Iraq’s Streets Are Littered with the Memories of Our Dead

July 14th, 2021 by Nabil Salih

All Global Research articles 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.

***

To no avail, the water pump wheezes tonight. Iraq, the land between two rivers, is thirsty. Barely a few drops drip from the kitchen faucet in my family’s residence in Baghdad.

The power is off, too, and private diesel generators roar deep into the night. The tranquility that used to lullaby Baghdad’s alleys, allowing its residents to sleep during the hot summer nights on rooftops, has long gone. So has the safety that enabled them to do so in a now-distant lifetime, hardly visible beyond the thick plumes of smoke rising from a violent past that – in the collective memory of Iraqis – continues to burn.

“Iraq’s night is long,” the late Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish once wrote in a poem for his Iraqi peer, Saadi Youssef. In his own prophetic poem, “A Vision”, Youssef wrote:

“This Iraq will reach the ends of the graveyard / It will bury its sons in open country / Generation after generation / And it will forgive its despot.” *

More than two decades have passed since the late Youssef wrote those lines in 1997, and Iraq still buries its sons, generation after generation.

As the last military choppers rape their way through the skies of Baghdad back to their military camps, and the lilting echo of the last Quran verse recited in nearby mosques fades away in grim alleys, where anguished mothers sob for lost sons, news arrives of the day’s fair share of death.

It is during the night that reports of air strikes, terrorist assaults and militia rocket attacks arrive. This lawlessness is enabled by the same lethal failure that pushes miserable youths to hang themselves, or to leap from the highest bridges in towns that, despite being bombed by western armies, rarely appear on TV screens in the West.

Western opportunists

Growing up in Iraq is traumatising. To be an Iraqi writer is life-threatening. I watch the daily repertoire of deadly misery, but for an endless series of assassinations and intimidation, I opt to stifle my pen. It leaves me suffocated, shouting aloud inside my head words I cannot write.

In today’s Iraq, one needs to live by the saying “eat and chirp”. Those dissatisfied with living on crumbs and who stray from the herd are mowed down in broad daylight, executed by “unknown” gunmen under the gaze of CCTV cameras at their doorsteps.

An Iraqi woman standing next to her maryred son's portrait in Baghdad on 25 February, 2021 (Photo by Nabil Salih)

An Iraqi woman standing next to her maryred son’s portrait in Baghdad on 25 February 2021 (Photo by Nabil Salih)

This thuggery makes me think twice before writing a single word on Iraq – if a platform even considers a native’s perspective worthy of publishing in the first place.

Iraq, after all, is a dream destination for many western opportunists drooling over the prospects of the next opening in the Global South. Not only are we, inferior humans, unable to travel and work in their countries as easily, but we are unable to find equal opportunities in our own lands, too.

They build their careers not only on our suffering, but also on our insights, tips and evocative stories. While these indolent tourists, who are usually detached from the streets, occupy jobs usually inaccessible to us, and write divisively from the safety of bureaus in a ghetto on the Tigris banks, we local writers pray that our emails merit a reply from equally clueless foreign Middle East editors.

But judging by the recycled, boring “hit” stories they deem “great”, the latter seem to have struggled to write a postcard during their time “on the ground” without the help of local “colleagues” they keep in their shadow.

Stranger in Baghdad

So when writing becomes both dangerous and an unattainable luxury, I walk. Every evening, I put on a pair of beaten shoes and wander the alleys of Baghdad alone.

What today’s Iraq has to offer stabs me in the eyes, leaving me muted. How do I conjure adequate words in the presence of such tragedy?

The streets on which I flicked marbles with my friends and scurried under bullets no longer seem familiar. Or am I the stranger here? I do feel like one in Baghdad, a city where militiamen and fine-suited crooks grow rich, and dead youth stare from billboards at the living who will soon follow them to the Najaf cemetery, either in coffins or in the company of coffined relatives or friends – all thanks to war criminals of Donald Rumsfeld’s ilk.

With a heavy heart, I walk the streets of Baghdad, bitter to have arrived too late to see the city I love in its glamour, and grateful to have lived a few peaceful days in its bosom before war destroyed it.

How happy and naive and hungry we were before Kanan Makiya and his friends danced to the bombardment of Iraq! The “liberation” his ilk cheered for entailed dropping cluster bombs on my family’s garden in Baghdad, where in previous years, my friends and I had chased a nylon football in bare feet, with joyful hearts. We were oblivious to a war that was holding a sickle over the gates of Iraq, to hordes of warmongering columnists in New York salivating at the imminent sight of fireworks over Baghdad.

I remember huddling with my family in my late grandmother’s room when the bombing started. On one of those nights, we received a telephone call from my aunt, telling us to keep a bucket of clean water and pieces of cloth handy in case of a chemical attack on Baghdad.

Endless bombs

Of course, the sons and daughters of the Green Zone’s democracy knights, who decorated their Christmas trees abroad while we starved under genocidal UN sanctions, have rosy childhood memories.

They weren’t submitted to humanitarian starvation imposed by western officials yet to be held accountable for the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, nor did they hear the deafening sounds of “liberatory” bombing that scarred the face of Baghdad.

But I did, and I still have bombs going off inside my head.

After former US President George W Bush announced “mission accomplished” in 2003, every day carried news of tragedy in Iraq. Images of women beating their chests in mourning of sons torn apart on the streets became constantly present on our TV screens.

Off the screen, I would wake up to Abrams tanks cruising down our street at hysterical speeds, and walk past camouflaged gunmen and rotten corpses on my way to school.

Both my father and my uncle were abducted by gunmen from rival armed groups. Later, both families received death letters, and we were both forcibly displaced from our homes.

Those years have engraved indelible images of carnage on the inner walls of my memory, and they haunt me as I stroll the streets of Baghdad at night.

Bodies of the dead

In my childhood alley, the elegant houses with luscious gardens of palms and Ziziphus trees have long disappeared, along with the familiar faces. In place of each house, three or four, or even more, ugly apartments have sprung up – an erasure of the city’s architectural identity, and a burden on the water and electricity grids.

From the labyrinth of my neighbourhood, I make my way to a nearby bridge. There, on a distant afternoon, someone in an orange jumpsuit was hanged from the railing. His lifeless body swayed in the air as speeding cars zipped by beneath his dangling feet.

We were young then, myself and friends now scattered around the globe, and we watched the spectacle from a vacant lot where once, on another distant afternoon, gunmen dumped the corpses of two women onto piles of garbage.

Time flies, I think to myself. We are grownups and traumatised now. The stray dogs who fed on the dead bodies littering my neighbourhood alleys must be dead by now, I suspect. But who knows? I know that the little girl whose father’s car was blown up on this same bridge was still young.

It was one of the loudest bombings I’d ever heard, and I have heard so many in my life. The explosion killed the father that day, and tore the daughter’s body in two. My neighbour, who now lives in exile after gunmen held him and his family members at gunpoint in their own kitchen, found the lower part of the girl’s body in the trunk of the family’s charred, blue Volkswagen.

It is painful to be Iraqi. Even the streets of memory are littered with the bodies of our dead.

I think of the little girl as I make my way home, and I wish her a good night. I hope she has toys and friends up “there”, where hopefully no bombs need to go off, and she never looks down to see what’s happening to the rest of us here, in an Iraq that still buries its sons in open country, generation after generation.

*

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

Translated from Arabic by Khaled Mattawa.

Nabil Salih is an independent writer, journalist and photographer from Baghdad. His writings and photography appear in Al Jazeera English, Jadaliyya and Open Democracy. He is an incoming MA in Arab Studies (MAAS) candidate at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies in Georgetown University.

Featured image: An Iraqi man walks the streets of Baghdad on 25 January 2021 (Nabil Salih)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iraq’s Streets Are Littered with the Memories of Our Dead
  • Tags: ,

Takeaways for Russia, India from Merkel’s US Visit

July 14th, 2021 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A caveat must be added to the famous line by Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, NATO’s first Secretary General and Winston Churchill’s chief military assistant during the Second World War, that the purpose of the Alliance was “to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”. 

The alliance is no longer adequate to pin Germany “down” on the dissection table. The multipolarity in world politics creates space for a powerhouse like the reunified Germany to raise its head above the parapet of big-power politics. Germany has outgrown the NATO as a rising world power. 

Quite obviously, Germany’s lack of enthusiasm for NATO’s eastward expansion blocked Washington’s agenda for Ukraine and Georgia’s induction into the alliance as full members. Berlin doesn’t want to complicate Europe’s relations with Russia. Ukraine and Georgia were not invited even as ‘observers’ to the recent summit in Brussels despite the 2008 Bucharest summit’s formal decision on their membership. 

At the end of the day, Germany also moderated the Biden administration’s push to drag the alliance to the Asia-Pacific. Curiously, last Monday, within 3 weeks of the European summit with the US and the NATO and G7 summits, Chinese President Xi Jinping had a three-way video call with the French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel where he expressed the hope that China and Europe would expand cooperation to better respond to global challenge.  

This has been the third such ‘summit’ in the past 3 months and reinforces Beijing’s belief that European countries have not tied themselves to the US chariot and although there are many similarities in terms of values and systems between the US and the EU, the latter is attaching more importance to strategic autonomy. read more 

Indeed, the latest efforts by Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron to organise another EU-Russia summit would have also caused irritation in Washington. read more 

Therefore, the big question surrounding Merkel’s forthcoming visit to Washington on Thursday will be how far Washington wields power to make Germany sacrifice for the US hegemony anymore. The salience of the visit will be that it illuminates the diversity and flexibility of Germany’s thoughts on global issues. 

Merkel’s July 15 visit to the White House marks only the third time a foreign leader will have met with Biden in Washington since he became president — and, she is the first European leader to do so. White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on Friday that Biden hopes to affirm “deep and enduring” ties between the NATO allies while also tackling some areas of disagreement.

A deal on Nord Stream 2? 

Psaki called it an “official working visit” aimed at shoring up the partnership between the two countries and identifying ways to further strengthen cooperation, while an official in Berlin said, “From the German perspective, this will be a working visit.” 

The laundry list is long — Biden’s decision to end the forever Afghan war, Covid-19, trade issues, Nord Stream 2. In practical terms, the Nord Stream 2, will be a heavily loaded issue, given its profound impact on German-Russian relations for decades to come, Europe’s energy security, Moscow’s current tensions with the European Union and the US’ trans-Atlantic leadership itself. 

On Sunday, the managing director of Nord Stream 2 AG, which is running the pipeline project, and its German chief executive Matthias Warnig disclosed in an interview with the Handelsblatt newspaper that the construction is 98% completed by now and may be finished already in August. 

According to Warnig, three months will be needed to receive various certificates and undergo trials. The process has already kicked off in respect of the pipeline’s first line that has already been completed. Our goal is “to commission [the project] already this year,” he noted. 

Importantly, Warnig said he was convinced gas transit via Ukraine from Russia would be continued after 2024.

“Transit via Ukraine will still be part of Russian gas transportation to Europe even after 2024. I have not a slightest doubt,” he stressed. [Significantly, Merkel invited Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to visit Berlin today in the run-up to her US trip.]

In May, the Biden administration took a nuanced step to waive sanctions on the Swiss-based Nord Stream 2 AG and its German CEO. The waiver gives Berlin and Washington three more months until mid-August to reach an agreement on Nord Stream 2. read more 

President Putin exuded confidence in a TV interview last month when he said that

“it was already pointless to resist the construction of the pipeline and to impose sanctions. Because we have already completed it, the first branch is ready. It seems like [the US] has abandoned these sanctions.” 

The question of what to do with the pipeline still could prove the first big headache for the next German government. Merkel pushed back at the heavy US pressure to abandon the project but she is retiring in September. Polls suggest that the elections to the Bundestag in September may yield big gains for the Green Party which opposes the Nord Stream 2 project. read more

Suffice to say, the Biden-Merkel meeting could provide important momentum for getting to a deal on Nord Stream 2. Berlin hopes to resolve the issue by August and on his part, Biden is also eager to improve ties with Germany, which is a key ally to deal with major global issues of climate change, post-pandemic economic recovery and relations with Iran and China.

TRIPS waiver a bridge too far?

From the Indian perspective, there is going to be keen interest on the outcome of the Biden-Merkel talks in regard of the contentious issue of a temporary waiver of intellectual property rights for the Covid-19 vaccines being considered by World Trade Organisation [WTO] members to help end the pandemic. 

Last October, India and South Africa had floated the proposal to waive IP rights at the WTO’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights [TRIPS] Council. 

The Biden administration has expressed backing for the waiver. But Germany poured cold water on the idea, maintaining that the greatest constraints on production of vaccines were not intellectual property but increasing capacity and ensuring quality. A German statement in May said, “The protection of intellectual property is a source of innovation and must remain so in the future.” 

Evidently, European industry’s heavyweights — home to major players such as BioNTech and AstraZeneca — resist the waiver. In early June, the European Commission, under German influence,  submitted an alternative plan to the WTO, proposing other measures such as limits on export restrictions, and the compulsory licensing of the patents in some circumstances. read more

However, the ground beneath the feet somewhat shifted on June 10 when the European Parliament backed the TRIPS waiver in relation to COVID-19 vaccines, treatments, and equipment. The European Parliament amendment was passed by 355 votes to 263, with 71 abstentions, largely following left-right lines, with leftists such as the Socialists and Democrats backing the waiver and those on the right opposing it. read more

Of course, the Commission is not bound by the European Parliament’s amendment but the vote sends a strong political message nonetheless: Europe is gradually shifting to the pro-waiver camp. Meanwhile, Germany is increasingly lonely in its opposition to the waiver, as France flipped lately and crossed over to the patent-suspension camp.

The tide seems to be turning, although there is still a long way to go, as the waiver camp also has multiple voices and appearances such as France’s can be deceptive.

Merkel may have got unexpected support from an influential quarter in Washington when World Bank President David Malpass [a Trump administration nominee, by the way] waded into the controversy, saying ”We don’t support that [TRIPS waiver] for the reason that it would run the risk of reducing the innovation and the R&D in that sector.” 

To be sure, on Friday, when asked if Biden would seek to convince Merkel to support the patent waiver, Psaki was evasive. She would only say Biden is a “strong proponent” of the waiver, while Psaki went on to add, “It’s one tool in our toolbox.  There are a number of others, including increasing manufacturing.” That sounded closer to Merkel’s thinking.

*

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

On the Brink in 2026: U.S.-China Near-War Status Report

July 14th, 2021 by Michael T. Klare

All Global Research articles 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’s the summer of 2026, five years after the Biden administration identified the People’s Republic of China as the principal threat to U.S. security and Congress passed a raft of laws mandating a society-wide mobilization to ensure permanent U.S. domination of the Asia-Pacific region. Although major armed conflict between the United States and China has not yet broken out, numerous crises have erupted in the western Pacific and the two countries are constantly poised for war. International diplomacy has largely broken down, with talks over climate change, pandemic relief, and nuclear nonproliferation at a standstill. For most security analysts, it’s not a matter of if a U.S.-China war will erupt, but when.

Does this sound fanciful? Not if you read the statements coming out of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the upper ranks of Congress these days.

“China poses the greatest long-term challenge to the United States and strengthening deterrence against China will require DoD to work in concert with other instruments of national power,” the Pentagon’s 2022 Defense Budget Overview asserts. “A combat-credible Joint Force will underpin a whole-of-nation approach to competition and ensure the Nation leads from a position of strength.”

On this basis, the Pentagon requested $715 billion in military expenditures for 2022, with a significant chunk of those funds to be spent on the procurement of advanced ships, planes, and missiles intended for a potential all-out, “high-intensity” war with China. An extra $38 billion was sought for the design and production of nuclear weapons, another key aspect of the drive to overpower China.

Democrats and Republicans in Congress, contending that even such sums were insufficient to ensure continued U.S. superiority vis-à-vis that country, are pressing for further increases in the 2022 Pentagon budget. Many have also endorsed the EAGLE Act, short for Ensuring American Global Leadership and Engagement — a measure intended to provide hundreds of billions of dollars for increased military aid to America’s Asian allies and for research on advanced technologies deemed essential for any future high-tech arms race with China.

Imagine, then, that such trends only gain momentum over the next five years. What will this country be like in 2026? What can we expect from an intensifying new Cold War with China that, by then, could be on the verge of turning hot?

Taiwan 2026: Perpetually on the Brink

Crises over Taiwan have erupted on a periodic basis since the start of the decade, but now, in 2026, they seem to be occurring every other week. With Chinese bombers and warships constantly probing Taiwan’s outer defenses and U.S. naval vessels regularly maneuvering close to their Chinese counterparts in waters near the island, the two sides never seem far from a shooting incident that would have instantaneous escalatory implications. So far, no lives have been lost, but planes and ships from both sides have narrowly missed colliding again and again. On each occasion, forces on both sides have been placed on high alert, causing jitters around the world.

The tensions over that island have largely stemmed from incremental efforts by Taiwanese leaders, mostly officials of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), to move their country from autonomous status as part of China to full independence. Such a move is bound to provoke a harsh, possibly military response from Beijing, which considers the island a renegade province.

The island’s status has plagued U.S.-China relations for decades. When, on January 1, 1979, Washington first recognized the People’s Republic of China, it agreed to withdraw diplomatic recognition from the Taiwanese government and cease formal relations with its officials. Under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, however, U.S. officials were obligated to conduct informal relations with Taipei. The act stipulated as well that any move by Beijing to alter Taiwan’s status by force would be considered “a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States” — a stance known as “strategic ambiguity,” as it neither guaranteed American intervention, nor ruled it out.

In the ensuing decades, the U.S. sought to avoid conflict in the region by persuading Taipei not to make any overt moves toward independence and by minimizing its ties to the island, thereby discouraging aggressive moves by China. By 2021, however, the situation had been remarkably transformed. Once under the exclusive control of the Nationalist Party that had been defeated by communist forces on the Chinese mainland in 1949, Taiwan became a multiparty democracy in 1987. It has since witnessed the steady rise of pro-independence forces, led by the DPP. At first, the mainland regime sought to woo the Taiwanese with abundant trade and tourism opportunities, but the excessive authoritarianism of its Communist Party alienated many island residents — especially younger ones — only adding momentum to the drive for independence. This, in turn, has prompted Beijing to switch tactics from courtship to coercion by constantly sending its combat planes and ships into Taiwanese air and sea space.

Trump administration officials, less concerned about alienating Beijing than their predecessors, sought to bolster ties with the Taiwanese government in a series of gestures that Beijing found threatening and that were only expanded in the early months of the Biden administration. At that time, growing hostility to China led many in Washington to call for an end to “strategic ambiguity” and the adoption of an unequivocal pledge to defend Taiwan if it were to come under attack from the mainland.

“I think the time has come to be clear,” Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas declared in February 2021. “Replace strategic ambiguity with strategic clarity that the United States will come to the aid of Taiwan if China was to forcefully invade Taiwan.”

The Biden administration was initially reluctant to adopt such an inflammatory stance, since it meant that any conflict between China and Taiwan would automatically become a U.S.-China war with nuclear ramifications. In April 2022, however, under intense congressional pressure, the Biden administration formally abandoned “strategic ambiguity” and vowed that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would prompt an immediate American military response. “We will never allow Taiwan to be subjugated by military force,” President Biden declared at that time, a striking change in a longstanding American strategic position.

The DoD would soon announce the deployment of a permanent naval squadron to the waters surrounding Taiwan, including an aircraft carrier and a supporting flotilla of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines. Ely Ratner, President Biden’s top envoy for the Asia-Pacific region, first outlined plans for such a force in June 2021 during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. A permanent U.S. presence, he suggested, would serve to “deter, and, if necessary, deny a fait accompli scenario” in which Chinese forces quickly attempted to overwhelm Taiwan. Although described as tentative then, it would, in fact, become formal policy following President Biden’s April 2022 declaration on Taiwan and a brief exchange of warning shots between a Chinese destroyer and a U.S. cruiser just south of the Taiwan Strait.

Today, in 2026, with a U.S. naval squadron constantly sailing in waters near Taiwan and Chinese ships and planes constantly menacing the island’s outer defenses, a potential Sino-American military clash never seems far off. Should that occur, what would happen is impossible to predict, but most analysts now assume that both sides would immediately fire their advanced missiles — many of them hypersonic (that is, exceeding five times the speed of sound) — at their opponent’s key bases and facilities. This, in turn, would provoke further rounds of air and missile strikes, probably involving attacks on Chinese and Taiwanese cities as well as U.S. bases in Japan, Okinawa, South Korea, and Guam. Whether such a conflict could be contained at the non-nuclear level remains anyone’s guess.

The Incremental Draft

In the meantime, planning for a U.S.-China war-to-come has dramatically reshaped American society and institutions.  The “Forever Wars” of the first two decades of the twenty-first century had been fought entirely by an All-Volunteer Force (AVF) that typically endured multiple tours of duty, in particular in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. was able to sustain such combat operations (while continuing to maintain a substantial troop presence in Europe, Japan, and South Korea) with 1.4 million servicemembers because American forces enjoyed uncontested control of the airspace over its war zones, while China and Russia remained wary of engaging U.S. forces in their own neighborhoods.

Today, in 2026, however, the picture looks radically different: China, with an active combat force of two million soldiers, and Russia, with another million — both militaries equipped with advanced weaponry not widely available to them in the early years of the century — pose a far more formidable threat to U.S. forces. An AVF no longer looks particularly viable, so plans for its replacement with various forms of conscription are already being put into place.

Bear in mind, however, that in a future war with China and/or Russia, the Pentagon doesn’t envision large-scale ground battles reminiscent of World War II or the Iraq invasion of 2003. Instead, it expects a series of high-tech battles involving large numbers of ships, planes, and missiles. This, in turn, limits the need for vast conglomerations of ground troops, or “grunts,” as they were once labeled, but increases the need for sailors, pilots, missile launchers, and the kinds of technicians who can keep so many high-tech systems at top operational capacity.

As early as October 2020, during the final months of the Trump administration, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper was already calling for a doubling of the size of the U.S. naval fleet, from approximately 250 to 500 combat vessels, to meet the rising threat from China. Clearly, however, there would be no way for a force geared to a 250-ship navy to sustain one double that size. Even if some of the additional ships were “uncrewed,” or robotic, the Navy would still have to recruit several hundred thousand more sailors and technicians to supplement the 330,000 then in the force. Much the same could be said of the U.S. Air Force.

No surprise, then, that an incremental restoration of the draft, abandoned in 1973 as the Vietnam War was drawing to a close, has taken place in these years. In 2022, Congress passed the National Service Reconstitution Act (NSRA), which requires all men and women aged 18 to 25 to register with newly reconstituted National Service Centers and to provide them with information on their residence, employment status, and educational background — information they are required to update on an annual basis. In 2023, the NSRA was amended to require registrants to complete an additional questionnaire on their technical, computer, and language skills. Since 2024, all men and women enrolled in computer science and related programs at federally aided colleges and universities have been required to enroll in the National Digital Reserve Corps (NDRC) and spend their summers working on defense-related programs at selected military installations and headquarters. Members of that Digital Corps must also be available on short notice for deployment to such facilities, should a conflict of any sort threaten to break out.

The establishment of just such a corps, it should be noted, had been a recommendation of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, a federal agency established in 2019 to advise Congress and the White House on how to prepare the nation for a high-tech arms race with China. “We must win the AI competition that is intensifying strategic competition with China,” the commission avowed in March 2021, given that “the human talent deficit is the government’s most conspicuous AI deficit.” To overcome it, the commission suggested then, “We should establish a… civilian National Reserve to grow tech talent with the same seriousness of purpose that we grow military officers. The digital age demands a digital corps.”

Indeed, only five years later, with the prospect of a U.S.-China conflict so obviously on the agenda, Congress is considering a host of bills aimed at supplementing the Digital Corps with other mandatory service requirements for men and women with technical skills, or simply for the reinstatement of conscription altogether and the full-scale mobilization of the nation. Needless to say, protests against such measures have been erupting at many colleges and universities, but with the mood of the country becoming increasingly bellicose, there has been little support for them among the general public. Clearly, the “volunteer” military is about to become an artifact of a previous epoch.

A New Cold War Culture of Repression

With the White House, Congress, and the Pentagon obsessively focused on preparations for what’s increasingly seen as an inevitable war with China, it’s hardly surprising that civil society in 2026 has similarly been swept up in an increasingly militaristic anti-China spirit. Popular culture is now saturated with nationalistic and jingoistic memes, regularly portraying China and the Chinese leadership in derogatory, often racist terms. Domestic manufacturers hype “Made in America” labels (even if they’re often inaccurate) and firms that once traded extensively with China loudly proclaim their withdrawal from that market, while the streaming superhero movie of the moment, The Beijing Conspiracy, on a foiled Chinese plot to disable the entire U.S. electrical grid, is the leading candidate for the best film Oscar.

Domestically, by far the most conspicuous and pernicious result of all this has been a sharp rise in hate crimes against Asian Americans, especially those assumed to be Chinese, whatever their origin. This disturbing phenomenon, which began at the outset of the Covid crisis, when President Trump, in a transparent effort to deflect blame for his mishandling of the pandemic, started using terms like “Chinese Virus” and “Kung Flu” to describe the disease. Attacks on Asian Americans rose precipitously then and continued to climb after Joe Biden took office and began vilifying Beijing for its human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. According to the watchdog group Stop AAPI Hate, some 6,600 anti-Asian incidents were reported in the U.S. between March 2020 and March 2021, with almost 40% of those events occurring in February and March 2021.

For observers of such incidents back then, the connection between anti-China policymaking at the national level and anti-Asian violence at the neighborhood level was incontrovertible. “When America China-bashes, then Chinese get bashed, and so do those who ‘look Chinese,’” said Russell Jeung, a professor of Asian American Studies at San Francisco State University at that time. “American foreign policy in Asia is American domestic policy for Asians.”

By 2026, most Chinatowns in America have been boarded up and those that remain open are heavily guarded by armed police. Most stores owned by Asian Americans (of whatever background) were long ago closed due to boycotts and vandalism, and Asian Americans think twice before leaving their homes.

The hostility and distrust exhibited toward Asian Americans at the neighborhood level has been replicated at the workplace and on university campuses, where Chinese Americans and Chinese-born citizens are now prohibited from working at laboratories in any technical field with military applications. Meanwhile, scholars of any background working on China-related topics are subject to close scrutiny by their employers and government officials. Anyone expressing positive comments about China or its government is routinely subjected to harassment, at best, or at worst, dismissal and FBI investigation.

As with the incremental draft, such increasingly restrictive measures were first adopted in a series of laws in 2022. But the foundation for much of this was the United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021, passed by the Senate in June of that year. Among other provisions, it barred federal funding to any college or university that hosted a Confucius Institute, a Chinese government program to promote that country’s language and culture in foreign countries. It also empowered federal agencies to coordinate with university officials to “promote protection of controlled information as appropriate and strengthen defense against foreign intelligence services,” especially Chinese ones.

Diverging From the Path of War

Yes, in reality, we’re still in 2021, even if the Biden administration regularly cites China as our greatest threat. Naval incidents with that country’s vessels in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait are indeed on the rise, as are anti-Asian-American sentiments domestically. Meanwhile, as the planet’s two greatest greenhouse-gas emitters squabble, our world is growing hotter by the year.

Without question, something like the developments described above (and possibly far worse) will lie in our future unless action is taken to alter the path we’re now on. All of those “2026” developments, after all, are rooted in trends and actions already under way that only appear to be gathering momentum at this moment. Bills like the Innovation and Competition Act enjoy near unanimous support among Democrats and Republicans, while strong majorities in both parties favor increased funding of Pentagon spending on China-oriented weaponry. With few exceptions — Senator Bernie Sanders among them — no one in the upper ranks of government is saying: Slow down. Don’t launch another Cold War that could easily go hot.

“It is distressing and dangerous,” as Sanders wrote recently in Foreign Affairs, “that a fast-growing consensus is emerging in Washington that views the U.S.-Chinese relationship as a zero-sum economic and military struggle.” At a time when this planet faces ever more severe challenges from climate change, pandemics, and economic inequality, he added that “the prevalence of this view will create a political environment in which the cooperation that the world desperately needs will be increasingly difficult to achieve.”

In other words, we Americans face an existential choice: Do we stand aside and allow the “fast-growing consensus” Sanders speaks of to shape national policy, while abandoning any hope of genuine progress on climate change or those other perils? Alternately, do we begin trying to exert pressure on Washington to adopt a more balanced relationship with China, one that would place at least as much emphasis on cooperation as on confrontation. If we fail at this, be prepared in 2026 or soon thereafter for the imminent onset of a catastrophic (possibly even nuclear) U.S.-China war.

*

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

Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is the five-college professor emeritus of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and a senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association. He is the author of 15 books, the latest of which is All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change. He is a founder of the Committee for a Sane U.S.-China Policy.

Has Biden Botched Diplomacy with Iran?

July 14th, 2021 by Daniel Larison

All Global Research articles 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 Biden administration’s effort to reenter the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is languishing, and there is an increasing likelihood that the nuclear deal won’t be salvaged:

Hopes for a quick re-entry to the accord that Donald Trump abandoned have dimmed after six rounds of negotiations in Vienna, with little sign of when a seventh might start.

If that happens, it will not only be a major, avoidable foreign policy failure for Biden, but it will also reward Iran hawks for their years of sabotage. A collapse of the JCPOA would be a significant setback for the cause of nonproliferation, and it would send a message that the U.S. is incapable of making and honoring agreements even when they are extremely favorable to our side. It hasn’t happened yet, and administration officials may manage to stave off a complete collapse before the end of the summer, but it is worth considering how things reached this sorry state. It is not entirely the Biden administration’s fault, but they do bear a large part of the blame for letting things get to this point.

The administration’s main mistakes have been wasting too much time up front, refusing to offer any sanctions relief, and publicly entertaining the so-called “longer and stronger” follow-on agreement that no one truly thinks is possible. The Israeli government threw a wrench in the works with its campaign of assassination and sabotage, which then prompted the Iranian reaction that opponents of the deal have sought to use to discredit the agreement. Iran’s move to end implementation of the Additional Protocol clearly hasn’t helped matters, and that is a consequence of the Israeli attacks. Iranian demands for a “guarantee” that the U.S. won’t betray them again are impossible to meet (any such guarantee would be meaningless and non-binding in any case), since we all know that the next administration could easily throw the agreement in the trash again.

All of these things have contributed to the current problem, but it is the administration’s unwillingness to provide any sanctions relief and to take the most basic step of formally rejoining the agreement that have made it much more difficult to save the agreement. That unwillingness is driven at least in part by fear of being attacked by domestic hawkish critics and regional clients. No doubt Biden would have been attacked for taking the initiative in rejoining the agreement and lifting sanctions, but he did not spare himself from these attacks by dragging his feet and now he risks botching things. It is unclear to what extent Biden administration officials genuinely support the absurd “longer and stronger” agreement idea, but it hasn’t gained them anything with their domestic critics and it has helped to undermine the effort to rejoin the agreement.

Keeping all of the Trump-era “maximum pressure” sanctions in place has been the major error that may very well end up dooming that effort. For all intents and purposes, Biden has been continuing Trump’s Iran policy, and it has had the same predictable results. Had Biden begun by making significant changes to that policy by winding down the economic war that the U.S. has waged on the Iranian people, the nuclear deal’s chances of survival would be much better. As things stand now, the administration now has to salvage their salvage operation before time runs out later this year.

*

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

150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Soy and Cattle Team Up to Drive Deforestation in South America: Study

July 14th, 2021 by Liz Kimbrough

All Global Research articles 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 human population grows, so does our demand for food, and soy is one of the key crops meeting that demand. Found in far more than tofu, soy is the largest source of protein for animal feed (such as cattle) and the second-largest source of vegetable oil globally after palm oil.

The largest soy importer, China, saw a 2,000% increase in soy imports over the past two decades, with the majority going to feed cattle to meet the Chinese population’s increasing meat consumption.

“As long as the whole market is increasing meat consumption and developing countries are getting wealthier per capita and they’re changing their diets, we’re going to see soybean expand,” Matt Hansen, a professor in the Department of Geographical Sciences at the University of Maryland, told Mongabay.

Rising global soy production has led to the clearing of forests, especially in the tropics. More than half of the world’s soy is grown in South America, and between 2000 and 2019, the production of the crop on the continent has doubled, according to new research published in the journal Nature Sustainability.

Deforestation for soy in the Amazon. Photo by Rhett A. Butler for Mongabay.

Deforestation for soy in the Amazon. Photo by Rhett A. Butler for Mongabay.

The researchers used satellite imagery to identify areas of soy cultivation. Guided by this data, five teams drove around the continent to verify the extent of farms across all the biomes where soy is grown: the Amazon Rainforest, the Atlantic Forest, the Cerrado scrubland, the Chaco dry forest, the Chiquitania savanna, the Pampas grassland, the Pantanal wetland, and the Caatinga thorn-scrub forest.

The study reveals that soybean coverage in South America increased from 26.4 million hectares (65.2 million acres) in 2001 to 55.1 million hectares (136.2 million acres) in 2019, an area larger than the state of California. Most of this expansion happened in Brazil, which saw a 160% increase in the area of soybean cultivation, and Argentina, with a 57% increase in area.

Over the past three decades, human impact on natural land cover in South America has averaged 8.1 million hectares (20 million acres) per year, which is equivalent to 21.6 soccer fields per minute. Roughly 40% of all landmass in South America has been impacted by human activity since 1985.

But tracking the rates of deforestation is just one part of the story, said Hansen, a co-author of the study. Knowing what land uses replace cleared forests can help clarify the economic underpinnings of deforestation. This data allows us to ask what crops or practices are causing deforestation.

“If you know what the underlying causes are and where the new frontiers are,” Hansen said, “you can start making plans around changing the story if the story is a bad one.”

The story in South America is that livestock pasture often comes first, followed by soy. Soybean farms are typically planted on old cattle pastures, and as soy encroaches, pasture is forced into new frontiers.

“Pasture actually acts like a sponge,” Hansen said, “it soaks up this soybean demand.”

As pasture frontiers march onward, so does soy, expanding from areas of traditional cultivation. In Argentina, soy is moving south into the Chaco. In Paraguay, soy farms threaten the Atlantic Forest. Soy is also replacing the Chiquitania forest of Bolivia and the Campos grasslands in Uruguay.

And in the Amazon, where soy has expanded the most, the moving frontier of pasture drives both deforestation and fires, which are set to clear deforested lands.

This interplay between beef and soy is simple to see, Hansen says, when you make a map of deforestation, land use and fires over time. This kind of data can help clarify what really is going on when things like a big fire year or the politicization of land use and commodities occur.

For example, when the fires in the Amazon caught international attention in 2019, France, the largest buyer of Brazilian soy flour in the European Union, said it would ban imports of soybean driving deforestation and subsequent fires.

One of the first major fires of 2021, detected on the southern edge of the Brazilian Amazon. Fires are set to clear lands for pasture. Image courtesy of MAAP.

However, this new research found that only 5% of forest loss was driven directly by soybean, meaning that the time between forest clearing and soy cultivation was less than three years. Most of this direct soybean-driven deforestation occurred in the Cerrado and in the Brazilian Amazon.

Soy farmers are not starting fires, Hansen says. “We’ve been out in the field with farmers who work really hard to use cover crops to build up organic layers in their soil to make their soil more productive and they hate fire … Fire is horrible for them. It destroys the soil.”

Yet soy remains an indirect driver of deforestation and fire, and the interplay of land use is the number one point, Hansen says. Policies addressing deforestation have to consider multiple commodities at once.

“If soybean is replacing all of this cattle production land,” Hansen said, “well then where’s that cattle production being displaced?”

The public outcry over clear-cutting for soy cultivation led many large transnational companies, including Cargill, Bunge and Amaggi, to sign the voluntary Amazon Soy Moratorium, which banned direct conversion of the Amazon Rainforest for soy cultivation.

A recent study suggests that, between 2006 and 2016, deforestation was 35% lower than it would have been without the moratorium. But critics say this discounts the effects of indirect deforestation and spillover into other biomes. Because the moratorium only protects the Amazon, soy farms have moved into surrounding areas like the Cerrado savanna.

“The soy moratorium is a good example of a solution for one commodity in one place, but it covers only one biome, ignoring deforestation in the Cerrado and also the role of beef,” Vivian Ribeiro, a data scientist for Trase, told Mongabay.

Trase works to map the supply chains of commodities such as soy, beef and palm oil from where they are grown to the final buyer. This allows buyers to determine if their goods came from an area with deforestation.

Cattle ranching is the primary cause of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon today, with much of the meat exported. Photo by Rhett A. Butler.

Increasingly, companies are making private commitments to source from zero-deforestation supply chains. This is a promising strategy, Ribeiro says, but in order to work, the market needs to be more transparent. The goal is for companies to report that they are not sourcing from deforestation and to prove reliable monitoring, verification and reporting systems. “Transparency is the top thing,” she says.

“So what we’re trying to communicate to these actors is that by buying the product from some specific places, you’re exposed to deforestation,” Ribeiro said. “So if you really want, you can change the source of your production from a place associated with a lot of recent deforestation, which is basically the same as supporting deforestation.”

Previously Trase relied on regional, private, or governmental monitoring, but there were gaps in time coverage and for certain biomes. The data used in the Nature Sustainability study allows Trase and others to look at soy expansion using a standardized format on a continental scale, Ribeiro said.

Beyond these zero-deforestation commitments, Hansen says, we also need to designate “no-go zones” or areas of nature that are off-limits to any kind of development: ecosystems that exist to regulate climate, protect biodiversity, support Indigenous people, and for their own intrinsic value.

“Sometimes you have to say, ‘we’re not going to let any commodity go in,’” Hansen says. “I think that would be a better way to look at it.”

 

*

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

Liz Kimbrough is a staff writer for Mongabay. Find her on Twitter @lizkimbrough_

Featured image: Soy farm in Maranhao, Brazil. Image courtesy of Matt Hansen.

Paris Announces Troops Withdrawal from Mali, Admitting Failure of Its Sahel Strategy

July 14th, 2021 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

All Global Research articles 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.

***

France seems to have admitted its defeat in Mali. Last Friday, President Emmanuel Macron announced the closing of military bases and the withdrawal of troops from the African country, ending a long journey of occupation and conflicts that seriously damaged the entire structure of French foreign policy. After decades of interventionism, Paris recognizes its current inability to deal with African problems with a strategy of permanent occupation in the Sahel.

For months, Macron had been stating that France would no longer play a central role in the fight against terrorism in North Africa. Now, finally, the closing of the military bases has been announced, which will result in the withdrawal of more than 2,000 French soldiers. This ends the so-called “Operation Barkhane”, which was a military mission marked by a tactic of permanent occupation of the Sahel countries by French troops, aiming to impede terrorist militias from advancing after the success of the Operation Serval – which expelled terrorists from Mali in 2013, leading the state to regain control over its territory with the support of French forces.

Despite the victory in Operation Serval, the French occupation was a terrible strategic choice, which had serious consequences for the French armed forces. Having to deal with a vast territory, facing terrorist organizations and without the support of local authorities which are totally unstable and weak due to the security chaos, French troops have not managed to obtain satisfactory results in the Sahel, especially in Mali, which is currently under a politically troubled situation and sees terrorism increasing exponentially day by day. The size of the Malian territory was perhaps the main responsible for the failure of the French occupation policy: without the military personnel necessary to neutralize all strategic points, European forces became powerless in the face of the advance of terrorism, leading to the current scenario in the region.

Faced with this situation, Macron’s attitude was simple: withdraw troops and avoid further expenses and waste of material and human resources. Between the end and the beginning of 2021, almost all French facilities will be closed in Mali. The process of closing the bases will begin in the north of the country. Subsequently, the bases of Kidal, Tessalit and Tombouctou will also be deactivated, thus extinguishing the main key points in the fight against illegal armed groups currently working in the Malian territory.

By the beginning of next year, troops will have been reduced by half and will be restricted to regions that are not strategic for combating terrorism, which indicates that they will probably only act in the security of specific points, such as diplomatic and international organizations’ facilities. Furthermore, it was announced that relations with the armies of the Sahel G5 countries – Mali, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mauritania, and Niger – will be focused on supplying material, training, and consultancy, with no real joint combat operations. The work of fighting the militias will be exclusively destined to the forces of the local governments. Obviously, these armies do not have force enough to deal with such a threat alone, which indicates a terrible future for the region.

The French government, however, apparently will try to reorganize its strategy in Africa, with a radical change in its focus of attention: troops are being displaced from the Sahel to be relocated to other parts of the continent. It seems that the focus of action from now on will be the Gulf of Guinea. In the same speech in which he announced the withdrawal of troops from Mali, Macron stated: “Our enemies have abandoned their territorial ambition in favor of spreading their threat not only across the Sahel, but across all of West Africa (…) implies increased pressure on all the Gulf of Guinea countries, which is already a reality (…) We are going to reorganize ourselves in line with this need to stop this spread to the south, and it will lead to a reduction of our military footprint in the north”. However, no information on how these operations to the south will take place have been provided yet, raising suspicions about the French plans.

It is necessary to remember that a strong critical view about the French presence in Africa has been developing within French territory itself. With an increasingly Islamic population, allied to liberal humanitarianism of native people, the classification of operations in Africa as neo-colonialism tends to grow, which leads public opinion to support the withdrawal of troops. The reason Macron wants to leave the Sahel goes beyond the mere material issue, there is also an attempt to obtain popular support for the next elections. Furthermore, even the far-right parties of French politics tend to be against operations in Africa, as they consider combating terrorism within France a priority. So, it does not make sense that Macron will actually invest in a strategy of changing focus and reallocating troops at the present time.

What seems to be happening is a “freezing” in the French strategy for Africa, with which Paris tries to keep alive, but inactive, its historical ties with the region. The main bases in Mali will be deactivated and soldiers will be relocated to the south. But there will still be some soldiers, at an insignificant level, in Mali and the troops, in the same sense, will not have enough strength to prevent the advance of terrorism in the south. With this, Paris manages to maintain its presence in Africa in a “cold”, inactive, and inexpressive way, saving resources and pacifying French public opinion. This is an interesting strategic scenario, as it allows Macron’s successor – or Macron himself – to reorganize the strategy for Africa more efficiently after the election period and the stabilization in military spending.

On the other hand, the terrorists will not wait for a French return and the withdrawal of troops will mean an immediate advance of the militias, which will continue to expand across the entire African continent, controlling vast regions and forming small local caliphates. For any African country, the French plans do not matter so much, and the withdrawal of troops practically means that Paris recognizes its defeat. This will lead them to try to sign international cooperation agreements with other countries, such as Russia, China and Middle Eastern States. These countries tend increase their presence in Africa in the near future, and this leads us to believe that, above a strategic element, there is in fact a “French defeat” in the Sahel, considering that Paris will be giving space to the actions of other powers in that region that historically “belong” to France. What Macron is trying to do is rein in his losses and create a scenario that will allow the French presence to resurface later.

*

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

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

“Fit for 55”: The EU Green Deal and the Industrial Collapse of Europe

July 14th, 2021 by F. William Engdahl

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

One of the rare honest statements by Bill Gates was his remark in early 2021 that if you think covid measures are bad, wait until the measures for global warming. The European Union is in the process of imposing, top-down, the most draconian measures to date, that will effectively destroy modern industry across the face of the 27 states of the European Union. Under cute names such as “Fit for 55” and European Green Deal, measures are being finalized in Brussels by unelected technocrats that will cause the worst industrial unemployment and economic collapse since the crisis of the 1930s. Industries such as automobile or transport, power generation and steel are on the chopping block, all for an unproven hypothesis called manmade global warming.

While most EU citizens have been distracted by endless restrictions over a flu-like pandemic called covid19, the technocrats at the EU Commission in Brussels have been preparing a program of planned dis-integration of the EU industrial economy. The convenient aspect of an unelected supranational group far away in Brussels or Strasbourg is that they are not accountable to any real voters. They even have a name for it: Democratic Deficit. If the measures about to be finalized by the EU Commission under German President Ursula von der Leyen and Vice President for Global Warming Dutch technocrat Frans Timmermans, are enacted, here is a hint of what will happen.

“Fit for 55”

On July 14, the EU Commission presents its “Fit for 55” green agenda. While the title sounds more like an ad for a middle-ager health studio, it will be the most draconian and destructive de-industrialization program ever imposed outside of war.

Fit for 55 will be the central framework of new laws and rules from Brussels to reduce CO2 emissions dramatically, using schemes such as carbon taxes, emission caps and cap and trade schemes.

In April 2021 the EU Commission announced a new EU climate target: Emissions to be reduced by 55 percent by 2030 compared to 1990, up from the 40 percent as previously agreed. Hence the cute name “Fit for 55.” But the industry and workforce of the EU states will be anything but fit if the plan is advanced. Simply said, it is technocratic fascism being imposed without public debate on some 455 million EU citizens.

This Fit for 55 is the first time in the world that a group of countries, the EU, officially imposes an agenda to force an absurd “Zero” CO2 by 2050 and 55% less CO2 by 2030. EU Green Deal czar, Commissioner Frans Timmermans said in May, “We will strengthen the EU Emissions Trading System, update the Energy Taxation Directive, and propose new CO2 standards for cars, new energy efficiency standards for buildings, new targets for renewables, and new ways of supporting clean fuels and infrastructure for clean transport.” In reality it will destroy the transport industry, steel, cement as well as coal and gas fuel electric generation.

Here are major parts of the sinister Fit For 55.

Cars and Trucks

A major target of the EU Green Deal will be measures that will force internal combustion engine vehicles– gasoline or diesel cars and trucks—to adhere to such punitive CO2 emission limits that they will be forced off the roads by 2030 if not sooner. The plan will change the current target of a 37.5% reduction in vehicle CO2 emissions by 2030 to a rumored zero emissions by 2035.

On July 7 a coalition of trade unions, transport industry companies and suppliers including the European Trade Union Confederation and the European Automobile Manufacturers Association, wrote an urgent appeal to EU Green Czar Frans Timmermans. They stated, “…we want to see industrial transformation and innovation in Europe, rather than de-industrialisation and social disruption.” The letter pointed out that the EU has no plans for a so-called “Just Transition” for the EU auto industry including no new skills training for displaced workers: “Currently, there is no such framework for the 16 million workers in our mobility eco-system, and notably Europe’s automotive sector which is a powerhouse of industrial employment.”

This is no minor issue as the transition from internal combustion engine cars and trucks to E-autos will mean a huge unprecedented disruption to the present auto supplier chains. The letter points out that EU-wide, the auto sector has 8.5% of all European manufacturing jobs and in 2019 produced nearly 10% of GDP in Germany alone, along with 40% of the country’s research and development spending. The EU today makes up more than 50% of the world’s exports of auto products. They point out that the transition to zero CO2 vehicles will mean a loss of at least 2.4 million skilled, high-wage jobs across the EU. Entire regions will become depressed. The letter points out that Brussels has yet to even map the consequences for the auto sector of the Green Deal.

In April German EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen indicated July Fit for 55 could extend a draconian carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) from beyond power plants or industry to cover road transport and buildings in a “polluter pays” add on. The tie to the ETS will automatically force financial penalties on drivers or home owners beyond the present carbon taxes despite a very limited impact of some 3% on emissions. This, on top of tighter auto emission standards, will deal a killer blow to consumers and industry. When the French government imposed such a carbon tax in 2018 it triggered the Yellow Vests national protests and forced Paris to withdraw it.

Steel

The drastic EU plan contains new provisions that will mean drastic change for the energy-intensive EU steel and cement industries. Steel is the second biggest industry in the world after oil and gas. Currently the EU is the second largest producer of steel in the world after China. Its output is over 177 million tons of steel a year, or 11% of global output. But the Timmermans plan will introduce new measures that ostensibly penalize steel imports from “dirty” producers, but that in fact will make EU steel less competitive globally. Leaks of the EU plan indicate that they plan to eliminate current free ETS pollution permits for energy-intensive industries such as steel or cement. That will deal a devastating blow to both essential industries. They call it the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. As the Center for European Policy Network points out, EU steel exporters will “not receive any compensation for the discontinuation of the free allocation. As a result, they suffer considerable competitive disadvantages compared to their competitors from third countries.“

Coal Carbon Taxes

The EU’s new 55% climate target for 2030 implies a near-complete coal phase-out by 2030 in the whole EU. This will hit Germany, far the largest EU coal power user. The German government, already with the world’s most expensive electric power owing to the Merkel Energiewende transition to unreliable solar and wind that will see the last nuclear power plant closed in 2022, has just recently dropped its plan to phase out coal by 2038. It will phase out far earlier, but for obvious political reasons in an election year, has not revealed its new “zero coal” date.

The absurdity of believing the EU, especially Germany, will be able to achieve zero coal by 2030, replacing not even with natural gas, but rather unreliable solar and wind, is already clear. On January 1, 2021 as part of the Government mandate on coal power reduction, 11 coal-fired power plants with a total capacity of 4.7 GW were shut down. That phase out lasted eight days as several of the coal power plants had to be reconnected to the grid to avoid blackouts due to a prolonged low-wind period. The shut coal plants were ordered to operate on reserve status at the cost of the consumers. The Berlin government commission that drafted the coal phase-out plan included no power industry representatives nor any power grid experts.

With the new element of the destructive EU Commission Fit for 55 plan, the heart of European industry, Germany, is pre-programmed not only for severe industrial unemployment in steel, cement and auto sectors. It is also pre-programmed for power blackouts such as that that devastated Texas in early 2021 when wind mills froze. In 2022 in Germany, as noted, the last nuclear plant along with other coal power will be closed, removing 3% of the power. An added 6,000 wind turbines also will exit due to age, for a total cut of 7%. Yet planned addition of new wind and solar doesn’t come close to replace that, so that by 2022 Germany could have a shortfall of between 10% and 15% in capacity on the generation side.

WEF Great Reset and EU Green Deal

The hard thing for ordinary sane citizens to grasp with this EU Fit for 55 and the Davos Great Reset or the related UN Agenda 2030 globally, is that it is all a deliberate technocratic plan for dis-integration of the economy, using the fraudulent excuse of an unproven global warming danger that claims– based on dodgy computer models that ignore influence of our sun on Earth climate cycles– that we will see catastrophe by 2030 if the world does not slash harmless and life-essential CO2 emissions.

The ever-active Davos World Economic Forum as part of its Great Reset is also playing a significant role in shaping the EU Commission’s Europe Green Deal. In January 2020, the World Economic Forum at its Annual Meeting in Davos brought together leaders from industry and business with Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans to explore how to catalyze the European Green Deal. The July 14 unveiling by Brussels is the result. The WEF supports the CEO Action Group for the European Green Deal to get major corporations behind the Brussels dystopian plan. 

*

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

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. 

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

Featured image is from NEO

seeds_2.jpg

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

“The Fog of Uncertainty”: An Opportunity for the Citizen in Every War

July 14th, 2021 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Who still doubts that we have been at war for over a year? In the Third World War of a super-rich and power-hungry “elite” against us citizens. But war, according to the notorious Prussian Major General and military strategist Carl von Clausewitz, is “the realm of uncertainty”. Thus, every war holds an opportunity for the citizen. He only has to seize it. George Orwell believed:

“The moral to be drawn from this nightmare is a simple one: Don’t let it happen! It depends on you!”(1)

Fog of War – Fog of War

The term “fog of war” refers to the fact that information relevant to war always has a certain uncertainty and incompleteness due to various circumstances (2). It first appeared in Carl von Clausewitz’s (1780 to 1831) work. In his main work “On War”, he describes the strategic necessity of making decisions under time pressure with incomplete information to the best of one’s knowledge and conscience:

“War is the field of uncertainty; three-fourths of those things on which action in war is built lie in the mist of a more or less great uncertainty. Here, then, it is first where a fine, penetrating mind is called upon to feel out the truth with the tact of its judgment.” (3)

His theories on strategy, tactics and philosophy had a great influence on the development of warfare in all Western countries and are still taught at military academies today. They are also applied in the field of business management as well as in marketing.

“The Fog of War” was also an award-winning US documentary film released in 2003 with the subtitle “Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara”. A German summary of the film in “google.com” states:

“Roughly 160 million people were killed in the 20th century. It was one of the most violent in human history. The film suggests that we take a closer look at this tragic century as a clue to how we can avoid a repeat in the 21st century. (…).” (4)

Come on, let’s get to work! Even in the face of the satanic master plan of eugenics of the power-hungry “elite” as well as the psychological warfare against civil society, together we can prevent a repetition or even a worsening of violent history in our century: If we don’t let it happen!

Psychological Operations (PSYOP)

It is a bitter reality that in the current war against us citizens, all kinds of methods and measures are used to influence our behaviour and attitudes: morale is disturbed and diminished, the will is broken and perception is distorted. In NATO parlance, the term “Psychological Operations” (PSYOP) has become established as a parallel discipline to MEDIAOPS (Media Operations), which in civilian parlance means “public relations” / media work. PSYOPS and MEDIAOPS are sub-disciplines of INFOOPS (Informational Operations) (5).

As an example of the systematic destruction of the human psyche, the techniques of coercion, compulsion and perceptual programming, which the psychologist Dr. Albert Biedermann summarised in 1956 under the title “Bidermann’s Diagram of Coercion”, are presented below. These techniques are designed to destroy people’s thinking, will and self-respect. Military personnel have used them to force (false) confessions from prisoners of war. Under the term “mind control” they have been practised on individuals and groups for many years (6).

Since one can quickly find what one is looking for on the internet, the seven measures for breaking the will and producing obedience are only briefly listed by Dr. Biedermann. But already this will make clear to many readers the obvious parallels to the illegitimate “emergency measures” of today’s politics:

  1. Isolation

Isolation means depriving a person of all social support from fellow human beings in order to break through the ability to resist. See “social distancing”.

  1. Monopolisation of perception

Only one opinion, the mainstream opinion, is accepted and tolerated and any opinion that differs from it is defamed or access to it is blocked.

  1. Induced exhaustion and debilitation

Exhaustion weakens mental and physical resilience. By stoking fears and creating circumstances of constant insecurity, one is deprived of any sense of security and stability.

  1. Threats of negative consequences, punishments and violence for non-compliance with rules.

Threats from outside create fear and despair. The individual no longer has any decision-making power.

  1. Occasional concessions

For example, one promise is: If enough people got vaccinated, then maybe we can go back to the old normal.

  1. Humiliation and degradation

By threatening harsh punishments for nonsensical actions and defaming those who do not play by the rules, people increasingly lose the courage to resist.

  1. Making the victim dependent on the perpetrator

The more the economy and material livelihoods are destroyed, the more the citizens become dependent on the benefits of the state. The more dependent the victim is on the perpetrator, the more obedient he or she becomes.

George Orwell: “Don’t let it happen! It depends on you!”

An English cartoon from the silent film era around the 1920s finally made me breathe a sigh of relief: “An Early Warning Cartoon ‘How To Take Over The World'”. (7). Already 100 years ago, the modern rulers were shown what infamous methods are suitable for taking over the world and its people.

This must convince the last doubter that the political “emergency measures” used today are old-fashioned means of discipline and domination that the enlightened citizen can subvert with a little courage. The individual steps were accompanied by a graphic and appropriate music:

  1. use flu as a weapon
  2. flood the newspaper and radio with death
  3. close shops and church
  4. use law enforcers to suppress dissent
  5. display the sick and the dead
  6. inject a vaccine to sterilise the work-shy and put the old to sleep
  7. the people who own the banks now own the hospitals.
  8. this is their plan to own YOU

After the cartoon, a short interview excerpt by George Orwell (1903 to 1950) was inserted. In it, he probably predicts a bleak future towards the end of his life:

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot incessantly kicking a human face. The moral to be drawn from this nightmare is a simple one: don’t let it happen! It depends on you! (8)

Seize the opportunity!

There is not much to add to George Orwell’s exhortation.

If we return to the words of the military strategist Carl von Clausewitz quoted at the beginning of this article, it must be stated that in the fog of war it is not only the military that must first call upon its fine, penetrating intellect in order to find out the truth with the tact of its judgement. It is also the task of every citizen to find out the truth so that the nightmare may come to an end.

To be sure, a free thinker never claims that he has the truth. For the free mind, there is an unlimited number of truths to be discovered and subject to change. For him, truth is what is not a dogmatic shackle and does not divide people into believers and non-believers or those of other faiths, but rather benefits the coexistence of people and promotes their understanding.

However, what is happening in our society at the moment goes completely against human nature, harms coexistence and destroys harmony. That is why citizens will wake up even before their human consciousness is paralysed by remote control. Dictatorships have never survived over time because those in power underestimated the unconditional will to live and the resilience of the citizens.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

(1) Warnte ein altes Cartoon uns vor?

(2) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebel_des_Krieges

(3) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebel_des_Krieges

(4) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War

(5) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologische_Kriegsführung

(6) https://www.inspiriert-sein.de/systematische-zerstoerung-menschlichen-psyche-biedermanns-diagramm-des-zwangs

(7) Warnte ein altes Cartoon uns vor?

(8) Warnte ein altes Cartoon uns vor?

Independent Media and Freedom of Expression. Global Research Needs Your Support

July 14th, 2021 by The Global Research Team

Dear readers,

Running an independent counter-current news media in 2021 at the height of an unfolding World crisis is no easy feat.

Independent media and freedom of expression are threatened. The ultimate goal is the silencing of any voice of opposition to the mainstream narrative.

We find ourselves dedicating mounting time and resources to navigating our way through a maze of biased search engine algorithms. The message is nonetheless getting out. Despite online censorship, yesterday, we ended up with more than 100,000 page views, reaching people all over the World.

To confront the “Big Lie” and ensure “Truth in Media”, Global Research needs your support!

On GlobalResearch.ca, the viewpoints put forth are intent upon building dialogue and understanding.

We publish articles by a wide variety of specialists dotted all over the globe including journalists and scholars, political analysts and historians, medical doctors and scientists, ex-military and intelligence personnel, to name but a few.

Our commitment is to make our articles and videos available to the broadest possible readership, on a non-commercial basis, without the need for a login for paid subscribers. You can help us in this project by making a financial contribution below, or by sharing our articles far and wide via social media, e-mail lists, blog sites, etc.

To reverse the tide we need your help. We thank you for your support!

If you value Global Research, please consider becoming a member or making a donation by clicking below.

To send your donation by mail, kindly send your cheque or international money order, in US$, Can$ or Euro, made out to CRG, to our postal address: click here for details.

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

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

Click to view our membership plans

Thank you for supporting independent media.

The Global Research Team

Selected Articles: Four New Scientific Discoveries Regarding the Safety and Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccines

July 14th, 2021 by Global Research News

Letter to Physicians: Four New Scientific Discoveries Regarding the Safety and Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccines

By Doctors for COVID Ethics, July 13, 2021

Rapid and efficient memory-type immune responses occur reliably in virtually all unvaccinated individuals who are exposed to SARS-CoV-2. The effectiveness of further boosting the immune response through vaccination is therefore highly doubtful. Vaccination may instead aggravate disease through antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).

Post-COVID Vaccine Deaths Are Not Being Autopsied – Why?

By Ethan Huff, July 13, 2021

Dr. Jane Orient, M.D., the executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), wants to know why the medical system is refusing to perform autopsies on the bodies of people who died not long after getting “vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19).

Graphene Sensors Read Low-frequency Neural Waves Associated with Distinct Brain States

By Tom Foley, July 13, 2021

Graphene Flagship scientists have developed a sensor based on CVD graphene that detects brain signals in a wide frequency band, from extremely low frequencies to high frequency oscillations. The sensor is biocompatible and could be used to measure and predict brain states. Furthermore, the graphene sensors could be used in chronic implants due to their high stability in the brain.

President Joe Biden Announces Door to Door Pursuit to Inoculate Millions of Americans Within Their Own Homes

By Renee Parsons, July 13, 2021

As if the conflict between American parents, their public school districts and CDC requirements were not already enough to create a firestorm of unpredictable proportions, pretend President Joe Biden has dramatically increased the stakes by announcing an imminent door to door pursuit to inoculate millions of Americans within their own home.

The War Economy Must End. Where Do These Aegis Naval Destroyers Go?

By Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, July 13, 2021

Aegis also carry SM-3 interceptor missiles whose job is to take out any retaliatory strikes after the US launches a first-strike attack on China or Russia. (So-called ‘missile defense’.) SM-3 missiles are not nuclear – they are called ‘kinetic’ which means they crash into the other missiles and they both explode.

FDA to Add Warning to J&J Vaccine of ‘Serious but Rare’ Autoimmune Disorder

By Megan Redshaw, July 13, 2021

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will announce a new warning on Johnson & Johnson’s COVID vaccine saying the shot is linked to Guillain–Barré syndrome. In April, the agency added a warning about blood clotting disorders to the J&J shot.

The Miami-Haiti Connection: Another Mercenary, Another Day

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, July 13, 2021

This weekend we found out that the Colombian men arrested in connection with the assassination of Haitian president Jovenel Moïse may have been hired by a Florida private security company with Venezuelan connections. Furthermore, they might have been deployed on behalf of an Haitian ex-pat in Miami who wanted to replace Moïse as president.

NATO Chief Meets with Egyptian, Israeli Foreign Ministers at Alliance Headquarters

By Rick Rozoff, July 13, 2021

On June 12 NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg met with Israeli Foreign Minister and Alternate Prime Minister Yair Lapid at the military bloc’s headquarters in Brussels. Stoltenberg praised Israel as “one of NATO’s most engaged and capable partners,” one of over twenty years’ standing, and a member of the bloc’s Mediterranean Dialogue military partnership.

Video: Electromagnetic Properties of the Vaccine: The Magnet Challenge. We Want Answers

By Not On The Beeb, July 13, 2021

We want answers! 100s of people prove the magnet challenge in this compilation. This collection of videos is a glimpse of the 1000s worldwide discovering they have been magnetic and we demand answers. Is there a substance in the vaccine vial which triggers this phenomenon?

Why Human Rights in China and Tigray, but Not in Haiti, Palestine or Colombia?

By Black Alliance for Peace, July 13, 2021

U.S. President Joe Biden and the Democrats have been playing the “Black Lives Matter” tune on their fiddle. Biden even raised the issue of Black Lives Matter during his presidential campaign. But, just days after Biden was sworn into office, his administration lent support for the Haitian dictator, Jovenel Moïse, who stayed in office past his term to the dismay of the Haitian people, who flooded the streets in protest.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Four New Scientific Discoveries Regarding the Safety and Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccines
  • Tags:

The Right to be Let Alone: What to Do When COVID Strike Force Teams Come Knocking

July 14th, 2021 by John W. Whitehead

All Global Research articles 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.

***

“Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent.”—Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

A federal COVID-19 vaccination strike force may soon be knocking on your door, especially if you live in a community with low vaccination rates. Will you let them in?

More to the point, are you required to open the door?

The Biden Administration has announced that it plans to send federal “surge response teams” on a “targeted community door-to-door outreach“ to communities with low vaccination rates in order to promote the safety and accessibility of the COVID-19 vaccines.

That’s all fine and good as far as government propaganda goes, but nothing is ever as simple or as straightforward as the government claims, especially not when armed, roving bands of militarized agents deployed by the Nanny State show up at your door with an agenda that is at odds with what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis referred to as the constitutional “right to be let alone.”

Any attempt by the government to encroach upon the citizenry’s privacy rights or establish a system by which the populace can be targeted, tracked and singled out must be met with extreme caution. These door-to-door “visits” by COVID-19 surge response teams certainly qualify as a government program whose purpose, while seemingly benign, raises significant constitutional concerns.

First, there is the visit itself.

While government agents can approach, speak to and even question citizens without violating the Fourth Amendment, Americans have a right not to answer questions or even speak with a government agent.

Courts have upheld these “knock and talk” visits as lawful, reasoning that even though the curtilage of the home is protected by the Fourth Amendment, there is an implied license to approach a residence, knock on the door/ring the bell, and seek to contact occupants. However, the encounter is wholly voluntary and a person is under no obligation to speak with a government agent in this situation.

Indeed, you don’t even need to answer or open the door in response to knocking/ringing by a government agent, and if you do answer the knock, you can stop speaking at any time. You also have the right to demand that government agents leave the property once the purpose of the visit is established. Government officials would not be enforcing any law or warrant in this context, and so they don’t have the authority of law to remain on the property after a homeowner or resident specifically revokes the implied license to come onto the property.

When the government’s actions go beyond merely approaching the door and knocking, it risks violating the Fourth Amendment, which requires a warrant and probable cause of possible wrongdoing in order to search one’s property. A government agent would violate the Fourth Amendment if he snooped around the premises, peering into window and going to other areas in search of residents.

It should be pointed out that some judges (including Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch) believe that placing “No Trespassing” signs or taking other steps to impede access to the door is sufficient to negate any implied permission for government agents or others to approach your home, but this view does not have general acceptance.

While in theory one can refuse to speak with police or other government officials during a “knock and talk” encounter, as the courts have asserted as a justification for dismissing complaints about this police investigative tactic, the reality is far different. Indeed, it is unreasonable to suggest that individuals caught unaware by these tactics will not feel pressured in the heat of the moment to comply with a request to speak with government agents who display official credentials and are often heavily armed, let alone allow them to search one’s property. Even when such consent is denied, police have been known to simply handcuff the homeowner and conduct a search over his objections.

Second, there is the danger inherent in these knock-and-talk encounters.

Although courts have embraced the fiction that “knock and talks” are “voluntary” encounters that are no different from other door-to-door canvassing, these constitutionally dubious tactics are highly intimidating confrontations meant to pressure individuals into allowing police access to one’s home, which then paves the way for a warrantless search of one’s home and property.

The act of going to homes and taking steps to speak with occupants is akin to the “knock and talk” tactic used by police, which can be fraught with danger for homeowners and government agents alike. Indeed, “knock-and-talk” policing has become a thinly veiled, warrantless exercise by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night.

“Knock-and-shoot” policing might be more accurate, however.

“Knock and talks” not only constitute severe violations of the privacy and security of homeowners, but the combination of aggression and surprise employed by police is also a recipe for a violent confrontation that rarely ends well for those on the receiving end of these tactics.

For example, although 26-year-old Andrew Scott had committed no crime and never fired a single bullet or threatened police, he was gunned down by police who knocked aggressively on the wrong door at 1:30 am, failed to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shot and killed Scott when he answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense. The police were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night “knock and talk” in Scott’s apartment complex.

Carl Dykes was shot in the face by a county deputy who pounded on Dykes’ door in the middle of the night without identifying himself. Because of reports that inmates had escaped from a local jail, Dykes brought a shotgun with him when he answered the door.

As these and other incidents make clear, while Americans have a constitutional right to question the legality of a police action or resist an unlawful police order, doing so can often get one arrested, shot or killed.

Third, there is the question of how the government plans to use the information it obtains during these knock-and-talk visits.

Because the stated purpose of the program is to promote vaccination, homeowners and others who reside at the residence will certainly be asked if they are vaccinated. Again, you have a right not to answer this or any other question. Indeed, an argument could be made that even asking this question is improper if the purpose of the program is merely to ensure that Americans “have the information they need on how both safe and accessible the vaccine is.”

Under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, an agency should only collect and maintain information about an individual as is “relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency.” In this situation, the government agent could accomplish the purpose of assuring persons have information about the vaccine simply by providing that information (either in writing or orally) and would not need to know the vaccination status of the residents. To the extent the agents do request, collect and store information about residents’ vaccination status, this could be a Privacy Act violation.

Of course, there is always the danger that this program could be used for other, more nefarious, purposes not related to vaccination encouragement. As with knock-and-talk policing, government agents might misuse their appearance of authority to gain entrance to a residence and obtain other information about it and those who live there. Once the door is opened by a resident, anything the agents can see from their vantage point can be reported to law enforcement authorities.

Moreover, while presumably the targeting will be of areas with demonstrated low vaccination rates, there is no guarantee that this program would not be used as cover for conducting surveillance on areas deemed to be “high crime” areas as a way of obtaining intelligence for law enforcement purposes.

We’ve been down this road before, with the government sending its spies to gather intel on American citizens by questioning them directly, or by asking their neighbors to snitch on them.

Remember the egregiously invasive and intrusive American Community Survey?

Unlike the traditional census, which collects data every ten years, the American Community Survey (ACS) is sent to about 3 million homes per year at a reported cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover, while the traditional census is limited to ascertaining the number of persons living in each dwelling, their ages and ethnicities, the ownership of the dwelling and telephone numbers, the ACS is much more intrusive, asking questions relating to respondents’ bathing habits, home utility costs, fertility, marital history, work commute, mortgage, and health insurance, among other highly personal and private matters.

Individuals who receive the ACS must complete it or be subject to monetary penalties. Although no reports have surfaced of individuals actually being penalized for refusing to answer the survey, the potential fines that can be levied for refusing to participate in the ACS are staggering. For every question not answered, there is a $100 fine. And for every intentionally false response to a question, the fine is $500. Therefore, if a person representing a two-person household refused to fill out any questions or simply answered nonsensically, the total fines could range from upwards of $10,000 and $50,000 for noncompliance.

At 28 pages (with an additional 16-page instruction packet), the ACS contains some of the most detailed and intrusive questions ever put forth in a census questionnaire. These concern matters that the government simply has no business knowing, including questions relating to respondents’ bathing habits, home utility costs, fertility, marital history, work commute, mortgage, and health insurance, among others. For instance, the ACS asks how many persons live in your home, along with their names and detailed information about them such as their relationship to you, marital status, race and their physical, mental and emotional problems, etc. The survey also asks how many bedrooms and bathrooms you have in your house, along with the fuel used to heat your home, the cost of electricity, what type of mortgage you have and monthly mortgage payments, property taxes and so on.

However, that’s not all.

The survey also demands to know how many days you were sick last year, how many automobiles you own and the number of miles driven, whether you have trouble getting up the stairs, and what time you leave for work every morning, along with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. And the survey demands that you violate the privacy of others by supplying the names and addresses of your friends, relatives and employer. The questionnaire also demands that you give other information on the people in your home, such as their educational levels, how many years of school were completed, what languages they speak and when they last worked at a job, among other things.

While some of the ACS’ questions may seem fairly routine, the real danger is in not knowing why the information is needed, how it will be used by the government or with whom it will be shared.

Finally, you have the right to say “no.”

Whether police are knocking on your door at 2 am or 2:30 pm, as long as you’re being “asked” to talk to a police officer who is armed to the teeth and inclined to kill at the least provocation, you don’t really have much room to resist, not if you value your life.

Mind you, these knock-and-talk searches are little more than police fishing expeditions carried out without a warrant.

The goal is intimidation and coercion.

Unfortunately, with police departments increasingly shifting towards pre-crime policing and relying on dubious threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports aimed at snaring potential enemies of the state, we’re going to see more of these warrantless knock-and-talk police tactics by which police attempt to circumvent the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement and prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Here’s the bottom line.

These agents are coming to your home with one purpose in mind: to collect information on you.

It’s a form of intimidation, of course. You shouldn’t answer any questions you’re uncomfortable answering about your vaccine history or anything else. The more information you give them, the more it can be used against you. Just ask them politely but firmly to leave.

In this case, as in so many interactions with government agents, the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments (and your cell phone recording the encounter) are your best protection.

Under the First Amendment, you don’t have to speak (to government officials or anyone else). The Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. And under the Fifth Amendment, you have a right to remain silent and not say anything which might be used against you.

You can also post a “No Trespassing” sign on your property to firmly announce that you are exercising your right to be left alone. If you see government officials wandering around your property and peering through windows, in my opinion, you have a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Government officials can ring the doorbell, but once you put them on notice that it’s time for them to leave, they can’t stay on your property.

It’s important to be as clear as possible and inform them that you will call the police if they don’t leave. You may also wish to record your encounter with the government agent. If they still don’t leave, immediately call the local police and report a trespasser on your property.

Remember, you have rights.

The government didn’t want us to know about—let alone assert—those rights during this whole COVID-19 business.

After all, for years now, the powers-that-be—those politicians and bureaucrats who think like tyrants and act like petty dictators regardless of what party they belong to—have attempted to brainwash us into believing that we have no right to think for ourselves, make decisions about our health, protect our homes and families and businesses, act in our best interests, demand accountability and transparency from government, or generally operate as if we are in control of our own lives.

But we have every right, and you know why?

Because as the Declaration of Independence states, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights—to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness—that no government can take away from us.

Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped the government from constantly trying to usurp our freedoms at every turn. Indeed, the nature of government is such that it invariably oversteps its limits, abuses its authority, and flexes its totalitarian muscles.

Take this COVID-19 crisis, for example.

What started out as an apparent effort to prevent a novel coronavirus from sickening the nation (and the world) has become yet another means by which world governments (including our own) can expand their powers, abuse their authority, and further oppress their constituents.

The government has made no secret of its plans.

Just follow the money trail, and you’ll get a sense of what’s in store: more militarized police, more SWAT team raids, more surveillance, more lockdowns, more strong-armed tactics aimed at suppressing dissent and forcing us to comply with the government’s dictates.

It’s chilling to think about, but it’s not surprising.

In many ways, this COVID-19 state of emergency has invested government officials (and those who view their lives as more valuable than ours) with a sanctimonious, self-righteous, arrogant, Big Brother Knows Best approach to top-down governing, and the fall-out can be seen far and wide.

It’s an ugly, self-serving mindset that views the needs, lives and rights of “we the people” as insignificant when compared to those in power.

That’s how someone who should know better such as Alan Dershowitz, a former Harvard law professor, can suggest that a free people—born in freedom, endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, and living in a country birthed out of a revolutionary struggle for individual liberty—have no rights to economic freedom, to bodily integrity, or to refuse to comply with a government order with which they disagree.

According to Dershowitz, who has become little more than a legal apologist for the power elite, “You have no right not to be vaccinated, you have no right not to wear a mask, you have no right to open up your business… And if you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.”

Dershowitz is wrong: as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, while the courts may increasingly defer to the government’s brand of Nanny State authoritarianism, we still have rights.

The government may try to abridge those rights, it may refuse to recognize them, it may even attempt to declare martial law and nullify them, but it cannot litigate, legislate or forcefully eradicate them out of existence.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

The Hidden Hand of the US Blockade Sparks Cuba Protests

July 14th, 2021 by Medea Benjamin

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Protests erupted in various Cuban cities the weekend of July 11 over dire economic conditions and a surge in Covid-19 cases. They are the biggest protests to hit Cuba in three decades, and they may well continue in the coming weeks. They come on the heels of artists’ protests in Havana at the end of 2020, and have extended to many parts of the island. But their scale has been exaggerated by the Western press and by Cuban Americans who have been predicting, for 60 years, the imminent fall of the Cuban government.

Media outlets like The New York Times wrote about “hundreds of Cubans” while Reuters described them as thousands. In either case, Cuba has a population of 11 million people. The protests pale in comparison, both in terms of turnout and in state repression, to mass mobilizations that have rocked Colombia, Haiti, Chile, Ecuador and other Latin American countries over the past few years—or even Portland, Oregon, or Ferguson, Missouri. Moreover, U.S. media have paid little attention to the counter protesters, who have gone out into the streets to express their support for the government and Cuban Revolution. This includes Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel, who marched in the streets of Havana after denouncing the protests as an attempt to “fracture the unity of the people.”

The protests should also be understood in the context of a brutal economic war waged by the United States against the island nation for more than 60 years. This was laid out clearly by the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in 1960, when he explicitly called for “denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.” This strategy has failed in its goal of regime change for decades, and it is unlikely to be successful now.

There is no denying that Cubans are facing very severe conditions at the moment. The country has been hit by blackouts, as well as shortages of medicine, food and other basic necessities. The food shortages haven’t led to hunger or famine, but people have to wait in long lines to obtain goods—often at inflated prices—and their diet is extremely limited.

In terms of health, even basic medicines and equipment like syringes are difficult to acquire. Additionally, there has been an increase in Covid-19 cases, particularly in the city of Matanzas. However, this surge—as onerous as it is on the people of Matanzas—should also be kept in perspective. Cuba, a nation of roughly 11 million people, has had fewer than 240,000 cases of Covid-19 and 1,537 deaths. By comparison, Ohio, which has a similarly sized population, has had 1.1 million cases and more than 20,000 deaths. Despite the shortages, Cuban health policies have protected the population from the worst of the pandemic. With 139 deaths from Covid-19 per million population, Cuba places among the best performers in the hemisphere, miles ahead of the 1,871 deaths per million in the United States. Furthermore, Cuba has already proven that two of the five Covid-19 vaccines that it is developing are successful in preventing coronavirus infections and has vaccinated over two million people with their locally produced vaccines.

The shortages are being used by proponents of regime change to accuse the Cuban government of failing its citizens. Even the Biden White House called on Cuba’s authorities to “hear their people and serve their needs at this vital moment rather than enriching themselves.” It is unclear who Biden thinks has been “enriching themselves” in Cuba, but any criticism of Cuba that does not include a thorough analysis of the internationally condemned U.S. blockade will miss the most important factor in why Cubans are currently undergoing such hardships.

While the blockade has been in place for over six decades, it was tightened in significant ways under the Trump administration’s policy of “maximum pressure.” This strategy targeted Cuba’s tourism, energy and other key economic sectors. It even restricted the amounts of money Cuban Americans can send home and closed the Cuban branches of Western Union, the main vehicle for sending remittances. These policies have had a disastrous impact on the Cuban economy, especially when the Covid-induced shutdown of the tourist industry has deprived the island of billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. For its part, the Biden administration has been “reviewing” its Cuba policy for six months, all the while continuing Trump’s strategy of economic warfare that is designed precisely to create the shortages Cubans are now experiencing.

U.S. economic warfare on Cuba has always been coupled with other strategies to overthrow the Cuban government. These include assassination attempts, support for terrorists (like Luis Posada Carriles, who blew up a Cuban airliner in 1976, killing 73 people), an attempted invasion and millions of dollars spent on “soft” power. For example, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) spends about $20 million a year funding dissident groups in Cuba. The U.S.-funded Office of Cuba Broadcasting, which runs the opposition networks Radio and TV Martí, has over 100 employees and an annual budget of about $28 million, broadcasting an endless stream of anti-government propaganda.

This propaganda extends to social media, where the hashtag #SOSCuba began trending in Florida days before the protests began. This suggests that there was a coordinated campaign to target the Cuban government and blame it for the hardships the Cuban people are facing. It is also reminiscent of a scandal that broke in 2020, when CLS Strategies, a company with State Department ties, was found to have flooded social networks with harmful fake news about leftist governments in Latin America.

This social media campaign appears to be working, but not in Cuba. Instead, it has riled up the anti-Cuba lobby and its supporters in Florida. Miami Mayor Francis Suarez has gone so far as to call for U.S. intervention. The truth is that what happens in Florida will likely have more of an impact on the Cuban people than what happens in Cuba itself.

While the protests are very unlikely to topple the Cuban government, they could have the potential to disrupt important progress being made to pressure the Biden administration into lifting the Trump-era sanctions and re-engaging with Cuba, just as the Obama administration did. For example, in March, 80 members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to President Biden urging him to end restrictions on travel and remittances without delay. Right now, a group of Cuban Americans, led by high school teacher and war veteran Carlos Lazo, is walking from Miami to Washington, D.C., to call for an end to the embargo. And as part of this anti-blockade pressure, thousands of Americans have donated about $500,000 to buy syringes for Cuba’s Covid-19 vaccinations.

This grassroots and political pressure might be derailed by a right-wing agenda that will seek to further punish Cubans in the name of saving them. It would not be surprising to see President Biden cave to the right and maintain the cruel sanctions. Judging by the White House statement, President Biden is putting crass political calculations that deal with domestic politics ahead of the well-being of 11 million Cubans.

But by continuing the sanctions, Biden may well find himself dealing with a Cuban migration crisis. Over the past few months, the U.S. Coast Guard has reported an increase in the number of rafts sailing from Cuba to Florida. Nearly 500 would-be migrants have been returned to Cuba by U.S. authorities in 2021, compared to 49 people last year. As long as the Cuban economy continues to be battered by U.S. sanctions, more Cubans will attempt the treacherous overseas journey. This has the potential to become a crisis that will damage the Biden administration, given its recent focus on deterring migration.

With the stroke of a pen, Biden could lift all of the coercive measures that Trump put in place. This would save Cuban lives, and it could begin to reset Biden’s foreign policy on the more diplomatic path that Obama finally started to embrace in his second term, but which Biden has so far rejected toward Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, China and other self-inflicted problem areas in U.S. foreign 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.

Medea Benjamin, cofounder of CODEPINK, is the author of several books on Cuba, including No Free Lunch: Food and Revolution in Cuba Today.

Leonardo Flores is a Latin American policy analyst and campaigner with CODEPINK.

China Opens the SCO Pathway to Kabul, India Should Go Along

July 14th, 2021 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China Opens the SCO Pathway to Kabul, India Should Go Along

The War Economy Must End. Where Do These Aegis Naval Destroyers Go?

July 13th, 2021 by Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Another great banner made by ARRT! (Artist Rapid Response Team) here in Maine.

ARRT! is led by long-revered artist/activist Natasha Mayers who has been a regular at the protests at Bath Iron Works (BIW) where naval Aegis destroyers are built.

The banner was conceived with these questions in mind: Where do these destroyers go when they leave Bath? How do they impact the rest of the world politically and environmentally?

 

 

BIW Aegis destroyers do not actually carry nuclear weapons. They carry cruise missiles that could be outfitted with nuclear warheads. They are primarily first-strike attack weapons.

Aegis also carry SM-3 interceptor missiles whose job is to take out any retaliatory strikes after the US launches a first-strike attack on China or Russia. (So-called ‘missile defense’.) SM-3 missiles are not nuclear – they are called ‘kinetic’ which means they crash into the other missiles and they both explode.

In Maine most people just think about BIW as a jobs engine but the impact of these warships is far more than just jobs. If we were really concerned about creating jobs we’d be building commuter rail systems at BIW as well as tidal power systems to help us deal with climate crisis.

The war economy must end

Since WW II the US economy has been running on endless war.

We are excited about taking this new banner out to BIW for one of our upcoming bi-monthly vigils so the sailors and shipbuilders can gaze upon it. We want them to think about the political dimension of their ‘mission’ and also the environmental impacts of these warships.

There will be a ‘christening’ ceremony held at the shipyard in the coming weeks as they prepare to launch one of the six destroyers they are currently working on. Our current small vigils are warm-up acts for the bigger public rally. We’ll let you know when a date is set for the destroyer ‘christening’.

We all pay for this

So how do we get the public to step up (even with knees shaking) and answer this fundamental question – Do you really support this?

Empire is so over.

Please….help speak out against the madness.

Our only hope for survival is to turn America away from complicity with corruption, endless war, and climate crisis.

*

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

President Joe Biden Announces Door to Door Pursuit to Inoculate Millions of Americans Within Their Own Homes

July 13th, 2021 by Renee Parsons

All Global Research articles 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 if the conflict between American parents, their public school districts and CDC requirements were not already enough to create a firestorm of unpredictable proportions, pretend President Joe Biden has dramatically increased the stakes by announcing an imminent door to door pursuit to inoculate millions of Americans within their own home.  The prospect of a simultaneous national at-your-front-door mandatory vaccination program represents a massive Fourth Amendment assault that threatens the future of our Constitutional republic.  As appears to have been the case since Covid was first identified, politics continues to guide public health decisions rather than the science.

The immunization effort includes the utilization of a spike protein bioweapon under the guise of what is more commonly referred to as a Covid 19 vaccination which is still classified by the FDA as an untested Emergency Use Authorization in order to facilitate public usage.

As if Biden’s announcement was not enough to cause great clanging alarm bells, WH press secretary Jan Psaki removed any doubt as to the government’s true agenda. Her follow up to Biden’s announcement included reference to the creation of ‘strike forces’ which removed any benign appearance from what may be shaping up to be the implementation of a nation-wide militarized deployment.

“Dr. Fauci has addressed this a number of times and has conveyed that ‘herd immunity’ is kind of an outdated term. So we had set a goal of reaching 70% of adults by July 4th and we reached that goal of adults 27 and older by that date.  We’ll continue to press to reach it and we will in the next couple of weeks for adults over the age of 18.  Our work doesn’t stop there and we are going to continue to press to get 12-18 year olds vaccinated…to continue to work with communities where there’s lower vaccination rates.  That’s one of the reasons we initiated these strike forces to go into communities and work with them to determine what they need; to take a localized specific approach that works with elected officials and communities.” 

With only 47.9% of Americans fully vaccinated against Covid (approximately 157.9 million), the government failed to meet Dr. Fauci’s 70% target of vaccinated Americans – which necessitated the vaccination of children.  Biden provided no other details on exactly how the deed would be accomplished other than to suggest his ‘outreach team,’ later referred to as “surge response teams,” will consist of CDC officials, FEMA and other health related agencies as they initially focus on ‘targeted communities’ in 1000 American counties which had achieved only a 30% vaccination rate.  As part of the HHS Department, a Community Corps has already been dispatched to provide Covid information to unvaccinated residents.

Meanwhile, in a recent CNN interview, US Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra threw kindling on a smoldering fire when he told CNN that it is ‘absolutely the government’s business to know who has been vaccinated.”  Becerra went on to condescend to Americans who pay the bills and who have suffered the consequences of the Federal government’s surrender to Fauci and Big Pharma when he suggested that “Perhaps we should point out that the federal government has had to spend trillions of dollars to try to keep Americans alive during this pandemic, so it is absolutely the government’s business.” Further totally missing the impending crisis, he suggested that “knocking on a door has never been against the law” as Republican governors begin to line up in opposition to a door to door visit from the Federal  government.

Becerra declared that his comments had been “wildly out of context” as he later tweeted that “government has no database tracking who is vaccinated” which is not a factual statement.   Each vaccinatee has received a preliminary id card just as the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has sent out multiple solicitations to Colorado’s unvaccinated residents.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Co) questioned “Door to door to vaccinate Americans this year… door to door to confiscate guns next year?”

Abandoning Herd Immunity

When Dr. Tony Fauci conveniently abandoned the herd immunity concept as no longer a goal and that a vaccination rate of 70% – 85% was required to conquer Covid, he inexplicably continued to ignore natural immunity. Herd immunity occurs when enough people become immune to a contagious disease thereby limiting further spread of the disease. What Fauci ignored is that undercounting or removing the number of Americans who possess natural immunity is considered a scientific error of omission.  While infection disease professionals estimate that 60% of the population needs to have been exposed for herd immunity to be reached, Johns Hopkins has estimated that 80% – 85% of American adults have acquired natural immunity.

Fauci’s view has remained critically unexamined by the old guard medical, political and media establishments as his speculation justified the need to include a mandatory vaccination policy for children.   The failure to acknowledge natural immunity has led to a government policy of indiscriminate vaccinations.

In early March, a California Department of Public Health report said that only 8.7% of the state’s population had ever tested positive for Covid-19 while at least 38.5% of the population had the coronavirus antibodies. Adjusting for cases between now and then, and accounting for the amount of time it takes for the body to make antibodies, it can be estimated that as many as half of Californians have natural immunity today. The same report found that 45% of people in Los Angeles had Covid-19 antibodies.

Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment which reads, in part, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” was originally taken from the British maxim that ‘every man’s house is his castle.’

More than any other amendment, the Fourth is a direct consequence of pre-revolution Colonial America when the British parliament enacted the Quartering Act in 1774 which allowed royal governors, rather than colonial governments, to ‘quarter’ British soldiers.  Colonists were further enraged by having a ‘standing foreign’ army quartered among a civilian population which they saw as a usurpation of American liberty. Upon the eve of what became the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson was tasked with preparing the list of grievances against King George III which became the Declaration of Independence. Those 27 grievances were ultimately culled into the Bill of Rights and adopted into the U.S. Constitution.

As in Katz v. United States (1967), the Supreme Court held that Fourth Amendment protections extend to intrusions on the privacy of individuals as well as their physical locations and that “.. to claim protection of the Amendment depends not upon a property right in the invaded place but upon whether… there was a reasonable expectation of freedom from governmental intrusion.”

While it is true that radical, challenging times like what we are living through today can bring a sense of despair against seemingly insurmountable odds, it is also true that such dire straits can bring out the most courageous, encourage the best from each of us and that such difficult, profound situations require each to rise to their highest, their most authentic potential in the name of truth, justice and integrity.

*

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

Renee Parsons served on the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and as president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, staff in the Office of the Colorado State Public Defender, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and a staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found at [email protected].

Bill to Stop UK Arms Trade with Israel: Britain Risks Charge of Accessory to War Crimes

July 13th, 2021 by Hans Stehling

All Global Research articles 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 Bill to stop the UK government selling arms to Israel has been introduced in the Commons by Labour MP Richard Burgon. The East Leeds MP is sponsoring the Israel Arms Trade (Prohibition) Bill. Currently Labour policy does not support the BDS movement, but during the recent conflict between Israel and Gaza, MPs have increasingly called for an arms embargo against Israel.

The move also comes amid growing protests against British companies that are involved with the Israeli manufacture of arms and military equipment such as Elbit Systems and Ferranti Technologies that produce mass intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance systems (C4ISR) including military drones (UAS), as used in the Occupied Palestinian Territories to control a population of more than 3 million civilians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem – part of an illegal settlement program that deliberately violates UN Security Council Resolution 2334 that was passed by Britain and 13 other UNSC member states in December 2016.

Britain’s involvement in helping Israel violates the demands of the UN Security Council, of which we ourselves are a permanent member, brings the entire United Nations and the Security Council into disrepute and ridicule.

Introducing the Bill with a video on Twitter, Mr Burgon said:

“Over the last five years the Conservative Government has approved hundreds of millions of pounds or arms sales to Israel. Those arms are used in the continued persecution of the Palestinian people as we’ve seen recently in Israel’s brutal war on Palestine. That has to stop. This Bill is all about stopping it.”

The Bill would amend the 2008 Export Control Order which includes a list of countries that the UK Government does not trade arms with. It would “prohibit the sale of arms to Israel and the purchase of arms from Israel”.

The Bill states:

“The UK Government must not authorise for sale, provide licences for sale, or otherwise directly or indirectly sell or authorise the sale of, any arms to Israel. “Any arms export licence that includes Israel as a destination for sale from the UK is revoked insofar as it applies to Israel. “No new arms export licence that includes Israel as a destination for sale from the UK may be created.”  

The Bill defines Israel as including “Israeli military, police and border police”. It has been cosponsored by Green MP Caroline Lucas, Plaid Cymru MP Liz Saville Roberts and SNP MP Tommy Sheppard. No date has yet been scheduled for a Second Reading.

Britain’s bilateral arms trade with Israel that violates UNSCR demands for the mass repatriation of all illegal settlers back to Israel, is likely to implicate Britain in being accessory to war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank and/or crimes against humanity. The IDF soldiers continue today to routinely kill hundreds of unarmed men, women and children, every year, who protest at their borders for the return of their lands and homes violently stolen in 1948 by the armed gangs of LEHI and IZL Zionist terrorists who fought against the British and killed and slaughtered the civilian population of Palestine.

Unlike Germany, no reparations were ever offered or made for the extensive loss of life and land, and unlike Germany, Israel continues these crimes even today.

Much of the military equipment used by the IDF being made in Britain and exported with full government approval. The Bill is intended to remedy both this injustice and the shocking stain on British government morality and political judgement.

*

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

Graphene Sensors Read Low-frequency Neural Waves Associated with Distinct Brain States

July 13th, 2021 by Tom Foley

All Global Research articles 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 biocompatible implant based on graphene safely measures and predicts brain states.

Graphene Flagship scientists have developed a sensor based on CVD graphene that detects brain signals in a wide frequency band, from extremely low frequencies to high frequency oscillations. The sensor is biocompatible and could be used to measure and predict brain states. Furthermore, the graphene sensors could be used in chronic implants due to their high stability in the brain.

The study was conducted by scientists at Graphene Flagship partners the Catalan Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (ICN2), the Microelectronics Institute of Barcelona (CSIC), CIBER-BBN and ICREA, Spain, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Germany, and the University of Manchester, UK, in collaboration with Graphene Flagship partner Multi Channel Systems GmbH, Germany.

The consortium showed that graphene-based sensors grant access to an elusive low-frequency region of brain activity. Current methods to detect brain waves use metallic electrodes, which are ineffective at measuring very low-frequency activity – known as the ‘infra-slow’ region. Thanks to graphene’s sensitivity, scientists can now easily gather information from this region and paint a better picture of animals’ brain activity. This could form the basis for new types of neurotherapeutic medical technology.

Using a technology developed by ICN2 and the Microelectronics Institute of Barcelona, in the framework of the Graphene Flagship and the BrainCom European projects, Graphene Flagship scientists built an array of transistors that record and transmit activity information when implanted into the brain. The sensor has small channels on the surface: when they make contact with brain tissue, the electrical signals within the brain cause small changes in conductivity. These changes produce a signal and are recorded to create a brain activity ‘fingerprint.’

“With our array of devices, based on CVD graphene, we can record signals from the infra-slow region with very high accuracy,” Jose Garrido, from Graphene Flagship partner ICN2, Spain, explains. “In the brain, there is a correlation between lower and higher frequencies of brain activity, so the lower frequencies tend to dictate what the higher frequencies look like. We demonstrated that, by measuring the infra-slow activity, with frequencies below a tenth of a hertz, we can decode the ‘brain states’ of an animal.” Garrido believes this technology could lead to new treatments for brain disorders like epilepsy, as certain characteristic signal patterns could reveal ‘brain states’ likely to lead to seizures.

To test the device, they implanted it into the brain of a freely behaving rat, monitoring it continuously. The signals were transmitted wirelessly using a miniaturized electronic headstage developed by the industrial partner Multichannel Systems. The scientists found that the signal characteristics measured during different types of brain activity, such as during periods of high activity or during sleep – the so-called ‘brain states’ – correlated very well to the infra-slow signals decoded by the graphene-based implant.

Furthermore, Kostas Kostarelos and colleagues at Graphene Flagship partner the University of Manchester, UK, tested the biocompatibility of the devices. They found no inflammation, other than that expected to occur from the device’s implantation, over the entire 12-week duration of their tests, and the device did not degrade over this period.

“It is very remarkable to see that we can properly identify and correlate the animals’ brain states with the measured infra-slow activity,” Garrido says. Now, the next step will be to explore commercial applications. “We are already collaborating with some companies interested in this technology, and we aim to translate it into a product – and, beyond that, take it into clinics and hospitals,” he concludes.

Serge Picaud, Deputy Leader of the Graphene Flagship’s Biomedical Technologies Work Package, comments: “Novel technologies are always a vector for new discoveries. In this case, graphene sensors have granted us access to the infra-slow brain waves. Recording them in animal models and patients will demonstrate whether we can actually rely on these new measurements for precise diagnostics and treatment options in patients with serious brain diseases like epilepsy.”

Andrea C. Ferrari, Science and Technology Officer of the Graphene Flagship and Chair of its Management panel, adds:

“The Graphene Flagship recognised the potential of graphene and layered materials for biological applications early on. This remarkable work brings us closer to applications in this area, with a novel tool enabled by the unique properties of graphene.”

*

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

Tom Foley is Science Writer and Communications Coordinator for the Graphene Flagship.

Sources

Garcia-Cortadella, Ramon, et al. “Graphene active sensor arrays for long-term and wireless mapping of wide frequency band epicortical brain activity.” Nature communications 12.1 (2021): 1-17.

Featured image is from Graphene Flagship

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Graphene Sensors Read Low-frequency Neural Waves Associated with Distinct Brain States
  • Tags: ,

Accelera la corsa nucleare

July 13th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

Nella base di Redzikowo in Polonia sono iniziati i lavori per l’installazione del sistema Aegis Ashore, con una spesa di oltre 180 milioni di dollari. Sarà la seconda base missilistica Usa in Europa, dopo quella di Deveselu in Romania divenuta operativa nel 2015.

La funzione ufficiale di queste basi è proteggere, con lo «scudo» dei missili intercettori SM-3, le forze Usa in Europa e quelle degli alleati europei della Nato dalle «attuali ed emergenti minacce di missili balistici provenienti dall’esterno dell’area Euro-Atlantica».

Alle due installazioni terrestri si aggiungono quattro navi dotate dello stesso sistema Aegis, che, dislocate dalla U.S. Navy nella base spagnola di Rota, incrociano nel Mediterraneo, Mar Nero e Mar Baltico. La US Navy ha circa 120 cacciatorpediniere e incrociatori armati di questo sistema missilistico.

Sia le navi che le installazioni terrestri Aegis sono dotate di lanciatori verticali Mk 41 della Lockheed Martin: tubi verticali (nel corpo della nave o in un bunker sotterraneo) da cui vengono lanciati i missili.

La stessa Lockheed Martin, illustrandone le caratteristiche tecniche, documenta che esso può lanciare missili per tutte le missioni: anti-missile, anti-aereo, anti-nave, anti-sottomarino e di attacco contro obiettivi terrestri. Ogni tubo di lancio è adattabile a qualsiasi missile, tra cui «quelli per l’attacco a lungo raggio», compreso il missile da crociera Tomahawk. Esso può essere armato anche di testata nucleare.

Non si può quindi sapere quali missili vi siano realmente nei lanciatori verticali della base Aegis Ashore in Romania e quali saranno installati in quella in Polonia. Né quali missili vi siano a bordo delle navi che incrociano ai limiti delle acque territoriali russe. Non potendo controllare, Mosca dà per scontato che vi siano anche missili da attacco nucleare.

Stesso scenario in Asia Orientale, dove navi da guerra Aegis della Settima Flotta incrociano nel Mar Cinese Meridionale. Anche i principali alleati Usa nella regione – Giappone, Corea del Sud, Australia – hanno navi dotate del sistema Usa Aegis.

Questo non è l’unico sistema missilistico che gli Usa stanno schierando in Europa e in Asia. Nel suo intervento alla George Washington School of Media and Public Affairs, il generale McConville, capo di stato maggiore dell’Esercito degli Stati uniti, ha dichiarato lo scorso marzo che lo US Army sta preparando una «task force» dotata di «capacità di fuoco di precisione a lungo raggio che può arrivare ovunque, composta da missili ipersonici, missili a medio raggio, missili per attacchi di precisione» e che «questi sistemi sono in grado di penetrare lo spazio dello sbarramento anti-aereo». Il generale ha precisato che «prevediamo di schierare una di queste task force in Europa e probabilmente due nel Pacifico».

In tale situazione, non c’è da stupirsi che la Russia stia accelerando lo schieramento di nuovi missili intercontinentali, con testate nucleari che, dopo la traiettoria balistica, planano per migliaia di km a velocità ipersonica.

Né c’è da stupirsi della notizia, pubblicata dal Washington Post, che ha Cina sta costruendo oltre cento nuovi silos per missili balistici intercontinentali a testata nucleare. La corsa agli armamenti si svolge non tanto sul piano quantitativo (numero e potenza delle testate nucleari) quanto su quello qualitativo (velocità, capacità penetrante e dislocazione geografica dei vettori nucleari). La risposta, in caso di attacco o presunto tale, viene sempre più affidata all’intelligenza artificiale, che deve decidere il lancio dei missili nucleari in pochi secondi. Aumenta la possibilità di una guerra nucleare per errore, rischiata più volte durante la guerra fredda.

Il Trattato sulla proibizione delle armi nucleari, adottato dalle Nazioni Unite nel 2017 ed entrato in vigore nel 2021, è stato finora firmato da 86 Stati e ratificato da 54.

Nessuno dei 30 paesi della Nato e dei 27 della Ue (salvo l’Austria) l’ha ratificato e neppure firmato. In Europa vi hanno aderito solo. Austria, Irlanda, Malta, San Marino e Santa Sede. Nessuno dei nove paesi nucleari – Stati uniti, Russia, Francia, Gran Bretagna, Israele, Cina, Pakistan, India, Nord Corea – l’ha ratificato e neppure firmato.

Manlio Dinucci

Errata corrige

Nella versione della rubrica uscita in edicola il 13 luglio 2021 per un refuso è saltata all’ultimo paragrafo la notizia che l’Austria è l’unico paese europeo ad aver ratificato il trattato.

FDA to Add Warning to J&J Vaccine of ‘Serious but Rare’ Autoimmune Disorder

July 13th, 2021 by Megan Redshaw

All Global Research articles 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 U.S. Food and Drug Administration will announce a new warning on Johnson & Johnson’s COVID vaccine saying the shot is linked to Guillain–Barré syndrome. In April, the agency added a warning about blood clotting disorders to the J&J shot.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is will announce a new warning on Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) COVID vaccine saying the shot has been linked to Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS), a “serious but rare” autoimmune disorder. The Washington Post attributed the news to “four individuals familiar with the situation.”

According to The New York Times, the chances of developing GBS after receiving the J&J shot is three to five times higher than would be expected in the general population in the U.S.

About 100 preliminary reports in the U.S. of GBS have been detected after receiving J&J’s vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said in a statement to CNN today. Most cases were reported about two weeks after vaccination, mostly in men 50 and older.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is expected to discuss the GBS cases during an upcoming meeting, the CDC said.

GBS is a rare neurological disorder in which the body’s immune system mistakenly attacks part of its peripheral nervous system — the network of nerves located outside of the brain and spinal cord — and can range from a very mild case with brief weakness to paralysis, leaving the person unable to breathe independently.

While the cause of GBS is not fully known, it often follows infection with a virus and has been linked to other vaccines.

The FDA has concluded the benefits of the vaccine outweigh any danger, but will include the proviso in fact sheets about the drug for providers and patients.

“It’s not surprising to find these types of adverse events associated with vaccination,” said Dr. Luciana Borio, former acting chief scientist at the FDA. The data collected so far by the FDA, Borio said, suggest the vaccine’s benefits “continue to vastly outweigh the risks.”

Reports of GBS are rare, the CDC said, “but do likely indicate a small possible risk of this side effect following” the J&J vaccine.

Federal officials identified the 100 suspected cases of GBS among recipients of the J&J shot through the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) — a federal monitoring system that relies on patients and health care providers to report adverse effects of vaccines.

According to the most recent data from VAERS, between Dec. 14, 2020 and July 2, there were 398 reports of GBS with 187 of cases attributed to Pfizer, 159 to Moderna and 76 cases to J&J.

No link has been found between GBS and mRNA COVID vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna despite reports in VAERS.

The VAERS database indicates onset of GBS symptoms after the J&J vaccine within about three weeks of vaccination, The New York Times reported. One recipient, a 57-year-old man from Delaware who had suffered both a heart attack and a stroke within the last four years, died in early April after he was vaccinated and developed GBS.

As The Defender reported July 8, a third grade teacher developed GBS three weeks after receiving J&J’s COVID vaccine. Stacie [last name unknown] went to the emergency room several times after getting the shot because she was experiencing numbness of the lower extremities, but was sent home when tests were inconclusive.

The numbness continued to progress and Stacie eventually lost her ability to stand and walk. She was then hospitalized and diagnosed with GBS.

Gary Spaulding was an active landscaper who experienced a severe headache after receiving J&J’s COVID vaccine, causing him to go to the emergency room. Doctors immediately diagnosed Spaulding with Lyme Disease. Treatment was started, but numbness and tingling in his extremities progressed. After doctors initiated tests to determine the cause of the escalating series of symptoms, Spaulding was diagnosed with GBS.

Doctors believe Spaulding’s immune system, which was fighting Lyme Disease, was overstimulated by the COVID vaccine causing it to attack the myelin — the protective insulation that surrounds nerves, including those in the brain and spinal cord.

Treatment was immediate and successful in arresting the progression of the disease, but not before Spaulding was almost completely paralyzed.

In April, The Defender reported on a Texas teenager diagnosed with GBS a few weeks after his first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. The teen said he believed the vaccine was to blame, according to a local Houston news channel KPRC2 report.

“I wanted to get the vaccine,” said Wyatt McGlaun, a high school senior from The Woodlands. “I felt it was the right thing to do. I wanted to travel and enjoy my last summer before college.”

A few weeks after receiving the vaccine, McGlaun became weak and had difficulty walking. He was admitted to CHI St. Luke’s Health where he was diagnosed with GBS. News reports did not disclose which vaccine the teen received.

J&J linked to blood-clotting disorders

This is the second time J&J’s COVID vaccine has been linked to a severe adverse reaction. On April 13, federal officials temporarily paused the J&J shot after confirming health officials were investigating six cases of blood clots in the U.S.

During the April 23 meeting, the ACIP said it had found 15 women diagnosed with rare blood clots, including three who died. Only two of the women were older than 50, with the risk highest in women ages 30 to 39.

The CDC advisory safety committee said the link between blood clots and J&J’s COVID vaccine was “plausible,” but concluded the vaccine’s benefits still outweigh the risks and recommended the vaccine for persons 18 years of age and older in the U.S. under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

On April 26, the FDA amended it’s EUA for the J&J vaccine to reflect the risk of rare blood clots and said vaccinations could resume immediately.

*

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

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

Featured image is from CHD

Video: CNN Doctor Says It’s “Time to Start Mandating” COVID Vaccines

July 13th, 2021 by Steve Watson

All Global Research articles 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.

***

CNN ran a broadcast Thursday with its own medical analyst Dr. Jonathan Reiner declaring that it is “time to start mandating” coronavirus vaccines for all Americans to counter people opting not to take the shots.

CNN host Erin Burnett said to Reiner “when you look at this in the broader context, there’s still a third of the eligible population in the United States that hasn’t got a single dose.”

“Given where things are going, is it time to move on from saying please to mandating?” Burnett asked.

Reiner replied

“I do think it’s time to start mandating vaccines. And I think that the private industry and private organizations will do that.”

“At GW university, where I work, starting in fall, you can’t be on campus unless you’re fully vaccinated,” Reiner added.

He continued,

“We’re at the part of the pandemic now where the problem in this country is that 150 million Americans are not vaccinated. Half of that number is less than 18 years of age. But let’s look at the adults. Seventy-five-million adults have chosen not to get vaccinated. That choice has consequences.”

Reiner noted that the government cannot physically force vaccinations on people (for now), but advocated making it basically impossible for those who choose not to take it to live their lives normally.

“Now, we can’t force you to take a jab in the arm,” Reiner said, adding “But there are many jobs, perhaps, that can prevent you from working if you decide not to get vaccinated. So I think we need to be more proactive, and we will see industry take the lead in this.”

Watch the video here.

Earlier in the day, CNN hosted Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, who said that “it is absolutely the government’s business” to know if Americans have been vaccinated.

In a telling statement, Becerra said

“We want to give people the sense that they have the freedom to choose, but we hope they choose to live.”

Meanwhile, over at MSNBC they took things a step further with anchor Chris Hayes declaring that everyone who has scepticism about the efficacy of vaccines and opts not to take them are “cowardly.”

Hayes blamed the ‘right wing media’, proclaiming

“You saw some of it there, people of the most conservative parts of the country turning against the vaccine. The leaders of this movement are cowardly. They refuse to have the courage of their convictions. They will not come out and say they are against the vaccine. Instead, they take this straw-man stance saying they’re just against anyone trying to promote the vaccine or heaven forbid mandate it.”

He continued,

“So on the ‘Fox & Friends’ and others on the right say they don’t want anybody try to convince them to take the shot. They don’t want it mandated. They just want it out there. What they’re saying is you don’t want people to get the vaccine. Come out and say it, but they won’t say it. Because that means you want people to die. Those are the options right now.”

Watch the video here.

Tucker Carlson, whom MSNBC’s Hayes also targeted in his rant, said Thursday that the Biden administration is “no longer pro-choice” when it comes to vaccines.

“It’s so obviously unnecessary that it’s vindictive, and it makes you wonder, what is this really about?” Carlson said, adding “Medical privacy, physical autonomy, the right to control the medicines you take. These are the pillars of medical ethics, officially, or were. They no longer are.”

“Tony Fauci has declared [these pillars of medical ethics] merely a political statement,” Carlson continued.

The host further noted,

“They’re telling you that you’ll wind up in a government database if you don’t comply, and that government agents could be showing up and knocking on your door. What is happening? What is this about?”

Watch the video here.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, who declared earlier this week that the Biden administration is to send “strike forces” to people’s homes to ensure children get vaccinated, decreed Thursday that criticism of the plan is a “disservice to the country.”

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video 

Post-COVID Vaccine Deaths Are Not Being Autopsied – Why?

July 13th, 2021 by Ethan Huff

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Dr. Jane Orient, M.D., the executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), wants to know why the medical system is refusing to perform autopsies on the bodies of people who died not long after getting “vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19).

All last year, we were told by the government and media that every single death, no matter the actual cause, was a result of “covid.” That was before the “vaccines” made their appearance, of course.

Now, despite prolific evidence that the injections are causing mass disease and death, the medical system is refusing to acknowledge this fact and is still blaming all deaths on “covid.”

There is a systematic refusal among those calling the shots to even consider that Fauci Flu shots might be spreading the “variants” and causing some people to drop dead from various known side effects. And Dr. Orient wants answers.

“Thousands of healthy people are dying unexpectedly, but our public health agencies are assuring us that their deaths were not caused by the COVID jab,” Dr. Orient wrote in a commentary for WND.

“The toll of post-vaccine deaths has reached nearly 7,000, according to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). It’s the best system we’ve got, even though it misses 90% or more of the actual events.”

Dr. Orient has only seen one post-injection autopsy conducted so far

Of the tens of thousands of deaths that have been reported in conjunction with the Trump Vaccines, only one that Dr. Orient knows about involved an actual autopsy, as opposed to a questionable and easily manipulated “death certificate.”

That particular patient had received just one dose of the mRNA injection from Pfizer and BioNTech and died before receiving the second. Despite testing “positive” on a phony PCR test for SARS-Cov-2, this person showed no actual signs of infection.

On the other hand, the body of a 45-year-old mother who died of heart issues and brain swelling following her jab, which required in order for her to start a new job at Johns Hopkins University, will probably not be getting an autopsy, even though it is obvious that she died from the injection.

“There will be tears and flowers, but probably no autopsy – and no pause in the shots demanded for mothers and potential mothers if they want to work at JHU,” Dr. Orient says.

Even though Dr. Orient received her medical training long before CT and MRI scans existed, she says that she and her colleagues were still expected to try to come up with an accurate diagnosis with every patient. That is no longer the case in the age of the Chinese Virus.

“We had to call the medical examiner, who would decide whether an autopsy was indicated,” she says. “Anything potentially related to the death, such as pill bottles, was evidence.”

“If an injection had been given, the vial would be recovered if possible. With vaccines, one is supposed to record the lot number, so it would be possible to check a sample for contaminants.”

Compare this to now, when people dying in car accidents or from gunshot wounds are being listed in the official records as “covid deaths.” We have entered the age of pseudoscience hell, where nothing is real, everything is fake, and most people just go along with it like all is well.

“Unfortunately, autopsy rates have fallen from 25% to less than 5% over the past four decades,” Dr. Orient laments, noting that once again money is playing a huge role in the decision-making process. “It never was a revenue producer for anyone except malpractice attorneys.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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

WND.com

NaturalNews.com

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

Worst “Side Effect” Ever: Heart Inflammation Happening All Over the World Due to Blood Clotting Caused by COVID-19 Vaccines

July 13th, 2021 by S.D. Wells

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In order to understand why so many people around the globe, including healthy young people, are suddenly suffering from inflamed hearts just after being vaccinated for Covid-19, we have to zero in on the source of this dangerous inflammation. When blood clots form in deep veins, it’s called deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and this can occur if something damages the blood vessel lining or makes the blood clot more easily. After this happens once, usually more blood clots are on the way. Most medical doctors in America are completely “stumped” and can’t figure out what causes blood clots. They could easily start by examining blood vessels for mRNA-produced “proteins” that the vaccines, through cell re-education, are spreading throughout the body of the recently Covid-vaccinated victims.

We can now understand, thanks to Covid-vaccine scientists who recently blew the whistle, that a higher-than-usual blood clot risk exists for these cases of inflammation of the heart, as it’s over-worked to push blood past all these “road blocks” of proteins, prions and disease-mimicking fragments floating around in the blood channels, sticking to inner walls of vessels, causing damage and severe inflammation.

Covid-19 mRNA vaccines instruct your cells to produce unlimited proteins and prions that clog the blood and CAUSE heart inflammation

There’s a combination of inflammation and coagulation occurring in the vessels that triggers venous thromboembolism (VTE). This is why all the Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers skipped clinical trials and got “emergency use authorization” for the shots, because they are considered by the FDA and CDC as “medical experiments,” and this is still going on right now. It’s one huge medical experiment that causes blood clots, heart inflammation and death, but all the MDs are just baffled and discombobulated.

What a mystery, huh? Couldn’t be the untested, unsafe, prion-creating China Flu jabs, now could it? No person or entity is ever allowed to even ask that question in America.

The MDs and virologists will all still cast blame on anything but the vaccines, including autoimmune disorders like Crohn’s or Lupus. Soon they’ll be blaming the “Delta Variant” of Covid instead of blaming the vaccines.

Your blood, if you’ve been Covid-19 mRNA inoculated, is now slowly clogging and coagulation to try to “defend” itself from the proteins your own cells are now creating – ones that mimic deadly virus strains of China Flu. Your blood that flows past these clots can also add to the clot, making the clots bigger and more dangerous, compounding the coagulation factor. Then inflammation increases and the chance of a heart attack skyrockets.

The answer to the confounding “mystery” of heart inflammation right after Covid-19 vaccination

This is the answer to the “mystery” of why perfectly healthy young adults, all around the world, suffer heart inflammation within days of being Covid-19 ‘vaccinated’. Even the protein payload in the non-mRNA vaccines can cause inflammation and clotting, so none of the “vaxxers” are safe. The CDC lied, again.

Of course the heart is inflamed if major veins are clogged up with virus-mimicking proteins that stick together and to the inner walls of the blood vessels. Of course the entire human body is suffering from massive inflammation when the immune system recognizes it’s under CONSTANT attack by an army of mutated virus-looking fragments.

Visit CovidVaccineReactions.com if you already got a toxic Covid jab or two and you are experiencing side effects, blood clots or other adverse events. Then tune your internet frequency to Pandemic.news for updates on these crimes against humanity being delivered under the guise of inoculation. Also visit Visit PharmaDeathClock for more information and validated statistics about the tragedies along the Allopathic “train” on which 200 million Americans ride.

*

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

Sources

Pandemic.news

NaturalNews.com

TruthWiki.org

LabBlog.UofMhealth.org

NaturalNews.com

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

Doctors Can Vaccinate Kids in DC Without Parental Knowledge

July 13th, 2021 by Barbara Loe Fisher

All Global Research articles 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 Council of the District of Columbia disempowered parents by enacting a law that made it illegal for a doctor, insurance company or school administrator to divulge a child’s vaccination history in records that can be seen by the child’s mother or father

The law denies basic parental rights to protecting their child from vaccine injuries and to have the tools and knowledge necessary to monitor them for signs of a potentially life-threatening vaccine reaction that requires immediate medical treatment

It also violates vaccine safety provisions of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, a federal law that confirmed vaccine injuries and deaths are real and made preventing vaccine reactions a national priority

Additionally, it violates informed consent rights of both parents and their child while doctors, other vaccinators and anyone else involved in the vaccine decision have no liability if the child is injured

If you want to protect parental and informed consent rights, register for the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal to stay up to date on vaccine laws being proposed in your state

*

Watch the video here.

This past year, we have seen many lawmakers in the U.S. and other countries vote to eliminate or severely restrict civil liberties in the name of the public health.1,2,3 One of the most outrageous legislative actions violating parental and human rights took place in Washington, D.C., in November 2020 when city council officials gave doctors the power to vaccinate children as young as 11 years old and hide what they did from parents.4,5,6,7,8

The D.C. mayor refused to veto the bill9,10 and, in January 2021, the U.S. Congress sat on its hands11,12 and gave tacit approval to enactment of the most dangerous child vaccination law in America.

In a breathtaking violation of medical ethics and several federal laws, the new vaccine concealment law in Washington, D.C., allows doctors to extract “informed consent” from young children too immature to know what informed consent13 means or what a vaccine reaction looks and feels like.14,15,16

The D.C. city council majority, with only three members dissenting, cruelly disempowered parents by voting to make it illegal for a doctor, insurance company or school administrator to divulge a child’s vaccination history in records that can be seen by the child’s mother or father.17

Parents Won’t Have Information to Protect Child From Injury

An 11-year-old child does not know or understand his or her personal health history but most parent do. If a child has experienced previous vaccine reactions, has severe allergies or other health conditions that could increase vaccine risks,18,19 parents kept in the dark will not have a way to protect their child from further harm.

Parents who don’t know which vaccines their children have been given will not be able to monitor them for signs of a potentially life-threatening vaccine reaction that requires immediate medical treatment.20 If the child is injured or dies after vaccination, parents will not know they must apply to the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) before the filing deadline expires.21

Parents will not know their insurance company has been billed for vaccines. Parents will not know that a school the child attends is in possession of their child’s secret vaccination records even when there is a vaccine exemption for religious belief reasons on file with the school.

This blatant violation of a parent’s moral right and legal responsibility to make medical risk decisions on behalf of a minor child was endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics22 and pushed through by the D.C. city council, while the mayor and the US Congress looked the other way.

Washington, DC, Vaccine Concealment Law Violates Federal Laws

First, D.C.’s vaccine concealment law violates vaccine safety provisions of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, a federal law that confirmed vaccine injuries and deaths are real and made preventing vaccine reactions a national priority.

Parents of DPT vaccine-injured children secured vaccine safety provisions in the 1986 Act, which directs doctors and other medical workers to give parents written vaccine benefit and risk information BEFORE a child is vaccinated23 and also mandates that vaccine providers record which vaccines the child is given in a record the parents can access.

Specifically, the 1986 Act mandates that “health care providers who administer a vaccine” must give a child’s legal representative “a copy of the information materials” developed by the Centers for Disease Control “prior to the administration” of a vaccine.24,25

The 1986 law also requires each person administering a vaccine to “ensure that there is recorded in such person’s permanent medical record or in a permanent office log or file to which a legal representative shall have access upon request” certain information:

No. 1: the date of administration of the vaccine; No. 2: the vaccine manufacturer and lot number of the vaccine; and No. 3: the name and address and, if appropriate, the title of the health care provider administering the vaccine.”26

These informing and recording vaccine safety provisions were included in the 1986 Act specifically to provide parents with information they need to make well informed vaccine decisions for their minor children; to help parents recognize and prevent vaccine reactions; and to ensure a vaccine reaction is reported to the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).27,28

If a doctor can secretly inject a young child with one or more vaccines and hide the vaccination records, how will parents know what is happening when a vaccine reaction occurs? They won’t have the information they need to take their child to an emergency room or be able to make the connection between the vaccinations and a child’s regression into poor health.

This lack of critical information about their child’s medical history also means parents will likely miss the deadline for filing a claim in the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which has awarded more than $4.5 billion to the vaccine injured over the past three decades.29

D.C.’s vaccine concealment law violates the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, known as FERPA, which guarantees parents the legal right to have access to their children’s education records, including health and vaccine records, at the primary and secondary school level.30

Vaccine Concealment Law Violates Informed Consent Rights

D.C.’s vaccine concealment law also violates the long standing ethical principle of informed consent to medical risk taking,31 which has governed the ethical practice of human research and medical practice since the Nuremberg Code was published in 1947 after the Doctors’ Trial.32,33

Informed consent is exercised on behalf of minor children by parents, who are morally and legally responsible for the well-being and financial support for their children until they are old enough to live independently.34,35,36

Child development specialists have documented how young children and teenagers lack the critical thinking skills and emotional maturity to exercise good judgment when assessing risks.37,38,39,40, Preadolescents are more susceptible to pressure from peers and authority figures.41,42,43,44

Vaccine Administrators Have No Liability for Injuries, Deaths

Doctors are the ultimate authority figures in our society today, and many are serving as authoritarian implementers of one-size-fits-all federal vaccine policies and state vaccine mandates.45,46

Like vaccine manufacturers, doctors and other persons who administer vaccines cannot be held liable in civil court when a child dies or is injured.47Congress passed special legislation in 2020 to make sure that doctors or anyone else who administers a Covid-19 vaccine cannot be sued.48

When the risks of vaccination turn out to be 100 percent for a child, it is the mother and father raising that child on a day-to-day basis who will be left with the lifelong consequences — not the doctor who has been given the power to secretly persuade the child to take vaccines, and not the politician who voted to give doctors that power.

The D.C. council sponsor of the bill entitled the “Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act” originally wanted doctors to be able to vaccinate children of any age — no matter how young — without the knowledge or consent of their parents. She argued that minors of any age can get an abortion in Washington, D.C., and get treated for a sexually transmitted disease or substance abuse without the knowledge or consent of their parents.49

She told Medscape Medical News that parents with “anti-science” beliefs were not vaccinating their children based on a “disproven belief” that vaccines may cause harm, which puts other people at “extreme risk” for disease.50

A dissenting D.C. city council member countered with “Medical professionals and schools should not be permitted to coerce impressionable minors into procedures capable of causing injury or death behind their parents’ back.”51

Vaccine Concealment Law a Profound Betrayal of Public Trust

The Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights states that:52

“The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society;” and “For persons who are not capable of exercising autonomy, special measures are to be taken to protect their rights and interests;” and “Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information.”

It is a profound betrayal of public trust for any city, state or federal government to strip parents of their God-given right to protect their children from harm by allowing a doctor to give a child a pharmaceutical product without getting a parent’s permission.

Science is not perfect, doctors are not infallible, and pharmaceutical products like vaccines come with risks that can be greater for some individuals than others,53,54,55 which is why parents must retain the human right to exercise informed consent to medical risk taking on behalf of their minor children. Will the vaccine concealment bill that is now law in Washington, D.C., be exported to your state next?

Take Action Today to Protect Parental Rights

If you want to protect parental and informed consent rights, register for the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal today and stay up to date on vaccine laws being proposed in your state so you can contact your legislators and take positive action.

Never be the one who has to say you did not do today what you could have done to change tomorrow. It’s your health. Your family. Your choice. And our mission continues: No forced vaccination. Not in America.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 Fisher BL. How Fear of a Virus Changed Our World. NVIC Newsletter June 1, 2020

2 Anderson A. These Endless Public Health Mandates Threaten American’s Liberty. Heritage Foundation Mar. 15, 2021

3 Weisberg L, Molnar P. LaJolla Light June 14 2021

4 Council of the District of Columbia. B23-0171-Minor Consent for Vaccination Amendment Act of 2019. (Effective from Mar. 16, 2021)

5 Al-Arshani S. Kids as young as 11 years old would be able to consent to vaccinations under a new bill proposed in Washington, DC. Business Insider

6 Richardson D. DC Bill B23-0181 Allowing Children 11 Years Old and Older to Be Vaccinated Without Parental Knowledge or Consent Advances

7 Smith W. D.C. to Legalize Vaccination of 11-Year Olds Without Parental OK. National Review Nov. 5, 2020

8 Turner M. DC Council to make final vote on bill that would allow minors to get vaccines without parental consent. WUSA-9 Nov. 12, 2020

9, 17 Austermuhle M. D.C. Activists Want Bowser to Veto Bill That Would Allow Minors to Consent to Vaccines. NPR Dec. 7, 2020

10, 22, 49, 51 Ault A. 11-Year-Olds Could Receive Vaccines Without Parental Consent in DC. Medscape Dec. 24, 2020

11 McNeely M. Bill to Let 11-Year Olds Make Medical Decision: Will Congress Say No? Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) Feb. 24, 2021

12 Parentalrights.org. Breaking DC Update: Lee Attempts “Common Consent.” Mar. 3, 2021

13 FindLaw. Understanding Informed Consent and Your Rights as a Patient. June 6, 2018

14, 40 Blakemore SJ, Robbins TW. Decision-making in the adolescent brain. Nature Neuroscience 2012; 15: 1184-1191

15, 20 Fisher BL. Do You Know How to Recognize A Vaccine Reaction? NVIC Newsletter Aug. 27, 2018

16 National Vaccine Information Center. If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions

18 CDC. Contraindications and precautions to commonly used vaccines. May 4, 2021

19 CDC. COVID-19 Vaccines: Summary Documents for Interim Clinical Considerations. June 1, 2021

21 Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA). National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. June 2021

23 English A, Shaw FE, McCauley MM et al. Legal Basis of Consent for Health Care and Vaccination for Adolescents. Pediatrics 2008; 121: S85-S87

24 42 U.S.C. United States Code, 2016 edition. Title 42 – The Public Health and Welfare Chapter 6A – Public Health Service… Vaccine information

25 CDC. Vaccine Information Statements (VISs): Required Use. July 28, 2020

26 42 U.S.C. United States Code, 2016 edition. Title 42 – The Public Health and Welfare Chapter 6A – Public… Recording and reporting of information

27 MedAlerts. Search the U.S. Government’s VAERS Data and Reporting Vaccine Reactions to VAERS

28 Fisher BL. DIY If Your Doctor Won’t Report Vaccine Reactions to VAERS. NVIC Newsletter June 2, 2021

29 Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA). National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. VICP Data & Statistics June 2021

30 Family Education and Privacy Act. Title 34: Education

31 Nunez K. What You Need to Know About Informed Consent. Healthline Oct. 11, 2019

32 Encyclopedia.com. Nuremberg Code Establishes the Principle of Informed Consent

33 Komesaroff PA, Parker M. Ethical Aspects of Consent. Issues Magazine March 2009

34 Otterstrom K. The Legal Right and Responsibilities of a Parent. Lawyers.com Apr. 9, 2015

35 Findlaw. How Long Do Parents’ Legal Obligations to Their Children Continue? Nov. 17, 2018

36 Fisher BL. The Moral Right to Conscientious, Philosophical and Personal Belief Exemption to Vaccination

37 Kelley AE, Schochet T, Landry CF. Risk taking and novelty seeking in adolescence: introduction to part I. Ann NY Acad Sci 2004; 1021-1032

38 Steinberg L. Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends Cogn Sci 2005; 9(2): 69-74

39 Harvard Mental Health Letter. The adolescent brain: Beyond raging hormones. Harvard Health Publishing Mar. 7, 2011

41 Steinberg L. Monahan KC. Age Differences in Resistance to Peer Influence. Dev Psychol 2007; 43(6): 1531-1543

42 Knoll LJ, Magis-Weinberg L, Speekenrbrink M et al. Social Influence on Risk Perception During Adolescence. Psychological Science May 25, 2015

43, 45 Koleva G. Authoritarian Doctors, Timid Patients, and a Health Care Gridlock. Forbes May 29, 2012

44 Heath S. Understanding the Power Hierarchy in Patient-Provider Relationships. Patient EngagementHIT July 23, 2019

46 Fisher BL. The National Plan to Vaccinate Every American. NVIC Newsletter Mar. 21, 2020

47 NVIC. National Vaccine Information Center Cites “Betrayal” of Consumers by US Supreme Court Giving Total Liability… Businesswire Feb. 23, 2011

48 Fisher BL, Parpia R. 2005 PREP Act and 1986 Act Shield Vaccine Manufacturers from Liability. The Vaccine Reaction Aug. 10, 2020

50 Ibid

52 United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Oct 19, 2005

53 Institute of Medicine Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines. Evaluation of Biologic Mechanisms of Adverse Effects: Increased Susceptibility

54 National Vaccine Information Center. Vaccination: Know the Risks and Failures. 2019

55 Fisher BL. Why Is Informed Consent to Vaccination a Human Right? National Vaccine Information Center June 28, 2017

Featured image is from Mercola

The Miami-Haiti Connection: Another Mercenary, Another Day

July 13th, 2021 by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

All Global Research articles 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 weekend we found out that the Colombian men arrested in connection with the assassination of Haitian president Jovenel Moïse may have been hired by a Florida private security company with Venezuelan connections. Furthermore, they might have been deployed on behalf of an Haitian ex-pat in Miami who wanted to replace Moïse as president.

Why does this sound so familiar?

Maybe because it was only last year that 13 men led an unsuccessful coup attempt — known cheekily as the “Bay of Piglets” — against Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro. Their alleged leader was a former Navy Seal, who also runs a security company in Florida. Jordan Goudreau was allegedly working with ex-Venezuelan military exiles who wanted to help overthrow Maduro for opposition leader Juan Guaido (he has denied any involvement). They led an elaborate plan to train fellow ex-Venezuelan military soldiers at a training camp in Colombia. Goudreau wasn’t on the boat that day when the May 2020 plot was foiled, but two former Green Berets (ages 34 and 41) were, and they are doing 20 years in a Venezuelan jail right now, convicted on charges of conspiracy, illicit trafficking of weapons, and terrorism.

The details in both stories are sordid, but the common thread is this: guns for hire have always been around but after our 9/11 wars the proliferation of private military companies with sophisticated weapons, well-trained leaders, and money seeming to burn cannot be ignored. As Sean McFate, author of The Modern Mercenary: Private Armies and What They Mean for World Order (2015) likes to say, it would be impossible to stuff this genie back into the bottle. Not only did we conjure the djinn of the modern industry by outsourcing security throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — think Blackwater, Dyncorp, Triple Canopy — but made it a lucrative opportunity for the millions of veterans of those wars. And it’s not just an American game. Plenty of companies working with governments all over the world see the benefit of waging conflicts under the radar with hired mercenaries — just ask the Russians. According to reports, the Wagner group has been operating in Ukraine, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Madagascar, and yes, in 2019 they were reportedly working to protect Maduro in Venezuela.

And we cannot forget about our prince of peace, Erik Prince, Blackwater founder, who Time magazine just reported was allegedly approaching the Ukrainian government in 2020 with plans to build a private army to help them against the Russians. The Ukrainians smartly turned them down, as did the Trump administration when Prince was shopping around a plan to outsource Afghanistan. The Somali government shut down a Prince-related contract in 2011. Meanwhile, he was recently accused of backing an armed (but aborted) operation that would have helped insurgent Khalifa Haftar overthrow the government in Libya (in violation of UN arms embargo) in 2019. Supposedly, he even offered his services to Maduro, a year before Goudreau’s silly plot.

But the UAE was glad to take Prince’s sellswords for royal bodyguards in 2011. And guess where they were from (and trained)? Colombia. Soldiers trained there were later sent to fight (and die) in Yemen for the Emiratis.

Privateering is a lucrative business. It’s also a highly immoral trade in which governments, non-state actors, and private citizens with the right amount of money can wage an insurgency, repress local populations, or assassinate the leader of another country. The highest bidder wins.

While we are still just learning the Miami connection to Moïse’s murder, the very mention of a private security firm raises some uncomfortable questions about financing and the ease with which armed assailants can be trained and armed and transported around for these missions. As McFate would like to say, this won’t be the last time.

“A world with more mercenaries is one with more war and suffering,” he has said.

Let’s just hope Erik Prince doesn’t have his finger prints on this one. We sort of created him.

*

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

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook

Cuban President’s Statement to the People of Cuba

July 13th, 2021 by President Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez

All Global Research articles 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 Sunday evening the Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel gave the following statement on national television and radio to the people of Cuba:

We have been honest, we have been transparent, we have been clear and at every moment we have been explaining to our people the complexities of the current moments. I remind you that more than a year and a half ago, when the second semester of 2019 began, we had to explain that we were entering a difficult situation. … Since then we have remained under that situation as a result of all the United States government moves led by the Trump administration in relation to Cuba.

They began to intensify a series of restrictive measures, a tightening of the blockade, of financial persecution against the energy sector with the aim of suffocating our economy and expecting that this would provoke the desired massive social outbreak, which sows the possibilities for the entire ideological campaign that it has done, to be able to call for humanitarian intervention that ends in military intervention and interference, and that affects the rights, sovereignty and independence of all peoples.

That situation continued, then came the 243 measures that we all know about [Trump’s measures tightening the blockade, banning all remittances, etc.] and finally they decided to include Cuba in a list of countries sponsoring terrorism, a spurious, illegitimate and unilateral list that the United States government has adopted, believing themselves, the United States, the emperors of the world.

Many countries suddenly submitted to these decisions, but it must be recognized that others do not allow it to be imposed on them. All these measures led to the immediate cutting off of various sources of foreign income such as tourism, Cuban-American travel to our country, and remittances. A plan was made to discredit the Cuban medical brigades and the solidarity collaborations provided by Cuba, which received an important amount of foreign exchange for that collaboration.

This whole situation caused a situation of shortages in the country, especially of food, medicines, raw materials and supplies to be able to develop our economic and productive processes that at the same time contribute to exports. Two important elements are cut off: the ability to export and the ability to invest resources. And from the productive processes, to then develop goods and services for our population.

We also have limitations on fuels and spare parts and all this has caused a level of dissatisfaction, coupled with accumulated problems that we have been able to solve and that came from the special period together with a fierce media campaign of discrediting, part of the unconventional war that tries to fracture the unity between the party, the state and people; that tries to portray the government as insufficient and incapable of providing well-being to the Cuban people whereby the U.S. government tries to convey that only with them can a country like Cuba hope to progress.

Those are well-known hypocritical recipes, speeches of double standards that we know very well throughout the history of the United States towards Cuba. How did they intervene in our country, how did they take over our island in 1902, how did they maintain domination of our island in the pseudo-republic stage, and how were those interests dealt a blow by the Cuban Revolution in its triumph?

The example of the Cuban Revolution has bothered them a lot for 60 years and their aggression has been constantly increasing. They have applied an unjust, criminal and cruel blockade, now intensified in pandemic conditions and therein lies the manifest perversity, the evil of all those intentions. Blockade and restrictive actions that they have never taken against any other country, nor against those they consider their main enemies.

Therefore, it has been a policy of viciousness against a small island that only aspires to defend its independence, its sovereignty and to build its society with self-determination according to the principles that more than 86% of the population has supported in the broad and democratic exercise that we supported a few years ago to approve the current Constitution of the Republic of Cuba.

In the midst of these conditions comes the pandemic, a pandemic that has not affected only Cuba, but the entire world, including the United States. It has affected rich countries and it must be said that in the face of this pandemic neither the United States nor those rich countries that had all the capacity to face its effects in the beginning — and in many of those first world countries — with much more wealth, their health systems and intensive therapy rooms collapsed. The poor were disadvantaged because there are no public policies aimed at the people for their salvation, and their indicators in relation to the confrontation of the pandemic have worse results than those of Cuba in many cases.

This is how we were progressing, we controlled the outbreaks and new outbreaks, with a tremendous capacity of our people, our scientists and our health personnel to sacrifice, and almost the entire country has been involved in it. We have created five vaccine candidates, of which one has already been recognized as a vaccine and which is the first in Latin America. Cuba is already vaccinating its population. It is a process that takes time. Vaccines must be produced, but at the moment we have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world and in a few weeks we have exceeded 20% of the population’s vaccination, a process that continues.

In recent months, strains that are more aggressive and cause more transmission of the disease have begun to circulate. In the middle of this situation is that a group of complications begin to appear. In the first place, cases occur with a speed and accumulation that exceeds the capacities that we have to be able to create, to attend to these cases in state institutions. So we have had to go to open up capacities in other centers for the cases. By opening up more centers, we have also had to give priority for electrical energy use, even in the midst of accumulated energy problems that have caused us blackouts. The amount of electricity circuits we are having to protect so COVID patients are treated, creates a situation where more circuits are causing annoying but necessary blackouts, because we have to restore our electricity generation capacities. This has happened in recent days and has caused irritation, misunderstanding, concerns and affectations to the population.

By having more patients, there is more consumption of medications, and our stocks of drugs are also running out, the possibilities of acquiring them being very difficult. In the midst of all this, we continue with will, thinking about everything, working for everyone. Now we have to go to the experience of [COVID-positive cases] cases staying home, due to the lack of capacities in a group of provinces, and we have had to summon the family so that they have a more direct, responsible participation. We do not tire of admiring in the midst of this situation the capacity for creative resistance that our people have. And how with these values, if we maintain responsibility and unity, in the shortest possible time with vaccination and with responsible behavior, complying with hygienic sanitary measures, social isolation and physical distancing, we will leave this pandemic peak sooner rather than later, which is not just the case for Cuba.

What Cuba managed to do was postpone this pandemic peak over time with everything we did, and in the shortest time we will overcome it. This is what we have affirmed these days, in our tours of the provinces to specify all the strategies of confronting the pandemic.

In a very cowardly, subtle and opportunistic and perverse way, from the most complicated situations that we have had in provinces such as Matanzas and Ciego de Ávila, those who have always approved the blockade and who serve as mercenaries of the Yankee blockade on the streets, begin to appear with doctrines of humanitarian aid and a “humanitarian corridor.” We all know where they come from.

They do this to strengthen the claim that the Cuban government is not capable of getting out of this situation, as if they were so interested in solving the health problems of our people.

If you want to have a real gesture of support with Cuba, if you want to be concerned about the people, lift the blockade and we will see how we engage. Why don’t they do it? Why don’t they have the courage to lift the blockade? What legal and moral foundation do they have to support a foreign government that applies this policy to a small country in the midst of such an adverse situation.

Isn’t that genocide, isn’t that a crime against humanity? They make claims that we are a dictatorship. What a strange dictatorship it is that cares about giving its entire population health care, that seeks wellbeing for all, that in the midst of these situations is capable of having programs and public policies based on everyone. A dictatorship that is aspiring to vaccinate everyone with a Cuban vaccine, because we knew that no one was going to sell us vaccines and we had no money to go to the international market to buy vaccines.

Now they shout that we are murderers. Where are the murdered in Cuba? Where are the disappeared?

Why were the other countries that have suffered these events of pandemic peaks not attacked in the press? Why were they not given the solution of humanitarian intervention? They were not attacked with discrediting campaigns that they have wanted to launch against us.

Life, history and facts show what is behind all this: It is to suffocate and end the Revolution and for that they are trying to discourage our people by misleading them. When people are in severe conditions like the ones we are living in, events like the ones we saw today in San Antonio de los Baños occur.

In San Antonio de los Baños, a group of people gathered in one of the most central parks in the city to protest and demand. Who were those people? They were made up of the people who are experiencing some of the shortcomings and difficulties, there are revolutionary people who may be confused and who may not have all the arguments or who were expressing their dissatisfaction.

Those two groups of people did it in a different way and looked for an argument and asked for an explanation. The first thing they said was “I am a revolutionary” “I support the Revolution.”

This was headed by a group of manipulators who were lending themselves to the plans of those campaigns that appeared on social networks. The famous SOSMatanzas or SOSCuba, the call to the banging of pans, so that in several cities of Cuba there would be demonstrations of this type and there would be social unrest.

This is very criminal, very cruel, especially at this time where we must ensure that people remain in the houses who are protecting themselves from the pandemic. With the morale that the Revolution gives, the revolutionaries of San Antonio de los Baños, the authorities of the province, and a group of comrades from the leadership of the country presented ourselves in San Antonio de los Baños.

This mass of revolutionaries confronted the counterrevolutionaries and we spoke with the revolutionaries and some who may be non-revolutionaries but who were asking for arguments. Later we marched and toured the town to show that in Cuba the streets belong to the revolutionaries.

While this is happening, we know that there are other towns in the country, where groups of people in certain streets and squares have gathered, also motivated by such unhealthy purposes.

The state has all the political will to dialogue, but also to participate. We will not hand over our sovereignty nor the independence of this nation. They have to pass over our corpses if they want to overthrow the Revolution.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 Cuba Solidarity Campaign

The Prevailing Corona Nonsense Narrative, Debunked in 10 or 26 Minutes

July 13th, 2021 by Dr. Thomas Binder

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Every sick fellow human and every relative of deceased fellow humans has my deepest empathy, but, first and foremost, has also the right to know the truth.

I would like to present the reality of the corona crisis, go into its chronology and confront its numerous myths and intellectual absurdities with scientificity. The most important studies are linked in the text. Further scientific information, including links to other important studies, can be found on the homepages of ‘Aletheia – Medicine and Science for Proportionality’, the ‘Corman-Drosten Review Report’, and ‘Doctors for Covid Ethics’, of which I am a member.

PCR Testing Epidemic, 2006

As responsible physicians and scientists, in the case of infections diagnosed by quick PCR tests in the context of an alleged epidemic of national or pandemic of international scope, we must always consider the possibility of a pseudo or testing epidemic.

On January 27th, 2007, the New York Times, virtually the bible of journalists whose integrity they could still trust at the time, published an important piece entitled: ‘Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t’.

Dr. Herndon, internist at a medical centre in the U.S. state of New Hampshire, coughs seemingly incessantly for a fortnight starting in mid-April 2006. Soon, an infectious disease specialist has the disturbing idea that this could be the beginning of a whooping cough epidemic. By the end of April, other hospital staff are also coughing. Severe, persistent coughing is a leading symptom of whooping cough. And if it is whooping cough, the outbreak must be contained immediately because the disease can be fatal for babies in the hospital and lead to dangerous pneumonia in frail elderly patients.

It is the start of a bizarre episode at the medical centre: the story of the epidemic that wasn’t.

For months, almost everyone involved believes there is a huge whooping cough outbreak at the medical centre with far-reaching consequences. Nearly 1,000 staff members are given a quick PCR test and put on leave from work until the results are in; 142 people, 14.2% of those tested, including Dr Herndon, are tested positive in the quick PCR test, so diagnosed with whooping cough. Thousands, including many children, receive antibiotics and a vaccine as protection. Hospital beds are taken out of service as a precaution, including some in the intensive care unit.

Months later, all those apparently suffering from whooping cough are stunned to learn that in bacterial cultures, the diagnostic gold standard for whooping cough, the bacterium that causes whooping cough could not be detected in any single sample. The whole insanity was a false alarm.

The supposed whooping cough epidemic had not taken place in reality, but only in the minds of those involved, triggered by blind faith in a highly sensitive quick PCR test that had become oh so modern. In truth, all those who had fallen ill had suffered from a harmless cold. Infectiologists and epidemiologists had put aside their expertise and common sense and blatantly ignored this most likely differential diagnosis of the symptom cough.

Many of the new molecular tests are quick but technically demanding. Each laboratory performs them in its own way as so-called ‘home brews’. Usually they are not commercially available and there are rarely good estimates of their error rates. Their high sensitivity makes false positives likely. When hundreds or thousands of people are tested, as happened here, false positive results can give the appearance of an epidemic.

An infectiologist said: I had a feeling at the time that this gave us a shadow of a hint of what it might be like during a pandemic flu epidemic.

And an epidemiologist explained: One of the most troubling aspects of the pseudo-epidemic is that all the decisions seemed so sensible at the time.

The madness of a pseudo or testing epidemic seemed perfectly normal to so many involved.

I recommend you read this article published in the New York Times in 2007 and ask yourself: “Shouldn’t we all have learned a lot from this for the future?”

Swine Flu Scandal, 2009

As responsible physicians and scientists, in an alleged or real epidemic of national or pandemic of international scope we must always remember previous alleged or real epidemics or pandemics. Here is the last one.

In spring 2009, a highly contagious, very dangerous influenza virus, H1N1, seems to threaten humanity. The disease it causes is clinically indistinguishable from seasonal flu and is called swine flu.

Experts like the German virologist Prof. Christian Drosten spread horror scenarios predicting millions of deaths worldwide. In May, the WHO relaxes the criteria for declaring a pandemic for reasons that have never been explained. It removes the dangerousness of the causative pathogen from the definition of a pandemic. Now, the rapid, massive spread of a comparatively harmless pathogen over at least two WHO regions is enough. Any endemic, seasonal wave of any flu or cold virus, no matter how harmless it is, can be called a pandemic. Promptly, the WHO declares a H1N1 pandemic on June 11th.

Politicians are taking seriously the warnings of the experts and the WHO. Without consulting the population, they are procuring hundreds of millions of packages of sparsely effective, expensive antiviral drugs and hundreds of millions of doses of hastily approved vaccines that are, after all, produced using conventional methods.

Critics who describe the virus as comparatively harmless are ridiculed or ignored initially. Finally, scientists, in Europe, especially the German microbiologist and infection epidemiologist Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi and the German pneumologist and politician Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, gain attention in mass media and politics. The global madness that was already threatening at that time can be averted just in time.

Worldwide, about 150 to 600 thousand people died with or from H1N1, which turned out to be less dangerous than seasonal influenza. Correspondingly, vaccination readiness was low. Nevertheless, in Sweden alone about 700 children contracted disabling narcolepsy, sleeping sickness, caused by hastily approved unnecessary and unsafe vaccines. In Switzerland, 1.8 million vaccine doses were sold abroad or given away, and 8.9 million were disposed of.

There was hardly any media coverage of the swine flu scandal. The temporary success of the media-fuelled panic was primarily due to the interconnectedness of experts, the pharmaceutical industry, the WHO and health politicians. In the end, the seemingly completely overwhelmed health authorities had fallen for an almost perfectly orchestrated propaganda campaign.

I recommend you watch the documentary ‘Profiteers of Fear – The Swine Flu Business’, produced in German by Arte in November 2009, and ask yourself: “Shouldn’t we all have learned a lot from this for the future?”

‘Event 201’: Corona Pandemic Simulation, 2019

The situation is threatening. A new corona virus is spreading across the world. Case numbers on Johns Hopkins University’s dashboard are rising and rising. The highly contagious, immune-resistant, dangerous virus is paralysing trade and transport globally and sending the world economy into free fall.

What sounds like the alleged outbreak of the alleged pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 in China’s Wuhan province in December 2019, is the scenario of ‘Event 201’.

On October 18th, 2019, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Johns Hopkins University and WEF are organising a pandemic simulation under this name. After the Spanish flu, the bird flu and the swine flu, as the pathogen they do not choose another influenza virus, but a coronavirus that is completely unknown to lay people so far, especially not to politicians and journalists.

This simulation of a corona pandemic that broke out in South America is not attended by doctors, but by Western representatives of the organisers, the UN, the WHO, governments, authorities and global corporations from the fields of high finance, pharmaceuticals, logistics, tourism and the media, as well as by Dr. George Gao, virologist and director of the Chinese CDC, the Chinese equivalent of the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH).

The participants agree that a corona pandemic is disruptive, can only be overcome by global governmental and private cooperation, system-relevant global corporations must be propped up financially, medium-sized businesses must be sacrificed if necessary, voices that deviate from the prevailing narrative must be censored consistently in the mass and social media, and the pandemic can only be terminated by vaccinating the entire world population.

The simulation ends with 65 million deaths worldwide.

I recommend you watch the documentary ‘Event 201: Corona Pandemic from the Drafting Table’, produced in German with English subtitles by ExpressZeitung in June 2020, and ask yourself: “Shouldn’t the mass media have reported on this in detail?”

Corona Scandal, 2020

Two and a half months later, on December 31st, 2019, the Chinese CDC, led by Dr. George Gao, reports 27 cases of pneumonia of unknown cause to the WHO – out of a Chinese population of 1.4 billion. On January 7th, 2020, the Chinese health authorities identify a novel coronavirus as the causative agent.

On January 21st, 2020, Prof. Christian Drosten et al. submit a paper, the recipe for which laboratories can produce a rapid RT-PCR test for the detection of the virus called 2019-nCoV. It is accepted just the next day and published in the journal Eurosurveillance another day later.

The WHO had already posted the Drosten RT-PCR quick test on its website one week earlier and recommended it as the global diagnostic gold standard.

On January 30th, Drosten et al. published the justification of the narrative of epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission of 2019-nCoV in the letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, virtually one of the bibles of us doctors whose integrity we could still trust at the time, with the title ‘Transmission of 2019-nCoV Infection from an Asymptomatic Contact in Germany’.

On February 11th, the WHO names the novel corona virus SARS-CoV-2, the disease it causes COVID-19; coronavirus disease. It does so against the request of Chinese virologists. They preferred to call it HCoV-19, human coronavirus, because of the danger that the name SARS-CoV-2 could stir up unfounded fears out of its biological and epidemiological lack of similarity to the much more dangerous SARS-CoV-1.

On March 11th, the WHO declares a COVID pandemic. Meanwhile, its Director-General, the biologist, immunologist and philosopher Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has been charged with genocide in Ethiopia before the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The presumption of innocence applies, of course.

Now, almost everything is going on as it did during the swine flu scandal in 2009, but in an even more lubricated way. Experts, mostly laboratory physicians and biologists working as virologists or epidemiologists, who have never examined anyone suffering from a respiratory infection, let alone treated them, declare that SARS-CoV-2 is virtually an alien about which we know absolutely nothing and that we must regard as extremely dangerous, until largely the same experts will have proven otherwise at some point. In Switzerland, they constitute themselves as ‘Swiss National COVID-19 Science Task Force’ and offer themselves to the Swiss Federal Council as scientific advisors.

The executive and legislative politicians as well as the federal and cantonal health authorities, all panicked by them, accept their offer and seem to follow them as blindly as the Federal Council apparently blindly followed the WHO when it declared the COVID pandemic. Unlike any ninepins club, the now official scientific advisory board to the Swiss government through what is supposed to be Switzerland’s biggest crisis since the Second World War does not keep any record of its activities.

On March 16th, the Swiss Federal Council declares the ‘exceptional situation’, the highest danger level of the epidemic law, based on exactly zero scientific evidence.

The mass media, including the Swiss public service broadcaster SRG, take on the third part in this conglomerate of mutually escalating ignorance, arrogance, incompetence and organised irresponsibility. Brainless and heartless themselves, they hammer into our heads around the clock:

There is a pandemic of a highly contagious and even epidemiologically relevant asymptomatically transmissible corona killer virus. Every seemingly hale and hearty fellow human being can be your angel of death!

Unlike in 2009, the mass media consistently censor, discredit and defame questioning doctors and scientists, including luminaries such as John Ioannidis, Professor of medicine, epidemiology and public health at Stanford University School of Medicine, one of the world’s most renowned and most cited scientists, specialised in science fraud, Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg. After having been libelled, including alleged threats to politicians and my family, by a private person well known to me, myself, was brutally arrested by an anti-terrorist unit in my practice and, after it turned out immediately that I had not threatened anyone, merely the world view of insane people, I was shipped off to a closed psychiatric ward for six days because of ‘self-endangerment while in COVID insanity’.

The governments of almost all countries seem to have forgotten their epidemic plans, which wisely spare the individuals, the society and the economy. In blind obedience to the WHO and to lobbyists, called experts, they are enacting self-destructive non-pharmacological interventions, including lockdowns never considered before, following the authoritarian Chinese role model. They are doing this almost globally, in lockstep.

Without consulting the population, they procure billions of doses of emergency mRNA and DNA injections, that are even temporarily approved by Swissmedic. This technology is being widely used on humans for the first time. Almost worldwide, the constitution, the rule of law, human rights, civil liberties, ethics, scientificity, and common sense are being sacrificed in favour of a quasi-global authoritarian regime under the control of the WHO: Who controls the WHO, controls the world!

Image on the right is from Shutterstock

All elements of the prevailing corona narrative are invented out of the fact-free vacuum

1. SARS-CoV-2 did not emerge in Wuhan in December 2019. First, in November 2020, a study from Milan showed that SARS-CoV-2 was endemic in Italy as early as September 2019, before the 2019/20 flu season. Other studies showed the same later, for example in France.

2. There is no SARS-CoV-2 epidemic of national scope, thus no pandemic. This is already evident from the lack of excess mortality when corrected for demographics, and from the rather low occupancy of the intensive care units, whose capacities, in addition, have been massively reduced since April 2020.

3. The indication to test, namely not only critically ill hospitalised patients with a need for specific antiviral therapy, in the surveillance system, and in a study cohort, but to test even asymptomatic, formerly called healthy, people and, on top of that, to test only for one single of all respiratory viruses that must be considered in the differential diagnosis of respiratory infections, is wrong.

4. The Drosten RT-PCR test is neither diagnostic for an infection with SARS-CoV-2 nor for a sickness or death from COVID-19. On November 27th, 2020, an international group of 22 life scientists, including myself, published an ‘External Peer Review of the Corman-Drosten Paper’.

We explain that conflicts of interest exist, that the alleged peer review within 24 hours is absurd, and ten fundamental scientific flaws. This most important medical publication of 2020, which can hardly be surpassed in terms of lack of scientificity, should never have been published.

The Corman-Drosten RT-PCR test protocol is fabricated poorly and vaguely, without validation and standardisation. As a result of cross reaction with other coronaviruses, its specificity of about 98.6%, corresponding to 1.4% false positives, which is already low in the absence of any virus, is further reduced to up to 92.4%, corresponding to 7.6% false positives, during the flu season. Everywhere, the test is performed differently and at too high cycle thresholds. Although studies have shown that no culturable viruses are present in samples with a Ct value above 28, the tests are still carried out with cycle threshold values above 35. Their results are reported worldwide without reference to clinical symptoms.

5. The symptoms, clinical, laboratory and radiological findings of COVID-19 are not clearly distinguishable from diseases caused by other respiratory viruses.

6. There is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission of respiratory viruses. What we learned in medical school has meanwhile been confirmed also for SARS-CoV-2 by numerous studies. The ‘asymptomatic contact’ invented by Prof. Drosten in the Letter to the Editor of January 30th, 2020 was very much symptomatic: the patient had suppressed her symptoms with medication.

Therefore, all non-pharmacological interventions for asymptomatic, formerly called healthy, people beyond the proven effective measures to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2, hygiene and self-isolation of sick people, are ineffective.

7. The long quoted high case fatality rate (CFR) of 2% was misleading. Every primary school student knows that it is not the CFR that is relevant, but the infection fatality rate (IFR), which can easily be lower by a factor of about one hundred because of the number of undetected cases.

8. The initial claim that 5% of the infected people would need intensive care treatment was wrong, for the same reasons that every primary school studentunderstands. It led to the procurement of about 1,000 ventilators and to the postponement of non-emergency but of necessary operations.

9. SARS-CoV-2 is not a mass murderer. The most recent realistic estimate of the global IFR is 0.15%, below 0.05% for under 70s. After replacing the number of deceased within 28 days with a positive PCR test on whatever cause by the number of deceased from COVID-19, it is even much lower, well below that of seasonal influenza.

10. An epidemic does not spread exponentially, but according to a logistic or Gompertz function.

11. Due to basic and cross-immunity only about 10-20% of the people contract the seasonal corona and influenza viruses during each flu season. Herd immunity is likely to exist since the end of the Corona-19 season, in our mid-northern latitudes in April 2020. Therefore, an ‘nth wave of a respiratory virus’ is also a biological impossibility.

12. There is effective prophylaxis: for example healthy lifestyle, lots of social contacts, and vitamin D3.

13. There is effective, well tolerated, low cost therapy: for example topical budesonide, normal doses of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

14. The serial experimental mRNA and DNA injections are unnecessary (IFR 0.15%, for <70a: <0.05%, even much lower after replacing the number of deceased from whatever cause within 28 days with a positive PCR test by the number of deceased from COVID-19, moreover SARS-CoV-2 is mutating permanently and in the sense that it becomes more infectious while less dangerous), ineffective (according to the registration studies, which are not worth the paper they are written on, the mRNA injections reduce the risk of mild COVID-19 disease absolutely(!) by <1%, there are no data for severe courses and in >75-year-olds), and unsafe (anaphylactic reactions, thromboembolism, thrombocytopenia, DIC, and myocarditis in the short term, possible ADE in the medium term, possible autoimmune diseases, cancer, and others in the medium to long term).

SARS-CoV-2 is not an alien! It is a newly discovered member of the well-known beta coronavirus family. Therefore, it self-evidently occurs seasonally from November to April and mutates, without human intervention, in such a way that it becomes ever more contagious but less dangerous. Because of existing basic and cross-immunity, only a fraction of the population falls ill. The disease is usually self-limiting and leaves immunity, possibly for life, and better than the best vaccination ever could. It kills comparatively few people and, unlike influenza, no children.

The entire prevailing corona narrative is nonsense. It justifies the globally dominating unscientific, inhumane madness. Such can be wrought with any respiratory virus: if we no longer test all people with a hypersensitive, low-specific RT-PCR test that cross-reacts with other viruses for theoretically one RNA fragment of SARS-CoV-2, but for one of, say, influenza or metapneumoviruses, we immediately have an influenza or metapneumo testing pandemic.

Incidentally, every second-year medical student must study the basics of epidemiology. There, he or she learns that when an epidemic of national scope is declared, a study cohort representative of the population must be formed immediately. It is used to monitor the number of cases, the severity of the disease and the status of immunity, in this case by determining antibodies and T-cell immunity.

Although it has been more than a year since the WHO declared the COVID pandemic, such a representative surveillance cohort does not exist. Even worse: from week 13 to 44, the FOPH had also paused the surveillance system, thus completing the total blind flight.

The epidemic is largely an unreal PCR testing epidemic, but the oppressive measures which it has produced are real; they threaten our freedom, our livelihoods and even our lives.

Dear responsible colleagues!

Please remember the Hippocratic Oath (“Primum non nocere, secundum cavere, tertium sanare”) and the Geneva Declaration of the World Medical Association:

I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat.

Dear responsible fellow humans!

Wake up, stand up and fight, peacefully but firmly; if not for yourself, then for your children’s future and that of your grandchildren!

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 Doctors for COVID Ethics.

Dr Binder is specialised in Cardiology and Internal Medicine, with a thesis in Immunology and Virology, and 32 years experience in diagnosis and treatment of Acute Respiratory Illness. This text is largely based on his presentation (German text / German video) held at the press conference of ‘Aletheia – Medicine and Science for Proportionality’, May 28th, 2021.

NATO Chief Meets with Egyptian, Israeli Foreign Ministers at Alliance Headquarters

July 13th, 2021 by Rick Rozoff

All Global Research articles 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 12 NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg met with Israeli Foreign Minister and Alternate Prime Minister Yair Lapid at the military bloc’s headquarters in Brussels.

Stoltenberg praised Israel as “one of NATO’s most engaged and capable partners,” one of over twenty years’ standing, and a member of the bloc’s Mediterranean Dialogue military partnership.

He chose the occasion to hold Iran to account over its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and its agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and demanded it “refrain from all activities which are inconsistent with the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (on endorsing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).

The Israeli minister in turn “declared Israel’s readiness to support the alliance on matters of intelligence, cybersecurity, counter-terrorism, climate change, maritime security, missile defense, and civilian emergency management,” and invited the NATO chief to visit Israel. Stoltenberg visted Israel, both Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, in 2019.

In 2006 NATO granted Israel an Individual Partnership Cooperation Programme (the first ever given) under enhanced Mediterranean Dialogue and Operation Active Endeavour auspices.

In 2016 Israel opened a liaison office (effectively an embassy) at NATO headquarters.

NATO’s Stoltenberg also met with the foreign minister of Egypt, Sameh Shoukry, on July 12. He thanked the latter’s nation for over 25 years of military partnership with NATO, also through the Mediterranean Dialogue. Egypt was given a NATO Individual Partnership Cooperation Programme the year after Israel was.

Both nations have participated in NATO naval exercises in the Mediterranean Sea and both participated in the U.S.- and Ukraine- hosted 32-nation Sea Breeze war games in the Black Sea which ended on July 10.

Stoltenberg commended the Egyptian foreign minister on the recent renewal of the Individual Partnership Cooperation Programme between the bloc and his country under enhanced Mediterranean Dialogue provisions and pledged to expand military cooperation with the North African nation in new directions.

Of the 22 nations bordering the Mediterranean, including Britain (Gibraltar) but excluding minuscule Monaco and Gaza, all but four are NATO members or partners: Cyprus, Lebanon, Libya and Syria. Libya was being promoted as a Mediterranean Dialogue member after NATO’s air war against it a decade ago, and may be considered for a partnership again now that it is effectively under Turkish military control. Similarly, more than a third of Cyprus is occupied by troops from NATO member Turkey.

What Rome once possessed and Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler attempted to replicate – undisputed control of the Mediterranean – has been accomplished by a U.S.-dominated military alliance.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on NATO Chief Meets with Egyptian, Israeli Foreign Ministers at Alliance Headquarters
  • Tags: , , ,

Physicians Group Uncovers Evidence that ‘Forever Chemicals’ (PFAS) Have Been Used Extensively in Fracking Unbeknownst to Public

July 13th, 2021 by Physicians for Social Responsibility

All Global Research articles 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 new report, released today by Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), presents evidence that oil and gas companies including ExxonMobil and Chevron have used per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and/or substances that can degrade into PFAS, in hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) for oil and gas in more than 1,200 wells in six U.S. states between 2012 and 2020.

The report also notes that, due to the lack of full disclosure concerning chemicals used, PFAS could have been used in additional states and in drilling and other extraction techniques that precede the underground injections known as fracking.

PFAS have been linked to cancer, birth defects, pre-eclampsia, and other serious health effects. Toxic in minuscule concentrations, they accumulate inside the human body and do not break down in the environment – hence their nickname, “forever chemicals.”

Evidence related to the use of PFAS or PFAS precursors in oil and gas operations has not been previously publicized.

The report, Fracking with “Forever Chemicals,” also documents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s approval of three chemicals for use in oil and gas drilling and/or fracking, despite EPA’s written observation that the chemicals could degrade into substances similar to PFOA, the most infamous PFAS, highlighted in the 2019 feature film Dark Waters. EPA regulators wrote,

EPA has concerns that these degradation products will persist in the environment, could bioaccumulate or biomagnify, and could be toxic (PBT) to people, wild mammals, and birds based on data on analog chemicals, including PFOA and [REDACTED].

One of these chemicals was used commercially for unspecified purposes as recently as 2018, according to EPA records.

On Monday, July 12 at noon Eastern time, Physicians for Social Responsibility will host a webinar where report findings will be presented. Speakers will be:

  • Dusty Horwitt, author, researcher and attorney. Horwitt, now consulting for PSR, has researched chemical use in the oil and gas industry for over a decade. His reports and investigations have received media coverage in the New York Times, Dallas Morning News, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Charleston Gazette, and ProPublica.
  • Linda Birnbaum, board-certified Ph.D. toxicologist and former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
  • Silverio Caggiano, recently retired Battalion Chief and hazardous materials expert with the Youngstown, Ohio fire department.
  • Wilma Subra, Louisiana-based chemist and MacArthur Foundation “Genius” award winner who has spent decades working to protect people from oil- and gas-related pollution.

Representatives of the press will have the opportunity to direct questions to the speakers.

“The evidence that people could be unknowingly exposed to these extremely toxic chemicals through oil and gas operations is disturbing,” said Horwitt. “Considering the terrible history of pollution associated with PFAS, EPA and state governments need to move quickly to ensure that the public knows where these chemicals have been used and is protected from their impacts.”

“It’s very disturbing to see the extent to which critical information about these chemicals is shielded from public view,” added Barbara Gottlieb, PSR’s Environment & Health Program Director. “The lack of transparency about fracking chemicals puts human health at risk.” “PFAS have negative health effects, including cancer, that encompass virtually every system in the human body: the immune system, our reproductive systems, the liver, kidneys,” stated Birnbaum. “The potential that these chemicals are being used in oil and gas operations should prompt regulators to take swift action to investigate the extent of this use, pathways of exposure, and whether people are being harmed.”

“Fire departments are scrambling to get rid of firefighting foam with PFAS in it because EPA says it’s toxic,” said Caggiano, who retired in June 2021 and has trained with fire-fighting foam that contains PFAS. “So if it’s too dangerous for us to use, why should oil and gas companies get to use it?” Youngstown is located near oil and gas production wells and underground injection disposal wells where oil and gas companies inject wastewater from their operations for permanent disposal.

“There’s a potential for [PFAS] to contaminate a huge amount of water or soil or sediment if it were to spill on the surface,” Subra noted. “It doesn’t take much to be present in those media to be a threat to health.”

The report is available to be downloaded at www.psr.org/frackingchemicals.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 OtherWords.org

COVID Vaccine Manufacturer Johnson and Johnson Ordered to Pay $263 Million for Role in Opioid Overdose Epidemic

July 13th, 2021 by Matt Agorist

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Despite the state spending thousands of dollars a second – ticketing, kidnapping, caging, and killing evil drug users, the rate of lethal drug overdoses in the last 15 years has skyrocketed at near-exponential rates. According to the most recent data on overdose deaths, despite the states immoral war on drugs, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that more than 92,000 Americans died of overdose in the 12-month span ending in November — the highest number ever recorded. To understand how we got to this point, we have to look at how Americans became so addicted to opioids. Spoiler alert, it was not by chance.

Across the board, drug use and deaths associated with drug use have increased at alarming rates. No amount of AR-15s, SWAT police, MRAPs, or any other military gear has had a hand in lowering these statistics. In fact, the increase in overdose deaths nearly perfectly coincides with the increase in militarization of police in the last decade and a half.

Instead of deterring drug use, it’s been expanding, getting worse, and drugs have become more available and more dangerous. How did this happen?

There are legitimate needs for opioids just like there are legitimate needs for cannabis. But when people are taught their entire lives to blindly trust the medical industry, who clearly choose to deceive them, we end up with problems like we have today.

The government making drugs illegal does absolutely nothing when a person puts blind trust in a medical establishment who then deliberately addicts them to opioids to make billions. Even when it’s illegal, after these people have been duped into their addictions, they still seek it out. This is why we see soccer moms over dosing on dangerous black market fentanyl in front of Hobby Lobby.

They put blind trust in the government and medical industry to protect them and instead were turned out for a buck.

Drug manufacturers deliberately deceived patients and doctors about the risks of opioids, pushed prescribers to keep patients on the drugs longer and aggressively targeted vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and veterans.

One such company was Johnson & Johnson, who was ordered this week to pay $263 million to resolve claims it fueled an opioid epidemic in New York state and two of its largest counties.

“The opioid epidemic has wreaked havoc” across the nation, New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. “Johnson & Johnson helped fuel this fire.”

Indeed, they did. According to the original $465 million lawsuit out of Oklahoma, J&J deliberately deceived doctors and patients about their opioid drugs which played a major role in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Yes, hundreds of thousands. According to the CDC, nearly 500,000 people died from opioid overdoses from 1999 to 2019.

Given J&J’s history in fueling the opioid crisis, one would be naturally skeptical of blindly receiving a vaccine developed by the same company in record time. What’s more, while the opioid crisis is bad enough J&J’s past is far more insidious than just opioids.

Johnson & Johnson also knew for decades their baby powder was tainted with carcinogenic asbestos and they kept that information from regulators and the public. A government-funded study from the mid-1990s found that Johnson’s baby powder caused cancer in rats and other studies have found an increased risk of cancer in women who used their talc-based products. The potential risks have been known to the company for decades.

What’s more, in 2018, the pharma giant was ordered to pay $4.7 billion to thousands of victims who reportedly developed cancer from using Johnson & Johnson’s products. In that case, 22 women alleged the company’s talc-based products, including its baby powder, contained the known carcinogen, asbestos, which caused them to develop cancer. According to reports, there are over 9,000 similar talc lawsuits against the company.

Currently faced with several major lawsuits for fueling the opioid crisis in the United States, Johnson & Johnson also has a history of bribing doctors and government officials. Even more disturbing still, a Reuters investigation found that J&J knowingly sold a baby powder product that they knew had asbestos in it, which causes mesothelioma.

When this information is brought up, those who report on it are fact checked into oblivion. In April, we discovered that these companies are actually tied to the fact checkers, providing a possible reason for such massive censorship.

According to their own source, Factcheck.org is funded in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. According to the foundation’s 2019 financial statement, the project holds over $1.8 billion of stock in the COVID-19 manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson.

To be clear, no one here is claiming that these vaccines will hurt massive amounts of people or that it will not be beneficial in stopping the virus. No one here at TFTP is telling anyone what to do in regard to vaccinations. We are however, advocating for safety at all levels of this process. Nevertheless, those who promote vaccine safety are increasingly being treated as outcasts and lawmakers and media alike are calling for them to be silenced.

Skepticism is not dangerous, as the media would have you believe. It is necessary for producing a safe product yet Johnson & Johnson has a highly questionable history of operating procedures that are the antithesis of safety. It’s not just J&J either.

In 2000 the Washington Post published a major exposé accusing Pfizer of testing a dangerous new antibiotic called Trovan on children in Nigeria without receiving proper consent from their parents. The experiment occurred during a 1996 meningitis epidemic in the country. In 2001 Pfizer was sued in U.S. federal court by thirty Nigerian families, who accused the company of using their children as human guinea pigs.

Now, the Washington Post is defending the same company in regards to the vaccination.

The pharmaceutical giant also paid out $2.3 billion in 2009 to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products.

“Pfizer violated the law over an extensive time period. Furthermore, at the very same time Pfizer was in our office negotiating and resolving the allegations of criminal conduct by its then newly acquired subsidiary, Warner-Lambert, Pfizer was itself in its other operations violating those very same laws,” Mike Loucks, acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts said at the time.

But that was only a single case, this company has a track record dating back decades that includes everything from bribing government officials to illegally testing products on children to making false claims about drugs and illegally marketing them — leading to multiple deaths. Despite making the largest payout in history, Pfizer has continued to be called to the carpet since 2009 multiple times for misleading the public about their drugs — up to and including vaccines.

If we applied the “three strike” rule to these companies like we do to individuals, they would be in prison for life. Instead, they are receiving tens of billions in taxpayer dollars to help push their fast-tracked vaccines on Americans.

Are we supposed to forget the track record of these companies who deliberately misled regulators about the hazards of their products, knowingly contributing to the deaths of more than 125 people? Or who experimented on children? Or who has paid out hundreds of millions in settlements for the deaths of scores of patients?

The fact is that these companies have track records that include bribing government officials to illegally testing products on children to making false claims about drugs and illegally marketing them.

The ability of Americans to forget the pasts of these companies and blindly line up for a jab which has set off a historical number of adverse reaction reports to the CDC’s VAERS database is uncanny. Yet those who question it are silenced. This is the state of “science” in the modern world.

*

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

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds.

Video: Electromagnetic Properties of the Vaccine: The Magnet Challenge. We Want Answers

July 13th, 2021 by Not On The Beeb

All Global Research articles 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 want answers! 100s of people prove the magnet challenge in this compilation.

This collection of videos is a glimpse of the 1000s worldwide discovering they have been magnetic and we demand answers.

Is there a substance in the vaccine vial which triggers this phenomenon?

The Spanish scientific research team Quinta Columna has revealed that there are graphene oxide particles inside the Pfizer vaccine vial.  For further details click here. 

 

The hashtag #magnetchallenge has been restricted

Use: #wewantanswers #magnetgate

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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

Why Human Rights in China and Tigray, but Not in Haiti, Palestine or Colombia?

July 13th, 2021 by Black Alliance for Peace

All Global Research articles 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.

***

U.S. President Joe Biden and the Democrats have been playing the “Black Lives Matter” tune on their fiddle. Biden even raised the issue of Black Lives Matter during his presidential campaign. But, just days after Biden was sworn into office, his administration lent support for the Haitian dictator, Jovenel Moïse, who stayed in office past his term to the dismay of the Haitian people, who flooded the streets in protest.

Now, Moïse is dead and the United Nations has decided who will be the new president of Haiti. We see the racist irony. The people of Haiti have not been allowed to weigh in. The white rulers have made their decision, as the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) stated in its July 9 press release.

And while the director of Colombia’s National Intelligence Agency and the director of its national police’s Intelligence Division are in Haiti to investigate the role of Colombia in the assassination, those agencies have not launched investigations into police forces and paramilitary elements involved in the recent killings of peaceful protesters in Colombia, a client state of the United States.

Accepting the recommendation from the United Nations Special Envoy for Haiti that contested Prime Minister Claude Joseph would be the new president is the ultimate in Western arrogance. The white West is continuing its white-supremacist narrative that the predominately African/Black population of Haiti cannot govern itself. What is really going on is the U.S./EU/NATO Axis of Domination is working through the “Core Group” to ensure Haiti remains subordinate to its interests. The United States remains in the lead of that axis.

That is why we say Biden and Democrats could care less about Black lives.

In fact, Biden was famously quoted in 1994 as saying,

“If Haiti just quietly sunk into the Caribbean or rose up 300 feet, it wouldn’t matter a whole lot in terms of our interest.”

Is this the man and are Democrats the people Africans and other colonized people around the world are supposed to trust with our lives?

No, they are committed to one thing: The perpetuation of the pan-European colonial-capitalist project that has been underway for more than 500 years. That ideological foundation explains why they do not believe in the inherent dignity of all human beings. Hence, the double standard in place: The pretense of democracy and the rule of law for them and colonial fascism for the nations and peoples of the global South.

This is why the white West’s deployment of “humanitarian intervention” because of the “Responsibility to Protect” is so cynical. The West is responsible for the barbaric treatment and conditions colonized peoples have faced for centuries. The U.S. ruling class has shown nothing but contempt for the lives of workers inside its borders and for the millions worldwide who live in abject poverty as a result of the global U.S.-dominated capitalist-imperialist system.

Why the concern about Muslims in China while Biden and Democrats greenlight Israel’s war crimes against predominately Muslim Palestinians?

Whenever the United States raises humanitarian issues—be it in the Horn of Africa or in China—we know it can only mean one thing: The United States has strategic interests that have nothing to do with the humanity of the people they pretend to care about.

That is why BAP will continue to tell the truth, no matter the consequences.

*

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

Letter to Physicians: Four New Scientific Discoveries Regarding the Safety and Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccines

July 13th, 2021 by Doctors for COVID Ethics

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Doctors for Covid Ethics has sent the following letter to tens of thousands of doctors in Europe, summarising four recent scientific findings critical to the COVID-19 vaccination program. The letter explains each finding as it relates to the biology of COVID-19 vaccines, including interactions with the immune system.

Taken together, the letter warns that these new pieces of evidence force all physicians administering COVID-19 vaccines to re-evaluate the merits of COVID-19 vaccination, in the interests of their own ethical standing, and their patients’ safety and health.

A video explanation of the underlying immunology by Professor Sucharit Bhakdi MD is here, with German subtitles here.

*

Dear Colleague:

Four recent scientific discoveries are herewith brought to your urgent attention. They alter the entire landscape of the COVID-19 pandemic, and they force us to reassess the merits of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2.

Summary

Rapid and efficient memory-type immune responses occur reliably in virtually all unvaccinated individuals who are exposed to SARS-CoV-2. The effectiveness of further boosting the immune response through vaccination is therefore highly doubtful. Vaccination may instead aggravate disease through antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).

Discovery 1: SARS-CoV-2 spike protein circulates shortly after vaccination

SARS-CoV-2 proteins were measured in longitudinal plasma samples collected from 13 participants who received two doses of Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine [1]. With 11 of the 13, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was detected in the blood within only one day after the first vaccine injection.

Significance. Spike protein molecules were produced within cells that are in contact with the bloodstream—mostly endothelial cells—and released into the circulation. This means that a) the immune system will attack those endothelial cells, and b) the circulating spike protein molecules will activate thrombocytes. Both effects will promote blood clotting. This explains the many clotting-related adverse events—stroke, heart attack, venous thrombosis—that are being reported after vaccination.

Discovery 2: Rapid, memory-type antibody response after vaccination

Several studies have demonstrated that circulating SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG and IgA antibodies became detectable within 1-2 weeks after application of mRNA vaccines [1–3].

Significance. Rapid production of IgG and IgA always indicates a secondary, memory-type response that is elicited through re-stimulation of pre-existing immune cells. Primary immune responses to novel antigens take longer to evolve and initially produce IgM antibodies, which is then followed by the isotype switch to IgG and IgA.

A certain amount of IgM was indeed detected alongside IgG and IgA in some studies [1,4]. Importantly, however, IgG rose faster than IgM [4], which confirms that the early IgG response was indeed of the memory type. This memory response indicates pre-existing, cross-reactive immunity due to previous infection with ordinary respiratory human coronavirus strains. The delayed IgM response most likely represents a primary response to novel epitopes which are specific to SARS-CoV-2.

Memory-type responses have also been documented with respect to T-cell-mediated immunity [5–7]. Overall, these findings indicate that our immune system efficiently recognizes SARS-CoV-2 as “known” even on first contact. Severe cases of the disease thus cannot be ascribed to lacking immunity. Instead, severe cases might very well be caused or aggravated by pre-existing immunity through antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE, see below).

Discovery 3: SARS-CoV-2 elicits robust adaptive immune responses regardless of disease severity

Serum antibody profiles were reported for 203 individuals following SARS-CoV-2 infection [8]. 202 (>99%) of the participants exhibited SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies. With 193 individuals (95%), these antibodies prevented SARS-CoV-2 infection in cell culture and also inhibited binding of the spike protein to the ACE2 receptor. Furthermore, CD8+ T-cell responses specific for SARS-CoV-2 were clear and quantifiable in 95 of 106 (90%) HLA-A2-positive individuals.

Significance. This study confirms the above assertion that the immune response to initial contact with SARS-CoV-2 is of the memory type. In addition, it shows that this reaction occurs with almost all individuals, and particularly also with those who experience no manifest clinical symptoms.

The goal of the vaccination is to stimulate production of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, but we now know that such antibodies can and will be rapidly generated by everyone upon the slightest viral challenge, even without vaccination.

Severe lung infections always take many days to develop, which means that if the antibodies generated by the memory response are needed, they will arrive on time. Therefore, vaccination is unlikely to provide significant benefit with respect to the prevention of severe lung infection.

Discovery 4: Rapid increase of spike protein antibodies after the second injection of mRNA vaccines

IgG and IgA antibody titres were monitored before vaccination and after the first and the second injection of mRNA vaccines [3]. Antibody titres rose with some delay after the first injection, then plateaued, but rose again very shortly after the second injection.

Significance. Even though the antibody response to the first injection is of the memory type, the small time lag after the injection may mitigate adverse reactions, because the abundance of spike protein on the cells in the blood vessel walls and in other tissues may have already passed its peak when the antibodies arrive.

The situation changes dramatically with the second injection. Then the spikes are produced and protrude into the bloodstream that is already swarming with both reactive lymphocytes and antibodies. The antibodies will cause the complement system [9,10] and also neutrophil granulocytes to attack the spike protein-bearing cells. The possible consequences of all-out self-attack by the immune system are frightening.

Antibody-dependent enhancement of disease

As described, memory-type immune responses ensure the rapid rise of antibody titres after initial exposure to SARS-CoV-2, rendering the benefit of vaccine-induced antibody response exceedingly doubtful. Regardless, we should not assume that high antibody titres against SARS-CoV-2 will always improve the clinical outcome. With several virus families—in particular with Dengue virus, but also with coronaviruses—antibodies can aggravate rather than mitigate disease. This occurs because certain cells of the immune system take up antibody-tagged microbes and destroy them. If a virus particle to which antibodies have bound is taken up by such a cell, but it then manages to evade destruction, it may instead start to multiply within the cell. Overall, the antibody will then have enhanced the replication of the virus. Clinically, this antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) can cause a hyperinflammatory response (a “cytokine storm”) that will amplify the damage to the lungs, liver and other organs of our body.

Attempts to develop vaccines to the original SARS virus, which is closely related to SARS-CoV-2, repeatedly failed due to ADE. The vaccines did induce antibodies, but when the vaccinated animals were subsequently infected with the virus, they became more ill than the unvaccinated controls (see e.g. [11]). The possibility of ADE was not adequately addressed in the clinical trials on any of the COVID-19 vaccines. It is therefore prudent to avoid the danger of inducing ADE through vaccination and instead rely on proven forms of treatment [12] for dealing with clinically severe COVID-19 disease.

Conclusion

The collective findings discussed above clearly show that the benefits of vaccination are highly doubtful. In contrast, the harm the vaccines do is very well substantiated, with more than 15.000 vaccination-associated deaths now documented in the EU drug adverse events database (EudraVigilance), and over 7.000 more deaths within the UK and the US [13].

ALL PHYSICIANS MUST RECONSIDER THE ETHICAL ISSUES SURROUNDING COVID-19 VACCINATION.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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. Ogata, A.F. et al. (2021) Circulating SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Antigen Detected in the Plasma of mRNA-1273 Vaccine Recipients. Clin. Infect. Dis. -:x-x

2. Amanat, F. et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination induces functionally diverse antibodies to NTD, RBD and S2. Cell -:x-x

3. Wisnewski, A.V. et al. (2021) Human IgG and IgA responses to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. PLoS One 16:e0249499

4. Qu, J. et al. (2020) Profile of Immunoglobulin G and IgM Antibodies Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Clin. Infect. Dis. 71:2255-2258

5. Le Bert, N. et al. (2020) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls. Nature 584:457-462

6. Grifoni, A. et al. (2020) Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals. Cell 181:1489-1501.e15

7. Gallais, F. et al. (2021) Intrafamilial Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 Associated with Cellular Immune Response without Seroconversion. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 27:x-x

8. Nielsen, S.S. et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 elicits robust adaptive immune responses regardless of disease severity. EBioMedicine 68:103410

9. Magro, C.M. et al. (2020) Docked severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 proteins within the cutaneous and subcutaneous microvasculature and their role in the pathogenesis of severe coronavirus disease 2019. Hum. Pathol. 106:106-116

10. Magro, C.M. et al. (2021) Severe COVID-19: A multifaceted viral vasculopathy syndrome. Annals of diagnostic pathology 50:151645

11. Tseng, C. et al. (2012) Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. PLoS One 7:e35421

12. McCullough, P.A. et al. (2021) Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection. Am. J. Med. 134:16-22

13. Johnson, L. (2021) Official Vaccine Injury and Fatality Data: EU, UK and US.

Featured image is from Doctors for COVID Ethics

Selected Articles: Coronavirus Vaccine “Unsafe for Humans” Due to Adverse Events

July 13th, 2021 by Global Research News

Pfizer to Seek Emergency Use Authorization for COVID Booster Shots — But CDC, FDA Say Science Is Lacking

By Megan Redshaw, July 12, 2021

Pfizer announced Thursday it will seek Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in August for a third dose of its COVID-19 vaccine. The drugmaker predicted those who have been fully vaccinated will need a booster shot within six to 12 months of receiving their second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

The Deadly Censorship of Ivermectin

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, July 12, 2021

As Weinstein explains, there are several things in dire need of discussion. For starters, there’s the issue of YouTube’s community guidelines and posting rules, which are so vague that it’s impossible to determine beforehand if something is going to be deemed in violation.

Eriksen’s Cardiac Arrest: “No Comment”

By Swiss Policy Research, July 12, 2021

On June 12, Danish soccer player Christian Eriksen had a sudden cardiac arrest and almost died while playing against Finland, sparking questions if he got vaccinated prior to the European championship. Neither Eriksen nor his doctors have ever confirmed or denied his vaccination.

CDC Is Weaponizing Masks and Segregating Children to Force Them to Get Jabbed with Experimental “Vaccines”

By Teodrose Fikremariam, July 12, 2021

Yesterday afternoon, the CDC issued a new guidance stating that children who are fully “vaccinated” do not have to wear masks when schools reopen this fall. This latest policy decision has nothing to do with science and protecting kids, it’s a blatant and malicious attempt to browbeat parents to have their sons and daughters injected with experimental boosters that are causing debilitating conditions like myocarditis and led to the deaths of nine children ranging from 12-17 years old last week alone.

Video: Nothing Novela Is Coronavirus, Based on Patent Files

By Reiner Fuellmich and Dr. David Martin, July 12, 2021

Not novel… no pandemic.. no variants… campaign of coercion & terror to address a stated objective. Dr David Martin, SG!! Who can tell us what the vaxxed can do about this synthetic recombinant chimera protein?

UK Research Group: Coronavirus Vaccine “Unsafe for Humans” Due to Adverse Events

By Ramon Tomey, July 12, 2021

A medical research group in the U.K. pointed out that the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines are “unsafe for humans” based on adverse event reports. Scientists and doctors looked at data from the British government’s Yellow Card vaccine event reporting system. They found that the “overwhelming” number of adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines definitely raised alarm bells.

Video: The Magnet Challenge: True or False?

By Not On The Beeb, July 12, 2021

Some things are hard to prove. Some things are easy to prove. When ‘internationally renowned’ fact checkers and media outlets jumped on the magnet challenge calling it an internet hoax, I made a phone call and jumped on a train to find out the truth for myself.

Video: Bigger than Snowden. Neuro Weapons. Directed Energy Weapons. Mind Control. Targeted Individuals.

By Task Force EU Coalition, July 12, 2021

“I can disrupt an individual from the level of their system and disrupt individuals on a variety of levels, from individuals all the way up to the social fabric. Target a specific individual, change or eliminate that individual with very little attribution or trace, …” – Dr. James Giordano, DARPA Neurologist/Weapons Expert, Presentation at the Modern War Institute

In Many Cities in America, the Criminals Are Starting to Gain Firm Control of the Streets

By Michael Snyder, July 12, 2021

Every week the horrendous crime wave that is sweeping across America seems to get even worse.  In some of our largest cities, looting, murder and violence are becoming a way of life, and authorities seem powerless to do anything about it.  Is this what we can expect life in the United States to look like moving forward?  All over the globe, people are watching us, and they are stunned by what they have been witnessing.  Criminals are wildly out of control, and many of our largest cities are being transformed into extremely violent war zones.

COVID-19: “Virus Isolation”. Does the Virus Exist?

By Dr. Saeed A. Qureshi, July 12, 2021

It means that for microbiologists and virologists, taking a swab sample, which separates virus from the host, is considered as “virus isolation.” This interpretation does not reflect the correct meaning and understanding of the subject of isolation.

Suspected Assassins of Haitian President Moïse Trained by US, Linked to Pro-Coup Oligarchy

By Dan Cohen, July 12, 2021

As shock grips the Caribbean island nation of Haiti following the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse, the Haitian government has carried out a campaign to arrest suspects it alleges are responsible for the murder.

UK Lawyers Serve Notices of Liability on COVID Vaccinators Who Administer Shots Without Obtaining Full Informed Consent

By Mordechai Sones, July 12, 2021

UK attorney Anna de Buisseret today announced serving Notices of Liability on COVID-19 clinics and individuals administering the experimental biological agent known as the “COVID-19 vaccine” without obtaining fully informed consent, freely given in accordance with the Nuremberg Code and UK and International law.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Coronavirus Vaccine “Unsafe for Humans” Due to Adverse Events
  • Tags:

Say Hello to the Diplo-Taliban

July 12th, 2021 by Pepe Escobar

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A very important meeting took place in Moscow last week, virtually hush-hush. Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of the Russian Security Council, received Hamdullah Mohib, Afghanistan’s national security adviser.

There were no substantial leaks. A bland statement pointed to the obvious: They “focused on the security situation in Afghanistan during the pullout of Western military contingencies and the escalation of the military-political situation in the northern part of the country.”

The real story is way more nuanced. Mohib, representing embattled President Ashraf Ghani, did his best to convince Patrushev that the Kabul administration represents stability. It does not – as the subsequent Taliban advances proved.

Patrushev knew Moscow could not offer any substantial measure of support to the current Kabul arrangement because doing so would burn bridges the Russians would need to cross in the process of engaging the Taliban. Patrushev knows that the continuation of Team Ghani is absolutely unacceptable to the Taliban – whatever the configuration of any future power-sharing agreement.

So Patrushev, according to diplomatic sources, definitely was not impressed.

This week we can all see why. A delegation from the Taliban political office went to Moscow essentially to discuss with the Russians the fast-evolving mini-chessboard in northern Afghanistan. The Taliban had been to Moscow four months earlier, along with the extended troika (Russia, US, China, Pakistan) to debate the new Afghan power equation.

On this trip, they emphatically assured their interlocutors there’s no Taliban interest in invading any territory of their Central Asia neighbors.

It’s not excessive, in view of how cleverly they’ve been playing their hand, to call the Taliban desert foxes. They know well what Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has been repeating: Any turbulence coming from Afghanistan will be met with a direct response from the Collective Security Treaty Organization.

In addition to stressing that the US withdrawal – actually, repositioning – represents the failure of its Afghan “mission,” Lavrov touched on the two really key points:

  • The Taliban is increasing its influence in the northern Afghanistan border areas; and
  • Kabul’s refusal to form a transitional government is “promoting a belligerent solution” to the drama. This implies Lavrov expects much more flexibility from both Kabul and the Taliban in the Sisyphean power-sharing task ahead.

And then, relieving the tension, when asked by a Russian journalist if Moscow will send troops to Afghanistan, Lavrov reverted to Mr Cool: “The answer is obvious.”

Shaheen speaks

Mohammad Suhail Shaheen is the quite articulate spokesman for the Taliban political office. He’s adamant that “taking Afghanistan by military force is not our policy. Our policy is to find a political solution to the Afghan issue, which is continuing in Doha.” Bottom line: “We confirmed our commitment to a political solution here in Moscow once more.”

That’s absolutely correct. The Taliban don’t want a bloodbath. They want to be embraced. As Shaheen has stressed, it would be easy to conquer major cities – but there would be blood. Meanwhile, the Taliban already control virtually the whole border with Tajikistan.

The 2021 Taliban have little in common with their 2001 pre-war on terror incarnation. The movement has evolved from a largely Ghilzai Pashtun rural guerrilla insurgency to a more inter-ethnic arrangement, incorporating Tajiks, Uzbeks and even Shi’ite Hazaras – a group that was mercilessly persecuted during the 1996-2001 years of Taliban power.

Reliable figures are extremely hard to come by, but 30% of the Taliban today may be non-Pashtuns. One of the top commanders is ethnically Tajik – and that explains the lightning-flash “soft” blitzkrieg in northern Afghanistan across Tajik territory.

I visited a lot of these geologically spectacular places in the early 2000s. The inhabitants, all cousins, speaking Dari, are now turning over their villages and towns to Tajik Taliban as a matter of trust. Very few – if any – Pashtuns from Kandahar or Jalalabad are involved. That illustrates the absolute failure of the central government in Kabul.

Those who do not join the Taliban simply desert – as did the Kabul forces manning the checkpoint close to the bridge over the Pyanj river, off the Pamir highway; they escaped without a fight to Tajik territory, actually riding the Pamir highway. The Taliban hoisted their flag in this crucial intersection without firing a shot.

The Afghan National Army’s chief, General Wali Mohammad Ahmadza, fresh into his role by appointment from Ghani, is keeping a brave face: ANA’s priority is to protect the main cities (so far, so good, because the Taliban are not attacking them); border crossings (that’s not going so well), and highways (mixed results so far).

This interview with Suhail Shaheen is quite enlightening – as he feels compelled to stress that “we don’t have access to media” and laments the “baseless” barrage of “propaganda launched against us,” which implies that Western media should admit the Taliban have changed.

Shaheen points out that “it’s not possible to take 150 districts in just six weeks by fighting,” which connects to the fact that the security forces “do not trust the Kabul administration.” In all districts that have been conquered, he swears, “ the forces came to the Taliban voluntarily.”

Shaheen makes a statement that could have come straight from Ronald Reagan in the mid-1980s: The “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan are the real freedom fighters.” That may be the object of endless debate across the lands of Islam.

But one fact is indisputable: The Taliban are sticking by the agreement they signed with the Americans on February 29, 2020. And that implies a total American exit: “If they don’t abide by their commitments, we have a clear right of retaliation.”

Thinking ahead to “when an Islamic government is in place,” Shaheen insists there will be “good relations” with every nation, and embassies and consulates will not be targeted.

The Taliban “goal is clear: to end the occupation.” And that brings us to the tricky gambit of Turkish troops “protecting” Kabul airport. Shaheen is crystal clear. “No NATO forces – that means continuation of occupation,” he proclaims. “When we have an independent Islamic country, then we will sign any agreement with Turkey that is mutually beneficial.”

Shaheen is involved in the ongoing, very complicated negotiations in Doha, so he cannot allow himself to commit the Taliban to any future power-sharing agreement. What he does say, even though “progress is slow” in Doha, is that, contrary to what was previously reported by media in Qatar, the Taliban will not present a formal written proposal to Kabul by the end of the month,  The talks will continue.

Going hybrid?

Whatever the “Mission Accomplished” non-denial denials emanating from the White House, a few things are already clear on the Eurasia front.

The Russians, for one thing, are already engaging the Taliban, in detail, and may soon strike their name off their terror list.

The Chinese, for another, are assured that if the Taliban commit Afghanistan to join the Belt and Road Initiative, connecting via the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, ISIS-Khorasan will not then be permitted to go on overdrive in Afghanistan bolstered by Uyghur jihadis currently in Idlib.

And nothing is off the table for Washington when it comes to derailing BRI. Crucial silos scattered across the deep state must be already at work replacing a forever war in Afghanistan with hybrid war, Syria-style.

Lavrov is very much aware of Kabul power brokers who would not say “no” to a new hybrid war arrangement. But the Taliban for their part have been very effective – preventing assorted Afghan factions from supporting Team Ghani.

As for the Central Asian “stans,” not a single one of them wants any forever wars or hybrid wars down the road.

Fasten your seat belts: It’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

*

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

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.

Srebrenica: A Genocide Narrative that Is Running Out of Steam

July 12th, 2021 by Stephen Karganovic

All Global Research articles 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.

***

July 11 this year will mark the 26th anniversary of the tragic events that took place in 1995 in the east Bosnian district of Srebrenica. With each passing year the ceremony loses some of its luster and pomp, as genocide fatigue sets in. The inquirer into these matters will get radically different answers and interpretations, mainly depending on the ethnicity of the local informant. As Diana Johnstone accurately observed, in the Balkans truth generally lacks a transcendent or ontological dimension, it tends to be purely tribal.

That axiom of Balkan epistemology being out of the way, the question still remains whether there are any solid facts, or “hard data points,” to – as my contracts professor in law school used to say – “hang your hat on.” Regrettably, again, it really depends on who you talk to.

For the Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Srebrenica has been successfully shaped into an identitarian founding myth, a rallying cry and a device potently used by their self-perpetuating governing class in Sarajevo to drive them into a sheep corral of which they, the elite, would be self-appointed gatekeepers.

For the NATO crowd, Srebrenica has been a rich political bonanza, a gift that literally keeps on giving. By driving what at present appears as an eternal cleavage between the two largest Bosnian communities, the Serbs and the Muslims, Srebrenica has provided the Western alliance with a seemingly unassailable pretext to keep strategic Bosnia under its interminable protectorate lest, so their narrative goes, the hostile ethnicities quickly go for each other’s throats, causing another ugly carnage that the decent and civilised folks in Washington, London, and Brussels simply could not abide. But more realistically, the bonanza that Srebrenica has given to those decent folks is just the right rationale that they had been looking for. After Srebrenica, they may wage their “right to protect” [R2P] interventions wherever a poor and defenceless nation catches their eye for sitting on a pot of gold, oil, strategic minerals, or anything else they may want to help themselves to, or its ruler becomes disobedient and turns into a “dictator who is killing his own people.” SCF readers are too sophisticated to require specific illustrations, but just for the record Kosovo, Iraq, Syria, and Libya come to mind.

What is supposed to distinguish Srebrenica from other ugly episodes of the civil wars that engulfed the former Yugoslavia is its unique status as the “first genocide in Europe since the end of World War II”. (What Professor Lemkin might have to say about it, for obvious reasons, we shall never know.) That status was first conferred on Srebrenica by the Western media, reporting in lockstep on the conflict in Bosnia. Right on cue, it was later duly confirmed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), an ad hoc court which, many suspect, was specifically set up for that very purpose. Contemporary media charges of “genocide” in which 8,000 Muslim POW “men and boys” were slaughtered by Serb forces after marching into Srebrenica received miraculous retroactive judicial confirmation once ICTY got seized of the matter and began delivering its boiler plate verdicts.

In the event, ICTY verdicts became an effective substitute for hard facts which they supposedly were based on, much as gold paper certificates, in the perception of simpleminded investors, became more solid than physical gold itself. The advocates of parliamentary “Srebrenica genocide resolutions” and “Srebrenica genocide denial laws” in various countries have been quite insouciant about providing hard facts to sustain their claims; after all, the last time we checked, it was still the rule that the burden of proof was on whoever was asserting something. But if it ever existed in the normative universe of the decent folks of the Western world, that rule was notably suspended in the case of Srebrenica. According to the Srebrenica lex specialis, an ICTY verdict is all the evidence needed to prove the commission of the horrendous crime of genocide, and Srebrenica genocide denial laws which are already on the books in numerous countries are conveniently applied to shut up anyone who undertakes to question such a course of reasoning. Never mind that the Hague Tribunal itself is an institution of questionable legitimacy, the authorisation to set up a court not being found anywhere in the UN Charter. Even to raise that issue is itself a violation of the genocide denial rules.

Issues such as whether or not genocide occurred in Srebrenica in July of 1995, and whether or not the Hague Tribunal is a legitimate forum entitled to pronounce on the subject, have been discussed and analysed from every angle as nauseam (here, here, and here). In fact, hard data points challenging the Srebrenica genocide narrative do abound. There are strong indications that autopsy reports which supposedly document the execution of the “8,000 men and boys” are not all that they are cracked up to be. The DNA evidence subsequently summoned to fill that gap and prove the massive scope of prisoner executions, on closer examination, also raises more questions than it answers. Inconvenient evidence has also emerged of huge combat casualties that have been stealthily incorporated into the execution statistics in order to bolster the genocide death toll (also here). Though much of the scepticism regarding the established Srebrenica story in fact does rest on impressively objective foundations, we shall not insist on it in order not to ruffle any tribal feathers.

Instead of “disputing” or “denying”, we choose to mark this year’s anniversary by affirming. The atrocious destruction of the Serbian community in Srebrenica between 1992 and July of 1995 has scarcely ever been noted or acknowledged by the Srebrenica moralists de jour, so we will briefly perform their neglected task.

According to the Bosnia-Herzegovina census of 1991, on the eve of the war, a quarter of Srebrenica’s population, or 8,315, were Serbs. When Serbian forces retook Srebrenica in July 1995, not a single one was left. A thousand, or more according to some estimates, were murdered, their villages attacked and razed to the ground; the remainder were expelled to Serbian-controlled territory surrounding the enclave.

The remains of Serbian villages attacked from inside the Srebrenica enclave

The beastly methodology used by armed gangs from the enclave to intimidate and expel their Serbian neighbours is depicted in the fate of little Mirjana, a Serbian girl raped and murdered by soon to be, in 1995, Srebrenica genocide victims, mourned by much of the free world.

Question: Did Serbs expelled by their neighbours have the right in 1995 to return to their homes and at least bury their dead?

Few would venture to say “no” to a question so starkly put. So sweeping the appalling pogrom of the unmourned Serbian community of Srebrenica under the rug, to avoid provoking such an embarrassing question, makes perfect, albeit somewhat twisted, sense.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995.

All images in this article are from the author

COVID-19: “Virus Isolation”. Does the Virus Exist?

July 12th, 2021 by Dr. Saeed A. Qureshi

Editor’s Note

This is a controversial issue which has been raised by several prominent scientists.

On January 7, 2020 the Chinese authorities “identify a new type of virus” which was “isolated”. The CDC also confirmed that the virus had been isolated. But no specific details were released.

***

First published on January 7, 2021

***

During a discussion on LinkedIn with a microbiologist, I came to know how they described virus isolation, which is as follows: 

“A virus isolate is a virus isolated from an infected host. The process is called “isolation,” which separates viruses from the hosts.”

It means that for microbiologists and virologists, taking a swab sample, which separates virus from the host, is considered as “virus isolation.” This interpretation does not reflect the correct meaning and understanding of the subject of isolation.

But, they imply and promote the true meaning of the process of isolation, i.e., to obtain something by extraction, purification, and identification, reflected by well-known pretty pictures of the DNA/RNA, proteins, and viruses such as a spherical body with spikes (aka coronavirus).

The virologists’ version of the definition is incorrect and causing the problem. Wherever one looks for the virus, one always finds a suffix with it, e.g., “virus isolate,” “virus culture,” “virus lysate,” etc., (which are soups, mixtures or gunks), never “virus” alone; however, it is presented and promoted as pure “virus.”

The made-up definition of “virus-isolation” makes the story of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, its infection, and pandemic very clear, i.e., nothing is real about them, but all are fake. No one has seen the virus, found it, or isolated it as claimed. It is all bogus.

People might ask, then what about the PCR tests, DNA/RNA sequences, protein structures, etc.? They are all reflections of rituals, ignorantly using highly sophisticated and costly chemistry equipment, to make people believe science is being followed. However, nothing is real or relates to the virus.

To conduct such experiments accurately, scientists/technicians must-have reference samples or standards to calibrate the equipment and validate the tests. The reference standards can only come from independently isolated and thoroughly characterized pure virus. However, as the pure virus has never been isolated, one cannot have reference standards and calibrators; hence all the claimed experimentation becomes scientifically null and void, reflecting a fraud.

Such requirements are not unique to virus isolation or assessment. These are standard and must requirement, referred to as validation, for product assessment by the authorities, such as FDA and USP. It is impossible to get products approved for marketing without this validation step. However, validation of tests and testing for viruses and their components are slipping through the regulatory oversight.

Currently, for the SARS-CoV-2 assessment, the work starts with the assumption that it exists. Without validating the techniques, some experiments are being conducted following ritualistic steps (SOPs) to generate “data” and pretty pictures to show that it exists. It is hard to believe that such deceptive practices can occur in  modern-day science and escape authorities’ scrutiny and audit.

Like the virus’s assumed existence, it is further assumed that the associated disease (COVID-19) exists, is contagious, spreading uncontrollably, and potentially people are dying or will die in large numbers. There is no available scientific evidence to support these claims except counting the false positive test results, obtained mostly from the non-validated and false PCR test.

It is important to note that there is no scientific evidence showing that SARS-CoV-2 is causing the illness. It cannot be shown because the virus (SARS-CoV-2) is neither available nor exists, as noted above. Hence, its link to the disease cannot be established. It would be safe to confirm now that the COVID-19 is a hoax.

Therefore, considering the current flawed science practices, it becomes a fact that anyone diagnosed with COVID-19 should be regarded as a misdiagnosed case, and accordingly, the incorrect corresponding follow-up treatments.

Physicians need to examine patients without considering the presence of COVID-19 in all cases. They should be challenging the current “scientific” rationale of the COVID-19 diagnosis rather than following the media’s narrative or provided SOPs.

Patients who take a longer time to recover or died with COVID-19 diagnosis could very well be because of misdiagnosis and, by extension, mistreatment or no treatment (e.g., extended quarantine or isolation without treatment).

Similarly, as the virus does not exist, vaccine administration and development become irrelevant; hence, they need to be discontinued.

Authorities should take prompt action adjusting the pandemic monitoring and treatment considering the above described recent information regarding the virus’s non-existence.

Dr. Saeed A. Qureshi is a Canadian specialist in pharmacology and biotechnology

*

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.

Video: The Magnet Challenge: True or False?

July 12th, 2021 by Not On The Beeb

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Some things are hard to prove. Some things are easy to prove.

When ‘internationally renowned’ fact checkers and media outlets jumped on the magnet challenge calling it an internet hoax, I made a phone call and jumped on a train to find out the truth for myself.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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

Video: Bigger than Snowden. Neuro Weapons. Directed Energy Weapons. Mind Control. Targeted Individuals.

July 12th, 2021 by Task Force EU Coalition

All Global Research articles 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 video was originally published in 2019.

“I can disrupt an individual from the level of their system and disrupt individuals on a variety of levels, from individuals all the way up to the social fabric. Target a specific individual, change or eliminate that individual with very little attribution or trace, …” – Dr. James Giordano, DARPA Neurologist/Weapons Expert, Presentation at the Modern War Institute

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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

Mask Wearing: Critical Thinking, Evidence-based Decision-making, and Obedience

July 12th, 2021 by Kim Petersen

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Mask-wearing mandates are now easing in many jurisdictions. Seeing the plethora of unmasked visages speaks to the preference for unrestricted access to air.

Yet, writer Max Fawcett asks, “Why were so many people so opposed to wearing face masks?”

There are plenty of reasons. How about that masks interfere with normal breathing; that speech is muffled, making conversation difficult; that the masks are uncomfortable; that the masks might even be harmful to the wearer? Saliently: other than causing a stir among the fearful people who don masks in public, why should one wear a mask if there is no hard scientific evidence that they are preventative against contracting respiratory viral infections?

A more important question the writer ought to have broached is: given the absence of rigorous scientific data in support, why were so many people compelled to wear masks and why was it that so few people uttered a peep against it? They merely complied. This is true throughout society. In education circles, teachers masked up. Granted, if they wanted to work and get along, they had little choice. A stated goal of education is developing critical-thinking skills. Health care workers masked up. Medicine is a field, like education, supposedly driven by evidence-based results, upon which one can apply critical thinking skills.

There is a crucial omission in the opinion piece by Fawcett. Was there any evidence presented in the article as to the effectiveness of mask-wearing prophylaxis? Indeed, Fawcett even admitted, “There’s also the impact that masking had on last year’s flu season, which was about as non-existent as it’s ever been.” Thus, he purports that mask wearing had a negligible effect on preventing infection with COVID-19. Fawcett deserves credit for pointing this out, especially since few had ostensibly noticed that despite all the mask wearing and social distancing enforced, COVID-19 cases continued seemingly unabated. So did mask wearing and social distancing work? Did these measures diminish the proliferation of COVID-19?

Despite acknowledging the non-existent impact of mask wearing, Fawcett takes aim at people resistant to mask wearing:

For those who fetishize freedom and worship at the altar of liberty, the removal of mask restrictions is probably worth celebrating. But for the rest of us, it marks the beginning of an uncomfortable experiment — one that will test the resilience of a dangerous and deadly pandemic and our willingness to put the well-being of others above our own temporary discomfort.

There are plenty of take-aways from this statement. Fawcett calls this the “beginning of an uncomfortable experiment.” If this is an experiment, then members of the public are the unwitting subjects (others might say “guinea pigs”) in the experiment, subjects who have not knowingly consented to partake in this experiment — usually considered a flagrant breach of ethics. And, since this is a beginning experiment, obviously the evidence is not all in.

Moreover, the writer disparages those opposed to mask wearing as fetishizers of freedom and lumps them into one homogeneous class: pro-freedom, anti-mask. Fawcett apparently did not contemplate that there are people who have researched the science and came to oppose mask wearing based on the conclusion that the masks don’t work. These people looked at the evidence and critically appraised the mandates/recommendations put forward by governments. Had they found evidence that supported mask wearing, they would have willingly worn masks.

Randomized control trials are the gold standard of science. Yet, no RCT indicates a statistically significant difference between the mask-wearing and the control groups; this refutes the hypothesis that protection is conferred by mask wearing — including cloth masks, surgical masks, even N95 respirators.

How about common sense? Is the mesh density of the masks tiny enough to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virion from entering? No. Even if the mesh were dense enough to prevent entry through the mask, is the mask sealed around the face of the wearer? No. In other words the virions can enter the respiratory orifices of a mask wearer.

Next, the writer criticizes the people opposed to mask wearing — the fetishizers of freedom — of being selfish and insouciant to their fellow citizens. He opines,

But it’s that second test — the one that will reveal just how much we actually care about our fellow citizens — that should worry us most here. Wearing a face mask into a mall, grocery store or other shared public space isn’t exactly a hardship — and our relatives who had to deal with actual hardships in the past would probably laugh at us for making so much of it.

For people with claustrophobia or compromised health circumstances, mask wearing can be exactly that: a hardship. Even worse, it can pose a health risk. Again, Fawcett has not considered that there might be a dissenting group, people who otherwise would agree with and support mask wearing given hard scientific evidence for protecting against viral infection.

Finally, Fawcett concludes,

Canada is the country of “peace, order and good government,” and we don’t see acts of caring for each other, whether through our publicly funded health-care system or any number of other supports and services, as the kind of creeping socialism many Americans seem to fear. We’d all do well to remember that the next time we think about whether or not we want to put on a mask in public — and what it really says about us.

First, who are “we”? Are Canadians a monolith as alluded to by Fawcett’s “we”? Second, what does it mean to assert that Canada is a country of “peace, order and good government,” especially so soon after a thousand bodies of Indigenous children in unmarked graves have, so far, been revealed by ground-penetrating radar? It is an undeniable fact of public record that Canadian history is blighted by the abduction of Indigenous children from their families through the connivance of government, churches, and the RCMP. Nevertheless, of course, there are “acts of caring for each other” that happen in Canada. But past and current history reveals Indigenous peoples to be the Other, the Other less or   uncared for by much of settler society. This is clearly evidenced by, among others, the numerous unsolved cases of disappeared and murdered Indigenous women in Canada, the disproportionate incarceration of First peoples relative to settler Canadians, the higher rates of poverty and the long-term lack of clean drinking water in Indigenous communities, and the lack of respect for First people’s input about how to steward the environment. Third, what does Fawcett mean by “creeping socialism”? Is socialism to be likened to an icky insect? Fourth, do Americans still “fear” socialism? Favorable views toward socialism seem to be ascendant in the United States, with capitalism on the decline. Fifth, the majority of Americans in recent years have indicated support for medicare for all. Ergo, Fawcett’s conclusion appears to be fallacious.

To conclude, whether one wants to wear a mask or not is hardly consequential. People’s attitudes toward wearing a mask ought to be analyzed beyond superficial prejudices. Opposition to mask wearing may well indicate critical thinkers who are conversant with the scientific evidence. One might better ask what unquestioning obedience to mask-wearing dictates from authorities, in the absence of proffered evidence, really says about such people. The dangers of unquestioning obedience are real. Perhaps the most horrific examples are the willingness of soldiers to follow orders and commit atrocities against fellow humans.

Mandates for mask wearing and orders to kill are exceedingly different animals. Nonetheless, epistemology demands that people free themselves from uncritically bending to directives from authority figures. Every thinking person should consider the morality and the evidence that underlie directives.

*

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

Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be emailed at: kimohp@gmail. Twitter: @kimpetersen. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Mercola

‘Don’t Arab and Iraqi Women Weep When Their Children Die?’Tony Benn

July 12th, 2021 by Tony Benn

All Global Research articles 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.

***

I finish just by saying this: war is an easy thing to talk about; there are not many people – a – of the generation that remember it. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup served with distinction in the last war. I never killed anyone but I wore uniform. But I was in London in the blitz in 1940, living in the Millbank tower, where I was born. Some different ideas have come in since. And every night, I went down to the shelter in Thames house. Every morning, I saw dockland burning. Five hundred people were killed in Westminster one night by a land mine. It was terrifying. Aren’t Arabs terrified? Aren’t Iraqis terrified? Don’t Arab and Iraqi women weep when their children die? Does bombing strengthen their determination? What fools we are to live in a generation for which war is a computer game for our children and just an interesting little channel for news item.

Every Member of Parliament tonight who votes for the Government motion will be consciously and deliberately accepting responsibility for the deaths of innocent people if the war begins, as I fear it will. Now that’s for their decision to take. But this is a quite unique debate. In my parliamentary experience, where we are asked to share responsibility for a decision we won’t really be taking, with consequences for people who have no part to play in the brutality of the regime which we are dealing with.

And I finish with this: on 24 October 1945—the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup will remember—the United Nations charter was passed. And the words of that charter are etched into my mind and move me even as I think of them. “We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our life-time has caused untold suffering to mankind”. That was the pledge of that generation to this generation, and it would be the greatest betrayal of all if we voted to abandon the charter, and take unilateral action and pretend that we were doing it in the name of the international community. And I shall vote against the motion for the reasons that I have given the house.

The above is the passage that matches the video. The full speech is below:

I have very little time. I want to develop my argument. There are many others who want to speak. 926 I hope that the House will listen to me. I know that my view is not the majority view in the House, although it may be outside this place.

I regret that I shall vote against the Government motion. The first victims of the bombing that I believe will be launched within a fortnight will be innocent people, many, if not most, of whom would like Saddam to be removed. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon, talked about collateral damage. The military men are clever. They talk not about hydrogen bombs but about deterrence. They talk not about people but about collateral damage. They talk not about power stations and sewerage plants but about assets. The reality is that innocent people will be killed if the House votes tonight—as it manifestly will—to give the Government the authority for military action.

The bombing would also breach the United Nations charter. I do not want to argue on legal terms. If the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) has read articles 41 and 42, he will know that the charter says that military action can only be decided on by the Security Council and conducted under the military staffs committee. That procedure has not been followed and cannot be followed because the five permanent members have to agree. Even for the Korean war, the United States had to go to the General Assembly to get authority because Russia was absent. That was held to be a breach, but at least an overwhelming majority was obtained.

Has there been any negotiation or diplomatic effort? Why has the Foreign Secretary not been in Baghdad, like the French Foreign Minister, the Turkish Foreign Minister and the Russian Foreign Minister? The time that the Government said that they wanted for negotiation has been used to prepare public opinion for war and to build up their military position in the Gulf.

Saddam will be strengthened again. Or he may be killed. I read today that the security forces—who are described as terrorists in other countries—have tried to kill Saddam. I should not be surprised if they succeeded.

This second action does not enjoy support from elsewhere. There is no support from Iraq’s neighbours. If what the Foreign Secretary says about the threat to the neighbours is true, why is Iran against, why is Jordan against, why is Saudi Arabia against, why is Turkey against? Where is that great support? There is no support from the opposition groups inside Iraq. The Kurds, the Shi’ites and the communists hate Saddam, but they do not want the bombing. The Pope is against it, along with 10 bishops, two cardinals, Boutros Boutros-Ghali and Perez de Cuellar. The Foreign Secretary clothes himself with the garment of the world community, but he does not have that support. We are talking about an Anglo-American preventive war. It has been planned and we are asked to authorise it in advance.

The House is clear about its view of history, but it does not say much about the history of the areas with which we are dealing. The borders of Kuwait and Iraq, which then became sacrosanct, were drawn by the British after the end of the Ottoman empire. We used chemical weapons against the Iraqis in the 1930s. Air Chief Marshal Harris, who later flattened Dresden, was instructed to drop chemical weapons.

When Saddam came to power, he was a hero of the west. The Americans used him against Iran because they hated Khomeini, who was then the figure to be removed. 927 They armed Saddam, used him and sent him anthrax. I am not anxious to make a party political point, because there is not much difference between the two sides on this, but, as the Scott report revealed, the previous Government allowed him to be armed. I had three hours with Saddam in 1990. I got the hostages out, which made it worth going. He felt betrayed by the United States, because the American ambassador in Baghdad had said to him, “If you go into Kuwait, we will treat it as an Arab matter.” That is part of the history that they know, even if we do not know it here.

In 1958, 40 years ago, Selwyn Lloyd, the Foreign Secretary and later the Speaker, told Foster Dulles that Britain would make Kuwait a Crown colony. Foster Dulles said, “What a very good idea.” We may not know that history, but in the middle east it is known.

The Conservatives have tabled an amendment asking about the objectives. That is an important issue. There is no UN resolution saying that Saddam must be toppled. It is not clear that the Government know what their objectives are. They will probably be told from Washington. Do they imagine that if we bomb Saddam for two weeks, he will say, “Oh, by the way, do come in and inspect”? The plan is misconceived.

Some hon. Members—even Opposition Members—have pointed out the double standard. I am not trying to equate Israel with Iraq, but on 8 June 1981, Israel bombed a nuclear reactor near Baghdad. What action did either party take on that? Israel is in breach of UN resolutions and has instruments of mass destruction. Mordecai Vanunu would not boast about Israeli freedom. Turkey breached UN resolutions by going into northern Cyprus. It has also recently invaded northern Iraq and has instruments of mass destruction. Lawyers should know better than anyone else that it does not matter whether we are dealing with a criminal thug or an ordinary lawbreaker—if the law is to apply, it must apply to all. Governments of both major parties have failed in that.

Prediction is difficult and dangerous, but I fear that the situation could end in a tragedy for the American and British Governments. Suez and Vietnam are not far from the minds of anyone with a sense of history. I recall what happened to Sir Anthony Eden. I heard him announce the ceasefire and saw him go on holiday to Goldeneye in Jamaica. He came back to be replaced. I am not saying that that will happen in this case, but does anyone think that the House is in a position to piggy-back on American power in the middle east? What happens if Iraq breaks up? If the Kurds are free, they will demand Kurdistan and destabilise Turkey. Anything could happen. We are sitting here as if we still had an empire—only, fortunately, we have a bigger brother with more weapons than us.

The British Government have everything at their disposal. They are permanent members of the Security Council and have the European Union presidency for six months. Where is that leadership in Europe which we were promised? It just disappeared. We are also, of course, members of the Commonwealth, in which there are great anxieties. We have thrown away our influence, which could have been used for moderation.

The amendment that I and others have tabled argues that the United Nations Security Council should decide the nature of what Kofi Annan brings back from Baghdad and whether force is to be used. Inspections and sanctions go side by side. As I said, sanctions are brutal for innocent 928 people. Then there is the real question: when will the world come to terms with the fact that chemical weapons are available to anybody? If there is an answer to that, it must involve the most meticulous observation of international law, which I feel we are abandoning.

War is easy to talk about; there are not many people left of the generation which remembers it. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup served with distinction in the last war. I never killed anyone but I wore uniform. I was in London during the blitz in 1940, living where the Millbank tower now stands, where I was born. Some different ideas have come in there since. Every night, I went to the shelter in Thames house. Every morning, I saw docklands burning. Five hundred people were killed in Westminster one night by a land mine. It was terrifying. Are not Arabs and Iraqis terrified? Do not Arab and Iraqi women weep when their children die? Does not bombing strengthen their determination? What fools we are to live as if war is a computer game for our children or just an interesting little Channel 4 news item.

Every Member of Parliament who votes for the Government motion will be consciously and deliberately accepting responsibility for the deaths of innocent people if the war begins, as I fear it will. That decision is for every hon. Member to take. In my parliamentary experience, this a unique debate. We are being asked to share responsibility for a decision that we will not really be taking but which will have consequences for people who have no part to play in the brutality of the regime with which we are dealing.

On 24 October 1945—the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup will remember—the United Nations charter was passed. The words of that charter are etched on my mind and move me even as I think of them. It says: We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our life-time has brought untold sorrow to mankind”. That was that generation’s pledge to this generation, and it would be the greatest betrayal of all if we voted to abandon the charter, take unilateral action and pretend that we were doing so in the name of the international community. I shall vote against the motion for the reasons that I have given.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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

America’s Afghan War Is Over, So What About Iraq and Iran?

July 12th, 2021 by Medea Benjamin

All Global Research articles 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.

***

At Bagram air-base, Afghan scrap merchants are already picking through the graveyard of U.S. military equipment that was until recently the headquarters of America’s 20-year occupation of their country. Afghan officials say the last U.S. forces slipped away from Bagram in the dead of night, without notice or coordination.

The Taliban are rapidly expanding their control over hundreds of districts, usually through negotiations between local elders, but also by force when troops loyal to the Kabul government refuse to give up their outposts and weapons.

A few weeks ago, the Taliban controlled a quarter of the country. Now it’s a third. They are taking control of border posts and large swathes of territory in the north of the country. These include areas that were once strongholds of the Northern Alliance, a militia that prevented the Taliban from unifying the country under their rule in the late 1990s.

People of good will all over the world hope for a peaceful future for the people of Afghanistan, but the only legitimate role the United States can play there now is to pay reparations, in whatever form, for the damage it has done and the pain and deaths it has caused. Speculation in the U.S. political class and corporate media about how the U.S. can keep bombing and killing Afghans from “over the horizon” should cease. The U.S. and its corrupt puppet government lost this war. Now it’s up to the Afghans to forge their future.

So what about America’s other endless crime scene, Iraq? The U.S. corporate media only mention Iraq when our leaders suddenly decide that the over 150,000 bombs and missiles they have dropped on Iraq and Syria since 2001 were not enough, and dropping a few more on Iranian allies there will appease some hawks in Washington without starting a full-scale war with Iran.

But for 40 million Iraqis, as for 40 million Afghans, America’s most stupidly chosen battlefield is their country, not just an occasional news story. They are living their entire lives under the enduring impacts of the neocons’ war of mass destruction.

Young Iraqis took to the streets in 2019 to protest 16 years of corrupt government by the former exiles to whom the United States handed over their country and its oil revenues. The 2019 protests were directed at the Iraqi government’s corruption and failure to provide jobs and basic services to its people, but also at the underlying, self-serving foreign influences of the United States and Iran over every Iraqi government since the 2003 invasion.

A new government was formed in May 2020, headed by British-Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, previously the head of Iraq’s Intelligence Service and, before that, a journalist and editor for the U.S.-based Al-Monitor Arab news website. Despite his Western background, al-Kadhimi has initiated investigations into the embezzlement of $150 billion in Iraqi oil revenues by officials of previous governments, who were mostly former Western-based exiles like himself. And he is walking a fine line to try to save his country, after all it has been through, from becoming the front line in a new U.S. war on Iran.

Recent U.S. airstrikes have targeted Iraqi security forces called Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), which were formed in 2014 to fight the Islamic State (IS), the twisted religious force spawned by the U.S. decision, only ten years after 9/11, to unleash and arm Al Qaeda in a Western proxy war against Syria.

The PMFs now comprise about 130,000 troops in 40 or more different units. Most were recruited by pro-Iranian Iraqi political parties and groups, but they are an integral part of Iraq’s armed forces and are credited with playing a critical role in the war against IS.

Western media represent the PMFs as militias that Iran can turn on and off as a weapon against the United States, but these units have their own interests and decision-making structures. When Iran has tried to calm tensions with the United States, it has not always been able to control the PMFs. General Haider al-Afghani, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard officer in charge of coordinating with the PMF, recently requested a transfer out of Iraq, complaining that the PMFs are paying no attention to him.

Ever since the U.S. assassination of Iran’s General Soleimani and PMF commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in January 2020, the PMFs have been determined to force the last remaining U.S. occupation forces out of Iraq. After the assassination, the Iraqi National Assembly passed a resolution calling for U.S. forces to leave Iraq. Following U.S. airstrikes against PMF units in February, Iraq and the United States agreed in early April that U.S. combat troops would leave soon.

But no date has been set, no detailed agreement has been signed, many Iraqis do not believe U.S. forces will leave, nor do they trust the Kadhimi government to ensure their departure. As time has gone by without a formal agreement, some PMF forces have resisted calls for calm from their own government and Iran, and stepped up attacks on U.S. forces.

At the same time, the Vienna talks over the JCPOA nuclear agreement have raised fears among PMF commanders that Iran may sacrifice them as a bargaining chip in a renegotiated nuclear agreement with the United States.

So, in the interest of survival, PMF commanders have become more independent of Iran, and have cultivated a closer relationship with Prime Minister Kadhimi. This was evidenced in Kadhimi’s attendance at a huge military parade in June 2021 to celebrate the seventh anniversary of the PMF’s founding.

The very next day, the U.S. bombed PMF forces in Iraq and Syria, drawing public condemnation from Kadhimi and his cabinet as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty. After conducting retaliatory strikes, the PMF declared a new ceasefire on June 29th, apparently to give Kadhimi more time to finalize a withdrawal agreement. But six days later, some of them resumed rocket and drone attacks on U.S. targets.

Whereas Trump only retaliated when rocket attacks in Iraq killed Americans, a senior U.S. official has revealed that Biden has lowered the bar, threatening to respond with airstrikes even when Iraqi militia attacks don’t cause U.S. casualties.

But U.S. air strikes have only led to rising tensions and further escalations by Iraqi militia forces. If U.S. forces respond with more or heavier airstrikes, the PMF and Iran’s allies throughout the region can respond with more widespread attacks on U.S. bases. The further this escalates and the longer it takes to negotiate a genuine withdrawal agreement, the more pressure Kadhimi will get from the PMF, and other sectors of Iraqi society, to show U.S. forces the door.

The official rationale for the U.S. presence, as well as that of NATO training forces in Iraqi Kurdistan, is that the Islamic State is still active. A suicide bomber killed 32 people in Baghdad in January, and IS still has a strong appeal to oppressed young people across the region and the Muslim world. The failures, corruption and repression of successive post-2003 governments in Iraq have provided fertile soil.

But the United States clearly has another reason for keeping forces in Iraq, as a forward base in its simmering war on Iran. That is exactly what Kadhimi is trying to avoid by replacing U.S. forces with the Danish-led NATO training mission in Iraqi Kurdistan. This mission is being expanded from 500 to at least 4,000 forces, made up of Danish, British and Turkish troops.

If Biden had quickly rejoined the JCPOA nuclear agreement with Iran on taking office, tensions would be lower by now, and the U.S. troops in Iraq might well be home already. Instead, Biden obliviously swallowed the poison pill of Trump’s Iran policy by using “maximum pressure” as a form of “leverage”, escalating an endless game of chicken the United States cannot win—a tactic that Obama began to wind down six years ago by signing the JCPOA.

The U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and the JCPOA are interconnected, two essential parts of a policy to improve U.S.-Iranian relations and end the U.S.’s antagonistic and destabilizing interventionist role in the Middle East. The third element for a more stable and peaceful region is the diplomatic engagement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, in which Kadhimi’s Iraq is playing a critical role as the principal mediator.

The fate of the Iran nuclear deal is still uncertain. The sixth round of shuttle diplomacy in Vienna ended on June 20th, and no date has been set for a seventh round yet. President Biden’s commitment to rejoining the agreement seems shakier than ever, and President-elect Raisi of Iran has declared he will not let the Americans keep drawing out the negotiations.

In an interview on June 25th, U.S. Secretary of State Blinken upped the ante by threatening to pull out of the talks altogether. He said that if Iran continued to spin more sophisticated centrifuges at higher and higher levels, it will become very difficult for the United States to return to the original deal. Asked whether or when the United States might walk away from negotiations, he said, “I can’t put a date on it, (but) it’s getting closer.”

What should really be “getting closer” is the U.S. withdrawal of troops from Iraq. While Afghanistan is portrayed as the “longest war” the United States has fought, the U.S. military has been bombing Iraq for 26 of the last 30 years. The fact that the U.S. military is still conducting “defensive airstrikes” 18 years after the 2003 invasion and nearly ten years since the official end of the war, proves just how ineffective and disastrous this U.S. military intervention has been.

Biden certainly seems to have learned the lesson in Afghanistan that the U.S. can neither bomb its way to peace nor install U.S. puppet governments at will. When pilloried by the press about the Taliban gaining control as U.S. troops withdraw, Biden answered,

“For those who have argued that we should stay just six more months or just one more year, I ask them to consider the lessons of recent history… Nearly 20 years of experience has shown us, and the current security situation only confirms, that ‘just one more year’ of fighting in Afghanistan is not a solution but a recipe for being there indefinitely. It’s the right and the responsibility of the Afghan people alone to decide their future and how they want to run their country.”

The same lessons of history apply to Iraq. The U.S. has already inflicted so much death and misery on the Iraqi people, destroyed so many of its beautiful cities, and unleashed so much sectarian violence and IS fanaticism. Just like the shuttering of the massive Bagram base in Afghanistan, Biden should dismantle the remaining imperial bases in Iraq and bring the troops home.

The Iraqi people have the same right to decide their own future as the people of Afghanistan, and all the countries of the Middle East have the right and the responsibility to live in peace, without the threat of American bombs and missiles always hanging over their and their children’s heads.

Let’s hope Biden has learned another history lesson: that the United States should stop invading and attacking other countries.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

Featured image: U.S. transfers an airfield to Iraqi government forces in 2020. Credit: public domain

150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

UK Research Group: Coronavirus Vaccine “Unsafe for Humans” Due to Adverse Events

July 12th, 2021 by Ramon Tomey

All Global Research articles 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 medical research group in the U.K. pointed out that the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines are “unsafe for humans” based on adverse event reports. Scientists and doctors looked at data from the British government’s Yellow Card vaccine event reporting system. They found that the “overwhelming” number of adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines definitely raised alarm bells.

The Yellow Card system is the British equivalent of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the U.S. The system is run by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Through the Yellow Card system, the MHRA keeps track of COVID-19 vaccines on an ongoing basis “to ensure their benefits continue to outweigh any risks.”

However, researchers at the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy (EbMC) research group based in Bath, England unveiled concerning findings. EbMC Director Dr. Tess Lawrie wrote about her group’s findings in a June 9 letter to the MHRA Chief Executive Officer Dr. June Raine.

Lawrie wrote in her letter that between Jan. 4 and May 6 of this year, a total of 888,196 adverse events and 1,253 deaths were reported to Yellow Card. Similar to VAERS data, these were not directly proven as correlated with the COVID-19 vaccine. Despite this, the EMBC director raised safety concerns for those getting the vaccine. She wrote that given the Yellow Card figures, “the MHRA now has more than enough evidence … to declare the COVID-19 vaccine unsafe for use in humans.”

Lawrie then asked urgent questions for the MHRA to answer as the soonest. She asked how many people have died within 28 days of vaccination and how many people have been hospitalized for the same period. She also asked the total number of people disabled by the vaccination.

In a later interview with TrialSiteNews, she described the total number of cases as “concerning” and called for follow-ups on persons who reported adverse reactions “to ensure there are no further problems.” Lawrie said: “The scope of morbidity is striking, evidencing a lot of incidents and what amounts to a large number of ill.”

Reports in the Yellow Card system only prove the coronavirus vaccines are unsafe

Lawrie also lamented that Yellow Card was “incredibly opaque” during her TrialSiteNewsinterview. She shared that researchers are unable to filter vaccine safety incidents by age, gender or other attributed. According to the EbMC director, about 60 percent or more of COVID-19 vaccines in the U.K. came from AstraZeneca, with the remainder from the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

The letter called on the MHRA to urgently make reports of vaccine adverse reaction public, given that pharmacovigilance data is known to be subsequently under-reported. It also called on the regulator to assist people with reporting adverse reactions. (Related: British mainstream media insists coronavirus vaccines are effective even though most covid deaths now occur in vaccinated people.)

Lawrie concluded the letter: “Preparation should be made to scale up humanitarian efforts to assist those harmed by the COVID-19 vaccines, and to anticipate and ameliorate medium to longer term effects. As the mechanism for harms from the vaccines appears to be similar to COVID-19 itself, this includes engaging with numerous international doctors and scientists with expertise in successfully treating COVID-19.”

But according to an article published in late June 2021, vaccine deaths and adverse reactions are no cause for alarm. It even argued that people who died from COVID-19 vaccines served as proof of their effectiveness. (Related: The Guardian says people dying from covid vaccines is “proof” that they work.)

In a June 27 piece for The Guardian, David Spiegelhalter and Anthony Masters called on people to avoid thinking of vaccine deaths as “a bad sign.” Rather, they insisted that such deaths were expected from an “effective but imperfect” vaccine. They wrote: “Does this mean the [COVID-19] vaccines are ineffective? Far from it, it’s what we would expect from an effective but imperfect vaccine.”

The two also took a swipe at reports of vaccine-related deaths circulating on various social media platforms. “Coverage and effectiveness are important … for assessing vaccination programs. It is better to look at cool analysis by analysis, rather than hot takes on social [media],” they wrote.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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

WakingTimes.com

TheFreeThoughtProject.com

Gov.uk

TrialSiteNews.com 1 [PDF]

TrialSiteNews.com 2

TheGuardian.com

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UK Research Group: Coronavirus Vaccine “Unsafe for Humans” Due to Adverse Events
  • Tags: ,

Pfizer to Seek Emergency Use Authorization for COVID Booster Shots — But CDC, FDA Say Science Is Lacking

July 12th, 2021 by Megan Redshaw

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Pfizer announced Thursday it will seek Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in August for a third dose of its COVID-19 vaccine. The drugmaker predicted those who have been fully vaccinated will need a booster shot within six to 12 months of receiving their second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

But hours later, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a joint statementby the FDA and Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention (CDC) saying, “Americans who have been fully vaccinated do not need a booster shot at this time.”

The statement did not explicitly mention Pfizer, but said “a science-based, rigorous process” headed by the CDC, FDA and the National Institutes of Health would determine when or whether boosters were necessary.

According to the HHS statement:

“FDA, CDC and NIH are engaged in a science-based, rigorous process to consider whether or when a booster might be necessary. This process takes into account laboratory data, clinical trial data and cohort data — which can include data from specific pharmaceutical companies, but does not rely on those data exclusively.”

In a statement to CNN Friday, the World Health Organization said:

“We don’t know whether booster vaccines will be needed to maintain protection against COVID-19 until additional data is collected,” adding, “limited data [is] available on how long the protection from current doses lasts, and whether an additional booster dose would be beneficial and for whom.”

Scientists “applauded the statement” from HHS, The Washington Post reported, saying boosters were not imminent and the science isn’t clear on if or when they will be needed.

“My opinion right now … is that current vaccination seems to be largely ‘holding,’” said E. John Wherry, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine. “But the companies seem to suggest their continued follow-up of their trial patients shows concerning levels of waning of immunity. Not much of these data from the companies are publicly available yet. I agree we need as much independent data and assessment as possible on this topic.”

John P. Moore, professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medicine, said:

“No one is saying we’ll never need a booster, but to say we need it now and give the public the impression the vaccines are failing and something needs to be done as a matter of urgency. … The time isn’t now. The decisions that are going to be made will be made by federal agencies.”

The HHS statement followed recommendations made June 23 by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization and Practices (ACIP). Members of the ACIP COVID-19 working group said they would recommend booster shots only if there were  a demonstrated decline in efficacy — not just a waning antibody response.

Boosters may be recommended if there’s a variant that’s able to evade the vaccines, according to slides presented by Dr. Sara Oliver, a medical epidemiologist with the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

Dr. Sharon Frey, ACIP member and clinical director of the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University Medical School, said:

“I would have to agree with the interpretation of the working group in the sense that there’s no data to support recommendations to support boosters at this time. There’s no evidence against declining protection at this time.”

Pfizer CEO insists boosters are needed

Pfizer has been working on two different booster strategies it anticipates could carry sales beyond the immediate pandemic need: a third 30 mg dose of its current vaccines and an updated vaccine that targets the South African variant.

All U.S. pharmaceutical companies involved in making COVID vaccines are working on formulating and testing booster shots to prepare for the possibility, The Washington Post reported.

Pfizer argued that as antibody blood concentration wanes, boosters will be required to ensure the broad population can’t carry the virus. This would quench the epidemic faster, the company said.

Pfizer said its vaccine’s effectiveness had eroded, citing two lines of evidence outside scientists have not seen in detail. This included an Israeli government analysis that showed reduced efficacy with Pfizer’s vaccine and the Delta variant, and data from Pfizer’s continued follow-up of people who were vaccinated last summer.

“While protection against severe disease remained high across the full six months, the observed decline in efficacy against symptomatic disease over time, and the continued emergence of variants, are key factors driving our belief that a booster dose will likely be necessary to maintain highest levels of protection,” Pfizer said in a statement.

Pfizer said it would submit data to regulators within weeks showing a third dose of its vaccine at six months caused antibody levels to shoot up five to 10 times higher than the original two-dose regimen. Moderna announced similar data in May.

Pfizer motivated by profit margins

Less than 24 hours after Pfizer announced plans to seek emergency use authorization of a third dose, the drugmaker’s stock was up 1.6%.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has said for months a booster would likely be needed within a year of the initial two-dose inoculation — followed by annual vaccinations, even as public health officials and academic scientists said it wasn’t clear yet when a booster would be needed.

Booster shots for COVID are expected to serve as a key revenue driver in the years to come for Pfizer and its primary rival in the U.S., Moderna. Pfizer in May projected global sales of its COVID vaccine to reach $26 billion in 2021.

The company has also been frank that its current pricing — $19.50 per dose in the U.S. — is temporary. On an earnings call in February, Frank A. D’Amelio, Pfizer’s executive vice president of global supply, assured investors the company sees the vaccine market evolving as the pandemic wanes, and will likely be able to charge more per dose than it was getting under pandemic supply deals.

D’Amelio said a more typical price for a vaccination was $150 or $175 per dose.

“Now, let’s go beyond a pandemic-pricing environment, the environment we’re currently in. Obviously, we’re going to get more on price,” D’Amelio said. “So clearly, there’s a significant opportunity for those margins to improve once we get beyond the pandemic environment that we’re in.”

Pfizer said it would begin testing a booster shot specifically programmed to combat the Delta variant in August, reaffirming concerns by scientists who predicted in April that pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, would create a vaccine treadmill with continuous booster shots targeted at emerging variants.

*

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

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

Featured image is from CHD

UK Lawyers Serve Notices of Liability on COVID Vaccinators Who Administer Shots Without Obtaining Full Informed Consent

July 12th, 2021 by Mordechai Sones

All Global Research articles 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.

***

UK attorney Anna de Buisseret today announced serving Notices of Liability on COVID-19 clinics and individuals administering the experimental biological agent known as the “COVID-19 vaccine” without obtaining fully informed consent, freely given in accordance with the Nuremberg Code and UK and International law.

“COVID jabs are experimental and still in phase 3 clinical trials,” de Buisseret explained. “The Nuremberg Code therefore applies. The injector MUST obtain the individuals fully informed consent freely given. All MATERIAL RISKS must be made clear to them and an individual risk assessment conducted.”

De Buisseret said among those served is Chief Medical Officer (CMO) for England, UK government’s Chief Medical Advisor, and head of the public health profession Professor Chris Whitty.

In April, Doctors for COVID Ethics served Notices of Liability for COVID-19 vaccine harms and deaths on all European Parliament Members.

In the United States, Health Impact News gave public notice that two private corporations, CVS and Rite Aid, have been issued a Safety Warning for the potential danger of indiscriminate COVID-19 “vaccination” in the naturally immune and recently COVID-19 infected, by Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, MD, Phd, on April 29th, 2021.

Many physicians have now spoken publicly about studies showing that those with natural COVID immunity will see a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of adverse reactions from the COVID shots.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 iStock

Half of All COVID “Variant” Deaths Occurring in People Who Were Already Vaccinated

July 12th, 2021 by Ethan Huff

All Global Research articles 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 millions of people now fully “vaccinated” against the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19), one would assume that the number of new “cases” in this demographic is on the decline. To the contrary, the latest data shows that at least half of all new Chinese Virus cases are occurring in people who got the jab(s).

In the United Kingdom, which is reportedly a “testing ground for how vaccines are coping,” the so-called “delta variant” is on the rise among the injected, who are supposed to be protected against the virus based on government and media claims.

Of the 146,000 alleged cases of delta variant identified throughout Great Britain, at least 50 percent of them are people who rolled up their sleeves to “protect grandma” and do their part to “flatten the curve.” So much for “science.”

Hilariously, “health authorities” are still insistent that the injections are “working,” even in vaccinated people who are still testing “positive” for the Fauci Flu. According to the “scientists,” the shots are still effective, even though they are clearly not.

“First, vaccines aren’t 100% effective,” claims The Wall Street Journal, a supporter of the injections.

“Not everyone who is inoculated will respond the same way. Those who are elderly or whose immune systems are faulty, damaged or stressed by some other illness are less likely to mount a robust response than someone younger and fitter.”

The Journal goes on to claim that Wuhan Flu shots are still “highly effective” no matter what the data says because “some people will still be vulnerable to the virus even after receiving their shots.”

We know, it is hard not to laugh at such nonsense. These statements make zero sense, and yet some people read this type of thing and nod their head in blind agreement as if they prove the “science” behind the Fauci Ouchies.

No, covid vaccines are not safe or effective

As for other research that shows vaccinated people are up to eight times more susceptible to the delta variant, well, this, too, supposedly shows that the vaccines are “working.”

Even if every new case of the Chinese Virus was in a vaccinated person and the only people dying were vaccinated people, the mainstream media would still be claiming that the shots “work” and that this only goes to show that they are “not perfect.”

“I think it shows the vaccines are working,” says Tom Wingfield, a lecturer and infectious disease physician from England who believes in the vaccines, despite the evidence against them.

Julian Tang, a clinical virologist and professor of respiratory medicine at the University of Leicester, agrees. He says all the new cases of delta variant being identified in vaccinated people are simply “breakthrough infections” that are the exception rather than the norm.

The norm, Tang insists, is a suppression of hospitalizations and deaths following mass injection, simply because he says so – the data be damned.

“The EUA (emergency use authorization) documents filed by Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen all demonstrate that the use of these Experimental Drug / Vaccines that include either the mRNA or dsDNA of the Spike Protein produced by this Gain-of-Function Research, do NOT statistically reduce the incidence of COVID-19,” noted one Journal commenter.

Another tried to pull a fast one by virtue signaling about race, claiming that people with white skin have downplayed the Chinese Virus because it was never a problem for them, supposedly only affecting “black, brown, working class, and elderly people.”

“Speak to your neighbors from India … they all suspect ‘delta’ was a boon for the organ-harvesting market,” wrote another, offering a different perspective on the situation.

*

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

Featured image is from Chemical Violence

“Ignore No Soliciting Signs, Use Your Script”: Vaccine Door-Knocking Documents Revealed

July 12th, 2021 by Zero Hedge

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As the Biden administration peddles its plan to send door-knocking missionaries across America to spread ‘vaccine awareness’ (and keep track of who’s vaccinated and who’s not), White House-coordinated FEMA “surge teams” are being assembled to reinforce local efforts on the ground.

In preparation for the coming campaign, Lake County, Illinois has published ‘Helpful Hints’ for volunteers taking part in their “Community Health Ambassador Outreach Door Knocking Project to Increase COVID Vaccine Acceptance.”

The ‘Helpful Hints!’ include:

  • If you’re nervous, that’s ok! We all still get nervous, even if we’ve done this before.
  • You don’t need to have all the answers. If you are unsure of an answer, be honest. Tell the person asking that you are a volunteer, and you will take down their question so that a health department staff person can get them the correct answer.
  • Inform, don’t convince. Your job is to equip the person at the door with the information/resources they need to make an informed decision about their health. You are not trying to convince anyone to do something they don’t want to do.
  • Ignore no soliciting signs. You’re not soliciting! You’re offering critical information and resources. What you are doing is not illegal.

  • Knock and then back up [zh: so you don’t get shot?]. Follow COVID-19 distancing protocols and speak clearly. If someone is uncomfortable with you being there in person, offer to give them more distance or leave them a flyer.
  • Use your script. This will give you the basics. Once you get comfortable with it, feel free to make it sound more like you as long as all the key information is there. Make clear up front that the building has let you in and you’re from the health department.

Perhaps most importantly, volunteers are told to keep a list of who’s been naughty or nice.

  • Report on your work! Be sure to fill out the Doorknocking Spreadsheet with the counts of who still needs a vaccine, who is already vaccinated, who needs more info, etc. This is important information that the Health Department is relying on!

The door knockers are then given various scenarios in an attached script. For example:

PM (property manager) /CAM (community association manager): We don’t allow solicitation on our property.

CHM (community health ambassador): I understand but I am not selling anything, we want to provide accurate information to the seniors in your community. Our goal is to maximize the vaccination effort so that ALL of your seniors receive the COVID vaccine when the clinic comes on-site. All I want is to see your seniors protected against COVID.

And…

Senior: I’ve had allergic reactions to medications and foods years ago, is this vaccine safe for me?

CHA: The only true contraindication to this vaccine is a severe (anaphylactic) reaction to an injectable/vaccine in your past [ZH: *cough* what?]. Or an allergy to an ingredient in the vaccine, like polysorbate. After your vaccination, they will observe you for 15 minutes to be sure you’re doing well. With a history of other allergic reactions, they may want to watch you for a total of 30 minutes, instead of the standard 15 minutes, just to be sure you’re feeling ok. But if you have any question about your past allergies and vaccine compatibility, you should ask your doctor/healthcare provider.

Apparently door knockers are already operating in various towns.

And to nobody’s surprise, concern is growing over the sudden surge in vaccine ‘awareness’ campaigns.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 by Babylon Bee via Zero Hedge

Hands Off Haiti!

July 12th, 2021 by Thomas L. Knapp

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Associated Press headline, July 8: “Biden with few options to stabilize Haiti in wake of slaying.” Following the assassination of president Jovenel Moïse, AP reports, “the U.S. is unlikely to deploy troops.”

Nonetheless, the American political and media establishments seem to blithely assume that Haiti’s internal affairs are very much America’s business. State Department spokesman Ned Price says “It is still the view of the United States that elections this year should proceed.” An “electoral timetable” proposed by Moïse was “backed by the Biden administration, though it rejected plans to hold a constitutional referendum.”

Imagine, for a moment, that Russian president Vladimir Putin announced his support for the US holding 2022 congressional midterm elections, but denounced a proposed constitutional amendment.

Haven’t American politicians spent the last several years kvetching about supposed “Russian meddling” in US elections? Is there some particular reason why “election interference” is bad when others do it to us, but good when we do it to others?

The United States has intervened in Haiti’s internal affairs for more than 200 years, almost always with poor results for both countries’ populations.

After Haiti’s slave population rose up and overthrew their French masters, Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton recognized Toussaint Louverture’s new regime and encouraged independence (Louverture maintained the colonial relationship with France until 1804).

Under Thomas Jefferson, the US withdrew that diplomatic recognition under pressure from slave owners who feared a spread of Louverture’s rebellion to the American mainland, and  refused to recognize Haiti’s independence until 1862. Subsequently, Washington intervened militarily in Haiti multiple times, occupied the country from 1915 to 1934, and supported the dictatorships of Francois “Papa Doc”  and Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier from 1957 to 1986 on the Cold War logic that Haiti could be a Caribbean “counterweight” to Communist Cuba.

Since the fall of Duvalier The Younger, the US government has continued to intervene in Haitian affairs — dangling and withdrawing aid, engaging in economic blockade, and intercepting and repatriating US-bound refugees, based on who’s in charge in Port-au-Prince and whether they toe Washington’s line.

While it’s simplistic to conclude that the US government is responsible for all of Haiti’s many problems, Washington certainly bears a great deal of responsibility for those problems. The way forward and out of that culpability is less, not more, interference in Haiti’s affairs.

If the US government really needs a “Haiti policy,” that policy should include two elements: Free trade and welcoming refugees. Beyond that, hands off Haiti!

*

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

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

Featured image: Haiti’s National Police guard remove makeshift barricades made of steel fences and tree branches protesters placed to block the National Palace entrance, Oct. 31, 2019. (Photo: Matiado Vilme / VOA — Public Domain) 

There’s a Dirty Tricks Campaign Underway in Peru to Deny the Left’s Presidential Victory

July 12th, 2021 by José Carlos Llerena Robles

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Half an hour’s taxi ride from the House of Pizarro, the presidential palace in Lima, Peru, is a high-security prison at the Callao naval base. The prison was built to hold leaders of Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path), particularly Abimael Guzmán. Not far from Guzmán’s cell is that of Vladimiro Montesinos, intelligence chief under former President Alberto Fujimori, who is also now imprisoned. Montesinos was sentenced to a 20-year prison term in 2006 for embezzlement, influence peddling, and abuse of power. Now, audio files from phone calls made by Montesinos from his prison indicate an attempt to influence the results of Peru’s presidential election after Pedro Castillo, the candidate of the left-wing Perú Libre party, won the election.

By the evening of June 6, 2021, Peru’s National Jury of Elections should have declared Pedro Castillo the winner of the presidential election. But it did not. A month later, matters remain in stasis as Peru does not yet have an official winner of the election.

Castillo’s opponent, Fuerza Popular’s Keiko Fujimori—the daughter of the former dictator Alberto Fujimori—has hired a range of Lima’s top lawyers to obstruct any decision by the state’s electoral commission. In addition, her team has cast aspersions against the campaign of Castillo and Perú Libre, accusing them—without evidence—of being financed by disreputable groups, including drug cartels. The Peruvian media, largely controlled by the oligarchy, have gone along with Fujimori’s allegations; their apparent goal is to paint Castillo as an illegitimate winner and to set aside the verdict of the electorate.

Bribes

Meanwhile, hard evidence continues to emerge of the dirty tricks at the heart of Fujimori’s campaign to steal the election. Montesinos, the right-hand man of Fujimori’s father, made 17 phone calls from the prison between June 2 and June 24. Twelve of these calls resulted in a phone conversation; there was no answer to five of them. The Peruvian naval authority in charge of the prison said that Montesinos had applied to call his girlfriend. On June 26, Peru’s Defense Minister Nuria Esparch indicated that the navy will conduct an investigation.

Montesinos did not call his girlfriend. Instead, the old spymaster—and former CIA agent—called Pedro Rejas, a former commander in Peru’s army who is close to the Fujimori campaign. Montesinos tells Rejas in one call on June 10 to bribe the three members of the election commission $1 million each. “The only solution is to work through Guillermo in order to transfer the payment in favor of the three electoral jury members, who are supposed to be open to the bribe, and therefore guarantee the result.” The “Guillermo” in the conversation is Guillermo Sendón, who is on record affirming his relationship with one of the members of the electoral commission, Luis Arce Córdova. Sendón says that he helped Arce in his failed campaign to become president of the Supreme Court and met Arce several times in this period. Sendón’s last recorded visit to Arce was on June 22.

The audios are damning. In Peru, the case is known as Vladiaudios. This is a nod to a 20-year-old scandal called Vladivideos, when Montesinos was caught on tape bribing congressman Alberto Kouri to support Perú 2000, the party of Alberto Fujimori. In the months that followed, more videos came out: Montesinos offering millions of dollars to Channel 2, Channel 4, Channel 5, and Channel 9 if they prevented the opposition from coming on their television programs. The Vladiaudios are as damning as the Vladivideos, both showing Montesinos attempting to use bribery to secure the electoral victory of the Fujimoris.

Where will the money come from? Montesinos proposes that Rejas approach Dionisio Romero (the CEO of Credicorp) and Rafael López Aliaga. It seems he has thought about everything: what to do and how to do it. Sitting in jail, this old intelligence agent could not do it himself. He required an accomplice and phone calls that were recorded and leaked to the media.

Involve the CIA

In one of the calls, Montesinos tells Rejas to involve the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). “Look, what they have to do is to go to the U.S. Embassy and talk with the embassy intelligence officer. Bring all the fraud documentation… Go to the embassy and talk with the person in charge of intelligence at the embassy. That is in the Office of Regional Affairs.” The Office of Regional Affairs in Lima is the CIA station.

Montesinos gives precise instructions. Keiko Fujimori’s husband “can go [to the embassy], since he is an American citizen.” Her husband is Mark Villanella, whom she met at Columbia University in 2004. “Take the documents,” Montesinos advises. “Show them. Deliver them to the embassy and ask them to bring them to their chief in Washington… And in Washington, the chief can bring it to the notice of the president, and the White House spokesperson can issue a statement to prevent Cuba, Venezuela, or Nicaragua from imposing their will in Peru. With such a statement, they have great leverage.”

Montesinos is not the only one in Fujimori’s circle with a history of trying to involve the United States in Peru’s elections. Her close adviser Fernando Rospigliosi has a long history of walking into the U.S. Embassy and asking for assistance in preventing the left from prevailing in elections. The current U.S. ambassador in Peru—only recently appointed—is Lisa Kenna, a former CIA agent.

Unconventional Warfare

Montesinos is an expert in unconventional warfare. The followers of Fujimori, he tells Rejas in one of the conversations, want to use a conventional approach, but “this will not work.”

“There is conventional warfare and unconventional warfare,” he says. “In unconventional warfare, you have to use special procedures… Conventional lawyers are not going to succeed because the procedure is irregular.” Arguments before the courts, in other words, are not sufficient; bribes are required.

Luis Arce, the man on the electoral commission, is now under investigation by Peru’s public prosecutor.

Meanwhile, the National Jury of Elections has still not closed the election in favor of the winner, Pedro Castillo. What we have instead is unconventional warfare with the U.S. Embassy as a player in the drama. Coups nowadays in Latin America do not need armies. Having good lawyers, bags of money, and a handful of thugs in and out of jail is all that is needed.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 produced by Globetrotter.

José Carlos Llerena Robles is a popular educator, member of the Peruvian organization, La Junta, and representative of the Peruvian chapter of Alba Movimientos.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter. He is the chief editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He is a senior non-resident fellow at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest book is Washington Bullets, with an introduction by Evo Morales Ayma.

Featured image is from NewsClick

Canada Funneled $23 Billion in Subsidies to Three Pipelines Since 2018

July 12th, 2021 by Nick Cunningham

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The Canadian federal and provincial governments have handed over C$23 billion (US$18.5 billion) in subsidies to three major oil and gas pipeline projects in just the past three years, according to a new report by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), defying global calls to phase out government support for fossil fuels.

But even that total is likely an undercount given the lack of transparency from the Canadian government over its support of the industry. “Canadian support to pipelines is higher than $23 billion dollars, but we don’t know by how much. The access to information request that we filed resulted in thousands of pages either redacted or withheld,” Vanessa Corkal, policy advisor at the IISD, and lead author of the report, said in a statement.

“Canadians deserve to know that their money is going towards a prosperous future and not putting that future at risk,” she said.

The state-backed fossil fuel expansion continues even as signs of the climate crisis grow more pronounced. A record-breaking heat wave baked western Canada in late June, killing hundreds of people and igniting around 180 wildfires in British Columbia.

The three projects — Keystone XL, the Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline, and the Coastal GasLink pipeline — have been steadfastly supported by the Canadian federal government and the oil-rich province of Alberta, despite suffering from enormous financial risk and fierce opposition by some First Nations and environmental groups.

The IISD report found at least eight different types of financial support for the projects, including loans, loan guarantees, and liabilities. For instance, Alberta took a $1.5 billion equity stake in Keystone XL in 2020, making it a partner in the long-contested pipeline project that would have extended from Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska. It also offered $6 billion in loan guarantees for the pipeline.

Construction of Keystone XL in Oyen, Alberta. October 2020. Credit: Government of Alberta. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

With Keystone XL killed off by the U.S. government in January, Alberta now finds itself joining TC Energy, the owner of the pipeline, in a lawsuit against the Biden administration seeking $15 billion damages in the wake of the permit cancelation. After reviewing its options, TC Energy announced in June that it was terminating the project.

Another example is the $500 million loan given to the Coastal GasLink pipeline — another project owned by TC Energy — by Export Development Canada, a federal agency. The 416-mile pipeline will carry natural gas from northeastern British Columbia to Kitimat, B.C., on the Pacific Coast for export, but it traverses Indigenous territories. In February 2020, protests erupted across Canada in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en who oppose the project.

Wet’suwet’en Solidarity Event – Queen’s Park to City Hall, Toronto, Ontario – February 22, 2020. Credit: Jason Hargrove. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Wet’suwet’en Solidarity Event. February 2020. Credit: Jason Hargrove. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

But the government’s direct ownership of the Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline, a long-distance pipeline that would take Alberta’s oil sands to the Pacific Coast for export, is “by far the largest example of pipeline support,” according to the IISD report. The government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau purchased the project for C$4.5 billion in 2018 to rescue it from cancelation by its previous owner, Texas-based Kinder Morgan.

The purchase went beyond merely providing some financial support. The government set up a Crown corporation – a state-owned company – to build the pipeline. Without the nationalization of the project by the Canadian government, the pipeline would not have gone forward.

As DeSmog has reported, multiple First Nations and environmental groups have targeted Trans Mountain’s corporate insurers, pressuring them to back out of supporting the project.

The IISD report says that with the financial risks to major fossil fuel infrastructure projects on the rise, the industry is increasingly turning to the Canadian government for explicit financial support. Instead, public money should be accelerating a clean energy transition, experts say.

“The public money that Canadian governments are funneling into pipelines could pay for renewable energy or affordable housing,” said Kai Nagata, communications director for British Columbia-based advocacy group Dogwood, commenting on the report. “We could create thousands of jobs, but instead we are paying industry to pollute and worsening the climate crisis.”

Government subsidies for long-distance pipelines contradicts Canada’s own stated commitments to phase out fossil fuel subsidies by 2025, in line with pledges from both G7 and G20 countries.

The United Nations, the International Energy Agency, and other global bodies have also called for an end to fossil fuel subsidies. In fact, the U.N. says that the production of fossil fuels needs to decrease at a rate of 6 percent per year between 2020 and 2030 in order to hit climate change targets.

In April 2021, Canada announced a new climate target, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 45 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, a commitment widely seen as underwhelming.

Canada’s support for a fossil fuel expansion also defies calls by a long list of economists to fund a green stimulus in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, a move which would not only help economies recover from the 2020 downturn, but also put them on a more sustainable pathway.

Of the C$23 billion in support and subsidies for the three controversial pipelines identified in the IISD report, roughly C$10 billion occurred after the onset of the pandemic. Canada even classified pipeline construction as an “essential service” so that work could proceed, despite calls from First Nations to halt operations due to the health risks.

In May 2020, Alberta’s energy minister Sonya Savage went as far as to say that the pandemic is “a great time to be building a pipeline because you can’t have protests of more than 15 people.”

Government backing for the industry continues. On July 5, the Alberta government announced a C$825 million purchase of a 50 percent stake in a new oil sands refinery in Edmonton, which it will own jointly with Canadian Natural Resources, an oil sands producer. “We are taking action to get a better deal for taxpayers,” Savage said.

“Government support for pipeline construction can extend and expand the development of fossil fuel production sites within Canada that would not otherwise have been economically attractive,” IISD said. “This can result in large increases in carbon emissions that last for decades.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 Cunningham is an independent journalist covering the oil and gas industry, climate change and international politics. He has been featured in Oilprice.com, The Fuse, YaleE360 and NACLA.

Featured image: Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and Energy Minister Sonya Savage. Credit: Government of Alberta. (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canada Funneled $23 Billion in Subsidies to Three Pipelines Since 2018
  • Tags: , , ,

Sham Surveillance Safeguards Vs. Tucker Carlson

July 12th, 2021 by James Bovard

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Fox News host Tucker Carlson was mocked on social media this week for stating that he had been told that the National Security Agency was reading his private emails and spying on him. The usual suspects called Carlson paranoid, because there are so many checks and balances to assure the feds would never illegally target a vexatious Biden critic. However, on Tuesday, a dissent by Travis LeBlanc, a member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, revealed that one of the NSA’s most intrusive surveillance engines, XKeyscore, may be violating federal law and Americans’ rights and privacy.

In 2013, Edward Snowden leaked documents proving that XKeyscore was the surveillance state’s incarnation of paranoia. What did it take for the NSA to justify vacuuming up Americans’ emails and internet data? Merely detecting “someone searching the web for suspicious stuff.” The peril of that farcical standard was compounded because, as Snowden explained, NSA surveillance tools enabled him to “wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email.” Thanks to its all-encompassing standard of “suspicious,” NSA has “assembled on the order of 20 trillion transactions about U.S. citizens with other U.S. citizens,” according to former NSA senior analyst William Binney. Six months after Snowden’s disclosures began, federal judge Richard Leon issued a ruling denouncing the NSA surveillance regime as “almost Orwellian”: “I cannot imagine a more indiscriminate and arbitrary invasion than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval.”

After the uproar created by the Snowden revelations, the civil liberties watchdog board leaped into action to investigate XKeyscore. Six years later, the board finished its 56-page report, a confidential version of which was provided to the White House and select members of Congress in March. Unfortunately, the board apparently did not have time to look under any rocks to see what the NSA might be hiding. In a dissent partially declassified on Tuesday, LeBlanc complained that the board failed to ask “how many U.S. persons have been impacted by XKeyscore, how much data the program collects and analyzes, how widely information analyzed through XKeyscore is shared, the number of lives saved, or the number of terrorist events averted as a result of XKeyscore.” In 2019, XKeyscore resulted in “hundreds of compliance incidents,” and LeBlanc noted that “U.S. law and the known collection or processing of U.S. person information are serious compliance issues.” However, the civil liberties oversight board did not “request specific information” about violations of U.S. law by NSA. LeBlanc groused that the board’s report “reads more like a book report of the XKeyscore program than an independent oversight analysis.”

The NSA apparently never even bothered doing a formal analysis of the legality or constitutionality of XKeyscore until 2016, after the oversight board specifically requested such information. NSA later claimed that it had done earlier legal analyses that justified XKeyscore but refused to share them with the oversight board. LeBlanc told the Washington Post, “We have a very powerful surveillance program that eight years or so after exposure, still has no judicial oversight, and what I consider to be inadequate legal analysis and serious compliance infractions.”

NSA claims it conducted “appropriate legal reviews” for XKeyscore. NSA said the same thing when Snowden started blasting their credibility to smithereens. Rebecca Richards, NSA’s civil liberties and privacy officer, declared that the compliance incidents were investigated and “we found them to be standard intelligence practices.” This is not as reassuring as Richards might have hoped. Consider the harebrained legal rationales that justified data roundups after 9/11. Section 215 of the Patriot Act entitles the government to seize—without a warrant—information relevant to a terrorism investigation. The Bush and Obama administrations decided that all phone records of all Americans were “relevant” to terrorism investigations. NSA effectively claimed that it was not “targeting” any individual since it was seizing everyone’s data. This “finding” was kept secret from the public and the vast majority of Congress—as well as from federal judges who heard cases challenging the constitutionality of federal surveillance regimes.

Many of LeBlanc’s XKeyscore criticisms remain classified. In his publicly released statement, he said it was “inexcusable” that the board failed to make any effort to seek declassification of the report or any portions thereof. Sen. Ron Wyden, the most dogged congressional watchdog of federal spying, commented on LeBlanc’s disclosure: “I continue to be concerned that Americans still know far too little about the government’s surveillance activities under Executive Order 12333 and how it threatens their privacy.” Wyden is pressing for numerous civil liberties board reports to be declassified to “shed light on these secret authorities that govern the collection and use of Americans’ personal information.” Wyden, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is muzzled from disclosing the NSA’s confidential dirt.

Unfortunately, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, created in 2004, is the same type of lap dog as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which rubberstamps 99 percent of requested search warrants. In late 2005, the New York Times reported that George W. Bush’s “secret presidential order has given the NSA the freedom to peruse… the email of millions of Americans.” The NSA’s program was quickly christened the “J. Edgar Hoover Memorial Vacuum Cleaner,” but that didn’t stop the civil liberties watchdog board from heartily endorsing it. In 2007, before the Board could issue its belated first annual report, Bush White House staffers massively rewrote and censored a draft version, spurring Democratic board member Lanny Davis to resign in protest. The watchdog board, unlike Sen. Wyden, failed to issue any pre-Snowden warnings that federal surveillance regimes were out of control.

None of this proves that the NSA has been wiretapping Tucker Carlson. But his situation might parallel one of the most untimely and embarrassing Supreme Court decisions in the modern era. Barack Obama had campaigned for the presidency as an opponent of warrantless wiretaps, but after taking office, quickly swooned for that push-button power. Numerous lawsuits challenged the constitutionality of sweeping warrantless surveillance, but the Justice Department perennially sought to get plaintiffs thrown out of court. The New York Times in 2012 called the Obama administration’s position “a particularly cynical Catch-22: Because the wiretaps are secret and no one can say for certain that their calls have been or will be monitored, no one has standing to bring suit over the surveillance.” This was the legal version of frat party ethics: As long as the government blindfolds its victims, it can do as it pleases.

The Supreme Court swallowed that argument in an early 2013 decision. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the 5-4 majority, noted that the Court was averse to granting standing to challenge the government based on “theories that require guesswork” and tutted that the complainants “have set forth no specific facts demonstrating that the communications of their foreign contacts will be targeted.” Alito upheld the Obama administration’s position because the complaints about spying were “necessarily conjectural” and “too speculative” based on fears of “hypothetical future harm.” The majority opinion also insisted that the government had plenty of safeguards—such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court—to assure innocent Americans’ rights are not violated. A few months later, Snowden’s revelations blew those arguments to pieces, revealing that the NSA can tap almost any cell phone in the world, vacuum up smartphone data, remotely access computers, and crack the vast majority of computer encryption.

After Carlson stated that his emails were being intercepted, the NSA issued a statement on Tuesday declaring that “Tucker Carlson has never been an intelligence target of the Agency… With limited exceptions (e.g. an emergency), NSA may not target a US citizen without a court order that explicitly authorizes the targeting.” “Not an intelligence target” is about as re-assuring as “not the drone target” was for the huge number of innocent bystanders blown up by Obama’s assassination program. Ninety percent of the people whose emails and other data were dragged into NSA surveillance dragnets were not the NSA’s actual targets, according to a 2014 Washington Post analysis based on data that Snowden provided.

Since 9/11, trampling the Constitution has been a no-fault offense in Washington. In his dissent revealed this week, LeBlanc declared that “the public is rightly worried about secret surveillance programs.” Many of the folks mocking Tucker Carlson’s concerns would be wise to read up on the recent history of mass illicit surveillance. “Government under the law” requires more than perfunctory denials of federal crimes.

*

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

James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights, Attention Deficit Democracy, and Public Policy Hooligan. He is also a USA Today columnist. Follow him on Twitter @JimBovard.

Featured image is from g0d4ather/Shutterstock

“No One Has Died from the Coronavirus”. Diseases and Deaths “Caused by Something Else”?

July 12th, 2021 by Rosemary Frei

First published on July 3, 2020

***

A high-profile European pathologist is reporting that he and his colleagues across Europe have not found any evidence of any deaths from the novel coronavirus on that continent.

Dr. Stoian Alexov called the World Health Organization (WHO) a “criminal medical organization” for creating worldwide fear and chaos without providing objectively verifiable proof of a pandemic.

Another stunning revelation from Bulgarian Pathology Association (BPA) president Dr. Alexov is that he believes it’s currently “impossible” to create a vaccine against the virus.

He also revealed that European pathologists haven’t identified any antibodies that are specific for SARS-CoV-2.

These stunning statements raise major questions, including about officials’ and scientists’ claims regarding the many vaccines they’re rushing into clinical trials around the world.

They also raise doubt about the veracity of claims of discovery of anti-novel-coronavirus antibodies (which are beginning to be used to treat patients).

Novel-coronavirus-specific antibodies are supposedly the basis for the expensive serology test kits being used in many countries (some of which have been found to be unacceptably inaccurate).

And they’re purportedly key to the immunity certificates coveted by Bill Gates that are about to go into widespread use — in the form of the COVI-PASS — in 15 countries including the UK, US, and Canada.

Dr. Alexov made his jaw-dropping observations in a video interview summarizing the consensus of participants in a May 8, 2020, European Society of Pathology (ESP) webinar on COVID-19.

The May 13 video interview of Dr. Alexov was conducted by Dr. Stoycho Katsarov, chair of the Center for Protection of Citizens’ Rights in Sofia and a former Bulgarian deputy minister of health. The video is on the BPA’s website, which also highlights some of Dr. Alexov’s main points.

We asked a native Bulgarian speaker with a science background to orally translate the video interview into English. We then transcribed her translation. The video is here and our English transcript is here.

Among the major bombshells Dr. Alexov dropped is that the leaders of the May 8 ESP webinar said no novel-coronavirus-specific antibodies have been found.

The body forms antibodies specific to pathogens it encounters. These specific antibodies are known as monoclonal antibodies and are a key tool in pathology. This is done via immunohistochemistry, which involves tagging antibodies with colours and then coating the biopsy- or autopsy-tissue slides with them. After giving the antibodies time to bind to the pathogens they’re specific for, the pathologists can look at the slides under a microscope and see the specific places where the coloured antibodies — and therefore the pathogens they’re bound to – are located.

Therefore, in the absence of monoclonal antibodies to the novel coronavirus, pathologists cannot verify whether SARS-CoV-2 is present in the body, or whether the diseases and deaths attributed to it indeed were caused by the virus rather than by something else.

It would be easy to dismiss Dr. Alexov as just another crank ‘conspiracy theorist.’ After all many people believe they’re everywhere these days, spreading dangerous misinformation about COVID-19 and other issues.

In addition, little of what Dr. Alexov alleges was the consensus from the May 8 webinar is in the publicly viewable parts of the proceedings.

But keep in mind that whistleblowers often stand alone because the vast majority of people are afraid to speak out publicly.

Also, Dr. Alexov has an unimpugnable record and reputation. He’s been a physician for 30 years. He’s president of the BPA, a member of the ESP’s Advisory Board and head of the histopathology department at the Oncology Hospital in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia.

On top of that, there’s other support for what Dr. Alexov is saying.

For example, the director of the Institute of Forensic Medicine at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf in Germany said in media interviews that there’s a striking dearth of solid evidence for COVID-19’s lethality.

“COVID-19 is a fatal disease only in exceptional cases, but in most cases it is a predominantly harmless viral infection,” Dr. Klaus Püschel told a German paper in April. Adding in another interview:

In quite a few cases, we have also found that the current corona infection has nothing whatsoever to do with the fatal outcome because other causes of death are present, for example, a brain hemorrhage or a heart attack […] [COVID-19 is] not particularly dangerous viral disease […] All speculation about individual deaths that have not been expertly examined only fuel anxiety.”

Also, one of us (Rosemary) and another journalist, Amory Devereux, documented in a June 9 Off-Guardian article that the novel coronavirus has not fulfilled Koch’s postulates.

These postulates are scientific steps used to prove whether a virus exists and has a one-to-one relationship with a specific disease. We showed that to date no one has proven SARS-CoV-2 causes a discrete illness matching the characteristics of all the people who ostensibly died from COVID-19. Nor has the virus has been isolated, reproduced and then shown to cause this discrete illness.

In addition, in a June 27 Off-Guardian article two more journalists, Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter, added to the evidence that “the existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact.”

The pair also confirmed “there is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences [deemed to match that of the novel coronavirus] are the causative agent of what is called COVID-19.”

Dr. Alexov stated in the May 13 interview that:

the main conclusion [of those of us who participated in the May 8 webinar] was that the autopsies that were conducted in Germany, Italy, Spain, France and Sweden do not show that the virus is deadly.”

He added that:

What all of the pathologists said is that there’s no one who has died from the coronavirus. I will repeat that: no one has died from the coronavirus.”

Dr. Alexov also observed there is no proof from autopsies that anyone deemed to have been infected with the novel coronavirus died only from an inflammatory reaction sparked by the virus (presenting as interstitial pneumonia) rather than from other potentially fatal diseases.

Another revelation of his is that:

“We need to see exactly how the law will deal with immunization and that vaccine that we’re all talking about, because I’m certain it’s [currently] not possible to create a vaccine against COVID. I’m not sure what exactly Bill Gates is doing with his laboratories – is it really a vaccine he’s producing, or something else?”

As pointed to above, the inability to identify monoclonal antibodies for the virus suggests there is no basis for the vaccines, serological testing and immunity certificates being rolled out around the globe at unprecedented speed and cost. In fact, there is no solid evidence the virus exists.

Dr. Alexov made still more important points. For example, he noted that, in contrast to the seasonal influenza, SARS-CoV-2 hasn’t been proven to kill youth:

[With the flu] we can find one virus which can cause a young person to die with no other illness present […] In other words, the coronavirus infection is an infection that does not lead to death. And the flu can lead to death.”

(There have been reports of severe maladies such as Kawasaki-like disease and stroke in young people who were deemed to have a novel-coronavirus infection. However, the majority of published papers on these cases are very short and include only one or only a small handful of patients. Moreover, commenters on the papers note it’s impossible to determine the role of the virus because the papers’ authors did not control sufficiently, if at all, for confounding factors. It’s most likely that children’s deaths attributed to COVID-19 in fact are from multiple organ failure resulting from the combination of the drug cocktail and ventilation that these children are subjected to.)

Dr. Alexov therefore asserted that:

the WHO is creating worldwide chaos, with no real facts behind what they’re saying.”

Among the myriad ways the WHO is creating that chaos is by prohibiting almost all autopsies of people deemed to have died from COVID-19. As a result, reported Dr. Alexov, by May 13 only three such autopsies had been conducted in Bulgaria.

Also, the WHO is dictating that everyone said to be infected with the novel coronavirus who subsequently dies must have their deaths attributed to COVID-19.

“That’s quite stressful for us, and for me in particular, because we have protocols and procedures which we need to use,” he told Dr. Katsarov. “…And another pathologist 100 years from now is going to say, ‘Hey, those pathologists didn’t know what they were doing [when they said the cause of death was COVID-19]!’ So we need to be really strict with our diagnoses, because they could be proven [or disproven], and they could be checked again later.”

He disclosed that pathologists in several countries in Europe, as well as in China, Australia and Canada are strongly resisting the pressure on them to attribute deaths to COVID-19 alone:

I’m really sad that we need to follow the [WHO’s] instructions without even thinking about them. But in Germany, France, Italy and England they’re starting to think that we shouldn’t follow the WHO so strictly, and [instead] when we’re writing the cause of death we should have some pathology [results to back that up] and we should follow the protocol. [That’s because] when we say something we need to be able to prove it.”

(He added that autopsies could have helped confirm or disprove the theory that many of the people deemed to have died of COVID-19 in Italy had previously received the H1N1 flu vaccine. Because, as he noted, the vaccine suppresses adults’ immune systems and therefore may have been a significant contributor to their deaths by making them much more susceptible to infection.)

Drs. Alexov and Katsarov agreed that yet another aspect of the WHO-caused chaos and its fatal consequences is many people are likely to die soon from diseases such as cancer because the lockdowns, combined with the emptying of hospitals (ostensibly to make room for COVID-19 patients), halted all but the most pressing procedures and treatments.

They also observed these diseases are being exacerbated by the fear and chaos surrounding COVID-19.

We know that stress significantly suppresses the immune system, so I can really claim 200% that all the chronic diseases will be more severe and more acute per se. Specifically in situ carcinoma – over 50% of these are going to become more invasive […] So I will say that this epidemic isn’t so much an epidemic of the virus, it’s an epidemic of giving people a lot of fear and stress.”

In addition, posited Dr. Alexov, as another direct and dire result of the pandemic panic many people are losing faith in physicians.

Because in my opinion the coronavirus isn’t that dangerous, and how are people going to have trust in me doing cancer pathology, much of which is related to viruses as well? But nobody is talking about that.”

We emailed Dr. Alexov several questions, including asking why he believes it’s impossible to create a vaccine against COVID-19.

He didn’t answer the questions directly. Dr. Alexov instead responded:

We also emailed five of Dr. Alexov’s colleagues in the European Pathology Society asking them to confirm Dr. Alexov’s revelations. We followed up by telephone with two of them. None responded.

Why didn’t Dr. Alexov or his five colleagues answer our questions?

We doubt it’s due to lack of English proficiency.

It’s more likely because of the pressure on pathologists to follow the WHO’s directives and not speak out publicly. (And, on top of that, pathology departments depend on governments for their funding.)

Nonetheless, pathologists like Drs. Alexov and Püschel appear to be willing to step out and say that no one has died from a novel-coronavirus infection.

Perhaps that’s because pathologists’ records and reputations are based on hard physical evidence rather than on subjective interpretation of tests, signs and symptoms. And there is no hard physical evidence that COVID-19 is deadly.

*

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.

Rosemary Frei has an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, was a freelance medical writer and journalist for 22 years and now is an independent investigative journalist. You can watch her June 15 interview on The Corbett Report, read her otherOff-Guardian articles and follow her on Twitter.

Patrick Corbett is a retired writer, producer, director and editor who’s worked for every major network in Canada and the US except for Fox. His journalistic credits include Dateline NBC, CTV’s W-5 and the CTV documentary unit where he wrote and directed ‘Children’s Hospital’, the first Canadian production to be nominated for an International Emmy. You can follow Patrick on Twitter.

Featured image is from OffGuardian

British Court Ruling Heightens Danger of Assange Extradition to the US

July 12th, 2021 by Oscar Grenfell

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Last week’s ruling by the British High Court allowing prosecutors to appeal an earlier judgment blocking Julian Assange’s extradition, poses the very real danger that the WikiLeaks publisher will be dispatched to his American persecutors in the not-too-distant future.

The ruling is a microcosm of the Assange case as a whole. As they have for the past decade, the British courts have thrown aside the WikiLeaks founder’s legal and democratic rights. They have granted a US appeal that is both duplicitous and irregular under conditions in which the entire attempt by the American state to prosecute Assange has been exposed as an illegal frame-up.

The corporate media remains silent, or presents the latest travesty against Assange as fair play. The major political parties in the US, Britain and Australia, which have orchestrated the campaign against the WikiLeaks founder, give their tacit stamp of approval declaring, along with the official politicians who have occasionally voiced “concern” over Assange’s persecution, that the British “legal process” must be “respected.”

The US appeal is a damning refutation of those, including among Assange’s own supporters, who have peddled dangerous illusions that the US administration of President Joe Biden may drop the prosecution if a sufficient number of moral pleas are addressed to the new occupant of the White House.

The appeal was first issued in the dying days of the Trump administration but it was continued, honed and argued for by Biden’s Justice Department. Assange remains in London’s maximum-security Belmarsh Prison and faces the prospect of lifetime incarceration in the US because Biden is determined to press ahead with the prosecution of a journalist and publisher for exposing American war crimes, human rights violations and illegal spying operations.

That is because the Assange prosecution is viewed as a crucial precedent by the imperialist powers for the suppression of dissent and anti-war opposition amid a ratcheting up of the preparations for military conflict, including the Biden administration’s threats and provocations against China, and the first signs of a resurgence of working-class struggle.

The appeal also confirms the warnings made by the World Socialist Web Siteabout January’s British District Court decision that barred extradition.

Judge Vanessa Baraitser accepted all the substantive arguments of the US prosecutors, including their right to try a publisher under the Espionage Act. Her ruling, prohibiting extradition, was framed in the narrowest terms. Its purpose was to defuse a groundswell of opposition to the prospect of Assange’s extradition and to provide the US with ample scope for prosecution.

Baraitser ruled that extradition would be “oppressive.” Assange’s compromised health and the conditions of his imprisonment in the US would likely result in his suicide.

The deliberate consequence of that judgment was that there was only a legal sliver between Assange and extradition.

The US has exploited this with its appeal claiming that the conditions of imprisonment would not be so oppressive. It has proposed worthless assurances that Assange would not be held under Special Administrative Measures (SAM), regulations that impose almost total isolation on a prisoner, and that he could serve out his sentence in Australia.

The extradition hearing had heard harrowing testimony about the dire psychological consequences of SAMs and conditions at the supermax ADX Florence prison where they are frequently imposed.

The US arguments, accepted as a legitimate basis of appeal by the British court, were demolished by Stella Moris, Assange’s partner and an international human rights lawyer.

In a statement issued on Friday, Moris wrote:

“Reports about US undertakings are grossly misleading. On any given day 80,000 prisoners in US prisons are held in solitary confinement. Only a handful are in ADX/under special administrative measures. ADX is just one of dozens of self-described supermax prisons in the United States. The US government also says it may change its mind if the head of the CIA advises it to do so once Julian Assange is held in US custody.

“With regard to the supposed concession of allowing Julian to serve jail time in Australia, it was always his right to request a prisoner transfer to Australia to finish serving his sentence because he is an Australian. It is no concession at all. There are existing agreements between the US and Australian authorities. What is crucial to understand is that prisoner transfers are eligible only after all appeals have been exhausted. For the case to reach the US Supreme Court could easily take a decade, even two.

“What the US is proposing is a formula to keep Julian in prison effectively for the rest of his life. The only assurance that would be acceptable would be for the Biden Administration to drop this shameful case altogether, once and for all. He should not be in prison for a single day, not in the UK, not in the United States, not in Australia—because journalism is not a crime.”

As Moris noted, the US appeal itself reserved the “right” to impose SAMs once Assange is on US soil. Testimony at the extradition hearing, including from a former US prison warden, established that the imposition of SAMs is essentially extra-judicial, often being introduced at the say-so of the intelligence agencies, and with no genuine means of appeal.

The hearings, moreover, heard evidence of a case in which similar assurances were immediately thrown out the door once extradition was secured. Lawyers for terrorist leader Abu Hamza had argued that his extradition would be oppressive because he would likely be held under SAMs, despite severe health issues, including a missing hand. US prosecutors guaranteed that this would not be the case stating that if he were, it would only be for a short time. Once they had their hands on Hamza, they placed him under SAMs in ADX Florence, where he remains.

Aside from the wilful credulity of the British court, the US assurances contradict affidavits presented by Assistant US Attorney Gordon Kromberg to the extradition hearings which indicated that SAMs would be considered as an option for Assange’s imprisonment. Because of this, the High Court would have been within its rights to deem the assurances new evidence, not applicable in an appeal hearing because they were not presented to the lower court where the matter was first heard.

The decision to hear the appeal creates a highly dangerous situation for Assange. Nick Vamos, a partner at the Peters & Peters law firm and a former head of extradition at the Crown Prosecution Service, told the Guardian that the appeal process could proceed “quite quickly.” He added: “There’s also a longstanding history of our courts accepting the assurances from requesting states.”

In the immediate future, the decision means that Assange will remain indefinitely imprisoned in Belmarsh Prison, where he has been incarcerated for more than two years. More broadly, the appeal demonstrates that the US government is planning to continue its persecution of the WikiLeaks founder for decades to come.

The suggestion that Assange could serve out a sentence in Australia recalls a scenario outlined by Fred Burton, chief security officer of Stratfor, which is often described as a “shadow CIA.” In a 2010 email to a colleague, subsequently published by WikiLeaks, Burton said the US strategy against Assange was: “Pile on. Move him from country to country to face various charges for the next 25 years. But, seize everything he and his family own, to include every person linked to Wiki.”

That strategy was initiated by the Obama administration in which Biden served as vice-president. Obama empanelled a Grand Jury to try and concoct charges against Assange. Parallel with this, his administration was involved in numerous dirty-tricks operations against Assange including discredited Swedish allegations of sexual misconduct.

Only when these extra-judicial operations had succeeded in depriving Assange of his liberty by forcing him to seek political asylum in Ecuador’s London embassy, did the Obama administration apparently drop its plans for a formal prosecution.

A report in the Stundin newspaper earlier this month shed further light on the Obama-Biden campaign, demonstrating the extent to which the US collaborated with an Icelandic conman and paedophile Sigurdur Thordarson to violate Iceland’s sovereignty and frame Assange as a computer hacker, under Obama’s administration. This included taking possession of files stolen by Thordarson from WikiLeaks, lying to Iceland’s government about why FBI agents were flown to the country in 2011, and ferrying the Icelandic criminal around Europe.

Thordarson was later picked up by the Trump Justice Department as it publicly-unveiled charges against Assange in 2019. His claims were prominently featured in a superseding indictment, issued by US prosecutors in June 2020, which is the basis of the extradition request.

Thordarson has now admitted, however, that almost all his testimony consisted of lies proffered in exchange for immunity from US prosecution. The American government thus submitted a false indictment to the British courts.

Baraitser’s January judgment, upholding the substantive arguments of US prosecutors, cited Thordarson some 22 times. His claims of hacking, since withdrawn, were presented as proof that the prosecution had met the test of dual criminality, requiring that offences be illegal in both Britain and the US for extradition to be granted.

The dependence of the prosecution case on Thordarson’s lies should have meant that it was summarily dismissed. The same is true of well-documented allegations that the CIA illegally spied on Assange, including his privileged discussions with attorneys, when he was a political refugee in the Ecuadorian embassy. Despite all of this, the attempted prosecution continues.

The latest High Court ruling again demonstrates that the fight for Assange’s freedom cannot be based upon moral appeals to his persecutors, or any section of the political establishment, from the Biden administration, to the British judiciary, the Australian authorities and the corporate media. All of them nailed their colours to the mast long ago.

The constituency for the defence of Assange and the defeat of state frame-ups is the international working class. It is being propelled into struggle against the very political forces that have pursued Assange as they carry out the homicidal policy of “herd immunity” on the pandemic, preside over ever-greater social inequality, and escalate their reckless drive to war. Every effort must be made to apprise the working class of Assange’s plight and to mobilise it in his defence.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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: Julian Assange in Belmarsh Prison in 2019 (Source: WSWS)

Destabilizing Haiti: Why It Keeps Happening.

July 12th, 2021 by Greg Guma

All Global Research articles 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.

***

What really happened on the night when the president of Haiti was assassinated? And why? We may never know the complete story. According to initial reports, the home of Jovenel Moise was invaded at around 1 a.m. on July 9 by more than two dozen armed men, mostly of them Colombian nationals, plus at least two U.S. citizens. So far, about 20 suspects have been detained. But some of the hitmen evaded initial capture, and so far three are dead. At the moment, the remaining, fragile government is being headed by acting Prime Minister Claude Joseph. 

Breathless news reports call the events shocking, almost unprecedented. But they also note that Haiti has bordered on being a “failed state” for some time. In fact, it crossed that border long ago, and more than 20 heads of state have been assassinated around the world since World War II. The list of countries on that list, just in the Western Hemisphere, includes Bolivia, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, and Grenada.

In 1946, Bolivian President Gualberto Villaroel was killed by a lynch mob in La Paz. Nicaraguan President Anastasio Somoza was murdered in 1956. Dominican Republic strongman Rafael Trujillo Molina was gunned down in 1961; his assassins included one of his generals. And Grenada’s Prime Minister Maurice Bishop was killed by local militants in 1983. Six days later the U.S. led an invasion and ousted the regime that had attempted to replace Bishop.

Other prominent heads of state who have died violently since 1945 include Indian leader Mohandas Gandhi, Iraq’s King Faisal, Pakistani Prime Minister Liaquate Ali Khan, South Vietnam President Ngo Dinh Diem, South African Prime Minister Henrik Verwoerd, Iranian President Mohammed Ali Rajai and Prime Minister Hojjatoleslam Mohammed Javad Bahonar, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, Lebanon President-elect Beshir Gemayel, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, and, of course, U.S. President John F. Kennedy.

Still, Haiti does have an especially violent past. In July 1915, for example, its head of state, Vilbrun Guillaume Sam, was cornered in the French embassy by rebel forces. The insurgents had widespread popular support. This also was no shock, since Sam was known as a rampaging, vindictive thug who had seized the government by force and murdered hundreds of his political enemies before running for cover. When a mob finally found him cowering in an attic, they hacked their president to pieces. 

The island nation, once known as the “pearl of the antilles,” had been through seven presidents in four years, most of them killed or removed prematurely. The rural north was under the control of the Cacos, a rebel movement that adopted its name from the cry of a native bird. Although widely portrayed as a group of murderous bandits, the Cacos were essentially nationalists attempting to resist the control of France, the U.S, and the small minority of mulattos who dominated the economy.

But a Haiti run by rebels and peasants was not acceptable to outside interests, especially in the U.S., who considered the nation an endangered investment property. The National City Bank controlled the country’s National Bank and railroad system, and sugar barons viewed the country’s rich plantations as promising takeover targets. Thus, on July 29, 1915, after several weeks of observation from cruisers anchored offshore, two regiments of Marines landed. Their initial objective was to make certain that the U.S. choice, Senator Philippe Sudre Dartiguenave, was installed as head of state. A snap-election was staged less than two weeks later. The occupation lasted 19 years.

“When the National Assembly met, the Marines stood in the aisles with their bayonets until the man selected by the American Minister was made President,” recalled Smedley Butler, the Marine hero who led the decisive military campaign and administered Haiti’s local police force during the following two years. “I won’t say we put him in,” Butler wrote later. “The State Department might object. Anyway, he was put in.”

Few journalists were on hand in 1915, and most newspapers were willing to accept the official version. According to President Woodrow Wilson, establishing a protectorate was part of a grand effort to halt a radically evil and corrupting revolution, support the slow process of reform, and extend his policy of the open door to the world.

But that was just the official story. Actually, Wilson saw the island nation as a geo-strategic pawn in the build up to World War I; specifically, he was worried that Germany might take advantage of the local political turmoil to establish a military base in the hemisphere. He also had other, largely economic reasons to seize control of the country. 

During the early years of the U.S. occupation, the Cacos continued to resist, under the leadership of their own Sandino, an army officer turned guerrilla leader named Charlemayne Peralte. Murdered by an American Marine in 1919, Peralte became a symbol for the democracy movement of the late 1980s that ultimately led to the election of the liberation theology priest Jean Bertrand Aristide.

In the 1990s, after decades under the dictatorship of the Duvalier family, it happened again. Seven months after Aristide’s 1991 election, he was overthrown in a military coup. It took three years, but by 1994 Haiti’s plight became big news. The coverage was highly selective, however, never mentioning CIA support for those who conducted the coup or the Haitian military’s involvement in drug trafficking. Prior to this U.S. occupation, the media was also suspiciously silent about, as Aristide put it, a sham embargo that squeezed the poor but exempted businesses. Although an oil embargo was imposed, fuel was easily smuggled into the country from the Dominican Republic. Meanwhile, a smear campaign against Aristide was launched.

Just as President Wilson had veiled his actions on behalf of US economic interests with rhetoric about stability and democracy, President Clinton talked about upholding democracy. In fact, the central objective of the 1990s occupation was to maintain effective control of the country until Aristide’s term expired. Media coverage tended to obscure the obvious: the U.S., never comfortable with Aristide, had entered into an agreement with the Haitian military for national co-management until the next elections.

Looking back, most policy-makers and analysts suggested that the U.S. had originally occupied Haiti only to restore stability. Few stressed that some sort of revolution was underway; even those who did invariably described the situation as chaotic. According to conventional wisdom, the US remained in Haiti for 19 years because the Haitian people could not effectively govern themselves or sustain democratic institutions. They weren’t ready in 1915 and, some skeptics claimed, they still weren’t in the 1990s.

At a September 1994 rally, Ross Perot echoed this popular prejudice in his own know-nothing style. “Haitians like a dictator,” he announced, “I don’t know why.” The implication, underscoring his own opposition to U.S. intervention, was that he also didn’t care what happened there, and neither should most people.

The Bush administration may have counted on a similar reaction when it embraced a violent uprising against Aristide beginning in late 2003, or even after it reportedly forced him to sign a resignation letter at 2 a.m. on Sunday, February 29, 2004. According to the “ex-president,” he was kidnapped at gunpoint, and flown without his knowledge to the Central African Republic. This should not be so hard to believe, since Aristide never had the Bush administration’s support, and his inability to maintain order in an atmosphere of U.S.-backed destabilization provided an excellent pretext for another exercise in “regime change.”

In early February, a “rebel” paramilitary army crossed the border from the Dominican Republic. This trained and well-equipped unit included former members of The Front for the Advancement of Progress in Haiti (FRAPH), a disarming name for plain clothes death squads involved in mass killing and political assassinations during the 1991 military coup that overthrew Aristide’s first administration. The self-proclaimed National Liberation and Reconstruction Front (FLRN) was also active, and was led by Guy Philippe, a former police chief and member of the Haitian Armed Forces. Philippe had been trained during the coup years by U.S. Special Forces in Ecuador, together with a dozen other Haitian Army officers. Two other rebel commanders were Emmanuel “Toto” Constant and Jodel Chamblain, former members of the Duvalier era enforcer squad, the Tonton Macoute, and leaders of FRAPH.

Both armed rebels and civilian backers like G-184 leader Andre Apaid were involved in the plot. Apaid was in touch with US Secretary of State Colin Powell in the weeks leading up to Aristide’s overthrow. Both Philippe and Constant had past ties to the CIA, and were in contact with U.S. officials.

On February 20, 2004, U.S. Ambassador James Foley called in a team of four military experts from the U.S. Southern Command, based in Miami, according to the Seattle Times. Officially, their mandate was to assess threats to the embassy and its personnel. Meanwhile, as a “precautionary measure,” three U.S. naval vessels were placed on standby to go to Haiti. One was equipped with Vertical takeoff Harrier fighters and attack helicopters. At least 2000 Marines were also ready for deployment.

After Aristide’s kidnapping, Washington made no effort to disarm its proxy paramilitary army, which was subsequently tapped to play a role in the transition. In other words, the Bush administration did nothing to prevent the killing of Lavalas and Aristide supporters in the wake of the president’s removal. In news coverage of the crisis, both Haiti’s dark history and the role of the CIA were ignored. Instead, so-called rebel leaders, commanders of death squads in the 1990s, were recognized as legitimate opposition spokesmen.

The Bush administration effectively scapegoated Aristide, holding him solely responsible for a worsening economic and social situation. In truth, Haiti’s economic and social crisis was largely caused by the devastating economic reforms imposed by the International Monetary Fund beginning in the 1980s. Aristide’s 1994 return to power was conditioned on his acceptance of IMF economic “therapy.” He complied, but was blacklisted and demonized anyway.

Which raises a key question: Why does this keep happening? One reason may be basic geopolitics. Hispaniola (the island that contains Haiti and the Dominican Republic) is a gateway to the Caribbean basin, strategically located between Cuba to the North West and Venezuela to the South. Thus, having a military presence on the island, or at least leverage with whatever regime emerges, can help to sustain political pressure on other “troublesome” countries nearby, while providing a convenient base to step in as part of any regional military operation deemed necessary in the future.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Greg Guma/For Preservation & Change.

Greg Guma has been a writer, editor, historian, and progressive manager for half a century, leading businesses and campaigns in Vermont, New Mexico, and California. His early work with Bernie Sanders led to The People’s Republic: Vermont and the Sanders Revolution. His other books include two novels, Spirits of Desire and Dons of Time, and non-fiction like Fake News: Journalism in the Age of Deceptions, and the forthcoming book, Restless Spirits & Popular Movements: A Vermont History.

Featured image is from Lautaro Rivara/People’s Dispatch

In Many Cities in America, the Criminals Are Starting to Gain Firm Control of the Streets

July 12th, 2021 by Michael Snyder

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Every week the horrendous crime wave that is sweeping across America seems to get even worse.  In some of our largest cities, looting, murder and violence are becoming a way of life, and authorities seem powerless to do anything about it.  Is this what we can expect life in the United States to look like moving forward?  All over the globe, people are watching us, and they are stunned by what they have been witnessing.  Criminals are wildly out of control, and many of our largest cities are being transformed into extremely violent war zones.

For example, just check out what happened in Oakland over the weekend.  According to Police Chief LeRonne Armstrong, his officers were completely overwhelmed by “the level of violence and gunfire”…

The Fourth of July reeled into “12 hours of non-stop chaos” Sunday night with several victims wounded by celebratory gunfire, a homicide and a massive sideshow marred by gunfire. The night culminated at the sideshow, where more than 200 participants pelted police officers with debris and flashed them with hand-held lasers.

Embattled Oakland Police Chief LeRonne Armstrong told reporters that the level of violence and gunfire overwhelmed his officers.

Next door, the shoplifting epidemic in San Francisco has evolved into systematic looting.

Sadly, no retailer is immune.  Even though Neiman Marcus has enthusiastically embraced a whole host of “woke” causes, criminals ruthlessly looted one of their stores in San Francisco on Monday…

Looters were captured on video Monday ransacking a Neiman Marcus in San Francisco as thefts continue to plague businesses in the area.

At least nine suspects smashed display cases, snatched handbags, and jetted out of the building before law enforcement arrived to the scene at about 6 p.m., according to footage. The suspects were seen running out of the store with their hands full of merchandise before entering an apparent getaway car that sped off down a busy intersection.

If you have not seen footage of the looters yet, you can watch it right here.  This happened in broad daylight, and it is hard to believe that such scenes are actually happening in the United States of America.

At this point, the looting has gotten so bad that some major retailers are taking drastic actions…

Walgreens shuttered 17 of its stores in the San Francisco area in the past five years, and the company said thefts in the area are four times more likely than anywhere else in the country as executives budgeted 35 times more for security personnel to guard the chains.

Target executives in the city also decided to limit business hours in response to an uptick in larceny.

But unless they completely close up shop, the looting is going to continue.

Criminals in California have learned that if they keep the value of the merchandise they steal at each store to under $950, they won’t be charged with a felony even if they are caught.  So now we are witnessing a wave of retail theft that is unlike anything we have ever seen before…

SF Police Lt. Tracy McCray pinned the blame on DA Chesa Boudin (whose parents were part of the radical and violent Weather Underground, and left two police officers dead during a botched heist). According to McCray, Boudin’s “criminals first agenda” is responsible for the uptick in crime.

“What happened in that Walgreens has been going on in the city for quite a while,” McCray said in June. “I’m used to it. I mean, we could have a greatest hits compilation of people just walking in and cleaning out the store shelves and security guards, the people who work there, just standing by helplessly because they can’t do anything.”

Up in Portland, the street violence just continues to get even worse.

Earlier today, I was saddened to learn that a very generous man that had put up a pop-up swimming pool for the homeless during the heat wave had been viciously stabbed to death…

A man whose ingenious pop-up swimming pool kept the homeless cool during the recent heat wave was fatally stabbed in the same spot just one day later, according to Portland police.

Officers identified Tyson L. Morlock as the man who was found stabbed in the inner eastside Hosford-Abernethy neighborhood at Division Street and Southeast Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard around 3:37 a.m. on Thursday, July 1.

He tried to make Portland a better place, and now he is dead.

Of course so many people are being murdered these days that it is extremely difficult to keep up with all of the carnage.

In Chicago, this holiday weekend was the most violent weekend that we have seen in 2021 so far, and that is really saying something…

Every July 4th weekend police in Chicago brace for an uptick in violence – even more than is usual when typical weekends average about 40 shootings – and this holiday weekend was no different, easily registering as the deadliest and most violent this year given the total death count. New York City has also been witnessing a steady uptick in seemingly random shootings and violence, including brazen acts committed in broad daylight in heavily trafficked areas, such as the recent Times Square wounding of a US Marine.

On Monday the Chicago Sun-Times has tallied 92 people shot over the long July 4th weekend, with 16 killed. The Sun-Times database shows the numbers killed to be a weekend high for all of 2021 so far.

There are certain areas of Chicago that are essentially “no go zones” at this point, but of course the same thing could be said about the worst parts of many other major U.S. cities.

As I discussed the other day, it is being reported that murder rates in our largest cities were up by an average of 30 percent in 2020, and as of a few weeks ago they were up another 24 percent so far in 2021.

Ordinary citizens are begging our leaders to “do something” about this enormous wave of violence, but at this point nothing seems to be working.

If things are this bad now while the U.S. economy is in “recovery mode”, how bad will conditions get when the next severe downturn comes along?

It is heartbreaking to watch our society come apart at the seams all around us, and I have a feeling that what we have witnessed so far is just the beginning.

*

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

Michael Snyder has published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News which are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.

Featured image is from The Most Important News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on In Many Cities in America, the Criminals Are Starting to Gain Firm Control of the Streets
  • Tags: ,

Suspected Assassins of Haitian President Moïse Trained by US, Linked to Pro-Coup Oligarchy

July 12th, 2021 by Dan Cohen

All Global Research articles 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 shock grips the Caribbean island nation of Haiti following the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse, the Haitian government has carried out a campaign to arrest suspects it alleges are responsible for the murder.

Haitian Director of National Police Leon Charles announced at a press conference that the assassination squad that killed Moise is comprised of 28 foreigners, including two Haitian-Americans and 26 Colombian nationals. Fifteen of those Colombians have been detained while three were killed in a gun battle and eight remain fugitives. Colombian Defense Minister Diego Molano has admitted that some of the Colombians are retired military personnel. Among them are at least one highly decorated soldier who received training from the United States and another who has been implicated in the murder of Colombian civilians.

Ties to oligarchs

The Haitian-Americans have been identified as James Solages, 35, and Joseph Vincent, 55. Solages lives in Fort Lauderdale where he is the CEO of EJS Maintenance & Repair and runs a nonprofit group, the website of which has since been scrubbed of information. Prior to relocating to Florida, he lived in the southern Haitian coastal city of Jacmel.

According to The Washington Post, Solages’ Facebook profile, which has since been removed, listed him as the chief commander of bodyguards for the Canadian Embassy in Haiti. The Canadaian Embassy confirmed that Solages previously worked as a security guard. While in Florida, Solages was an “avid and vocal supporter of former President Michel Martelly,” the founder of Moïse’s Haitian Baldheaded Party (PHTK), according to Tony Jean-Thénor, leader of the Veye Yo popular organization in Miami, founded by the late Father Gérard Jean-Juste.

James Solages Haiti

Photos of James Solages and an armored military vehicle that he posted to his now-removed Facebook page

The Haitian Times reported Solages also used to work as a security guard for both Reginald Boulos and Dimitri Vorbe, two prominent members of Haiti’s tiny bourgeoisie. Although initially friendly to him, they both became bitter opponents of Moïse. Boulos was also a prominent supporter of previous coups in 1991 and 2004 against President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

The Boulos family is one of the wealthiest in Haiti and owns a pharmaceutical company that, in 1996, was responsible for poisoning scores of children with its tainted fever medicine, some fatally. Since the July 6-8, 2018 national uprising against the IMF-dictated hike of fuel prices, Boulos has attempted to recast himself as a popular and progressive figure (after one of his stores was burned and looted), heading a political party called the Third Way Movement (MTV).

Vorbe is the executive director and vice president of Société Générale d’Énergie SA, one of the largest private energy companies in Haiti which had a sweet-heart deal providing power to the energy grid that Moïse sought to renegotiate after the collapse of the PetroCaribe program, under which Venezuela provided Haiti with cheap oil and credit from 2008 to 2018.

Many believe Boulos is the intellectual author and financial backer of Moïse’s murder.

“Solage’s employment by Boulos and centrality to the operation appears to confirm the growing popular consensus in Haiti that this controversial merchant-turned-politician was the principal backer of Moïse’s assassination,” explained journalist Kim Ives, continuing:

A lot of factors have been pointing to his involvement: The arrival of the mercenaries in nine brand new Nissan Patrol vehicles without license plates suggests that they were vehicles coming from the Nissan dealership owned by Reginald Boulos. The Haitian people have already concluded that Boulous was behind the assassination and have dechoukéed [uprooted] the dealership, Automeca, that he owned.”

Colombian assassin trained by the U.S.

While the Haitian-Americans reportedly served as translators, the muscle of the assassination squad came from Colombia, the U.S.’s top regional ally, which serves as a platform for destabilization and regime change plots in the region, from Venezuela to Ecuador – and now apparently Haiti.

The most prominent member of the hit squad is Manuel Antonio Grosso Guarín, a 41-year-old former special operations commando who retired from the military as a member of the Simón Bolívar No. 1 infantry battalion on December 31, 2019. According to the Colombian newspaper La Semana, Grosso “had several special combat courses, had been a member of the special forces and anti-guerrilla squads, and was known for being a skilled paratrooper who flew through the air without fear.”

In 2013, Grosso was assigned to the Urban Anti-Terrorist Special Force group, a secretive elite military detachment dedicated to counter-terrorism operations and carrying out kidnappings and assassinations (euphemistically known as ‘high value target acquisition and elimination’). This branch of the military is also tasked with providing security to VIP figures from the Colombian president to U.S. presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush.

“He was one of the most prepared,” a source remarked to La Semana.

Among Grosso’s preparations was special command instruction from the United States military, which supplies training and weapons to the Colombia military, one of the most repressive armed forces in the region and one that works to secure international corporate interests and drug trafficking routes.

“How many false positives (see the following paragraph), how many social leaders, how many signers of the peace accord, will be on this man?” left-wing Colombian Senator Gustavo Bolivar commented on Twitter.

Grosso was joined by Francisco Eladio Uribe Ochoa, who had retired from the Colombian Army in 2019, according to the Colombian newspaper El Tiempo. Eladio Uribe’s wife told the newspaper that he had been investigated for participation in the execution of civilians — a practice known as “false positives,” in which the Colombian military lured at least 6,402 civilians, murdered them, and dressed them in guerrilla fatigues in order to inflate their kill numbers. This gruesome practice helped military commanders reach lofty kill-count quotas set by the United States and was incentivized with bonus pay and vacation time for soldiers who carried out the killings.

Though Eladio Uribe’s wife said that he had been exonerated, his name has appeared in a file of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, a court formed out of the 2016 peace accord, which has investigated several thousand cases of false positives that the Colombian government had not previously admitted. Eladio Uribe is one of two soldiers accused in the 2008 murder of Luis Carlos Cárdenas in the village of Chorros Blancos in Antioquia region.

Other alleged members of the hit squad alleged to have killed Moïse include:

  • Duberney Capador Giraldo, a retired Deputy First Sergeant (killed in a gun battle in Haiti)
  • ​​Alejandro Giraldo Zapata
  • John Jairo Ramírez Gómez
  • Víctor Albeiro Piñera

Of the 28 total people who allegedly participated in the assassination, four of the Colombians arrived in Haiti on June 6, 2021. Grosso arrived in the Dominican city of Punta Cana and crossed the land border into Haiti two days later. Photos show him and other suspects at popular tourist sites in the Dominican Republic.

A photo of Grosso, left, along with some of the other suspects posing in Haiti posted to Grosso’s Facebook page

Unanswered questions and a growing consensus

Questions also remain about why Moïse’s security team failed to protect him, and if any of its members were complicit in the murder. Dimitri Herard, the head of the General Security Unit of the National Palace, is under investigation by the United States government for arms trafficking, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). While there is no evidence (but many rumors) linking him to the murder, “Herard is one of the individuals most responsible for the safety of the president.”

While the Haitian government has identified what appear to be Moïse’s assassins, there is still no hard evidence — just circumstantial — linking them to Boulos and possibly even Vorbe. Nonetheless, “there is a growing consensus that Reginald Boulous, for whom an arrest warrant [was] issued last week, paid for the mercenaries,” according to Ives. “It appears to be becoming more and more evident that the sector of the Haitian bourgeois, with whom Jovenel Moïse was at war, are intimately linked to his assassination.”

As the investigation into Moïse’s murder unfolds, the U.S. appears to be preparing the groundwork to deploy troops to Haiti at the request of a figure whom it has spent decades grooming. According to The New York Times, Claude Joseph, who is in a struggle against Dr. Ariel Henry to head the Haitian state in the wake of Moïse’s assassination, requested the U.S. send military forces to guard key infrastructure, including the port, airport, and gasoline reserves. White House Spokeswoman Jen Psaki announced that the U.S. would reinforce U.S. personnel in Haiti with FBI and DHS deployments.

Joseph is an asset of the United States and its regime-change arm, the National Endowment For Democracy. Wikileaks cables revealed that he first came to prominence in 2003 as the leader of a NED-spawned student front called GRAFNEH in the lead up to the coup against President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. He also founded another NED-funded anti-Aristide group Initiative Citoyenne (Citizens’ Initiative). He is reported by Haitian radio stations to have been, with prominent Haitian ex-Deputy Gary Bodeau, one of the principal assailants who severely beat the late Father Gérard Jean-Juste in a Pétionville church in 2005.

Jean-Juste, perhaps the most prominent supporter and surrogate of the then exiled-in-South-Africa President Aristide, had been falsely accused of involvement in the killing of his own cousin, Jacques Roche, a writer.

“Essentially, we have a U.S. puppet asking his puppeteer to invade Haiti for the fourth time in just over a century,” Ives concluded. “But both the region and, above all, the Haitian people are sick and tired of U.S. military interventions, which are largely responsible for the nation’s current debilitated, critical state both economically and politically. Much of the most oppressed neighborhoods are now heavily armed and have already announced a revolution against the likes of Boulos, so the U.S.-led invaders of 2021 are likely to face a resistance similar to that which emerged against the U.S. Marines in 1915 and UN ‘peace-keepers’ in 2004, only more ferocious.”

*

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

Dan Cohen is the Washington DC correspondent for Behind The Headlines. He has produced widely distributed video reports and print dispatches from across Israel-Palestine. He tweets at @DanCohen3000.

CDC Is Weaponizing Masks and Segregating Children to Force Them to Get Jabbed with Experimental “Vaccines”

July 12th, 2021 by Teodrose Fikremariam

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Yesterday afternoon, the CDC issued a new guidance stating that children who are fully “vaccinated” do not have to wear masks when schools reopen this fall. This latest policy decision has nothing to do with science and protecting kids, it’s a blatant and malicious attempt to browbeat parents to have their sons and daughters injected with experimental boosters that are causing debilitating conditions like myocarditis and led to the deaths of nine children ranging from 12-17 years old last week alone.

Two weeks ago, the World Health Organization published a bulletin strongly advised that children should not get “vaccinated” for Covid-19 due to the lack of evidence that mRNA and adenovirus shots are safe and effective for adolescents and young adults only to rescind it out of political considerations.

Yesterday, the CDC went one step further in the duplicity department as they doubled down on the mass-“vaccination” agenda. After deploying psychological manipulation that drew on the lessons gleaned by Dr. Stanley’s experiments to get 48.2% of the American population “vaccinated”, they are now gunning for our children with the ferocity of a rabid pit bull.

Joe Biden and his ilk are attempting to drive up the “vaccination” rate—which has stalled because too many refuse to become lab rats in this ongoing pharmaceutical experiment by injecting themselves with “vaccines” that are undergoing clinical trials until at least 2023—by weaponizing masks and segregating schools based on children’s medical status. What the CDC is doing is beyond reprehensible; they know that children are susceptible to peer-pressure so they are otherizing the “unvaccinated” to condition them into covet the jabs. Moreover, they are encouraging principles and teachers to give preferential treatment to students who are “vaccinated” and punish others by making them labor to breathe through masks.

If this guidance is implemented by schools, it will create a paradigm where children who are not “vaccinated” will become targets of taunts and bullying by those who got jabbed. The CDC is betting that these children will then turn on their parents and make them cave. They are trying to override the concerns tens of millions of fathers and mothers have about the safety and efficacy of these experimental gene therapy cocktails that have led to the deaths of over 9,000 people to date according to the CDC’s own Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.

This level of state-sponsored coercion to get people “vaccinated” by force or by choice is unprecedented in the history of the United States. What makes the CDC’s latest gambit even more pernicious is the fact that children have been almost untouched by Covid-19. The overall death rate for the 21 and younger demographic is 0.02%; more children have been injured and killed by the “vaccines” than the number of kids who died as a consequence of the Coronavirus. Moreover, kids are not vectors of the virus; by God’s grace they have been largely spared from this pandemic.

The only reason that more people don’t know about these provable facts is because the ever obsequious mainstream media have reverted to their Iraq war form as they intentionally suppress information and broadcast biotech corporation propaganda as news. The establishment as a whole—from politicians, media personalities to medical professionals and beyond—who are pushing these “vaccines” have conflicts of interest that they are not disclosing. Most of them are getting funded, either direct or indirectly, by the likes of Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. They are more interested in preserving their kickbacks that are delivered by way of contributions, advertisement revenues and grants than they are in protecting our children.

The same is true about the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention; instead of safeguarding the public, they have cast their lot with Big Pharma. The CDC’s decision to experiment on children in ways that would make Mengele proud is not surprising given the fact that they once had direct oversight over the Tuskegee syphilis experiments. A leopard doesn’t change its spots and neither does the CDC change its pattern; after experimenting on African-American males for decades, they are now coming for our children.

I have studied media since I was a teenager, in fact I initially decided to pursue journalism when I attended George Mason University only to change my major when I realized what mainstream media is all about. What I have witnessed over the past 12 months alone with respect to this insane mass-“vaccination” campaign affirms my decision. Here is what they are not telling us: people who get Covid-19 and recover develop antibodies and T-cells that are infinitely better than the synthetic antibodies derived from the jabs. Even the NIH admitted this fact before they decided to bury it like a mafia capo entombing his victim in the deserts of Nevada.

They are suppressing the risks while hyping all the benefits that are minimal at best. I interviewed Dr. Brian Tyson in the video below about all these things and then some only for YouTube to delete it within 24 hours. If these “vaccines” are so great, why the hell are they turning to this level of tyrannical censorship? The answer is simple, they don’t want you to know the truth. The very things we have been deplatformed for—whether it’s about the origins of Covid-19 to the perils of these experimental “vaccines”—are now being proven true. They are trying to deny the self-evident truths about these dangerous boosters so they can inject as many people as possible before their lies are fully exposed.

Since our government, the supposed free-press and almost every major institution of note is in bed with biotech corporations as they push agendas hatched by the likes of Bill and Melinda Gates, let me offer this advice to parents they won’t hear coming from the mouths of the establishment. If you value the lives of your children, if you want them to have a long and healthy life and if you want to one day become grandparents, DO NOT LET YOUR CHILDREN GET JABBED FOR COVID-19!

If the school they are attending decides to go along with the CDC’s political guidance, which has nothing to do with science and everything to do with engineering society, pull them out of that school and move somewhere else if you must. Children are too vulnerable and too precious to sacrifice them at the altar of pseudo-science. As horrific as Covid-19 is—I do not dismiss or diminish the lethality of this virus given that I lost my mom last year this God-forsaken and man-made virus—the fact is children are 200 times more likely to die in a car accident than dying from Covid-19. Given this fact, the only way to understand the CDC’s latest mask mandate is by realizing that they have been struck by group-psychosis.

We must draw a red line when they place crosshairs on the arms of children. If the ruling class insists on targeting our kids, then we must cash the check that Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence and reclaim our government from the grips of globalist monsters who arrogantly believe that they can remake society in their image. That level of hubris will eventually lead to the solutions Parisians turned to 1789 when they had enough of being pushed around by depraved aristocrats. Vive la révolution!

For the record, the revolution that I am referring to is not one of guns but one of hearts and minds. There is only one reason why a fraction of humanity terrorizes and oppresses billions around the world with impunity. As long as we are divided, we will always be powerless. The minute we are united, our powers will burn away the pseudo-might of plutocrats. As to the “invisible hands” who are intent on fulfilling a plot that was hatched a long time ago, there is no need to warn you, you know exactly what you are doing. Just know your evil schemes will fail, I hope you like dust because you will be eating it when the day of reckoning arrives:

“I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace.” ~ Thomas Paine

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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.

Afghanistan: Deadly Costs of a War for Profit Won by the Taliban

July 12th, 2021 by Gilbert Mercier

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As the United States and NATO‘s war in Afghanistan struggles to end, most observers and commentators, at least in the West, are still either delusional enough or more likely paid enough, not to publicly recognize a basic evidence: the Taliban are in the process of winning the 20-year war, which is the United States’ longest war in the country’s relatively brief history.

Some at least pretend to be puzzled by this turn of events. However, all of it, or at least the final outcome, was completely predictable, almost from the start and definitely for at least a decade. When you look at the numbers, it appears that what truly kept the empire and its NATO vassals in Afghanistan was the financial imperative of the military-industrial complex, the imperative of war for profit.

Now that the war in Afghanistan is almost over, we must look at its vertiginous costs: human and financial. Numbers are abstractions that do not carry any weight in emotions. But when the matter becomes macabre war bookkeeping, the numbers become grim, atrocious and loaded with pain, as they accurately tell the story of 20 years of disproportionate and intense suffering imposed on the Afghan people by the occupiers. The tabulation of misery for Afghans will keep echoing long after the invaders, who brought mostly death and destruction, are gone.

First the number of deaths for NATO: since the invasion in 2001, more than 3,500 NATO troops have died, as well as 3,900 US contractors. This total of 7,400, not to minimize it, represents less than 5 percent of the global death toll during the 20-year war. In other words, more than 95 percent of the deaths were Afghans: either Taliban, Afghan army soldiers, or civilians. The Taliban death toll estimate stands at 51,000. Meanwhile, the NATO-trained Afghan army’s death toll is currently 66,000. More than 47,000 Afghan civilians are estimated to have died in the conflict. Overall, the Brown University Costs of War Project, which has been doing a stellar job at tracking the nasty war numbers, estimates that in all, between 171,000 and 176,000 people were killed in the war.

Further, the war’s side effects include elevated rate of diseases due to malnutrition, lack of clean water, and vastly reduced access to health care. Despite NATO’s propaganda buzzwords about so-called nation building efforts, which in time became the pseudo mission, the life expectancy in Afghanistan is currently 52 years. Every factor correlated to a premature death, such as poverty, malnutrition, poor or no sanitation, and lack of basic health care have been closely associated with the 20-year war.

Let us now focus on the gargantuan financial costs of the war. According to the Pentagon, the US military operations in Afghanistan through two decades have cost $1.00 trillion. According to the Brown University researchers of the Costs of War project, however, the real cost of the war in Afghanistan is a staggering $2.26 trillion.

Over the years, many analysts and even people in the four successive US administrations, as well as military commanders, knew that the war in Afghanistan was unwinnable. In its folly, and arrogant ignorance of the historical nature of Afghanistan as “graveyard of empires,” the US empire and 38 of its vassals embarked in a delusional so-called nation building Afghan project of a massive scale. Of course, because the current empire is Orwellian in nature, just like in Iraq shortly afterward in 2003, nation building was in fact nation wrecking: a perverse geopolitical strategy of engineering failed states in order to justify an endless occupation.

The four administrations: Bush, Obama, Trump and now Biden, are all guilty, but they will never be charged for the countless deaths and mayhem their policies created. As matter of fact, they will never publicly make amends and admit their monumental failures. But the answer for this lack of candid remorse might reside elsewhere. In the context of wars for profit, it hardly matters who wins or loses on the battlefields or the number of innocent people who die and are called collateral damage. This might sound cynical, but what really matters is the bottom line: the profit for the shareholders of the military-industrial complex. Many investors, in the United States and elsewhere, have become incredibly wealthy from the $2.26 trillion “invested” in the Afghanistan war by American taxpayers, largely without their approval or even their knowledge.

I wrote extensively about the Afghanistan/Pakistan war in the 12 years since we started News Junkie Post. In 2012, I drew an analogy with the war in Vietnam in my analysis: “NATO is winning in Afghanistan like the United States was in Vietnam”. It was sarcastic but nonetheless correct. The United States had to admit publicly that it had lost the war in Vietnam in a debacle, because at the time some real reporting was still going on. I don’t think that any US administrations, and their mighty NATO allies, will ever admit that they lost their 20-year war against the Taliban. Some of us remember the US’ dramatic exit from the American embassy under siege in Saigon when it officially lost the Vietnam war. It was live, on prime time, for everybody in the world to see. This was quite a contrast from the US military vacating their sprawling Bagram base near Kabul. A few days ago an Afghan army commander described that the US military left their Bagram Air base in the middle of the night, like thieves. They simply shut down electrical power and left behind a vast amount of discarded equipment, supplies such as bottled water, and random trash.

In this de facto defeat of the US empire, isn’t it embarrassing that such a formidable military force like NATO, so advanced in terms of technology, compared to its enemy, would lose to a ragtag army equipped with Kalashnikovs and mostly, either stolen or makeshift, military equipment like home made improvised explosive devices (IED). In this completely asymmetrical warfare the little guys armed with their shear courage, patience, and remarkable guerrilla-warfare intelligence have prevailed. The ultimate victory of the Taliban, it has to be called that, should be a lesson for future want-to-be Goliaths, a lesson for neocolonial imperial powers that their occupation schemes do not usually end well.

What kind of arrogance and stupidity made the Orwellian Empire and its NATO associates think that they would surely beat Afghanistan’s Pashtuns, considering that Alexander the Great, the British Empire, then the USSR had all failed? The same insane rationale was probably at play in the mind of Adolf Hitler when he thought he could do better than Napoleon against Russia. The near outcome of America longest war is a proof that with organization, skills and pure will power, fighting for one’s land and culture against a foreign occupation can make a people unbeatable. There’s no doubt in my mind that from now on, nobody will dare to invade the land of the Pashtuns.

At its peak, during the Obama/Biden administration, the United States had 100,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Now many of them must realize that they went there for nothing. Or even worse, maybe they came back home with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and without a leg or an arm. President Biden has already pushed back the deadline for a complete withdrawal of the US troops from May 1 to September 11, 2021. There are still around 7,000 allied troops in Afghanistan, half of them Americans. Let us hope that the nefarious and powerful military-industrial complex doesn’t find a way to whisper in Biden’s ear that the US military should just stay a little bit longer, or maybe install a CIA drone base in Pakistan. While the US and NATO cannot claim victory, they can still wrongly claim “Mission Accomplished” and leave entirely. The sooner the better for a land they wrecked.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, News Junkie Post.

Gilbert Mercier is the author of The Orwellian Empire.

Featured image is from the archive of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Electromagnetic Field Exposure in Kindergarten Children: Responsive Health Risk Concern

July 12th, 2021 by Shiva Raj Acharya

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Long-term exposure to physical agents can be detrimental to children due to their vulnerability. This study aimed to assess and compare the electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure level around the kindergartens from the underground transmission line (UGTL). We investigated randomly selected 24 kindergartens based on the location of the UGTL. The EMF emission levels were measured using an EMDEX II (Electric and Magnetic Digital Exposure Meter). The maximum mean value of the EMF emission level was 13.5 mG around the kindergartens and 17.7 mG from the point of UGTL to kindergartens. EMF emission level around the kindergartens was significantly associated with the location of the UGTL (t = −7.35, P < 0.001). These estimates are not trivial, as long-term exposure to EMF among kindergarten children can lead to different health problems. Routine monitoring of EMF emission levels is recommended including the awareness of EMF exposure to public citizens.

Introduction

Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are a form of radiation energy associated with the modern use of electrical power. Sensitive areas like schools, kindergartens, hospital, and other public facilities have been of great concerns of various studies. EMF exposure can lead to environmental impacts (1).

In city areas, transmission lines that are distributed underground still can pose negative consequences to the general public. Kindergartens, schools, and hospitals are more sensitive to EMF exposure.

Exposure to EMF has been correlated with the occurrence in humans, including infants, of potential adverse biological and health effects (2). A variety of studies, however, have not identified statistically significant associations between exposure to EMF and health risks. Although numerous studies have been performed to assess environmental EMF exposures, they are mainly concentrated on assessing exposure in adult populations. Restricted information is available on EMF exposure levels and their related settings in kindergartens and schools (3, 4).

While most of us over the years have probably heard rumblings of the possibilities of negative health effects attributed to high levels of exposure to EMFs, little definitive word has reached the mainstream stamping it as a legitimate concern. The concern about exposure to EMF has developed because of the number of epidemiological studies (5). EMF exposure can pose impacts on the public and the environment. Mostly in city areas, the transmission lines are distributed and constructed underground to minimize the exposure limits. Children’s nervous system is more susceptible than that of adolescents to the effects of EMF exposure. Even though many of us have arguably noticed unconfirmed reports of the possibilities of negative health impacts linked with EMF exposure over the years, no particular set has gone mainstream embroidering it as a real issue (6, 7).

This paper is a short research commentary article based on findings from the assessment and comparison of the EMF emission level from the underground transmission line (UGTL) around kindergartens. The study focuses on the EMF emission level assessment in kindergartens located around the UGTL to address the immediate concern of EMF exposure among children.

Methods

The EMF emission levels in kindergartens were measured based on the location of the UGTL in December 2020. This study includes 24 kindergartens across Busan, South Korea (12 kindergartens located near UGTL and 12 kindergartens without UGTL). The UGTL locations and kindergartens in Busan City were accessed from Busan Korea Electric Corporation and Ministry of Education, Korea, respectively. Then, 24 kindergartens were sampled randomly from the list of kindergartens based on the UGTL location. We calculated the EMF emission levels with two measurement techniques as shown in Figure 1: (i) EMF measurement around the kindergartens and (ii) EMF measurement from the point of the UGTL to kindergartens. The emission levels of EMF were measured using EMDEX II (Electric and Magnetic Digital Exposure Meter). At 0.5, 1, and 1.5 m from ground level, we monitored the EMF emission levels. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 23. To identify the association of EMF emission and UGTL, a simple linear regression analysis was performed.

Read complete 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.

Full authors:

Shiva Raj Acharya

Yong Chul Shin

Deog Hwan Moon

Sandip Pahari

Cellphone Radiation Is Harmful, But Few Want to Believe It

July 12th, 2021 by Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Since cellphones first came onto the market in 1983, they have gone from clunky devices with bad reception to today’s sleek, multifunction smartphones with more than 5 billion subscribers worldwide.

For more than a decade, Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, a researcher in the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley and director of Berkeley’s Center for Family and Community Health, has been on a quest to prove that radiation from cellphones is unsafe. But, he said, most people don’t want to hear it. “People are addicted to their smartphones, We use them for everything now, and, in many ways, we need them to function in our daily lives. I think the idea that they’re potentially harming our health is too much for some people.” 

Since cellphones first came onto the market in 1983, they have gone from clunky devices with bad reception to today’s sleek, multifunction smartphones. And although cellphones are now used by nearly all American adults, considerable research suggests that long-term use poses health risks from the radiation they emit, said Moskowitz. “Cellphones, cell towers and other wireless devices are regulated by most governments,” said Moskowitz.

“Our government, however, stopped funding research on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation in the 1990s.” Since then, he said, research has shown significant adverse biologic and health effects — including brain cancer — associated with the use of cellphones and other wireless devices. And now, he said, with the fifth generation of cellular technology, known as 5G, there is an even bigger reason for concern.

Berkeley News spoke with Dr Moskowitz about the health risks of cellphone radiation, why the topic is so controversial and what we can expect with the rollout of 5G.

*

Berkeley News: I first heard you speak about the health risks of cellphone radiation at Berkeley in 2019, but you’ve been doing this research since 2009. What led you to pursue this research?

Joel Moskowitz: I got into this field by accident, actually. During the past 40 years, the bulk of my research has been focused on tobacco-related disease prevention. I first became interested in cellphone radiation in 2008, when Dr. Seung-Kwon Myung, a physician scientist with the National Cancer Center of South Korea, came to spend a year at the Center for Family and Community Health. He was involved in our smoking cessation projects, and we worked with him and his colleagues on two reviews of the literature, one of which addressed the tumor risk from cellphone use. At that time, I was skeptical that cellphone radiation could be harmful. However, since I was dubious that cellphone radiation could cause cancer, I immersed myself in the literature regarding the biological effects of low-intensity microwave radiation, emitted by cellphones and other wireless devices.After reading many animal toxicology studies that found that this radiation could increase oxidative stress — free radicals, stress proteins and DNA damage — I became increasingly convinced that what we were observing in our review of human studies was indeed a real risk.

BN: While Myung and his colleagues were visiting the Center for Family and Community Health, you reviewed case-control studies examining the association between mobile phone use and tumor risk. What did you find?

JM: Our 2009 review, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, found that heavy cellphone use was associated with increased brain cancer incidence, especially in studies that used higher quality methods and studies that had no telecommunications industry funding. Last year, we updated our review, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, based on a meta-analysis of 46 case-control studies — twice as many studies as we used for our 2009 review — and obtained similar findings. Our main takeaway from the current review is that approximately 1,000 hours of lifetime cellphone use, or about 17 minutes per day over a 10-year period, is associated with a statistically significant 60% increase in brain cancer.

BN: One thing I think we should address upfront is how controversial this research is. Some scientists have said that these findings are without basis and that there isn’t enough evidence that cellphone radiation is harmful to our health. How do you respond to that?

JM: Well, first of all, few scientists in this country can speak knowledgeably about the health effects of wireless technology. So, I’m not surprised that people are skeptical, but that doesn’t mean the findings aren’t valid. A big reason there isn’t more research about the health risks of radiofrequency radiation exposure is because the U.S. government stopped funding this research in the 1990s, with the exception of a $30 million rodent study published in 2018 by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ National Toxicology Program, which found “clear evidence” of carcinogenicity from cellphone radiation.In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, adopted exposure guidelines that limited the intensity of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. These guidelines were designed to prevent significant heating of tissue from short-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation, not to protect us from the effects of long-term exposure to low levels of modulated, or pulsed, radiofrequency radiation, which is produced by cellphones, cordless phones and other wireless devices, including Wi-Fi. Yet, the preponderance of research published since 1990 finds adverse biologic and health effects from long-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation, including DNA damage. More than 250 scientists, who have published over 2,000 papers and letters in professional journals on the biologic and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields produced by wireless devices, including cellphones, have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for health warnings and stronger exposure limits. So, there are many scientists who agree that this radiation is harmful to our health.

BN: Why did the government stop funding this kind of research?

JM: The telecommunications industry has almost complete control of the FCC, according to Captured Agency, a monograph written by journalist Norm Alster during his 2014-15 fellowship at Harvard University’s Center for Ethics. There’s a revolving door between the membership of the FCC and high-level people within the telecom industry that’s been going on for a couple of decades now. The industry spends about $100 million a year lobbying Congress. The CTIA, which is the major telecom lobbying group, spends $12.5 million per year on 70 lobbyists. According to one of their spokespersons, lobbyists meet roughly 500 times a year with the FCC to lobby on various issues. The industry as a whole spends $132 million a year on lobbying and provides $18 million in political contributions to members of Congress and others at the federal level.

BN: It reminds me of when the U.S. Surgeon General released a landmark report in 1964 that linked cigarettes with dangerous health effects, including cancer and heart disease. Even though the 10-person committee consulted more than 7,000 articles already available in biomedical literature, the report’s findings were very controversial when they came out.

JM: Yes, there are strong parallels between what the telecom industry has done and what the tobacco industry has done, in terms of marketing and controlling messaging to the public. In the 1940s, tobacco companies hired doctors and dentists to endorse their products to reduce public health concerns about smoking risks. The CTIA currently uses a nuclear physicist from academia to assure policymakers that microwave radiation is safe. The telecom industry not only uses the tobacco industry playbook, it is more economically and politically powerful than Big Tobacco ever was. This year, the telecom industry will spend over $18 billion advertising cellular technology worldwide.

BN: You mentioned that cellphones and other wireless devices use modulated, or pulsed, radiofrequency radiation. Can you explain how cellphones and other wireless devices work, and how the radiation they emit is different from radiation from other household appliances, like a microwave?

JM: Basically, when you make a call, you’ve got a radio and a transmitter. It transmits a signal to the nearest cell tower. Each cell tower has a geographic cell, so to speak, in which it can communicate with cellphones within that geographic region or cell. Then, that cell tower communicates with a switching station, which then searches for whom you’re trying to call, and it connects through a copper cable or fiber optics or, in many cases, a wireless connection through microwave radiation with the wireless access point. Then, that access point either communicates directly through copper wires through a landline or, if you’re calling another cellphone, it will send a signal to a cell tower within the cell of the receiver and so forth.The difference is the kind of microwave radiation each device emits. With regard to cellphones and Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, there is an information-gathering component. The waves are modulated and pulsed in a very different manner than your microwave oven.

BN: What, specifically, are some of the health effects associated with long-term exposure to low-level modulated radiofrequency radiation emitted from wireless devices?

JM: Many biologists and electromagnetic field scientists believe the modulation of wireless devices makes the energy more biologically active, which interferes with our cellular mechanisms, opening up calcium channels, for example, and allowing calcium to flow into the cell and into the mitochondria within the cell, interfering with our natural cellular processes and leading to the creation of stress proteins and free radicals and, possibly, DNA damage. And, in other cases, it may lead to cell death. In 2001, based upon the biologic and human epidemiologic research, low-frequency fields were classified as “possibly carcinogenic” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization. In 2011, the IARC classified radiofrequency radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based upon studies of cellphone radiation and brain tumor risk in humans. Currently, we have considerably more evidence that would warrant a stronger classification. Most recently, on March 1, 2021, a report was released by the former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which concluded that there is a “high probability” that radiofrequency radiation emitted by cellphones causes gliomas and acoustic neuromas, two types of brain tumors.

BN: Let’s talk about the fifth generation of cellphone technology, known as 5G, which is already available in limited areas across the U.S. What does this mean for cellphone users and what changes will come with it?

JM: For the first time, in addition to microwaves, this technology will employ millimeter waves, which are much higher frequency than the microwaves used by 3G and 4G. Millimeter waves can’t travel very far, and they’re blocked by fog or rain, trees and building materials, so the industry estimates that it’ll need 800,000 new cell antenna sites.Each of these sites may have cell antennas from various cellphone providers, and each of these antennas may have microarrays consisting of dozens or even perhaps hundreds of little antennas. In the next few years in the U.S., we will see deployed roughly 2.5 times more antenna sites than in current use unless wireless safety advocates and their representatives in Congress or the judicial system put a halt to this.

BN: How are millimeter waves different from microwaves, in terms of how they affect our bodies and the environment?

JM: Millimeter wave radiation is largely absorbed in the skin, the sweat glands, the peripheral nerves, the eyes and the testes, based upon the body of research that’s been done on millimeter waves. In addition, this radiation may cause hypersensitivity and biochemical alterations in the immune and circulatory systems — the heart, the liver, kidneys and brain.Millimeter waves can also harm insects and promote the growth of drug-resistant pathogens, so it’s likely to have some widespread environmental effects for the microenvironments around these cell antenna sites.

BN: What are some simple things that each of us can do to reduce the risk of harm from radiation from cellphones and other wireless devices?

JM: First, minimize your use of cellphones or cordless phones — use a landline whenever possible. If you do use a cellphone, turn off the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth if you’re not using them. However, when near a Wi-Fi router, you would be better off using your cellphone on Wi-Fi and turning off the cellular because this will likely result in less radiation exposure than using the cellular network.

Second, distance is your friend. Keeping your cellphone 10 inches away from your body, as compared to one-tenth of an inch, results in a 10,000-fold reduction in exposure. So, keep your phone away from your head and body. Store your phone in a purse or backpack. If you have to put it in your pocket, put it on airplane mode. Text, use wired headphones or speakerphone for calls. Don’t sleep with it next to your head — turn it off or put it in another room.

Third, use your phone only when the signal is strong. Cellphones are programmed to increase radiation when the signal is poor, that is when one or two bars are displayed on your phone. For example, don’t use your phone in an elevator or in a car, as metal structures interfere with the signal.

Also, I encourage people to learn more about the 150-plus local groups affiliated with Americans for Responsible Technology, which are working to educate policymakers, urging them to adopt cell tower regulations and exposure limits that fully protect us and the environment from the harm caused by wireless radiation.

For safety tips on how to reduce exposure to wireless radiation from the California Department of Public Health and other organizations, visit Moskowitz’s website, saferemr.com, Physicians for Safe Technology and the Environmental Health Trust.

*

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

Video: Nothing Novela Is Coronavirus, Based on Patent Files

July 12th, 2021 by Reiner Fuellmich

All Global Research articles 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.

***

… Not novel… no pandemic.. no variants… campaign of coercion & terror to address a stated objective. Dr David Martin, SG!! Who can tell us what the vaxxed can do about this synthetic recombinant chimera protein?

“There was no novel Coronavirus. Check of gene sequence vs all patent records showed not novel since 1999! There are 120 patented pieces of evidence showing total fallacy of claim ‘novel’!”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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