get on with their lives” by scrapping tough rules and instead controlling the virus through other means.

“Instead of monitoring Covid-19 infection numbers every day, we will focus on the outcomes,” the trade, finance and health ministers wrote in a joint op-ed in the Straits Times.

“How many fall very sick, how many in the intensive care unit, how many need to be intubated for oxygen, and so on. This is like how we now monitor influenza.

“We can’t eradicate it, but we can turn the pandemic into something much less threatening, like influenza, hand, foot and mouth disease, or chickenpox, and get on with our lives.”

Full details of the roadmap have yet to be revealed, but ministers suggested measures such as breathalyser-style tests, more therapeutic treatments and greater personal responsibility.

Singapore’s proposal could be an early sign of the world starting to live with Covid after more than a year of restrictions across the globe.

Meanwhile, a group of doctors have penned an “urgent open letter” to Singapore’s expert committee on Covid-19 vaccination, calling for the vaccination of youths in Singapore to be stopped until the US CDC clarifies why a teenage jab recipient died.

*

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 GreatGameIndia

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Singapore: First Country to Stop Counting Daily COVID-19 Cases and Treat It Like Normal Flu
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As Big Tech, the Biden Administration, Hollywood, politicians, employers and health care providers around the nation galvanize the public to undergo Covid vaccination, the number of casualties who have died or suffer life-threatening effects from the experimental mRNA injections continues to climb.

Those who don’t want to be herded into the mass drug trial are told to just “get on with it” so we can “safely” move on with our lives.

Despite the unrelenting effort to censor “vaccine hesitancy,” thousands who are experiencing the vaccines’ ill effects are resorting to a private Facebook group to sound the alarm on the medical malpractice.

In post after post, over 25,900 members of “The COVID 19 Vaccine Victims & Families Group” detail the horrific health abnormalities they have suffered, including strokes, blood clots, excessive bleeding, needle-like pain in their limbs and paralysis, after receiving Moderna, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines.

Irrespective of the heartbreaking testimonies, Facebook inserts a disclaimer on each of the group members’ posts to assure users the vaccines are “safe” and “effective.”

“COVID-19 vaccines go through many tests for safety and effectiveness and are then monitored closely,” the notification states, citing the World Health Organization.

The notification directs users to Facebook’s COVID-19 information Center, which promotes the vaccine and provides locations offering vaccines in each state.

According to the CDC’s own data, the number of deaths linked to vaccines skyrocketed in 2021.

According to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database, over 1,750 Americansdied from vaccines during the first 3 months of 2021.

That number is now at 6,997.

Americans experiencing bizarre Covid vaccine injury have no legal recourse in a U.S. court of law. Drug companies have total immunity from liability if you die from their vaccines.

In February, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar of the outgoing Trump administration invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act declaring COVID-19 to be “a public health emergency warranting liability protections for covered countermeasures.” The 2005 law assures companies “cannot be sued for money damages in court” over injuries related to the administration or use of products to treat or protect against Covid until 2024, unless there’s “willful misconduct” by the company

The Food and Drug Administration, which provides and approves the pharmaceutical companies’ products for mass distribution, has sovereign immunity for authorizing the vaccine for emergency use.

“You also can’t sue the Food and Drug Administration for authorizing a vaccine for emergency use, nor can you hold your employer accountable if they mandate inoculation as a condition of employment,” CNBC reports.

*

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.

Alicia is an investigative journalist and multimedia reporter. Alicia has contributed to numerous outlets, including the Gateway Pundit, Project Veritas, InfoWars, World Net Daily, Townhall.com and Media Research Center, where she exposed public corruption, fraud and abuse in government, media and Big Tech. She has a Bachelor of Science in Political Science from John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She served as a War Room analyst for the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee. She also served in the Correspondence Department of the George W. Bush administration. Alicia is originally from New York City and currently resides in Washington D.C.

All images in this article are from Gateway Pundit

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Facing growing outcry, OPCW Director General Fernando Arias went before the UN and told new falsehoods about his organization’s Syria cover-up scandal — along with more disingenuous excuses to avoid addressing it.

In the two years since the censorship of a Syria chemical weapons investigation was exposed, the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Fernando Arias, has vigorously resisted accountability.

Arias has refused to investigate or explain the extensive manipulation of the OPCW’s probe of an alleged April 2018 chlorine attack in Douma. Rather than answer calls to meet with the veteran inspectors who protested the deception, Arias has disparaged them. The OPCW Director General (DG) has even resorted to feigning ignorance about the scandal, recently claiming that “I don’t know why” the organization’s final report on Douma “was contested.”

Facing growing pressure to address the cover-up – most prominently in a “Statement of Concern” from 28 notable signatories, including five former senior OPCW officials – Arias came before the United Nations Security Council on June 3rd to answer questions in open session for the first time.

In a nod to the public outcry, Arias backtracked from a previous statement that the Douma controversy could not be revisited. But while appearing to suggest that the investigation could be reopened, Arias offered more falsehoods about the scandal, and new disingenuous excuses to avoid addressing it.

This two-part report summarizes Arias’ latest evasions and distortions, which include the following:

  • Rejecting proposals for resolving the Douma controvery, Arias invoked restrictions that do not appear to exist. Arias falsely claimed that the OPCW’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) has “no authority” to examine the suppressed Douma evidence. Arias also claimed that he personally has “no authority whatsoever to reopen this investigation,” even though the OPCW’s regulations contain no such limits.
  • To discredit the vast quantity of work that was done for the investigation’s original report, which found no evidence of a chlorine attack, Arias falsely stated that the “bulk” of analysis was conducted after its chief author was no longer involved. To advance this falsehood, Arias cited a fabricated figure.
  • Arias tacitly retracted a previous false claim that no state has challenged the Douma report’s conclusions. But instead of acknowledging that prior falsehood, he replaced it with a new one.
  • Arias did not answer direct questions about the documented scientific fraud in the Douma probe, and how he plans to address it. The DG ignored a question from the Russian delegation about why the Final Report omitted the conclusions of NATO member state toxicologists who ruled out chlorine gas as the cause of death. And for the third time, Arias did not respond to a question asking whether he will agree to meet with the dissenting inspectors.
  • A recent BBC podcast interviewed a purported OPCW source who discussed sensitive information and criticized the Douma whistleblowers, as well as the organization’s first Director General, José Bustani. Arias offered an absurd excuse to avoid launching an investigation, stating that he would only probe the breach of confidentiality if the BBC’s source “is identified.”
  • Arias continued to deceptively minimize the role of the key dissenting inspector, Dr. Brendan Whelan. Arias downplayed the fact that Whelan was the scientific coordinator and chief author of the team’s original report, and falsely claimed that he was only involved “in a limited capacity.”
  • Arias also continued to falsely downplay the role of the second known whistleblower, Ian Henderson. Arias’ latest distortions about Whelan and Henderson are addressed in the second part of this report.

Arias’ UN appearance was the latest chapter in a saga that has upended the world’s chemical weapons watchdog. In April 2018, the US, UK and France bombed Syria after accusing its government of committing a chemical attack in Douma. In March 2019, the OPCW released a final report that aligned with the US narrative that Syria was guilty of dropping chlorine gas cylinders on a pair of apartment buildings, including one where dozens of dead bodies were filmed. But an extraordinary trove of leaks soon exposed that the OPCW had published a whitewash.

Internal OPCW documents showed that the inspectors who investigated the Douma incident had found no evidence of a chemical weapons attack. The files also revealed gross inconsistencies in the prevailing narrative that chlorine was the cause of death. These findings, if released, would have reinforced strong indications that extremist insurgents who controlled Douma had staged the incident, just as Syrian forces were set to retake control. But the Douma evidence was concealed in a multi-stage cover-up.

Unknown senior OPCW officials were caught trying to doctor the team’s original report to falsely suggest evidence of a chemical attack. A delegation of US officials also visited the Hague and, in a highly irregular move, tried to convince the team that chlorine gas was used by the Syrian government. The bulk of the original team who deployed in Douma was sidelined, replaced by officials who, for the most part, had not even set foot in Syria. The result was a deceptive final report that erased the key findings of the censored original.

Although the OPCW leaks first surfaced in May 2019, Arias did not face direct questioning about the controversy until December of last year, when he came before the United Nations Security Council. However, Arias refused to answer in open session, and reportedly gave vague, non-substantive answers in private.

The Director General’s decision to return to the UN to answer questions in open session followed growing public pressure, led by former senior UN official Hans von Sponeck, as well as Bustani, the former OPCW chief. Arias’ reliance on falsehoods and hollow excuses offered the most stark display yet that his handling of the Douma cover-up cannot be defended in good faith.

OPCW chief falsely claims “no authority whatsoever” to address Douma cover-up

Just weeks before his UN appearance, Arias told the European Parliament on April 14th that when it comes to the OPCW’s Douma scandal, “the matter is closed.”

But when he came before the UN Security Council on June 3rd, Arias changed his tune. Rather than personally closing the door on revisiting the probe, Arias now claimed that he does not have the authority to re-open it. Arias did so by citing OPCW rules and restrictions that do not appear to exist.

Arias’ fallacious excuse came in response to a new proposal to break the impasse. In April, the Berlin Group 21 – established by former UN assistant secretary general Hans von Sponeck, former OPCW chief Jose Bustani and Richard Falk, an eminent Princeton Law Professor – put forward a way to address the dispute over the Douma report. They urged Arias to allow the OPCW’s own Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) — a subsidiary body made up of 25 independent scientific and technical experts who serve in their personal capacities — to assess the claims of the dissenting inspectors.

“The SAB possesses the necessary scientific and technical expertise,” the Berlin Group 21 statement said.  “[We] believe that leaving the scientific debate to the scientists, who best understand the issues at hand, would provide a more objective and rational approach to begin resolving this unfortunate and highly damaging controversy that surrounds the OPCW and indirectly endangers global security by eroding confidence in future findings relevant to alleged uses of chemical weapons.”

At the UN Security Council, Arias rejected this proposal, claiming that his hands are tied by the OPCW’s own regulations:

 The goal of the Scientific Advisory Board is written, in the terms of reference, is to enable the Director-General to render specialized advice in connection with very sophisticated, very complicated matters and issues related to chemicals and chemical weapons.  Which means that the SAB has no role to assess the findings of the FFM.  The FFM is entrusted to investigate and activate an investigation to produce a report.  And this report—I sign the report, I don’t touch it—it goes directly to the policymaking organs, in this case the Executive Council.  Which means that the SAB has no authority to reassess the investigation of the FFM or to assess any opinion of the inspectors produced on a personal basis.

In claiming that the SAB “has no authority to reassess” the Douma FFM’s findings, Arias is invoking a restriction that does not exist.

In citing the SAB’s terms of reference (ToR), Arias failed to mention that it – along with the Chemical Weapons Convention — explicitly allows for the establishment of a temporary working group of scientific experts to provide recommendations on “specific issues” – exactly as the Berlin Group 21 proposed. Paragraph 9 of the SAB’s ToR states:

In consultation with members of the [Scientific Advisory] Board, the Director-General may establish temporary working groups of scientific experts to provide recommendations within a specific time-frame on specific issues, in accordance with Article VIII, paragraph 45 of the [Chemical Weapons] Convention.

 Contrary to Arias’ claim, there is nothing preventing him from convening a working group of scientific experts to review the particularly “specific issue” that is the Douma investigation – arguably the most internally contested specific issue in the OPCW’s history. Yet Arias is claiming that he is somehow hindered by regulations that, in reality, explicitly grant him the authority to do exactly what he now claims he cannot.

In stating this excuse, Arias also dismissed the work of the dissenting inspectors as having been “produced on a personal basis”, and therefore not subject to reevaluation. Yet there was nothing “personal” about the Brendan Whelan authored-original report, completed in June 2018 and reviewed and sanctioned by other inspectors, including the team leader. What remains unknown is who exactly were the senior OPCW officials who personally doctored its contents – a question that Arias has refused to investigate.

Arias also offered another hollow excuse. The OPCW chief claimed that he can no longer revisit the Douma investigation because it is no longer “in the hands” of his office, but instead the policy-making organizations of the OPCW. According to Arias, that power now lies in the hands of the Executive Council, (the rotating group of 41 member states who govern the OPCW), and the full Conference of State Parties (all OPCW member states):

 I have to say that the report of the FFM directed to Douma is in the hands of the Executive Council and the Conference.  The Director-General has no authority whatsoever to reopen this investigation that concluded and was reported to the Executive Council, and through the Executive Council to the Conference.  The matter is in the hands of the policymaking organs and not of the Director-General.  The Executive Council was already seized of the matter in March 2019.

 This is the first time that the Director General has claimed that the report is out of his control, and instead “in the hands” of a higher body. In introducing this escape-hatch, Arias is now giving the appearance that in principle he no longer objects to a reopening of the investigation. In reality, he is skirting responsibility for that decision by passing it to executive bodies that have blocked any efforts to discuss the cover-up right from the start. Upon the release of the Douma final report in March 2019, the Executive Council immediately voted down a proposal to hear from all of the experts who worked on the Douma case. The US delegation lobbied to block the vote by reportedly arguing that such a hearing would be akin to “Stalinist trials.”

Contrary to Arias’ assertions, the Chemical Weapons Convention does not support his claim that once a final report is issued, it becomes “in the hands of the Executive Council and Conference.” The relevant passage of the CWC simply states that the “Director General shall promptly transmit the preliminary and final reports to the Executive Council and to all States Parties.” (Part XI of the Verification Annex to the CWC, Investigations of Alleged Uses of Chemical Weapons, Section D [Reports], paragraph 23.)

There is nothing to suggest here that the Executive Council – or the State Parties — becomes the custodian of these reports, or that the Technical Secretariat (TS), which the Director General oversees, somehow loses control over them.

This is indeed borne out by past practice. It is common for the TS to make amendments to final reports and issue them without the Executive Council’s permission. Such amendments, which are issued as official TS “Addendums” to published reports, can be minor technical or typographic corrections, but also major substantive additions.

This practice includes a previous OPCW investigation in Syria. After publishing a final report on alleged chemical attacks by insurgents in Syria in December 2015 (S/1318/2015/Rev.1), Syrian authorities invited the OPCW to return in order to collect further evidence that the report claimed was lacking. The FFM team paid a second visit to Syria one month later and published an Addendum to the final report — with details of its additional deployment — in February 2016. (S/1318/2015/Rev.1/Add.1).

The Addendum contains no mention of the Executive Council, and there is no record of any EC vote to authorize it. The opening paragraph reads:

 This addendum provides information further to “The Report of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria Regarding the Incidents Described in Communications from the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and Expatriates and Head of the National Authority of the Syrian Arab Republic” (S/1318/2015/Rev.1, dated 17 December 2015’).

 In the case of Douma, no one is even proposing that the OPCW return to Syria, as it did after issuing that final report of December 2015. The OPCW is simply being asked to hear from the Douma probe’s own inspectors, and address their complaints, including the doctoring of the mission’s original report. Arias is passing the buck to a concocted higher authority in order to avoid exercising his own.

Disparaging whistleblowers, OPCW chief cites a fabricated figure

In one of his few attempts to make a substantive claim in defense of the Douma investigation, OPCW Director General Ferando Arias has repeatedly asserted that “most of the analytical work took place” in the last six or seven months, when the dissenting inspectors were no longer part of the Douma Fact-Finding Mission (FFM). Because of this, Arias has claimed that the whistleblowers “had manifestly incomplete information on the Douma investigation,” rendering their protests “egregious.”

At the UN Security Council, Arias doubled down on this argument by adducing, for the first time, a purported figure to substantiate it. According to Arias, 70 samples were analyzed by the OPCW in the last six months of the investigation, when the dissenting inspectors were no longer involved. Arias made this claim twice:

The FFM, after Inspector B departed, worked for more than six months, during which the bulk of the results of the investigation was got by the team.  For instance, out of the more than 100 samples, around more than 70 results were brought in those last six months of the investigation.

 Of course, the bulk of the investigations related to Douma came after I arrived to the Organisation after July 2018.  Of the more than 100 samples, more than 70 good samples were analyzed after the summer of 2018.  The bulk of the investigation, the bulk of information, the bulk of analysis, of all the information that had been gathered came after the two inspectors left.” 

Arias’ claim that “more than 70” samples “were analyzed after the summer of 2018” in the “last six months of the investigation” is a demonstrable falsehood. Unless the OPCW somehow failed to report dozens of analyzed samples until now, the claim of 70 samples is a fabricated figure. In reality, the final report on Douma shows that just 44 samples were analyzed throughout the entire probe. And just 13 of those samples were analyzed after the issuing of the interim report — i.e., after the dissenting inspectors were out of the picture.

With just 44 samples analyzed for the entire probe, and just 13 new samples analyzed in the final six months, this means that 70% of the Douma investigation’s total sample analysis was in fact conducted in its first month.

Completely inverting that reality, Arias has now produced a phony figure that paints a false picture of the work conducted in the six months after the dissenting inspectors were sidelined.

According to the Final Report, 70% of the total chemical samples analyzed were analyzed in the probe’s first month. Just 13 samples were analyzed in the last seven months, undermining OPCW DG Arias’ new claim that 70 samples were analyzed in that period. (Excerpt of Aaron Maté’s UN presentation, April 16 2021)

By claiming that the “bulk of the investigation” was conducted after the whistleblowers were no longer involved, Arias is also erasing other critical areas of work conducted in the first two months and included in the suppressed original report.

As I recently detailed in a UN presentation, a comparison between the interim report of July 2018 and the final report of March 2019 shows that the vast majority of the investigation was already done in the first two months in multiple key areas: 100% of the research of the scientific literature; 87% of the total interviews had been conducted and analyzed; a meeting with four NATO toxicologists had been convened, and 98.5% of the metadata analysis of media files from Douma was undertaken. In addition, a complete epidemiological study was reported in the original report, much of which was expunged from the final report.

This means that, contrary to Arias’ claim, the bulk of the work was in fact carried out in the probe’s first two months.

Retracting one falsehood, Arias replaces it with another

At the European Parliament in April, Arias falsely claimed that no state party has challenged any of the Douma report’s conclusions, and that Russia even “agrees” with them:

The conclusions of the report, paradoxically, have never been disputed by a state party. Even the Russian delegation agrees with the conclusions.

Arias’ implausible contention was that, despite the heated two-year public dispute over the Douma investigation, no member state has challenged it. Yet Syria and Russia have vigorously challenged the report’s findings, within the OPCW itself and in a series of UN Security Council debates.

As The Grayzone has previously reported, this phony talking point was first put forward by the NATO-tied website Bellingcat last year. Bellingcat produced excerpts of a letter that it claimed was sent by Arias in June 2019 to Dr. Brendan Whelan, the key dissenting inspector. This letter, Bellingcat declared, “reveals that at a diplomatic level behind closed doors, the Russian and Syrian governments have both agreed with the conclusions of the OPCW report.”

But The Grayzone then revealed that not only was this claim ludicrous, but based on a “letter” that was never actually sent. The Grayzone obtained and published Arias’ actual letter to Whelan, which contained none of Bellingcat’s text.

In a sign that he has now recognized the fallacy of the Bellingcat-promoted talking point, Arias tacitly walked it back in his June 3rd UN appearance. But instead of acknowledging his previous error, he replaced it with a new one. Arias now claimed:

None of the 193 Member States of the OPCW have challenged the findings of the FFM that chlorine was found on the scene of the attack, in Douma.

 To support his claim about chlorine found at the scene, Arias cited a note verbal (diplomatic correspondence) from Russia:

I have here in front of me a note verbal of the Russian Embassy, dated the 26th of April 2019, note #759 that includes an attachment.  Its a Russian Federation paper, based on the conclusions of the report of the FFM in Douma.  And this note required me to disseminate this report. This note, or report attached to the note by the Russian Embassy in The Hague said, Conclusion.  The Russian Federation does not challenge the findings contained in the FFM report regarding the possible presence of molecular chlorine in the cylinders, etc.”  This is on the web page from the Organisation.

 Arias’ own source undermines his claim. Whereas Arias told the UN that no state has “challenged the findings of the FFM that chlorine was found on the scene,” his evidence for that statement – a Russian note verbal – simply states that Russia “does not challenge” that there was a “possible presence of molecular chlorine in the cylinders.”

The Russian correspondence goes on to explain why it explicitly does challenge the final report’s conclusion that chlorine was likely used as a chemical weapon. Responding to Arias at the UN, Russian Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya read the relevant passage in full:

The Russian Federation does not challenge the findings contained in the FFM report regarding the possible presence of molecular chlorine on the cylinders.  However, the parameters, characteristics and exterior of the cylinders, as well as the data obtained from the locations of those incidents, are not consistent with the argument that they were dropped from an aircraft. The existing facts more likely indicate that there is a high probability that both cylinders were placed at Locations 2 and 4 manually rather than dropped from an aircraft. Apparently the factual material contained in the report does not allow us to draw a conclusion as to the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon. On that basis, the Russian Federation insists on the version that there was false evidence and on the staged character of the incident in Douma.

Therefore, the only contention that Russia did not challenge is that of a “possible” presence of molecular chlorine in the cylinders found in Douma. That is for obvious reasons.

No one has argued that there was no possibility of a chlorine presence. There were, after all, two chlorine cylinders found at the scene, so traces of chlorine could be expected. In reality, the OPCW did not even report any finding of chlorine gas on the cylinder. They found chloride, a breakdown product of chlorine gas but also a very common substance in the environment, and in household products like table salt and other chloride salts. Chloride theoretically could have been dispersed around the cylinders.

Other possible evidence of chlorine gas use came from very low traces of various chlorine-containing organic compounds (CLOCs) found at the scene — most, if not all, of which can be present in the environment. Because the OPCW failed to test background samples – an oversight or deliberate omission that Whelan later described as scientifically indefensible – it could not determine if these trace quantities of CLOCs found at the scene pointed to chlorine gas use, or if they came from benign sources.

When challenged at the UN on his misrepresentation of the Russian note verbal, Arias did not offer a rebuttal. He instead tersely stated: “The Russian note verbale is published and that is what they have to say.”

Arias’ willingness to deceive the UN on the details of the Douma probe and the OPCW’s own capacity to address it also extends to his portrayal of the whistleblowers, as we will explain in detail in the second part of this report.

*

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

One question that many people ask with regards to the events of September 11 was why the U.S. Air Force went missing in action for over 90 minutes as four lumbering commercial jets traveled around American airspace at will. Now with the death of Donald Rumsfeld, 88, the world may never know.

Prior to the attacks of 9/11, a mosquito couldn’t penetrate U.S. airspace over Washington, D.C. without being intercepted or swatted down. So what went wrong that fateful Tuesday morning? For an answer to that question it is necessary to look at the actions and non-actions of then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, second in military command only behind President George W. Bush, who was out of the loop at the time, visiting a class of elementary school students down in Florida.

Rumsfeld, as Pentagon chief, was in charge of the National Military Command Center [NMCC], which was responsible for coordinating with the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] in the event of a hijacking. But when Rumsfeld’s presence was needed more than ever before in his career, he went missing in action. So what exactly was Donald Rumsfeld doing on the morning of September 11?

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, around 9 a.m., just after American Airlines Flight 11 had slammed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, “Secretary Rumsfeld was having breakfast at the Pentagon with a group of members of Congress. He then returned to his office for his daily intelligence briefing. The Secretary was informed of the second strike in New York [9:03 am] during the briefing; he resumed the briefing while awaiting more information.”

Various individuals pleaded with the Defense Secretary to cancel his morning appointments after news that a second plane had slammed into the World Trade Center. Yet Rumsfeld rejected their desperate appeals. The first person to meet with Rumsfeld after it was clear America was under attack was CIA agent, Denny Watson, who was responsible for giving Defense Secretary his intelligence briefing each morning. At 9:03 a.m., Watson was in the anteroom of Rumsfeld’s office where she witnessed the second plane hit the South Tower live on television. Moments later, she is called into the office and, clearly aware there are more pressing matters at hand, doesn’t bother to remove the President’s Daily Brief [PDB] from her briefcase. “Sir, you just need to cancel this,” she tells Rumsfeld upon entering the office, as cited in David Priess’s book, ‘The President’s Book of Secrets’. “You’ve got more important things to do.” Rumsfeld, however, insists on going ahead with the meeting. “No, no, we’re going to do this,” he tells her.

An incredulous Watson has a seat as the Secretary of Defense flips through the PDB.

Watson was not the only person who tried to impress upon Rumsfeld the urgency of the moment. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, Victoria Clarke, wrote in her 2006 book Lipstick on a Pig that she went directly to Rumsfeld’s office after the second plane hit. “A couple of us had gone into… Secretary Rumsfeld’s office, to alert him to that, tell him that the crisis management process was starting up. He wanted to make a few phone calls.” Rumsfeld reportedly told Clarke to report to the Executive Support Center (ESC) and wait for him. Clarke would wait a long time. Yet that was not the only emergency meeting Rumsfeld failed to attend on the morning of September 11.

The acting-Deputy Director of the National Military Command Center, Captain Charles Leidig, who was substituting for Brigadier General Montague Winfield on this very morning, called an emergency ‘significant event’ conference (SIEC). According to the Commission Report, the meeting “began at 9:29, with a brief recap: two aircraft had struck the World Trade Center…” Now if that summary failed to get Rumsfeld out of his office then clearly nothing would.

At 9:37 a.m., eight minutes after Captain Leidig had called the emergency response meeting, the Pentagon was rocked by what numerous witnesses said felt like a bomb detonating inside of the complex. The Commission Report briefly describes what action Rumsfeld took next: “After the Pentagon was struck, Secretary Rumsfeld went to the parking lot to assist with rescue efforts.” Now just try and rationalize that decision.

Rumsfeld, the highest ranking commander of the U.S. military aside from the President of the United States, has taken it upon himself to inspect the crash site and assist with the search and rescue efforts. A quaint, touching story that the media happily devoured, and the Commission Report completely ignored, but an altogether implausible one. That is not to deny the claim, however, that Rumsfeld was on the front lawn of the Pentagon assisting with the rescue efforts. Indeed, there are photographs showing the Defense Secretary, with a security detail at his side, doing exactly that.

Paul Wolfowitz, in an interview with Vanity Fair, spoke glowingly about how his boss responded to the emergency: “He went charging out and down to the site where the plane had hit, which is what I would have done if I’d had my wits about me, which may or may not have been a smart thing to do, but it was. Instead, the next thing we heard was that there’d been a bomb and the building had to be evacuated. Everyone started streaming out of the building in a quite orderly way.”

So Wolfowitz is somehow of the opinion that Rumsfeld abandoning his command post and dashing outside to the Pentagon blast site, where more attacks could have been forthcoming, was the best course of action. The media papering over Rumsfeld’s disastrous actions did not stop there.

In the New York Times, journalist Andrew Cockburn provided a breathless account of Rumsfeld, the military man of impetuous action, as he inexplicably traversed about two miles around the Pentagon – each side of the Pentagon complex is around the length of three football fields – to inspect the damage site and help the wounded instead of leading the nation at its most critical hour. Brace yourself because this is classic.

“There were the flames, and bits of metal all around,” Cockburn writes, quoting Officer Aubrey Davis of the Pentagon police, who served as Rumsfeld’s personal bodyguard during this mindless morning jog. “The secretary picked up one of the pieces of metal. I was telling him he shouldn’t be interfering with a crime scene when he looked at some inscription on it and said, ‘American Airlines.’ Then someone shouted, ‘Help, over here,’ and we ran over and helped push an injured person on a gurney over to the road.”

Cockburn proceeds to pin media laurels on Rumsfeld’s chest when what the Pentagon chief really deserved was a military tribunal: “[T]hose few minutes made Rumsfeld famous, changed him from a half-forgotten twentieth-century political figure to America’s twenty-first-century warlord. On a day when the president was intermittently visible, only Rumsfeld, along with New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, gave the country an image of decisive, courageous leadership… Over time, the legend grew. One of the staffers in the office later assured me that Rumsfeld torn his shirt into strips to make bandages for the wounded …”

Keep in mind, Rumsfeld was paid to serve as chief of the military, not as a nurse.

Rumsfeld returned to the Pentagon building by 10 o’clock and despite desperate pleas from staff members, he continued to avoid the command center as if it were a leper colony. Instead, he went back to his office where he had a phone conversation with President Bush, though, as Cockburn reported, “neither man could recall what they discussed.”

Rumsfeld did not make it to the command center until 10:30 a.m., which, by that time, was too late to do anything of consequence, except to have a phone conversation with Dick Cheney, who was holed up in the basement of the White House.

As the authors of the Commission Report noted, “Secretary Rumsfeld told us he was just gaining situational awareness when he spoke with the Vice President at 10:39. His primary concern was ensuring that the pilots had a clear understanding of their rules of engagement.” Well, that concern arose about two hours too late. Rumsfeld’s presence at this point was no longer even symbolic. The emergency, for all intent and purposes, was already over. Now it was up to the media to twist this unforgivable dereliction of duty into some sort of act of heroism. And it was only too happy to comply.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Was Donald Rumsfeld Guilty of ‘Dereliction of Duty’ as Pentagon Chief on 9/11?
  • Tags: ,

‘Rule Britannia, Britannia Rule the Waves…’

July 7th, 2021 by Eric Margolis

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Time was when Britain’s mighty fleets ruled a quarter of the earth’s surface. I’ve been savoring the names of its dreadnaughts and battle cruisers like George V, Prince of Wales, Hood, Princess Royal, Iron Duke and scores of other renowned warships.

Last week, the imperial British lion made a last, feeble roar by sending one of its new anti-aircraft destroyers, ‘Defender,’ to annoy the Russians by patrolling off the south-western coast of Crimea.

Russia and Ukraine both claim Crimea, which had been Russian since 1783. After a drunken dinner, the late Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, ‘gave’ the Crimean SSR to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic.

Russia reoccupied Crimea, one of Russia’s most important naval bases, after a US-led coup overthrew Ukraine’s pro-Russian government in 2014. The UK, US and rest of NATO insist Crimea belongs to Ukraine. Of course they do. They engineered it.

HMS ‘Defender’s’ baiting the Russian bear took place while NATO naval and air forces were holding threatening war games over the southern Black Sea to intimidate Russia and embolden allies like Romania, Bulgaria and Poland, the three weak sisters of Eastern Europe.

This tempest in a teapot suddenly became a farce after a stack of soggy secret British naval documents was found behind a park bench in Kent. ‘Defender’s’ mission was discussed in them, Russia’s possible response, and, of all crazy things, potential new British operations in Afghanistan. All to please Uncle Sam, of course.

These embarrassing documents caused an uproar in Britain, made the government look like fools, and put the lie to Whitehall’s claims that the naval operation was only an innocent patrol. Britons are very intelligent people but tend to be sloppy and poorly organized. Britain has been a happy hunting ground for Soviet/Russian spies since the war.

Small wonder the French call Britain ‘perfide Albion.’ The Brits are masters at intrigue, double-dealing and propaganda. British propaganda drew the United States into two world wars. In our era, Britain has assumed leadership of western propaganda efforts against Russia and its allies.

Most Russians, who tend to be well-educated, are well aware of Great Britain’s 1853 invasion of Crimea, in league with France, the Ottoman Empire, and the then kingdom of Sardinia. The Crimean War was a bloody, three-year war designed to wrest the strategic peninsula from Tsarist control and thwart Russia’s expansion into the Balkans.

This nasty war saw the British finally storm fortress Sevastopol and temporarily reduce Russia’s influence in the Black Sea and Balkans. For France, the war was a thrilling return to military victories after the dark years of the Napoleonic wars. For Britain, it was also a triumph in spite of the disaster at Balaclava and heavy casualties due to disease. But, in the end, the war proved a stalemate: the foreign powers withdrew from Crimea and left Russia to lick it wounds.

The next serious invasion came from Germany and Romania in 1941, led by the great German general, Erich von Manstein. The second siege of Sevastopol lasted 250 days. I’ve walked over many of the old Soviet forts that so long resisted German attacks. Crimea was one of the hardest fought campaigns of WWII. Sevastopol was named one of the Soviet Union’s ‘hero cities’ for its legendary resistance.

No one who knows history should be surprised that western moves on Sevastopol and Crimea produced such a strong Russian reaction. Imagine how the US would react to a Russian naval squadron staging war games in the Gulf of Mexico or off New York City.

The point of the ‘Defender’ exercise was to humiliate Russia and show off its weakness, all part of the longer-term US/British/NATO strategy to splinter the remaining Russian Federation in a similar manner that the old Soviet Union was torn apart. That’s what the big NATO Black Sea exercise is about. There will be many more.

*

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

Featured image: The Royal Navy Type 45 Destroyer, HMS Defender. (OGL v1.0)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

This is a controversial report based on the findings of Spanish researchers. It remains to be fully ascertained.

What is required is to have precise details on the composition of the mRNA vaccine, from one or more samples of the drug, also including the identification of the so-called digital microchip.

Independent laboratory studies  based on several samples of all four major mRNA “vaccines” are required, namely AstraZeneka, BioNTech-Pfizer, Moderna Inc, Johnson and Johnson.

Statements pertaining to future impacts of the “vaccine” must be corroborated and confirmed.
.
Several of the statements pertaining to the dangers of the vaccine by Dr. Jane Ruby in this report are premature and cannot at this stage be corroborated.
the Spanish study must be acknowledged and taken seriously.
It should be noted that while the “fact checking” media reports deny the existence of graphene oxide in the mRNA vaccine vial, several reports confirm patent applications pertaining to the use of graphene oxide in vaccines. e.g. Nano coronavirus recombinant vaccine taking graphene oxide as carrier

***

Dr Jane Ruby joins Stew Peters to discuss a scientific report that just came out from the University of Almería School of Engineering in Spain entitled, “Graphene Oxide Detection in Aqueous Suspension: Observational Study in Optical and Electron Microscopy”, where it was found that each dose of the Pfizer shot “was found to contain 6 ng of RNA and 747 ng of graphene oxide, which is 99.103% of the medication.

 

Dr Ruby draws our attention to a 2016 study, “Toxicity of graphene-family nanoparticles [GFNs]: a general review of the origins and mechanisms”, which found, “Several typical mechanisms underlying GFN toxicity have been revealed, for instance, physical destruction, oxidative stress, DNA damage, inflammatory response, apoptosis, autophagy, and necrosis.”

She says,

“These graphene sheets that investigators found in the Pfizer vial, when they get into your system and when they start to penetrate your cells – which they have a lipid nanoparticle that pushes them into your cells – you get oxidative stress…

“It destroys literally everything inside the cell. It explodes the mitochondria. It creates a situation where the body is on a 10-Alarm fire truck and inflammation, cytokines, chemokines. This incredibly violent…inflammatory storm comes in and it has particular affinity for creating acute inflammation of the lungs, it creates an inflammatory storm in cardiac tissue and in brain tissue.

“Stew, this is going to tie directly to strokes, to the heart attacks – and we’re giving this to pregnant mothers and babies? This is really something everybody’s gotta start paying attention to.”

Stew asks her if graphene oxide is a poison and she responds, “It is most definitely a poison.”

Stew says,

“Spanish researchers have found that over 99% of the Pfizer vaccine is graphene oxide, is that right?”

“That’s right. Stew, there’s no other reason for this to be in there except to murder people… If the rest of the companies that are pushing these jabs, all four of the companies in the US are filled with 99% of this toxic industrial chemical, I don’t know what to say to you but everybody better shut everything down right now. This is really dangerous.”

Stew replies,

“This is horrific. I get chills listening to this. I don’t know why the media’s not picking any of this up. They’re in on it. They want you dead. They’re part of the murder plot…

“OK, let me ask you question. Aside from pre-meditated murder, what might be another motivation for one to fill another person’s body, their entire make-up with this graphene oxide? What else does this stuff do, other than poison and kill people?”

She responds,

“The only other explanation I could come up with, as a scientist, myself is that this is a mass-uninformed, without-consent global experiment, because they’ve never been able to get this into humans on an experimental basis.”

Stew asks,

“When they authorized this for emergency use, the efficacy was broadcast everywhere – fake, false lies, complete lies – they said that this thing killed the coronavirus, known as COVID-19, 98.6% success rate, whatever – how can they prove that? Was that just a lie? Did they just make up an arbitrary number? Is that documented anywhere? Does thing really delete or combat the SARS-CoV-2 virus?”

She replies,

“Stew, I’m going to go back to the beginning. The PCR test is a fraud perpetrated by Christian Drosten and Olfert Landt. The coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated, its protein sequences have never been demonstrated or validated, no one can prove to us that it ever really existed.

“Did something exist last year? Something flying around now that’s a flu? Lots of different versions of the Common Cold? Yes, yes and yes. But no one’s ever proven or shown an isolate; verified an isolate of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. That’s number one.

“And I want to add one more thing. These Spanish researchers in the group said that when you look at the different symptoms at whatever was the SARS-CoV-2 from last year, or a few residual cases now, they are all symptoms that would also be caused by excess graphene oxide in your body: the storm in the lungs – and by the way, they’re preparing an inhalant version of this “vaccine”. And God help us, Stew, because it’s more potent, it goes right into the lungs and it creates a pulmonary storm of pneumonia right away and you’re gonna see, if they get this into Emergency Use Authorization, you’re gonna start seeing respiratory flash pneumonias and rapid deaths…

“Since the Nuremberg Trials, you cannot experiment on human beings, regardless of the drug, the disease state, you cannot do it without the approval of a Human Subjects Review Board. That’s an independent board that approves your protocol and your informed consent, which no one’s ever seen – a real informed consent about these jabs…

“There’s also some information coming in and we’re going to see more and more of it and we’re going to talk about it, of the fact that when you get your body filled with enough graphene oxide, with the warmth of your body and…if it draws the oxygen into it, that [the graphene oxide] can be manipulated and your body can be affected by…the 5G network, which we haven’t seen be completely set up and rolled-out yet and so there’s a lot of concern around that. 

“At that point, it’ll just be the residual people who haven’t died of lung or heart disease from this excess toxic chemical.”

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Reports that US and British aircraft carrying arms to ISIS were shot down by Iraqi forces (Iraqi News 2015) were met with shock and denial in western countries. Yet few in the Middle East doubt that Washington is playing a ‘double game’ with its proxy armies in Syria. A Yemeni Ansar Allah leader says ‘Wherever there is U.S. interference, there is al Qaeda and ISIS. It’s to their advantage’ (al-Bukaiti 2015). However key myths remain important, especially to western audiences. Engaging with those myths calls for reason and evidence, not just assertion.

There is no doubt that the Arab and Muslim peoples of the Middle East hate the terrorist monstrosity called ISIS, ISIL or DAESH.

Polling by the Washington-based Pew Research Centre found that 99% of Lebanese, 94% of Jordanians and 84% of Palestinians had an ‘unfavourable’ view of ISIS. As Lebanon’s constitutional system requires sectarian identification it was also found that 98% of Lebanese Sunni Muslims rejected ISIS (Poushter 2015). That latter finding discredits the common western assertion that ISIS somehow springs from Sunni communities. Less than 1% in Lebanon, 3% in Jordan and 6% in Palestine viewed the banned terrorist group favourably. The remainder did not express an opinion. Of all Syria’s neighbours, Turkey had the lowest ‘unfavourable’ view of ISIS, at 73%; the favourable score was 8% (Poushter 2015). The aim of this chapter is to help clarify what role Washington has had in creating or turning loose this Frankenstein’s monster.

Washington maintains two closely linked myths as regards terrorism in the Middle East. Then there is a ‘fall-back’ story.

The first ‘existential myth’ is that, from 2014, the US became engaged in a war against extremist terrorists, in both Iraq and Syria. This followed several years of trying to topple the Syrian Government by backing illegal armed groups, which it calls ‘moderate’. Through this myth the US claims to be playing a protective role for the benefit of the peoples of the region. The second myth is that there is a significant difference between the ‘moderate rebels’ the US arms, finances and trains, and the extremist terrorists (DAESH or ISIS) it claims to be fighting.

These claims represented a shift in the rationale for the war on Syria, from one of ‘humanitarian intervention’ to a revival of the Bush era ‘war on terror’. The ‘fall back’ story, advanced by some of Washington’s domestic critics, is that US practice in the region has created a climate of resentment amongst orthodox Sunni Muslim communities, and the extremist groups emerged as a type of ‘organic reaction’ from those communities to repeated US interventions. This story hides the more damaging conclusion that Washington and its allies directly created the extremist groups.

However there is little point in simply asserting that last version, without evidence. The ‘existential myth’ of a western war on terrorism is so insistent and pervasive, and backed by such a commitment in political capital, arms and finance, that it is very difficult for western audiences to accept this new ‘war’ might be a charade. Further, diplomacy requires that stated policy positions be pursued to their logical conclusions, and that the aims be tested. For these reasons I suggest we should document the key elements of evidence, on Washington’s relationship with the sectarian terrorists. After that we can draw better informed conclusions.

It is certainly true that prominent ISIS leaders were held in US prisons. The Afghan recruiter for ISIS, Abdul Rahim Muslim Dost, spent three years in the US prison at Guantanamo (Bienaimé 2015). ISIS leader, Ibrahim al-Badri (aka Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi) is said to have been held for between one and two years at Camp Bucca in Iraq (Giovanni 2014). In 2006, as al-Baghdadi and others were released, the Bush administration announced its plan for a ‘New Middle East’, a plan which would employ sectarian violence as part of a process of ‘creative destruction’ in the region (Nazemroaya 2006). While there have been claims that al-Baghdadi is a CIA or Mossad trained agent, these have not yet been backed up with evidence.

Nevertheless, according to Seymour Hersh’s article, ‘The Redirection’, the US planned to make use of ‘moderate Sunni states’, in particular the Saudis, to contain alleged ‘Shiia gains’ in Iraq brought about by the 2003 US invasion. These ‘moderate Sunni’ forces would carry out clandestine operations to weaken Iran and Hezbollah, key enemies of Israel (Hersh 2007). This plan brought the Saudis and Israel closer as, for somewhat different reasons, both fear Iran.

In mid-2012, US intelligence reported two important facts about the violence in Syria. Firstly, most of the armed ‘insurgency’ was being driven by extremist al Qaeda groups, and second, the sectarian aim of those groups was ‘exactly’ what the US and its allies wanted. The DIA wrote:

‘The Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria … There is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers [The West, Gulf monarchies and Turkey] to the [Syrian] opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime’ (DIA 2012).

The US also observed (and certainly did not stop) the channelling of arms from Benghazi in Libya to ‘al Qaeda groups’ in Syria, in August 2012. These arms were detailed as including 500 Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 rounds and 400 howitzers missiles, of 125mm and 155mm calibre, all shipped to the Ports of Banias and Borj Islam, in Syria (Judicial Watch 2015). According to Michael Flynn, the former head of the DIA, and consistent with that intelligence, President Obama made a ‘wilful decision’ to support al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and other ‘jihadist’ groups (Newman 2015). This all confirms motive, complicity and consistency of the process, from the early days of the Syrian conflict, building on former President Bush’s ‘New Middle East’ plan. Washington covertly approved the arming of al Qaeda groups in Syria, seeing its own advantage in that.

Probably the most convincing confirmation of US complicity with its terrorist ‘enemy’ has been the admissions from several senior officials that their main regional allies have financed ISIS. Those officials include the US Vice-President, the head of the US Armed Forces and the Chair of the US Armed Forces Committee. In September 2014 General Martin Dempsey, head of the US military, told a Congressional hearing ‘I know major Arab allies who fund [ISIS]’ (Rothman 2014). Senator Lindsey Graham, of the Armed Services Committee, responded with a justification, ‘They fund them because the Free Syrian Army couldn’t fight [Syrian President] Assad, they were trying to beat Assad’ (Rothman 2014; Washington’s Blog 2014). These were honest, if criminal, admissions.

The next month, US Vice President Joe Biden went a step further, explaining that Turkey, Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia ‘were so determined to take down Assad … they poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad … [including] al Nusra and al Qaeda and extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world … [and then] this outfit called ISIL’ (RT 2014; Usher 2014). Once again, these were consistent and credible admissions, except that Biden sought to exempt the US from this operation by blaming key allies. That caveat is simply not credible. The Saudis in particular are politically dependent on Washington and could not mount any major initiative without US approval. Not only that, the US systematically controls, by purchase contract and re-export license, the use of its weapons (Export.Gov 2015).

Washington’s relationship with the Saudis, as a divisive sectarian force in the region against Arab nationalism, goes back to the 1950s, when Winston Churchill introduced the Saudi King to President Eisenhower. More recently, British General Jonathan Shaw acknowledged the contribution of Saudi Arabia’s extremist ideology: ‘this is a time bomb that, under the guise of education. Wahhabi Salafism is igniting under the world really. And it is funded by Saudi and Qatari money’, Shaw said (Blair 2014). He was right.

Other evidence undermines western attempts to maintain a distinction between what came to be called the ‘moderate rebels’, by 2013 openly armed and trained by the US, and supposedly more extreme groups such as Jabhat al Nusra and ISIS. While there has indeed been some rivalry, the absence of real ideological difference is best shown by cooperation and mergers. For example the collection of US-backed groups called the ‘Free Syrian Army’ fought alongside ISIS and against the Syrian Army for several months in 2013, to gain control of Syria’s Menagh air base, near Aleppo (Paraszczuk 2013). Hoff points out that one of the ISIS commanders in the Menagh operation, Chechen Abu Omar al Shisani, ‘received American military training as part of an elite Georgian army unit in 2006’ and continued to receive US support in 2013, through his FSA alliance (Hoff 2015).

Long term cooperation between these ‘moderate rebels’ and the foreign-led Jabhat al-Nusra was seen around Daraa in the south, along the mountainous Lebanese border, in Homs-Idlib, along the Turkish border and in and around Aleppo. The words Jabhat al Nusra actually mean ‘support front’, that is, foreign support for the Syrian Islamists. Back in December 2012, as Jabhat al Nusra was banned in various countries, 29 of these groups reciprocated the solidarity in their declaration: ‘We are all Jabhat al-Nusra’ (West 2012). Soon after the 29 group signatories became ‘more than 100’ (Zelin 2012). There was never any real ideological difference between these sectarian anti-government groups.

The decline of the ‘Free Syrian Army’ network and the renewed cooperation between al Nusra and the string of reinvented US and Saudi backed groups (Dawud, the Islamic Front, the Syrian Revolutionary Front, Harakat Hazm) helped draw attention to Israel’s support for al Nusra, around the occupied Golan Heights. Since 2013 there have been many reports of ‘rebel’ fighters, including those from al Nusra, being treated in Israeli hospitals (Zoabi 2014). Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even publicised his visit to wounded ‘rebels’ in early 2014. That led to a public ‘thank you’ from a Turkey-based ‘rebel’ leader, Mohammed Badie (Israel Today 2014). Semi-covertly, Israel backed all the armed groups against Syria, occasionally assisting them with its own missile attacks (Kais 2013).

The UN peacekeeping force based in the occupied Golan reported its observations of the Israeli Defence Forces ‘interacting with’ al Nusra fighters at the border (Fitzgerald 2014). At the same time, Israeli arms were captured by Syrian forces from the extremist groups (Kais 2012; Winer 2013). In November 2014 members of the Druze minority in the Golan protested against Israeli hospitals being used to help wounded al Nusra and ISIS fighters (Zoabi 2014). This led to questions by the Israeli media, as to whether ‘Israel does, in fact, hospitalize members of al-Nusra and Daesh [ISIS]’. A military spokesman’s reply was hardly a denial: ‘In the past two years the Israel Defence Forces have been engaged in humanitarian, life-saving aid to wounded Syrians, irrespective of their identity’ (Zoabi 2014). In fact, not even a humble farmer gets across the heavily militarised Occupied Golan border to retrieve a stray goat. ‘Humanitarian’ treatment for al Qaeda terrorists is different.

The artificial distinction between ‘rebel’ and ‘extremist’ groups has been mocked by multiple reports of large scale defections and transfer of weapons, to the extremists. In July 2014 one thousand armed men in the Dawud Brigade defected to ISIS in Raqqa (Hamadee and Gutman 2014; Ditz 2014). In November defections to Jabhat al Nusra from the US-backed Syrian Revolutionary Front were reported (Newman 2014; Sly 2014).

In December, Adib Al-Shishakli, representative at the Gulf Cooperation Council of the exile ‘Syrian National Coalition’, said ‘opposition fighters’ were ‘increasingly joining’ ISIS ‘for financial reasons’ (Zayabi 2014). In that same month, the Al Yarmouk Shuhada Brigades, backed and trained for two years by US officers, were reported as defecting to ISIS, which had by this time began to establish a presence in Syria’s far south (OSNet 2014). Then, over 2014-2015, three thousand ‘moderate rebels’ from the US-backed ‘Harakat Hazzm’ collapsed into Jabhat al Nusra, taking a large stock of US arms including anti-tank weapons with them (Fadel 2015a). Video posted by al-Nusra showed these weapons being used to take over the Syrian military bases, Wadi Deif and Hamidiyeh, in Idlib province (Bacchi 2015). Debka File, a site linked to Israeli intelligence, says the heavy weaponry provided to the Syrian ‘opposition’ by the USA, Israel, the Saudis, Jordan, Turkey and Qatar includes tanks, armoured vehicles, rockets launchers, machine-guns, anti-aircraft weapons and ‘at least four types of anti-tank weapons’ (Debka 2015). The scale and consistency of the ‘defections’ strongly suggests management to channel these arms, along with fighters, to make ISIS the best equipped group. A similar conclusion was noted by US Senator John Kiriakou (Sputnik 2015b).

Recruitment of fighters for ISIS was certainly a heavily financed affair, and not an ‘organic’ drift of resentful ‘Sunni’ youth. In late 2014 the Afghan Abdul Rahim Muslim Dost was said to be ‘leading efforts in northern Pakistan to recruit fighters for ISIS’ (Bienaimé 2015). Soon after this report, Syrian jihadist Yousaf al Salafi, arrested in Pakistan, said he had been hired to recruit young men in Pakistan to fight with ISIS in Syria. He says he received $600 for each fighter he sent, working with a Pakistani sheikh and using US money (Variyar 2015). Who knows what the middle-men took, but this sum is several times the salary of an average Syrian soldier. As with Jabhat al Nusra, recruits came from a wide range of countries. Cuban journalists interviewed four captured ISIS jihadists from Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan. They were recruited in a larger group which had passed freely through Turkey and across the border into Syria. They were assisted to participate in this ‘holy war’ by offers of a house, a good salary and a bride. More than 300 people were killed by their car bombs (PL 2015).

ISIS had US weapons by various means in both Iraq and Syria when, in late 2014, a ‘non-aggression pact’ was reported in the southern area of Hajar al-Aswad between ‘moderate rebels’ and ISIS, as both recognised a common enemy in Syria: ‘the Nussayri regime’, a sectarian way of referring to Alawi Muslims. Some reported ISIS had purchased weapons from the ‘rebels’ (AFP 2015).

With ‘major Arab allies’ directly backing ISIS and a steady stream of fighters and arms passing to ISIS from the collapsing US-backed ‘moderate rebel’ groups, it is a small leap to recognise that US and ‘coalition’ flights to ISIS areas (supposedly to ‘degrade’ the extremists) might also have become covert supply lines. That is precisely what senior Iraqi sources began saying, in late 2014 and early 2015 (Iraq News 2014). In mid-2014 ISIS began seizing US weapons, but this was put down to incompetence on the part of the Iraqi Army (Sharma and Nestel 2014).

However, soon after that, US air drops of arms were seized by ISIS troops on the ground. Was this US incompetence or US planning? As reported by both Iraqi and Iranian media, Iraqi MP Majid al-Ghraoui said in January that ‘an American aircraft dropped a load of weapons and equipment to the ISIS group militants at the area of al-Dour in the province of Salahuddin’ (Sarhan 2015). Photos were published of ISIS retrieving the weapons. The US admitted seizures of its weapons but said this was a ‘mistake’ (MacAskill and Chulov 2014). Then in February Iraqi MP Hakem al-Zameli said the Iraqi army had shot down two British planes which were carrying weapons to ISIS in al-Anbar province. Again, photos were published of the wrecked planes. ‘We have discovered weapons made in the US, European countries and Israel from the areas liberated from ISIL’s control in Al-Baqdadi region’, al-Zameli said (FNA 2015a).

The Al-Ahad news website quoted Head of Al-Anbar Provincial Council Khalaf Tarmouz saying that a US plane supplied the ISIL terrorist organization with arms and ammunition in Salahuddin province (FNA 2015b). Also in February an Iraqi militia called Al-Hashad Al-Shabi said they had shot down a US Army helicopter carrying weapons for ISIL in the western parts of Al-Baqdadi region in Al-Anbar province. Again, photos were published (FNA 2015a). After that, Iraqi counter-terrorism forces were reported as having arrested ‘four foreigners who were employed as military advisors to the ISIL fighters’, three of whom were American and Israeli (Adl 2015). Israel’s link to ISIS seems to have passed well beyond its border areas. In late 2015 an Israeli Colonel Yusi Oulen Shahak was said to have been arrested with an ISIS group in Iraq.

The Iraqi Government linked militia said Shahak, from the Golani brigade, was a colonel who ‘had participated in the Takfiri ISIL group’s terrorist operations’ (FNA 2015c). Six senior Iraqi officials have been cited detailing US weaponry and intelligence support for ISIS. Captured ISIS fighters said the US had provided ‘intelligence about the Iraqi forces’ positions and targets’ (FNA 2015d). The western media avoided these stories altogether, because they are very damaging to Washington’s ‘existential myth’ of a ‘War on ISIS’. However they certainly help explain why Baghdad does not trust the US military.

In Libya in 2015 a key US collaborator in the overthrow of the Gaddafi government announced himself the newly declared head of the ‘Islamic State’ in North Africa (Sputnik 2015a). Abdel Hakim Belhaj was held in US prisons for several years, then ‘rendered’ to Gaddafi’s Libya, where he was wanted for terrorist acts. As former head of the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, then the Tripoli-based ‘Libyan Dawn’ group, Belhaj was, in the past, defended by Washington and praised by US Congressmen John McCain and Lindsey Graham (Sputnik 2015a).

Evidence of the covert relationship between Washington and ISIS is substantial and helps explain what Syria’s Deputy Foreign Minister Faysal Mikdad called Washington’s ‘cosmetic war’ on ISIS (SANA 2015). The terrorist group was herded away from the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq but allowed to operate freely in Eastern Syria, against the Syrian Army (Fadel 2015b). The extremist group is used to justify a foothold Washington keeps in the region, weakening both Syria and Iraq. But Washington’s ‘war’ on ISIS has been ineffective. Studies by Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgent database showed that ISIS attacks and killings in Iraq increased strongly in the months after US air attacks began (Lestch 2014). The main on-the-ground fighting has been carried out by the Syrian Army, with its allies, and the Iraqi armed forces, with support from Iran (Lister 2015).

All this has been reported perversely in the western media. The same channels that prominently report (virtually celebrating) the ISIS killing of Syrian soldiers have also claimed the Syrian Army was avoiding or ‘not fighting’ ISIS (Richter 2014; Vinograd and Omar 2014). That alleged ‘unwillingness’ was part of the justification for US bombing inside Syria, another false pretext. While it is certainly the case that Syrian priorities remained in the heavily populated west, multiple media reports make it clear that, well before the strikes by the Russian air force in October 2015, the Syrian Arab Army was the major force engaged with ISIS (YNet 2014; al Arabiya 2014; Reuters 2015), as also suffering the worst casualties from that terrorist group (Webb 2014). When it comes to avoiding ISIS, the reverse has been the case. The evidence tells us that Washington’s lack of will against ISIS is linked to the fact that the terrorist group remains a key tool against the Syrian Government. That also explains why the US refuses to coordinate with the Syrian Army against ISIS (King 2015). This is consistent with the central ongoing aim of ‘regime change’ in Damascus or, failing that, dismemberment of the country. Such an aim was rejected by the US and others at a Vienna conference (Daily Star 2015); but US practice speaks louder than its words.

The contradictions of the US position – of claiming to fight ISIS while covertly protecting it – were thrown into sharp relief when in late September 2015 Russia decided to add air power to the Syrian Army’s efforts, against all the terrorist groups. When the US refused to cooperate with Russia, Washington’s media and NGO cheer squads immediately shifted their chorus of Syrian Government ‘killing civilians’ to that of Russia ‘killing civilians’. That had little effect on matters. At the time of writing, with that powerful Russian assistance, ISIS and the others are retreating and the Syrian Arab Army and its allied militia are gradually reclaiming areas that have been occupied for some time (AFP 2015).

Closer cooperation between Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon’s Hezbollah threaten to seriously degrade US dominance in the region. In the Iraqi military’s recent offensive on ISIS-held Tikrit, the Iranian military emerged as Iraq’s main partner. Washington was sidelined, causing consternation in the US media. General Qasem Suleimani, head of Iran’s Quds Force was said to have been a leading player in the Tikrit operation (Rosen 2015). Not least amongst the new developments has been the creation of an intelligence centre based in Baghdad and shared by Russia, Syria, Iraq and Iran plus Hezbollah (4+1). This signals a new measure of independence for the Baghdad government, long thought to be a puppet captured by Washington (Boyer and Scarborough 2015).

This article has presented sufficient evidence for us to safely draw these conclusions.

First, Washington planned a bloody wave of regime change in its favour in the Middle East, getting allies such as the Saudis to use sectarian forces in a process of ‘creative destruction’.

Second, the US directly financed and armed a range of so-called ‘moderate’ terrorist groups against the sovereign state of Syria while its key allies the Saudis, Qatar, Israel and Turkey financed, armed and supported with arms and medical treatment every anti-Syrian armed group, whether ‘moderate’ or extreme.

Third, ‘jihadists’ for Jabhat al Nusra and ISIS were actively recruited in many countries, indicating that the rise of those groups was not due to a simple anti-western ‘Sunni’ reaction within the region.

Fourth, NATO member Turkey functioned as a ‘free transit zone’ for every type of terrorist group passing into Syria.

Fifth, there is testimony from a significant number of senior Iraqi officials that US arms have been delivered directly to ISIS.

Sixth, the ineffective, or at best selective, US ‘war’ against ISIS tends to corroborate the Iraqi and Syrian views that there is a controlling relationship. In sum we can conclude that the US has built a command relationship with all of the anti-Syrian terrorist groups, including al Nusra ISIS, either directly or through its close regional allies, the Saudis, Qatar, Israel and Turkey. Washington has attempted to play a ‘double game’ in Syria and Iraq, using its old doctrine of ‘plausible deniability’ to maintain the fiction of a ‘war on terrorism’ for as long as is possible.

*

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.

Sources

Adl, Carol (2015) ‘US, Israeli Military Advisors Arrested In Iraq, Accused Of Aiding ISIS’, Your News Wire, 7 March, online: http://yournewswire.com/us-israeli-military-advisors-arrested-in-iraq-accused-of-aiding-isis/

AFP (2014) ‘Syria rebels, IS in ‘non-aggression’ pact near Damascus’, Global Post, 13 September, online: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/140912/syria-rebels-non-aggression-pact-near-damascus

AFP (2015) ‘Syria gaining ground in ‘nearly every front’’, The Daily Star, 23 November, online: http://www.thedailystar.net/world/syria-gaining-ground-nearly-every-front-176662

Anderson, Tim (2015) ‘Daraa 2011: Syria’s Islamist Insurrection in Disguise’, Global Research, 5 July, online: http://www.globalresearch.ca/daraa-2011-syrias-islamist-insurrection-in-disguise/5460547

Arabiya al (2014) ‘Syrian Govt. bombs ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, 63 killed’, 25 November, online: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/11/26/-Syrian-government-airstrikes-kill-63-in-Raqqa-monitor.html

Bacchi, Umberto (2015) ‘Syria: al-Qaeda Nusra Front shows off huge cache of US weapons seized from moderate Harakat Hazm rebels’, International Business Times, 4 March, online: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syria-al-qaeda-nusra-front-shows-off-us-weapons-seized-moderate-harakat-hazm-rebels-1490378

Bienaimé, Pierre (2014) ‘ISIS Now Has A Point Man Recruiting Fighters In Pakistan’, Business Insider, 20 November, online: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/isis-now-has-a-point-man-recruiting-fighters-in-pakistan-2014-11

Blair, David (2014) ‘Qatar and Saudi Arabia ‘have ignited time bomb by funding global spread of radical Islam’, Telegraph, 4 October, online: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11140860/Qatar-and-Saudi-Arabia-have-ignited-time-bomb-by-funding-global-spread-of-radical-Islam.html

Blanford, Nicholas (2011) ‘Assad regime may be gaining upper hand in Syria’, Christina Science Monitor, 13 May, online: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0513/Assad-regime-may-be-gaining-upper-hand-in-Syria

Boyer, Dave and Rowan Scarborough (2015) ‘White House alarmed as Iraq uses intelligence center operated by Russia, Iran, Syria’, Washington Times, 13 October, online: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/13/iraq-uses-intelligence-center-operated-by-russia-i/?page=all

Bukaiti al, Mohammed (2015) ‘Yemen’s Hidden War’, Rolling Stone, October, Issue 767, p.82; also online: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/yemens-hidden-war-20150730

Curtis, Mark (2012) Secret Affairs: Britain’s collusion with radical Islam, Serpent’s Tail, London

Daily Star (2015) ‘Moallem welcomes Vienna statement on Syria’, 2 November, online: https://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Nov-02/321197-moallem-welcomes-vienna-statement-on-syria.ashx

Debka (2015) ‘Assad loses battles as US, Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Qatar and UAE arm Al Qaeda’s Syrian branches’, 4 May, online: http://www.debka.com/article/24578/Assad-loses-battles-as-US-Israel-Turkey-Jordan-Qatar-and-UAE-arm-Al-Qaeda%E2%80%99s-Syrian-branches

DIA (2012) Intelligence Report ‘R 050839Z Aug 2012’ in Judicial Watch, Pgs. 287-293 (291) JW v DOD and State 14-812, 18 May, online: http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-287-293-291-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812-2/

Ditz, Jason (2014) ‘1,000-Strong Syrian Rebel Brigade Defects to ISIS: FSA Rebels Demand US Arms, Threaten to Quit War’, Anti-War.Com, 8 July, online: http://news.antiwar.com/2014/07/08/1000-strong-syrian-rebel-brigade-defects-to-isis/

Export.Gov (2015) ‘Dual Use Export Licenses’, US Export Agency, online: http://www.export.gov/regulation/eg_main_018229.asp

Fadel, Leith (2015a) ‘The Last of the “Moderates” – Harakat Hazzm Disbands to Join Islamists’, Al Masdar, 2 march, online: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/last-moderates-harakat-hazzm-disbands-join-islamists/

Fadel, Leith (2015b) ‘Anti-ISIS Coalition Uses ISIS to Fight Assad in Favor of the Rebels’, Al Masdar, 2 October, online: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/anti-isis-coalition-uses-isis-to-fight-assad-in-favor-of-the-rebels/

Fitzgerald, Denis (2014) ‘UN peacekeepers observe IDF interacting with al Nusra in Golan’, UN Tribune, 4 December, online: http://untribune.com/un-peacekeepers-observe-idf-interacting-al-nusra-golan/

FNA (2015a) ‘Iraq’s Popular Forces Release Photo of Downed US Chopper Carrying Arms for ISIL’, Fars News Agency, 28 February, online: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931209001345

FNA (2015b) ‘Iraqi Army Downs Two British Planes Carrying Weapons for ISIL Terrorists’, Global research, 24 February, online: http://www.globalresearch.ca/iraqi-army-downs-two-british-planes-carrying-weapons-for-isil-terrorists/5433089

FNA (2015c) ‘Israeli Colonel Leading ISIL Terrorists Captured in Iraq’, Fars News Agency, 22 October, online: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940730000210

FNA (2015d) ‘Captured ISIL leaders in Iraq confess receiving intelligence support from US’, Fars New Agency, SOTT, 25 October, online: http://www.sott.net/article/304825-Captured-ISIL-leaders-in-Iraq-confess-receiving-intelligence-support-from-US

Giovanni di, Janine (2014) ‘Who Is ISIS Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi?’ Newsweek, 8 December, online: http://www.newsweek.com/2014/12/19/who-isis-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-290081.html

Hamadee al, Mousab and Roy Gutman (2014) ‘1,000 Syrian rebels defect to Islamic State in sign it’s still strengthening’, McClatchy, 8 July, online: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/middle-east/article24770164.html

Hersh, Seymour (2007) The Redirection’, The New Yorker, 5 March, online: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

Hoff, Brad (2015) ‘ISIS Leader Omar al-Shishani Fought Under U.S. Umbrella as Late as 2013’, Levant Report, 18 September, online: http://levantreport.com/tag/menagh-airbase/

Iraqi News (2015) American aircraft dropped weapons to ISIS, says MP, 4 January, online: http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/american-aircraft-airdropped-weapons-to-isis-says-mp/

Israel Today (2014) ‘Syrian Rebels Thank Netanyahu for Israel’s Compassion’, 23 February, online: http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/24453/Default.aspx

Judicial Watch (2015) ‘Judicial Watch: Defense, State Department Documents Reveal Obama Administration Knew that al Qaeda Terrorists Had Planned Benghazi Attack 10 Days in Advance’, 18 May, online: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-defense-state-department-documents-reveal-obama-administration-knew-that-al-qaeda-terrorists-had-planned-benghazi-attack-10-days-in-advance/

Kais, Roi (2012) ‘Syria: Rebels use Israeli arms’, YNet, 27 January, online: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4181733,00.html

Kais, Roi (2013) ‘US confirms: Israel attacked Syrian missile base’, YNet, 31 October, online: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4448123,00.html

King, Justin (2015) ‘Mounting Evidence Shows US Does Not Want ISIS Defeated’, Mint Press, 24 February, online: http://www.mintpressnews.com/mounting-evidence-shows-us-does-not-want-isis-defeated/202479/

Lestch, Corrinne (2014) ‘U.S. airstrikes fail to slow down brutal ISIS attacks: report’, Daily News, 14 November, online: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/u-s-airstrikes-fail-reduce-brutal-isis-attacks-report-article-1.2011021

Lister, Tim (2015) ‘Battle for Tikrit: Despite billions in aid, Iraqi army relies on militia, and Iran’, CNN, 11 March, online: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/11/middleeast/lister-iraq-iran/

MacAskill, Ewen and Martin Chulov (2014) ‘Isis apparently takes control of US weapons airdrop intended for Kurds’, Guardian, 22 October, online: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/22/isis-us-airdrop-weapons-pentagon

Nazemroaya, Mahdi Darius (2006) Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a ‘New Middle East’, Global Research, 18 November, online: http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882

Newman, Alex (2014) ‘“Moderate” Rebels Armed by Obama Join al-Qaeda, ISIS’, New American, 21 November, online: http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/19583-moderate-rebels-armed-by-obama-join-al-qaeda-isis

Newman, Alex (2015) ‘U.S. Defense Intel Chief: Obama Gave “Wilful” Aid to Al-Qaeda’, New American, 11 August, online: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/21384-u-s-defense-intel-chief-obama-gave-willful-aid-to-al-qaeda

Paraszczuk, Joanna (2013) ‘Syria Analysis: Which Insurgents Captured Menagh Airbase — & Who Led Them? EA Worldview, 7 August, online: http://eaworldview.com/2013/08/syria-feature-which-insurgents-captured-the-menagh-airbase/

PL (2015) ‘Yihadistas revelan cómo se reclutan militantes para el Estado Islámico’, CubaDebate, 25 June, online: http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2015/06/25/yihadistas-arrestados-en-siria-revelan-como-ee-uu-recluta/#.ViwjaSv9iF_

Poushter, Jacob (2015) ‘In nations with significant Muslim populations, much disdain for ISIS’, Pew Research Centre, 17 November, online: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/

Putin, Vladimir (2015) ‘Who are Syria’s moderate rebels?’ Daily Star, 24 October, online: http://www.thedailystar.net/world/who-are-syrias-moderate-rebels-161989

OSNet (2014) ‘Syrian rebels in the Golan defect to ISIS’, OS Net daily, December, online: http://osnetdaily.com/2014/12/syrian-rebels-golan-defect-isis/

Reuters (2015) ‘Syrian air strike kills two Islamic State commanders’, 7 March, online: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/03/07/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-islamicstate-idUKKBN0M30F320150307

Richter, Greg (2014) ‘Syrian National Coalition President: Assad, ISIS Not Fighting Each Other’, NewsMax, 30 September, online: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/syrian-coalition-assad-isis/2014/09/30/id/597645/

Rosen, James (2015) ‘Quds force leader, commanding Iraqi forces against ISIS, alarms Washington’, Fox News, 5 March, online: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/05/iran-quds-force-leader-commanding-iraqi-forces-against-isis-alarms-americans/

Rothman, Noah (2014) ‘Dempsey: I know of Arab allies who fund ISIS’, YouTube, 16 September, online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA39iVSo7XE

RT (2014) ‘Anyone but US! Biden blames allies for ISIS rise’, 3 October, online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11l8nLZNPSY

SANA (2015) ‘Mikdad: US Turkish agreement to arm and train terrorists means failure of de Mistura initiative’, Syrian Arab News Agency, 21 February, online: http://www.sana.sy/en/?p=29385

Sarhan, Amre (2015) ‘American aircraft dropped weapons to ISIS, says MP’, Iraqi News, 4 January, online: http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/american-aircraft-airdropped-weapons-to-isis-says-mp/

Sharma, Versha and M.L. Nestel (2014) ‘Terrorists Seize U.S. Weapons in Iraq’, Vocativ, 16 June, online: http://www.vocativ.com/world/iraq-world/terrorists-seize-u-s-weapons-iraq/

Sly, Liz (2014) ‘U.S.-backed Syria rebels routed by fighters linked to al-Qaeda’, Washington Post, 2 November, online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-backed-syria-rebels-routed-by-fighters-linked-to-al-qaeda/2014/11/02/7a8b1351-8fb7-4f7e-a477-66ec0a0aaf34_story.html

Sputnik (2015a) ‘US Ally in Libya Joins ISIL and Leads Its Forces in the Country – Reports’, 3 May, online: http://sputniknews.com/news/20150305/1019074958.html

Sputnik (2015b) ‘US Congress Arms ISIL in Syria Via ‘Moderate’ Opposition – ex-CIA Officer’, 7 October, online: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151007/1028130762/US-congress-arms-ISIL-in-syria-via-moderate-opposition.html

Usher, Barbara Plett (2014) ‘Joe Biden apologised over IS remarks, but was he right?’ BBC News, 7 October, online: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29528482

Variyar, Mugdha (2015) ‘Funds for ISIS Recruitment Came From US, Says Pakistani ISIS Commander’, IB Times, 29 January, online: http://www.ibtimes.co.in/funds-isis-recruitment-came-us-says-pakistani-isis-commander-621906

Vinograd, Cassandra and Ammar Cheikh Omar (2014) ‘Syria, ISIS Have Been ‘Ignoring’ Each Other on Battlefield, Data Suggests’, NBC News, 11 December, online: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/syria-isis-have-been-ignoring-each-other-battlefield-data-suggests-n264551

Washington’s Blog (2014) ‘Top U.S. Military Official: Our Arab “Allies” Support ISIS’, 16 September, online: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/top-u-s-military-official-arab-allies-support-isis.html

Webb, Sam (2014) ‘Up to 70 Syrian army chiefs beheaded by ISIS after jihadis make advance on second city of Idlib that has been held by Assad’s forces for more than a year’, Daily Mail, 28 October, online: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2810598/Up-70-Syrian-army-chiefs-beheaded-Isis-jihadis-make-advance-second-city-Idlib-held-Assad-s-forces-year.html

West, Diana (2012) ‘Syrian Rebels: We Are All Jabhat Al Nusra (Al Qaeda)’, Free Republic, 12 December, online: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2967671/posts

Winer, Stuart (2013) ‘Syria says it captured Israeli weapons from rebels’, Times of Israel, 21 August, online: http://www.timesofisrael.com/syria-says-it-captured-israeli-weapons-from-rebels/

YNet (2014) ‘Syrian strikes on ISIS stronghold kill 29’, 6 September, online: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4568098,00.html

Zayabi al, Adib (2014) ‘Syrian rebels increasingly joining ISIS: Coalition ambassador’, Asharq al-Awsat, 25 December, online: http://english.aawsat.com/2014/12/article55339780/syrian-rebels-increasingly-joining-isis-syrian-national-coalition-ambassador

Zelin, Aaron Y. (2012) ‘Rally ‘Round the Jihadist’, Washington Institute, 11 December, online: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/rally-round-the-jihadist

Zoabi, Hiba (2014) ‘Israel said to treat wounded members of IS and radical Syrian groups’, i24News, 10 November, online: http://www.i24news.tv/app.php/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/50457-141110-israel-said-to-treat-wounded-members-of-is-and-radical-syrian-groups


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. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Video: COVID-911: From Homeland Security to Biosecurity

July 7th, 2021 by The Corbett Report

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

This was originally published in September 2020.

9/11, as we were told repeatedly in the days, weeks, and months after the attack, was the day that changed everything. And now a new event has come along to once again throw the world into chaos. But whereas the post-9/11 era introduced America to the concept of homeland security, the COVID-19 era is introducing the world to an altogether more abstract concept: biosecurity. This is the story of the COVID-911 security state.

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).

*

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: Coronavirus Disease 2019 Graphic. (U.S. Air Force Graphic by Rosario “Charo” Gutierrez)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”—The Second Amendment to the US Constitution

You can largely determine where a person will fall in the debate over gun control and the Second Amendment based on their view of government and the role it should play in our lives.

In the first group are those who see the government as a Nanny State, empowered to look out for the best interests of the populace, even when that means overriding our rights as individuals and free will.

These individuals tend to interpret the Second Amendment to mean that only members of law enforcement and the military are entitled to own a gun. Case in point: President Biden recently (and wrongly) asserted that “the Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon.”

In the second group are those who see the government as inherently corrupt.

These individuals tend to view the Second Amendment as a means of self-defense, whether that involves defending themselves against threats to their freedoms or threats from individuals looking to harm them. For instance, eleven men were recently arrested for traveling on the interstate with unlicensed guns that were not secured in a case. The group, reportedly associated with a sovereign citizens group, claimed to be traveling from Rhode Island to Maine for militia training.

And then there is a third group, made up of those who view the government as neither good nor evil, but merely a powerful entity that, as Thomas Jefferson recognized, must be bound “down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” To this group, the Second Amendment’s assurance of the people’s right to bear arms is no different from any other right enshrined in the Constitution: to be safeguarded, exercised prudently and maintained.

How to exercise this right is the question that keeps jockeying for supremacy before the U.S. Supreme Court. After declaring more than a decade ago that citizens have a Second Amendment right to own a gun in one’s home for self-defense, the Court has now been tasked with deciding whether the Constitution also protects the right to carry a gun outside the home. The case, NY State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Corlett, takes issue with a state law that requires a license in order to carry a concealed gun outside the home.

On the heels of Corlett is another legal challenge to the state’s authority to regulate—or ban outright—gun ownership outside the home. The attorneys general of 21 states—including Louisiana, Arizona, Montana, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming—have filed an amicus brief in Young v. Hawaii asking the Supreme Court to uphold Hawaiians’ Second Amendment rights to bear arms outside their homes.

Unfortunately, while the various federal circuit courts of appeal continue to disagree over the exact nature of the rights protected by the Second Amendment, the government itself has made its position extremely clear.

When it comes to gun rights in particular, and the rights of the citizenry overall, the U.S. government has adopted a “do what I say, not what I do” mindset. Nowhere is this double standard more evident than in the government’s attempts to arm itself to the teeth, all the while viewing as suspect anyone who dares to legally own a gun, let alone use one in self-defense.

Indeed, while it still technically remains legal to own a firearm in America, possessing one can now get you pulled over, searched, arrested, subjected to all manner of surveillance, treated as a suspect without ever having committed a crime, shot at, and killed. (This same rule does not apply to law enforcement officials, however, who are armed to the hilt and rarely given more than a slap on the wrists for using their weapons against unarmed individuals.)

Now the Biden Administration is setting its sights on gun control.

Mark my words: gun control legislation, especially in the form of red flag gun laws, which allow the police to remove guns from people “suspected” of being threats, will become yet another means by which to subvert the Constitution and sabotage the rights of the people.

Giving police the power to preemptively raid homes in order to neutralize a potential threat is a powder keg waiting for a lit match.

Under these red flag laws, what happened to Duncan Lemp—who was gunned down in his bedroom during an early morning, no-knock SWAT team raid on his family’s home—could very well happen to more people.

At 4:30 a.m. on March 12, 2020, in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic that had most of the country under a partial lockdown and sheltering at home, a masked SWAT team—deployed to execute a “high risk” search warrant for unauthorized firearms—stormed the suburban house where 21-year-old Duncan, a software engineer and Second Amendment advocate, lived with his parents and 19-year-old brother.

The entire household, including Lemp and his girlfriend, was reportedly asleep when the SWAT team directed flash bang grenades and gunfire through Lemp’s bedroom window.

Lemp was killed and his girlfriend injured.

No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, had a criminal record.

No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, was considered an “imminent threat” to law enforcement or the public, at least not according to the search warrant.

So what was so urgent that militarized police felt compelled to employ battlefield tactics in the pre-dawn hours of a day when most people are asleep in bed, not to mention stuck at home as part of a nationwide lockdown?

According to police, they were tipped off that Lemp was in possession of “firearms.”

Thus, rather than approaching the house by the front door at a reasonable hour in order to investigate this complaint—which is what the Fourth Amendment requires—police instead strapped on their guns, loaded up their flash bang grenades and acted like battle-crazed warriors.

This is what happens when you adopt red flag gun laws, which Maryland did in 2018, painting anyone who might be in possession of a gun—legal or otherwise—as a threat that must be neutralized.

Meanwhile, the government’s efforts to militarize and weaponize its agencies and employees is reaching epic proportions, with federal agencies as varied as the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration placing orders for hundreds of millions of rounds of hollow point bullets. Moreover, under the auspices of a military “recycling” program, which allows local police agencies to acquire military-grade weaponry and equipment, $4.2 billion worth of equipment has been transferred from the Defense Department to domestic police agencies since 1990. Included among these “gifts” are tank-like 20-ton Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, tactical gear, and assault rifles.

Ironically, while the Biden administration’s gun control efforts have helped to spike gun sales nationally, the government has made no effort to curtail its own addiction to weapons of war, a significant number of which have conveniently been “lost” and used in violent crimes in communities across the U.S.

We’re talking about rifles, pistols, machine guns, shot guns, and grenades. Some of these weapons were lost through gross negligence. Others, however, were trafficked by military police.

The U.S. military boasts weapons the rest of the world doesn’t have, and it continues to develop even more weaponry, each deadlier than the last.

Make no mistake: every last one of these weapons will eventually make its way back to domestic police forces to be used against the American people.

Included in the government’s military arsenal are armed, surveillance Reaper drones capable of reading a license plate from over two miles away; an AA12 Atchisson Assault Shotgun that can shoot five 12-gauge shells per second and “can fire up to 9,000 rounds without being cleaned or jamming”; an ADAPTIV invisibility cloak that can make a tank disappear or seemingly reshape it to look like a car; a PHASR rifle capable of blinding and disorienting anyone caught in its sights; a Taser shockwave that can electrocute a crowd of people at the touch of a button; an XM2010 enhanced sniper rifle with built-in sound and flash suppressors that can hit a man-sized target nine out of ten times from over a third of a mile away; and an XM25 “Punisher” grenade launcher that can be programmed to accurately shoot grenades at a target up to 500 meters away.

What the government has yet to acknowledge, however, is that its own gun violence—inflicted on unarmed individuals by battlefield-trained SWAT teams, militarized police, and bureaucratic government agents trained to shoot first and ask questions later—is not making America any safer.

Indeed, the U.S. government may be the most egregious perpetrator of gun violence in America, bar none.

All the while gun critics continue to clamor for bans on military-style assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing bullets, the U.S. military is passing them out to domestic police forces.

Under the auspices of a military “recycling” program, which allows local police agencies to acquire military-grade weaponry and equipment, more than $4.2 billion worth of equipment has been transferred from the Defense Department to domestic police agencies since 1990. Included among these “gifts” are tank-like, 20-ton Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, tactical gear, and assault rifles.

There are now reportedly more bureaucratic (non-military) government agents armed with high-tech, deadly weapons than U.S. Marines.

While Americans have to jump through an increasing number of hoops in order to own a gun, the government is arming its own civilian employees to the hilt with guns, ammunition and military-style equipment, authorizing them to make arrests, and training them in military tactics.

Among the agencies being supplied with night-vision equipment, body armor, hollow-point bullets, shotguns, drones, assault rifles and LP gas cannons are the Smithsonian, U.S. Mint, Health and Human Services, IRS, FDA, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Education Department, Energy Department, Bureau of Engraving and Printing and an assortment of public universities.

This is the double standard at play here.

How is it that while violence has become our government’s calling card, from the more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting Americans by heavily armed, black-garbed commandos and the increasingly rapid militarization of local police forces across the country to the drone killings used to target insurgents, “we the people” are the ones who must be regulated, restricted and banned from owning a weapon?

If we’re truly going to get serious about gun violence, why not start by scaling back the American police state’s weapons of war?

I’ll tell you why: because the government has no intention of scaling back on its weapons.

We’ve allowed ourselves to get so focused on debating who or what is responsible for gun violence—the guns, the gun owners, or our violent culture—and whether the Second Amendment “allows” us to own guns that we’ve overlooked the most important and most consistent theme throughout the Constitution: the fact that it is not merely an enumeration of our rights but was intended to be a clear shackle on the government’s powers.

When considered in the context of prohibitions against the government, the Second Amendment reads as a clear rebuke against any attempt to restrict the citizenry’s gun ownership.

As such, it is as necessary an ingredient for maintaining that tenuous balance between the citizenry and their republic as any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, especially the right to freedom of speech, assembly, press, petition, security, and due process.

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas understood this tension well. “The Constitution is not neutral,” he remarked, “It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.”

In this way, the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights in their entirety stand as a bulwark against a police state.

To our detriment, these rights have been steadily weakened, eroded and undermined in recent years. Yet without any one of them, including the Second Amendment right to own and bear arms, we are that much more vulnerable to the vagaries of out-of-control policemen, benevolent dictators, genuflecting politicians, and overly ambitious bureaucrats.

When all is said and done, the debate over gun ownership really has little to do with gun violence in America. It’s also not even a question of whether Americans need weapons to defend themselves against any overt threats to our safety or wellbeing.

Truly, the debate over gun ownership in America is really a debate over who gets to call the shots and control the game.

In other words, it’s that same tug-of-war that keeps getting played out in every confrontation between the government and the citizenry over who gets to be the master and who is relegated to the part of the servant.

The Constitution, with its multitude of prohibitions on government overreach, is clear on this particular point. As 20th century libertarian Edmund A. Opitz observed in 1964, “No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words ‘no’ and ‘not’ employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights.”

In a nutshell, as I make clear in Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms reflects not only a concern for one’s personal defense, but serves as a check on the political power of the ruling authorities.

It represents an implicit warning against governmental encroachments on one’s freedoms, the warning shot over the bow to discourage any unlawful violations of our persons or property.

As such, it reinforces that necessary balance in the citizen-state relationship. As George Orwell, who plays a starring role in my new novel The Erik Blair Diaries, noted, “That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”

*

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.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Preface

by Alexander Losev, Director General, Sputnik Asset Management

“Beyond the Dollar Creditocracy: A Geopolitical Economy” is how American and Canadian economists Michael Hudson and Radhika Desai, respectively, titled their paper centred on the rise of the dollar to the financial Olympus and a potential de-dollarisation.

Weak growth in the global economy, low and negative interest rates, the risk of endless stagnation and rising inflation, and prospects for a prolonged recession are, unfortunately, part of the economic reality. Clearly, the globalisation-based financial supercapitalism model, of which the United States was a beneficiary for quite a long time, and which relied on endless lending and financialisation, which turned the commodity markets into financial ones, has run its course.

The global economy has reached the apex of an all-time lending boom, but the expansive growth of debt shows that most national economies are supported mainly by massive public and private borrowing. A major vulnerability has been identified in the global economic system that took years to build: halting the Fed’s printing press, another crisis sweeping the United States, or even a slight increase in interest rates, will trigger a major economic crisis unseen since the Great Depression.

Many economists, analysts and researchers from different schools and areas strive to find a way out of the dead-end and to show prospects for new geoeconomic models. A book by Klaus Schwab, the founder of the Davos Forum, about the global reset received wide coverage in the media not so long ago[1]. It claims that the post-pandemic world will never be the same. It is certainly interesting to hear views on the future coming from the billionaire community, but there is also China and its position and a leftist train of thought.

The paper by Michael Hudson and Radhika Desai, who are anti-imperialist leftists, also explores the reasons for the financial world being the way it is, and how one can put an end to dollar hegemony and to create a multicurrency financial system before existing imbalances completely destroy everything.

But before you delve deep into the paper about the collapse of the dollar creditocracy, you need to take an objective look at the general picture of global finance.

So … The total amount of global money, including coins, banknotes and account balances, amounts to the equivalent of $37 trillion, with the US dollars per se accounting for about half of that amount, $19.2 trillion. If you add deposits to this amount, the global money supply in a broad sense will be equivalent to $98 trillion. And the entire value of global finance, which includes, in addition to money, investment vehicles (stocks, bonds or loans), derivatives and cryptocurrencies, exceeds $1.2 quadrillion.

Here are a few more figures … The global stock market capitalisation amounted to $96 trillion as of late 2020, and the US market accounted for 54 percent of that amount. Global debt (public and private) exceeded $280 trillion[2] as of early 2021, and the share of dollar denominated debt liabilities amounts to 57 percent of this total.

Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson’s writings about dollar-denominated creditocracy are based on objective facts. The US dollar accounts for 85 percent of all settlements around the globe; it makes up 62 percent of the central banks’ gold and foreign exchange reserves; more than half of global debt is denominated in US dollars and half of global cash also exists in the form of US dollars.

But were they too quick to jump to a conclusion about the collapse of the dollar creditocracy by analogy with the collapse of the British pound’s hegemony after WWII? Can that much money, assets and liabilities just up and disappear, vanish, or be replaced by something else?

Clearly, global money will not go away overnight, although every year sees many publications about the collapse of the dollar or the United States losing its financial hegemony. Even a nuclear war cannot destroy that many assets. In the paper titled “Risk, resilience, and rebalancing in global value chains”, released in August 2020[3], the McKinsey Global Institute estimates global economy losses from a hypothetical nuclear conflict at “only” $15 trillion. Losses from a pandemic caused by a dangerous virus are estimated at $30 trillion in the same paper, and losses from a “common” economic crisis at $10 trillion.

Of course, this does not mean that the dollar will dominate global finance forever. The Herbert Stein[4] law can already be used with regard to dollar dominance. It says: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” And this is happening not only because the United States has lost its hegemony, but also due to the enormous currency issue by the US Federal Reserve which, in the last few months alone, has slashed the value of the dollar against the basket of major currencies by 15 percent, as well as because of the excessive use of sanctions and the United States weaponising the existing dollar asymmetry in global finance and using it as a tool to exert pressure on its opponents and competitors.

Indeed, the distribution of cash and capital flows around the world is largely driven by what the main reserve currency, the US dollar, is doing and monetary cycles in the US. And it was the financialisation that went alongside the globalisation that made most markets dependent on fluctuations in the US Federal Reserve’s monetary policy or the state of the US economy. The shortage or surplus of dollars flowing into the outside world leads to changes in the output of goods and services in the real economy of the rest of the world.

Decades of ultra-soft US Federal Reserve policy are the main reason behind the market bubbles and never-ending booms and busts in the global economy and the financial markets, amid a record-high level of global debt as a percentage of GDP (as of the time of writing, the debt has exceeded 355 percent of global GDP), low global economy growth rates and ever-shrinking investment.

Often, in order to compensate for the capital outflow caused by the Fed, or in order to redress their trade balance or balance of payments, China and a number of US trade partners responded by either devaluating their national currencies (currency wars), or using countermeasures to stimulate their economies and resorted to commodity dumping.

The dollar-centric system will inevitably transform into some kind of new financial system, possibly, a multicurrency and partly digital financial system. After all, the dominance of the British pound sterling came to an end at a certain point. Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson describe this fall of the pound in much detail in their paper, and also provide arguments as to why continental powers, including the Russian Empire, introduced a gold standard for their currencies to compete with the pound before WWI.

Does gold stand a chance of becoming money again? We will again find the answer in the numbers. The volume of gold held as a reserve by all central banks amounts to $11 trillion, and this is clearly not enough to provide money for the global economy with a GDP of $87 trillion, international trade and 7.7 billion people living on planet Earth.

Can the history of global money provide a clue about what turns global finance may take going forward? Perhaps, this is the main question I have for Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson’s paper. The world has changed to become more digital and, unfortunately, unstable. The geopolitical picture is beginning to resemble the one that prevailed over 100 years ago before WWI. Some analysts believe that, in the third decade of the 21st century, a new era will begin in the economy, politics and lifestyle – the Age of Disorder – an era of clashing cultures and interests. Once over, it will give rise to a new world order as has happened more than once in the history of humankind.

Therefore, it makes sense to focus separately on how the US dollar, beginning with the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944, has become the main currency for trade settlements, savings and reserves. As noted in the study, the United States entered WWI as a nation of debtors and emerged from it as the largest creditor gaining access to European markets that were previously off-limits to the United States.

Following WWII, the United States became a superpower and gained not only political and economic superiority, but also the experience of how to profit from wars. US capital turned out to be the main beneficiary. Michael Hudson and Radhika Desai called it “creditocracy,” although the American public then also felt the touch of economic prosperity and a noticeable increase in prosperity. At a time when the economies of the Soviet Union, Europe and Japan lay in ruins, the United States became the world’s main manufacturer and exporter, and imperatively created the demand for dollars with its military-political influence, trade and … currency issue.

Dropping the gold standard and reformatting the Bretton Woods system in 1971 took place not only because of the collapse of the meeting of the Committee of Twenty on reforming the monetary system, as Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson say in their paper, but also due to the fact that because of rapid growth, international trade was simply running short of the level of gold backing needed in order to have the right amount of dollars for the global financial system to pay for goods and services and to keep the dollar monopoly intact in the process. The United States decided that international trade was more important than the gold backing of currencies. Indeed, it depreciated the dollar, but since then, everyone has been buying real goods on credit. And here we can agree that the creditocracy has been revivified.

After the Jamaica conference on January 8, 1976, gold became a common commodity, and the IMF issued a ban on payments in gold between the states. Special Drawing Rights (SDR) were introduced. At the same time, the “Triffi n Dilemma[5]” referred to by the authors of the study was resolved. The dilemma is about a disparity that arises if the national currency of only one country is used for international settlements between many countries: “in order to provide other countries’ central banks with the amount of dollars necessary to form national foreign exchange reserves, the United States must constantly experience a balance-of-payments deficit, which undermines confidence in the dollar and reduces its value as a reserve asset; therefore, a balance-of-payments surplus is required to build confidence.”

The Jamaican system refuted this paradox. Indeed, in order for the international settlements to take place as intensively as possible the United States must operate with a permanent balance-of-payments deficit. But this deficit is covered by the issue of credit money, and the internal US budget deficit and the growth of money supply do not contribute to inflation, since they correlate with the goods that are manufactured outside the United States. Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson are right when they say that financial engineering has outperformed industrial engineering in the United States.

Now is the time for a new level of financial engineering, but not in a specific country such as the United States or China, but all over the world. Financial bubbles will burst sooner or later. What’s next? Many countries will need to find an answer on their own. Let’s thank Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson for trying. But let’s also keep the following circumstances in mind. The 2020 coronavirus crisis revealed the ineffectiveness of global governance institutions, which failed to help states coordinate their efforts to combat the spread of the virus, and which are very limited in terms of the choice of tools for lifting the global economy out of recession. Dealing with the crisis aftereffects often leads only to the issuance of more dollars, euros, yen, yuan, etc.

The current geopolitical changes are laden with a great deal of uncertainty. Competition is exacerbating and regionalisation is accelerating. Digital technologies in finance and e-commerce have become the prerequisites for survival of so many businesses. The constraints created by the existing global financial infrastructure will stimulate the creation of multiple alternative information and financial networks. The finance technology and the banking sector will change, and money supply will take on outlines of its own. Given these circumstances, the value of innovation is increasing, but the cost of mistakes has also become high. All global financial system transformation projects must be tested for the possibility of cooperation between countries and for the possibility of interacting with digital networks and they need to be evaluated based on long-term viability in the context of an evolving economic model.

The countries that create their own rules and technologies and consistently uphold their interests, including in the financial sphere, keeping in mind the ability of digital currencies to bypass old dollar-based international payment systems overseen by the US Treasury in cross-border settlements, will have the edge in the transformation that is currently underway.

Of course, in the early stages, many countries will face pushback from the United States, as this paper mentions. But it will be difficult to oppose objective processes, and will be almost impossible as technology improves; therefore, the multicurrency global financial system will sooner or later become a reality and the ideas of digital currencies will be supported by many countries.

Introduction

As President Biden continues his predecessor’s New Cold War on China, it is clear that the pandemic has vastly accelerated the on-gong shift in the international balance of power, away from the US and towards China. For former US Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, it was likely a ‘hinge of history’: ‘[i]f the 21st century turns out to be an Asian century as the 20th was an American one, the pandemic may well be remembered as the turning point’. It would erase 9/11 and 2008 from memory and rank alongside ‘the 1914 assassination of the Archduke, the 1929 stock market crash, or the 1938 Munich Conference’ (Summers 2020).

However, Professor Summers misses the point. The twentieth century, from our point of view, was actually more an attempted American Century than an accomplished one (Desai 2013) and the shift away from it is looking more certain and decisive than the ‘ifs’ in his assessment let on. The pandemic is less a hinge than an acceleration of the decline of US power based on financialised neoliberal capitalism (Desai 2020a). The structure of world domination that the US had sought to foist on the world in recent decades is breaking down. The US never succeeded; the structure was too unstable and volatile to work. Therefore, one cannot blame the pandemic for reversing even its limited successes. The reversal is rooted in a geopolitical economic earthquake whose rumblings date back decades. They have loosened more and more countries from the contradictory and crisis-prone structures of US domination.

The core of all international power structures of the ‘capitalist mode of foreign relations’ (Van der Pijl 2014) lies in the international monetary system – what James Steuart called ‘the money of the world’ in 1767, referring to the means by which countries settle their trade or financial imbalances among one another. The domination the US sought to exert was no different. At its heart lay the dollar-denominated international financial system that we call the Dollar Creditocracy. It has undergirded the dollar’s world role since the early 1970s and its unravelling leads the denouement of US power.

The financial commentariat is already expressing foreboding of the dollar’s coming doom. ‘The decline of the U.S. dollar could happen at “warp speed”’, warns Market Watch, while Reuters reports more sedately on how ‘King dollar’s decline ripples across the globe’. While set-tos between dollar boosters and gloomsters have long been a feature of the crises that have regularly punctuated the dollar system, what was remarkable is how many are changing sides. Benjamin Cohen (2020) warned of the end of the dollar’s ‘exorbitant privilege’ and Stephen Roach (2020) warned of a 35 percent drop in the dollar index over the coming two to three years. Although some boosters such as Barry Eichengreen (2020) stuck to their guns, they were clearly low on ammunition, unable to fi nd solace in anything other than lack of alternatives.

Such commentators sense that doom lies ahead. However, they are far from explaining why. Cohen blamed it on Trump’s disastrous pandemic management, added to his tendency to weaponise the dollar, and Roach blames it on increased US borrowing. However, these explanations, like most commentary on the dollar’s world role, is tangled in that combination of wishful thinking and wager that one of us identified as the international financial intermediation hypothesis (IFIH) (Hudson 1972/2003). It emerged from the difficulties that ended the dollar’s link to gold in 1971 to conjure up a new basis for the dollar’s world role. By making the so-very-clever argument that the US was no ordinary indebted country but the world’s banker and that its deficits were loans to the world, a public service the world should accept gratefully by lifting capital controls and deregulating finance, this interpretation attempts to normalise the transformation of the US economy from super creditor to super debtor. However, it was never more than a barely adequate fig-leaf.

Our purpose in this article is to cut through this interpretation. Despite its faults, it dominates our understanding of the dollar system. In its place we reveal one that is theoretically sound and accords with the historical record, a geopolitical economy (Desai 2013) of the international monetary system of modern capitalism. We begin with a theoretical outline of how money operates under capitalism. We then consider how capitalism needs world money and, at the same time, makes its stable functioning difficult. We then go on to trace the fundamental instability of the modern international monetary systems based on national currencies of dominant countries, from the gold standard to the current volatile and predatory dollar-centred system, and their close connection to short-term and speculative as opposed to long-term and productive finance. We conclude by discussing of the key instabilities of the dollar system and the paths that various countries and international organizations are already taking to move beyond its destructive logics.

Read the full report here.

*

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

Radhika Desai, Professor, Department of Political Studies; Director, Geopolitical Economy Research Group; President, Society for Socialist Studies

Michael Hudson, Veteran of Wall Street; Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri at Kansas City (UMKC)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On July 2nd, fleeing questions from reporters about U.S. plans in Afghanistan, President Joe Biden sought refuge behind the July 4th Independence Day holiday. Yet he obliquely acknowledged that the U.S. will use some level of “over-the-horizon” air attacks to prevent the Taliban from taking power, attacks that will include drones and manned aircraft, possibly even B-52s.

Here is a portion of President Biden’s remarkable exchange with the press, which occurred at the close of his comments on the June 2021 jobs report:

Q: Are you worried that the Afghan government might fall?  I mean, we are hearing about how the Taliban is taking more and more districts.

THE PRESIDENT:  Look, we were in that war for 20 years.  Twenty years.  And I think — I met with the Afghan government here in the White House, in the Oval.  I think they have the capacity to be able to sustain the government.  There are going to have to be, down the road, more negotiations, I suspect.  But I am — I am concerned that they deal with the internal issues that they have to be able to generate the kind of support they need nationwide to maintain the government.

Q: A follow on that thought on Afghanistan —

THE PRESIDENT:  I want to talk about happy things, man.

Q: If there is evidence that Kabul is threatened, which some of the intelligence reports have suggested it could be in six months or thereabout, do you think you’ve got the capability to help provide any kind of air support, military support to them to keep the capital safe, even if the U.S. troops are obviously fully out by that time?

THE PRESIDENT:  We have worked out an over-the-horizon capacity that we can be value added, but the Afghans are going to have to be able to do it themselves with the Air Force they have, which we’re helping them maintain.

Q: Sir, on Afghanistan —

THE PRESIDENT:  I’m not going to answer any more quick question on Afghanistan.

Q: Are you concerned —

THE PRESIDENT:  Look, it’s Fourth of July.

When the President refers to “over-the-horizon capacity that we can be value added,” he is referring to a plan, that appears might cost $10 billion, to fly drones and manned attack aircraft from bases as far away as Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait to assist the current Afghan central government in defending itself against the Taliban.

His statement is the first acknowledgment that the “over-the-horizon” air operations, that reportedly may rely very heavily on drone assassination and drone targeting for manned aircraft, will be directed at the Taliban.

In congressional testimony in June, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said that “over-the-horizon” operations would focus on “elements that can possibly conduct attacks against our homeland,” suggesting Al Qaeda and ISIS as targets but not foreclosing attacks against the Taliban.

The President’s remarks about “over the horizon” as “value added” flowing into “but the Afghans are going to have to be able to do it themselves with the Air Force they have,” is reminiscent of former President Richard Nixon’s attempt to argue that the puppet government of Vietnam was developing the power to defend itself, attempting to cover U.S. tracks out of the horribly disastrous U.S. colonization project in Vietnam.

“Our air strikes have been essential in protecting our own remaining forces and in assisting the South Vietnamese in their efforts to protect their homes and their country from a Communist takeover,” Nixon said in a 1972 speech to the nation.

How Nixon's Invasion of Cambodia Triggered a Check on Presidential Power - HISTORY

Biden’s strategy for Afghanistan looks like Nixon’s Vietnamization policy for Vietnam which subcontracted and outsourced the war. [Source: history.com]

The apparent U.S. decision to continue to assist the Afghan central government from the air comes in company with a New York Times report saying that President Biden has placed “temporary limits on counterterrorism drone strikes and commando raids outside conventional battlefield zones like Afghanistan and Syria, and it has begun a broad review of whether to tighten Trump-era rules for such operations, according to officials.”

A similar report in Foreign Affairs says that there has been an apparent reduction in U.S. drone attacks, and details elements of a “bigger rethink” process that the Biden administration is said to be going through to limit civilian deaths and reevaluate how the U.S. should respond to “the overseas terrorist threat.” A goal of the administration, the report says, is to end the U.S. “forever” wars.

It must also be said, however, that these reports indicate that President Biden fully intends to continue the U.S. drone assassination/pre-emptive killing policy of Bush, Obama and Trump, possibly with more care for civilian casualties but in defiance of international principles of war, as outlined on BanKillerDrones.org, that would rule out the use of weaponized drones and military drone surveillance altogether whether inside or outside a recognized combat zone.

It appears that the reformist talk from Biden officials, much of it unattributed and therefore having no accountability, is intended to divert and placate those of us citizens who are repulsed by continuing drone atrocities, such as those leading 113 peace, justice and humanitarian organizations which signed a letter demanding “an end to the unlawful program of lethal strikes outside any recognized battlefield, including through the use of drones.”

Drones fly, children die': US activists launch massive anti-drone campaign — RT USA News

Anti-drone activists and the peace movement are being rebuffed by yet another administration. [Source: rt.com]

Apart from the view, noted above, that drone attacks and surveillance are illegal anywhere, we have to question the U.S. having turned the entire world into a potential “recognized battlefield.”

Even though U.S. ground forces have largely left Afghanistan, it is clear that the Biden administration considers Afghanistan a legitimate battlefield for U.S. air forces.

In President Biden’s “value-added” remark, one can see a clear message: Regardless of talk of a more humanitarian policy of drone killing and ending “forever” wars, the president has decided that prolonged civil war in Afghanistan is in the interest of the U.S.

Possibly this is because continued turmoil in Afghanistan will be unsettling and preoccupying to her neighbors, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and China. Possibly it is because a civil war will make it easier for corporations and banks to exploit Afghanistan’s mineral, fossil fuel and opium wealth.

Certainly, continued U.S. air assaults in Afghanistan will generate money for U.S. military contractors.

With continuing U.S. air and commando attacks, Afghanistan can turn into a Libya, a divided, stalemated, suffering, bleeding country, where Turkey, Russia and China test their weapons and seek advantage.

Indeed, the U.S. is negotiating with Turkey, over the objection of the Taliban, to maintain “security” at the Kabul International Airport.

Undoubtedly, the Turkish political/military/ corporate elite, who have their own expansionary ambitions, will use its drones, among them the semi-autonomous Kargu 2, to try to hold the airport and surrounding territory.

The Black Alliance for Peace released a statement on June 25 opposing “any effort to prolong the U.S. war on the Afghan people, including efforts to keep the United States engaged in any form in Afghanistan.”

The statement expressed concern for “the continued operation of U.S. special forces and mercenaries (or contractors) in Afghanistan, as well as U.S.-pledged support for Turkish military defense of Kabul International Airport, a site that has continued to be a major U.S. military stronghold to support its imperial presence.”

President Biden would do well to heed this statement, along with a petition to him, circulated by BanKillerDrones.org, urging no further U.S. air attacks against the Afghan people.

Now that Independence Day has passed, perhaps the President will be more willing to answer questions about the real goals of “over the horizon.”

*

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.

Nick Mottern Co-coordinates BanKillerDrones.com and is Coordinator of Knowdrones.com. Nick can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image: U.S. jets bombing Afghanistan. These attacks will not end despite the formal U.S. withdrawal by September 11th. [Source: wired.com]

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

 

***

 

This is a controversial report based on the findings of Spanish researchers. It remains to be fully ascertained.

What is required is to have precise details on the composition of the mRNA vaccine, from one or more samples of the drug, also including the identification of the so-called digital microchip.

Independent laboratory studies  based on several samples of all four major mRNA “vaccines”, namely AstraZeneka, BioNtech-Pfizer, Moderna Inc, Johnson and Johnson.

Statements pertaining to future impacts of the “vaccine” must be corroborated and confirmed.

***

Today, La Quinta Columna has made an urgent announcement that they hope will reach as many people as possible, especially those involved in health and legal services, as biostatistician Ricardo Delgado, Dr. José Luis Sevillano and the team of researchers and professors with whom they have been conducting their research have confirmed the presence of graphene oxide nanoparticles in vaccination vials.

In program nº63, the team showed some photos of the analyses carried out, specifically results obtained by optical and transmission electron microscopy observation, reserving the results of other techniques used for future programs. They also announced that the report based on all the techniques performed, which allowed determining the presence of graphene oxide, will be made official by the researchers who performed the analyses very soon.

Orwell City, as always, has translated the message from La Quinta Columna and subtitled the video they shared a few hours ago on their official Telegram channel.

Hereafter La Quinta Columna shall provide you with information vital to your health, physical integrity and that of your environment.

The masks being used and currently marketed contain graphene oxide. Not only the ones that were withdrawn at the time, as indicated by the media, the swabs used in both PCR and antigen tests also contain graphene oxide nanoparticles.

The COVID vaccines in all their variants, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, Sinovac, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, etc., also contain a considerable dose of graphene oxide nanoparticles. This has been the result of their analysis by electron microscopy and spectroscopy, among other techniques used by various public universities in our country.

The anti-flu vaccine contained nanoparticles of graphene oxide and the new anti-flu vaccines and the new and supposedly intranasal anti-COVID vaccines they are preparing also contain enormous doses of graphene oxide nanoparticles. Graphene oxide is a toxin that generates thrombi in the organism, graphene oxide is a toxin that generates blood coagulation. Graphene oxide causes alteration of the immune system. By decompensating the oxidative balance in relation to the gulation reserves. If the dose of graphene oxide is increased by any route of administration, it causes the collapse of the immune system and subsequent cytokine storm.

Graphene oxide accumulated in the lungs generates bilateral pneumonias by uniform dissemination in the pulmonary alveolar tract. Graphene oxide causes a metallic taste. Perhaps this is starting to make sense to you now. Inhaled graphene oxide causes inflammation of the mucous membranes and thus loss of taste and partial or total loss of smell.

Graphene oxide acquires powerful magnetic properties inside the organism. This is the explanation for the magnetic phenomenon that billions of people around the world have already experienced after various routes of administration of graphene oxide. Among them the vaccine.

In short, graphene oxide is the supposed SARS-CoV-2, the supposed new coronvirus provoked before the disease called COVID-19. Therefore, we never had real isolation and purification of a new coronavirus, as recognized by most health institutions at the highest level and in different countries when they were questioned about it. COVID-19 disease is the result of introducing graphene oxide by various routes of administration.

Graphene oxide is extremely potent and strong in aerosols, as is the alleged SARS-CoV-2. Like any material, graphene oxide has what we call an ‘electronic absorption band‘. This means a certain frequency above which the material is excited and oxidizes very rapidly, thus breaking the equilibrium with the proliferation in the organism of the toxicant against our natural antioxidant glutathione reserves. Precisely this frequency band is emitted in the new emission bandwidths of the new 5G wireless technology. That is why the deployment of these antennas never stopped during the pandemic.

In fact, they were among the few services that were maintained, apart from a special surveillance by the State Security Forces and Corps to these antennas. We suspect in that the 2019 anti-flu campaign graphene oxide was introduced in these vials, since it was already used as an adjuvant.

With subsequent 5G technology trials in different parts of the world, COVID-19 disease developed in interaction of external electromagnetic fields and graphene oxide now in their bodies. Remember that it all started in Wuhan, and this was the first pilot sample city in the world to do the 5G technology trial in late November 2019. It’s a coincidence in space and time.

Both the pangolin and bat soup versions were simply distracting elements. The purpose of the introduction of graphene oxide is even more obscure than you might imagine. Therefore, it is more than enough for you to assimilate this information and ‘reset’ the knowledge you had of the disease up to now from the highest governmental institutions telling the population to protect themselves and even forcing them with that which will potentially make them sick with the disease itself. Logically, now that we know that the cause or etiological agent of the disease is precisely a chemical toxicant and not a biological agent, we know how to attenuate it: by increasing glutathione levels. Glutathione is a natural antioxidant that we present in reserves in the organism.

A few details will help you to understand perfectly everything that has been reported in the media. Glutathione is extremely high in children. Therefore, the disease has hardly any impact on the child population. Glutathione drops very considerably after 65 years of age. Therefore, COVID-19 is especially prevalent in the senile population. Glutathione is at very high levels in the intensive sports population. This is why only 0.22% of athletes had the disease.

You will now understand why countless studies in practice have shown that treatment with N-acetylcysteine (which is a precursor of glutathione in the body), or glutathione administered directly, cured COVID-19 disease very quickly in patients. Plain and simple because the glutathione levels were raised to cope with the administered toxicant called graphene oxide.

The discovery made here by La Quinta Columna is a full-fledged attack of State bioterrorism, or at least with the complicity of governments to the entire world population, now constituting crimes against humanity.

It is therefore absolutely essential and vital that you make this information available to your medical community. General practitioners, nursing and health services in general, but also local and regional media and press, as well as all your environment. La Quinta Columna estimates that tens of thousands of people will die every day. In our country alone when they make the new and upcoming 5G technological switch-on.

Bearing in mind that now it is not only the elderly in nursing homes who are vaccinated in that flu vaccine with graphene oxide, but, as you know, a large part of the population has been vaccinated, or graphenated, with gradual doses of graphene oxide.

The body has a natural capacity to eliminate this toxicant, which is why we propose you up to a third dose per year for all the years to keep the graphene in your bodies.

We have each and every one of the proofs of what has been manifested here. Meanwhile justice is trying to act, people will continue to be pushed off a bottomless cliff. If you are watching this audiovisual material, you will understand that for more than a year you have been totally and naively deceived from the highest institutions. Only now will you understand all the incongruities that you observed on your television news.

To complement this valuable information you can access https://www.laquintacolumna.net or our Telegram channel: La Quinta Columna TV, where more than 100,000 people are already aware of the truth and are not part of the massive deception to which they were subjected. Please make this video viral all around you and let’s stop among all of us. The destiny that is in store for us, fruit of the Agenda 20/30 roadmap, depends only on us.

Thank you for your attention.

—La Quinta Columna.

*

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 Mercola

Covid-19 and the Falsification of Death Certificates: The CDC’s “More Often Than Not” Clause

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 07, 2021

A  December 2020 CDC report confirms that 94% of the deaths attributed to Covid have “comorbidities” (i.e. deaths dues other causes). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups.

mRNA Vaccine Inventor Erased from History Books

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, July 06, 2021

As recently as June 14, 2021, Malone’s contributions were extensively included in the historical section on RNA vaccines’ Wikipedia page. He was listed as having co-developed a “high-efficiency in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection system using cationic liposomes” in 1989.

The Failure of “Vaccine Passports”

By Swiss Policy Research, July 06, 2021

SPR and some other independent expert groups warned very early on that “vaccine passports” – promoted by Bill Gates and his ID2020 alliance – are doomed to fail (from a medical perspective), simply because covid vaccines cannot achieve sterilizing immunity (i.e. prevent infection and infectiousness), especially not against new coronavirus variants.

British Doctor’s Damning Legal Letter on NHS COVID Misconduct

By John O’Sullivan, July 06, 2021

Principia Scientific International is delighted to share with our readers a stunning legal letter from a UK doctor putting the NHS and politicians on notice that they engage in a conspiracy of “lies” about the COVID19 pandemic and the dangerous “vaccines” being deployed.

Stop Silencing Us: An Open Letter to Facebook, Google, Twitter and Social Media Platform Employees

By Teodrose Fikremariam, July 06, 2021

It is precisely because the flow of information is so imperative that wars are fought in the realm of public opinion as much as they are on battlefields. A coworker who served in the US Army once told me that the most dangerous job in the military belongs to comms personnel. She described how all military campaigns start with trying to take out the enemy’s ability to communicate; a fighting force that is not informed and loses situational awareness is one that is easily defeated.

Deadly June 10th Spill of Toxins from U.S. Military Base in Okinawa Could Sick and Kill Thousands

By Pat Elder, July 06, 2021

On June 10, 2021, 2,400 liters of “firefighting water” containing PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) were accidentally released from the U.S. Army Oil Storage Facility into Uruma City and other nearby locations, according to Ryukyu Shimpo, an Okinawan news agency.

The Killer in the Bloodstream: the “Spike Protein”

By Mike Whitney, July 06, 2021

The Spike Protein is a “uniquely dangerous” transmembrane fusion protein that is an integral part of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. “The S protein plays a crucial role in penetrating host cells and initiating infection.” It also damages the cells in the lining of the blood vessel walls which leads to blood clots, bleeding, massive inflammation and death.

International Alert Message about COVID-19. United Health Professionals

By United Health Professionals, July 07, 2021

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

It’s Saigon in Afghanistan

By Rep. Ron Paul, July 06, 2021

The end of the 20-year US war on Afghanistan was predictable: no one has conquered Afghanistan, and Washington was as foolish as Moscow in the 1970s for trying. Now, US troops are rushing out of the country as fast as they can, having just evacuated the symbol of the US occupation of Afghanistan, Bagram Air Base.

French Government Considers Making COVID Vaccine Mandatory for Everyone Aged 24-59

By Paul Joseph Watson, July 06, 2021

The French government is considering making the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory for everyone aged 24-59 in response to concerns over a “fourth wave” of infections. After Prime Minister Jean Castex announced that he would push for the compulsory vaccination of caregivers, the French Senate expressed their desire to expand the measure to cover young and middle-aged adults.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: COVID-19 and the Falsification of Death Certificates: The CDC’s “More Often Than Not” Clause
  • Tags:

Introduction

At the outset of the pandemic, the CDC had been instructed to change the methodology regarding Death Certificates with a view to artificially inflating the numbers of “Covid deaths”.  According to H. Ealy, M. McEvoy et al 

“The 2003 guidelines for establishing death certificates had been cancelled. “Had the CDC used its industry standard, Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting Revision 2003, as it has for all other causes of death for the last 17 years, the COVID-19 fatality count would be approximately 90.2% lower  than it currently is.” (Covid-19: Questionable Policies, Manipulated Rules of Data Collection and Reporting. Is It Safe for Students to Return to School? By H. Ealy, M. McEvoy, and et al., August 09, 2020

CDC Deaths Attributed to COVID-19. Comorbidities 

A  December 2020 CDC report confirms that 94% of the deaths attributed to Covid have “comorbidities”,(i.e. deaths dues other causes).

For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups.

On March 21, 2020 the following specific guidelines were introduced by the CDC regarding Death Certificates (and their tabulation in the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS)

COVID-19: The “Underlying Cause of Death” and the CDC’s “More Often Than Not” Clause 

Will  COVID-19 be the underlying cause of death?  This concept is fundamental. 

The underlying cause of death is defined by the WHO as “the disease or injury that initiated the train of events leading directly to death”.  

What the CDC is recommending with regards to statistical coding and categorization is that COVID-19 is expected to  be the underlying cause of death “more often than not.”

The CDC combines these two criteria. “underlying cause of death”, more often than not.

Will COVID-19 be the underlying cause of death? 

“The underlying cause depends upon what and where conditions are reported on the death certificate. However, the rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID- 19 being the underlying cause more often than not.”

The above directive is categorical.

Below are CDC concepts and justifications

The Certifier is not allowed to report coronavirus without identifying a specific strain. And the guidelines recommend that COVID-19 must always be indicated.

(see below): (source CDC)

The certifier cannot depart from the CDC criteria. Covid-19 is imposed. Read carefully the criteria below:

“What happens if certifiers report terms other than the suggested terms?

If a death certificate reports coronavirus without identifying a specific strain or explicitly specifying that it is not COVID-19, NCHS will ask the states to follow up to verify whether or not the coronavirus was COVID-19.

As long as the phrase used indicates the 2019 coronavirus strain, NCHS expects to assign the new code. However, it is preferable and more straightforward for certifiers to use the standard terminology (COVID-19).

What happens if the terms reported on the death certificate indicate uncertainty?

If the death certificate reports terms such as “probable COVID-19” or “likely COVID-19,” these terms would be assigned the new ICD code. It Is not likely that NCHS will follow up on these cases.

If  “pending COVID-19 testing” is reported on the death certificate, this would be considered a pending record. In this scenario, NCHS would expect to receive an updated record, since the code will likely result in R99. In this case, NCHS will ask the states to follow up to verify if test results confirmed that the decedent had COVID- 19.

… COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc.”

There are no loopholes. These CDC directives have contributed to categorizing Covid-19 as the recorded “cause of death”. Two fundamental concepts prevail throughout:

The “underlying cause of death”

The “More Often than Not” Clause which falsifies the Cause of Death 

And these two criteria are imposed despite the fact that the RT-PCR test used to corroborate the “cause of death” provides misleading and invalid results.

In practice, as outlined above: “probable COVID-19” or “likely COVID-19,” will be considered as the cause of death without the conduct of a PCR test and without performing an autopsy. 

Case Study: Flawed “Estimates” of the Cause of Death in Quebec

The criteria establishing the “underlying” Cause of Death in the US are based on “the more often than not” clause (see above) established nationally by the CDC.

In Canada, the criteria differ from one province to another. Categorizing the cause of death in Canada’s Province of Quebec has been the object of gross manipulation.

According to a directive from Quebec’s Ministry of Health (April 2020):

“If the presumed cause of death is Covid-19 (with or without a positive test) an autopsy should be avoided  [emphasis in original document] and death should be attributed to Covid-19 as the probable cause of death. In addition, deaths whose probable cause is Covid-19 are considered natural, and are not subject to a coroner’s notice. “ (emphasis in the original document).

The directive does not allow the counting of co-morbidities. Applied on April 16, 2020, this directive was conducive to an immediate sharp increase in the number of deaths attributed to Covid-19:

44.9% of total deaths in Quebec were attributed to Covid-19 (week of 11-18 April 2020) (see table below).

According to Montreal’s La Presse, “April [2020] was the deadliest month” . But  did La Presse consult the directives of the Ministry of Health:

Below are the (daily) causes of death for Quebec corresponding to the week of April 12 to 18, 2020 (immediately following the government directive) measured according to the criteria issued by the Ministry of Health.

Are these figures the result of the so-called deadly pandemic? Or are they the result of the Ministry of Health’s “guidelines” based on erroneous criteria?

  •  “presumed” case pertaining to Covid,
  • “With or without a positive test”,
  • “probable” cause of death,
  • “Autopsy should be avoided” in the case of Covid-19.
  • Deaths of which the probable cause is Covid-19, are considered natural, and are not the object of a notice to the coroner

According to Mr. Paul G. Brunet, of the Council for the protection of the sick (CPM):

“… We realized through the denunciations by some of the doctors that people did not die from COVID, but from dehydration, malnutrition, abandonment, laments Mr. Brunet. So what did the thousands of people in CHSLDs [old persons nursing homes] and private residences really die of?” (quoted in La Presse, translated from French)

 

 

***

The above text is an excerpt from Chapter III of Michel Chossudovsky’s E Book entitled.

Click link below

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

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Covid-19 and the Falsification of Death Certificates: The CDC’s “More Often Than Not” Clause
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

You must have found yourself in a situation where, although you know that what you are saying is true to you and you are open to dialogue, the person you are sharing with shuts you up. A lack of common ground limits dialogue and, for real communication to happen an attitude of openness is required.

Ted Aoki, an educator at the University of Alberta, creator of “Curriculum in a new key,” was a bilingual and bicultural person. He proposed a curriculum for education inclusive of lived experiences inviting teachers and others to create and educate from a “bridge,” a space in the middle were new things are allowed to emerge. His focus was in the “House of Being,” a place where authentic being with others is the main concern.

Aoki, aware of the East-West conversation, perspectives and ideologies, wanted to encourage dialogue between two world views. He illustrated enlightenment with words from the poet Leonard Cohen:

There is a crack in everything; that’s how the light comes in. (1)

The exchange of views can be made more difficult when the dominant Media increasingly deforms truth, offering propaganda and lies instead. It is challenging to be balanced in such a situation; many people prefer to remain in the easier road of “belonging” rather than questioning. I can still expose my views but I often feel as the “Martian” in the room.

Although, I am used to be different and often joke about coming from another planet, I know there are limitations when perceived as an outsider in the land. Still, my experience with the political suicide of my own land, the end of concerns for the well being of all people – vulnerable, poor, children, women, elderly, disabled, ill, has showed me much. I witnessed the surge and collapse of urban guerrillas, a military coup and a return, to be soon betrayed, to a project for the people. These experiences have value in increasing understanding everywhere. And yet, experiences from the third world are viewed often as somehow irrelevant, the first world thinks itself somehow unique and untouchable.

This pandemic, almost a curse, has made visible something the Western world may want to ignore: its incompetence in dealing with a serious challenge requiring thoughtful and caring political stewardship and effective collective action. We are still dealing with the consequences of the 2008 economic collapse, and, more recently with the financial crisis emerging in connection with this pandemic forcing the closing down of economies and the isolation of people.

Western countries, although strongly affected, deny it becoming a bit desperate in allocating responsibility. Desperation, like hatred, is not a good advisor; it often turns to blaming others for our limitations and follies. In such cases, ideology and propaganda come handy in defining someone to blame.  It is our story, the story of the West and of our view of the “other” found in the Eastern world, identified as different, less than us, often the enemy we are free to conquer, plunder or destroy. Remaining blind to what is taking place is no longer an option. Remaining quiet to what we see makes us complicit, while crimes and destruction this time may include the world itself.

Pandemics 101

In developed Western countries, the pandemic, initially ignored, became very stressful, problematic. Inevitably leading to a questioning of our ways: How can we (the center of what is right) have been so wrong about this virus? Still, almost everywhere in the western world –developed or not, there was denial of the seriousness of the pandemic and its effects on the economy and people. Mystifications about science keep affecting how we deal with it. Public outrage and rallies question appropriate health measures taken to protect us.

It is mayhem and reminds me of how people can take to the streets against a ridiculous change, like the new taste of Coke, but can fail to ask with similar fortitude for better working conditions, a living wage, public health, education, housing or increased equity. We are dealing with an organized disinformation machine, or too many people are lost in the fog and need to be rescued.

The most interesting information emerging thanks to the pandemic, challenges dominant definitions about who is “essential” to society and the economy.  It became obvious that well paid lawyers, accountants, financiers or corporate CEOs are not essential. Workers are.

Health care workers, food industry workers, transportation workers, teachers and child care workers, people producing our food or working in commerce and so on, proved to be essential to our survival.

In Canada, and because of the risk essential workers face, an incentive was added to their wages; it was small and temporary but it highlighted that their role is essential to us. This insight about who is truly essential to life should not disappear with the pandemic, but remain with us to help us move, beyond the romantic praising of essential workers, into working with them  ensuring a living wage. It should also encourage us to examine the economy we are allowing to thrive, and its dominant ideology devaluing workers, the creators of value, and promoting the rich and top earners, an overhead all of us pay for. (2)

The Economy yes, but what kind of Economy?

We hear about the economy often but mostly the script is the same. I wonder, listening to people whether they know what kind of economy we have. Would they support it if they understood how it works against most of us?  In 2017 Rutger Bregman explained clearly that we live in a reverse welfare state, with politicians assuming vast wealth is created at the top and trying to convince everybody of this. Still, it is the other way around: productivity is not defined by the size of a paycheque, and wealth is not made by top earners but by workers. There are 2 ways to make wealth, he explained, work and rent. Work taps into our knowledge and know-how to create value. Rent uses power to control the value created –land, knowledge, money. Rent extractors or rentiers make their living at the expense of all the people who work and make value. (3)

In the 19th century rent was associated with having an estate and inheritance, and rentiers did not care about showing us they were lazy, overweight and love smoking big cigars. Today rentiers are slimmer, seem to work hard and present a much more pleasant and healthy image. But the main work they still do is ensuring and increasing rent collection. Rent seeking goes from Wall Street to Silicon Valley; there are rentiers everywhere, in Apple, Amazon, Airbnb, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Uber and Big Pharma. We have “platform capitalism,” so Facebook’s income is rent collected off the millions of people posting pictures and videos. Uber is usurping the taxi sector while Airbnb is doing the same to the hotel industry. Much of the financial sector is downright parasitic: offering loans to everybody for anything while inflating the prices of things and getting a percentage for themselves. (3) When they collapse the state goes to their rescue: a win-win proposition for them but not for us, who carry and pay for state debts while seeing our personal debts grow too. (4)

We can ask: if rentiers are so bad why do we put up with them? For mainly two reasons: the first is that modern rentiers know how to masquerade as decent, hard working people who create jobs. They can afford the best professional image-makers and know how important image is, so they make sure they present well. The second reason is that we are complicit with them and their cash cows, the housing market and pensions. It has worked well: most of us would love to live from rents and in high style. Rentiers can also afford expensive lawyers, make financial contributions to politicians and own the press so they have journalists working for them. Rentiers take the best minds society produces to engross their ranks in draining our economy and our countries of their natural vitality. Recognizing that workers are the ones creating value is crucial in understanding basic economics. Giving workers what they deserve for their efforts is an effective way of controlling rent seekers; it also decreases the cost of doing business, eliminates monopolies and ends opportunities for rent creation. (3)

During the pandemic some rentiers became even richer: more online buying avoiding corona-virus enriched Amazon, and people working from home added to the income of video communications like Zoom. Most essential workers show to work everyday facing risks of contagion, many receive very low wages.

After two years of closing-opening non-essential businesses because of the pandemic, our focus is on getting over it moving to the magic land of “recovery.” Long term effects of the virus on the health of people infected and surviving it, or the effects of the pandemic on the economy are not often discussed. When encouraged to think about a return to “normal life” many of us know it will be a “new normal.” Some signs of recovery are surreal: Can housing prices go up with high unemployment, loss of income, earnings and profits?  Are we doing well despite traveling being limited, tourism and the leisure industry seriously affected and having high personal and national debt?  It is surreal to believe that we are richer “for our debts” or that increasing market value of homes can continue to grow for ever. Such surrealism should help us see the kind of economy we are in.

The main challenge we face, however, is one of understanding. Education for instance, what most people believe should pave our road to success, has caused many young people to be indebted and squeezed as they pay interest on debts, receive low wages and face higher costs of living. In 2016, Dean Baker pointed to the myths connected to the economy and markets saying: markets are not from Nature or God but the result of policy decisions. In the US, upward redistribution was structured by policy decisions and, he points, it needs to stop: it is lowering demand, increasing unemployment levels and benefiting only the 0.1% of top income earners, mostly in the financial sector.  Worse yet, favouring upward redistribution can trap the US economy in a downward spiral.  Baker is relevant to all of us in the West, the US model is the one most follow. (5)

The choices made, Baker points, are not “laissez faire” or “free market,” but operating on government to benefit a select group. Banks have become too-big-to-fail and attempts at regulating them (like Dodd-Frank) are not working: regulators cannot assess risk accurately if they do not see the complete picture. Braking up big banks and recognizing the need to reduce rent-seeking opportunities in order to increase demand and decrease unemployment is the only solution. The impact of decisions is everywhere:  a dominant push to reduce budget deficits have favored government extending patents and copyrights, more costly to people in higher prices for meds for example, but invisible in the budget. A reduced dollar could lower US trade deficits but it will increase costs to major retailers and corporations and their low-cost supply chains in the developing world. Thus, policy decisions are political; and those who hold power protect their interests avoiding any change that affects them negatively. In such situations finding someone to blame can be seen as a way out, and Russia and China look like appropriate enemies. (5)

A New Cold War with China

We heard about the “New World Order” from George W. Bush. We still remember the never found “weapons of mass destruction” that led the US and allies into the destruction of Iraq –killing more than 200 thousand civilians, some say many more, in the name of “democracy and the preservation of peace.”  The costs of war are high. (6)

The 2008 financial collapse, followed by the pandemic and the 2020 crisis, have real effects.  The pandemic caused more than 600 thousand deaths in the US, some say more, and government was unable to prevent its top leadership from becoming infected. The pandemic trapped most of the Western world in a 2 year loop of opening and closing economies with ongoing new cases.  China, on the other hand, dealt with the pandemic effectively, with less than 5 thousand people dying from it and its economy functioning within 3 months. Chinese people could mourn their dead and celebrate their COVID heroes. China, aware of its success, attributes it to their “Socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Their model outperformed Western neoliberal capitalism by leaps and bounds, raising living standards, creating public wealth, serving and meeting people’s needs while dealing well with crises. Still, their measure of success (creation of public wealth or raising living standards) is not ours: neoliberal capitalism works mainly at increasing the wealth of a selected group. During their last trade negotiation, the Trump administration asked China to dismantle its state-led economy (planned and efficient) as it “could never compete against the superior free-market economy of the US.”  It was a failed attempt by the US elite to have China committing suicide and opening its doors to neoliberal pillaging. Their alternative option seems to be war against China –cold and hot. (8)

The situation with China, argues Noh, is similar to the one Iraq faced: the US is escalating rapidly while already engaged in a hybrid war with China in multiple domains. There is economic warfare (trade sanctions and tariffs), technological warfare (attempts to seize TIKTOK and attacking Huawei), legal warfare (380 bills in Congress, 14 individual/state lawsuits, legal kidnapping), diplomatic warfare (consulate shutdowns, breaches, callings for “regime change”), military posturing (in the South and East China Seas, strategic weapons encircling China -400 bases: the Pacific Pivot). There is civil subversion (color revolutions in Hong Kong and other places), and academic warfare (FBI’s China Initiative opening cases against Chinese students/researchers in the US while considering all students as potential spies).  Finally, information warfare is creating false stories of massive human rights abuses, concentration camps and accusing China of releasing the Covid19 virus on purpose. It is all geared at inciting people to hate China and manufacturing consent for war. (8)

Taking sides…

China offers a threatening alternative model of development (one) that is non-capitalist, non-Western, and non-colonial. As such, it undermines the west’s neocolonial domination of the third world and its debt-trap-based forced underdevelopment, subservience, and expropriation. It also offers a model of state-led ecological development. All this signals new possibilities of hope and transformation for the world. The ruling classes in the west will go to war to prevent this.” (8)

Canada is involved. The RCMP detained Meng Wanzhou, chief financial officer of Huawei, at Vancouver airport in 2018 when she was in a flight to somewhere else. The RCMP followed a deportation order issued by the US. Since 2018 Meng Wanzhou is under house arrest, wearing an electronic bracelet, a pawn of the US and allies’ strategy to stop China’s development. Many Canadians have raised concerns about her arrest, finding it unlawful and arbitrary, misogynist and racist. But the Canadian government allowed it and it is now caught in the middle of the US-China conflict, apparently unable, or unwilling, to act on its own benefit by freeing her. This pattern is not unique to Canada.

In Australia politicians in power take side with the US in favor of war with China. Mike Pezzullo (Home Affairs Secretary) publicly summons the “dogs of war against China” placing Australia on the warpath. He does it because of the unconditional, even misplaced, alliance of Australia with the US.  There is an inability to recognize and accept fundamental shifts in the distribution of wealth and power transforming the world and the regional strategic orders. America is weaker economically, diplomatically and militarily than it has been since WW2. Australia needs a broader and deeper understanding of Asian cultures and language; this skill gap still existing lowers Australian capacities to understand the region and it is role in it, a challenge perceived as dangerous by many Australians. (7)

Can we do anything beyond trying to understand better? We should question what we are told about China, there is plenty of proof of US pervasive lying in Iraq and other countries prior to attack them during “war against terrorism,” a terrorist war itself. We can learn to separate propaganda from truth by paying attention and reading between the lines. We need to be attentive to “projection,” as abusive governments like abusive people, project onto others what they do themselves. Most people understand that wars are criminal and would like them banned.

The costs of US war against Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, both human and material, have been estimated by the Costs of War project in more than 800 thousand civilians killed directly from war violence, unaccounted number of wounded, and a very conservative estimate of 37 million people displaced (that could be as high as 59 million). Economic costs to the US alone are estimated in 6.7 trillion dollars in budgetary costs, and can be as high as 8 trillion dollars. There are no estimates on the costs to governments and economies of the countries attacked or the others affected by these wars. There are no cost estimates for the care of war refuges, destruction of infrastructure, damages to health systems or environmental degradation. There are no numbers about civilian deaths as a result of malnutrition, lack of water or access to health care, much greater than deaths from combat. (6)

Only deranged people can even consider the possibility of engaging in what it could lead to WW3, or plan on this aware that not only the US but also China, Russia and others have nuclear weapons. But, the American people are not “in power,” a narcissist and parasitic elite is. We need to challenge racist assumptions that construct an “enemy” where there is none. We need to challenge any excuse for war, as war seems to be merely the “plan B” of the American 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.

Notes

(1) Lee, Yu-ling (2017) Lingering on Aoki’s bridge: Reconceptualizing Ted Aoki as curricular techno-theologian, University of British Columbia.https://www.academia.edu/31862940/Lingering_on_Aokis_bridge_Reconceptualizing_Ted_Aoki_as_curricular_techno_theologian

(2) Hammonds, Clare et al (2020, June 5), Stressed, Unsafe and Insecure: Essential Workers need A New, New Deal, Center for Employment and Equity, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

https://www.umass.edu/employmentequity/stressed-unsafe-and-insecure-essential-workers-need-new-new-deal

(3) Bregman, Rutger (2017), Wealth isn’t created at the top; it’s only devoured there, The Guardian, from Ecologise:   https://ecologise.in/2017/04/10/rutger-bregman-no-wealth-isnt-created-top-merely-devoured/

(4) World Population Review (2021) Debt to GDP ratio by country, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/debt-to-gdp-ratio-by-country

(5) Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer (2016), Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Washington DC.

Free pdf download: https://deanbaker.net/books/rigged.htm

(6) Costs of War Project, Fact Sheet: The True Costs of post 9-11 Wars, (2019), Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University,

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/about/Overview%20One%20Pager%202021.pdf

(7) Binok Kampmark (2021) Giving War with China a chance, Counterpunch, https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/04/30/giving-war-with-china-a-chance/

(8) K.J. Noh (2020) The US is Set on a Path to War with China. What is to be Done? Counterpunch, https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/16/the-us-is-set-on-a-path-to-war-with-china-what-is-to-be-done/

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

***

First published by Global Research on January 30, 2021

What matters most at this point in time is not the peddled stories of Covid-19’s life-threatening proliferation but rather the enormous effect of those stories in the lives of people whose fear has already evolved into paranoia. This whole situation has likewise led them in a unilateral direction without considering in-depth transcripts of research studies produced on the other side of the fence.

The same people have developed the tendency to ignore the fact that the researchers involved in these studies are competent and distinguished scientists whose expertise is recognized in prestigious academic institutions and professional organizations.

It doesn’t matter anymore how comprehensive and evidence-sustained these studies are. Nobody wants to listen because of the simple reason that people have already been caught in a loop of lies and fear and there is no way out. Well, it is not that there really is no way out; there is, but they are just incorrigibly blinded to the core that such blindness has drawn them away from the way out.

To be more accurate,  it could actually be more of an issue of deafness rather than blindness because nobody wants to listen to how they could find the way out. That is the common aftermath of getting brainwashed–all the windows of possibilities are shut off and any attempt to show them the way to unlock such windows is already an exercise in futility. 

People have been agonizing in the face of massive economic disempowerment, disenfranchisement and devastation. But no one, except a few, has the will, courage and initiative to stand up and confront the diabolical powers behind this tragic state of affairs. What rules the situation is nothing but paralysis as no one has the guts to break away from the profound deception that what has befallen the globe is an incontrovertible pandemic. No one is able to break away from the widespread lies that have engulfed humanity. 

Behind all these is the extensive power of the post-industrial media used to manipulate consciousness and exploit the material conditions from which we have been programmed to draw the meaningfulness of life in the present dispensation.

This is the very “unpleasant place” where humanity is located and as long as we don’t reach that point of realization that this is a “shithole”, no more no less, no redemption is in sight. We are condemned and this condemnation is all for the benefit of the powers that be who are behind this infrastructure of the hell that they created on planet Earth.

Yes, hundreds of thousands are getting infected day in day out. But on what basis?

On the basis of PCR tests conducted all over the world.

Hundreds of thousands are getting infected according to the highly unreliable testing device and procedure.

And mainstream media are always waiting at the sideline to globally disseminate the news of how things are getting worse. In the process, all other diseases–particularly those that affect the respiratory system–have already been expunged; all is Covid-19. Even recorded deaths generally fall under the category of Covid-19.

As critical minds navigate the rough terrain of the infernal landscape created and sustained by the perpetrators behind the manufactured pandemic, we don’t only find people scared to the bones but among them are hardcore “dogmatic” believers who have gone extremely ballistic against all defiant viewpoints aimed to falsify the indoctrination they get from the propagandists of the pandemic lies.

Confronted by this reality, there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel.

Or is there really a tunnel? Perhaps we are all in the bowels of “Plato’s cave” and the most crucial problem now is the majority just refuse to take the initiative to find the way out.

*

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

Prof. Ruel F. Pepa is a Filipino philosopher based in Madrid, Spain. A retired academic (Associate Professor IV), he taught Philosophy and Social Sciences for more than fifteen years at Trinity University of Asia, an Anglican university in the Philippines. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On June 30, Health Canada released the second annual report on (MAiD) euthanasia and assisted suicide. The data was gathered from the reports submitted by the medical or nurse practitioners who caused the death. There is no requirement that a third party or neutral person submit the euthanasia reports to ensure their accuracy.

The report does not even attempt to uncover potential abuse of the law. The data in Québec’s report indicated that at least 13 assisted deaths did not comply with the law.

The 2020 Canadian MAiD report indicates that the number of assisted deaths increased more than 34% in 2020:

In 2020, there were 7595 reported assisted deaths up from 5,660 in 2019 and up from 4,478 in 2018.

(MAiD) euthanasia deaths represented 2.5% of all deaths in 2020.

The number of MAID deaths in 2020 increased by more than 34% from 2019. The increase in 2019 from 2018 was more than 26% with every province experiencing an increase in the number of MAID deaths.

When all data sources are considered, the total of number of (MAiD) deaths reported in Canada from legalization until December 31, 2020 is 21,589.

Based on the fact that the Ontario data, which is published monthly, indicates increases in assisted deaths in 2021, I estimated that at least 4000 assisted deaths occurred in the first 6 months of 2021, meaning more than 25,000 MAiD deaths have happened in Canada since legalization.

British Columbia has the highest percentage with 4% of all deaths by (MAiD).

There is significant difference with the number of euthanasia (MAiD) deaths in each province. The data indicates that British Columbia has the highest percentage of (MAiD) deaths (4% of all deaths) and Quebec has the second highest percentage (3.1% of all deaths), while Newfoundland has the lowest percentage of deaths by euthanasia (0.9%).

British Columbia has been the most aggressive province to promote euthanasia and is forcing healthcare institutions to facilitate killing their patients. For instance:

  • A recent story from BC concerned a cancer patient who was being pushed to euthanasia (Link).
  • In February, the Delta Hospice Society was defunded by the BC Ministry of Health because they refused to be complicit with euthanasia (Link).
  • In 2019, Alan Nichols died by euthanasia in Chilliwack BC, even though he was not dying but deeply depressed. His family begged the doctors to re-assess Alan based on the fact that Alan had lived his life with chronic depression, but they refused (Link).

Nature of suffering among MAID recipients

Practitioners reported that suffering among MAID recipients was closely tied to a loss of autonomy.

The most frequently reported reason for the patient asking to be killed was loss of ability to engage in meaningful life activities (84.9%) followed closely by loss of ability to perform activities of daily living (81.7%). Inadequate control of pain, or concern about it (57.4%), loss of dignity (53.9%) and inadequate control of symptoms, other than pain, or concern about it (50.6%).

I am particularly concerned that 18.6% or more than 1412 people listed loneliness and isolation as a reason to die by MAiD.

If Canadians had access to excellent end-of-life care then 57% would not state that inadequate control of pain or concern about it and 50% would not state that inadequate control of symptoms, other than pain, or concern about it are reasons to be killed.

On March 17, 2021 the Federal Government passed Bill C-7. The government has predicted that Bill C-7 will lead to a 20% increase in the number of MAiD deaths in Canada. Based on the fact that there were 7595 euthanasia deaths in 2020, it is possible that there will be more than 9100 deaths by lethal injection in 2021. Recent Ontario data suggests that this is exactly what is happening (Link).

Canada’s federal government and the Québec government have both established committee’s to discuss the further expansion of euthanasia in Canada.

The current Canadian government is committed to more death by euthanasia.

There is more information in the Second Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying that I will cover in future articles.

*

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

Featured image is from The Ethics Centre

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canada’s 2020 Euthanasia Report and “Assisted Suicide”: Almost 8000 People Died by Lethal Injection, 1412 People Died Because of Loneliness and 4% of Deaths in BC Were Euthanasia
  • Tags: , ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Over eight days, from June 25-30, Haiti had been subjected to increasing state-sponsored, imperial and gang violence. Massacres killed almost 60 people in Port au Prince, including in Cité Soleil, Delmas and Pétionville, as well as on on Rue Magloire Ambroise. Prominent human-rights activist Antoinette (Netty) Duclaire and journalist Diego Charles were two of the victims.

In light of this violence, the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) once again affirms its support for the Haitian people and condemns the continued US/UN/OAS backing for the illegitimate Jovenel Moïse administration. Not only do we repudiate the continued violations of human rights in Haiti, we denounce the attempts by the Moïse government and its handlers—especially the Organization of American States (OAS) and the U.S. State Department—to force legislative and presidential elections and an illegal constitutional referendum under an undemocratic voting structure.

Moïse, who has been ruling Haiti by decree since January 2020, has been attempting to pass a referendum to re-write Haiti’s 1987 constitution.

“We support the Haitian people, who have maintained that there is no chance for credible elections to be held while Jovenel Moïse is in power,” says BAP member and Haitian Chris Bernadel. “We stand in solidarity with the Haitian people against the corrupt and illegitimate regime of Jovenel Moïse, which has been enabled through the support of the U.S., OAS and the United Nations.”

Illegal, according to Haitian law, the proposed referendum has been rejected by every sector of civil society, and opposed by the majority of Haitians.

Yet, a recent OAS report on Haiti not only supports the constitutional referendum, the organization also is pushing for Moïse to single handedly appoint a new prime minister, cabinet, and Provisional Electoral Council in order to move forward with both the referendum and presidential, municipal, and local elections.

These elections will be neither credible, nor legal. The current government is illegitimate. And currently, no clear path exists for free, fair and transparent elections under these conditions.

Yet, the white overseers of Haiti—the United States, the United Nations and the OAS—continue to push for this illegal referendum and elections. The United States has continued its material, logistical and political support of Moïse’s administration. It has spent at least $12.6 million since Moïse was elected in support of dubious elections and bogus political processes. Although the United States acknowledges that thus far, preparations for the referendum “have not been sufficiently transparent or inclusive,” Joe Biden’s administration has not come out against the referendum. Instead, the Biden-Harris administration has focused on the primacy of holding elections in the fall. At the same time, the UN and the OAS also have provided support for Moïse. The OAS has helped by revising the text of the proposed constitution, apparently to remove some of the more controversial aspects from the first draft. The UN also is advising the national police on an electoral security strategy.

Since February 7, when Moïse’s mandate as president had expired, BAP has been calling for the U.S. government and the rest of the so-called “international community” to respect Haitian sovereignty and the will of the Haitian people. We have consistently condemned Western imperialist meddling in Haiti, and BAP members have rallied in Chicago, Washington, D.C. and New York to demand the Biden-Harris administration and Western entities—such as the Core Group and the OAS—end decades of interventions that have violated the right of the Haitian people to transparent democratic processes.

We continue to support the Haitian masses, and express solidarity with the Haitian peoples in their quest for sovereignty and freedom. We condemn the continued imperial violence in Haiti that has been dismissed as merely gang violence.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Human Rights Violence in Haiti: Continued U.S./OAS/UN Support for Unconstitutional Actions by Haiti’s Illegitimate Government
  • Tags: ,
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Myanmar’s Crisis Follows Predictable ‘Libya Model’ Pattern

mRNA Vaccine Inventor Erased from History Books

July 6th, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

June 11, 2021, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology, Dr. Robert Malone, spoke out on the DarkHorse podcast about the potential dangers of COVID-19 gene therapy injections. The podcast was quickly erased from YouTube

Malone is concerned about government not being transparent about risks, and that people are being coerced into taking these experimental injections, which violates bioethics laws

He believes the risks outweigh the benefits in children, teens and young adults, and that those who have recovered from natural SARS-CoV-2 infection should not get the injection

Five days after his DarkHorse podcast appearance, Malone’s scientific accomplishments and contributions were scrubbed from Wikipedia

As recently as June 14, 2021, Malone’s contributions were extensively included in the historical section on RNA vaccines’ Wikipedia page. June 16, his name was removed and his accomplishments attributed to nameless researchers at the Salk Institute, the University of California, and the University of Wisconsin

*

June 11, 2021, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology,1 Dr. Robert Malone, spoke out on the DarkHorse podcast about the potential dangers of COVID-19 gene therapy injections, hosted by Bret Weinstein, Ph.D. The podcast was quickly erased from YouTube and Weinstein was issued a warning.

To censor a scientific discussion with the actual inventor of the technology used to manufacture these COVID-19 shots is beyond shocking. But the censorship of Malone goes even further than that. As reported in the video above, Malone’s scientific accomplishments are also being scrubbed.

Wikipedia Scrubs Malone’s Scientific Contributions

As recently as June 14, 2021, Malone’s contributions were extensively included in the historical section on RNA vaccines’ Wikipedia page. He was listed as having co-developed a “high-efficiency in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection system using cationic liposomes” in 1989.

In 1990, he demonstrated that “in-vitro transcribed mRNA could deliver genetic information into the cell to produce proteins within living cell tissue.” Malone was also part of the team that conducted the first mRNA vaccine experiments. In short, his scientific knowledge of mRNA vaccines is unquestionable.

wikipedia entry

Two days later, June 16, 2021, just five days after Malone’s appearance on the DarkHorse podcast, his name was removed from the Wikipedia entry. Now, all of a sudden, the discovery of mRNA drug delivery is accredited to nameless researchers at the Salk Institute and the University of California, and his 1990 research confirming that injected mRNA can produce proteins in cell tissue is accredited to nameless scientists at the University of Wisconsin.

wikipedia entry removed

Hungarian biochemist Katalin Kariko is now suddenly praised by mainstream media as the inventor of mRNA vaccines.2 It’s a convenient choice, considering Kariko is the senior vice president of BioNTech, the creator of Pfizer’s COVID injection. Kariko’s unofficial biography also includes being a communist-era police informant.

As noted in the featured video, this goes beyond censoring. It’s revisionism — a “1984”-style rewriting of history to fit the official narrative of the day. The danger of this trend is incalculable.

What Did Malone Say About mRNA Vaccines?

Watch the video here.

The take-home messages Malone delivered on Weinstein’s podcast were that government is not being transparent about the risks, that no one should be forced to take these experimental injections, that the risks outweigh the benefits in children, teens and young adults, and that those who have recovered from natural SARS-CoV-2 infection should not get the injection. In a June 24, 2021, interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News (above), Malone said:3

“I am of the opinion that people have the right to decide whether to accept vaccines or not, especially since these are experimental vaccines … My concern is I know there are risks but we don’t have access to the data … We don’t really have the information we need to make a reasonable decision.”

A significant part of why we don’t have adequate data is because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration purposely decided not to require stringent post-vaccination data collection and evaluation. This too was revealed in Malone’s DarkHorse interview.

Why did the FDA opt for lax data capture on a brand-new, never before used technology slated for mass distribution? Clearly, without post-injection data capture, there’s no way to evaluate the safety of these products. You cannot identify danger signals if you don’t have a process for capturing effects data and evaluating all of it.

First Risk-Benefit Analysis of COVID Shots

Malone also points out that risk-benefit analyses have not been done, and that’s another objection he has. What data we do have, however, indicate these COVID-19 injections could be the most dangerous medical product we’ve ever seen.

For example, the reported rate of death from COVID-19 shots now exceeds the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years, and it’s about 500 times deadlier than the seasonal flu vaccine,4 which historically has been the most hazardous. The COVID shots are also seven times more dangerous than the pandemic H1N1 vaccine, which had a 25-per-million severe side effect rate.5

Coincidentally, a peer-reviewed risk-benefit analysis6 was in fact published in the medical journal Vaccines the same day Malone spoke to Carlson. It revealed that the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent one COVID-19 death using the Pfizer injection is between 9,000 and 50,000, and that for every three COVID-19 deaths prevented, two are killed by the injection. According to the authors, “This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.”

The Spike Protein Is a Bioactive Cytotoxin

In his DarkHorse interview, Malone noted that he had warned the FDA that the spike protein — which the COVID-19 shots instruct your cells to make — could pose a health risk.

The FDA dismissed his concerns, saying they did not believe the spike protein was biologically active. Besides, the vaccine makers specifically designed the injections so that the spike protein would stick and not float about freely. As it turns out, they were wrong on both accounts.

It’s since been established that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein does not stay near the injection site,7and that it is biologically active. It is responsible for the most severe effects seen in COVID-19, such as bleeding disorders, blood clots throughout the body, heart problems and neurological damage.

These are the same problems we now see in a staggering number of people having received one or two shots of COVID-19 gene therapy. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein also has reproductive toxicity, and Pfizer’s biodistribution data show it accumulates in women’s ovaries.8,9,10

Despite that, Pfizer opted not to perform standard reproductive toxicology studies. For more in-depth information about how the spike protein can wreck your health, see my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D.

COVID Jab Campaign Violates Bioethics Laws

In his interviews with Weinstein and Carlson, Malone stressed that there are bioethical principles and bioethics laws in place to prevent undue risks in medical experimentation, and that those laws are currently being violated. He went into far more detail on this in a May 30, 2021, essay:11

“… the adult public are basically research subjects that are not being required to sign informed consent due to EUA waiver. But that does not mean that they do not deserve the full disclosure of risks that one would normally require in an informed consent document for a clinical trial.

And now some national authorities are calling on the deployment of EUA vaccines to adolescents and the young, which by definition are not able to directly provide informed consent to participate in clinical research — written or otherwise.

The key point here is that what is being done by suppressing open disclosure and debate concerning the profile of adverse events associated with these vaccines violates fundamental bioethical principles for clinical research. This goes back to the Geneva convention and the Helsinki declaration.12 There must be informed consent for experimentation on human subjects.”

Experimentation without proper informed consent also violates the Nuremberg Code,13 which spells out a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation. This set of principles were developed to ensure the medical horrors discovered during the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II would never take place again.

In the U.S., we also have the Belmont report,14 cited in Malone’s essay, which spells out the ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research, covered under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46 (subpart A). The Belmont report describes informed consent as follows:

“Respect for persons requires that subjects, to the degree that they are capable, be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not happen to them. This opportunity is provided when adequate standards for informed consent are satisfied.

While the importance of informed consent is unquestioned, controversy prevails over the nature and possibility of an informed consent. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that the consent process can be analyzed as containing three elements: information, comprehension and voluntariness.”

Americans, indeed the people of the entire planet, are being prevented from freely accessing and sharing information about these gene therapies. Worse, we are misled by fact checkers and Big Tech platforms that ban or put misinformation labels on anyone and anything discussing them in a critical or questioning way. The same censorship also prevents comprehension of risk.

Lastly, government and any number of vaccine stakeholders are encouraging companies and schools to make these experimental injections mandatory, which violates the rule of voluntariness. Government and private businesses are also creating massive incentives to participate in this experiment, including million-dollar lotteries and full college scholarships. None of this is ethical or even legal. As noted by Malone in his essay:15

“… as these vaccines are not yet market authorized (licensed), coercion of human subjects to participate in medical experimentation is specifically forbidden. Therefore, public health policies which meet generally accepted criteria for coercion to participate in clinical research are forbidden.

For example, if I were to propose a clinical trial involving children and entice participation by giving out ice cream to those willing to participate, any institutional human subjects safety board (IRB) in the United States would reject that protocol.

If I were to propose a clinical research protocol wherein the population of a geographic region would lose personal liberties unless 70% of the population participated in my study, once again, that protocol would be rejected by any US IRB based on coercion of subject participation. No coercion to participate in the study is allowed.

In human subject clinical research, in most countries of the world this is considered a bright line that cannot be crossed. So, now we are told to waive that requirement without even so much as open public discussion being allowed? In conclusion, I hope that you will join me; stop to take a moment and consider for yourself what is going on. The logic seems clear to me.

1) An unlicensed medical product deployed under emergency use authorization (EUA) remains an experimental product under clinical research development.

2) EUA authorized by national authorities basically grants a short-term right to administer the research product to human subjects without written informed consent.

3) The Geneva Convention, the Helsinki declaration, and the entire structure which supports ethical human subjects research requires that research subjects be fully informed of risks and must consent to participation without coercion.”

Clearly, Malone is preeminently qualified to speak on the topic of COVID gene therapy: Not only is he a highly ethical physician committed to integrity, but he actually invented the very technology and performed the first mRNA vaccine studies. The fact that he is now censored by Big Tech and outright being erased from scientific history is a crime in and of itself, and something that should worry just about everyone.

This egregious example of censorship vividly demonstrates just how degenerated the media has become. The only possible explanation is that anyone or any piece of information that interferes with as many people getting the COVID jab is removed. Nothing that counters this narrative is tolerated despite every bit of information is making it clear that these COVID jabs are the biggest crime against mankind in the history of humanity.

If Malone can be erased, what chance do the rest of us have to not encounter the same fate? The parallels between everyday reality and the fictional but uncannily prophetic book “1984” are mounting by the day. Where it will take us is obvious. We’ll end up in a world where faithful adherence to the lies of the day is the only choice. To prevent such a fate, we have to get engaged and expose the lies by sharing facts, data and truth in every which way we can.

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.

Notes

1, 11, 15 Trial Site News May 30, 2021

2 The New York Times June 10, 2021

3 Fox News June 24, 2021

4, 10 Trial Site News May 25, 2021

5 Insurance Journal December 29, 2020

6 Vaccines 2021; 9(7): 693

7, 8 Trial Site News June 6, 2021

9 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine (BNT162) Original Biodistribution Study in Japanese, English follows page 10. Ovary data see English page 7 (PDF)

12 World Medical Association WMA Declaration of Helsinki

13 Nuremberg Code of 1947

14 HHS.gov The Belmont Report

Featured image:  A hand holding an mRNA vaccine vial. (Spencer Davis / Unsplash)

The Failure of “Vaccine Passports”

July 6th, 2021 by Swiss Policy Research

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

With vaccine effectiveness down to just 60%, the case for “vaccine passports” implodes.

SPR and some other independent expert groups warned very early on that “vaccine passports” – promoted by Bill Gates and his ID2020 alliance – are doomed to fail (from a medical perspective), simply because covid vaccines cannot achieve sterilizing immunity (i.e. prevent infection and infectiousness), especially not against new coronavirus variants.

New data from Israel now confirms that the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against infection and even against mild symptoms caused by the Indian variant has already dropped to just 64%, while effectiveness against severe disease remains above 90%. The effectiveness of DNA adenovector vaccines like AstraZeneca is likely already below 60% (against infections).

In a particularly remarkable case, a vaccinated Israeli caught the Indian variant in London, infected another vaccinated person in Israel, who infected another vaccinated person, who infected about 80 students at a high school party. In all likelihood, most of these transmissions occurred pre-symptomatically, i.e. without people knowing they were infected and infectious.

The status of “vaccine passports” in the US (Technology Review)

As the above map shows, many US states have already banned “vaccine passports”, though people may still require them for international travel. In the UK, the situation remains somewhat uncertain, whereas the EU and several Asian countries remain determined to implement their “vaccine passport” schemes. Israel phased out its “green pass” in June, but there are talks of “reactivating” it.

After face masks, lockdowns and “contact tracing apps” (inserted into three billion mobile phones by Google and Apple), “vaccine passports” are yet another major “failure” in the international response to the coronavirus pandemic. Instead, the goal should be to achieve vaccine protection against severe disease in the high-risk group, avoid vaccine casualties in the low-risk group, and make progress in the research and use of effective and affordable early treatment options.

*

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

Featured image is from The Freedom Articles

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The French government is considering making the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory for everyone aged 24-59 in response to concerns over a “fourth wave” of infections.

After Prime Minister Jean Castex announced that he would push for the compulsory vaccination of caregivers, the French Senate expressed their desire to expand the measure to cover young and middle-aged adults.

“The body published a report from its Common Mission of Information on Thursday, advocating for mandatory vaccinations of young to middle-aged adults on the grounds it could significantly lower hospitalization rates and deaths,” reports RT. The report issued a stern warning: “act now to limit impact”.”

Mandatory vaccines are being pushed partly because the country is lagging behind other European countries in their rollout, with under a quarter of people aged 30-49 having been inoculated and only half of 50-64 year-olds receiving the jab.

The government is also considering sending doctors lists of people who haven’t taken the vaccine so they can be pressured into getting it, while the ability for the unvaccinated to submit negative COVID tests in order to be able to travel could also be withdrawn.

This isn’t the first time that France has considered imposing draconian measures to make people take the vaccine.

Back in December, a bill was proposed that would have banned unvaccinated people from being able to use basic services like public transport.

The proposed law mandated that citizens have proof of a negative COVID test or “preventative treatment, including the administration of a vaccine” in order to “access transport or to some locations, as well as certain activities.”

However, the legislation was dropped after fierce protests. One wonders if French people will have the same reaction to the prospect of mandatory vaccinations.

*

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

It’s Saigon in Afghanistan

July 6th, 2021 by Rep. Ron Paul

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The end of the 20-year US war on Afghanistan was predictable: no one has conquered Afghanistan, and Washington was as foolish as Moscow in the 1970s for trying. Now, US troops are rushing out of the country as fast as they can, having just evacuated the symbol of the US occupation of Afghanistan, Bagram Air Base.

While perhaps not as dramatic as the “Fall of Saigon” in 1975, where US military helicopters scrambled to evacuate personnel from the roof of the US Embassy, the lesson remains the same and remains unlearned: attempting to occupy, control, and remake a foreign country into Washington’s image of the United States will never work. This is true no matter how much money is spent and how many lives are snuffed out.

In Afghanistan, no sooner are US troops vacating an area than Taliban fighters swoop in and take over. The Afghan army seems to be more or less melting away. This weekend the Taliban took control of a key district in the Kandahar Province, as Afghan soldiers disappeared after some fighting.

The US is estimated to have spent nearly 100 billion dollars training the Afghan army and police force. The real number is likely several times higher. For all that money and 20 years of training, the Afghan army cannot do its job. That’s either quite a statement about the quality of the training, the quality of the Afghan army, or some combination of the two.

Whatever the case, I am sure I am not the only American wondering whether we can get a refund. The product is clearly faulty.

Speaking of money wasted, in April, Brown University’s Cost of War Project calculated the total cost of the Afghanistan war at more than two trillion dollars. That means millions of Americans have been made poorer for a predictably failed project. It also means that thousands of the well-connected contractors and companies that lurk around the US Capitol Beltway pushing war have become much, much richer.

That’s US foreign policy in a nutshell: taking money from middle-class Americans and transferring it to the elites of the US military and foreign policy establishment. It’s welfare for the rich.

Meanwhile, the Costs of War Project also estimated that the war took more than a quarter of a million lives.

The Biden Administration may believe it is saving face by installing a military command of nearly 1,000 troops inside the US Embassy in Kabul, but this is foolish and dangerous. Such a move establishes the US Embassy as a legitimate military target rather than a diplomatic outpost. Has anyone at the Pentagon or the State Department thought this through?

Plans to occupy the airport in Kabul are also unlikely to work. Does anyone think that, having come this far, an emboldened and victorious Taliban are going to sit by as US or allied military occupy the Kabul airport?

Trillions of dollars wasted and millions either killed or displaced from their homes. For nothing. The lessons of Afghanistan are simple: bring all US troops home, defend the United States as necessary, and leave the rest of the world to its own business. We’ve tried it the other way and it clearly doesn’t work.

*

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

Featured image: U.S. Army Sgt. Christian Cisineros takes a moment to speak with his interpreter March 17, 2009, while on a dismount patrol mission near Forward Operating Base Baylough in the Zabul Province of Afghanistan. Cisineros is assigned to  Company B, 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, U.S. Army Europe. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Adam Mancini/Released)

10 Years Since the Arab Spring

July 6th, 2021 by James J. Zogby

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A decade ago, we were in the throes of what observers in the West termed the “Arab Spring.” An assessment is now in order.

Because Western analysts assumed that these uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen were organically linked, mirroring the revolutions that brought down the Communist regimes operating under the protective cover of the Soviet Union, they termed them the “Arab Spring”. These Arab uprisings, however, were not threads of one unraveling region. While sharing some common characteristics, in each instance local factors shaped them.

One shared feature was their almost exclusive occurrence in the so-called “Arab Republics”, countries that for decades had been ruled by military regimes that lacked broad legitimacy and had become increasingly ossified and corrupt. Also, each of these uprisings started as largely non-violent youth-led protests focused on poverty, employment, and the desire for greater freedom and political rights.

Despite being branded “revolutions”, only in Tunisia, though it is still in a fragile state, has there been a true revolution, bringing about a change in governance.

In Egypt, nothing close to a revolution occurred, with the military retaining control after deposing Mubarak and later the Muslim Brotherhood. Despite Egyptians’ deep concern with the Brotherhood’s attempt to impose its agenda, the military may have created a problem for themselves. Our polling shows that, as a result of increased repression, Egyptians’ approval of the military has plummeted by more than 35 points, and Egyptians now say they are worse off than they were before and have less hope for the future.

The experiences of Syria, Libya and Yemen have been different. As societies fragmented by sect, tribe and region, with the deposing of old regimes, groups either sought or were sought out by external powers, resulting in prolonged bloody civil conflicts; outcomes remain uncertain.

Even with this checkered record, new uprisings are still occurring, including sustained mass protests in Sudan, Algeria, Lebanon and Iraq in recent years. While distinct and not fundamentally linked, each uprising has exploded for similar reasons: lack of jobs and needed services, bad governance, and hopelessness.

The revolts in Algeria and Sudan are somewhat similar to those in the other “Arab Republics” with only Sudan a potential success story. With Sudan’s military dictator deposed, and after continuing protests, the military agreed to form a new government sharing power with civilian leadership. With a projected three-year run for this “experiment”, only time will tell whether the transition leads to full civilian control.

The outcomes in Lebanon and Iraq, where the demands are similar, and include an end to sectarianism, are even more difficult to predict. The repressive violence of Iranian-supported militias in both countries, and the stubbornness of corrupt sectarian elites in Lebanon, pose real roadblocks to change.

Ten years after the first uprisings, the fragile “stability” that once characterised the old order of the “Arab Republics” has given way mostly to chaos. Despite their uneven success and uncertain futures, there are lessons to be learned.

Regimes should know that repression cannot replace unresponsive governance. Leaders should respond to the protestors’ legitimate concerns and offer them real hope for change.

The protesters, especially in Lebanon and Iraq, must develop a coordinated leadership, a coherent program of demands, and a plan for implementation. Where possible (e.g., Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, and Iraq), protestors must organise politically for the next election, to prevent the uprisings from being co-opted by the Muslim Brotherhood or other politicised sectarian movements.

The US must understand that any new Iran deal must include pressure to stop exploiting sectarian divisions and end its meddlesome and violent behaviours in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. And the US should focus future assistance to these governments on job creation, private sector growth, and improvements in education, healthcare, and delivery of social services.

*

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

The writer is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

María will finally be leaving the United Kingdom today, Monday, bound for Valencia, after a nightmare that has lasted two weeks. She still doesn’t know when she’ll be getting her passport back, but she is taking it for granted that the document will now permanently reflect that she was deported from a European country.

María is not her real name. She is aged 25, and would rather remain anonymous. Like dozens of other youngsters, she thought that an adventure in the United Kingdom was still possible. But she came crashing down to Earth after falling foul of the reality of Brexit and the country’s new immigration laws, which are very tough and highly restrictive.

On May 3, María was detained on arrival in Gatwick Airport, and was taken to the Yarl’s Wood migrant holding center in Bedfordshire. For four days, she received no information about her situation, could not access her personal belongings, and had to live with the suspicion and fear that a Covid-19 outbreak could see her stuck there indefinitely.

“I can’t say that I was badly treated,” she told EL PAÍS. “Fortunately I had my own room, given the need to isolate us. But I felt very confused, because there was absolutely no information about the situation. As far as I remember, in the canteen, there was a girl from the Czech Republic, an Italian, an American and two South Americans.”

The British government and the European Union countries have spent more than two years releasing information about the rights and situation of European citizens who travel to or work in the United Kingdom, and vice versa. All of those who can prove that they were living in the country six months before Brexit finally became a reality, on December 31, 2020, have the right to apply for EU Pre-Settled Status or EU Settled Status, the temporary or definitive right to remain in the UK and which grants bearers the same rights they enjoyed before the country left the EU.

Read the full article here.

*

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

Featured image: A baggage check-in point at Gatwick Airport in the UK. (Source: El Pais)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

One thing you won’t find in corporate media obituaries of Donald Rumsfeld is any estimate of how many people died in the wars he was in charge of launching.

You do see occasional references to the US troops he sent to their deaths—as in the AP‘s obit (6/30/21):

Defiant to the end, Rumsfeld expressed no regrets in his farewell ceremony, at which point the US death toll in Iraq had surpassed 2,900. The count would eventually exceed 4,400.

And in the New York Times (6/30/21):

Mr. Rumsfeld, more than four years out of office, still expressed no regrets over the decision to invade Iraq, which had cost the United States $700 billion and 4,400 American lives.

But the Afghan and Iraqi lives lost as the result of the wars Rumsfeld managed—which by the most careful estimates outnumbered the US dead by a factor of a hundred or more (PLOS Medicine, 10/15/13; Lancet, 10/12/06)—simply go unmentioned. This, of course, greatly facilitates the job of the obituary writer, who is required to present every deceased member of the Washington establishment as a complicated, ultimately lovable character, regardless of the scale of their crimes.

Or as the Washington Post (6/30/21) put it: “Mr. Rumsfeld was more complex and paradoxical than the public caricature of him as a pugnacious, inflexible villain would suggest.”

‘Handling’ Iraq

Of course, a catastrophe on the scale of the Iraq War can’t be presented as an unvarnished success for Rumsfeld. But neither can it be presented as a criminal act of aggression, because that would indict Rumsfeld’s co-conspirators, many of whom are still alive and plenty of whom still have jobs either in the federal government or the nation’s premier media outlets. (During that war, many professional journalists covered Rumsfeld with an enthusiasm that approached idol worship, referring to him as “America’s new rock star,” a “father figure,” a “sex symbol” and “America’s stud”—Extra!, 3–4/02).

So you need a strategy for criticizing Rumsfeld without directly addressing the fact that he supervised wars of aggression that killed multitudes of people.  Perhaps it was his management style, as the Post suggested when it reported that “his handling of the Iraq War eventually led to his downfall.”

Rumsfeld “failed to set a clear policy for the treatment of prisoners,” the Post‘s Bradley Graham wrote, which is a peculiar way of saying that Rumsfeld specifically approvedmost of the forms of torture used at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, including the use of stress positions, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, isolation, sexual humiliation and threats from dogs—along with “mild, non-injurious” beatings.

He could have been more of a people person, the Post intimated:

While capable of great charm and generosity, he often seemed to undercut himself with a confrontational, gruff and belittling manner that many found offensive.

Or, perhaps, Rumsfeld was really the victim and not the perpetrator of the Iraq War—as the AP suggested with its original headline, “Donald Rumsfeld, a Cunning Leader Undermined by the Iraq War.” AP later switched that to “…Who Oversaw a Ruinous Iraq War,” but the attempt to evoke pity for Rumsfeld is still there is reporter Robert Burns’ lead:

Calling Donald H. Rumsfeld energetic was like calling the Pacific wide. When others would rest, he would run. While others sat, he stood. But try as he might, at the pinnacle of his career as Defense secretary he could not outmaneuver the ruinous politics of the Iraq War.

‘Success’ in Afghanistan

Another tactic employed by AP was to “balance” the problematic Iraq experience with the supposed bright spots of Rumsfeld’s career—notably the invasion of Afghanistan:

US forces invaded Afghanistan on October 7, and with Rumsfeld at the Pentagon helm the Taliban regime was toppled within weeks…. Within months of that success, President George W. Bush’s attention shifted to Iraq, which played no role in the September 11 attacks.

The Washington Post likewise presented Afghanistan as an example of Rumsfeld’s characteristic brilliance:

Mr. Rumsfeld was initially hailed for leading the US military to war in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks…. In the wake of the Afghan invasion, Mr. Rumsfeld hoped to devise a similarly innovative war plan for toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.

Reading these tributes, you could almost forget that in Afghanistan Rumsfeld launched the US’s longest overseas war, one that has killed nearly a quarter of a million people (including 70,000 civilians) without achieving any of the democracy-building, rights-protecting goals that were used to sell the occupation—or even completing its original task of capturing Al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden. (He was instead assassinated years later in Pakistan.)

Describing Rumsfeld’s arrival in Washington, the Times‘ Robert McFadden wrote:

He seemed like an All-American who had stepped off the Wheaties box—a strikingly handsome Midwesterner radiating confidence, taking on big tasks and doing everything well.

Could any war criminal ask to be remembered more fondly?

*

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 Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org, and has edited FAIR’s print publication Extra! since 1990. He is the co-author of The Way Things Aren’t: Rush Limbaugh’s Reign of Error, and co-editor of The FAIR Reader. He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere. Born in Libertyville, Illinois, he has a poli sci degree from Stanford. Since 1997 he has been married to Janine Jackson, FAIR’s program director.

Featured image is from FAIR

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Principia Scientific International is delighted to share with our readers a stunning legal letter from a UK doctor putting the NHS and politicians on notice that they engage in a conspiracy of “lies” about the COVID19 pandemic and the dangerous “vaccines” being deployed.

The medical doctor is Dr Sam White who worked for 17 years as an NHS practitioner until his conscience told him he could no longer serve the corrupt purpose of mass deception and unethical medical conduct over the fake pandemic. Dr White gained an enormous following online after posting this video below:

Watch the video here.

We urge our British readers to use Dr White’s carefully worded, lengthy legal letter as a template to send to their own National Health General Practitioners and health authorities. A link to the PDF with more precise references is here.

Ask your doctor/health authority representative: is this letter correct? That way they have a duty of care to give a formal reply.

Thereby, we can all play our part in holding to account those who are either evil, too lazy or ignorant to defend lives against this crime against humanity.

FULL TEXT OF LETTER

Sir Simon Stevens

Chief Executive Officer NHS England

2 July 2021

Dear Mr Stevens

Re: My Client: Dr Sam White

I am instructed by Dr Sam White, a GP.

Dr Sam White has had his licence to practise within the NHS suspended by letter from the NHS dated 26 June 2021.

Please treat this letter as a public interest disclosure or whistle blow in that it raises allegations of alleged criminal conduct and breach of legal obligations by those leading the covid response.

Dr Sam White has had his licence to practise within the NHS suspended by letter from the NHS dated 26 June 2021. Please treat this letter as a public interest disclosure or whistle blow in that it raises allegations of alleged criminal conduct and breach of legal obligations by those leading the covid response.

The reasons given for my client’s suspension have been inconsistent. My client has been told one thing verbally and another in writing. What my client has been told in writing is he has been suspended on the basis of his social media output.

My client’s social media output does not differ in any material extent to other clinicians also with an online presence who have not been suspended. My client raised concerns during his NHS five year revalidation appraisal process with the NHS in November 2020.

All of these concerns were raised during the revalidation appraisal process and overlap with what is in my client’s social media content.

The NHS took no action on either the substance of the concerns raised in my client’s appraisal nor did the NHS take any action against my client for raising those concerns during his appraisal. My client’s appraisal was signed off by the NHS Responsible Person.

The same Responsible Person who later suspended my client. It would appear that the reason the NHS took the action they did of suspending my client from practice in the NHS was the fact that the contents of Dr White’s video went viral clocking up over a million views in June 2021.

The NHS appears to have taken umbrage at my client letting the cat out of the bag. The NHS appear to have acted in the way they did because my client pointed out that there are a number of elephants in the room. My client is entitled to point out alleged wrongdoing and is also entitled not to be victimised for so doing.

My client’s social media output sets out two main propositions which are further developed here:

  1. The vaccine programme has been rolled out in breach of the legal requirements for clinicians to obtain the free and informed consent of those being vaccinated.
  2. That the requirement to wear face coverings in an NHS setting is in breach of common law obligations not to cause harm and breaches statutory obligations in relation to provision of PPE.

My client has instructed me to write to you setting out the complaint that he has been victimised and harassed for telling the truth by the organisation you head. Clinicians should feel able to voice genuine concerns relating to alleged malpractice without fear for their ability to practice within the NHS being suspended.

The truth that Dr White is telling may be uncomfortable for you to hear. But hear it you must. I am instructed to copy this letter to the relevant regulators as well as law enforcement.

I am also instructed by my client to publish this letter on social media as the public has the right to know what is happening and how truth is being suppressed.

The allegations are that the following groups of people have committed unlawful and potentially criminal acts in breach of their common law obligations to act in the best interests of the public as well as in breach of their common law obligation of doing no harm to the public.

The Nolan Principles of Standards in Public Life are alleged to have been breached.

The groups of people who my client alleges have breached common law obligations are:

  1. HM Government.
  2. The Executive Board of the NHS.
  3. SAGE.
  4. Senior public office holders within the civil service.
  5. The Executive Board of the MHRA.

In relation to the MHRA they have failed to ensure that the vaccine advertising programme meets their common law obligations as well as their statutory obligations. The MHRA in granting emergency use authorisation for the vaccines has failed in their obligation to consider whether there are safe and effective medicines available as an alternative to vaccination.

The MHRA is failing in its obligations in failing either to instruct a bio-distribution study is conducted on those who have been vaccinated or in failing to publish the findings of such a bio-distribution study.

A bio-distribution study is a study of what happens to the vaccine after it is injected into the body. I am instructed to set out the factual allegations in a comprehensible way, free of jargon, so the general public can follow what is being said.

To assist my client has provided source material to back up every single one of his principal facts and that source material will be referenced via footnotes or endnotes. The Vaccination Roll Out: Clinicians practising within the NHS are obliged to do two things when administering a vaccine:

  1. To do no harm.
  2. To obtain the free and informed consent of those being vaccinated. The law on free and informed consent is set out in the case of Montgomery. Montgomery’s case which went to the Supreme Court laid down the principles for what amounts to free and informed consent. 1. That the patient is given sufficient information – to allow individuals to make choices that will affect their health and well being on proper information.[1]
  3. Sufficient information means informing the patient of the availability of other treatments. [2]
  4. That the patient is informed of the material risks of taking the vaccine and the material risks of declining the vaccine.

Breach of these principles on free and informed consent is professional gross misconduct at an individual level.

At an organisational level if the NHS does not have clear evidence that every person being vaccinated has given free and informed consent it will render those holding executive office within the NHS as legally liable for those institutional failings.

The Government has set the vaccination strategy. The NHS has led the roll out. The strategy and roll out has included the provision of information to the public.

Much of the information has been inadequate or misleading.

1. Montgomery Guideline 1: Sufficiency of Information:

The provision of information has been inadequate. The principal source of information

to the public has been the following:

  1. The Daily Press Conferences.
  2. The NHS badged advertisements.
  3. The Patient Information Leaflet.

The information presented has not informed the public of the following material risks:

  1. The material risk of being infected with the coronavirus.
  2. The material risk if infected of being hospitalised by the coronavirus.
  3. The material risk if infected of not being hospitalised by the coronavirus.
  4. The material risk of dying from the coronavirus infection.
  5. The material chance of recovering from the coronavirus infection.
  6. The material chance of having an asymptomatic infection.
  7. The numbers of people with existing antibody immunity or memorised T cell response.

Before we come to what information has been presented to the public it should be noted that those presenting the information have not publicly declared at the press conferences their financial links to the vaccine industry.

Public Office Holders should act with integrity and transparency when presenting information to the public, particularly information relating to public health.

Those financial links include direct investment in the vaccine industry as well as financial assistance with grants from charitable foundations set up by those with investments in the vaccine industry. [4]

It should be noted that Moderna’s share price has risen from $10 to over $200 [5] in the space of eighteen months. Bill Gates and his charitable foundation are significant investors in Moderna [6], one of the companies supplying a vaccine. It should also be noted that Bill Gates has a known association with Geoffrey Epstein. [7]

Many of those presenting the information to the public are associated with or employed directly or indirectly by organisations who have been financially funded by the Gates Foundation.

The MHRA, the UK regulatory body approving the vaccines, has itself been funded by the Gates Foundation. [8]

Finally, the former secretary of state did not declare to the public that he had a girlfriend and he did not declare that that girlfriend had financial links through her business with PPE and other contracts [9] over which Matt Hancock had responsibility.

When presenting information on a public health matter the Nolan Principles require transparency.

The Nolan Principles requires those presenting the information to declare any interests publicly so that those receiving the information can determine whether the information has been presented in an objective way or in a way that lacks balance and may favour any undeclared interests.

How many people know for example that our Chief Medical Officer has been or is involved in Vaccine organisations which have been substantially funded by the Gates Foundation as well as other vaccine businesses? [10]

How many people know that our Chief Scientific Officer has substantial investments in Astra Zeneca?

Dominic Cummings talked about Mr Gates’ influence in government during his session in select committee.

If a Public Office Holder is presenting information about public health to the public, those people should be upfront and transparent about their interests and who has funded those interests as they might have a bias towards vaccination when other more optimal routes may be available.

Vaccination should not be presented as the only route out of the declared pandemic when there are other routes that can be run in tandem.

The Officials should level with the public.

It seems from day one the Public have been informed via press conferences that there was only one medical route out of the pandemic and that was via vaccination. That route is not the only available route.

Quicker, cheaper and less risky routes are also available as an alternative to those who have no need or desire to be vaccinated and these routes have been known about for many months.

Taking each risk in turn:

The material risk of being infected:

  1. The Government and the NHS has supplied information to the public information on the number of infections.
  1. That information does not differentiate between:
  2. Those individuals testing positive without a Doctor or nurse diagnosing that individual and confirming that they are infected and or are ill with covid.
  3. Those individuals testing positive where a Doctor or nurse has diagnosed infection in that individual and has diagnosed that they are ill with covid.
  4. The principal diagnosis tools have been:
  • The lateral flow test.
  • The PCR test.
  • Primary Care in the form of General Practice Doctors have by and large been kept out of the diagnostic loop.

The NHS’s internal leaflet says that a positive test should not be relied on alone but a clinician, a Doctor or nurse, should confirm the fact of infection by clinical diagnosis.

6.The tests have been subject to major criticism for being unreliable and producing false positives. [11] The writer of this letter has a letter from his MP stating that the tests used can test for any Winter virus. It is probable therefore that the data presented by the government as infections with coronavirus also includes individuals who have tested positive but the test has failed to distinguish what sort of virus is present and whether that virus is old or recent.

  1. Dr Fauci admitted that PCR tests do not test for infectiousness. [12]
  2. Reports of schoolchildren testing positive using lemon juice show how unreliable these tests are. [13]
  3. The inventor of the PCR test has also stated that the PCR test should not be used as a diagnosis tool.
  4. The Portuguese Court of Appeal said it is contrary to international law for a positive test result alone to be used without a Doctor or nurse also seeing the person with that test result and diagnosing an infection. [14]
  5. The public do not know how many people have been classed as an infection on test alone or on test and clinical diagnosis. That is a major failing in gathering data and presenting data.
  6. The cycle threshold at which the PCR test has been set is too high to give reliable data on infection.
  7. The WHO suggested re-setting the cycle rate on the PCR test in January 2021 it is unknown whether the NHS has adopted that advice. [15]
  8. The press conferences have heightened the public’s sense of the material risk as the information presented has in my client’s view exaggerated the numbers in a material way.
  9. There has been no publicity at all at the press conferences that covid is not a High Consequence Infectious Disease. [16]

The material risk of being hospitalised with covid:

  1. The numbers of hospitalisations of people with covid has been presented to the public at the press conference and then disseminated via news broadcasts.
  2. That information has not differentiated between:
  3. Those presenting in hospital with covid illness.
  4. Those presenting in hospital with another condition who have subsequently been tested positive for coronavirus.
  5. Whether those hospitalised with coronavirus have caught the infection in hospital.
  6. The information presented to the public has also not set out the numbers of people who have recovered from covid.
  7. In assessing material risk the public need to have adequate information.
  8. The allegation is that the information has been presented in such a way to make the public think that the material risks are greater than they are.

This has either been intentional or grossly negligent. Presenting information in a distorted way affects the public’s ability to weigh up the material risk that coronavirus presents.

The public are unable to give proper informed consent to vaccination if the material risks have been exaggerated or distorted.

The material risks of dying from covid:

  • The information presented to the public does not differentiate between:
  • Those dying from covid.
  • Those dying from another condition but who have tested positive within 28 days of death.
  • Those dying from another condition but who have tested positive after death.
  • The death certificates are allowed to be signed by Doctors who may not have seen the individual who has died before death.
  • Anyone who has died within 28 days of a positive test is recorded as a covid death.
  • The public is unable to determine what their material risk is of dying from covid as the numbers of deaths from covid have been exaggerated and are unreliable. The CDC in the USA has recently presented its information in a different way to enable any individual to find out how many people have died from covid alone without having any other medical condition or co-morbidity. [17]
  • A Portuguese Court has recently found that the numbers of people said to have died from covid has been exaggerated. [18]
  • The data about risk of dying has also been confused by the fact that Do Not Resuscitate Notices have been used unilaterally without consent and the widespread use of Midazolam during the pandemic in care home settings. [19, 20]
  • The information that has been presented shows that the distribution of risk is uneven.
  • Those under 75 who are healthy are unlikely to die from covid.
  • The risk is asymmetrical.
  • The vaccination roll out has been symmetrical.
  • The government’s communication on vaccination has been inconsistent.
  • The Prime Minister of the country in January 2021 described the vaccination roll out as an immunisation programme. That communication gave the public the impression that vaccines would provide immunity.
  • The vaccine trials have been set up have as their trial design and trial protocol to reduce symptoms [21]. The Prime Minister was at best sloppy with his language as the vaccine trial protocols was to test for efficacy of symptom reduction.
  • It should also be noted that the vaccine protocols also refer to the use of PCR tests in the clinical trials, despite those tests’ known unreliability. [22]
  • None of the vaccines provide immunity. None of the vaccines stop transmission.
  • Initially the government said that only those identified as vulnerable should be vaccinated. That then changed. Mr Gates met with the PM before the change in policy, this meeting with Mr Gates was to discuss a global vaccine strategy. [23]
  • Initially the government said that children would not be vaccinated. That then changed.
  • Initially government said restrictions would be released when 15 million people had been vaccinated, that then changed.
  • Initially government said it had no plans for vaccination passports, that then changed.
  • Providing inconsistent and changing information does not enable the public to have adequate information to give informed consent.

The Patient Information Leaflet:

The NHS has provided the Patient Information Leaflet to some patients who are being vaccinated.

That Patient Information Leaflet does not present the material risks and the material benefits of the vaccination in an adequate way:

  1. The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the vaccines are still in clinical trial.
  2. The Patient Information Leaflet does not make any reference to alternatives to vaccination.
  3. The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the mRNA vaccines are experimental in that these vaccines have never been used before and there is no data on medium term to long term safety. mRNA vaccines are described by the FDA as gene therapy. [24]
  4. The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the clinical trials being run to show the safety and efficacy of the vaccine did not include particular cohorts of people including pregnant women and the very elderly. There is therefore no evidence available to show that they are safe and efficacious for those cohorts.
  5. The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the clinical trials are only using people who have not been infected with covid. There is therefore no data on safety and efficacy for vaccination of those who have been infected. Many people who have been infected with coronavirus are also being vaccinated.
  6. The Patient Information Leaflet does not set out the difference between the absolute risk and the relative risk from coronavirus infection.
  7. By being vaccinated each individual is reducing their absolute risk of being infected and dying from covid by 1 percent [25] means that no one should be under any pressure from any family member to have a vaccination or indeed any medical treatment. The NHS website even states that in its section on informed consent. [28]
  8. The vaccination adverts give the impression that the vaccines have been licensed rather than the true position which is that they have been emergency use authorised which is a lower regulatory threshold than licensing.
  9. The advertisements infer that the vaccines are safe. Safety is about risks. The adverts make no reference to the risk, however small, of serious adverse events.

Information on Vaccine Passports:

  • HM Government has linked vaccination with the ability to travel using a vaccination passport. [29]
  • Many UK citizens know at least one person whose only reason for being vaccinated is to go on holiday.
  • HM Government has been coercive in linking release of restrictions to vaccination.
  • A publicly funded National Health Service is breaching its obligations to its patients in not distancing itself and calling out such unlawful government coercion. NHS clinicians should not be used as conduits for government policy. That politicises health.
  • The NHS should make it clear that it does not endorse coercion or any fettering of an individual’s right to consent or decline any medical intervention.

Advertising of the vaccine:

The NHS allowed its logo on a series of adverts using celebrities to promote vaccination. It is also alleged that a number of celebrities have been paid to promote the vaccine via their social media.

  1. None of the vaccines have received marketing authorisation from the MHRA [2]6. So there is a question mark as to whether an emergency use authorised vaccination should be advertised at all as there is very limited number of vaccines to choose from.
  1. Advertising of licensed medicines is strictly regulated. The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 [27] make it a criminal offence for licensed medicines to be advertised by celebrities and any advert should notify the viewer what the active ingredient is in the vaccine if there is only one active ingredient. These adverts breach the law in my client’s view.
  2. The NHS has taken no steps to distance itself from HM Government’s attempt to fetter every UK citizen’s right to decline any medical intervention.
  3. The advertising campaign has placed pressure on people to have a vaccination. In the advertisement it is suggested that vaccination protects other members of a family including the elderly. However free and informed consent means that no one should be under any pressure from any family member to have a vaccination or indeed any medical treatment. The NHS website even states that in its section on informed consent. [28]
  4. The vaccination adverts give the impression that the vaccines have been licensed rather than the true position which is that they have been emergency use authorised which is a lower regulatory threshold than licensing.
  5. The advertisements infer that the vaccines are safe. Safety is about risks. The adverts make no reference to the risk, however small, of serious adverse events.

Information on Vaccine Passports:

  1. HM Government has linked vaccination with the ability to travel using a vaccination passport. [29]
  2. Many UK citizens know at least one person whose only reason for being vaccinated is to go on holiday.
  3. HM Government has been coercive in linking release of restrictions to vaccination.
  4. A publicly funded National Health Service is breaching its obligations to its patients in not distancing itself and calling out such unlawful government coercion. NHS clinicians should not be used as conduits for government policy. That politicises health.
  5. The NHS should make it clear that it does not endorse coercion or any fettering of an individual’s right to consent or decline any medical intervention.
  6. Montgomery Guideline 2: Availability of other treatments:
  7. The NHS has published no information in its Patient Information Leaflet on the efficacy of other available treatments available to combat coronavirus infection or the disease of covid.
  • The body has an incredible way of treating itself if it is infected.
  • It’s called the immune system.
  • The NHS should not be proposing a medical intervention when most people have a readily available treatment system to combat the infection and disease namely their immune system.
  • The immune system for most people will fight off the infection by the production of antibodies.
  • Further that immune response will be memorised by the T cells and B cells and will provide long lasting protection.
  • It is proven from SARS Coronavirus 1 in 2002 that T cells and B cells memorise the antibody response for many years. [30,31]
  • There has been very little information to the public on the efficacy of the immune system to fight off any covid infection. The immune system is the first line of defence yet has been ignored by our NHS and by the government and SAGE.
  • It is accepted that the thymus gland which produces T cells and B cells gets less efficient over the age of 70 or if a person is immune compromised.
  • Taking vitamin D will enhance the immune system. These have only been provided as supplements.
  • At no time during any of the press conferences has the government and its advisers stressed the importance of the immune system and how to take care of it as a first line of defence against coronavirus. It’s only ever been about the vaccine. The failure to provide adequate information of the role of the immune system is an egregious breach of Montgomery.
  • Immunity gained via infection is better than any immunity enhancement from vaccination.[32]
  • Professor Whitty, to be fair, did say that for most people covid will be a mild illness. He therefore implied, without expressly stating it, that most people’s immune system will fight off the illness arising from a coronavirus infection.
  • There is now ample data that there are a number of therapeutics that will work to prevent infection, and prevent hospitalisation and death.
  • Those therapeutics are:
  • Ivermectin. There are numerous studies showing the efficacy of Ivermectin, it is also proven safe [33, 34] Courts have ordered the use of Ivermectin in some jurisdictions.[35]
  • HCQ and Zinc.[36]
  • Budoneside or anti-inflammatory respiratory inhalers [37, 38]
  • The evidence has been available for some time that all these work to prevent infection, to prevent, hospitalisation and to prevent death.
  • There is limited or no information in the Patient Information Leaflet on available treatments other than vaccination.
  • Why haven’t these medicines been made available? These medicines have been successful in a number of other countries and have prevented death and hospitalisation.
  • Why hasn’t the MHRA investigated these other available and cheaper alternatives before granting emergency use authorisation to vaccines with no proven long term safety record?
  • My client cannot understand why the NHS does not make available safe and effective medicines. This is grossly negligent.
  • These safe and effective medicines and the immune system are the elephant in the room. The NHS does not want to look at them. The regulator does not want to look at them. SAGE does not want to look at them. The government does not want to look at them. Who’s pulling the strings?
  • The question is why isn’t the public being given a choice? Do commercial considerations and political agendas take precedence over public health? If so that’s an extremely serious matter.
  • The NHS and the government appear to be very quick to vaccinate the population but very slow to consider and make available cheaper, safer and effective alternatives, to give the people an option. Why is that?

2. Montgomery Guidelines: Risks of Vaccination:

  • At none of the press conferences have the risks of vaccination been presented.
  • The advertising campaigns infer that the vaccines are safe.
  • The mRNA method of vaccination is considered a gene therapy product according to the US FDA. [39]
  • Serious adverse event data is being collected by the MHRA. But is not being disseminated to news outlets or via the press conferences [40]
  • That serious adverse event data is not being presented by Government or the NHS in its Patient Information Leaflet.
  • Data from deaths falling within 28 days of vaccination is not being collected, let alone communicated.
  • The Salk Institute has found that the spike protein, a constituent component in the vaccine or the vaccine’s mode of action, is a toxin.[41]
  • The Japanese medicine regulator has found that those who have been vaccinated have a concentration of spike proteins in every organ of their body, in particular the ovaries [42]. This study is a called a bio-distribution study.
  • The NHS does not appear to have done any bio-distribution study of those who have been vaccinated.
  • The MHRA has not required a bio-distribution study to be conducted to check the safety of vaccination and if there has been a bio-distribution study conducted it has not been communicated to the public.
  • A number of regulators around the world have required health authorities to stop using the vaccine on health grounds.
  • The last UK emergency vaccine after swine flu was also suspended on safety grounds after 50 deaths.
  • The material risks from vaccination known to date are:
  • Death in extreme cases. Over 1300 deaths reported on the yellow card system.[43]
  • Bells Palsy.
  • Thrombo-embolic events with low platelets.
  • Capillary Leak Syndrome
  • Menstrual disorder and extreme bleeding.
  • Myocarditis and Pericarditis.
  • Antibody dependant enhancement.
  • The public is not able to give informed consent to vaccination as the data on the material risks on vaccination is being inadequately collated and the data that is collected is then not communicated to the public at any Press Conference.
  • The public is being informed that the vaccination is a public health benefit, the risks of vaccination are not being communicated in as systematic way as coronavirus infections and deaths are communicated.
  • It is up to individuals to decide whether they want to take material risks, however low the likelihood of the risk materialising, yet no or inadequate information is being presented on those risks.
  • Adults may shortly be asked to give consent to vaccination for their children when the risks of coronavirus to children is exceptionally low. This is one of the reasons my client did not want any involvement in the vaccination programme.
  • Every clinician vaccinating any individual must tell the individual of the risk of a serious adverse event, however small that risk is. This requirement does not appear to be built into the vaccine roll out in any systematic way.

My client is raising these concerns in this letter and these concerns are consistent with his obligation as a professional to act in accordance with the law and with professional ethics. The public who paid his wages up until recently deserve nothing less.

The second issue is the requirement for the public to wear masks in the NHS setting.

  • The requirement to wear a mask in an NHS setting is unlawful for the following reasons:
  • The requirement is for the public and clinicians to wear masks on NHS facilities.
  1. The mask is not defined.
  2. If the mask is a piece of PPE, the 1992 PPE Regulations are engaged. [44]
  3. The employer is obliged under regulation 6 to evaluate both the risks and the suitability of the PPE.[45]
  4. Any evaluation of the risks would have to pose three questions:
  5. What are the risks of asymptomatic infection?
  6. What are the risks of symptomatic infection?

How are those risks best mitigated?

  1. To answer the first question the risk of asymptomatic infection is low. [46] Dr Fauci said that asymptomatic infection has never been the driver of any respiratory virus.
  2. The risks of symptomatic transmission are higher.
  3. What is the best way to mitigate the risks?
  4. To provide category 3 PPE masks is the answer as they show efficacy in reducing transmission. These have not been provided or indeed mandated by the Health Secretary.
  5. PPE Regulations require all masks to meet EC standards and to be category three in the case of the risk posed by biological agents. [47]
  6. The masks provided to NHS clinicians are not category three. It is against the law to provide unsuitable PPE. It is also mandatory to follow the PPE regulations. [48]
  7. The NHS has issued guidance that any person on NHS facilities must wear a mask. There is however no requirement for the public to wear a category three mask.
  8. The requirement for the public to wear any mask in any NHS facility does not provide any benefit to the public. [49, 50]
  9. The requirement for the public to wear a mask in any NHS facility poses a material risk. The risks of mask wearing is of bacterial infection plus a risk of hypoxia for prolonged use. [51]
  10. There is also the risk posed by CO2 and a RCT reported in JEMA found 6 times the safe level of CO2 in children wearing masks. [52]
  11. Anything other than a Category 3 mask is inadequate as PPE for the risk of infection posed by a biological agent.
  12. The NHS has a policy that any patient or relative must wear a mask as must any clinician.
  13. However there is no requirement that the masks have to be PPE. The masks therefore pose more risk than benefit.
  14. The masks that are being worn by the public are unregulated.
  15. Some of the masks have been manufactured in China and contain toxins.[53]
  16. The NHS has failed the public in its guidance as unregulated masks pose more risks than benefits.
  17. The NHS has failed its staff by requiring all staff to wear masks which pose more risks than benefits.

The issues raised by my client and other clinicians who have not been suspended raise issues about the integrity of those leading the Covid response. They raise issues about whether the information that has been provided to the public has been collected and presented fairly.

They raise issues of breaches of the law and accepted standards in public life. They raise issues of whether private individuals with charitable foundations have too much influence on policy direction and whether the financial support offered by those individuals and foundations is healthy in a transparent democracy.

How can the National Health Service be endorsing the government policy of vaccine passports when that policy:

  1. Makes those who wish to rely on their own immune system second class citizens.
  1. That policy gives privileges to citizens who take a medical intervention, vaccination.

By endorsing the vaccine passport policy the National Health Service is not only endorsing a breach of international law which makes sacrosanct an individual’s right to decline any medical intervention without any repercussion but also breaches the UK law on informed consent.

Since when did the National Health Service morph into the National Pharmaceutical Distribution Service?

The writer of this letter has a backlog of whistle blowers to advise with examples of pressure being placed on employees within care and NHS settings during the covid pandemic, including exaggeration of covid bed occupancy and hospitalisation, such pressure is unethical and contrary to the standards the public expect in public health settings.

Please feel free to contact me directly for any further clarification, in the meantime we have copied in the relevant regulators who no doubt will conduct a full and independent and robust enquiry into the issues raised in this letter.

I look forward to hearing from you with a full response to the points raised.

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*

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 Principia Scientific

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Throughout the scope of human history, information was wielded by the “elites” as a means of conditioning the masses to accept inequality and comply with the status quo. The most powerful weapon ever created by mankind was not the atomic bomb, media has always been the ruling class’s most potent ordnance. It’s for this reason that the Bible was once monopolized by the Catholic church and why Nazis burned books; the more information people have, the harder it is to keep them subjugated.

Information is power and those who own it are all powerful.

It is precisely because the flow of information is so imperative that wars are fought in the realm of public opinion as much as they are on battlefields. A coworker who served in the US Army once told me that the most dangerous job in the military belongs to comms personnel. She described how all military campaigns start with trying to take out the enemy’s ability to communicate; a fighting force that is not informed and loses situational awareness is one that is easily defeated.

Social media was supposed to break the iron grip the plutocracy have over information and democratize news in ways that empower the average Jane and Joe. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and the like promised to deliver a new day of citizen-journalism that could truly create a marketplace of ideas where the winners and losers are not determined by money but by the merit of people’s content. This grand experiment in self-determination was aborted the minute the major social media platforms decided to go public and seek fortunes ahead of their principles.

Far from breaking the paradigm where information is consolidated and monopolized by governments and the billionaire class who own them, Facebook and Twitter cast their lot with the establishment by silencing dissent and censoring people who don’t agree with conventional wisdom. The muzzling of independent journalists like me and countless millions who do not comply with the edicts of the government-media-corporate complex did not start 18 months ago when this dreaded pandemic shattered normal and plunged us head first into the abyss of fear and uncertainty; to the contrary this Orwellian level of censorship we are witnessing started by targeting people on the fringes only to see the net expand and ensnare anyone who dares to question authority.

I have been writing about the safety and efficacy, or lack thereof, of the Covid-19 “vaccines” since December of 2020. The more my articles drew eyeballs, the more I was censored. Over the past three months, my Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and LinkedIn accounts have all been deleted as if I’m a danger to the public. Yet nearly everything I’ve been writing about, from the origins of the virus to the fact that these “vaccines” do not prevent contraction nor transmission of the Coronavirus, have been proven right. The job of a journalist is not to copy and paste biotech corporations and government talking points but to challenge them to ensure transparency. I have been continuously silenced for exercising my rights which are enumerated and guaranteed by the First Amendment.

This malicious silencing of journalists and people who commit the cardinal sin of asking questions about Covid-19 and Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson’s experimental “vaccines” has nothing to do with protecting the public. A full three months before Coronavirus was detected in Wuhan, a global exercise by the name of “Event 201”—an event sponsored by none other than Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and my alma mater Johns Hopkins University—outlined steps that were to be taken in the event of a “hypothetical” pandemic.

One of the actions that was called for was for social media sites to censor people who question the “vaccines”. What you are now doing is something that we premeditated and planned months if not years before Covid-19 arrived to take my mom and nearly 4 million people around the world.

I write this open letter to employees at Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit and other social media sites who are engaging in censorship. My aim is not to vilify you but to appeal to your sense of morality and justice. I know the vast majority of you are good and decent people who go to work daily trying to contribute to the betterment of society. Moreover, I also know that a lot of you do not agree with what is taking place as you watch news being manipulated and society being engineered through algorithms and newsfeed suppression. I know this is not what you signed up for; you did not spend fortunes going to college and sacrificed long hours to graduate with honors only to become minders of governments and to be the capos of corporations.

I fully expect to be deplatformed by Twitter after they permanently suspended my primary account three months ago. Facebook did likewise as they deleted an account I opened up in 2007. But if the price of seeking truth and questioning authority is banishment and exclusion from the 21st century’s public square, so be it. I have experienced far worse in my life, including nearly two years of homelessness, for me to be cowed into compliance by threats of censorship. However, it greatly saddens me to see America, the country that gave refuge to my family and me when my homeland turned us into refugees, reverting to the practices of tyrants like Mengistu Hailemariam who forced us to flee in 1983.

A society that censors is one that is on its deathbed. I really ask you to look into your hearts and ask yourselves if you are OK with the way things turned out at your place of employment. If you are not, instead of seething everyday you go to work knowing that you are complicit in this ongoing abrogation of truth, reach out to some of your fellow workers and find ways to defy in order to stand up for justice. If enough of you raise hell and demand change, it can happen overnight. We are headed for very dark times over the coming days and weeks, I implore you to be on the right side of history instead of following orders you know in your hearts to be unjust.

*

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

Featured image is from Ghion Journal

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On June 10, 2021, 2,400 liters of “firefighting water” containing PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) were accidentally released from the U.S. Army Oil Storage Facility into Uruma City and other nearby locations, according to Ryukyu Shimpo, an Okinawan news agency.

The Okinawa Defense Bureau said the toxic materials flowed out of the base due to heavy rain. The concentration of PFAS in the release is unknown and the Army is not forthcoming. The spill is believed to have emptied into the Tengan River and the sea.

During past investigations conducted by the prefecture, the Tengan River has been found to have high concentrations of PFAS. Poisonous releases of toxic chemicals by the U.S. military are commonplace in Okinawa.

Agent Orange ingredients found at Okinawa military dumpsite | The Japan Times

Excavation of toxic waste at military dumpsite in Okinawa revealed 61 barrels of Agent Orange ingredients made by Dow Chemical. [Source: japantimes.co]

Consider how the latest spill is treated in the Okinawan press:

“On the evening of June 11, the Defense Bureau reported the incident to the prefectural government, Uruma City, Kanatake Town, and the fishermen’s cooperatives concerned, and asked the U.S. side to ensure safety management, prevent recurrence, and promptly report the incident. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs conveyed its regrets [about the incident] to the U.S. side on June 11. The Defense Bureau, the city government, and the prefectural police confirmed the site. Ryuko Shimpo has inquired about the details of the incident to the U.S. military, but as of 10 P.M. on June 11, there has been no response.”

If the Army responds, we know what they are likely to say. They will say they are concerned about the health and safety of Okinawans and are committed to ensuring safety management and making sure there’s no recurrence. That’ll be the end of the story. Deal with it, Okinawa.

Okinawans are considered second-class Japanese citizens. The Japanese government has repeatedly demonstrated it cares little about the health and safety of Okinawans in the face of repeated toxic releases from U.S. bases. Although the small island of Okinawa comprises just 0.6% of Japan’s land mass, 70% of the land in Japan that is exclusive to U.S. forces is located there. Okinawa is about one-third the size of Long Island, New York, and has 32 American military facilities.

Okinawans eat a lot of fish that are contaminated by exorbitant levels of a particularly deadly variety of PFAS that flows into surface waters from the American bases. It is a crisis on the island, due to the high concentration of American military installations. Eating seafood is the primary source of human ingestion of PFAS.

The four species listed above (from top to bottom) are swordtail, pearl danio, guppy, and tilapia. (1 nanogram per gram, ng/g = 1,000 parts per trillion (ppt), so the swordtail contained 102,000 ppt)  The EPA recommends limiting PFAS in drinking water to 70 ppt. [Source: Created by Kunitoshi Sakurai (Okinawa Environmental Network Caretaker, Professor Emeritus, Okinawa University]

Futenma

On April 17, 2020, a fire suppression system in an aircraft hangar at Marine Corps Air Station Futenma discharged a massive volume of toxic firefighting foam. Foamy suds poured into a local river and cloud-like clumps of foam were seen floating more than a hundred feet above the ground and settling in residential playgrounds and neighborhoods.

The Marines were enjoying a barbecue in a massive hangar outfitted with an overhead foam suppression system that apparently discharged when the smoke and heat were detected. Okinawa Governor Denny Tamaki said, “I truly have no words,” when he learned that a barbecue was the cause of the release.

Okinawa Governor Denny Tamaki shakes hand with U.S. Marine at Futenma base in 2019. [Source: thereaderwiki.com]

And what would be an appropriate response from the governor now? He could say, for example, “The Americans are poisoning us while the Japanese government is willing to sacrifice Okinawan lives for the never-ending U.S. military presence. 1945 was a long time ago and we’ve been victims since then. Clean up your mess, United States Forces Japan, and get out.”

Organic fluorine compound contamination detected at six times index value in Uchidomari River

Giant carcinogenic foam puffs settled in residential neighborhoods near the Futenma Marine Corps base in Okinawa. [Source: ryukushimpo.jp]

When pressed to comment, David Steele, commander of Futenma Air Base, shared his words of wisdom with the Okinawan public. He informed them that “if it rains, it will subside.”

Apparently, he was referring to the bubbles, not the propensity of the foams to sicken people. A similar accident occurred at the same base in December 2019 when a fire suppression system mistakenly discharged the carcinogenic foam.

Marine General Apologizes for Massive Firefighting Foam Leak on Okinawa | Military.com

U.S. Marine Corps Col. David Steele, commanding officer of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, explains to Okinawa Vice-Governor Kiichiro Jahana where some of the firefighting foam was captured in a base underground storage tank on April 17, 2020. [Source: military.com]

In early 2021, the Okinawan government announced the groundwater in the area around the Marine Corps base contained a concentration of 2,000 ppt of PFAS. Some U.S. states have regulations in place that prohibit groundwater from containing more than 20 ppt of PFAS, but this is occupied Okinawa. A report by the Okinawa Defense Bureau said that the foam releases at Futenma “had almost no effect on humans.”

Meanwhile, Ryukyu Shimpo newspaper sampled river water near the Futenma base and found 247.2 ppt of PFOS/PFOA in the Uchidomari River (shown in blue.) Seawater from Makiminato fishing port (top left) contained 41.0 ng/l of the toxins. The river had 13 varieties of PFAS that are contained in the military’s aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF).

The foamy water flowed out of sewer pipes (red x) from Marine Corps Air Station Futenma. The runway is shown on the right. The Uchidomari River (in blue) carries the toxins to Makiminato on the East China Sea. [Photo courtesy of Pat Elder]

So, what does it mean that the water has 247.2 parts per trillion of PFAS? It means people are getting sick.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources says surface water levels that exceed 2 ppt pose a threat to human health. The PFOS in the foams wildly bioaccumulate in aquatic life. The primary way people consume these chemicals is by eating fish. Wisconsin recently published fish data near Truax Air Force Base that shows PFAS levels remarkably close to the concentrations reported in Okinawa.

This is about human health and the extent to which people are being poisoned through the fish they eat.

In 2013, another accident at Kadena Air Base spread 2,270 liters of fire-extinguishing agents out of an open hangar and into storm drains. A drunk Marine activated the overhead suppression system. The recent Army accident released 2,400 liters of the poisonous foam.

PFAS-laced foam fills Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, in 2013. A teaspoon of the foam in this photo could poison an entire city’s drinking reservoir. [Source: jonmitchellinjapan.com]

In early 2021 the Okinawan government reported that the groundwater outside of the base contained 3,000 ppt of PFAS. Groundwater drains into surface water, which then flows to the sea. This stuff doesn’t just disappear. It continues to run out of the base and the fish are poisoned.

The Army’s Kin Wan Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant storage facility in Uruma City is immediately adjacent to the pier, which is used to receive different types of weapons and ammunition.

According to the commander of Fleet Operations Okinawa, “Tengan Pier is a popular off-base spot for surfers and swimmers. Located in Tengan Bay on the Pacific Ocean side of Okinawa, this particular spot offers one of the highest concentrations of marine life found anywhere in this region.”

That’s just swell except for one problem: U.S. military activities threaten the continued health of that very marine life, and the marine life of the ocean. In fact, the new base construction in Henoko threatens the ecosystem of coral reefs, the world’s first extinct ecosystem. Nuclear weapons may once again be stored in Henoko, if the base is ever completed.

Kin Wan receives, stores, and issues all aviation fuel, automotive gasoline, and diesel fuel used by the United States Forces on Okinawa. It operates and maintains a 100-mile petroleum pipeline system that reaches from Futenma Marine Corps Air Station in the south of the island, through Kadena Air Base, to Kin Wan.

This is the aorta of the American military presence in Okinawa.

U.S. military fuel depots like this around the world are known to have used vast quantities of PFAS chemicals since the early 1970s. Commercial fuel depots have largely stopped using the deadly foams, switching to equally capable and environmentally friendly fluorine-free foams.

Takahashi Toshio is an environmental activist who lives adjacent to the Futenma Marine Corps base. His experience in fighting to control noise levels from the base provides a valuable lesson in the necessity for resisting the Americans who are ruining his homeland.

He serves as the secretary of the Futenma U.S. Air Base Bombing Lawsuit Group. Since 2002, he has helped to pursue a class-action lawsuit to end the noise pollution caused by U.S. military aircraft. The court ruled in 2010 and again in 2020 that the noise caused by the operation of U.S. military aircraft is illegal and beyond what is considered legally tolerable, that the Japanese government is also responsible for the damage caused to the residents and must financially compensate the residents.

Residents holding placards reading US Military out protect the relocation of the new U.S Marine Airbase construction on...

Okinawan residents call for removal of U.S. military bases. [Source: teenvogue.com]

Since the Japanese government does not have the authority to regulate the operation of U.S. military aircraft, Takahashi’s appeal for a “flight injunction” was rejected, and the damage caused by aircraft noise continues unabated. A third lawsuit is currently pending in Okinawa District Court. It is a large class-action lawsuit with more than 5,000 plaintiffs claiming damage.

“After the Futenma foaming incident in April of 2020,” Takahashi explained, the Japanese government (and the local government and residents) were unable to investigate the incident that occurred inside the U.S. military base. The U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, gives priority to U.S. forces stationed in Japan and prevents the government from investigating the site of the PFAS contamination and the circumstances of the accident.”

In the recent Army case in Uruma City, the government of Japan (i.e., the government of Okinawa) is also unable to investigate the cause of the contamination.

Takahashi explained, “It has been shown that PFAS contamination causes cancer and can affect fetal development and cause disease in small children, so investigating the cause and cleaning up the contamination is essential in order to protect the lives of residents and fulfill our responsibility to future generations.”

Takahashi says he has heard that progress is being made in the U.S., where the military has investigated PFAS contamination and has assumed some degree of responsibility for the cleanup. “This is not the case with U.S. troops stationed overseas,” he argues. “Such double standards are discriminatory and disrespectful to the host countries and to the regions where U.S. troops are stationed, and cannot be tolerated,” he said.

*

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

Pat Elder is a peace and environmental activist who has run for Congress on the Green Party ticket in Southern Maryland. He can be reached at: [email protected].

The Plandemic: A Sudden Tyranny Imposed by an Entity that Shall Remain Unnamed

By Peter Koenig, July 05, 2021

People in BC are free to move around, without wearing masks, without social distancing, without any of the restrictive measures imposed by the Trudeau Government on 18 March 2020. Coerced vaccination is over. And no more vaccination certificates.

World Economic Forum (WEF) Announces Creation of Orwellian ‘Global Coalition for Digital Safety’

By Leo Hohmann, July 05, 2021

The World Economic Forum announced June 29 it will initiate a new “public-private partnership” with Big Tech and governments around the world to identify and uproot all opinions from the Internet that it considers “harmful.” The WEF is one of those elitist organizations that wields enormous influence over the elected leaders of Western nations but which almost nobody in the general population has heard of.

New Study of Israeli Data Shows COVID-19 Vaccines Lack of Benefit and Much Harm

By Informed Choice Washington, July 05, 2021

We calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) from a large Israeli field study to prevent one death. We accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side effects and the number of cases with fatal side effects.

FDA Ethically Obligated to Pull COVID Injections Off the Market, or Risk Becoming Complicit in Crimes Against Humanity

By Lance Johnson, July 05, 2021

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was under intense political pressure to give emergency use authorization (EUA) to three experimental injections manufactured by Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson. Now that these experiments have been carried out on roughly one third of the US population, serious issues have emerged.

Father and Daughter Died Four Days Apart Despite Taking Different Brands of COVID Vaccines

By Angela Bininger, July 05, 2021

This is tragic story out of Michigan that was disclosed by Kathryn Kendall. She lost both her father and her sister within four days of one another, and they were vaccinated with different brands of covid vaccines.

To Prevent Three Deaths, COVID Jab Kills Two

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, July 05, 2021

If there were any reasonable safety standard in place, the COVID injection campaign would have been halted in early January 2021. The reported rate of death from COVID-19 shots now exceeds the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years, and it’s about 500 times deadlier than the seasonal flu vaccine,1 which historically has been the most hazardous.

Is Foreign Meddling in Ethiopia Actually a Proxy War Against China?

By Andrew Korybko, July 05, 2021

Africa’s second most populous country of Ethiopia has recently experienced a surge in foreign meddling over the past year. This former kingdom, which was among the world’s oldest prior to its 1974 revolution, has always proudly defended its independence. Emperor Menelik II defeated the Italians in 1896 and secured his compatriots’ independence during the height of European colonialism.

Drinking Coffee in the Early Morning Rain and Thinking of Donald Rumsfeld

By Edward Curtin, July 05, 2021

I think of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on his recent deathbed.  Here was a man whose entire life was dedicated to the American Empire.  He spent all his allotted time making war or making money from the spoils of war.  He was a desert maker, a slaughterer for the Empire.  No doubt he died very rich in gold.

Video: Senator Ron Johnson: Censored and Suppressed on Critical COVID Issues

By Senator Ron Johnson and Kristina Borjesson, July 05, 2021

Called a conspiracy theorist and vilified in the mainstream press for questioning the safety of covid vaccines while promoting the use of cheap, safe drugs that frontline doctors say work well for early treatment of their covid patients, Senator Johnson describes a mind-b oggling gauntlet of roadblocks and malfeasance preventing him from conducting a proper investigation of the origins of the virus, the management of the pandemic, and the suppression of lifesaving treatment information.

1,007,253 Injuries 1,403 Dead in the UK Following COVID-19 Injections According to UK Government

By Brian Shilhavy, July 05, 2021

The UK Government’s reporting system for COVID vaccine adverse reactions from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency released their latest report today, July 1, 2021. The report covers data collected from December 9, 2020, through June 23, 2021, for the three experimental COVID “vaccines” currently in use in the U.K. from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna.

Latest CDC VAERS Data Show Reported Injuries Surpass 400,000 Following COVID Vaccines

By Megan Redshaw, July 05, 2021

This week’s number of total adverse events for all age groups following COVID vaccines surpassed 400,000, according to data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The data comes directly from reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

Anglo-American Tripwire Traps Russian Bear

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, July 05, 2021

The Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated in black and white during a nationally telecast interview on June 30 that the mysterious incident a week earlier involving a British guided missile destroyer HMS Defender off Crimea in the Black Sea was an act of ‘provocation’. Putin called it an Anglo-American operation. 

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Video: Senator Ron Johnson: Censored and Suppressed on Critical COVID Issues

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Emergency Program Act Ministerial Order No. M275

“I, Mike Farnworth, Minister of Public Safety, and Solicitor General, order that, effective at the end of the day on June 30, 2021, the attached declaration of a State of Emergency throughout the whole of the Province of British Colombia, made on March 18, 2020, and subsequently extended, is canceled.”

“The Province of British Columbia has formally extended the provincial state of emergency, allowing health and emergency management officials to continue to use extraordinary powers under the Emergency Program Act (EPA) to support the Province’s COVID-19 pandemic response.

The state of emergency is extended through the end of the day on July 6, 2021, to allow staff to take the necessary actions to keep British Columbians safe and manage immediate concerns and COVID-19 outbreaks.” (emphasis added)

 

In other words, the State of Emergency in British Colombia, as a possible precursor for the rest of Canada, is no longer valid?

People in BC are free to move around, without wearing masks, without social distancing, without any of the restrictive measures imposed by the Trudeau Government on 18 March 2020. Coerced vaccination is over. And no more vaccination certificates.

This is the approximate date (mid-March 2020) of the general lockdown throughout the world, in all of the 193 UN member countries at once. A sudden tyranny imposed by an entity that shall remain unnamed, “high-above the UN system”, has been cowardly accepted by the UN system and by all its coopted member governments.

Yes, all 193 UN member governments have been coerced, by threat or reward, to follow this nefarious criminal and deadly agenda – a depopulation and life-digitization agenda to be implemented under the guise of a pandemic, actually, a plandemic. It is virologically impossible that a virus, deadly or not, spreads throughout the world as a pandemic at once, within days.

And even less so, a virus, like the corona virus which is essentially a flu virus – with mortality rates from about 0.3% to 0.8%. This “new” covid virus is not a new version. It is an updated version of the SARS virus that was directed at the Chinese genome in 2002 / 2003.

In retrospect, the 2002 / 2003 SARS virus was like a trial balloon. Both the 2002 / 2003 and today’s versions were laboratory-made – certainly not in China, as the west keeps claiming. Readers may have noticed, western lies are endless, repetitive and ever viler and more vicious.

Today’s covid-lie version which is supposed to invade and lock down the entire world, has been renamed as SARS-Cov-2, and in January 2021 renamed again by WHO as Covid-19. This worldwide plandemic was planned for decades before. See also the 2010 Rockefeller Report.

 

The master “trial” i.e., simulation before launching the virus globally, was Event 201, a computer simulation in New York City on October 18, 2019. It was sponsored by the World Economic Forum – WEF, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, which, by the way, is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. May it be noted that the Gates and the Rockefellers are among the most notorious eugenists on the planet.

The Event 201 was attended by professionals with links to UN agencies, especially WHO, UNICEF, the World Bank, the IMF, and more, as well as renowned national health agencies including the CDC. See this.

The 201 simulation produced some 65 million deaths and a gutted world economy – massive unemployment, famine, misery and more death from famine and desperation.

The Covid-19 Plandemic

In reality, the worldwide damage done during these last 15 months is unfathomable.

As of today, this plandemic has already affected at least 2 to 4 billion people throughout the world – and more – many more – will be affected within the next five to ten years – “coincidentally” the so-called UN Agenda 2030, or Agenda 2021 – if, and this is the Big IF – We, the People, do not wake up and stop this crime of epical proportions in solidarity.

Part of this agenda is an extreme, well-planned food shortage throughout the world.

Reports are coming out of India that the government buys up food crops from farmers at preferred prices – just to let it rot and destroy. Millions of tons of food crops are being devastated, expected to be leading to massive death by famine.

These food shortages in India and elsewhere may also affect Europe, the US and other parts of the world. In the US, Bill Gates has recently become the largest single “farmer”, as his foundation bought up more than 269,000 acres of farmland throughout the United States (about 110,000 hectares).

 

Is this land being used for producing food, or for preventing food production? The Gates farmland purchase was reported by NBC – but strangely, the NBC reference to their report has been deleted from the internet. Fortunately, it is still available on different other websites, i.e., on this one.

As it stands, Canada may be leading the way for the rest of the world to peel off the criminal covid restrictions and – most importantly, Canada is legally pursuing and prosecuting the perpetrators of these human rights infringing covid measures. They are supported by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, German-American lawyer, and his team of lawyers, and the large German Investigative Committee. Dr. Fuellmich’s claims of crimes against humanity have already been accepted by Canadian’s Highest Courts.

All of this – or most of it, especially the abrogation of the nefarious Canadian “Declaration of the State of Emergency”, may not yet be known to the wide Canadian public, because mainstream media do not report it. Therefore, people may still be subject to – totally illegally – pressure and coercion of mask wearing, vaccination and constant and dangerous PCR-testing.

May this refreshingly good news, the abrogation of the Emergency Law, soon be surfacing for all to see and understand – so that a massive solidarity move can bring back Canada to normal.

May Canada become a shining example for the world, in overcoming this deadly psychopathic attempt by a few dirty-rich “non-humans” – to drastically reduce world population and digitize the survivors into “robotic humanoids”.

*

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

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

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

Featured image is from Flickr

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Plandemic: A Sudden Tyranny Imposed by an Entity that Shall Remain Unnamed
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

.

Abstract

Background

COVID-19 vaccines have had expedited reviews without sufficient safety data. We wanted to compare risks and benefits.

Method

We calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) from a large Israeli field study to prevent one death. We accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side effects and the number of cases with fatal side effects.

Result

The NNTV is between 200–700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.

Conclusions

This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.

View full text here.

*

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

All images in this article are from Informed Choice Washington

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New Study of Israeli Data Shows COVID-19 Vaccines Lack of Benefit and Much Harm
  • Tags: ,