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

***

The AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson experimental adenovirus COVID shots seem to be killing younger, middle-aged people at a higher rate than the mRNA shots from Pfizer and Moderna.

Here are the stories of some of the victims who have died following the injections and devastated their families.

*

Francine Boyer: 54-year-old Canadian woman develops blood clots, dead 14 days after experimental AstraZeneca shot

by The COVID Blog

A 54-year-old woman is dead, and Canadian mainstream media are reaching for the stars with their propaganda.

Mrs. Francine Boyer and her husband, Alain Serres, both received experimental AstraZeneca shots on April 9, according to a family press release. Mr. Serres suffered no apparent adverse effects. But Mrs. Boyer suffered from extreme fatigue and debilitating headaches. She checked into a local hospital, but doctors could not figure out what was wrong. She was transferred to Montreal Neurological Institute-Hospital.

Doctors diagnosed her with cerebral thrombosis, aka blood clots in her brain. She died on April 23. Canadian mainstream media and politicians commenced a Fauci-Biden-like public relations campaign defending experimental viral vector shots after Mrs. Boyer died. Quebec Premier François Legault told state-run CBC/Radio Canada, “we knew there was a once chance in 100,000 this could happen.” He said the death of Mrs. Boyer is “sad,” but the benefits of experimental AstraZeneca shots outweigh the risks.

National Director of Public Health Dr. Horacio Arruda offered even more big pharma propaganda. He said Mrs. Boyer’s death is “very rare” and “sometimes, unfortunately, there are complications.” Health Canada, a Canadian hybrid equivalent to the CDC and FDA, also said in a statement that the benefits of AstraZeneca shots outweigh the risks.

Mrs. Boyer is survived by her husband, who posted on social media the other day “I love you and I will love you forever!” She is also survived by two grown children, two grandchildren, and her siblings.

Read the full story at The COVID Blog.

Genene Norris: 48-year-old Australian woman develops blood clots, dead six days after AstraZeneca shot

by The COVID Blog

A 48-year-old woman is dead after yet another “rare coincidence” involving COVID-19 shots.

Ms. Genene Norris received the experimental AstraZeneca viral vector shot on April 8, according to the Daily Mail. She almost immediately fell ill. Doctors diagnosed her with “rare” blood clots and placed her on dialysis in the ICU four days after the shot. That indicates kidney failure. She died on April 14.

The Australia Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is at least being semi-honest about the situation. A spokesperson said the blood clots were “likely linked to the vaccine.” But the agency doesn’t have much choice after a string of deaths related to the experimental shots.

The Northern Daily Leader reported that a “fit and healthy” 55-year-old died in Tamworth, New South Wales on April 21. The newspaper did not name him. But we’re told his name is Darren Lee Missen. He had “massive blood clots” in his lungs after a COVID-19 shot. There were at least four other cases of blood clots in Australia after AstraZeneca shots in the last several weeks. Despite the TGA’s kind-of-honest statement, deputy secretary John Skerritt told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that the benefits of AstraZeneca shots outweigh the risks. He did not articulate any tangible benefits in his statement.

Ms. Norris worked for Sanitarium Health Food Company. It is solely owned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which encourages adherents to “responsibly participate in protective and preventive immunization programs.” The company said in a statement that it is “saddened by the loss of a much loved employee.”

Read the full story at The COVID Blog.

Jack Last: 27-year-old British engineer dead 21 days after experimental AstraZeneca viral vector shot

by The COVID Blog

Mr. Jack Last had a pilot license, traveled everywhere from New Zealand to Antarctica, and was a scuba diver. His life was tragically cut short because of yet another coincidence.

Mr. Last received the experimental AstraZeneca viral vector shot on March 30, according to The Sun U.K. He suffered from excruciating headaches thereafter, which forced him to check into A&E at West Suffolk Hospital on April 9. His condition worsened, prompting doctors to transfer him to Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge. But they could do nothing to save the “fit and healthy” young man, as described by his family. He died on April 20.

A kangaroo “inquest” has been launched into Mr. Last’s death. He obviously died from blood clots in his brain, as nearly every experimental viral vector victim does. The Medical Healthcare Products and Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is the U.K. equivalent to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The agency admitted last week that the risk factor for these “rare” blood clots doubled last week.

Meanwhile the European Medicines Agency says the alleged benefits of experimental viral vectors still outweigh the risks of “rare” blood clots. Many European countries temporarily paused use of AstraZeneca shots due to blood clots, just like the United States did for the experimental Johnson & Johnson viral vector shots.

Mr. Last told family that he was surprised to be offered the shot because of his young age. He had also just recently purchased a home.

Read the full story at The COVID Blog.

Ionia Co. woman’s death after getting J&J vaccine reported to the CDC

by FOX 17 Western Michigan

An Ionia family is mourning the death of a wife and mother after they say she died due to complications after receiving the Johnson & Johnson coronavirus vaccine.

The family of 35-year-old Anne VanGeest released a statement following her death on April 19.

“It is with profound sadness that we share the news of Anne’s passing as the result of complications after receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine. Anne (Annie), who was 35, was a loving mother, wife, sister and daughter. An active member in the animal rescue community, Annie will be remembered as a fierce advocate, a master-multi-tasker and a caring friend by her colleagues, fellow volunteers and family. We ask for privacy for her family as they mourn Annie’s passing and celebrate her life.”

In an email to the VanGeest family, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed her death had been reported through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) by a healthcare provider. VAERS is a vaccine safety system managed by the CDC and the FDA.

VanGeest died on April 19. According to her family, VanGeest received the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine 11 days before her death.

VanGeest’s death certificate lists her cause of death as “acute subarachnoid hemorrhage non-traumatic.”

Read the full story at FOX 17 Western Michigan.

*

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.

Featured image is from Health Impact News

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

***

This story is not for the queasy. So fair warning – stop reading now if you can’t handle the sight of ghastly human injuries.

Mrs. Sarah Beuckmann received her first dose of the experimental AstraZeneca viral vector shot on March 18, according to The Daily Record. She immediately felt flu-like symptoms, but was otherwise ok – until seven days later. A tingling sensation in her legs quickly turned into a rash that morphed into something you only see in horror movies.

Photo Credit: MirrorPix

Extended hospital stay

Her husband took her to the A&E (accident and emergency department) at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital. Doctors immediately placed her on an EKG machine, as her resting heart rate exceeded 160 beats per minute.

The hospital performed tests to determine if she had herpes or HIV, to no avail. Two biopsies determined that she had an adverse reaction to the experimental shot. Doctors treated the condition with steroids. But not before it spread to her fingers and face.

Photo Credit: MirrorPix

Photo Credit: MirrorPix

Doctors gave her morphine to mitigate the pain. Mrs. Beuckmann told the Daily Record that she thought her legs would need amputating if the condition did not improve.

The mother of one ended up spending 16 days in the hospital before being released on April 12. However she will require physiotherapy to restore strength in her legs. Nurses come to her home to change the dressing on her legs daily.

Mrs. Beuckmann is “ineligible” to get the second shot due to the adverse reaction. But she is encouraging others to get the shots despite her adverse reaction. “I’m not an anti-vaxxer or anything,” she said. “I still believe people should be vaccinated and the amount of people that have had it and have been okay shows that it is safe for most.”

We’ve seen this before

This is at least the third time we’ve covered experimental Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca viral vector shots causing this reaction, known as Stevens-Johnson Syndrome. It is the second time in Scotland. All three times, none of the original sources mention Stevens-Johnson.

Further, this is probably the 100th time we’ve covered a victim or their families encouraging others to get experimental shots despite their experiences. It is a waste of time trying to make sense of this seemingly contagious psychological disposition among the inoculated. All you can do is stay vigilant and protect your friends and loved ones.

*

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.

Featured image: Mrs. Sarah Beuckmann is likely to be wheelchair-bound for the foreseeable future. (Source: TheCOVIDBlog.com)

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

***

Dr. Henry Ealy and his team started looking at CDC data on COVID-19 cases and fatalities in mid-March 2020, quickly realizing the agency was vastly exaggerating fatalities

Over-reporting of fatalities was enabled by a March 2020 change in how cause of death is reported on death certificates. Rather than listing COVID-19 as a contributing cause in cases where people died from other underlying conditions, it was to be listed as the primary cause

As of August 23, 2020, the CDC reported 161,392 fatalities caused by COVID-19. Had the long-standing, original guidelines for death reporting been used, there would have only been 9,684 total fatalities due to COVID-19

The CDC violated federal law, as the Paperwork Reduction Act requires data collection and publication to be overseen by the Office of Management and Budget. Proposed changes must be published in the Federal Register and be open to public comment. None of these transparency rules were followed

We don’t yet know who was responsible for altering the reporting rules in violation of federal law. To identify the culprits, formal grand jury investigation petitions have been sent to all U.S. attorneys and the U.S. Department of Justice, requesting a thorough, independent and transparent investigation; a direct public effort to gather signatures also commenced on the one-year anniversary of the CDC reporting change

*

In this interview, Dr. Henry Ealy, ND, BCHN, better known as Dr. Henele, a certified holistic nutritionist and founder/executive community director of the Energetic Health Institute,1 reviews how U.S. federal regulatory agencies have manipulated COVID-19 statistics to control the pandemic narrative.

Watch the interview here.

He earned his doctorate in naturopathic medicine from SCNM. After graduating from UCLA with a bachelor of science in mechanical engineering, he worked for a major aerospace company as a primary database developer for the International Space Station program.

He holds over 20 years of teaching and clinical experience and was the first naturopathic doctor to regularly teach at a major university in the U.S., when he headed up a program at Arizona State University on bioanxiety management.

As he points out, he’s an avid data collector. In October 2020, Henele and a team of other investigators published a paper2 in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, titled, “COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective,” which details how the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has enabled the corruption of case- and fatality-reporting data in violation of federal law.

Accuracy of Data Is Paramount for Public Health Policies

The team started looking at CDC data on COVID-19 cases and fatalities in mid-March 2020. He explains:

“What I started doing on March 12 was going through all the data we could find from the Italian Ministry of Health and South Korea. We couldn’t validate any of the data coming out of China. There was just no independent way to do it. What we were seeing out of Italy and South Korea was that we were going to be concerned about people who are over 60, over 70 years of age with preexisting conditions.

That was the main thing coming out of that data. So, we were expecting the same kind of trends here … I started tracking the data on a daily basis from each state health department, and then making sure that what the CDC was reporting was matching up.

What we started to see, very early on, were some significant anomalies between what the states were reporting and what the CDC was saying. It was concerning, because the variance was growing with each day. We have an old saying: ‘Garbage in equals garbage out.’ And that was the concern, because we knew public health policies are going to be based upon the data, so accuracy is of paramount importance.

Then we started delving in a little deeper into how the CDC was supposedly collecting their data. That’s where we saw the National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS) March 24 guidelines, which were very concerning, and we saw the CDC adopt the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists paper on April 14.

What was incredibly concerning about this was that it was all done without any federal oversight, and it was all done without any public comment, especially scientific comment. That became increasingly problematic. We started to see discrepancies in the state of New York alone, in the thousands of fatalities.”

Special Rules for COVID-19 Fatalities Were Implemented

Importantly, in March 2020, there was a significant change made to the definition of what a COVID-19 fatality was. As explained by Henele, there’s a handbook on death reporting, which has been in use since 2003. There are two key sections on a death certificate. In the first part, the cause of death is detailed. In the second part, contributing factors are listed.

Contributing factors are not necessarily statistically recorded. It’s the first part, the actual cause of death, that is most important for statistical accounting. March 24, 2020, the NVSS updated its guidelines on how to report and track COVID-19-related deaths.

“They were saying that COVID-19 should be listed in Part 1 for statistical tracking, but [only] in cases where it is proven to have caused death, or was assumed to have caused death,” Henele explains.

“What was really concerning about this document was that it specifically stated that any preexisting conditions should be moved from Part 1, where it has been put for 17 years, into Part 2.

So, it was basically taking this and saying, ‘We’re going to create exclusive rules for COVID-19 and we’re going to do a 180 for this single disease …’ The big problem with that is that now you remove the ability for a medical examiner, a coroner, a physician, to interpret [the cause of death] based upon the collective health history of that patient …

You remove their expertise, and you say, ‘You have to count this as COVID-19.’ That takes on an added measure when you incentivize it financially, and that’s what we saw with some of the Medicare and Medicaid payouts …”

Who’s Responsible?

Who has the authority to do this? The answer is “no one.” A federal agency has the ability to propose a data change, at which time it would be registered in the Federal Register. At that point, federal oversight by the Office of Management and Budget kicks in, and the proposed change is opened up for public comment.

Since they did not register the proposed change, there was no oversight and no possibility for the public to comment on the change. Basically, what happened is that these changes were simply implemented without following any of the prescribed rules. “They acted unilaterally, and that’s not how [it] is supposed to work,” Henele says.

As to who took it upon themselves to alter the reporting rules, we don’t know. To identify the culprits, Henele and his team have sent out formal grand jury investigation petitions to every U.S. attorney and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), requesting a thorough, independent and transparent investigation.

“We did it at both state and federal levels. We have sent physical copies to every U.S. attorney and their aides. We sent out over 247 mailings in October [2020],” Henele explains. “We sent out an additional 20 to 30 to various people at the Department of Justice …

They would have the ability to call a grand jury, and that grand jury would have the ability to subpoena all those records to determine who were at fault … All we need is one U.S. attorney. All we need is one person at the Department of Justice to take up the cause.”

Dramatic Implications

The consequences of that change in the definition of the cause of death where COVID-19 is involved have been dramatic. For the full implications, I recommend reading through Henele’s peer-reviewed paper, “COVID-19: CDC Violates Federal Law to Enable Corruption of Fatality-Reporting Data.”3

“We’ve accumulated about 10,000 hours of collective team research into this [paper]. It’s been reviewed by nine attorneys and a judge for accuracy. It’s gone through the peer-review process before being published. We feel it’s tight.

On page 20 of the paper, we have a big graphic showing what the estimated actual fatality count should have been as of August 23, 2020. What was reported on August 23 was 161,392 fatalities caused by COVID-19 …

Comparison Of Fatalities

Cause of Death Form COVID-19

Cause of Death Form H1N1

Had we used the 2003 guidelines, our estimates are that we would have roughly 9,684 total fatalities due to COVID-19. That’s a significant difference. That’s a difference on the scale of as much as 96%. The range that we calculated was 88.9% to 96% inflation.”

Indeed, this matches up with an admission by the CDC in late August 2020, at which time they admitted that only 6% of the total death count had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death. The remaining 94% had had an average of 2.6 comorbidities or preexisting health conditions that contributed to their deaths.4

“For absolute 100% accuracy, we’d have to do something like what we were just alerted to by a whistleblower in Florida, where they’ve actually gone in and reexamined every single death certificate and the medical records with them. What they found was that roughly 80% of the fatalities were wrongfully classified as COVID-19 fatalities,” Henele says.

Science Foundations Have Been Violated

Mainstream media have justified pandemic measures “based on the science,” yet the very foundation of science has been violated. The ramifications are enormous, from the destruction of local economies and skyrocketing suicide rates to people being forced to die alone, their family members being barred from being at their bedside during their last moments.

“I lost my mother in in 2002,” Henele says. “The grace of it all was that we were able to get her out of the hospital and fulfill her last request, which was to pass away in her bed with family around her. I grieve for every single person who’s lost someone [during this pandemic] who was not able to be there.

Americans should not have to die alone because we’re worried about some virus that they’re telling us is a problem, when the data, even the data that we know to be inflated and fraudulent, still doesn’t suggest the virility that they want us to believe.”

COVID-19 Timeline

In their paper, Henele and his team detail a timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic and federal laws that impact data handling. Here’s a summary:

In 1946, certain administrative procedures were implemented. The Administrative Procedures Act requires federal agents and agencies to follow certain rules to get things done. These rules are to ensure transparency in government.

“If you’re a federal agency, you have an obligation to the people of this country to make sure that the data you’re publishing is not only accurate, but that it is transparent,”Henele explains.

In 1980, the Paperwork Reduction Act was written into law. In 1995, the Act was amended, designating the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as the oversight body for all federal agencies’ data.

In October 2002, the Information Quality Act was implemented, which doubles down even further on the accuracy and integrity and data gathering. This act requires federal agencies to meet explicit criteria in order for their data to be published and analyzed.

In 2005, the Virology Journal published research demonstrating that hydroxychloroquine has strong antiviral effects against SARS-CoV (the virus responsible for SARS) primate cells. This finding was hailed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, Henele notes. In other words, 15 years ago, Fauci admitted that hydroxychloroquine works against coronaviruses. This is public record.

As reported in “The Lancet Gets Lanced With Hydroxychloroquine Fraud” and “How a False Hydroxychloroquine Narrative Was Created,” the myth that this drug was useless at best and dangerous at worst was purposely created using falsified research and trials in which the drug was given in toxic doses.

This fraudulent research was then used to discourage and in some cases block the use of hydroxychloroquine worldwide. As noted by Henele, “It’s not science. We’re in this very weird faith-based model of science, which isn’t science at that point.”

In 2014, Fauci authorized $3.7 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). In 2019, WIV received another $3.7 million. In both instances, this funding was for gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.

October 18, 2019, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted Event 201, in conjunction with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum and a few other financial partners. November 17, 2019, China recorded the first known case of COVID-19.

“Now, they could be completely unrelated,” Henele says, “but for us, it’s a very incredible coincidence that you run a simulation a month before a pandemic breaks out. It’s a little tough for me to digest as just a coincidence.”

January 29, 2020, the White House installed a coronavirus task force, which included Fauci and then-CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield, as well as Derek Kan, then-deputy director of the OMB.

I found this to be a little interesting,” Henele says. “Why would you need an OMB person on a coronavirus task force?”

March 9, 2020, the CDC alerted Americans over 60 with preexisting conditions that they might be in for a long lockdown out of safety concerns.

March 24, the CDC changed how COVID-19 is recorded on death certificates, de-emphasizing preexisting conditions and comorbidities, and basically calling all deaths in which the patient had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test a COVID-19 death.

“We have, legitimately on record, people who’ve died in a motorcycle accident listed as a COVID-19 death. These are not fictitious things that we’ve made up. Rhode Island had over 80% of their fatalities at one point in either assisted living centers or hospice care. Why are we testing people in hospice care and life care? That’s another interesting question,” Henele says.

April 14, 2020, the CDC adopted a position paper from a nonprofit, the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists, which identifies every single methodology for how to report a probable COVID-19 case, a confirmed COVID-19 case, an epidemiologically-linked or contact-traced COVID case.

“What’s so incredible about this is the standard of proof for a probable case is literally one cough. That’s all a physician needs, [according to] this document, to validate that that person is a probable COVID case,” Henele says.

“And it gets worse. On Page 6 of that document, Section 7B, it explicitly states that they are not going to define a methodology to ensure that the same person cannot be counted multiple times. So, what we end up with is a revolving door.

Now, in terms of new cases, the same person can be counted over and over and over again, without being tested, without having any symptoms. All they need to do is be within 6 feet of someone [who has been deemed positive for SARS-CoV-2] and then a contact tracer can say, ‘OK, well, that person is [also] positive.’

When we looked at data from last week, roughly 27% of the people who were said to be positive actually had a positive test. That means 73% were just told ‘Yeah, we think you got it.’ And that’s good enough, because we’re in this faith-based model of science, instead of a verifiable framework for science, which we’re supposed to be based on.

That person then cannot go back to work until they show a negative test. Well, let’s say they get tested 13 times. Guess what happens? That’s 13 new cases, when it really should only be one.

So, there are major flaws, and the issue that I think a lot of scientists like myself … have with this document and its adoption is that there was no oversight, and there was no public comment period to question some of the obvious flaws in what they were defining as data collection — let alone to ask a very simple question: ‘You’re the CDC, you’re supposed to be the pinnacle of this.

Why do you need to outsource rules and criteria for data collection to a nonprofit entity?’ That doesn’t make much sense to me.”

Transparency Rules Have Been Grossly Violated

So, what exactly is the connection between the Paperwork Reduction Act and the COVID-19 fatality data? Why is it so important?

“Well, the Paperwork Reduction Act is really about establishing oversight,” Henele explains. “It established the Office of Management and Budget, the OMB, which is under the executive branch. It established them as the key agency for oversight of all data in the entire federal government.

So, when you start seeing IHME [Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation] out of the University of Washington — which is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to the tune of $384 million in two installments — when you see their data being used at federal levels, you go and look at the Federal Register and you say, ‘OK, where is the 30 to 60 days that we were supposed to have to comment on the use of that data?’

Public comment is part of the Paperwork Reduction Act. That’s what it’s all about. What we saw instead was just, ‘Hey, this is what the IHME is putting out there. We’re going to go with it.’ Well, you can’t do that if you’re a federal agency … IHME is … technically an independent organization, but they don’t have any governmental designation.

They’re not a 501(c)(3), they’re not a 501(c)(4), they’re not a 501(c)(6). They’re just this amorphous nongovernmental organization within our country, and it’s kind of concerning. We’re doing more research on that, but it’s very, very concerning because they don’t have anybody to account to.”

Test-Based Strategy Has Been an Egregious Fraud

In addition to the manipulation of fatality statistics, the statistics of “cases” were also manipulated. Traditionally, a “case” is a patient who is symptomatic; someone who is actually ill. When it comes to COVID-19, however, a “case” suddenly became anyone who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using a PCR test, or worse, assumed positive based on proximity to someone who tested positive.

I’ve detailed this fraud in many previous articles over the past year, including “Coronavirus Fraud Scandal — The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun” and “The Insanity of the PCR Testing Saga.” “Cases” were also counted multiple times, as explained above. Henele expounds on this issue, noting:

“The CDC specifically enacted what’s called a test-based strategy, which we’ve never done before in medicine for anything. What that test-based strategy means is if you test positive, you got [COVID-19]. But what they didn’t do for the PCR testing was they didn’t identify the agreed upon number of cycles across all states across all labs that are testing.

What most people don’t know is that the closer you get to zero in terms of cycle times, the more likely that the result is going to be negative. The closer you get to 60, the more likely that it’s going to be positive.

Well, we’ve never seen a document coming out of the FDA, coming out of the CDC, coming out of any of the state health departments, that says, ‘We need all labs to be at this specific cycle [threshold]. And if a person is not deemed positive with that number of cycles, then they are not positive.’ So, there’s just flaw after flaw after flaw.”

Data Manipulation Created COVID-19 Pandemic

Most labs used cycle thresholds above 40 — as recommended by the CDC and the World Health Organization — which exponentially increased the likelihood of a positive test, even among completely healthy and noninfectious individuals. The only justification for all of this is that it was done to perpetuate the narrative that we were in a raging pandemic, which was then used to justify the unprecedented destruction of personal freedom and the economy.

“The thing I have to give the folks that have been involved in this credit for is the incredible number of sleights of hands,” Henele says. “It’s a little bit here, a little bit here, a little bit here, a little bit here.

And when that happens, it leads to something that is very dangerous scientifically, and very dangerous for public health policy, which is control of data — the ability to manipulate data … and if you can control the data, you get to control the narrative …

If we’re not going to have an absolute, transparent and verifiable data collection process that is based upon accuracy and integrity of that data, then you can turn that [pandemic emergency] dial up and down at your whim. My hope is that the objective scientist within all of us understands that this is bigger than politics. This is beyond it. This is a severely broken system that we have to fix, and we better do it.”

As discussed in many other articles, it appears the COVID-19 pandemic has in fact been a preplanned justification for the implementation of a global technocrat-led control system, which includes a brand-new financial system to replace the central bank-manufactured fiat economy that is now at the end of its functional life. Fiat currency is manufactured through the creation of debt with interest attached, and the whole world is now so laden with debt it can never be repaid.

If people understood how the central banks of the world have pulled the wool over our eyes, we would simply demand an end to the central banks. Currency ought to be created and managed nationally.

The central banks, of course, do not want this reality to become common knowledge, because then they will no longer be able to manipulate all the countries of the world, so they need the economic breakdown to appear natural. For that, they need a global catastrophe, such as a major war, or a fearsome pandemic necessitating the shutdown of economies.

Through this willful manipulation of case- and fatality statistics, the CDC has been complicit in willful misconduct by generating needless fear that has then been used against you to rob you of your personal freedoms and liberties and help usher in this massive transfer of wealth and global tyranny. As noted by Henele, “People are going to be complicit in their own slavery. People are complicit in putting digital shackles around themselves and really restricting their civil liberties.”

Hopefully, people will begin to understand how pandemic statistics have been, and still are, manipulated to control the narrative and generate unjustified fear for no other reason than to get you to comply with tyrannical measures designed to enslave you, not just temporarily but permanently.

More Information

To understand how we got to this point, please consider reading Henele’s paper, “COVID-19: CDC Violates Federal Law to Enable Corruption of Fatality-Reporting Data.” As noted by Henele:

“I’m looking forward to the day when we look back on this, and go, ‘Oh, we almost fell for one, but we woke up in time and we figured this out. And now we have a good balance of technology, but technology that doesn’t have the right to censor us, technology that doesn’t have the right to control us; we have figured out that having too much control in the hands of too few is not a good recipe for us as a species on this planet.’

We know it doesn’t pass the smell test, so it’s important to get informed and educated and it’s papers like this — and this isn’t the only one out there — that have done the homework. If we’re going to trust someone, it’s important to me that we trust people who’ve done the homework and have no vested interest in the outcome.

My team is a team of volunteers. We all do this in our spare time. We’re not making any money. We’re not going to seek to make any money off of this. We’re doing this because we believe in this country. We love this country and we love the people of this country. When I see people suffering, I have to help. I got to get in and help.

So, if you are an American that wants to help, we are setting up resources for you to be able to get engaged and help us push this forward, maybe grease some of these wheels of justice, so we can get an independent grand jury investigation.”

For additional information, or if you want to help, you can email Henele and his team at [email protected]. You can also use your voice and actions to support an investigation into the CDC’s actions.

Two Easy Ways You Can Take Action

  1. Add your signature to this petition to help mount public pressure to convene a formal grand jury to investigate allegations of willful misconduct by federal agencies during COVID-19 through Stand For Health Freedom, a nonprofit advocacy organization that Henele and his team have collaborated with
  2. Send a predrafted, customizable letter through Stand For Health Freedom urging key members of Congress to thoroughly investigate alleged violations of federal law by the CDC that compromised COVID-19 data

*

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.

Notes

1 Energetic Health Institute Dr. Henele

2 Science, Public Health Policy and the Law October 12, 2020; 2: 4-22

3 Metabolic Healing October 12, 2020

4 CDC.gov August 26, 2020, Comorbidities Table 3, updated October 14, 2020

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

***

Airlines Struggle to Police Fake Certificates 

In Europe, Fake Covid-19 Certificates Hit Airlines, Which Now Have to Police Them

Airlines are battling a scourge of passengers traveling with falsified Covid-19 health certificates.

Deutsche Lufthansa AG has been fined up to 25,000 euros, or about $29,800, by Germany for allowing passengers with false or incorrect documents to board, according to people familiar with the penalties. 

Complications? You Bet!

At London Heathrow Airport, the additional checks by border control have led to lines of more than six hours for arriving passengers. That is with just 541,000 passengers passing through the airport in March, down 91.7% from the comparable period in 2019.

The EU wants airlines to enforce restrictions that it sets up, but that makes the airlines responsible for detecting easily faked documents.

The six hour wait time with traffic down 91.7% is a perfect of government sponsored madness that happens more in Europe than the US although we are not totally immune to such nonsense either.

Negative Tests Required in the US

On January 24, I noted new CDC Guidelines Require Proof of Negative Test on inbound international flights to the US.

It’s unclear how well the US is enforcing that requirement.

Where Can You Go?

Hooray! You are vaccinated and ready to travel. But where can you go?

You may be vaccinated but the World Still Isn’t Ready For US Travelers

US Vax Pass 

No doubt the “solution” will be government-mandated heath passports in Europe.

What About the US and Canada?

  • Chicago – Yes: Chicago’s public health commissioner, said the “Vax Pass” will be required to attend concerts and other summer events starting in May.
  • Illinois – Up to Local Officials: The Sun Times says Gov. J.B. Pritzker is taking a pass on the “Vax Pass.” Instead of a passport, the governor said residents across the state will be provided with something more akin to a doctor’s note — and only if they ask for it.
  • Missouri – Will Bar: The Missourian reports Missouri Senate renews push to bar vaccine passports and limit local health orders.
  • US – Yes: On March 28, the Washington Post reported “Vaccine Passports are on the Way. The Biden administration and private companies are working to develop a standard way of handling credentials “
  • US – No: On April 6, the BBC reported US Rules Out Federal Vaccine Passports.
  • Canada – Yes: Forbes reports Canada Will Require Using A Vaccine Passport For Entry.

40 States Will Ban Covid-19 Passports

Who’s in charge? That’s the key question as 40 States Creating Legislation to Ban Vaccine Passport Requirements.

At state Capitols across the country, lawmakers are advancing legislation to ban COVID-19 vaccine passport requirements for businesses and schools.

The vaccination passports currently exist in one state — a limited government partnership in New York with a private company — but that hasn’t stopped GOP lawmakers in a handful of states, including Pennsylvania, from rushing out legislative proposals to ban their use.

“Government should not require any Texan to have proof of vaccination,” said Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.

While New York rolled out the “Excelsior Pass,” a digital vaccine passport, lawmakers in Indiana worked on a bill that includes a vaccine passport ban. It passed by a wide margin, just as many Hoosier state health departments saw an uptick in no-shows for COVID-19 shots.

Confusing Mess

It’s not at all clear what the procedure will be for international flights into the US. And if you wish to travel to Europe, expect long lines on top of needing a Vax Pass.

The EU and US are messes of a different kind. The result is a hodgepodge of conflicting and confusing regulations depending on where you are at and where you are headed.

*

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.

Featured image is from Mish Talk

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

***

Even if “won,” endless wars like our 20 year assault on Afghanistan would not benefit our actual national interest in the slightest. So why do these wars continue endlessly? Because they are so profitable to powerful and well-connected special interests. In fact, the worst news possible for the Beltway military contractor/think tank complex would be that the United States actually won a war. That would signal the end of the welfare-for-the-rich gravy train.

In contrast to the end of declared wars, like World War II when the entire country rejoiced at the return home of soldiers where they belonged, an end to any of Washington’s global military deployments would result in wailing and gnashing of the teeth among the military-industrial complex which gets rich from other people’s misery and sacrifice.

Would a single American feel less safe if we brought home our thousands of troops currently bombing and shooting at Africans?

As Orwell famously said, “the war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous.” Nowhere is this more true than among those whose living depends on the US military machine constantly bombing people overseas.

How many Americans, if asked, could answer the question, “why have we been bombing Afghanistan for an entire generation?” The Taliban never attacked the United States and Osama bin Laden, who temporarily called Afghanistan his home, is long dead and gone. The longest war in US history has dragged on because…it has just dragged on.

So why did we stay? As neocons like Max Boot tell it, we are still bombing and killing Afghans so that Afghan girls can go to school. It’s a pretty flimsy and cynical explanation. My guess is that if asked, most Afghan girls would prefer to not have their country bombed.

Indeed, war has made the Beltway bomb factories and think tanks rich. As Brown University’s Cost of War Project has detailed, the US has wasted $2.26 trillion dollars on a generation of war on Afghanistan. Much of this money has been spent, according to the US government’s own Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, on useless “nation-building” exercises that have built nothing at all. Gold-plated roads to nowhere. Aircraft that cannot perform their intended functions but that have enriched contractors and lobbyists.

President Biden has announced that the US military would be out of Afghanistan by the 20th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11. But as always, the devil is in the details. It appears that US special forces, CIA paramilitaries, and the private contractors who have taken an increasing role in fighting Washington’s wars, will remain in-country. Bombing Afghans so that Max Boot and his neocons can pat themselves on the back.

But the fact is this: Afghanistan was a disaster for the United States. Only the corrupt benefitted from this 20 year highway robbery. Will we learn a lesson from wasting trillions and killing hundreds of thousands? It is not likely. But there will be an accounting. The piper will be paid. Printing mountains of money to pay the corrupt war profiteers will soon leave the working and middle classes in dire straits. It is up to non-interventionists like us to explain to them exactly who has robbed them of their future.

*

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.

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

***

Every British government has its diarist; a secret scribbler, usually one who dwells in the foothills of power, quietly observing the comings and goings of the big beasts and the events that preoccupy them.  

It was Alan Clark, a middle-ranking defence minister, whose bestselling diaries sensationally illuminated the Thatcher decade. In the mid-1990s, Gyles Brandreth, a lowly whip, provided the best inside account of John Major’s disintegrating government. Then, as now, the Tories were tearing themselves apart over Europe.

My own three volumes of diaries (two of which scraped into the bestseller lists) charted the rise and fall of New Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. More recently, Sasha Swire, the wife of Hugo Swire, who served as a minister in David Cameron’s government, provided glimpses of life inside the tiny elite who governed us between 2010 and 2016.

Now Alan Duncan, a middle-ranking Foreign Office minister, delivers a behind-the-scenes account of these last five turbulent years of political life in Britain, titled In the Thick of It. The stakes are high. Brexit, the rise of Boris Johnson and Britain’s diminishing role in the world are the big themes.

In passing, he also sheds light on a little-known area: Britain’s close relationship with the strategically vital Gulf state of Oman. It is no secret that Britain has long been heavily involved in Oman, one of the UK’s last remaining outposts in the Middle East. British officers staff the Omani armed forces, and the communications monitoring agency, GCHQ has a base there.  In addition, the sultanate, like many of its neighbours, is an important market for British weapons.

Omani sultan’s ‘privy council’

Duncan’s interest in the region dates back to his days as an oil trader. In 2014, Cameron appointed him a special envoy to Oman, a job he took very seriously. He was a member of what he refers to as the sultan’s “privy council”, a group of six prominent members of the British establishment who meet annually with the sultan to offer advice.

Duncan says he has attended 14 such meetings since 2001, and one has only to run an eye down the cast list to gauge the importance the UK attaches to the relationship. Fellow members of the so-called privy council have included serving and former heads of the Secret Intelligence Service, a former private secretary to the Queen, several former chiefs of the armed forces, and Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England.

The entertainment is lavish. Duncan writes of the sultan’s New Year’s dinner in 2019:

“I was in the same seat I’ve occupied for the last 20 years … it was not so much a buffet as a sumptuous feast with two lines of tables, each perhaps 15 yards long groaning with massive platters of lobster, prawns, chicken etc. That’s just for starters. We come back again beneath domed silver lids. Then puddings and the New Year cake which is eight feet high … Dinner finished about 2am and then we had a concert until 4.30am.”

Oman’s Sultan Qaboos, who reigned for almost 50 years, died in January 2020 and was succeeded by his cousin. A high-level delegation had to be scrambled at short notice to pay respects to the new ruler: Prince Charles, the prime minister, the defence secretary and the chief of defence staff. Be in no doubt: Oman matters to the UK.

Given his longstanding interest in the region, the author might reasonably have expected that his Foreign Office responsibilities would include the Middle East. But the Conservative Friends of Israel, noting his pro-Palestinian sympathies, had other ideas.

Duncan’s entry for 16 July 2016 notes:

“At 5.30pm I go to the Foreign Office. All seems clear and agreed that I will be minister for the Middle East, as expected … But when I see Boris [Johnson] at 6pm it seems a massive problem has arisen … Boris says the Conservative Friends of Israel are going ballistic … As I see it, it is for no other reason than that I believe in the rights of Palestinians and whereas they pretend to believe in two parallel states, it is quite clear that they don’t and so they set out to destroy genuine advocates for Palestine.”

Cowards in the face of Israel

It seems that pro-Israel groups were also lobbying the prime minister’s office: “Now Number 10 are telling Boris I cannot have the Middle East … In any other country [this] … would in my view be seen as entrenched espionage.” In fairness, there were other objections, with Duncan’s former business connections in the Middle East were also seen as a problem. He was ultimately allocated responsibility for Europe and the Americas, with the exception of Oman, which he was allowed to keep.

There was a curious sequel to this little episode. Shai Masot, an Israeli diplomat, was caught on camera talking of “taking down” Duncan. The Israeli ambassador called to apologise, asserting that the individual concerned had been hired locally and did not have diplomatic status.

“All total bollocks,” writes Duncan. “Masot is a first or second secretary, a member of military intelligence, employed specifically as a parliamentary and undercover propagandist.”

The incident was quickly brushed under the carpet. Masot, who also had Labour Party contacts, was sent home. The British government, anxious to avoid a row with the Israelis, did not pursue the matter. Neither did the Labour Party, which has been cowed by allegations of antisemitism.

Duncan, despite being a model of discretion in public, was privately scathing about the UK’s attitude towards Israel.

“We are supine, lickspittle, insignificant cowards,” he remarks after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was feted at Downing Street.

“Where is the British reaction?” he asks after a pro-settlement Israeli politician asserted that all of the occupied West Bank belonged to Israel.

“It is not just the end of the two-state solution. It is the end of any principled stand on the issue by the UK, given that this has always been a red-line for us and we intend to do nothing,” he writes of an Israeli plan to evict 500 Bedouin from land on the edge of Jerusalem to make way for settlers.

Haunted by Brexit

But it is Brexit, not Israel, that haunts this volume. Indeed, it haunts the entire Conservative Party.

In February 2016, Duncan, a long-time Eurosceptic, briefly flirted with the Leave campaign, but one visit to the Vote Leave headquarters was enough to bring home to him the company he would be keeping and, thereafter, he was solidly behind the Remain campaign.

He explains his conversion thus:

“Somewhere along the line from the early 1990s the cause of honest and thoughtful Euro-scepticism mutated into a form of simplistic nationalism which strikes me as ugly and demeaning. Instead of campaigning for the reform of outdated EU institutions and seeking a better deal for the UK, too many Euro-sceptics retreated instead into crude sloganeering. There was a rational and pragmatic case to be made for leaving the EU, but few bothered to make it. Instead we faced a wave of populist nonsense, emotive platitudes and downright lies.”

Although sympathetic to the impossible task she faced and publicly loyal throughout to the then-prime minister, Theresa May, Duncan, like others, despaired at her lack of empathy: “No poise or presence. Charisma by-pass. No personality.”

In July 2016, Boris Johnson was appointed foreign secretary and Duncan, his deputy in all but name, was well-placed to observe. His opinion of Johnson was low. Six days before May was due to make a major speech on Europe, Johnson published a lengthy essay setting out what were described as his “red lines” on the subject, thereby entirely undermining her.

Once again, Duncan was scathing:

“[He] thinks he is the next Churchill. He has a self-deluding, mock-romantic passion which is not rooted in realism. He is disloyal. A decade of press attention has gone to his head and he doesn’t appreciate that the gloss has gone. His comedy routine has gone stale; his lack of seriousness in a serious job rankles … He is a clown, a self-centred ego, an embarrassing buffoon, with an untidy mind and sub-zero diplomatic judgement. He is an international stain on our reputation … a lonely, selfish, shambolic, ill-disciplined, shameless clot.”

Maybe. But it is a measure of Britain’s decline in the world that this man is now our prime minister. Somewhere in the bowels of government, another secret scribbler will be at work continuing to chart the UK’s remorseless slide into insularity and irrelevance. Oh yes, and I have it on good authority that the Queen keeps a diary, too. I wonder what she makes of it all.

*

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.

Chris Mullin is a former Labour minister. He was a member of the House of Commons from 1987-2010. His latest novel, The Friends of Harry Perkins, is now available in paperback.

Featured image is from Georgia Today

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

***

Since the Mexican government published its much-awaited presidential decree on New Year’s Eve to restrict the use of the herbicide glyphosate and genetically modified corn, IATP has actively worked to defend the government against threats from U.S. agribusiness using the revised North American Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

I covered the decree and the looming threats in a February article. Now agribusiness interests have filed for an injunction in Mexican courts to stop the government phaseout of glyphosate.

On April 16, IATP joined the National Family Farm Coalition and the Rural Coalition on a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai and U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack calling for respect for Mexico’s right to regulate in the public interest.

“We read with concern the March 22, 2021 letter to you from food and agricultural trade associations raising objections to health, consumer and farmer protections and agricultural policies of the government of Mexico and seeking your intervention,” states the letter. “We urge both USTR and USDA to respect Mexico’s domestic policy choices and refrain from any action to interfere with policies that support healthy food and diets and that advance sustainable and environmentally sound agroecological practices. Mexico is well within its rights to adopt these provisions, as the U.S. would be if it implemented similar policies.”

IATP signed on to a similar letter drafted by Pesticide Action Network, along with 80 other organizations and nearly 7,000 citizens. The IATP and PAN letters support a letter signed by hundreds of Mexican organizations objecting to the agribusiness lobbying effort and calling on the U.S. government to respect Mexico’s sovereignty.

Bayer/Monsanto, Mexican agribusiness seek glyphosate injunction 

The pressure by agribusiness interests continues. Bayer/Monsanto and Mexico’s National Agribusiness Council (CNA) filed for an injunction in Mexico courts to stop the glyphosate regulations. The coalition Sin Maiz No Hay Pais (Without Corn There is No Country) is collecting signatures on a petition opposing the injunction. Please sign on.

IATP will continue to work with its Mexican partners to ensure the U.S. government does not invoke trade agreements to undermine Mexico’s right to legislate and regulate in the public interest. As Mexico’s Undersecretary of Agriculture Victor Suarez told us, “We are a sovereign nation with a democratic government, which came to power with the support of the majority of citizens, one that places compliance with our constitution and respect for human rights above all private interests.”

*

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.

Featured image is from SHTFplan.com

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

***

At the beginning of May, the time of spring cleaning in central Syria may have arrived.

The Russian Aerospace Forces carried out a series of airstrikes on ISIS hideouts in the region, and specifically the Jebel Bishri region located along the administrative border between Raqqa and Deir Ezzor, the Hama-Aleppo-Raqqa triangle and other parts of the region.

These strikes took place in anticipation of a large-scale operation that the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) will carry out with Russian support.

Several units from the SAA 5th Corps, 11th Division and the 25th Special Forces Division, known as the Tiger Forces, will take part in the operation. Syrian troops will move from Hama and Raqqa simultaneously.

ISIS has ramped up its activities in the last several weeks. The Amaq News Agency even shared footage of terrorists going about their daily chores in Homs. Likely to show that being a terrorist isn’t so bad and there’s some sort of normality to the entire scenario.

In the northern part of Syria, despite no ISIS, chaos is ever present. Not least thanks to Turkey’s crusade on the Kurdish groups in the region.

On May 2nd, a child was reportedly killed when at least 12 rockets landed in Afrin city center and nearby farms. The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which control a strip of land to the south of Afrin, was blamed for the deadly rocket attack.

On the previous day, six artillery shells hit Afrin city. No human losses were reported, Turkish forces responded by shelling two nearby towns held by the SDF.

Several units of the SAA and the Russian Military Police are present in the SDF-held pocket south of Afrin.

On April 30th, the Russian Aerospace Forces targeted militants preparing to attack Turkish forces in the northern region. Militants near the town of Shuarghat al-Arz in northern Aleppo and Khurbat al-Ruzz in northern Raqqa were targeted with several FOTAB 100-80 flash bombs.

On the same day, nearby, in Greater Idlib, militants of the al-Fateh al-Mubeen Operations Room, that’s led by al-Qaeda-affiliated Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, attacked Syrian army positons near the town of Kafr Nabl in the southern part of the province.

The militants targeted SAA troops with heavy machine guns, and a battle tank was struck by an anti-tank guided missile.

According to the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the SAA responded to the attack by pounding militants’ positions in the towns of Kansafra and Fatterah.

The “moderate opposition” in Idlib wastes no chance to remind of itself by violating the ceasefire regime in the countryside and shell SAA units and positions.

*

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.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

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

***

On April 16, the journalist Andre Mate, spoke to the UN Security Council concerning the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) report about Syria which has been exposed as a cover-up scandal.

His address challenges the US and UK on their role in the OPCW’s lies and fraud.  Mate meticulously takes apart each fabrication and exposes the truth for all to see.

OPCW inspectors found no evidence to support allegations of a Syrian government chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. However, their findings were suppressed, and the team was sidelined.

Mate shows why the claims of the OPCW are false by using their own published reports which claims that “most of the analytical work took place” in the “last six months” of the Douma investigation, when the original team was sidelined.

The investigation was carried out by the original investigative team during the first weeks of the probe, and the work conducted after they were sidelined is insignificant and full of deceptions and unsubstantiated accusations.

OPCW Director General Fernando Arias claims he doesn’t know why the OPCW final report would not be accepted as true, and Mate points to Arias’ prior statements which prove his claim is untrue.

Mate had asked the US and UK ambassadors if they would support a new proposal by five former OPCW officials, and others, to allow the Scientific Advisory Board of the OPCW to consider the claims of the dissenting inspectors; however, the US and UK ambassadors left the meeting prior to the request.

One reoccurring accusation of the west against the Syrian government, has been the alleged use of chemical weapons.  The first substantial accusation came from an event in Khan al Asal in 2013.  At first glance, the UN investigator Carla Del Ponte felt it must be the so-called ‘rebels’ who carried it out in order to blame the Syrian government, and thus illicit US military intervention in Syria because of President Obama’s speech concerning the ‘Red Line’ of chemical useDel Ponte was a seasoned prosecutor and criminal investigator, and following her instincts, the first question to be answered was:” Who will benefit most from a chemical attack?”

The terrorists, called ‘rebels’ in the west, would benefit the most from any and all chemical attacks.

President Obama did not follow through on his threat of military intervention in Syria because the UK Defense Lab at Porton Down advised the sample obtained from a chemical attack in East Ghouta in 2014 was not from a Syrian source.

The so called chemical event in Douma in 2018 was followed up with a OPCW investigation which was later exposed to be a fraud and full of misinformation.  From the outset, we must have suspected fraud when just days after the alleged attack, veteran Middle East journalist, Robert Fisk, traveled legally from Beirut to Douma and carried out his own on-site investigation which included personal interviews with Doctors and others on the ground.  Fisk searched for and told the truth, that the event was fabricated by the White Helmets, who are portrayed in western media as heroes, but in fact support the armed terrorists and their goal to destroy Syria.

Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Dr. Al Hakam Dandy, a Counselor at the Permanent Mission of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations, to gain further insight into the matter.

***

Steven Sahiounie (SS):  Why does the OPCW continue to accuse Syria of chemical attacks?

As you know, the OPCW is a technical organization with noble goals, However, some countries, led by the United States, are working to transform OPCW into a platform for them to promote lies and targeting Syria for their own political goals.

Al Hakam Dandy (HD):  Who benefits from accusations of chemical attacks in Syria?

The main beneficiaries are terrorist organizations. Syria has been a victim of these terrorists’ use of chemical weapons since Khan al-Asal incident on March 19, 2013. Although Syria continued to provide OPCW and the United Nations with information collected by the competent Syrian authorities regarding the preparations made by terrorist groups to stage incidents of chemical weapons use to accuse the Syrian Arab Army of them, unfortunately, OPCW and the United Nations ignored this important information.

SS:  Who brought these newest accusations against Syria to the OPCW?

HD:  Some Western countries before any investigation of information about the alleged use of chemical weapons, they launched unilateral and tripartite acts of aggression that destroyed civilian facilities. Moreover, these countries established illegal mechanism that were approved in violation of the provisions of CWC, so-called “Investigation and Identification Team” (ITT), and they rely on the reports of this team that lacked of credibility and professional elements such as the report of Al-Lataminah alleged incidents, and the recent report on Saraqib alleged incident which issued before convening the States Parties Conference to the CWC in order to facilitate adopting the French decision in The Hague.

SS:  Are these accusations from the OPCW actually political pressure on Syria before the coming presidential election?

HD:  Certainly, some Western countries are seeking to exercise all means of political and economic pressures to implement their policy of so-called “regimes changing” in the region. In case of Syria, these countries politicized the OPCW, supported and financed terrorist organizations, launched foreign military aggression, and imposed unilateral coercive measures. But Syria, despite all the grave challenges will remain committed to defending its sovereignty and independence, and the rights of its people. And let me stress here that only Syrian people have the right to choose their president.

SS:  What role has the UN Security Council played in the Syrian conflict?

HD:  Unfortunately, the Security Council has not been able to exercise its primary responsibility under the United Nations Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security as a result of the negative role that the United States and other Western countries play.

These countries misused the Security Council to implement their hostile agendas against Syria, through politicizing issues such as chemical file or humanitarian assistance, including their attempts to prevent any condemnation of the unilateral coercive measures that deprive Syrian people of their simple living needs and basic medical supplies.

*

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.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

JCPOA Nuclear Talks: An Exercise in Futility?

May 4th, 2021 by Stephen Lendman

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

***

Reported JCPOA nuclear talks progress in Vienna — between Iran, E3 countries, Russia and China — is more illusion than reality.

According to an unnamed European source over the weekend:

“We have yet to come to an understanding on the most critical points.” 

“Success is by no means guaranteed, but not impossible.”

On Friday, Biden regime national security advisor Jake Sullivan said talks are in “an unclear place” — implying uncertainty about whether an agreement can be reached.

Last week Blinken’s spokesman Price said the following:

“(W)e are considering removing only those sanctions that are inconsistent with the JCPOA,” adding:

“Even if we rejoin the JCPOA – which remains a hypothetical – we would retain and continue to implement sanctions on Iran for activities not covered by the JCPOA, including Iran’s missile proliferation (sic), support for terrorism (sic), and human rights abuses (sic).”

According to Iran’s Foreign Ministry on Saturday, representatives of participating nations are returning home for consultations, talk to resume on May 7.

Russia’s representative Mikhail Ulyanov said “(w)e have yet to come to an understanding on the most critical points,” adding: 

“We should not expect breakthroughs in the days to come.”

Ulyanov remains optimistic, expecting a successful outcome of talks — despite little evidence that they’ll turn out this way.

Over the weekend, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister/chief JCPOA negotiator Abbas Araqchi said the following:

“Sanctions…on Iran’s energy sector, which include oil and gas, or those on the automotive industry, financial, banking and port sanctions, all should be lifted based on agreements reached so far.”

Since talks began, Araqchi stressed that all US sanctions on Iran since Trump took office must be lifted.

Other Iranian officials stressed the same thing, rejecting the notion of partial lifting alone.

According to Axios.com, Biden told Israel’s Mossad head Yossi Cohen on Friday that “the US has a long way to go in talks with Iran before it agrees a return to full compliance of the 2015 nuclear deal” — citing an unnamed senior Israeli official briefed on their talks.

On Thursday, Blinken met with Mossad’s Cohen and Israel’s US envoy Gilad Erdan.

According to the Times of Israel, Cohen warned that “bad deal will send the region spiraling into war,” adding:

“Anyone seeking short-term benefits should be mindful of the longer term.” 

“Israel will not allow Iran to attain nuclear arms” it doesn’t seek and wants eliminated everywhere — including the Jewish state’s undeclared nuclear arsenal. 

Israeli officials in Washington also said they’ll operate freely as they see fit against Iran.

Last month’s attack on Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility is believed to have been a Netanyahu regime operation.

As for striking Iran militarily, it’s highly unlikely that Israel would go this far without US permission and involvement.

What hasn’t happened is unlikely ahead but clearly possible because of longstanding US plans to transform Iran into a client state.

Separately according to AP News:

“Top Biden (regime) officials and US senators crisscrossed the Middle East on Monday, seeking to assuage growing unease among Gulf Arab partners over America’s re-engagement with Iran and other policy shifts in the region.”

Senator Chris Coons was quoted, saying JCPOA talks continue in Vienna, no imminent deal in the works at this stage.

Since taking office, Biden regime hardliners continued maximum pressure on Iran.

Nothing so far was achieved on rolling back illegally imposed US sanctions.

Indirect US involvement in Vienna talks are unrelated to good faith outreach to Iran.

What hasn’t existed since its liberating 1979 revolution is highly unlikely ahead.

Whatever may be agreed on in Vienna, if anything, will be at risk of unraveling ahead.

By executive order in May 2018, Trump unilaterally abandoned the JCPOA in flagrant violation of international and US constitutional law.

Time and again, the US says one thing, then goes another way. 

Its ruling authorities walked away from numerous international agreements, showing they can never be trusted.

Iran is mindful of all of the above. Its officials know what they’re up against in dealing with the US directly or indirectly like things are proceeding in Vienna.

If anything positive is achieved, the US can reverse it ahead with a stroke of a pen.

As long as Iran remains free from US control, normalizing relations are off the table.

War by other means on nonbelligerent Iran will continue unchanged.

So will the risk of things turning hot because of Washington’s longstanding aim to control the Islamic Republic by whatever it takes to achieve its aim.

*

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.

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

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

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

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

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

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

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

India, COVID and the Need for Scientific Integrity Not Sensationalism

By Colin Todhunter, May 04, 2021

In his report, Tengra offers scientific evidence that strongly indicates asymptomatic transmission is not significant. He asserts that as these cases comprise most of India’s case numbers, we should be questioning the data as well as the PCR tests and the cycles being used to detect the virus instead of accepting the figures at face value.

From Mind Control to Viruses: How the US Government Keeps Experimenting on Its Citizens

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, May 04, 2021

Fifty years from now, we may well find out the whole sordid truth behind this COVID-19 pandemic. However, this isn’t intended to be a debate over whether COVID-19 is a legitimate health crisis or a manufactured threat. It is merely to acknowledge that such crises can—and are—manipulated by governments in order to expand their powers.

US’ New “Foreign Malign Influence” Center Is Just Official Cover for American Intelligence Interference in Domestic Politics

By Scott Ritter, May 03, 2021

The Director of National Intelligence has ostensibly created a new “center” for the sharing and analysis of information and intelligence about foreign interference in US elections. Its real focus is much more nefarious.

Just How Much COVID-19 Vaccine Money (And How Many Doses Per Person) Is on the Table?

By Dr. Meryl Nass, May 03, 2021

It is hard for me to fathom what is going on.  The article quoted below indicates that the Pharma industry does not think Covid will be going away; instead it will switch from pandemic to endemic, with outbreaks here and there–apparently justifying lots of vaccine boosters.

Two-year-old Baby Dies During Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine Experiments on Children

By Ethan Huff, May 03, 2021

The ongoing trials include more than 10,000 children aging in range from five to 11 in one of the groups, and another 10,000 children as young as six months old in the other. These trials have been taking place since mid-March with the soon expectation that the jab will be “authorized” for use in children and babies.

Video: Coronavirus Crisis Wrecking Havoc Worldwide. Dr. Richard Urso with Kristina Borjesson

By Dr. Richard Urso and Kristina Borjesson, May 03, 2021

My guest today is a physician from Texas whose medical license was briefly threatened because he prescribed hydroxychloroquine to his COVID patients. Hydroxychloroquine is a cheap drug that’s been around for a long time and is proven to be highly effective as part of the protocol for treating COVID patients.

CDC Officially Recommends COVID Jab for Pregnant Women

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 03, 2021

Giving pregnant women unlicensed COVID-19 gene therapies is reprehensibly irresponsible experimental medicine, and to suggest that safety data are “piling up” is pure propaganda. Everything is still in the experimental stage and all data are preliminary. It’ll take years to get a clearer picture of how these injections are affecting young women and their babies.

19,916 ‘Eye Disorders’ Including Blindness Following COVID Vaccine Reported in Europe

By Celeste McGovern, May 03, 2021

More than half of the eye disorders (10, 667) were also reported to the U.K.’s Yellow Card adverse event reporting system. These would have followed injection primarily of AstraZeneca’s and Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines but included eight reports of eye disorders among the 228 reports concerning Moderna’s vaccine, of which only 100,000 first doses had been administered by April 21.

Significant Jump this Week in Reported Injuries, Deaths After COVID Vaccine

By Megan Redshaw, May 03, 2021

The Defender reached out to the CDC on March 8 with a written list of questions about reported deaths and injuries related to COVID vaccines, the status of ongoing investigations reported in the media, if autopsies are being done, the standard for determining whether an injury is causally connected to a vaccine, and education initiatives to encourage and facilitate proper and accurate reporting.

Kent State, April 4, 1970: Was It about Civil Rights or 
Murdering Student Protesters?

By Laurel Krause and Prof. Mickey Huff, May 03, 2021

In 2010, compelling forensic evidence emerged showing that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) were the lead agencies in managing Kent State government operations, including the cover-up. At Kent State, lawful protest was pushed into the realm of massacre as the US federal government, the state of Ohio, and the Ohio National Guard (ONG) executed their plans to silence antiwar protest in America.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: India, COVID and the Need for Scientific Integrity Not Sensationalism

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

***

This past week the US Commerce Department released its early estimates for US GDP for the 1st Quarter 2021, January through March. If we are to believe the numbers, the US economy grew a respectable 6.4% during the period. But did it really? And does it represent a strong recovery underway? Or just a rebound, as the economy reopens in the services sector; and once the reopening concludes, will the economy flatten out again—as it did with last summer’s 2020 partial reopening that collapsed in late 2020?

The first thing for readers to understand is the 6.4% is not really 6.4% for the first three months of 2021. The US is one of the few countries that reports its GDP figures in an ‘Annual Rate’ (AR) percentage. Most other advanced economies do not. Annual Rate reporting takes the actual growth for the period and then multiplies it by four. In other words, a 6.4% annual rate GDP means if the economy continues to grow as it did in the first quarter 2021 than it will amount to a 6.4% for the next twelve months! That means the actual GDP growth for the first quarter was about one-fourth of 6.4%. That actual growth was 1.6% over the previous, fourth quarter of 2020.

Another obfuscation in the official numbers is that the US sometimes reports the gain for the quarter compared to the same quarter a year ago, and therefore not the previous calendar quarter. What is important is how much the economy grew in the quarter compared to the preceding quarter—and not compared to a quarter twelve months ago.

Real GDP: Percent Change from Preceding Quarter

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

On top of all this, it’s important to understand that ‘real GDP’ (the 6.4% annual rate overestimation) is obtained by reducing what’s called ‘money GDP’ from the rate of inflation. So if the rate of inflation is underestimated, then real GDP appears higher than it actually is. And the US always underestimates inflation in order to get a higher real GDP number. It does this in many ways. For example, it doesn’t use the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to estimate the inflation. It uses another price index, called the ‘GDP Deflator’. Its number for the overall level of inflation is always much less than the CPI. There are many ways the US further underestimates inflation. Without going into boring statistical details, another way is called ‘chained pricing’. Another is to reduce prices based upon absurd assumptions that improvements in the quality of various products subtracts from their actual price increases. For example, rising prices for computers and smart phones actually show up as price declines. Apple may charge $800 for a new edition smart phone, a hike of $100-$200, but the Commerce Dept. will include it in its inflation estimate as a price decline!

The actual 1st quarter 2021 US GDP growth is therefore only 1.6%–when the ‘annual rate’ puffery is discounted; and that still ignores the manipulation of inflation in order to boost real GDP still further.

So does this 1.6% represent a robust growth? And what is causing it? And will the cause continue?

It’s important to distinguish between an economic REBOUND which is temporary and an actual economic RECOVERY that is sustained. Rebounds dissipate. Real recoveries continue to show a rise in GDP over several quarters into the future.

Last summer 2020 at this time the US economy partially reopened. Especially in the red states that ignored the shutdowns. The US economy experienced a Rebound as a result of the reopening from roughly mid-June 2020 to mid-August. That rebound then faded and in September the economy began to weaken again. That weakening continued through the last three months of 2020 as the economy almost totally stagnated. Here’s the actual quarter to quarter GDP numbers (not reflecting the ‘annual rate’ puffery):

In the first half of 2020 the US economy collapsed by an historic -10.5%. That included the decline that set in during February as the Covid virus began to hit the economy. April-May were the hardest hit months, followed by early June. By mid-June the economy was reopening (prematurely it turned out). The reopening resulted in a REBOUND from mid-June through August. That produced a 3rd Quarter GDP rise of roughly 7.4% (discounting the annual rate nonsense again). So the US economy recovered about two-thirds of its historic collapse in the first half mostly due to the reopening.

The alleged $2.2 Trillion ‘Cares Act’ fiscal stimulus passed in March contributed some to the REBOUND of the summer, but not all that much. It was mostly due to the reopening. The Cares Act, as reported by the media, amounted to $2.2T stimulus. But that was misrepresented by half! It provided only $1.3 trillion—not $2.2T. Here’s why: $500 billion was provided by the $1200 income checks households received plus the expanded unemployment benefits. Another $525 billion was provided by the PPP small business loan/grants (mostly latter) program. (An initial $350 billion was provided in March but then another emergency supplement was added to bring the total spending on PPP to $525 billion by August). So that’s just a little over $1 trillion. Another $1.1 trillion was earmarked for loans to medium and large businesses, to be distributed through the Federal Reserve US central bank. But only $175 billion was actually loaned out through the Fed’s so-called ‘Main St.’ program by year end. (The Fed sat on $455 billion and then returned it to the US Treasury in December 2020).

So the actual first stimulus, Cares Act, only provided $1.3 trillion into the US economy ($1.025T in checks, benefits, and PPP) plus $175 billion from the Fed. A good part of all that did not get into the economy, but was ‘hoarded’ by better off households and businesses and not spent or used to buy down their debt loads. Probably no more than $800 billion actually got into the economy. In short, the 3rd quarter GDP growth of 7.4% was thus mostly due to the reopening and not the inadequate fiscal stimulus called the CARES Act.

Politicians knew, by the way, that the Cares Act was not a stimulus measure. It was a ‘mitigation’ bill and they called it that. Mitigation means putting a floor under the economic collapse for 2-3 months. It doesn’t mean a spending surge that would result in a sustained economic recovery. Mitigation bills produce REBOUNDs, at best; not sustained recoveries. And that’s what the Cares Act did. It bought some time over the summer, as the economy partially reopened.

But the Cares Act spending ($1.3T minus hoarding and debt repayment) dissipated by the end of summer 2020. And only part of the economy reopened by summer’s end 2020. Consequently the US economy faltered and stagnated in the final months of 2020.

US GDP growth in the 4th quarter 2020 thus registered a mere 1.1% actual growth, which was probably zero growth due to inflation underestimation. This was followed by the 1st quarter 2021 initial GDP numbers reported last week showing a 2021 growth of only 1.6%. That too was due largely to the reopening of the US economy, and not to the emergency fiscal stimulus of another $866 billion passed at the end of December, which provided a continuation of unemployment benefits and a small $600 check to households. The December emergency measure was also a ‘mitigation’ measure, not a stimulus. It dissipated by end of February 2021, indicated clearly by a new collapse in consumer retail spending after a brief boost in January.

In short, the 1st quarter 2021 GDP growth of only 1.6% is due to the second reopening of the US economy in 2021 as the vaccines for the virus were distributed.

So here’s a summary of the actual growth of the US economy from February 2020 through March 2021:

  • January-June 2020: -10.5%
  • July-September 2020: 7.4%
  • October-December 2020: 1.1%
  • January-March 2021: 1.6%

The average historical GDP growth rate in recent decades has been around 1.8% to 2.2%. So the current 1.6% is not even average! Moreover, it will slow as the reopening of the service sectors of the economy hardest hit by the virus become more or less concluded. The question then is: will Biden’s much heralded recent ‘American Rescue Plan’ (Covid relief) fiscal spending measure of another $1.9 trillion, passed by Congress last month, be sufficient to provide spending stimulus to push the economy beyond just a REBOUND to an actual sustained RECOVERY in the second half of 2021?

That remains to be determined. But it should be noted the $1.9T reported by the media is actually only $1.8 trillion. (US Senate cut it by $100B). Moreover, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the research arm of Congress, the actual spending out of the $1.8T for this year 2021 is only $1 trillion, not $1.8T! And one must assume that a good part of that $1T will be hoarded and not spent by wealthier households as they get their $1400 checks, and that they, as well as many small businesses, will undoubtedly use their stimulus to pay down debt. Neither hoarded or debt directed money will get into the actual US economy to boost GDP in the second half of the year, 2021. In reality, it’s likely no more than $800 billion stimulus will hit the US economy in 2021. And that’s about the same amount compared to the $866 billion passed last December; and less than the Cares Act passed last March 2020!

If the Cares Act and the December emergency stimulus turned out to be mere ‘mitigation’ fiscal spending, will the current Biden ‘American Rescue Plan’ $800B result in just another mitigation measure as well?
Is the Biden stimulus of around $800 billion therefore sufficient to generate a sustained RECOVERY and not just another REBOUND after this summer and the effects of the 2021 economy reopening run their course?

Another way of looking at the course of US GDP for the remainder of the year is to break down 1st quarter US GDP by its components. Most of the 1.6% was due to a continuing surge of manufacturing. About three fourths of the growth was manufacturing. Can that sector continue to surge? And it is only about 12% of total US GDP.

Services—80% of the economy—began to recover in the 1st quarter but are still doing so only moderately. Business investment is not surging and inventories—a part of investment—actually continued to collapse in the quarter. The trade deficit was another negative contributor to US GDP. Will it turn around? Residential housing growth is plagued by shortages of homes; it won’t contribute much (and is only 4% of GDP anyway). Commercial properties (factories, hotels, parks, malls, office buildings, etc.) are busted. Don’t expect growth here either.
Government spending in the 1st quarter was not all that great a contributor to GDP, as the impact of the Biden act won’t begin to hit until summer. But again, will $800 billion be enough?

Probably not. Much more government spending will be necessary. But isn’t that coming with Biden’s ‘Infrastructure spending’ proposals (i.e. the American Jobs Act’) of reportedly another $2.2 trillion. And his recently announced additional ‘American Families Plan’ of another $1 trillion? Don’t hold your breath. Those two bills won’t be passed, if at all, until 2022. And if passed, no doubt in much lower amounts and over longer periods of time to have much effect on the US economy—and none on 2021.

To conclude: it is to be determined whether the US economy, based on recent GDP numbers and legislation, will look fundamentally different than what happened in 2020. There is a reopening of the economy underway that will certainly boost GDP some. And there’s another $800 billion in mitigation spending. But fiscal stimulus measures in 2020 of roughly that amount show their effects dissipate after a couple months. So will the reopening prove sufficient to generate something more than just another REBOUND 2.0 and a true sustained economic RECOVERY by year end 2021?

That remains to be seen. However, in a number of ways the economic trajectory looks a lot like 2020, in terms of REBOUND and not sustained RECOVERY.

And then there’s the economic ‘wild card’ of Covid. The refusal of 40% of the US population to take advantage of the vaccines indicates there will be no herd immunity attained. The virus will be with use for some time. And the risk is growing that new mutations may prove resistant to the vaccines. What happens then? Another shutdown next winter? If so, expect another fourth quarter 2021 collapse of US GDP growth, just as it did last winter 2020.

Whatever the scenarios, readers should not fall for the statistical hype in the absurd ‘annual rate’ and inflation adjusted misrepresentations of US real GDP and actual economic growth.

*

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.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Jack Rasmus.

Dr. Rasmus is author of the recent book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, 2020. He blogs at http://jackrasmus.com. His twitter handle is @drjackrasmus. And he hosts the weekly radio show, Alternative Visions, on the Progressive Radio Network on Fridays at 2pm eastern time. Check out his website for further books, articles, video presentations, reviews, etc., at http://kyklosproductions.com.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Pixabay

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Growth of US GDP: Economic Recovery or Just Another Rebound? “If We are To Believe the Numbers”
  • Tags: ,

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

***

“They were monsters with human faces, in crisp uniforms, marching in lockstep, so banal you don’t recognize them for what they are until it’s too late.” — Ransom Riggs, Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children

***

The U.S. government, in its pursuit of so-called monsters, has itself become a monster.

This is not a new development, nor is it a revelation.

This is a government that has in recent decades unleashed untold horrors upon the world—including its own citizenry—in the name of global conquest, the acquisition of greater wealth, scientific experimentation, and technological advances, all packaged in the guise of the greater good.

Mind you, there is no greater good when the government is involved. There is only greater greed for money and power.

Unfortunately, the public has become so easily distracted by the political spectacle out of Washington, DC, that they are altogether oblivious to the grisly experiments, barbaric behavior and inhumane conditions that have become synonymous with the U.S. government.

These horrors have been meted out against humans and animals alike. For all intents and purposes, “we the people” have become lab rats in the government’s secret experiments.

Fifty years from now, we may well find out the whole sordid truth behind this COVID-19 pandemic. However, this isn’t intended to be a debate over whether COVID-19 is a legitimate health crisis or a manufactured threat. It is merely to acknowledge that such crises can—and are—manipulated by governments in order to expand their powers.

As we have learned, it is entirely possible for something to be both a genuine menace to the nation’s health and security and a menace to freedom.

This is a road the United States has been traveling for many years now. Indeed, grisly experiments, barbaric behavior and inhumane conditions have become synonymous with the U.S. government, which has meted out untold horrors against humans and animals alike.

For instance, did you know that the U.S. government has been buying hundreds of dogs and cats from “Asian meat markets” as part of a gruesome experiment into food-borne illnesses? The cannibalistic experiments involve killing cats and dogs purchased from Colombia, Brazil, Vietnam, China and Ethiopia, and then feeding the dead remains to laboratory kittens, bred in government laboratories for the express purpose of being infected with a disease and then killed.

It gets more gruesome.

The Department of Veterans Affairs has been removing parts of dogs’ brains to see how it affects their breathing; applying electrodes to dogs’ spinal cords (before and after severing them) to see how it impacts their cough reflexes; and implanting pacemakers in dogs’ hearts and then inducing them to have heart attacks (before draining their blood). All of the laboratory dogs are killed during the course of these experiments.

It’s not just animals that are being treated like lab rats by government agencies.

“We the people” have also become the police state’s guinea pigs: to be caged, branded, experimented upon without our knowledge or consent, and then conveniently discarded and left to suffer from the after-effects.

Back in 2017, FEMA “inadvertently” exposed nearly 10,000 firefighters, paramedics and other responders to a deadly form of ricin during simulated bioterrorism response sessions. In 2015, it was discovered that an Army lab had been “mistakenly” shipping deadly anthrax to labs and defense contractors for a decade.

While these particular incidents have been dismissed as “accidents,” you don’t have to dig very deep or go very back in the nation’s history to uncover numerous cases in which the government deliberately conducted secret experiments on an unsuspecting populace—citizens and noncitizens alike—making healthy people sick by spraying them with chemicals, injecting them with infectious diseases and exposing them to airborne toxins.

At the time, the government reasoned that it was legitimate to experiment on people who did not have full rights in society such as prisoners, mental patients, and poor blacks.

In Alabama, for example, 600 black men with syphilis were allowed to suffer without proper medical treatment in order to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis. In California, older prisoners had testicles from livestock and from recently executed convicts implanted in them to test their virility. In Connecticut, mental patients were injected with hepatitis.

In Maryland, sleeping prisoners had a pandemic flu virus sprayed up their noses. In Georgia, two dozen “volunteering” prison inmates had gonorrhea bacteria pumped directly into their urinary tracts through the penis. In Michigan, male patients at an insane asylum were exposed to the flu after first being injected with an experimental flu vaccine. In Minnesota, 11 public service employee “volunteers” were injected with malaria, then starved for five days.

As the Associated Press reports, “The late 1940s and 1950s saw huge growth in the U.S. pharmaceutical and health care industries, accompanied by a boom in prisoner experiments funded by both the government and corporations. By the 1960s, at least half the states allowed prisoners to be used as medical guinea pigs … because they were cheaper than chimpanzees.”

Moreover, “Some of these studies, mostly from the 1940s to the ’60s, apparently were never covered by news media. Others were reported at the time, but the focus was on the promise of enduring new cures, while glossing over how test subjects were treated.”

Media blackouts, propaganda, spin. Sound familiar?

How many government incursions into our freedoms have been blacked out, buried under “entertainment” news headlines, or spun in such a way as to suggest that anyone voicing a word of caution is paranoid or conspiratorial?

Unfortunately, these incidents are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the atrocities the government has inflicted on an unsuspecting populace in the name of secret experimentation.

For instance, there was the U.S. military’s secret race-based testing of mustard gas on more than 60,000 enlisted men. As NPR reports, “All of the World War II experiments with mustard gas were done in secret and weren’t recorded on the subjects’ official military records. Most do not have proof of what they went through. They received no follow-up health care or monitoring of any kind. And they were sworn to secrecy about the tests under threat of dishonorable discharge and military prison time, leaving some unable to receive adequate medical treatment for their injuries, because they couldn’t tell doctors what happened to them.”

And then there was the CIA’s MKULTRA program in which hundreds of unsuspecting American civilians and military personnel were dosed with LSD, some having the hallucinogenic drug slipped into their drinks at the beach, in city bars, at restaurants. As Time reports, “before the documentation and other facts of the program were made public, those who talked of it were frequently dismissed as being psychotic.”

Now one might argue that this is all ancient history and that the government today is different from the government of yesteryear, but has the U.S. government really changed?

Has the government become any more humane, any more respectful of the rights of the citizenry? Has it become any more transparent or willing to abide by the rule of law? Has it become any more truthful about its activities? Has it become any more cognizant of its appointed role as a guardian of our rights?

Or has the government simply hunkered down and hidden its nefarious acts and dastardly experiments under layers of secrecy, legalism and obfuscations? Has it not become wilier, more slippery, more difficult to pin down?

Having mastered the Orwellian art of Doublespeak and followed the Huxleyan blueprint for distraction and diversion, are we not dealing with a government that is simply craftier and more conniving that it used to be?

Consider this: after revelations about the government’s experiments spanning the 20th century spawned outrage, the government began looking for human guinea pigs in other countries, where “clinical trials could be done more cheaply and with fewer rules.”

In Guatemala, prisoners and patients at a mental hospital were infected with syphilis, “apparently to test whether penicillin could prevent some sexually transmitted disease.” In Uganda, U.S.-funded doctors “failed to give the AIDS drug AZT to all the HIV-infected pregnant women in a study… even though it would have protected their newborns.” Meanwhile, in Nigeria, children with meningitis were used to test an antibiotic named Trovan. Eleven children died and many others were left disabled.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Case in point: back in 2016, it was announced that scientists working for the Department of Homeland Security would begin releasing various gases and particles on crowded subway platforms as part of an experiment aimed at testing bioterror airflow in New York subways.

The government insisted that the gases released into the subways by the DHS were nontoxic and did not pose a health risk. It’s in our best interests, they said, to understand how quickly a chemical or biological terrorist attack might spread. And look how cool the technology is—said the government cheerleaders—that scientists can use something called DNATrax to track the movement of microscopic substances in air and food. (Imagine the kinds of surveillance that could be carried out by the government using trackable airborne microscopic substances you breathe in or ingest.)

Mind you, this is the same government that in 1949 sprayed bacteria into the Pentagon’s air handling system, then the world’s largest office building. In 1950, special ops forces sprayed bacteria from Navy ships off the coast of Norfolk and San Francisco, in the latter case exposing all of the city’s 800,000 residents.

In 1953, government operatives staged “mock” anthrax attacks on St. Louis, Minneapolis, and Winnipeg using generators placed on top of cars. Local governments were reportedly told that “‘invisible smokescreen[s]’ were being deployed to mask the city on enemy radar.” Later experiments covered territories as wide-ranging as Ohio to Texas and Michigan to Kansas.

In 1965, the government’s experiments in bioterror took aim at Washington’s National Airport, followed by a 1966 experiment in which army scientists exposed a million subway NYC passengers to airborne bacteria that causes food poisoning.

And this is the same government that has taken every bit of technology sold to us as being in our best interests—GPS devices, surveillance, nonlethal weapons, etc.—and used it against us, to track, control and trap us.

So, no, I don’t think the government’s ethics have changed much over the years. It’s just taken its nefarious programs undercover.

The question remains: why is the government doing this? The answer is always the same: money, power and total domination.

It’s the same answer no matter which totalitarian regime is in power.

The mindset driving these programs has, appropriately, been likened to that of Nazi doctors experimenting on Jews. As the Holocaust Museum recounts, Nazi physicians “conducted painful and often deadly experiments on thousands of concentration camp prisoners without their consent.”

The Nazi’s unethical experiments ran the gamut from freezing experiments using prisoners to find an effective treatment for hypothermia, tests to determine the maximum altitude for parachuting out of a plane, injecting prisoners with malaria, typhus, tuberculosis, typhoid fever, yellow fever, and infectious hepatitis, exposing prisoners to phosgene and mustard gas, and mass sterilization experiments.

The horrors being meted out against the American people can be traced back, in a direct line, to the horrors meted out in Nazi laboratories. In fact, following the second World War, the U.S. government recruited many of Hitler’s employees, adopted his protocols, embraced his mindset about law and order and experimentation, and implemented his tactics in incremental steps.

Sounds far-fetched, you say? Read on. It’s all documented.

As historian Robert Gellately recounts, the Nazi police state was initially so admired for its efficiency and order by the world powers of the day that J. Edgar Hoover, then-head of the FBI, actually sent one of his right-hand men, Edmund Patrick Coffey, to Berlin in January 1938 at the invitation of Germany’s secret police, the Gestapo.

The FBI was so impressed with the Nazi regime that, according to the New York Times, in the decades after World War II, the FBI, along with other government agencies, aggressively recruited at least a thousand Nazis, including some of Hitler’s highest henchmen.

All told, thousands of Nazi collaborators—including the head of a Nazi concentration camp, among others—were given secret visas and brought to America by way of Project Paperclip. Subsequently, they were hired on as spies, informants and scientific advisers, and then camouflaged to ensure that their true identities and ties to Hitler’s holocaust machine would remain unknown. All the while, thousands of Jewish refugees were refused entry visas to the U.S. on the grounds that it could threaten national security.

Adding further insult to injury, American taxpayers have been paying to keep these ex-Nazis on the U.S. government’s payroll ever since. And in true Gestapo fashion, anyone who has dared to blow the whistle on the FBI’s illicit Nazi ties has found himself spied upon, intimidated, harassed and labeled a threat to national security.

As if the government’s covert, taxpayer-funded employment of Nazis after World War II wasn’t bad enough, U.S. government agencies—the FBI, CIA and the military—have since fully embraced many of the Nazi’s well-honed policing tactics, and have used them repeatedly against American citizens.

It’s certainly easy to denounce the full-frontal horrors carried out by the scientific and medical community within a despotic regime such as Nazi Germany, but what do you do when it’s your own government that claims to be a champion of human rights all the while allowing its agents to engage in the foulest, bases and most despicable acts of torture, abuse and experimentation?

When all is said and done, this is not a government that has our best interests at heart.

This is not a government that values us.

Perhaps the answer lies in The Third Man, Carol Reed’s influential 1949 film starring Joseph Cotten and Orson Welles. In the film, set in a post-WW II Vienna, rogue war profiteer Harry Lime has come to view human carnage with a callous indifference, unconcerned that the diluted penicillin he’s been trafficking underground has resulted in the tortured deaths of young children.

Challenged by his old friend Holly Martins to consider the consequences of his actions, Lime responds, “In these days, old man, nobody thinks in terms of human beings. Governments don’t, so why should we?

“Have you ever seen any of your victims?” asks Martins.

“Victims?” responds Limes, as he looks down from the top of a Ferris wheel onto a populace reduced to mere dots on the ground. “Look down there. Tell me. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man. Free of income tax — the only way you can save money nowadays.”

This is how the U.S. government sees us, too, when it looks down upon us from its lofty perch.

To the powers-that-be, the rest of us are insignificant specks, faceless dots on the ground.

To the architects of the American police state, we are not worthy or vested with inherent rights. This is how the government can justify treating us like economic units to be bought and sold and traded, or caged rats to be experimented upon and discarded when we’ve outgrown our usefulness.

To those who call the shots in the halls of government, “we the people” are merely the means to an end.

“We the people”—who think, who reason, who take a stand, who resist, who demand to be treated with dignity and care, who believe in freedom and justice for all—have become obsolete, undervalued citizens of a totalitarian state that, in the words of Rod Serling, “has patterned itself after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history since the beginning of time. It has refinements, technological advances, and a more sophisticated approach to the destruction of human freedom.”

In this sense, we are all Romney Wordsworth, the condemned man in Serling’s Twilight Zone episode “The Obsolete Man.”

The Obsolete Man” speaks to the dangers of a government that views people as expendable once they have outgrown their usefulness to the State. Yet—and here’s the kicker—this is where the government through its monstrous inhumanity also becomes obsolete. As Serling noted in his original script for “The Obsolete Man,” “Any state, any entity, any ideology which fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man…that state is obsolete.

How do you defeat a monster?

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, you start by recognizing the monster for what it is.

*

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.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on From Mind Control to Viruses: How the US Government Keeps Experimenting on Its Citizens
  • Tags:

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

***

Imagine this scenario: 

A month before the vote on the federal budget, progressives in Congress declared, “We’ve studied President Biden’s proposed $753 billion military budget, an increase of $13 billion from Trump’s already inflated budget, and we can’t, in good conscience, support this.”

Now that would be a show stopper, particularly if they added, “So we have decided to stand united, arm in arm, as a block of NO votes on any federal budget resolution that fails to reduce military spending by 10-30 percent. We stand united against a federal budget resolution that includes upwards of $30 billion for new nuclear weapons slated to ultimately cost nearly $2 trillion. We stand united in demanding the $50 billion earmarked to maintain all 800 overseas bases, including the new one under construction in Henoko, Okinawa, be reduced by a third because it’s time we scaled back on plans for global domination.”

“Ditto,” they say, “for the billions the President wants for the arms-escalating US Space Force, one of Trump’s worst ideas, right up there with hydroxychloroquine to cure COVID-19, and, no, we don’t want to escalate our troop deployments for a military confrontation with China in the South China Sea. It’s time to ‘right-size’ the military budget and demilitarize our foreign policy.”

Progressives uniting as a block to resist out-of-control military spending would be a no-nonsense exercise of raw power reminiscent of how the right-wing Freedom Caucus challenged the traditional Republicans in the House in 2015. Without progressives on board, President Biden may not be able to secure enough votes to pass a federal budget that would then green light the reconciliation process needed for his broad domestic agenda.

For years, progressives in Congress have complained about the bloated military budget. In 2020, 93 members in the House and 23 in the Senate voted to cut the Pentagon budget by 10% and invest those funds instead in critical human needs. A House Spending Reduction Caucus, co-chaired by Representatives Barbara Lee and Mark Pocan, emerged with 22 members on board.

Meet the members of the House Defense Spending Reduction Caucus:

Barbara Lee (CA-13); Mark Pocan (WI-2); Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12); Ilhan Omar (MN-5); Raùl Grijalva (AZ-3); Mark DeSaulnier (CA-11); Jan Schakowsky(IL-9); Pramila Jayapal (WA-7); Jared Huffman (CA-2); Alan Lowenthal (CA-47); James P. McGovern (MA-2); Peter Welch (VT-at large); Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14); Frank Pallone, Jr (NJ-6).;  Rashida Tlaib (MI-13); Ro Khanna (CA-17); Lori Trahan (MA-3); Steve Cohen (TN-9); Ayanna Pressley (MA-7), Anna Eshoo (CA-18).

We also have the Progressive Caucus, the largest Caucus in Congress with almost 100 members in the House and Senate. Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal is all for cutting military spending. “We’re in the midst of a crisis that has left millions of families unable to afford food, rent, and bills. But at the same time, we’re dumping billions of dollars into a bloated Pentagon budget,” she said. “Don’t increase defense spending. Cut it—and invest that money into our communities.”

Now is the time for these congresspeople to turn their talk into action.

Consider the context. President Biden urgently wants to move forward on his American Families Plan rolled out in his recent State of the Union address. The plan would tax the rich to invest $1.8 trillion over the next ten years in universal preschool, two years of tuition-free community college, expanded healthcare coverage and paid family medical leave.

President Biden, in the spirit of FDR, also wants to put America back to work in a $2-trillion infrastructure program that will begin to fix our decades-old broken bridges, crumbling sewer systems and rusting water pipes. This could be his legacy, a light Green New Deal to transition workers out of the dying fossil fuel industry.

But Biden won’t get his infrastructure program and American Families Plan with higher taxes on the rich, almost 40% on income for corporations and those earning $400,000 or more a year, without Congress first passing a budget resolution that includes a top line for military and non-military spending. Both the budget resolution and reconciliation bill that would follow are filibuster proof and only require a simple majority in the House and Senate to pass.

Easy.

Maybe not.

To flex their muscles, Republicans may refuse to vote for a budget resolution crafted by the Democratic Party that would open the door to big spending on public goods, such as pre-kindergarten and expanded health care coverage. That means Biden would need every Democrat in the House and Senate on board to approve his budget resolution for military and non-military spending.

So how’s it looking?

In the Senate, Democrat Joe Manchin from West VA, a state that went for Trump over Biden more than two-to-one, wants to scale back Biden’s infrastructure proposal, but hasn’t sworn to vote down a budget resolution. As for Senator Bernie Sanders, the much-loved progressive, ordinarily he might balk at a record high military budget, but if the budget resolution ushers in a reconciliation bill that lowers the age of Medicare eligibility to 60 or 55, the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee may hold his fire.

That leaves anti-war activists wondering if Senator Elizabeth Warren, a critic of the Pentagon budget and “nuclear modernization,” would consider stepping up as the lone holdout in the Senate, refusing to vote for a budget that includes billions for new nuclear weapons. Perhaps with a push from outraged constituents in Massachusetts, Warren could be convinced to take this bold stand. Another potential hold out could be California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who co-chairs the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, the committee that oversees the budgeting for nuclear weapons. In 2014, Feinstein described the US nuclear arsenal program as “unnecessarily and unsustainably large.”

Over in the House, Biden needs at least 218 of the 222 Democrats to vote for the budget resolution expected to hit the floor in June or July, but what if he couldn’t get to 218? What if at least five members of the House voted no—or even just threatened to vote no—because the top line for military spending was too high and the budget included new “money pit” nuclear land-based missiles to replace 450 Minute Man missiles.

The polls show most Democrats oppose “nuclear modernization”—a euphemism for a plan that is anything but modern given that 50 countries have signed on to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons making nuclear weapons illegal and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires the US pursue nuclear disarmament to avoid a catastrophic accident or intentional atomic holocaust.

Now is the time for progressive congressional luminaries such as the Squad’s AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Presley to unite with Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal, as well as Barbara Lee, Mark Pocan and others in the House Spending Reduction Caucus to put their feet down and stand as a block against a bloated military budget.

Will they have the courage to unite behind such a cause? Would they be willing to play hardball and gum up the works on the way to Biden’s progressive domestic agenda?

Odds improve if constituents barrage them with phone calls, emails, and visible protests. Tell them that in the time of a pandemic, it makes no sense to approve a military budget that is 90 times the budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Tell that that the billions saved from “right sizing” the Pentagon could provide critical funds for addressing the climate crisis. Tell them that just as we support putting an end to our endless wars, so, too, we support putting an end to our endless cycle of exponential military spending.

Call your representative, especially If you live in a congressional district represented by one of the members of the Progressive Caucus or the House Spending Reduction Caucus. Don’t wait for marching orders from someone else. No time to wait.  In the quiet of the COVID hour, our Congress toils away on appropriations bills and a budget resolution. The showdown is coming soon.

Get organized. Ask for meetings with your representatives or their foreign policy staffers. Be fierce; be relentless. Channel the grit of a Pentagon lobbyist.

This is the moment to demand a substantial cut in military spending that defunds new nuclear weapons.

*

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.

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. @MedeaBenjamin

Marcy Winograd, Coordinator, CODEPINK Congress, also co-chairs the foreign policy team for Progressive Democrats of America. In 2020, she was a DNC delegate for Bernie Sanders.  @MarcyWinograd  [email protected] 

Featured image is from ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons)

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

***

Poster promoting the theatrical premiere of the 1954 American film Salt of the Earth at a (now demolished) theater on 86th Street in Manhattan. Mexican actress Rosaura Revueltas, who played the leading role, is shown.

Born in controversy but then ignored in its youth, the film Salt of the Earth has matured beautifully into a classic film in the neorealist style. Set in Zinc Town, New Mexico, a mining community with a majority of Mexican-Americans strike for working conditions equal to those of the white, or “Anglo” miners. The town and the mine is run by Delaware Zinc Inc. who refuse to negotiate with the workers and the strike goes on for months. The story focuses on Ramon Quintero (Juan Chacón) and his wife Esperanza Quintero (Rosaura Revueltas) who is pregnant with their third child. Ramon is arrested by police and beaten in prison at the same time his wife gives birth to their new baby.

When Ramon is released he counters resistance to his activities by Esperanza and he points out their struggle is for their children’s futures too. The company then uses the Taft-Hartley Act injunction on the union forbidding picketing. However, the wives realise there was nothing to stop them from taking the men’s places on the picket line. A lot of the men are quite traditional and are not happy seeing their wives on what can be a dangerous and violent place on picket lines. Ramon forbids Esperanza to go but eventually relents. However, as the full film is freely available online for you to watch on the Salt of the Earth wikipedia.org page, I will not go into full details here.

The involvement of the women is one of the most interesting aspects of the film as they rather timidly, at first, assert that their issues regarding hygiene (sanitation and ‘decent plumbing’) are as important as the safety of the men, and Esperanza is annoyed that ‘what the wives want always comes later’. Over time the women gain more experience dealing with the police and scabs, and consequently gain more confidence in their demands too. As the mine had already been unionised the film’s real narrative dwells more on showing the men how the union is strengthened by the involvement of the whole community.

Union Meeting

The production of Salt of the Earth faced many difficulties from locations, cameramen to actors. A small plane buzzed overhead and anti-communists fired at the sets. They eventually found a documentary cameraman who was willing to take the risks involved with working on the project. Later, Rosaura Revueltas (Esperanza Quintero) the lead actor, was deported to Mexico and the editors had to cut in previously filmed footage to finish the narrative.

The origin of the film’s woes stretched back some years when the director Herbert Biberman refused to answer the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1947 on questions of affiliation to the Communist Party USA, and he became known as one of the Hollywood Ten who were cited and convicted for contempt of Congress and jailed. This meant that Biberman (as well as actors, screenwriters, directors, and musicians) were denied employment in the entertainment industry for years after.  During the making of Salt of the Earth Biberman was hounded by Roy Brewer. Roy Martin Brewer (1909–2006) was an American trade union leader who was prominently involved in anti-communist activities in the 1940s and 1950s. He accompanied Ronald Reagan on his first visit to the Whitehouse.

Brewer tried many times to stop the production of Salt of the Earth. He believed that “officers of the Writers’ Guild were under the domination of the Communist Party until the hearings of 1947. During that time they began to change the mind, the creative minds, of the people who made these pictures and they didn’t do it by selling them communism. They got them to accept the idea that it was the obligation of a writer to put a message in the film.”

Paul Jarrico (1915–1997) the blacklisted American screenwriter and film producer of Salt of the Earth commented on Brewers statements:

“The studio reluctance to make message movies started long before the blacklist and Brewer’s attribute to our cleverness in manipulating the culture of America is undeserved. We were unable to get anything more than the most moderate kind of reform messages into our films and if we thought we got some women treated as human beings rather than as sex objects we thought it was a big victory and in fact one of the reasons we made Salt of the Earth after we were blacklisted was to commit a crime worthy of the punishment having already been punished for subverting American films, it was all ridiculous.”

Members of the Hollywood Ten and their families in 1950, protesting the impending incarceration of the ten

To make matters worse, Salt of the Earth had been sponsored by a Union (the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers) and many blacklisted Hollywood professionals helped produce it. After editing in secret, the release of the film was met with an American Legion call for a nationwide boycott and the majority of theaters refused to show it. For ten years the film was ignored in the USA while finding an audience and accolades in Eastern and Western Europe. In the 1960s the film was seen by larger audiences in union halls, women’s associations, and film schools.

The narrative of the film was based on an actual strike which had occurred only a couple of years before the production of Salt of the Earth:

“The film recreates the 1951-2 strike against the Empire Zinc Company in New Mexico where a court injunction barred workers of the Local 890 chapter of the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Works from the picket line. As the strike continued, the community’s women assumed increasingly active leadership roles in the protests, defiantly picketing Empire Zinc themselves. The 15-month strike ultimately led to considerable gains for the workers and their families.”

The film not only laudably covered labour rights and women’s rights but also minority rights. As Mercedes Mack writes:

“On October 17, 1950, in Hanover, New Mexico, workers at the Empire Zinc mine finished their shifts, formed a picket line, and began a fifteen-month strike after attempts at union negotiation with the company reached an impasse. Miner demands included: equal pay to their White counterparts, paid holidays and equal housing. As a larger objective, the Local 890 Chapter of the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers was to end the racial discrimination they suffered as a product of the institutions created by the Empire Zinc company in their town. For example, Mexican-American workers were subject to separate pay lines, unequal access to sanitation, electricity and paved streets as a result of discrimination by company sponsored housing, segregated movie theaters, etc. […]  While women continued the strike, men assumed household duties and were not the center of the movement anymore. In January 1952, the strikers returned to work with a new contract improving wages and benefits. Several weeks later, Empire Zinc also installed hot water plumbing in Mexican American workers’ houses–a major issue pushed by the women of these households.”

The producers and director used actual miners and their families as actors in the film in neorealist style. Christopher Capozzola describes how:

“Paul and Sylvia Jarrico heard of the strike and went to Grant County to walk the picket line; within a year, Michael Wilson was in town. Although Wilson started the script, the men and women of Local 890 finished it, insisting in the era of Ricky Ricardo that Latino/a characters would be favorably presented in the mass media. Biberman cast only five professional actors, among them a young Will Geer (better known to television viewers as the folksy Grandpa Walton) and the leftist Mexican actress Rosaria Revueltas, who called Salt of the Earth “the film I wanted to do my whole life.” Strike participants filled the ranks, most memorably Juan Chacón, who played the leading role of Ramón Quintero. His emotional richness and sly humor make him far and away the film’s best performer.”

In 1982, a documentary about the making of Salt of the Earth was released, titled A Crime to Fit the Punishment and was directed by Barbara Moss and Stephen Mack. The full documentary can be seen online here.

The making of Salt of the Earth was also the subject of a Spanish-British bio-picture in 2000. The film, titled One of the Hollywood Ten, was written and directed by Karl Francis and stars Jeff Goldblum and Greta Scacchi.

Salt of the Earth still stands up there as one of the great union films along with Blue Collar (1978) and Norma Rae (1979). However, its authenticity and sincerity arising from working directly with workers, and its successful production despite so many obstacles put in its way, will make it one of the most inspiring union films ever produced.

*

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.

Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country here.

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

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Salt of the Earth”: A Successful Combination of Inspiration and Perspiration
  • Tags:

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

***

Western media outlets are currently paying a great deal of attention to India and the apparent impact of COVID-19. The narrative is that the coronavirus is ripping through the country – people are dying, cases are spiralling out of control and hospitals are unable to cope.

There does indeed seem to be a major problem in parts of the country. However, we need to differentiate between the effects of COVID-19 and the impacts of other factors. We must also be very weary of sensationalist media reporting which misrepresents the situation.

For instance, in late April, the New York Post ran a story about the COVID ‘surge’ in India with the headline saying, “footage shows people dead in the streets”. Next to it was an image of a woman lying dead. But the image was of a woman lying on the floor from a May 2020 story about a gas leak in Andhra Pradesh.

To try to shed some light on the situation and move beyond panic and media sensationalism, I recently spoke with Yohan Tengra, a political analyst and healthcare specialist based in Mumbai.

Tengra has carried out a good deal of research into COVID-19 and the global response to it. He is the co-author of a new report: ‘How the Unscientific Interpretation of RT-PCR & Rapid Antigen Test Results is Causing Misleading Spikes in Cases & Deaths’.

For India, he says:

“We will never know statistically if the infections have really increased. To be certain, we would need data of symptomatic people who have tested positive with either a virus culture test or PCR that uses 24 cycles or less, ideally under 20.”

He adds that India is experiencing mainly asymptomatic cases:

“For example, in Mumbai, they declared two days back that of total cases in the city, 85 per cent were asymptomatic. In Bangalore, over 95 per cent of cases were asymptomatic!”

In his report, Tengra offers scientific evidence that strongly indicates asymptomatic transmission is not significant. He asserts that as these cases comprise most of India’s case numbers, we should be questioning the data as well as the PCR tests and the cycles being used to detect the virus instead of accepting the figures at face value.

As in many countries across the globe, Tengra says people in India have been made to fear the virus endlessly. Moreover, they are generally under the impression that they need to intervene early in order to pass through the infection successfully.

He notes:

“The medical system itself works to boost the number of positive cases. Even with a negative PCR test, they are using CAT scans and diagnosing people with COVID. These scans are not specific to SARS-CoV-2 at all. I personally know of people who have been asked to be hospitalised by their doctors just based on a positive test (doctors can get a cut of the total bill made when they refer a patient to a hospital). This also happened to a Bollywood celebrity, who was asked to be admitted by his doctors with no symptoms and just a positive PCR.”

Faulty PCR testing and misdiagnosis, says Tengra, combined with people who want to intervene early with the mildest symptoms, have been filling up the beds, preventing access to those who really need them.

Addressing the much-publicised shortage of oxygen, Tengra implies this too is a result of inept policies, with exports of oxygen having increased in recent times, resulting in inadequate back-up supplies when faced with a surge in demand.

According to Tengra, the case fatality rate for COVID-19 in India was over three per cent last year but has now dropped to below 1.5 per cent. The infection fatality rate is even lower, with serosurvey results showing them to be between 0.05 per cent to 0.1 per cent.

The directors of the All India Institute of Medical Science and the India Council of Medical Research have both come out and said that there is not much difference between the first and second wave and that there are many more asymptomatic cases this time than in the so-called ‘first wave’.

Tengra argues that the principle is the same for all infectious agents: they infect people, most can fight it off without even developing symptoms, some develop mild symptoms, a smaller number develop serious symptoms and an even smaller number die.

Although lives can be saved with the right prevention plus treatment strategies, Tengra notes that most of the doctors in India are using ineffective and unsafe drugs. As a result, he claims that mortality rates could increase due to inappropriate treatments.

As has occurred in many other countries, Tengra notes the way that death certificate guidelines are structured in India makes it easy for someone to be labelled as a COVID death just based on a positive PCR test or general symptoms. It is therefore often difficult to say who has died from the virus and who has been misdiagnosed.

And the issue of misdiagnosis should not be brushed aside lightly. In a recent article by long-term resident of India Jo Nash, ‘India’s Current ‘COVID Crisis’ in Context’, it is noted that the focus of the media’s messaging and the source of many of the horrifying scenes of suffering – Delhi – is among the most toxic cities in the world which often leads to the city having to close down due to the widespread effects on respiratory health.

Nash also argues that respiratory diseases like TB and respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis leading to pneumonia are always among the top ten killers in India. These conditions are severely aggravated by air pollution and often require oxygen which can be in short supply during air pollution crises as happens at this time of the year.

As a result, it is reasonable to state that all is not what it might seem to be with regard to media reporting on the current situation.

It is interesting that this ‘second wave’ has correlated with the vaccine rollout (Nash provides official sources to support this claim). Tengra feels this might not be coincidental. He says that the ‘aefi’ (adverse events following immunisation) data vastly underestimates how many vaccine adverse reactions are taking place in the country.

Tengra says that, based on ground surveys and data collected by himself, there is a tremendous number of people who have fallen ill post vaccination, many of them then testing positive for COVID and becoming hospitalised.

The financial incentive for doctors to diagnose people with COVID could also mean many of the people who are ill with other conditions are being placed as COVID patients, while beds are under occupied for people for non-COVID health issues.

Two months ago, there was a lot of vaccine hesitancy in India and many people were not taking the jabs. Tengra notes that the government has had to up the ante in order to get people scared.

He argues:

“We are at a crossroads right now in terms of deciding the fate of our country and it will be interesting to see how this plays out.”

Tengra is working with lawyers and other concerned citizens to file legal cases to challenge the idea of asymptomatic transmission and the testing of healthy people. The aim is to also improve the testing in line with evidence-based protocols.

But that is not all:

“We will also be challenging the current vaccine rollout, highlighting the issues with trials that have been conducted, adverse events, deaths, vaccine passports and other issues surrounding the subject.”

Tengra is not alone in challenging the mainstream narrative.

A recent article in India’s National Herald newspaper by clinical epidemiologist Professor Dr Amitav Banerjee argues that the current situation in India is not due to the lethality of the virus but by the numbers who are ending up in hospital, which are exposing cracks in India’s public health infrastructure and the inequitable distribution of health services. Even at the best of times, he argues, there is a mismatch of supply and demand. Little wonder, therefore, that we now see an emergency – not squarely due to COVID.

Like Yohan Tengra, Bannerjee questions the scientific integrity of the responses to COVID and this includes the rollout of vaccines and the problems which this in itself could bring:

“Going all out for mass vaccination with uncertain input on effectiveness is a big gambit. We have a vaccine against tuberculosis for decades which has zero effectiveness in preventing tuberculosis in the Indian population. Moreover, there are concerns that haphazard and incomplete vaccination of the population can trigger mutant strains.”

Referring to an editorial in the British Medical Journal by K. Abbasi (‘Covid-19, Politicisation, Corruption, and Suppression of Science’), Bannerjee raises concerns about the suppression of science by politicians and governments and the conflicts of interest of academics, researchers and commercial lobbies.

He says:

“In a global disaster, world leaders, their scientific advisers, including career scientists, are under tremendous pressure. They have to give the impression of being in control and may resort to authoritarian ways to camouflage their uncertainties. Such tactics deviate from the scientific approach. The present pandemic is full of such uncertainties and therefore a vicious cycle of repression has set in when the authorities and their advisers are faced with rising case numbers.”

None of what has been presented here is meant to deny the existence or impact of COVID-19. People in India are dying – some from the virus, others ‘with’ the virus but most likely mainly due to their pre-existing underlying conditions, and there are others who are being misdiagnosed.

Although excess mortality figures are currently unavailable, Yohan Tengra notes the average age of those who died in the first wave was 50. This time it is 49.

Professor Bannerjee says that there is opacity and obfuscation instead of transparency. He calls for moral courage among scientists in advisory positions to the Indian government: scientific integrity is the need of the hour.

In finishing, let us place COVID and the global media reporting of the situation in India in context by returning to Jo Nash.

“Even as the alleged COVID deaths reach their peak, more people die of diarrhoea every day in India and have done for years, mostly due to a lack of clean water and sanitation creating a terrain ripe for the flourishing of communicable disease.”

Readers can access the report ‘How the Unscientific Interpretation of RT-PCR & Rapid Antigen Test Results is Causing Misleading Spikes in Cases & Deaths’ by Yohan Tengra and Ambar Koiri here

*

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.

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

***

The Director of National Intelligence has ostensibly created a new “center” for the sharing and analysis of information and intelligence about foreign interference in US elections. Its real focus is much more nefarious.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) announced in a statement on Monday that it was creating a new intelligence “center” focused on tracking so-called “foreign malign influence,” reported Politico.  This new entity, known as the Foreign Malign Influence Center, was mandated in the recent intelligence and defense budget authorization acts, representing the reality that the impetus for its creation came from Congress, and not the intelligence community.

For example, the most recent defense expenditure authorization required that the ODNI establish a “social media data analysis center” to coordinate and track foreign social media influence operations by analyzing data voluntarily shared by US social media companies. Based upon this analysis, the ODNI would report to Congress on a quarterly basis on trends in foreign influence and disinformation operations to the public. As envisioned by Congress, the intelligence community would determine jointly with US social media companies which data and metadata will be made available for analysis.

In short, the intelligence community, using data obtained from the social media accounts of American citizens, will report to Congress how this data influences the political decision making of these same American citizens.

If this does not make the most ardent defender of the US Constitution ill, nothing will.

It is not as if the US intelligence community wasn’t trending in this direction on its own volition. The straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak, was the publication in March 2021 of an intelligence community assessment entitled ‘Foreign Threats to the US 2020 Presidential Election’. In this document, the US intelligence community assessed that “Russian President Putin authorized, and a range of Russian government organizations conducted, influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party, supporting former President Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process, and exacerbating sociopolitical divisions in the US.”

But the most damning portion of this assessment came when it delved into the specific methodology employed by Russia to achieve these nefarious aims.

Throughout the election cycle”, the assessment declared, “Russia’s online influence actors sought to affect US public perceptions of the candidates, as well as advance Moscow’s long standing goals of undermining confidence in US election processes and increasing sociopolitical divisions among the American people. During the presidential primaries and dating back to 2019, these actors backed candidates from both major US political parties that Moscow viewed as outsiders, while later claiming that election fraud helped what they called ‘establishment’ candidates. Throughout the election, Russia’s online influence actors sought to amplify mistrust in the electoral process by denigrating mail-in ballots, highlighting alleged irregularities, and accusing the Democratic Party of voter fraud.

As an American citizen who is politically engaged, I read the intelligence community assessment with a combination of interest, concern, and outrage. The notion of “Russian online influence actors” affecting “US public perceptions of the candidates” is as intellectually vacuous as it is factually unsustainable. The stupidity encapsulated by such analysis can only be excused by the fact that the intelligence community assessment is a document produced more for the benefit of domestic political consumption than a genuine effort at identifying and quantifying legitimate threats to the US.

The assessment itself is short on hard data. However, the House Intelligence Committee has documented some 3,000 social media ads bought by Russian “troll farms” between 2015-2017, at a cost of some $100,000. These ads were in addition to so-called “organic posts,” some 80,000 of which were published on US social media, free of charge, by alleged Russian “bots” resulting in 126 million “views” by Americans. These ads were crude, unfocused, and simply inane in terms of their content.

To put the alleged Russian influence campaign into perspective, one need only reflect on the fact that during his short bid for the Democratic nomination, Michael Bloomberg spent nearly $1 billion underwriting the single most sophisticated public relations campaign, including hundreds of millions of targeted social media ads put together by the most brilliant political minds money could buy. All this money, time and effort, however, could not change the reality that, to the American public, Michael Bloomberg was an unattractive candidate – in the end his $1 billion bought him exactly two delegates.

The fact is, the political opinions of most American citizens are formed based upon a lifetime of exposure to issues that matter for them the most, whether it be education, right-to-life, gun control, social justice, agriculture, energy, environment, law enforcement, or any other of the multitude of sources of causation that impact the day-to-day existence of the American electorate.

Some of these beliefs are inherited, such as the working-class attachment to unions. Some are driven by current affairs, such as the growing awareness of climate change. But all are derived from the life experience of each American, and the thought that these deeply held beliefs could be bought, changed, or otherwise manipulated by social media posts published by foreign actors, malign or otherwise, is deeply insulting to me, and should be to every other American as well.

The irony is that by creating an intelligence organization whose task it is to help prevent the political Balkanization of America by analyzing the social media accounts of Americans who hold differing political beliefs than “the establishment” the newly minted Foreign Malign Influence Center ostensibly serves, the resulting process will only cause the further political division of the United States.

Some 74 million Americans voted for a candidate, Donald Trump, who has promulgated the very issues that the Democratic-controlled Congress seeks to denigrate and suppress through the work of this new intelligence center. These ideas will not simply disappear because the Democrats in Congress have empowered a “center” within the intelligence community whose sole function is to demonize any political thought that does not conform with the powers that be.

As it is currently focused, the Foreign Malign Influence Center is the living, breathing embodiment of politicized intelligence, two words which, when put together, represent the death knell for any intelligence organization. Worse, the work it will be doing, when turned over to a Democratically controlled Congress desperate to undermine the political viability of those 74 million American citizens, will only further fracture an already divided nation.

The Foreign Malign Influence Center was specifically mandated to examine the social media influence campaigns operated by Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. It is particularly telling that they were not directed to investigate the two largest foreign sources of political influence in America today, namely the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee and the Murdoch media empire. President Putin could only dream about being able to buy congressional seats the way AIPAC does, or control what information becomes magnified (and, by extension, suppressed) by the newspapers, television and radio enterprises owned by Rupert Murdoch.

These are the true villains when it comes to foreign corruption of American politics. These foreigners, however, have a seat at the establishment table. Their malign influence will never be labeled as such, and they will never have to withstand the ignominy of having their work scrutinized under the politicized microscope of an intelligence community that has allowed itself to be corrupted by domestic American politics to the point that it no longer serves the American people as a whole, but only a select class of American persons.

*

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.

Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ‘SCORPION KING: America’s Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.’ He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter

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

***

According to data in the national Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, a 15-year-old boy in Colorado died of a heart attack only two days after being injected with the controversial Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine despite having no previous history of allergic reactions.

The case, listed in the database as VAERS ID 1242573, reveals that the 15-year-old boy was “vaccinated with Pfizer/Biontech” on April 18, 2021. He began to experience adverse reactions to the vaccine on April 19, 2021, and “died 04/20/2021, 2 days after vaccination.” The VAERS database also reveals that he had no other illnesses, no preexisting conditions, no known allergies, no birth defects, and no permanent disabilities. He merely died of “cardiac failure” exactly two days after receiving the controversial vaccine.

Source: National File

The revelation comes as the mainstream media and Biden regime have repeatedly criticized those suggesting healthy, young people should consider skipping the COVID-19 vaccine. Joe Rogan famously made this suggestion on the April 23 episode of his Joe Rogan Experience podcast, provoking a litany of leftist responses and criticism.

However, the science appears to agree with Rogan: Healthy young people have virtually no chance of dying from COVID-19, but are more likely than older demographics to suffer severe adverse reactions to the vaccine, as National File reported extensively.

The report also comes as a woman experienced near total body paralysis and intense pain after taking the same Pfizer vaccine that taken before the 15-year-old’s death. Tennessee woman Brandy Parker McFadden was shaken awake by searing pain after taking the vaccine, and soon realized she could not move her arms or legs. taken to the hospital, where doctors began panicking. “I woke up. I can’t move my arms. I can’t move my legs. So, he’s freaking out. The doctors are panicking,” said McFadden.

Despite horrifying reports of death and disability that appear to be connected to the Pfizer, vaccine, the company insisted its vaccines are safe. A statement sent to WKRN News 2 by Pfizer following the incident read in part,

“To date, more than 200 million people around the world have been vaccinated with our vaccine. It is important to note that serious adverse events that are unrelated to the vaccine are unfortunately likely to occur at a similar rate as they would in the general population,” National File reported.

The Pfizer CEO recently suggested, however, that two doses of the controversial vaccine may not be enough. The CEO claims that a booster shot will likely be necessary around six months after the second injection, and then annual vaccinations will be required to maintain immunity from an illness that over 99% of young, healthy people should expect to recover from naturally.

*

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.

Featured image is from National File

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 15 Year Old Boy Dies of Heart Attack Two Days After Taking Pfizer Vaccine, Had No History of Allergic Reactions
  • Tags: ,

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

***

It is hard for me to fathom what is going on.  The article quoted below indicates that the Pharma industry does not think Covid will be going away; instead it will switch from pandemic to endemic, with outbreaks here and there–apparently justifying lots of vaccine boosters.

Moderna says it will produce up to 1 billion doses of vaccine in 2021, but it is expanding and expects to produce 3 billion doses/year starting next year.

Netanyahu says Israelis need to anticipate another shot for themselves, and their children (after the first 2 Pfizer doses) in 6 months.  Two month ago, Netanyahu was looking to buy 36 million more doses, 3 times what had already been purchased.

On March 11, 2021, the Washington Post reported that the US had bought enough vaccine to fully immunize 3 times as many adults as live in the US–nearly 8 doses per person, since most comes from Moderna and Pfizer.

So, if we are truly anticipating that Covid will become an endemic illness, don’t we instead require a better, more long-lasting vaccine, instead of untested shots that need to be repeated every six months, and whose longterm side effects are a huge question mark?

Why does the EU (9 shots pp), Israel (8 shots pp) and the US (almost 8 shots pp) need so many shots? 

Since there is no need to vaccinate those who have recovered, and some estimates are that they include half the population, but doses have been bought for everyone, and CDC insists we all need them–is this not actually about Covid protection?

It is certainly possible the immunity the shots provide will last for years.

Do the powers that be have an hourglass into the future? How can they possibly know that everyone need so many shots?

Or that the shots will be safe in children and babies?

Why is there no visible concern for possible side effects?

More and more studies are showing that the Spike protein, the main immunizing ingredient in all the licensed Covid vaccines, is actually dangerous.

***

What is really going on? 

FiercePharma:  April 29, 2021

Drugmakers who seized the opportunity to develop vaccines against the coronavirus are on their way to reaping significant revenues.

Exactly how much money is on the table?

In its annual forecast for global drug spending, the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science put the figure at $157 billion through 2025.

It’s one of the many intriguing projections in this edition of IQVIA’s annual drug spending forecast, the group’s first since the coronavirus pandemic put the worldwide economy on tilt.

For example, IQVIA projects global spending on medicines to reach $1.6 trillion by 2025, an increase from $1.25 trillion in 2019, representing annual growth of 3% to 6%. The $1.6 trillion figure does not include spending on coronavirus vaccines.

“We reflect what we expect to be happening over the next five years in terms of the drivers of change in demand for medicines and spending on medicines,” IQVIA executive director Murray Aitken explained in an interview.

In regard to global COVID-19 vaccine spending, IQVIA projects roughly $53 billion this year and $51 billion in 2022. The group sees a precipitous drop in total spending in 2023, to roughly $23 billion.

The spending decrease over time can be attributed mostly to a drop in price rather than demand, Aitken said. While IQVIA puts the average cost per dose at $22 this year and $19 in 2022, Aitken sees prices falling to approximately $9 per dose by 2023, then to $7 by 2024 and all the way to $5 by 2025.

“We think the prices will keep coming down as we get beyond this immediate period of trying to get everyone vaccinated,” Aitken said. “There are 11 vaccines in use in one part of the world or the other and there may be more coming, so we can expect that prices will decline over time.”

Other factors that will influence global vaccine spending include an increased availability of single-shot options, an increased supply to developing countries and the need for booster shots for those who have already been vaccinated.

In coming to its estimates, IQVIA also took into consideration planned global manufacturing capacity, vaccinations to date, announced rollout strategies and company contracts.

The group assumed an average of 1.8 vaccine doses per person this year and next. From 2023 to 2025, when boosters will presumably be in use and more single-shot vaccinations will be available, IQVIA shifts the average to 1.3 doses per person.

Another assumption in the model: IQVIA believes that by the end this year, 40% of the world’s population will be in countries that have achieved herd mentality. By the end of 2022, 70% of the world’s population will be vaccinated.

For the purpose of the estimate, IQVIA also assumed one-shot boosters on a two-year cycle in the 2023 to 2025 period, though this issue has yet to be resolved by vaccine producers.

Making projections during a pandemic is risky business, IQVIA admits in its report.

“The impact of COVID-19 defied expectations throughout 2020 but the evolution from pandemic to endemic is reasonably certain even if the interplay between vaccination levels and periodic outbreaks around the world remains challenging to predict,” the group said.

*

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.

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

***

A coalition of 80 U.S. agricultural, consumer, environmental, public health, and worker groups sent a letter Thursday to key figures in the Biden administration calling for them to “respect Mexico’s sovereignty and refrain from interfering with its right to enact health-protective policies”—specifically, the phaseout of the herbicide glyphosate and the cultivation of genetically modified corn.

“Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador quietly rocked the agribusiness world with his New Year’s Eve decree,” Timothy A. Wise of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (ITAP) noted earlier this year. “His administration sent an even stronger aftershock two weeks later, clarifying that the government would also phase out GM corn imports in three years and the ban would include not just corn for human consumption but yellow corn destined primarily for livestock.”

“Mexico imports about 30% of its corn each year, overwhelmingly from the United States,” Wise added. “Almost all of that is yellow corn for animal feed and industrial uses. López Obrador’s commitment to reducing and, by 2024, eliminating such imports reflects his administration’s plan to ramp up Mexican production as part of the campaign to increase self-sufficiency in corn and other key food crops.”

The groups’ letter on the Mexican policies and U.S. interference—published in English (pdf) and Spanish (pdf)—is addressed to recently confirmed U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai. Its lead author is Kristin Schafer, executive director of Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA).

“We call on Secretary Vilsack and Trade Representative Tai, as key leaders in the new administration, to respect Mexico’s decision to protect both public health and the integrity of Mexican farming,” Schafer said in a statement. “It is completely unacceptable for U.S. public agencies to be doing the bidding of pesticide corporations like Bayer, who are solely concerned with maintaining their bottom-line profits.”

Fernando Bejarano, director of Pesticide Action Network in Mexico, explained that

“we are part of the No Maize No Country Campaign, a broad coalition of peasant organizations, nonprofit NGOs, academics, and consumers which support the presidential decree and fight for food sovereignty with the agroecological transformation of agricultural systems that guarantee the right to produce and consume healthy, nutritious food, free of pesticides and transgenics.”

“We reject the pressure from corporations such as Bayer-Monsanto—and their CropLife trade association—which are working in both the United States and Mexico to undermine the presidential decree that phases out the use of glyphosate and transgenic corn,” Bejarano said.

The letter highlights Guardian reporting on U.S. government documents obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity through a Freedom of Information Act request. The documents revealed that CropLife America and Bayer AG—which acquired glyphosate-based herbicide developer Monsanto in 2018—worked with U.S. officials to lobby against Mexico’s plans.

According to journalist Carey Gillam’s mid-February report:

The emails reviewed by the Guardian come from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and other U.S. agencies. They detail worry and frustration with Mexico’s position. One email makes a reference to staff within López Obrador’s administration as “vocal anti-biotechnology activists,” and another email states that Mexico’s health agency (Cofepris) is “becoming a big time problem.”

Internal USTR communications lay out how the agrochemical industry is “pushing” for the U.S. to “fold this issue” into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade deal that went into effect July 1. The records then show the USTR does exactly that, telling Mexico its actions on glyphosate and genetically engineered crops raise concerns “regarding compliance” with USMCA.

Citing discussions with CropLife, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) joined in the effort, discussing in an inter-agency email “how we could use USMCA to work through these issues.”

The Guardian also noted correspondence involving the Foreign Agricultural Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

As the letter to Vilsack and Tai points out:

“This interference and pressure from the agrochemical industry is continuing. On March 22nd, industry representatives sent a letter directed to your attention as leaders of USTR and USDA, identifying Mexico’s planned phaseout of glyphosate and genetically modified corn as a ‘leading concern’ for agribusiness interests and the pesticide industry (represented by the pesticide industry’s trade group, CropLife America).”

“We strongly object to any interference by U.S. government officials or agribusiness interests in a sovereign state’s right to enact policy measures to protect the health and well-being of its people,” the letter states. “We urge your agencies to resist and reject these ongoing efforts.”

“We welcome the administration’s stated commitment to listening to the science, improving public health, protecting the environment, and limiting exposure to dangerous chemicals and pesticides, while holding polluters accountable and prioritizing environmental justice, particularly for communities of color and low-income communities,” it adds. “We trust that these stated commitments, as well as your dedication to ‘fairness for farmers,’ extend equally to other countries and include respect for other nations’ and peoples’ rights to self-determination.”

Other signatories to the letter include the American Sustainable Business Council, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace USA, Indigenous Environmental Network, ITAP, and Organic Consumers Association.

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

***

On April 29, Russian President Vladimir Putin held videoconference with leaders of several French companies-members of the Franco-Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI France-Russia) to discuss some aspects of Russian-French trade, economic and investment cooperation, including the implementation of large joint projects as well as the prospects for collaborative work.

Putin noted that the Economic Council of the Franco-Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry is still operational in spite of difficulties, and the late April meeting was the fourth time since 2016. From the historical records, France has been and remains a key economic partner for Russia, holding a high but not sufficiently high, 6th place among EU countries in the amount of accumulated investment in the Russian economy and 5th place in the volume of trade.

Despite a certain decline in mutual trade in 2020 (it went down by 14 percent compared to 2019) the ultimate figure is quite acceptable at $13 billion. French investment in Russia is hovering around $17 billion, while Russian investment in France is $3 billion.

Over 500 companies with French capital are operating in various sectors of the Russian economy. French business features especially prominently in the Russian fuel and energy complex, automobile manufacturing and, of course, the food industry.

“It could have been more if the French regulatory and state authorities treated Russian businesses as Russia is treating French businesses. We appreciate that in a difficult economic environment, French companies operating in Russia have not reduced their activity,” Putin pointed out.

The Russian Government established the Foreign Investment Advisory Council, which includes six French companies. Further, there is an opportunity to discuss specific issues related to the economic and investment climate in Russia, and that opportunity is traditionally provided at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, which will be held on June 2-5.

French companies are involved in the implementation of globally famous landmark projects, such as the construction of the Yamal LNG and Arctic LNG 2 facilities and the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project. This, Putin regrettably said “We are aware of and regret the amount of political speculation concerning the latter. I would like to point out once again that it is a purely economic project, it has nothing to do with present-day political considerations.”

Russia intends to increase assistance to the development of science and technology. Funds will be directed primarily to innovation sectors such as pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, nuclear and renewable energy, and the utilisation of carbon emissions.

“We are interested in involving foreign companies that would like to invest in Russia and in projects we consider high priority. In order to do this, we will continue to use preferential investment regimes and execute special investment contracts, as you know. A lot of French companies successfully use these tools on the Russian market. For example, more than one third of 45 special investment contracts have been signed with European, including French, partners,” he explained during the meeting.

He also mentioned continuous efforts to attract foreign companies to localise their production to state purchases and to implementing the National Development Projects, as well as existing opportunities for French businesses in special economic zones. Today there are 38 such zones created throughout the Russian Federation.

Russia pays particular attention to attracting high-quality foreign specialists. Their employment is being fast-tracked, and their families can now obtain indefinite residence permits. There is a plan to launch a special programme of ‘golden visas’ whereby to issue a residence permit in exchange for investment in the real economy, a practice is used in many other countries.

Taking his turn, Co-Chair of the CCI France-Russian Economic Council, Gennady Timchenko, noted that the pandemic has changed the world, people and business, and that French companies in Russia are responsible employers and socially responsible members of Russian society.

Despite the crisis and the geopolitical situation, a number of French companies have launched production in 2020–2021. Companies such as Saint-Gobain and Danone have renewed their investments. French companies have increased their export of products manufactured in Russia; they are investing in priority sectors of the Russian economy. For example, this year the French company Lidea is launching a plant called Tanais to produce seeds. Russia is dependent on the import of 30 to 60 percent of these seeds, according to various estimates.

Despite the current geopolitical conditions and information field, there are important signals for French business and the Russian side to strengthen economic cooperation, attract investment, and create partnerships on a new mutually beneficial basis.

Co-Chair of the CCI France-Russian Economic Council, Patrick Pouyanne, noted that the meeting has become an excellent tradition, the presence of 17 CEOs and deputy CEOs of French companies shows the importance of these joint meetings, and further reflect the deep interest of French business in Russia.

In addition, Patrick Pouyanne further offered some insights into Russia-French cooperation. By 2020, twenty members of the Economic Council invested a total of 1.65 trillion rubles, supporting 170,000 jobs. These companies have operated in Russia for decades and continue investing in the Russian economy despite the sanctions and the epidemic. These companies help France maintain its status as the second largest investor in Russia. In 2020, France invested over $1 billion in Russia despite the economic difficulties caused by the pandemic.

Concluding his remarks, Patrick Pouyanne stressed that the economic operators believe everyone will benefit if Russia, France and all of Europe are not divided or isolated. This is the challenge today. Indeed, diplomacy has to continue playing an important role in settling differences, and businesses are convinced that meetings like this create bridges between Russia and France to strengthen investment and economic cooperation. 

*

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.

Kester Kenn Klomegah who previously worked for Inter Press Service (IPS) is now a frequent and passionate contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Kester Kenn Klomegah

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

***

After Heike Schotten, Associate Professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston (UMB), co-organized and moderated a webinar at the University of Massachusetts Boston entitled We Will not Be Silenced: The Repression of Academic Freedom and Resistance, from Leila Khaled to UMass Boston, UMB’s public records access office received a request from the Zionist Advocacy Center in New York “pursuant to the provisions of the Massachusetts Public Record Law” for emails from and to the webinar participants that use the terms “Israel,” “Palestine,” “Leila Khaled,” or “We Will Not Be Silenced” between June 1, 2020-October 25, 2020.

There was and is nothing secretive or illegal about the webinar We Will Not Be Silenced aired at the University of Massachusetts Boston on October 23, 2020. It was part of a Day of Action Against the Criminalization and Censorship of Campus Speech organized and widely publicized by the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI). Furthermore, the whole webinar was recorded and published on YouTube. [Also see: Zoom Censorship of Palestine Seminars Sparks Fight Over Academic Freedom]

In the context of USACBI’S Day of Action, the request served under the federal freedom of information law or FOIA by the Zionist group on the university is nothing more than an attempt to silence and erase the Palestinian narrative and liberation struggle by intimidating and harassing Professor Schotten and her colleagues.

Terrorism is a focus of Professor Schotten’s academic inquiry and the subject of her book Queer Terror: Life, Death, and Desire in the Settler Colony (Columbia University Press, 2018), described on the publisher’s book page as follows: “In Queer Terror, C. Heike Schotten offers a critique of U.S. settler-colonial empire that draws on political, queer, and critical indigenous theory to situate Bush’s either/or moralism and reframe the concept of terrorism.”

In the process of this academic inquiry Schotten finds occasion to critique the “contemporary facts of Israeli colonization and apartheid” and expose, as false, “the already-agreed-upon presupposition [and one widely propagated by Israel as a rationale for the existence of the Zionist Jewish state] that the Jews are history’s quintessential victims — and not, in fact, complicit, in ideological and state forms, with today’s aggressors in a civilizational War on Terror.”

To learn more about the context that drove Professor Schotten to organize the webinar that revolves around Leila Khaled’s censorship by Zoom, I asked her and she was kind to answer the following questions. Her insightful responses throw light on a host of interlocking concepts — the Palestine exception, terrorism, Islamophobia, queerness, colonial power, pseudo-democracy and why solidarity is important. She is remarkable in her honesty and directness and her responses are guaranteed to re-frame your vision of our world:

“Just as it is hard for people to speak out about Palestine when they will find their jobs and academic credentials targeted and destroyed, so too it is hard for activists and everyday people to speak out about Palestine when they will be accused of being ‘terrorists’ or ‘terrorist’-sympathizers.”

***

Rima Najjar: There have been several examples of Zionist organizations serving harassment FOIAs to academics that tied them up with unnecessary legal wrangling for a long time. The harassment of Professor Simona Sharoni at the hands of Jonathan Slosser comes to mind, as reported in the 2016 Electronic Intifada report Women’s studies professor harassed by Israel-backed group. What do you know about the Zionist organization serving the FOIA in your case and have you made a decision yet on how you will be addressing the request?

Heike Schotten: My understanding is that the Zionist Advocacy Center (ZAC) is essentially a one-man operation run by David Abrams and receives direct funding from the Israeli government. The ZAC and Abrams make it their job to instigate lawsuits against Palestine advocates and movements on campus in order to harass, intimidate, and, ultimately, shut them down entirely. Palestine Legal has a helpful primer on Abrams here.

In total, the ZAC submitted a public records request for emails from three faculty at UMass Boston (myself included) who were involved in the USACBI Day of Action Leila Khaled webinar. We continue to learn more about the nature of this organization and our legal rights to free speech and academics as tenured professors at a public university and as unionized public sector workers.

One thing we clearly decided upon, however, is that we will make all our decisions together and insist on dealing with this harassment and with our university as an indivisible group. We understand all too well that this sort of harassment and intimidation — not to mention potential university discipline and punishment — are more likely to succeed if they can pit us against one another or divide us up. For example, one of us is much more vulnerable to this sort of targeting and harassment because she is Palestinian. We will not allow either the ZAC or the university administration to separate her from us or single her out as either uniquely vulnerable or somehow “problematic” or “troublesome.” Solidarity is our unifying commitment in this case and whatever struggle this entails — and we worry this signals the beginning of a long series of public records requests in a fishing expedition to find something to be cobbled together to issue in a lawsuit — and however long it takes, we have committed to be in it with one another together.

One last thing on this: despite many conversations with our university administration well before the Day of Action ever existed, there has been a real refusal on the part of the university to take these sorts of right-wing and Zionist attacks on faculty and academic freedom seriously. Most often, university administrators mistake them for accurate portrayals of faculty misconduct, rather than sloppy, misleading, and ideologically-driven attacks that seek to destroy higher education. But as we know, and as Isaac Kamola recommends in his excellent research on this subject, the best approach for university administrations to take is to go on the offensive: not simply actively defend their faculty from such attacks, but call out the vast, well-funded network of right-wing donors and activists who are organizing these attacks not from an interest in protecting academic freedom but rather in destroying liberatory knowledges and the possibility academic life itself.

In the wake of administrators’ failure to do precisely this, our only recourse is one another, which is why solidarity is so important. We also have been very heartened by having the backing of our Faculty Staff Union and amazing support from the brilliant legal minds at Palestine Legal.

“The primary basis for the attacks was claims about ‘terrorism’: that Leila Khaled is a ‘terrorist,’ that the PFLP is a ‘terrorist’ organization, or that hosting her in an online classroom constitutes material support for ‘terrorism.’ In all cases, the word ‘terrorist’ was used simultaneously to name Khaled as Muslim, Palestinian, ‘savage,’ and intolerable.”

RN: This is not the first time you defend academic freedom or Palestinian rights. In your article titled “Against academic freedom: ‘terrorism’, settler colonialism, and Palestinian liberation,” for example, you write about the work of academic boycott against Israel and situate it within a critique of settler colonialism. How long have you been engaged in this work, and is this the first time you have personally come up against the poisonous and destructive slandering of people and movements advocating justice and liberation for the Palestinian people?

HS: I have been involved in the Palestine solidarity movement since 2006, and thinking in my scholarly work about the connections between settler colonialism, the War on Terror, and queer critique for almost that long. The motivation for the latter project was not simply, as you put it so well, “the poisonous and destructive slandering of people and movements advocating justice and liberation for the Palestinian people,” but also the really intractable and insidious discourse of “terrorism” which, in the US at least, functions similarly not only to demonize and punish Palestine advocates, but also to racialize an entire category of people, Muslims, and the thing that ostensibly unites them, a monolith caricature of “Islam” as essentially “radical” or “fundamentalist.”

“Islamophobia is not a uniform phenomenon and takes many different forms across the globe: US ‘terrorism’ Islamophobia is not the same as French secularist Islamophobia, which are surely not the same as the anti-Muslim animus in Gujarat and India vis-a-vis Pakistan and Kashmir, in Russia vis-a-vis Chechens, or in China vis-a-vis Uighur Muslims.”

RN: One of the conclusions of Queer Terror is that the attack on “terror” levied by George W Bush is so familiar and so entrenched because it is both an echo and a continuation of the kind of ideological position espoused by settler colonialism. Can you speak to that?

HS: Settler colonialists everywhere encounter indigenous inhabitants and characterize them as fundamentally hostile, irrational, and “savage”; i.e., a threat to “civilization” and everything that latter category may entail, whether that’s Christianity, Enlightenment reason, or the rules of private property (usefully called, by 16th and 17th century British rationalizers of colonization, “propriety”).

What’s set up in this bizarre ideological universe is fundamentally (1) a reversal of hierarchy, wherein the oppressors set themselves up as the oppressed and (2) a characterization of the meeting between settler and “savage” as an existential threat that portends the elimination of the settler (when, of course, the reality is that settler colonialism portends the elimination of the native).

This is the exact same ideological logic at work in accusations of “terrorism” and, quite frequently, Zionist fear-mongering around “anti-Semitism.” On college campuses, this takes place when those with the actual money and power smear individual academics — often, but not always, Palestinian — and completely unfunded grassroots movements as the main instigators of racism and aggression against Jewish people. Their aim is the elimination of these academics and movements and, regretfully, they have been very successful in some cases: as I discuss in that article, the firing of tenured Palestinian-American professors Sami Al-Arian and Steven Salaita are premier examples. Others, like Nadia Abu El-Haj and Joseph Massad, managed somehow to survive what were harrowing campaigns against them waged by well-funded Zionist organizations, often with direct support from the Israeli government itself.

“…’terrorism’ typically designates Arab, Muslim, and specifically Palestinian people… calling any and all acts of political violence ‘terrorism,’ especially if Muslim people are involved, allows for the de-politicization of violence and the smearing of Muslims as fundamentally ‘savage,’ irrational, and inassimilable to Western ways of life, which go unmarked as culturally specific but instead masquerade as a universal recognition of the value of human life.”

RN: Alasdair Soussi, writing in Aljazeera, explains how the powerful Israeli lobby along with “reporting fatigue and the fear of being accused of anti-Semitism” have harmed coverage of the Israel/Palestine issue, resulting in the publication of reports on Palestine that are consistently inaccurate. Even the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) letter to New York University president Andrew Hamilton protesting Zoom’s cancellation of a webinar hosted by the NYU chapter of the AAUP, and co-sponsored by several NYU departments and institutes has an inaccuracy right in the first paragraph, as in the reference to Leila Khaled as a “Palestinian activist previously convicted of terrorist activity.” What do you make of that as well as of the unquestioning references to “terrorism” that are constantly being made in the media?

HS: The word “terrorist” has a number of specific functions, all of which are fully on display in the coordinated mass censorship of webinars featuring Leila Khaled. While “terrorism” as a term has been in use for hundreds of years, it has a specific set of contemporary meanings that were manufactured by Israel and the US in the late 20th century and became essential to the War on Terror in the 21st.

First, of course, “terrorism” designates ideologically motivated, irrational, and unjustifiable violence against innocents. Indeed, “terrorism” is a way of talking about political violence that removes the politics entirely, rendering anyone accused of “terrorism” into a brainwashed tool or an irrational “savage.” Second, however, “terrorism” typically designates Arab, Muslim, and specifically Palestinian people. This is because the depoliticization of political violence that occurs in the first step requires some other, non-political explanation of otherwise incomprehensible violence, and Islam is the racialized placeholder that unifies the otherwise non-homogenous conglomerate of “Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian” and functions ideologically to “radicalize” people into committing these inexplicable acts of violence.

Finally, and more broadly, “terrorism” indicates the “savagery” of all those who refuse or fail to conform to the dictates of American and Israeli imperial and settler colonial hierarchies of human worth. “Terrorism” discourse is thus, to be sure, a form of racism; it is also a continuation of genocidal settler colonial ideologies about native peoples and a rationalization of American imperial military exploits abroad.

“The real problem with ‘terrorism’ discourse, which is not solely its inaccuracy in blaming victims but, more importantly, its insistence that political violence is off the table and anyone who engages in it, talks about it, or defends it is beyond the pale of humanity. That is, ‘terrorism’ discourse functions as a kind of moralism: a social system of valuation and de-valuation that sorts populations into proper, upright, and innocent, on the one hand, and populations deemed irremediably perverse, evil, nihilistic, or ‘savage,’ on the other.”

RN: Would you say, then, that the attacks on Prof. Abdulhadi’s and Prof. Kinukawa’s webinar are important evidence that this form of anti-Muslim racism is alive and well in the US?

HS: Yes absolutely: The primary basis for the attacks was claims about “terrorism”: that Leila Khaled is a “terrorist,” that the PFLP is a “terrorist” organization, or that hosting her in an online classroom constitutes material support for “terrorism.” In all cases, the word “terrorist” was used simultaneously to name Khaled as Muslim, Palestinian, “savage,” and intolerable. “Terrorism” is the phenomenon that cannot be tolerated without it threatening to destroy all goodness, decency, morality, and truth. More specifically, of course, the Zionist deployment of this term renders “terrorism” the fundamental threat to Jews and Jewish people, since Zionism is a Jewish supremacist settler colonial ideology that casts Palestinians as “savages” whose very existence poses a mortal threat to Jewish survival. Thus, it was unsurprising to also see the webinar and Khaled’s participation in it cast as an unprecedented and insupportable attack on Jewish people.

RN: You also write about the targeting and punishment (by Zionist and US forces) of Muslims and all those in alliance with “Muslim” goals. What do you make of French president Emmanuel Macron seizing upon the gruesome killings by a young Muslim of a French schoolteacher who had shown caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in a class to denounce terrorism and champion “French values,” such as freedom of speech when at the same time, as Kim Petersen puts it in Terrorism and French Values- Sowing and Reaping?, “21st century France engages in overseas militarism, otherwise known as state terrorism, in places with large Muslim populations — places that never attacked France — such as Afghanistan, Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Chad, Somalia, Libya, North Mali, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen then what is to be expected? Is it okay for France to engage in militarism abroad and expect no blowback on French soil? Must not the French terrorism be condemned?”

HS: The French situation is a specific one, and I am wary to draw too many generalizations from an analysis of “terrorism” discourse and anti-Muslim racism that draws primarily on the US.

Islamophobia is not a uniform phenomenon and takes many different forms across the globe: US “terrorism” Islamophobia is not the same as French secularist Islamophobia, which are surely not the same as the anti-Muslim animus in Gujarat and India vis-a-vis Pakistan and Kashmir, in Russia vis-a-vis Chechens, or in China vis-a-vis Uighur Muslims. Each of these places has their own history of colonization and decolonization, not to mention ethnic and religious conflict, that cannot and should be assimilated into an American narrative.

That said, it is also the case that the War on Terror and the racist “terrorism” discourse that attends it is one of the United States’ most powerful exports. “Terrorism” discourse has been taken up by oppressive regimes all over the world to justify authoritarian crackdowns on their own people, expansive security state measures, and general militarism. It is also the case that France is, like the US and Israel, a settler colonial power that is dealing with Islam and Muslims in the form of an “immigration question” that they persist in seeing as the intrusion of foreigners with anti-European, anti-West, and anti-modern culture that threatens to destroy French values and French civilization. So, in that sense, there are continuities between US and Israeli Islamophobia and what is happening in France. And, to repeat a point I made earlier, calling any and all acts of political violence “terrorism,” especially if Muslim people are involved, allows for the de-politicization of violence and the smearing of Muslims as fundamentally “savage,” irrational, and inassimilable to Western ways of life, which go unmarked as culturally specific but instead masquerade as a universal recognition of the value of human life.

“US ‘terrorism’ discourse is fully of a piece with its democracy-promotion: both are toxic, ideological formations that veil the violent, settler colonial destruction of indigenous lifeworlds, instead passing it off as freedom and the protection of innocent life.”

RN: Would you go as far as to turn the tables and say that it is actually the colonial and imperial states who are the “real” “terrorists?”

HS: While such a statement would be a powerful rhetorical maneuver, I think it sidesteps the real problem with “terrorism” discourse, which is not solely its inaccuracy in blaming victims but, more importantly, its insistence that political violence is off the table and anyone who engages in it, talks about it, or defends it is beyond the pale of humanity. That is, “terrorism” discourse functions as a kind of moralism: a social system of valuation and de-valuation that sorts populations into proper, upright, and innocent, on the one hand, and populations deemed irremediably perverse, evil, nihilistic, or “savage,” on the other.

As we saw, this is fundamentally a settler colonial moralism, since the innocent and upright are existentially threatened by the evil and perverse. (The word “perverse” reminds us that this is also how heteronormative ideologies function, which are premier examples of moralism par excellence.) Rather than understanding morality as a social good, I follow Nietzsche in understanding it as the will to power of those who resent and feel victimized by others’ very existence. Hence morality is also, as Nietzsche explains, essentially a punishment project. This is why “terrorism” discourse is inherently tied to the actual policies of surveillance, disappearance, torture, invisibilitization, and demonization of Muslims punishment of Muslims for the very fact of being Muslims (or being perceived as such) is both a moral mandate and an existential necessity, if the integrity of good people and the coherence of meaning and truth itself are to be preserved.

However satisfying it may be, then, to flip the script and declare that the US and Israel are “real” “terrorists,” I think doing so implicates us in the moralizing logic of “terrorism” discourse that will keep us tied to resentment and invested in punishment. As Atiya Husain has so powerfully argued, if we are truly committed to an abolitionist politics, then we should not be re-deploying “terrorism” as an epithet but, instead, seeking to abolish the very conditions of social and political life that render it meaningful to begin with. Which means, in effect, decolonizing this place and leaving “terrorism” and its attendant acculturation in the dustbin of history.

RN: In Queer Terror, you locate what you call the problem of “terrorism” within the framework of “the moralized value of life,” the idea that “settler life” is the only life “worthy of protection and preservation.” Do you think that if more journalists understood the concept of “terrorism” in the way you do, the result might be more accurate reporting about Palestine?

HS: I’m not sure the problem is one of knowledge or ignorance, really, so I don’t know that education would solve it. Rather, the problem is twofold: (1) the Israel and Zionist lobby is extraordinarily powerful and well-resourced and works very effectively (although this is changing now) to intimidate and silence anyone engaged in critical discourse regarding Israel and (2) the ideological apparatus in place that secures American and Israeli settler colonial empire is quite powerful and difficult to refuse. Just as it is hard for people to speak out about Palestine when they will find their jobs and academic credentials targeted and destroyed, so too it is hard for activists and everyday people to speak out about Palestine when they will be accused of being “terrorists” or “terrorist”-sympathizers. These work hand in hand to ensure not simply journalistic inaccuracy but, even more profoundly, an entire socio-political order that literally renders other views unthinkable because they are such a profound offense to decency and human values.

RN: You write about the targeting and punishment of all those who undermine Zionism and US settler-imperialism. Keeping in mind the following headline in The Times of Israel, After Corbyn, UK Labour elects Keir Starmer, Zionist with Jewish wife, what do you make of the punishment in the form of wrongful suspension by the current leader of his own party meted out to former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn for his commitment to the Palestinian struggle for self-determination?

HS: I can’t speak to the specific situation in the UK as I am unversed in British politics, but I can say that the notion that there is a “Palestine exception” even in progressive politics is a very familiar one. The Arab Women’s Solidarity Association paper, “The Forgotten -Ism,” makes the case quite powerfully for the oversight of Zionism by feminists — even women of color feminists — as a form of racism that harms Arab and Arab-American and Palestinian women. We saw how this endures in the coordinated campaigns against Linda Sarsour and Zahra Billoo in the US as directors of the Women’s March. Palestine Legal has an invaluable report on what they call The Palestine Exception to Free Speech. And, in the SFSU webinar held on the Day of Action, Hatem Bazian spoke very powerfully about his experience being part of virtually every liberatory people’s movement in the Bay Area, but how participation in only one of them — Palestine solidarity — consistently results in punishment, attack, surveillance, and outrage.

RN:
As far as Palestine and US policy are concerned, the Biden presidency might produce cosmetic adjustments such as the restoration of US economic assistance to the Palestinians and reopening the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) office in Washington. The irony now, however, is that the US, which allowed the elections of President Mahmoud Abbas for a four-year term in 2005, has been afraid of Palestinian popular will and has not allowed elections since. In 2017, for example, Hillary Clinton was caught on tape boasting about the need of “rigging” Palestinian elections. Do you see a link between the hypocrisy of US rhetoric on “democracy” that the Trump re-election campaign has now exposed to the world and its rhetoric on “terrorism?”

HS: US “terrorism” discourse is fully of a piece with its democracy-promotion: both are toxic, ideological formations that veil the violent, settler colonial destruction of indigenous lifeworlds, instead passing it off as freedom and the protection of innocent life.

Two things attest to the above: (1) the US is not a democracy and (2) hypocrisy is a failing that, while very pleasing to point out in our adversaries, rarely advances our political agendas insofar as it relies on the erroneous assumption that our adversaries actually give a damn about being (or being seen as) inconsistent. The Republicans, for example, have demonstrated quite clearly with the Barrett confirmation hearings that they don’t care one whit about being hypocrites.

Realizing and really reckoning with the fact that the US is not a democracy requires not only a clear-eyed assessment of decades and centuries of voter disenfranchisement, the elitism of the nation’s founding documents, the profound influence of what is anodynely referred to as “money in politics,” and the consistent tethering of all of these to white supremacy. It also demands reckoning with the fact that the US, like Israel, is a settler state and, as such, cannot ever be or become a democracy without decolonizing down to the ground — literally.

In that sense, yes, there is a deep connection between the farcical “democracy” paraded before the world in the form of US exceptionalism and “terrorism” discourse. The “terrorist” is contemporarily imperial America’s version of the settler’s “savage” of an ostensible yesterday. The presumption is that indigenous people are no more — which we know to be false — and they have been replaced by external threats “abroad” to a benign American imperial venture that simply seeks to spread democracy throughout the world.

RN: Your book is entitled Queer Terror. Could you explain what queerness has to do with this conversation?

HS: I argue that queerness occupies the same ideological and affective space that “terrorism” does. Not in the sense that we can understand queer people and Muslims (an already ridiculous and reductive formulation that presumes an antagonism between otherwise intersectional categories) as analogously oppressed or stigmatized but, rather, in the sense that both “queers” and “terrorists” are figures of those who are perceived as impossible to be absorbed or accepted within a “civilized” social order without threatening that order’s very survival.

Admittedly, there is a substantial scholarship that persuasively shows the ways that some queer people and lives have been fully incorporated into the life of the community, the state, and the nation — typically through regimes of white supremacy and economic upward mobility. That said, however, the perhaps outdated but nevertheless not at all outmoded derogatory usage of the term “queer” has the same abjecting echoes as the term “terrorist,” because both are functions of a moralizing agenda promoted by those interested primarily in the policing of propriety and the punishment of indecency.

RN: George W. Bush issued an ultimatum after September 11, 2001: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” What do you make of such rhetoric?

HS: It is the same kind of ultimatum with the same affective, psychic, and material consequences presented to queer and trans people exiled from families, housing, jobs, communities, or countries because of their queerness.

It is a condemnation that exceeds judgment about harmful behavior and bleeds into an absolutist condemnation of people and ways of being that cannot be allowed to stand, because such allowance is an existential threat: we cannot allow you to be queer or trans just as we cannot stand with the terrorists, because health, family, kinship, community, indeed human decency itself are at stake. There is no arguing with such ultimatums, and they entail an impossible choice: side with your oppressor and accept your abjection, or choose to be abjected.

My own argument in Queer Terror is that all those so confronted with such ultimatums choose abjection, the only choice that is truly off the table. As with the “terrorism” epithet, we should not take it up or “reclaim” it to name those who truly are anti-social; instead, we need to get out of the moralizing business altogether, and we do so by accepting the one thing that moralizers everywhere agree we cannot accept: unthinkable immorality. This means, then, that we stand with queers, that we are queers, that we stand with the “terrorists,” that we are the terrorists.

*

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.

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank.

Featured image: Professor Heike Schotten — Still captured from We Will Not Be Silenced webinar at the University of Massachusetts Boston

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

***

Within six days of receiving a second injection of Pfizer’s experimental Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) vaccine, a two-year-old baby enrolled in the company’s clinical trials for children passed away, new reports indicate.

The ongoing trials include more than 10,000 children aging in range from five to 11 in one of the groups, and another 10,000 children as young as six months old in the other. These trials have been taking place since mid-March with the soon expectation that the jab will be “authorized” for use in children and babies.

Moderna is also running a similar series of clinical trials on children that it is calling “KidCOVE.” Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and AstraZeneca are also both running their own respective clinical trials on children to get them jabbed at “warp speed.”

As reported in the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the two-year-old girl received her second dose of Pfizer’s DNA-modifying mRNA injection on February 25. On March 1, she suffered some kind of serious adverse reaction. On March 3, she died. No further details were provided.

The VAERS report does indicate that the child had been hospitalized since February 14, which suggests she may have gotten sick from the first shot. Despite this, someone administered a second shot to the already sick and suffering child, which caused her to die.

To learn more about the wave of sickness and death affecting those who were jabbed for Chinese germs, be sure to check out ChemicalViolence.com.

Parents who inject their children with vaccine poisons should be ashamed of themselves

Early in the week, it was also reported that Pfizer’s experimental gene therapy injection can cause brain damage and neurodegenerative disease.

A paper published in the journal Microbiology & Infectious Diseases explains the process by which these injections alter human DNA and cause the body to basically go haywire over time.

Despite all this, hordes of not-so-bright Americans are lining right up to get injected, believing that the vaccine will protect them against “catching” the Wuhan flu. They are also subjecting their children to it based on lies from Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and others who are aggressively pushing the jabs.

Michell Lynam, an anesthesiologist who calls herself “Dr. United States of America,” has been bragging all over Facebook about how she subjected her own children to the experimental shots. She enrolled her two teenage daughters in Pfizer’s clinical trial, and her six-year-old daughter in Moderna’s clinical trial.

Should anything happen to these poor kids, Lynam probably will not tell her Facebook followers about it. Lynam will probably also not report any potential injuries or deaths to VAERS.

The only reason the death of the two-year-old in the Pfizer trial is known about is because independent sleuths dug it out of VAERS. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is certainly not going to report on it, and neither will the mainstream media.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is also complicit, having recently lifted its recommended pause on J&J’s experimental injection, which causes deadly blood clots. Rather than ban the jab, the FDA is instead affixing a tiny warning label on the package that says the J&J injection comes with blood clot risks.

“I read this and wept,” wrote one commenter at Great Game India. “Children that age should NEVER be given any vaccines. Shame on the parents who allowed such a thing to happen.”

“Now, they are paying with broken hearts. How sad is that? These vaccines contain aluminum, mercury, and formaldehyde. Why on earth would anyone allow themselves to be injected with these poisons?”

Others offered similar sentiments of sadness and disgust that this mass genocide of humans under the guise of “public health” is even happening at all.

*

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.

Featured image is from Natural News

Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe

May 3rd, 2021 by VAXXED The Movie

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

***

This was aired on February 17, 2017.

In 2014, biologist Dr. Brian Hooker received a call from a Senior Scientist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) who led the agency’s 2004 study on the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine and its link to autism.

The scientist, Dr. William Thompson, confessed that the CDC had omitted crucial data in their final report that revealed a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Over several months, Dr. Hooker records the phone calls made to him by Dr. Thompson who provides the confidential data destroyed by his colleagues at the CDC.

Dr. Hooker enlists the help of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the British gastroenterologist falsely accused of starting the anti-vax movement when he first reported in 1998 that the MMR vaccine may cause autism. Wakefield directs this documentary examining the evidence behind an appalling cover-up committed by the government agency charged with protecting the health of American citizens.

Interviews with pharmaceutical insiders, doctors, politicians, and parents of vaccine-injured children reveal an alarming deception that has contributed to the skyrocketing increase of autism and potentially the most catastrophic epidemic of our lifetime.

Watch the trailer below.

The Most Controversial Documentary of 2016 http://VaxxedTheMovie.com

Stream only, available now in US, Canada, UK, Ireland, & Australia.

Coming soon in more territories.

DVD available via VaxxedTheMovie.com

*

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.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

***

“As the coronavirus continues to wreak havoc around the world, evidences are piling up to show that powerful forces have been working to keep it that way.

My guest today is a physician from Texas whose medical license was briefly threatened because he prescribed hydroxychloroquine to his COVID patients. Hydroxychloroquine is a cheap drug that’s been around for a long time and is proven to be highly effective as part of the protocol for treating COVID patients.

In his testimony before the Texas Senate last March, Dr. Richard Urso talked about roadblocks and disinformation getting in the way of his efforts to treat his patients.”

Watch the interview below. OR CLICK HERE 

*

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.

This interview was aired on Progressive Radio Network.

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

***

It’s one thing to have policies against violence, abuse, and harassment. But in “protecting” users, Twitter is hell-bent on censoring voices that rock the boat, even when all they have tweeted is a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

Last week, Simon Goddek, who has a PhD in biotechnology and researches system dynamics, tweeted a link to a scientific study titled, “Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?”

Some time later, his account was frozen and he received a notice from Twitter that it would remain frozen until he deleted the offending tweet, and for the 12 hours following that.

In his Telegram group, he wrote:

I was put into Twitter jail for citing a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Cancel science is real.

What’s especially concerning is that I didn’t make any personal comment on the paper’s content. I only said that regarding that paper, masks CAN lead to massive health damages. It’s the conclusion of a scientific piece of work that has been peer-reviewed by at least 2 experts in the field.

According to Twitter, Goddek violated their policy on, “spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to Covid-19.”

The article in question wasn’t even as risqué as others and merely addressed undesirable side effects of mask wearing. How is that “misinformation”?

I spoke with Goddek to learn more about what happened. Turns out, it’s not the first time.

The first time I got censored because I cited a scientific, peer-reviewed paper on masks. I was just citing their work, and I got put into Twitter jail. In that tweet, I was saying, ‘Look, it seems masks don’t work.’ So, I also said my opinion.

This time, I found another study on masks, which says there are adverse effects if you wear masks. So, I was citing the paper without putting my own opinion, and they censored me again, made me delete it and put me into Twitter jail again.

On April 17, Naomi Wolf tweeted she had been locked out of Twitter for the fourth time for sharing a Stanford study, “proving the lack of efficacy of masks.” That study was also peer-reviewed.

This isn’t merely a case of Twitter deciding that Goddek and Wolf were not in the position to be discussing the efficacy or dangers of masks. Twitter is censoring pretty much anything about Covid that doesn’t match the narrative promoted by the WHO, CDC, and other such bodies.

Even a well-known epidemiologist has faced Twitter’s wrath. An article in the American Institute for Economic Research noted:

Harvard Professor Martin Kulldorff and co-creator of the Great Barrington Declaration, one of the most cited epidemiologists and infectious -disease experts in the world has been censored by Twitter. His tweet on how not everyone needs a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 was not taken down. He had a warning slapped on it and users have been prevented from liking or retweeting the post.

That article also emphasized:

“Dr. Kulldorff serves on the Covid-19 vaccine safety subgroup that the CDC, NIH, and FDA rely upon for technical expertise on this very subject.”

On April 10, a group called Drs4CovidEthics tweeted:

Not a month on Twitter & we were locked out of our account, forced to delete our pinned tweet. We must self-censor or be banned says Twitter (paraphrasing) We mustn’t contradict official sources. But our letters contradict official sources. With good reason. Which we can’t tweet.

What do they know better than Twitter censors? They’re merely “doctors & scientists from 25+ countries, including heads of ICU, world leading immunologists, experts in public health, drug safety, respiratory illness, GPs, researchers in vaccines, pharmacology, virology, biochemistry…”

I searched for more examples of extreme Twitter censorship and found further censorship of vaccine related information, and one person’s hypothesis on why vaccine talk is so particularly taboo: “$157 billion buys a lot of Facebook and Twitter bans.”

The popular independent website Off Guardian recently was locked out of Twitter for sharing one of its own articles on Covid vaccines, they told me.

In fact, Twitter has been censoring Off Guardian for at least a year. When users try to open a tweet to an Off Guardian article, they are met with a warning that the link could be potentially spammy or unsafe.

The warning continues with a large blue button advising to return to the previous page, and a teeny tiny “continue” on to the article option. Same thing for the independent Canadian website Global Research.

Last year, I tried to tweet an article written by respected journalist F. William Engdahl for New Eastern Outlook (NEO). Twitter wouldn’t allow me to even tweet it, instead giving me an error message about the link being “potentially harmful.”

And it’s not only matters of Covid. Just now, I tried to tweet another NEO article, not related to Covid, and was again met with the same message.

A Twitter account focusing on the propaganda around Xinjiang had his account suspended.

And when the New York Post wrote exposés about Hunter Biden’s emails, Twitter locked the Post’s account.

Which makes it all the more clear this isn’t about “facts” or “safety” but blatant censorship.

Whether or not you agree with a point or comment being made by one of the people censored by Twitter, we should be allowed to access their perspective, research for ourselves and come to our own conclusions. We don’t need Twitter to hold our hands and spoon-feed us establishment narratives.

Twitter’s “rules” page reads:

Twitter’s purpose is to serve the public conversation. Our rules are to ensure all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely.

If you believe that, as the saying goes, I have a bridge to sell you.

*

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.

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine (where she lived for nearly four years). Follow her on Twitter @EvaKBartlett

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Twitter Isn’t Censoring Accounts to Keep Users ‘Safe’, It Is Using Its Power to Spoon-feed the World Establishment Narratives
  • Tags: ,

CDC Officially Recommends COVID Jab for Pregnant Women

May 3rd, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

***

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is now recommending pregnant women to get the COVID-19 vaccine, based on preliminary postmarketing surveillance data

Postmarketing surveillance data are not a sufficient substitute for randomized placebo-controlled safety trials

All postmarketing surveillance data are preliminary, so it seems incredibly foolhardy to make a blanket recommendation for all pregnant women at this early stage. It’s also based solely on voluntary self-reporting

As of February 28, 2021, the combined miscarriage and preterm birth rate (per V-Safe) was 23.3%. As of April 1, 2021, the miscarriage or premature birth rate (per VAERS) was 29%. So, it appears the rate of miscarriage and premature births is rising as more reports come in

These ratios are said to be comparable to the miscarriage rate normally seen among unvaccinated women, yet statistical data show the risk of miscarriage drops from an overall, average risk rate of 21.3% for the duration of the pregnancy as a whole, to just 5% between Weeks 6 and 7, all the way down to 1% between Weeks 14 and 20

*

The beyond conflicted U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has struck again: Pregnant women are now urged to get the COVID-19 gene manipulation jab, based on preliminary findings.

The postmarketing surveillance data, published in The New England Journal of Medicine,1 found “no obvious safety signals” among the 35,691 pregnant women who got either the Moderna or Pfizer shots between December 14, 2020, and February 28, 2021. The women ranged in age from 16 to 54 years old. CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky issued a statement saying:2

“No safety concerns were observed for people vaccinated in the third trimester or safety concerns for their babies. As such, CDC recommends pregnant people receive COVID-19 vaccines.”

Can Self-Reported Data Be Trusted?

There is more than one reason to be suspicious of this green-lighting for pregnant women. First of all, as noted by Jeremy Hammond in a recent Tweet:3

“This was NOT a randomized placebo-controlled trial. There is no data from clinical trials showing that it is safe for pregnant women to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Postmarketing surveillance is NOT a sufficient substitute for proper safety studies.”

The authors themselves state that data on mRNA “vaccines” in pregnancy are limited, and that without longitudinal follow-up of large numbers of women, it’s not possible to determine “maternal, pregnancy and infant outcomes.”4

Secondly, all postmarketing surveillance data are preliminary, so it seems incredibly foolhardy to make a blanket recommendation for all pregnant women at this early stage. Thirdly, this data is solely based on voluntary self-reporting to one of two sources:

  • The Vaccine Safe (V-Safe) After Vaccination Health Checker program,5 a vaccine safety registry set up specifically for the monitoring of COVID-19 “vaccine” side effects
  • The U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)

By using voluntary self-reporting, we have no way of knowing how many side effects have gone unreported and cannot confirm that the data present an accurate picture. Historically, we know that voluntary reporting of vaccine side effects range from less than 1%6,7 to a maximum of 10%,8 so it’s likely we’re not getting the full story.

A hint that an enormous amount of data concerning pregnancy outcomes are being overlooked or hidden can be discerned by the fact that the paper only looked at 11% of the total number of pregnancies reported to V-Safe. While they state that a total of 35,691 pregnant women were included in the analysis, they actually only looked at 3,958 of them. Here’s how the paper reads:9

“A total of 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age identified as pregnant … Among 3,958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester).”

If there were 35,691 pregnant V-Safe participants, why are they looking at just 11% of them?

Experimentation of the Worst Kind

Giving pregnant women unlicensed COVID-19 gene therapies is reprehensibly irresponsible experimental medicine, and to suggest that safety data are “piling up” is pure propaganda. Everything is still in the experimental stage and all data are preliminary. It’ll take years to get a clearer picture of how these injections are affecting young women and their babies.

Pregnancy is a time during which experimentation is extremely hazardous, as you’re not only dealing with potential repercussions for the mother but also for the child. Any number of things can go wrong when you introduce drugs, chemicals or foreign substances during fetal development.

The CDC has absolutely no way of gauging safety for pregnant women and babies as of yet, so to do so is reprehensible beyond words, in my opinion — especially seeing how women of childbearing age have virtually no risk of dying from COVID-19, their fatality risk being a mere 0.01%.10

Contrast this to the potential benefits of the vaccine. You can still contract the virus if immunized and you can still spread it to others.11,12,13,14 All it is designed to do is lessen your symptoms if or when you get infected. Pregnant women simply do not need this vaccine, and therefore any risk is likely excessive. I have little doubt we’ll end up with a second Nuremberg Trial over this at some point in the future.

Are These Miscarriage Ratios ‘Normal’?

Getting back to the NEJM study, the authors report the following findings, based on data collected from VAERS and V-Safe:15

“Among 3,958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester). Adverse neonatal outcomes included preterm birth (in 9.4%) and small size for gestational age (in 3.2%); no neonatal deaths were reported.

Although not directly comparable, calculated proportions of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in persons vaccinated against COVID-19 who had a completed pregnancy were similar to incidences reported in studies involving pregnant women that were conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among 221 pregnancy-related adverse events reported to the VAERS, the most frequently reported event was spontaneous abortion (46 cases).”

So, in VAERS, the miscarriage rate was 20.8% (46 of 221 reports), and in V-Safe (looking at just 11% of pregnant participants), the miscarriage rate was 13.9% (115 of 827). Again, these data were reported between December 14, 2020, and February 28, 2021.

The combined miscarriage and preterm birth rate, per V-Safe, was 23.3% (13.9% + 9.4%). As of April 1, 2021, 379 VAERS reports16 had been filed by pregnant women, 110 of which involved miscarriage or premature birth, giving us an updated rate of 29%. In other words, it appears the rate of miscarriage and premature births is rising as more reports come in.

According to the authors of the NEJM report, these ratios are comparable to the miscarriage rate normally seen among unvaccinated women, while admitting that the data is “not directly comparable.”

I find that dubious, seeing how sources17 reviewing statistical data stress that the risk of miscarriage drops from an overall, average risk rate of 21.3% for the duration of the pregnancy as a whole, to just 5% between Weeks 6 and 7, all the way down to 1% between Weeks 14 and 20.

And, while the NEJM study18 report that 92.3% of spontaneous abortions occurred before 13 weeks of gestation, it specifies that very little is as yet known about the effects of the injections when given to women during the periconception period and the first and second trimesters, as “limited follow-up calls had been made at the time of this analysis.”

Now, if the miscarriage rate is normally 5% and declining after Week 6, then miscarriage rates of 13.9%, 20.87% or 29% before Week 13 is clearly excessive. As for the preterm birth rate, 9.4% does appear relatively “normal” based on historical data, which in 2019 ranged from 7.28% to 18.8% depending on the region, with an average right around 10%.19

Time will tell whether that percentage will remain within the norms as the outcomes of pregnant women are entered into databases. If preterm birth rates do rise above the norm, then that too is a significant public health issue, as the impact of premature birth on society is enormous, averaging at $26.2 billion annually, as is.20

Toxicology Expert Calls for End to mRNA Experiment

The featured video below is the recording of a public comment by Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., director of toxicology and molecular biology for Toxicology Support Services LLC, given to the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), April 23, 2021.

Lindsay’s expertise is analysis of pharmacological dose-responses, mechanistic biology and complex toxicity dynamics. In her comment, Lindsay describes how she aided the development of a vaccine that caused unintended autoimmune destruction and sterility in animals which, despite careful pre-analysis, had not been predicted.

She calls for an immediate halt to COVID-19 mRNA and DNA vaccines due to safety concerns on multiple fronts. She notes there is credible concern that they will cross-react with syncytin (a retroviral envelope protein) and reproductive genes in sperm, ova and placenta in ways that may “impair fertility and reproductive outcomes.”

I’ve touched on this in previous articles, including “How COVID-19 Is Changing the Future of Vaccines” and “Pfizer Bullies Nations to Put Up Collateral for Lawsuits.” Not a single study has disproven this hypothesis, Lindsey notes.

Another theory of how these injections might impair fertility can be found in a 2006 study,21 which showed sperm can take up foreign mRNA, convert it into DNA, and release it as little pellets (plasmids) in the medium around the fertilized egg. The embryo then takes up these plasmids and carries them (sustains and clones them into many of the daughter cells) throughout its life, even passing them on to future generations.

It is possible that the pseudo-exosomes that are the mRNA contents would be perfect for supplying the sperm with mRNA for the spike protein. So, potentially, a vaccinated woman who gets pregnant with an embryo that can (via the sperms’ plasmids) synthesize the spike protein according to the instructions in the vaccine, would have an immune capacity to attack that embryo because of the “foreign” protein it displays on its cells. This then would cause a miscarriage.

“We could potentially be sterilizing an entire generation,” Lindsey warns. The fact that there have been live births following COVID-19 vaccination is not proof that these injections do not have a reproductive effect, she says.

Lindsay also points out that reports of menstrual irregularities and vaginal hemorrhaging in women who have received the injections number in the thousands,22,23,24 and this too hints at reproductive effects.

I agree with her conclusion that we simply cannot inject children and women of childbearing age with these experimental technologies until more rigorous studies have been done and we have a better understanding of their mechanisms.

Rare Blood Clotting Disorders Being Reported 

Lindsay also points out there have been hundreds of reports of rare blood clotting disorders following all COVID-19 “vaccines” among people with no underlying risk factors, including immune thrombocytopenia25,26,27,28 (ITP), a rare autoimmune disease that causes your immune system to destroy your platelets (cells that help blood clot), resulting in hemorrhaging. Serious blood clots are also occurring at the same time.

Here, she points out the obvious: COVID-19 has been found to cause blood clotting disorders due to the virus’ unique spike protein. The COVID-19 “vaccines” instruct your body to make that very spike protein. Why would one assume that this spike protein cannot have similar effects when produced by your own cells?

One hypothesis that has been presented is that platelet-antagonistic antibodies are being formed against the spike antigen.29 Another novel hypothesis30 is that the lipid-coated nanoparticles, which transport the mRNA, may be carrying that mRNA into the megakaryocytes in your bone marrow.

Megakaryocytes are cells that produce platelets. According to this hypothesis, once the mRNA enters your bone marrow, the megakaryocytes would then begin to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which would tag them for destruction by cytotoxic T-cells. As your platelets are destroyed, thrombocytopenia sets in.

Avoid This Risky Milk-Sharing Practice

Women who have received the COVID-19 jab are also making what I believe is a huge mistake by sharing breast milk in a misguided effort to inoculate unvaccinated mothers’ babies. As reported by The New York Times:31

“Multiple studies32,33 show that there are antibodies in a vaccinated mother’s milk. This has led some women to try to restart breastfeeding and others to share milk with friends’ children.”

Again, there’s scarcely any data on what these gene therapies might do to infants, which is reason alone not to experiment. So far, only one suspected case34 of an infant dying has been attributed to breastfeeding. A 5-month-old infant died with a diagnosis of thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura within days of his mother receiving her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.35,36

But while fact checkers roundly dismiss the idea that the child could have developed thrombocytopenia from mRNA-contaminated breast milk,37 it’s important to realize they have no evidence for that. It’s pure opinion.

As of right now, we have no idea how or why the infant developed this rare blood disorder, but it would be premature and irresponsible to say that nursing children cannot be affected and that there is no risk at all. In addition to that lethal case, there are at least 20 other cases where children have had an adverse reaction to breast milk from a vaccinated mother.38

At present, all we can confidently say is that short-term harmful effects of COVID-19 vaccines are being reported at a staggering rate, and that the long-term effects are completely unknown.

In addition to the more immediate effects already discussed, there are mechanisms by which COVID-19 “vaccines” may actually worsen disease upon exposure to the wild virus, as detailed in “How COVID-19 Vaccine Can Destroy Your Immune System,” “Will Vaccinated People Be More Vulnerable to Variants?” and several other articles.

As noted in a February 4, 2021, New England Journal of Medicine paper39 reporting on the safety and effectiveness of the mRNA-1273 vaccine developed by Moderna, “Whether mRNA-1273 vaccination results in enhanced disease on exposure to the virus in the long term is unknown.”

Report All COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects

On the whole, injecting pregnant women with novel gene therapy technology that can trigger systemic inflammation, cardiac effects and bleeding disorders (among other things), violates both the Hippocratic Oath that admonishes doctors to “First, do no harm,” and the precautionary principle that, historically, has governed health care for pregnant women.

In my view, this mass experiment is a humanitarian crime. That said, if you or someone you love — pregnant or not — has received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, be sure to report it, preferably to all three of these locations.40 As we move forward, it’s absolutely crucial that people report their experiences with these vaccines, so that we can start getting a clearer idea of what their effects are.

  1. If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
  2. Report the injury on VaxxTracker.com, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
  3. Report the injury on the Children’s Health Defense website

*

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.

Notes

1, 4, 9, 15, 18 NEJM April 21, 2021 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104983

2 CNBC April 23, 2021

3 Twitter Jeremy Hammond April 23, 2021

5 CDC V-Safe

6 AHRQ December 7, 2007

7 The Vaccine Reaction January 9, 2020

8 BMJ 2005;330:433

10 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352

11 Harvard Health March 25, 2021

12 CDC April 2, 2021

13 NBC Chicago April 8, 2021

14 The Defender April 6, 2021

16 The Defender April 9, 2021

17 Medical News Today January 12, 2020

19 CDC.gov Preterm births by state 2019

20 March of Dimes, the Impact of Premature Birth on Society

21 Molecular Reproduction and Development 73(10):1239-46

22 MSN April 10, 2021

23 UK Gov Yellow Card Report Unspecified Brand March 28, 2021 (PDF)

24 Life Site News April 19, 2021

25 Hopkins Medicine ITP

26, 29 The Defender April 13, 2021

27 The Defender February 9, 2021

28 New York Times February 8, 2021, Updated February 10, 2021 (Archived)

30 Medium March 19, 2021

31 New York Times April 8, 2021 (Archived)

32 Fox 4 April 7, 2021

33 Healio April 19, 2021

34, 35 Twitter Alex Berenson April 23, 2021

36 Twitter VAERS detail

37 USA Today April 9, 2021

38 Medalerts.org 4/16/2021 VAERS data

39 NEJM 2021; 384:403-416

40 The Defender January 25, 2021

Breakthrough in Afghan Peace Process!

May 3rd, 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).

***

The “extended Troika” on the Afghan problem comprising the United States, Russia, and China — and Pakistan — have announced in Doha on Friday a road map in consultation with the Ashraf Ghani government and Taliban as regards the way forward in immediate terms for reaching a peace settlement.

The announcement followed consultations in Doha with the involvement of the Qatari authorities as hosts, and it coincides with the formal commencement of the US and NATO troop withdrawal from Afghanistan today, 1st of May. 

The announcement builds on the Biden Administration’s stated plans to complete the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan by September 11, which now takes a note of finality notwithstanding the continuing calls by interest groups in the US for a review of the withdrawal decision. Put differently, President Biden’s decision now would also assume the nature of an international commitment given by Washington to Russia and China. This altogether lifts the cloud of uncertainty regarding the US decision on troop withdrawal.  

The announcement in Doha is in the nature of a joint statement, to be issued in Washington, Moscow, Beijing and Islamabad. It envisages the following signposts, so to speak: 

  • An orderly withdrawal of foreign troops by Sept 11 is assured; 
  • During withdrawal period, peace process to continue, no fighting will take place between Afghan parties, and a “steady transition of the situation” is to be expected; 
  • Safety of US & NATO troops and foreign embassies and diplomats to be ensured; 
  • Afghan govt counterterrorism operations shall be in cooperation with international community; 
  • Taliban to shelve its annual “Spring Offensive”; 
  • Open engagement between Kabul set-up and the Taliban is visualised; 
  • Any takeover by force by any Afghan party will be unacceptable;
  • UN Security Council will review the sanctions against Taliban individuals and assets; 
  • Doha will continue to be the venue of intra-Afghan negotiations;
  • UN will be having an expanded role to navigate the peace process. 

Most important, the announcement calls for a settlement that envisages the creation of an “independent, sovereign, unified, peaceful, democratic, neutral and self-sufficient Afghanistan.” Significantly,  “neutral and self-sufficient” is an altogether new formulation, which implies, conceivably, that there shall be no foreign security presence remaining on Afghan soil; Afghanistan shall not join any military alliance or blocs; future Afghan governments will be committed to the pursuit of independent non-aligned foreign policies. 

This goes a long way to address the apprehensions in Moscow and Beijing that in a post-settlement scenario, the US might use Afghan soil to deploy extremist groups (Chechens, Uighurs, etc.) as geopolitical tool to undertake covert operations in the Central Asian region — specifically, to destabilise Xinjiang, North Caucasus, etc. Equally, this provision of a “neutral” Afghanistan also addresses a major Iranian concern. Effectively, this amounts to a moratorium on the pursuit of the “great game”, which has been a negative factor historically contributing to the instability and conflict in Afghanistan dating back to the era of King Zahir Shah. 

From a larger perspective, this mutual accommodation means a  carefully balanced “win-win” for all the three big powers, notwithstanding the present international climate characterised by new cold war conditions. The big question is how far this newfound spirit of mutual accommodation will moderate the US’ hostile policies toward Russia and China. In this case, the US is a net gainer out of the cooperation from Russia and China as Washington’s prestige and NATO’s future critically would depend on the ability to successfully navigate an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan. 

Therefore, some positive fallout on the US’ relations with Russia and China cannot be ruled out. This sets a precedent, no doubt, for other situations such as the Iran nuclear issue or the North Korea problem, conflicts in Syria and Yemen, etc.  

As regards Pakistan, it can draw great satisfaction from the above outcome as it is assured of a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan guaranteed by the UN Security Council members. In the 1980s, when the Geneva Accords were signed in February 1989, the focus was on the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan, while no thought was given to what would follow in the aftermath of the withdrawal. That lacuna, of course, led to a mad scramble for power in Kabul resulting in the Mujahideen takeover in 1992 and the rise of the Taliban. 

Therefore, Pakistan has great stakes in ensuring that history doesn’t repeat in Afghanistan. Besides, the commitment of the international community virtually guarantees that the heavy burden of sustaining a new power structure in Kabul will not fall on Pakistan’s shoulders once again. Pakistan is greatly interested in firming up assistance from the international community, US in particular, for post-settlement Afghanistan’ reconstruction and development.    

From a security perspective too, the above road map addresses Pakistan’s legitimate concerns  that “spoilers” may exploit any power vacuum in Kabul. Pakistan’s non-negotiable concern lies in having a friendly government in Kabul. And Pakistan has repeatedly underscored its angst that India may manipulate the volatility in Afghanistan to its advantage. Clearly, that fear is no longer tenable.  

In the emergent scenario, a transitional govt may become unavoidable in Kabul at some point. That is not going to be easy but the good part is that in a climate with such a high degree of international commitment and UN involvement, the Afghans would rise to the occasion. Conceivably, Ghani is nearing the end of the road. It is highly improbable that he or his circle of associates would show the audacity to undermine a “code of conduct” which is underwritten jointly by 3 big powers — and, significantly, by Pakistan as well. Equally, no regional state in its senses would act as a “spoiler” to derail a road map which carries the imprimatur of the three big powers and the UN Security Council.  

*

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.

Featured image is from Dhaka Tribune

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

***

It seems like a basic transparency measure. But some Senate Democrats worry that an amendment quietly added to a China-related bill could be a stealth poison pill for diplomacy with Iran.

Shortly before the Strategic Competition Act was set to be marked up by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chairman Bob Menendez (D–N.J.) and ranking member Jim Risch (R–Idaho) inserted an amendment that vastly expands the reporting requirements for international agreements.

The amendment requires the State Department to provide detailed reports to Congress within five days after it “approves the negotiation or conclusion” of an international agreement or “non-binding instrument” with “an important effect on the foreign policy of the United States.”

While the amendment was backed by some legal experts, two congressional aides and an activist speaking on condition of anonymity expressed concern to Responsible Statecraft that it could affect ongoing negotiations in Vienna, where the Biden administration is in talks with five other world powers to constrain Iran’s nuclear program.

“In our view, the language was concerning because it could be interpreted as requiring congressional notification for any negotiation of an international agreement (not just Iran) once it has begun,” one congressional aide told Responsible Statecraft. “That felt vague and open-ended that it could potentially derail efforts that diplomats do all the time to quietly test waters on issues.”

The activist was more blunt, stating that the amendment “could give opponents of [the Vienna negotiations] in Congress an opportunity to try and frustrate those talks.”

Menendez and Risch both opposed the original 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which the Biden administration is seeking a return to.

Menendez has also worked to frustrate the Biden administration’s current diplomatic approach, cooperating with Senate Republicans and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in an attempt to pressure the Biden administration to take a harder line on Iran.

Menendez’s office did not respond to a request for comment as of press time.

Democrats were also concerned with the way the amendment was introduced, one of the congressional aides and the activist claimed. Menendez used his prerogative as chairman to insert it into the text of the bill shortly before markup — the debate on the bill — began.

“This was done last-minute, very little notice to other Democratic members of the committee,” the second aide said. “People were caught unaware of it, it seems, by design.”

The State Department declined to comment, but Sen. Chris Murphy (D–Conn.) claimed that the Biden administration is worried.

“I know the State Department has some concerns about when they would be required to make that initial notification of Congress,” he said during the April 21 markup meeting. “It’s sometimes difficult to know when a negotiation begins, and so I would hope we would work with the State Department moving forward to make sure that we get that provision right.”

The Strategic Competition Act has passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but it still has a long way to go before becoming law. It will still have to pass the full Senate and the House of Representatives, with plenty of opportunities to amend the text.

The bill itself is widely expected to pass, with bipartisan support and the backing of the administration. But the fate of Menendez and Risch’s amendment is less certain.

“Chairman Menendez, working with Republicans, used his position as chair of the committee to slip in and try to hide from his fellow Democrats language that could frustrate one of his party’s and his president’s most significant foreign policy objectives,” the activist said. “The administration feels completely blindsided by this.”

*

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.

Featured image: Al Teich and lev radin via shutterstock.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Top Senate Dem Quietly Inserts Iran Poison Pill into China Bill
  • Tags: ,

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

***

In the last few days, the Colombian police showed what it is capable of: between eight and 14 people were reportedly murdered by police officers, depending on accounts by different human rights organizations.

Scores more were injured and dozens arrested for joining a national strike and protesting on the streets of Bogota, Cali and other major Colombian cities.

It turns out that for the last three years Colombia’s cops have been receiving training from the United Kingdom, according to the British publication The Canary.

“Documents obtained by The Canary can reveal that the UK’s College of Policing has been training Colombian police over the past three years. This is despite Colombia being one of only 30 countries the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCD) lists as “Human rights priority countries,” journalist John McEvoy says.

“The issue is of public concern in light of the UK government’s possible complicity in human rights abuses abroad. But the College has refused to disclose where exactly the training occurred, the nature of the training, and the cost,” McEvoy says.

“In recent years, the College has come under fire for receiving millions of pounds to train repressive police regimes. These include Saudi Arabia, where the death penalty remains legal,” he adds.

*

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.

Featured image: Colombian riot police harassing reporters in Popayan | Photo: Twitter/@col_informa

It happened 51 years ago, at Ohio’s Kent State University on May 4th, 1970.

This article was first published in September 2012. It is contained as a chapter in the authors Project Censored book published in 2013. 

***

When Ohio National Guardsmen fired sixty-seven gun shots in thirteen seconds at Kent State University (KSU) on May 4, 1970, they murdered four unarmed, protesting college students and wounded nine others.

For the last forty-two years, the United States government has held the position that Kent State was a tragic and unfortunate incident occurring at a noontime antiwar rally on an American college campus.

In 2010, compelling forensic evidence emerged showing that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) were the lead agencies in managing Kent State government operations, including the cover-up. At Kent State, lawful protest was pushed into the realm of massacre as the US federal government, the state of Ohio, and the Ohio National Guard (ONG) executed their plans to silence antiwar protest in America.

The new evidence threatens much more than the accuracy of accounts of the Kent State massacre in history books. As a result of this successful, ongoing Kent State government cover-up, American protesters today are at much greater risk than they realize, with no real guarantees or protections offered by the US First Amendment rights to protest and assemble. This chapter intends to expose the lies of the state in order to uncensor the “unhistory” of the Kent State massacre, while also aiming toward justice and healing, as censoring the past impacts our perspectives in the present.

The killing of protesters at Kent State changed the minds of many Americans about the role of the US in the Vietnam War. Following this massacre, there was an unparalleled national response: hundreds of universities, colleges, and high schools closed across America in a student strike of more than four million. Young people across the nation had strong suspicions the Kent State massacre was planned to subvert any further protests arising from the announcement that the already controversial war in Vietnam had expanded into Cambodia.

Yet instead of attempting to learn the truth at Kent State, the US government took complete control of the narrative in the press and ensuing lawsuits. Over the next ten years, authorities claimed there had not been a command-to-fire at Kent State, that the ONG had been under attack, and that their gunfire had been prompted by the “sound of sniper fire.” Instead of investigating Kent State, the American leadership obstructed justice, obscured accountability, tampered with evidence, and buried the truth. The result of these efforts has been a very complicated government cover-up that has remained intact for more than forty years.1

The hidden truth finally began to emerge at the fortieth anniversary of the Kent State massacre in May 2010, through the investigative journalism of John Mangels, science writer at the Cleveland Plain Dealer, whose findings supported the long-held suspicion that the four dead in Ohio were intentionally murdered at Kent State University by the US government.

Mangels commissioned forensic evidence expert Stuart Allen to professionally analyze a tape recording made from a Kent State student’s dormitory window ledge on May 4, 1970, forever capturing the crowd and battle sounds from before, during, and after the fusillade.2 For the first time since that fateful day, journalists and concerned Americans were finally able to hear the devastating soundtrack of the US government murdering Kent State students as they protested against the Vietnam War.

The cassette tape—provided to Mangels by the Yale University Library, Kent State Collection, and housed all these years in a box of evidence admitted into lawsuits led by attorney Joseph Kelner in his representation of the Kent State victims—was called the “Strubbe tape” after Terry Strubbe, the student who made the recording by placing a microphone attached to a personal recorder on his dormitory window ledge. This tape surfaced when Alan Canfora, a student protester wounded at Kent State, and researcher Bob Johnson dug through Yale library’s collection and found a CD copy of the tape recording from the day of the shootings. Paying ten dollars for a duplicate, Canfora then listened to it and immediately knew he probably held the only recording that might provide proof of an order to shoot. Three years after the tape was found, the Plain Dealer commendably hired two qualified forensic audio scientists to examine the tape.

But it is really the two pieces of groundbreaking evidence Allen uncovered that illuminate and provide a completely new perspective into the Kent State massacre.

First, Allen heard and verified the Kent State command-to-fire spoken at noon on May 4, 1970. The command-to-fire has been a point of contention, with authorities stating under oath and to media for forty years that “no order to fire was given at Kent State,” that “the Guard felt under attack from the students,” and that “the Guard reacted to sniper fire.”3 Yet Allen’s verified forensic evidence of the Kent State command-to-fire directly conflicts with guardsmen testimony that they acted in self-defense

The government claim—that guardsmen were under attack at the time of the ONG barrage of bullets—has long been suspect, as there is nothing in photographic or video records to support the “under attack” excuse. Rather, from more than a football field away, the Kent State student protesters swore, raised their middle fingers, and threw pebbles and stones and empty tear gas canisters, mostly as a response to their campus being turned into a battlefield with over 2,000 troops and military equipment strewn across the Kent State University campus.

Then at 12:24 p.m., the ONG fired armor-piercing bullets at scattering students in a parking lot—again, from more than a football field away. Responding with armor-piercing bullets, as Kent State students held a peaceful rally and protested unarmed on their campus, was the US government’s choice of action.

The identification of the “commander” responsible for the Kent State command-to-fire on unarmed students has not yet been ascertained. This key question will be answered when American leadership decides to share the truth of what happened, especially as the Kent State battle was under US government direction. Until then, the voice ordering the command-to-fire in the Kent State Strubbe tape will remain unknown.

The other major piece of Kent State evidence identified in Allen’s analysis was the “sound of sniper fire” recorded on the tape. These sounds point to Terry Norman, FBI informant and provocateur, who was believed to have fired his low-caliber pistol four times, just seventy seconds before the command-to-fire.

Mangels wrote in the Plain Dealer, “Norman was photographing protestors that day for the FBI and carried a loaded .38-caliber Smith & Wesson Model . . . five-shot revolver in a holster under his coat for protection. Though he denied discharging his pistol, he previously has been accused of triggering the Guard shootings by firing to warn away angry demonstrators, which the soldiers mistook for sniper fire.”4

Video footage and still photography have recorded the minutes following the “sound of sniper fire,” showing Terry Norman sprinting across the Kent State commons, meeting up with Kent Police and the ONG. In this visual evidence, Norman immediately yet casually hands off his pistol to authorities and the recipients of the pistol show no surprise as Norman hands them his gun.5

The “sound of sniper fire” is a key element of the Kent State cover-up and is also referred to by authorities in the Nation editorial, “Kent State: The Politics of Manslaughter,” from May 18, 1970:

The murders occurred on May 4. Two days earlier, [Ohio National Guard Adjutant General] Del Corso had issued a statement that sniper fire would be met by gunfire from his men. After the massacre, Del Corso and his subordinates declared that sniper fire had triggered the fusillade.6

Yet the Kent State “sound of sniper fire” remains key, according to White House Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman, who noted President Richard Nixon’s reaction to Kent State in the Oval Office on May 4, 1970:

Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman told him [of the killings] late in the afternoon. But at two o’clock Haldeman jotted on his ever-present legal pad “keep P. filled in on Kent State.” In his daily journal Haldeman expanded on the President’s reaction: “He very disturbed. Afraid his decision set it off . . . then kept after me all day for more facts. Hoping rioters had provoked the shootings—but no real evidence that they did.” Even after he had left for the day, Nixon called Haldeman back and among others issued one ringing command: “need to get out story of sniper.”7

In a May 5, 1970, article in the New York Times, President Nixon commented on violence at Kent State:

This should remind us all once again that when dissent turns to violence it invites tragedy. It is my hope that this tragic and unfortunate incident will strengthen the determination of all the nation’s campuses, administrators, faculty and students alike to stand firmly for the right which exists in this country of peaceful dissent and just as strong against the resort to violence as a means of such expression.8

President Nixon’s comment regarding dissent turning to violence obfuscated and laid full blame on student protesters for creating violence at Kent State. Yet at the rally occurring on May 4th, student protester violence amounted to swearing, throwing small rocks, and volleying back tear gas canisters, while the gun-toting soldiers of the ONG declared the peace rally illegal, brutally herded the students over large distances on campus, filled the air with tear gas, and even threw rocks at students. Twenty minutes into the protest demonstration, a troop of National Guard marched up a hill away from the students, turned to face the students in unison, and fired.

The violence at Kent State came from the National Guardsmen, not protesting students. On May 4, 1970, the US government delivered its deadly message to Kent State students and the world: if you protest in America against the wars of the Pentagon and the Department of Defense, the US government will stop at nothing to silence you.

Participating American militia colluded at Kent State to organize and fight this battle against American student protesters, most of them too young to vote but old enough to fight in the Vietnam War.9 And from new evidence exposed forty years after the massacre, numerous elements point directly to the FBI and COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) as lead agencies managing the government operation of the Kent State massacre, including the cover-up, but also with a firm hand in some of the lead-up.

Prior to the announcement of the Cambodian incursion, the ONG arrived in the Kent area acting in a federalized role as the Cleveland-Akron labor wildcat strikes were winding down. The ONG continued in the federalized role at Kent State, ostensibly to protect the campus and as a reaction to the burning of a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) building. Ohio Governor James “Jim” Rhodes claimed the burning of the ROTC building on the Kent State University campus was his reason for “calling in the guard,” yet in this picture of the burning building, the ONG are clearly standing before the flames as the building burns.10

From eyewitness accounts, the burning of the ROTC building at Kent State was completed by undercover law enforcement determined to make sure it could become the symbol needed to support the Kent State war on student protest.11

According to Dr. Elaine Wellin, an eyewitness to the many events at Kent State leading up to and including May 4th, there were uniformed and plain-clothes officers potentially involved in managing the burning of the ROTC building. Wellin was in close proximity to the building just prior to the burning and saw a person with a walkie-talkie about three feet from her telling someone on the other end of the communication that they should not send down the fire truck as the ROTC building was not on fire yet.12

A memo to COINTELPRO director William C. Sullivan ordered a full investigation into the “fire bombing of the ROTC building.” But only days after the Kent State massacre, every weapon that was fired was destroyed, and all other weapons used at Kent State were gathered by top ONG officers, placed with other weapons and shipped to Europe for use by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), so no weapons used at Kent could be traced.

From these pieces of evidence, it becomes clearer that the US government coordinated this battle against student protest on the Kent State campus. Using the playbook from the Huston Plan, which refers to protesting students as the “New Left,” the US government employed provocateurs, staged incidents, and enlisted political leaders to attack and lay full blame on the students. On May 4, 1970, at Kent State University, the US government fully negated every student response as they criminalized the First Amendment rights to protest and assemble.13

The cover-up adds tremendous complexity to an already complicated event, making it nearly impossible to fairly try the Kent State massacre in the American justice system. This imposed “establishment” view that Kent State was about “civil rights”—and not about murder or attempted murder—led to a legal settlement on the basis of civil rights lost, with the US government consistently refusing to address the death of four students and the wounding of nine.14

Even more disheartening, efforts to maintain the US government cover-up at Kent State recently went into overdrive in April 2012, when President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) formally announced a refusal to open a new probe into the wrongs of Kent State, continuing the tired 1970 tactic of referring to Kent State as a civil rights matter.15

The April 2012 DOJ letters of response also included a full admission that, in 1979, after reaching the Kent State civil rights settlement, the FBI Cleveland office destroyed what they considered a key piece of evidence: the original tape recording made by Terry Strubbe on his dormitory window ledge. In a case involving homicides, the FBI’s illegal destruction of evidence exposes their belief to be “above the law,” ignoring the obvious fact that four students were killed on May 4, 1970. As the statute of limitations never lapses for murder, the FBI’s actions went against every law of evidence. The laws clearly state that evidence may not be destroyed in homicides, even when the murders are perpetrated by the US government.

The destruction of the original Strubbe tape also shows the FBI’s intention to obstruct justice: the 2012 DOJ letters on Kent State claim that, because the original Strubbe tape was intentionally destroyed, the copy examined by Allen cannot be compared to the original or authenticated. However the original Strubbe tape, destroyed by the DOJ, was never admitted into evidence.

The tape examined by Stuart Allen, however, is a one-to-one copy of the Kent State Strubbe tape admitted into evidence in Kent State legal proceedings by Joseph Kelner, the lawyer representing the victims of Kent State. Once an article has been admitted into evidence, the article is considered authentic evidentiary material.

Worse than this new smokescreen on the provenance of the Kent State Strubbe tape and FBI efforts to destroy evidence is that the DOJ has wholly ignored or refuted the tremendous body of forensic evidence work accomplished by Allen, and verified by forensic expert Tom Owen.16 If the US Department of Justice really wanted to learn the truth about what happened at Kent State and was open to understanding the new evidence, DOJ efforts would include organizing an impartial examination of Allen’s analysis and contacting him to present his examination of the Kent State Strubbe tape. None of this has happened.

Instead, those seeking justice through a reexamination of the Kent State historical record based on new evidence have been left out in the cold. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, involved in Kent State from the very beginning as a Cleveland city council person, asked important questions in a letter to the DOJ on April 24, 2012, titled, “Analysis of Audio Record of Kent State Shooting Leaves Discrepancies and Key Questions Unaddressed”:

While I appreciate the response from the Justice Department, ultimately, they fail to examine key questions and discrepancies. It is well known that an FBI informant, Terry Norman, was on the campus. That FBI informant was carrying a gun. Eyewitnesses testified that they saw Mr. Norman brandish that weapon. Two experts in forensic audio, who have previously testified in court regarding audio forensics, found gunshots in their analysis of the audio recording. Did an FBI informant discharge a firearm at Kent State? Did an FBI informant precipitate the shootings?

Who and what events led to the violent encounter that resulted in four students dead and nine others injured? What do the FBI files show about their informant? Was he ever debriefed? Has he been questioned to compare his statement of events with new analysis? How, specifically, did the DOJ analyze the tape? How does this compare to previous analysis conducted by independent sources that reached a different conclusion? The DOJ suggested noises heard in the recording resulted from a door opening and closing. What tests were used to make that determination? Was an independent agency consulted in the process?

For more than a year, I have pushed for an analysis of the Strubbe tape because Kent State represented a tragedy of immense proportions. The Kent State shooting challenged the sensibilities of an entire generation of Americans. This issue is too important to ignore. We must demand a full explanation of the events.17

Concerned Americans may join Congressman Kucinich in demanding answers to these questions and in insisting on an independent, impartial organization—in other words, not the FBI—to get to the bottom of this.

The FBI’s cloudy involvement includes questions about Terry Norman’s relationship to the FBI, addressed in Mangels’s article, “Kent State Shootings: Does Former Informant Hold the Key to the May 4th Mystery?”:

Whether due to miscommunication, embarrassment or an attempted cover-up, the FBI initially denied any involvement with Norman as an informant.

“Mr. Norman was not working for the FBI on May 4, 1970, nor has he ever been in any way connected with this Bureau,” director J. Edgar Hoover declared to Ohio Congressman John Ashbrook in an August 1970 letter.

Three years later, Hoover’s successor, Clarence Kelley, was forced to correct the record. The director acknowledged that the FBI had paid Norman $125 for expenses incurred when, at the bureau’s encouragement, Norman infiltrated a meeting of Nazi and white power sympathizers in Virginia a month before the Kent State shootings.18

Even more telling, Norman’s pistol disappeared from a police evidence locker and was completely retooled to make sure that the weapon—used to create the “sound of sniper fire” on May 4—would not show signs of use. Indeed, every “investigation” into Kent State shows that the FBI tampered, withheld, and destroyed evidence, bringing into question government involvement in both the premeditated and post-massacre efforts at Kent State. In examining all inquiries into Kent State, an accurate investigation has never occurred, as the groups involved in the wrongs of Kent State have been investigating themselves.19

The Kent State students never had a chance against the armed will of the US government in its aim to fight wars in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos back in 1970. Further, the First Amendment rights to protest and assemble have shown to be only vacuous platitudes. Forty-two years later, the Obama administration echoes the original drone of the US government denying the murder of protesters, pointing only to civil rights lost. When bullets were fired on May 4th at Kent State, US government military action against antiwar protesters on domestic soil changed from a civil rights breach to acts of murder and attempted murder.

Congressman Kucinich, in an interview with Pacifica Radio after his exchanges with DOJ by May of 2012, said,

There are some lingering questions that could change the way that history looks at what happened at Kent State. And I think that we owe it to the present generation of Americans, the generation of Americans that came of age during Kent, the students on campus, we owe it to the Guardsmen, who it was said opened fire without any provocation what so ever . . . we have to get to the truth.20

As long as American leadership fails to consider killing protesters a homicidal action and not just about civil rights lost, there is little safety for American protesters today, leaving the door wide open for more needless and unnecessary bloodshed and possibly the killing of American protesters again. This forty-two-year refusal to acknowledge the death of four students relates to current US government practices toward protest and protesters in America, as witnessed at Occupy Wall Street over the past year. When will it ever become legal to protest and assemble in America again? Will American leadership cross the line to kill American protesters again?21

In a rare editorial addressing this issue, journalist Stephen Rosenfeld of AlterNet wrote,

History never exactly repeats itself. But its currents are never far from the present. As today’s protesters and police employ bolder tactics, the Kent State and Jackson State anniversaries should remind us that deadly mistakes can and do happen. It is the government’s responsibility to wield proportionate force, not to over-arm police and place them in a position where they could panic with deadly results.22

Though forty-two years have passed, the lessons of Kent State have not yet been learned.

No More Kent States23

In 2010, the United Kingdom acknowledged the wrongs of Bloody Sunday, also setting an example for the US government to learn the important lessons of protest and the First Amendment. In January 1972, during “Bloody Sunday,” British paratroopers shot and killed fourteen protesters; most of the demonstrators were shot in the back as they ran to save themselves.24

Thirty-eight years after the Bloody Sunday protest, British Prime Minister David Cameron apologized before Parliament, formally acknowledging the wrongful murder of protesters and apologized for the government.25 The healing in Britain has begun. Considering the striking similarity in events where protesters were murdered by the state, let’s examine the wrongs of Kent State, begin to heal this core American wound, and make a very important, humane course correction for America. When will it become legal to protest in America?

President Obama, the Department of Justice, and the US government as a whole must take a fresh look at Stuart Allen’s findings in the Kent State Strubbe tape. The new Kent State evidence is compelling, clearly showing how US covert intelligence took the lead in creating this massacre and in putting together the ensuing cover-up.

As the United States has refused to examine the new evidence or consider the plight of American protest in 2012, the Kent State Truth Tribunal formally requested the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the Hague consider justice at Kent State.26

Who benefited the most from the murder of student protesters at Kent State? Who was really behind the Kent State massacre? There is really only one US agency that clearly benefited from killing student antiwar protesters at Kent State: the Department of Defense.

Since 1970 through 2012, the military-industrial-cyber complex strongly associated with the Department of Defense and covert US government agencies have actively promoted never-ending wars with enormous unaccounted-for budgets as they increase restrictions on American protest. These aims of the Pentagon are evidenced today in the USA PATRIOT Act, the further civil rights–limiting National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and new war technologies like CIA drones.

Probing the dark and buried questions of the Kent State massacre is only a beginning step to shine much-needed light on the United States military and to illuminate how the Pentagon has subverted American trust and safety, as it endeavors to quell domestic protest against war at any cost since at least 1970.

Laurel Krause is a writer and truth seeker dedicated to raising awareness about ocean protection, safe renewable energy, and truth at Kent State. She publishes a blog on these topics at Mendo Coast Current. She is the cofounder and director of the Kent State Truth Tribunal. Before spearheading efforts for justice for her sister Allison Krause, who was killed at Kent State University on May 4, 1970, Laurel worked at technology start-ups in Silicon Valley.

Mickey Huff is the director of Project Censored and professor of social science and history at Diablo Valley College.  He did his graduate work in history on historical interpretations of the Kent State shootings and has been actively researching the topic more since his testimony to the Kent State Truth Tribunal in New York City in 2010.

Notes

[1.] For more background on Kent State and the many conflicting interpretations, see Scott L. Bills, Kent State/May 4: Echoes Through a Decade (Kent OH: Kent State University Press, 1982). Of particular interest for background on this chapter, see Peter Davies, “The Burning Question: A Government Cover-up?,” in Kent State/May 4, 150–60. For a full account of Davies’s work, see The Truth About Kent State: A Challenge to the American Conscience (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1973). For a listing of other works see Selected Bibliography on the Events of May 4, 1970, at Kent State University, http://dept.kent.edu/30yearmay4/source/bib.htm.

[2.] John Mangels, “New Analysis of 40-Year-Old Recording of Kent State Shootings Reveals that Ohio Guard was Given an Order to Prepare to Fire,” Plain Dealer (Cleveland), May 9, 2010, updated April 23, 2012, http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/05/new_analysis_of_40-year-old_re.html; Interview with Stuart Allen analyzing new evidence who said of the efforts, “It’s about setting history right.” See the footage “Kent State Shootings Case Remains Closed,” CNN, added April 29, 2012, http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2012/04/29/justice-department-will-not-reopen-kent-state-shootings-case.cnn.

[3.] Submitted for the Congressional Record by Representative Dennis Kucinich, “Truth Emerging in Kent State Cold Case Homicide,” by Laurel Krause, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r111%3AE14DE0-0019%3A. For a brief introduction on the history and emerging historiography of the Kent State shootings, see Mickey S. Huff, “Healing Old Wounds: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Conflicts Over Historical Interpretations of the Kent State Shootings, 1977–1990,” master’s thesis, Youngstown State University, December 1999, http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=ysu999620326.

For the official government report, see The Report of the President’s Commission on Campus Unrest (Washington: US Government Printing Office, 1970), also known as the Scranton Commission. It should be noted that the Scranton Commission stated in their conclusion between pages 287 and 290 that the shootings were “unnecessary, unwarranted and inexcusable” but criminal wrongdoing was never established through the courts and no one was ever held accountable for the shootings. Also, it should be noted, that the interpretation that the guard was ordered to fire conflicts with Davies’s interpretation, in note 1 here, that even though he believes there was a series of cover-ups by the government, he has not attributed malice. For more on the Kent State cover-ups early on, see I. F. Stone, “Fabricated Evidence in the Kent State Killings,” New York Review of Books, December 3, 1970, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1970/dec/03/fabricated-evidence-in-the-kent-state-killings.

[4.] Mangels, “Kent State Tape Indicates Altercation and Pistol Fire Preceded National Guard Shootings (audio),” Plain Dealer (Cleveland), October 8, 2010, http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2010/10/analysis_of_kent_state_audio_t.html.

[5.] Kent State Shooting 1970 [BX4510], Google Video, at 8:20 min., http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3727445416544720642.

[6.] Editorial, “Kent State: The Politics of Manslaughter,” Nation, April 30, 2009 [May 18, 1970], http://www.thenation.com/article/kent-state-politics-manslaughter.

[7.] Charles A. Thomas, Kenfour: Notes On An Investigation (e-book), http://speccoll.library.kent.edu/4may70/kenfour3.

[8.] John Kifner, “4 Kent State Students Killed by Troops,” New York Times, May 4, 1970, http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0504.html#article.

[9.] Voting age was twenty-one at this time, until the passage of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution in 1971, which lowered the voting age to eighteen, partially in response to Vietnam War protests as youth under twenty-one could be drafted without the right to vote.

[10.] It should also be noted, that Rhodes was running for election the Tuesday following the Kent shootings on a law and order ticket.

[11.] “My Personal Testimony ROTC Burning May 2 1970 Kent State,” YouTube, April 28, 2010, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ppBkB4caY0&feature=youtu.be; Freedom of Information Act, FBI, Kent State Shooting, File Number 98-46479, part 7 of 8 (1970), http://vault.fbi.gov/kent-state-shooting/kent-state-shooting-part-07-of-08/view.

[12.] The Project Censored Show on The Morning Mix, “May 4th and the Kent State Shootings in the 42nd Year,” Pacifica Radio, KPFA, 94.1FM, May 4, 2012 live at 8:00 a.m., archived online at http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/80293 and http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42635027/20120504-Fri0800.mp3. For Wellin on ROTC, see recording at 28:45.

Show description: The May 4th Kent State Shootings 42 Years Later: Justice Still Not Served with Congressman Dennis Kucinich commenting on the DOJ’s recent refusal to reopen the case despite new evidence of a Kent State command-to-fire and the ‘sound of sniper fire’ leading to the National Guard firing live ammunition at unarmed college students May 4, 1970; Dr. Elaine Wellin, Kent State eyewitness shares seeing undercover agents at the ROTC fire in the days before, provocateurs in staging the rallies at Kent, and at Kent State on May 4th; we’ll hear from investigator and forensic evidence expert Stuart Allen regarding his audio analysis of the Kent State Strubbe tape from May 4th revealing the command-to-fire and the ‘sound of sniper fire’ seventy seconds before; and we hear from Kent State Truth Tribunal director Laurel Krause, the sister of slain student Allison, about her efforts for justice at Kent State and recent letter to President Obama..

Also see Peter Davies’ testimony about agents provocateurs and the ROTC fire cited in note 1, “The Burning Question: A Government Cover-up?,” in Kent State/May 4, 150–60.

[13.] The Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC), “Volume 2: Huston Plan,” http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_church_reports_vol2.htm.

[14.] Associated Press, “Kent State Settlement: Was Apology Included?,” Eugene Register-Guard, January 5, 1979, http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19790105&id=xvJVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BuIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3696,963632.

[15.] Mangels, “Justice Department Won’t Reopen Probe of 1970 Kent State Shootings,” Plain Dealer (Cleveland), April 24, 2012, http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2012/04/justice_department_wont_re-ope.html; and kainah, “Obama Justice Dept.: No Justice for Kent State,” Daily Kos, May 2, 2012, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/02/1086726/-Justice-Dept-No-Justice-for-Kent-State.

[16.] Mangels, “New Analysis.”

[17.] Letters between the Department of Justice and Representative Dennis Kucinich, archived at the Congressman’s website, April 20 and April 24 of 2012, http://kucinich.house.gov/uploadedfiles/kent_state_response_from_doj.pdf and http://kucinich.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=292306.

[18.] Mangels, “Kent State Shootings: Does Former Informant Hold the Key to the May 4 Mystery?,” Plain Dealer (Cleveland), December 19, 2010, http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2010/12/kent_state_shootings_does_form.html.

[19.] Freedom of Information Act, FBI.

[20.] The Project Censored Show on The Morning Mix, “May 4th and the Kent State Shootings in the 42nd Year.”

[21.] Steven Rosenfeld, “Will a Militarized Police Force Facing Occupy Wall Street Lead to Another Kent State?,” AlterNet, May 3, 2012, http://www.alternet.org/rights/155270/will_a_militarized_police_force_facing_occupy_wall_street_lead_to_another_kent_state_massacre.

[22.] Ibid.

[23.] Laurel Krause, “No More Kent States,” Mendo Coast Current, April 21, 2012, http://mendocoastcurrent.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/13-day-for-kent-state-peace.

[24.] Laurel Krause, “Unjustified, Indefensible, Wrong,” Mendo Coast Current, September 13, 2010, http://mendocoastcurrent.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/unjustified-indefensible-wrong.

[25.] Associated Press, “Bloody Sunday Report Blames British Soldiers Fully,” USA Today, June 15, 2010, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-06-15-Bloody-Sunday-Ireland_N.htm; and Cameron’s direct quote from Henry McDonald, Owen Bowcott, and Hélène Mulholland, “Bloody Sunday Report: David Cameron Apologises for ‘Unjustifiable’ Shootings,” Guardian, June 15, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/15/bloody-sunday-report-saville-inquiry.

[26.] Laurel Krause, “To the Hague: Justice for the May 4th Kent State Massacre?,” Mendo Coast Current, May 7, 2012, http://mendocoastcurrent.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/may-4th-kent-state-massacre-a-call-for-truth-justice; for more on the Kent State Truth Tribunal, see www.TruthTribunal.org.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Kent State, May 4, 1970: Was It about Civil Rights or 
Murdering Student Protesters?

Selected Articles: Our Humanity, Our Identity

May 3rd, 2021 by Global Research News

Our Humanity, Our Identity

By Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, May 02, 2021

Identity politics has been on the ascendancy in many parts of the world in the last few decades. Its relationship to ethnicity, culture and religion is what concerns us at this point. To understand this relationship one has to consider the context. We should also try to explain the impact of identity politics upon religion itself.

Is a Mask that Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?

By Kai Kisielinski, Paul Giboni, and et al., May 02, 2021

The study below was reported in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (Publication date April 20, 2021) and details the harm caused by mask wearing and adds to a growing body of under-reported, censored and suppressed public health information that contradicts the biomedical narrative that masks are safe and effective and recommended by the CDC.

Efforts to Silence the Debate on Vaccination Safety: The Weaponization of the CDC Against Public Health

By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null, May 02, 2021

What if you were to know that a cabal of corrupt bureaucrats and scientists at the heart of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have known for almost two decades that vaccines, including the MMR, can lead to autism and other neurological disorders? Most people are unaware that the CDC is a militarized federal agency further influenced by private pharmaceutical interests.

Killing Democracy Once and for All: The Global Elite’s Coup d’Etat that Is Destroying Life as We Know It

By Robert J. Burrowes, May 02, 2021

Politically savvy individuals know that democracy has rarely existed and probably never outside small groups of humans who deliberately organize themselves to share power or grant it temporarily to one or a small number of people for a particular purpose. In most contexts, ‘democracy’ is simply a label used to deceive the unwary into believing that ordinary people have a say in how we are governed. But this has never been the case in any political framework on a larger scale.

Nuclear War and the Future of Humanity. Conversations with Fidel Castro

By Fidel Castro Ruz and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 02, 2021

This interview with Fidel Castro provides an understanding of the nature of modern warfare: Were a military operation to be launched against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the US and its allies would be unable to win a conventional war, with the possibility that this war could evolve towards a nuclear war.

The Crash of Flight 3804 – A Lost Spy, A Daughter’s Quest, and the Deadly Politics of the Great Game for Oil

By Jim Miles, May 02, 2021

The history begins with the personal element, the killing/murder of her father in Flight 3804 from Jidda to Addis Abbab in March 1947.  From that came the revelation that her father Daniel Dennett was a U.S. master spy examining the events in the Middle East before Israel created its state in the 1948 nakba and before the creation of the CIA, but not before oil, pipelines and big money had already shaped the political and geographical landscapes.

Big Pharma’s Covid Vaccine

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 01, 2021

The Covid-19 vaccine is profit driven. The US government had already ordered 100 million doses back in July 2020 and the EU is to purchase 300 million doses. It’s Big Money for Big Pharma, generous payoffs to corrupt politicians, at the expense of tax payers.

The objective is ultimately to make money, by vaccinating the entire planet of 7.8 billion people for SARS-CoV-2.

Moderna, Pfizer Test mRNA Experimental Biologics on Children

By Barbara Caceres, May 01, 2021

On Dec. 10, 2020, American biotechnology company Moderna, Inc., which is pioneering the development of experimental messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics and vaccines, gave a 12-year old a dose of the company’s mRNA-1273 vaccine in a Phase 2/3 study of the new vaccine. Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel said, “Our goal is to generate data in the spring of 2021 that will support the use of mRNA-1273 in adolescents in advance of the 2021 school year”.

Twitter Censors Peer Reviewed Mask Study

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 01, 2021

March 26, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) tweeted a post against the use of masks for the general public: “If you do not have any respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough, or runny nose, you do not need to wear a medical mask. When used alone, masks can give you a false feeling of protection and can even be a source of infection when not used correctly.”

Ten Years after Fukushima, Canada Still Embraces the Atom: The Debut of the Small Moderate Reactors

By Michael Welch, Robert Hunziker, and Prof. M. V. Ramana, May 01, 2021

According to standard accounts, the death toll from the Chernobyl meltdown ranged from 4,000 to 200,000 although the scientific studies by Doctors Yablokov, Vassily and Nesterenkoin their book Chernobyl: Consequences of a Catastrophe for People and the Environment placed the numbers closer to 1,000,000.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Our Humanity, Our Identity

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

***

Data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the number of injuries and deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID vaccines showed a significant jump in reports of injuries and deaths compared with last week’s numbers.

VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.

Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date, usually about a week prior to the release date. Today’s data show that between Dec. 14, 2020 and April 23, a total of 118,902 total adverse events were reported to VAERS, including 3,544 deaths — an increase of 358 over the previous week — and 12,619 serious injuries, up 2,467 since last week.

From the 4/23/2021 release of VAERS data.

In the U.S., 222.3 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of April 23. This includes 97 million doses of Moderna’s vaccine, 117 million doses of Pfizer and 8 million doses of the Johnson &Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccine.

Of the 3,544 deaths reported as of April 23, 25% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, 17% occurred within 24 hours and 40% occurred in people who became ill within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

This week’s data included three reports of deaths among teens under age 18, including two 15-year-olds and one 16-year-old who died unexpectedly from a blood clot 11 days after receiving her first Pfizer dose.

A 15-year-old female died of cardiac arrest after receiving the second dose of the Moderna vaccine, and a 15-year-old male died of cardiac failure two days after receiving the Pfizer vaccine.

This week’s VAERS data show:

CDC ignores The Defender, no response after 53 days

According to the CDC website, “the CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information and learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or unrelated.”

The Defender reached out to the CDC on March 8 with a written list of questions about reported deaths and injuries related to COVID vaccines, the status of ongoing investigations reported in the media, if autopsies are being done, the standard for determining whether an injury is causally connected to a vaccine, and education initiatives to encourage and facilitate proper and accurate reporting.

We made numerous attempts to contact the CDC via phone and email. As of April 30, 53 days after our initial inquiry, we still have yet to receive answers to our questions.

First ‘acknowledged’ case of J&J blood clots in a male

On April 27, The Defender reported a 30-year-old California man was hospitalized with blood clots after receiving J&J’s COVID vaccine. It is the first time U.S. public health officials have specifically acknowledged “vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia syndrome” in a male who received J&J’s shot.

The news came days after an independent advisory panel for the CDC on April 23 voted 10 to 4 to recommend the continued use of the J&J vaccine with no restrictions after acknowledging a “possible link” between the vaccine and rare blood clotting disorders, mostly in young people. The panel concluded the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks.

Children’s Health Defense queried the VAERS data for a series of adverse events associated with the formation of clotting disorders and other related conditions. VAERS yielded a total of 1,845 reports for all three vaccines from Dec. 14, 2020, through April 23.

Of the 1,845 cases reported, there were 655 reports attributed to Pfizer, 577 reports to Moderna and 608 reports to J&J — an increase of 448 J&J-related cases in just one week. U.S. health officials only acknowledged 15 blood clot cases associated with the J&J vaccine at the April 16 meeting.

Children as young as 6 months in COVID vaccine trials

On April 27, ABC News reported children as young as 6 months old are now in COVID vaccine trials. Dr. Zinaida Good, research fellow and immunologist at the Stanford Medicine Cancer Center, enrolled both her sons in Stanford Hospital’s Pfizer trial. Good said she and her husband are confident in the safety of the vaccine.

“It would be wonderful if we knew how to communicate better the benefits of the vaccine and its safety. The data is very clear,” Good said. “Those who get vaccines like this, mRNA vaccines, at least they are protected and they don’t really have any real side effects, not any real long-term consequences.”

Dr. Angelica Lacour’s 3-year-old daughter, Eloise, is also participating in the trial for young children. Lacour said she was told about potential side effects. “They said that it’s incredibly rare, but anyone can have an anaphylactic reaction to it. But it’s so rare they couldn’t even give us an example,” Lacour said. “So [side effects were] not something I was very concerned about.”

It is unknown whether Pfizer informed parents of potential side effects beyond just “anaphylaxis.” According to VAERS data, 45,508 of the 118,902 total reported adverse events were attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine. Of those 45,508 adverse events, 13,116 were related to anaphylactic reactions.

Possible link between Pfizer vaccine and heart inflammation

The Defender reported April 26 on details leaked from an Israeli Health Ministry report that raised concerns among experts about a possible link between the Pfizer vaccine and myocarditis.

The preliminary report found 62 cases of myocarditis, including two deaths, in people who received the Pfizer vaccine. Fifty-six of the cases occurred after the second dose of the vaccine, and 55 cases occurred in men — most between the ages of 18 and 30.

Israel’s pandemic response coordinator, Nachman Ash, confirmed “tens of incidents” of myocarditis occurred in vaccinated people, primarily after the second dose, but emphasized the health ministry had yet to draw any conclusions.

Pfizer said it had not detected similar findings in the rest of the world but would look deeper into the phenomenon. Yet a search for “myocarditis” in VAERS revealed 75 cases of myocarditis, with 73% occurring in people between the ages of 17 and 44. Of the reported cases, 33 were reportedafter the Pfizer vaccine.

COVID vaccines and menstrual cycle disruption

Researchers this week called for clinical trials to track and document menstrual changes in vaccinated women after some women reported changes to their menstrual cycles after receiving a COVID vaccine, The Defender reported April 28.

Women have reported hemorrhagic bleeding with clots, delayed or absent periods, sudden pre-menopausal symptoms, month-long periods and heavy irregular bleeding after being vaccinated with one or both doses of a COVID vaccine.

There’s no data linking COVID vaccines to changes in menstruation because clinical trials omit tracking menstrual cycles. But two Yale University experts wrote in The New York Times last week there could be a connection.

“There are many reasons vaccination could alter menstruation,” wrote Alice Lu-Culligan, an M.D./Ph.D. student at Yale School of Medicine, and Dr. Randi Epstein, writer in residence at Yale School of Medicine.

“Periods involve the immune system, as the thickening and thinning of the uterine lining are facilitated by different teams of immune cells and signals moving in and out of the reproductive tract,” Lu-Culligan and Epstein explained. “Vaccines are designed to ignite an immune response, and the female cycle is supported by the immune system, so it’s possible vaccines could temporarily change the normal course of events.”

To find out whether the COVID vaccine truly disrupts menstrual cycles, experts say there needs to be a controlled study with a placebo group. Rather than treat menstrual cycles as unimportant or too complicated, researchers should view tracking periods in future studies as a potential opportunity, Lu-Culligan and Epstein said. Clinical trials should track and document menstrual changes as they do other possible side effects.

Government considering COVID vaccine mandate for U.S. troops

President Joe Biden said today he has not ruled out requiring all U.S. troops to get the COVID vaccine after the shots win final clearance from federal regulators, but cautioned that such a decision would be a “tough call,” Politico reported.

The comments come as the Pentagon sounded the alarm that roughly one-third of troops and 40% of Marines had declined the vaccine as of February, according to congressional testimony from military officials.

In March, a group of Democratic lawmakers demanded Biden make the vaccine a requirement for service members, while Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby confirmed the military’s top brass was weighing a mandatory vaccination order.

As The Defender reported this week, military officials held a virtual town hall this month in which leaders touted the vaccines and urged service members to get vaccinated, or miss out on perks granted exclusively to those who get the vaccine.

Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.

*

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.

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 Children’s Health Defense

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

***

There is a fast increasing trend in cattle breeding towards sex semen technology which will result in birth of only female calves. 90 per cent success in ensuring success (in terms of having only female calves) is claimed by promoters of this technology.  Although the drift towards this shockingly reductionist technology was initially restricted in India to some extent by the high costs of the technology patents vesting with USA firms, there have been increasing efforts to develop Indian technology and there has been increasing emphasis   by the union government during the  last six years towards supporting it, with a minister claiming to set up ‘ cow factories’.

The Hindu Business Line reported on December 27 2019, —The country has found an innovative solution to control stray animal population. It is implementing the sex-sorting semen technology for artificial insemination, which will produce only female animals. This will reduce the number of male calves.

Tracing the advent of this technology in India earlier The Times of India had reported on November 26, 2014—For the first times in the country an artificial insemination centre has been set up by dairy giant Amul which plans to develop sexed semen technology and then  impregnate  into newly matured young cows. This will ensure that the cows inseminated with ‘sexed semen’ only give birth to young female calves…Amul officials claim that they have already partnered with some of the country’s premier institutes for developing this technology. In sexed semen, the fractions of the X-bearing (female) and Y-bearing (male) sperm are modified from the natural semen through sorting and selection.

More recently the Business Standard quoted a minister and  BJP leader as stating that we will set up cow birth factories (ham gai paida karne ki factory laga denge). He said that 30 lakh doses of sex-sorted semen will be given in a year and by 2025 there will be 10 crore female cows. (September 2019).

Regarding the new technology being developed in India the Business Standard reported on June 20 2016—This sex semen technology involves clearing of all Y-chromosomes from a male sperm and then injecting into a female.

Further, on November 8 2020 the Business Line reported—India now has an indigenous technology for sex sorting bovine sperms which would ensure birth of only female calves.

It is clear that these developments which take forward the technology of sexed semen for producing only female calves has been generally welcomed by the media as well as by scientists and politicians placed in very important official positions. Nevertheless it is important to raise questions about this.

This is all the more important at this point of time when the world has been ravaged by a pandemic and several scientists and environmentalists now trace the linkages of several pandemics to disruptions in animal life and in animal-human inter-actions, as well as in the wider environmental changes which relate to this. The balance of nature, the balance of various species within it is very important and when this is disrupted many unintentional and unpredicted  disruptions in other areas including health can result which can be very harmful. This is all the more important in the case of a species like cow which is so close and integral to rural communities in India and several other countries.

What is the guarantee that human-animal inter-actions will be as harmless in the case of the cows produced with sexed semen technology as these have been with normal cows? What is the guarantee that the milk obtained from these cows will be as  nourishing and fit for human and particularly child use as has been the case with the milk from the normal cows? Surely all these questions should at least be asked and examined before we rush on the super highway towards very fast spread of highly dubious  technologies and realize mistakes when it is too late.

Another question is—once such short-vision technologies get established and accepted where will these stop. If these are used for eliminating bullocks today, won’t it be the turn of the male species of some other animals tomorrow. Eventually where will this stop and what will be the overall impact in totality on nature and on animal life and on human-animal inter-actions?

In the rush to push highly  reductionist and short-vision technologies such as sexed semen, has anyone cared to consider all the potential hazards and  adverse impacts? Are the promoters willing to give a guarantee that no serious adverse impacts will emerge? Have they at least considered all the possible adverse impacts?

Bullocks have been such an integral part of rural community life in India as well as several other countries. Farmers have been taking great pride in the health of their bullocks. Bullocks have been celebrated in folklore which indicate the equal affection cows and bullocks received in farmer households with no gender discrimination. Prem Chand  wrote a famous story ( Do Bailon Ki Katha ) which brings out this affection for bullocks vividly and a film with great music was made ( Hira-Moti) based on this story.  True tractors have displaced them from ploughing in many villages, but they are still used for ploughing in many other villages. In addition they have been used for help in food processing and irrigation and for transport. Bullock carts have been the pride of several rural households and bullock cart races have been organized in many villages. In times of climate change with growing need to reduce fossil fuels the importance of bullocks increases further. Organic and natural farming is becoming more important in times of climate change and cows and bullocks are now so important also for their urine and dung. Methods exist in cattle sheds and go-shalas for obtaining these in clean  ways. So science should contribute to better protection for both cows and bullocks instead of upsetting the entire balance.

Questions need to be asked about so human-centric a view of world that a few powerful humans with a tunnel vision become the arbiters of which animal will survive and which will not. It is  nightmarish and dystopian to realize that a few reductionist and short-vision men have been given the power to almost eliminate a species—bullocks—which, apart from being a very noble animal in its own right and having every right to life,  has  served humanity so well. It is  equally alarming to know that the union government and a political party which announce their commitment  to cow-protection from the housetop actually have such a narrow and distorted view of this issue that they vigorously promote a technology which seeks to almost eliminate   the male species.

Surely the sexed semen technology should be opposed widely before it can cause further harm.

*

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.

Bharat Dogra is a veteran journalist and author. He has received several prestigious journalism awards for his public interest writings. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, Planet in Peril and Man over Machine.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sexed Semen—Why the Technology of Producing Only Female Calves Should be Opposed Firmly
  • Tags: ,

Gun Violence Starts at the Top

May 3rd, 2021 by Margaret Kimberley

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

***

If the state reserves the right to commit mass murder no one should be surprised that the people follow suit.

Mass shootings happen with appalling regularity in the United States. It is bad enough that recent shootings took place in Atlanta, Boulder, and Indianapolis, but the horror is always followed by the same useless faux debates. Half the population wants to limit gun ownership, the other half doesn’t and continues a gun buying spree to prove their point. Politicians pretend to take action, victims are mourned, thoughts and prayers are uttered, and the cycle repeats itself with the next awful event.

What very few people dare to discuss is how these acts are connected with U.S. history and with the state in its current form. This country exists as a result of genocides and terrorism. The indigenous inhabitants were attacked with wars and disease and the survivors were driven from their ancestral lands. Africans were enslaved and treated like chattel, all Black people were deprived of their legal rights, and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years. Lynch law prevailed and the torture and killing of black people was a spectator sport across the land. The fits and starts of anything resembling justice have been far outweighed by institutional resistance which maintains the status quo.

The police continue to kill three people every day, more than 1,000 people every year. While George Floyd’s police murderer was on trial, young Daunte Wright was killed in a nearby community. Video footage revealed that 13-year old Adam Toledo was unarmed with his hands raised when he was shot and killed by Chicago police. Lest anyone forget, Chicago is the city which holds hundreds of people at Homan Square, a city jail that operates like a CIA black-ops site. Chicago should forever be known as the city where black men were tortured by police for years.

When this nation wasn’t practicing state sanctioned terror within its boundaries, it committed atrocities internationally. Wars, interventions and coups have been committed from Chile to Haiti to Guatemala to Iraq to Ukraine. There are U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and more than 800 bases under U.S. or other NATO nation control around the world.

Joe Biden has undone the Trump administration agreement to leave Afghanistan  by May 1. He cynically uses the date of September 11 to forestall what should have happened years ago. The occupation of Afghanistan has gone on so long that people born after it began are now old enough to join the military themselves. But no one should be fooled. Biden is privatizing war  with contractors and intelligence operatives and moving troops to create havoc elsewhere in the world.

If the state reserves the right to commit mass murder no one should be surprised that the people follow suit. They are taught that their violent country is exceptionally good, fair, benevolent and democratic. The U.S. leads the world in military spending and brings wars home by militarizing local police. Of course the bloodletting doesn’t end. It would be shocking if it did.

The phony concern must come to an end. Foolish and false platitudes such as, “This is not who we are,” should disappear from discourse and be replaced with honesty. Biden has proposed increasing defense spending to $753 billion and after the rhetorical dust settles, there will be a bipartisan congressional consensus to approve what he wants. Military spending takes up 60% of the discretionary budget and is the reason why people in this country cannot have nice things.

State violence is like background music that seeps into the collective consciousness. The same people who express shock when an individual goes on a killing spree in this country are silent when their government is responsible for killings around the world. They may support the mass incarceration state, which makes the U.S. the world’s number one jailer.

It is all connected. State sanctioned violence tells the people that individual violence is just fine. The hand wringing over the latest shooting doesn’t mean anything if the wars and law enforcement brutality continue. The hypocrisy is obvious and no one should be surprised when a well-armed population makes use of their personal arsenals.

The United States of America is and will remain violent without some revolutionary change. The carnage is both official and personal. If this country is honest the next mass shooting should be ignored by the media, politicians, and by the people too. Any consternation is temporary because it is dishonest. For now the most that can be expected is that Americans will finally end the pretense of concern and treat the inevitable results of their history and politics with nonchalance. It is the only honest thing they can do.

*

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.

Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well at patreon.com/margaretkimberley and she regularly posts on Twitter @freedomrideblog. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

Featured image is from Black Agenda Report

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

***

On April 29 the U.S. Senate confirmed Victoria Nuland as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, which has been described as the fourth most important position in the State Department. Though as the first three are filled by political appointees and the other by a career foreign service officer, the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs is the highest-ranking member of the U.S. Foreign Service.

In an appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April as part of her confirmation process, she reflected on her thirty-two years in the Foreign Service working for five presidents of both parties and nine secretaries of state. She retailed some of her “historic moments” in that career, among them “working on tough arms control problems and conflicts from Rwanda to Haiti to Bosnia and Kosovo.” But what she expressed as her last-listed and perhaps proudest moment was, while she served as Deputy Chief of Mission at NATO, the military bloc for the first time activating its Article 5 collective defense clause, which contributed to the now twenty-year-old war in Afghanistan, a comprehensive naval interdiction mission in the Mediterranean Sea (Operation Active Endeavor) and European AWACS flights over the U.S. along with several other missions.

A major part of her career has been spent at NATO headquarters: she was Deputy Permanent Representative (ambassador) to NATO from 2000-2003 and Permanent Representative from 2005-2008. In both positions she was instrumental in recruiting military forces from NATO allies and partners for the war in Afghanistan, with NATO military personnel also stationed in Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan. At one point 130,000 of the 150,000 foreign troops in the country served under NATO command in the International Security Assistance Force: service members from 54 countries. Never before or since have troops from so many nations fought in a war, much less in one theater of war or one country.

She also worked on promoting seven nations to NATO membership at the historic Istanbul, Turkey summit in 2004: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia. All are in Eastern Europe; all but Slovenia were members of the defunct Warsaw Pact; three – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – were Soviet republics. Bulgaria and Romania provided the U.S. and NATO with eight military bases in the following two years. NATO has flown fighter jets from air bases in Latvia and Lithuania for years, in the case of the second nation since 2004.

Her State Department biography states she also served as Deputy to the Ambassador­-at-Large for the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union in the 1990s (That was likely under Strobe Talbott, later president of the Brookings Institution.) She had a brief stint as a faculty member at the National War College. And she was Principal Deputy National Security Advisor for Vice President Dick Cheney from 2003 to 2005; that is, during and immediately after the invasion of Iraq.

During the transition period in Russia immediately following the dissolution of the Soviet Union she worked at what is described as covering Russian internal politics at the American embassy in Moscow and served on what the State Department termed the Soviet Desk in Washington. She is, in short, a seasoned Russia hand. She is reported to speak Russian and “a smattering” of Chinese, having worked in Guangzhou, China (1985-86) and at the State Department’s Bureaus of East Asian and Pacific Affairs the following year. She was in Mongolia in 1988 where she has been credited with assisting in setting up the first American embassy in the nation that is wedged between Russia and China.

She was a visiting fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations twice, and the second time, as a State Department fellow, she directed a Council on Foreign Relations task force on “Russia, its Neighbors and an Expanding NATO.” She has also been a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a senior counselor at the Albright Stonebridge Group of former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. And she is on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy. (Her husband, Robert Kagan, is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and member of the Council on Foreign Relations and was a member of the defunct Project for the New American Century, of which he was a key founder along with Bruce P. Jackson, also past president the U.S. Committee on NATO/Expand NATO. Both Nuland and Kagan are now Democrats.)

But the world would likely never have heard of her until now except for her role in engineering the overthrow of the government of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. Her face was first revealed to viewers outside the State Department, the National War College and major think tanks as she was handing out food to anti-government rioters in Kiev at the beginning of that year.

Having been appointed Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs the preceding year, she became the major American official assigned to Ukraine during the crisis of late 2013 and early 2014. In a leaked phone conversation of January 28, 2014 between her and American ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, the two provided future historians with a textbook-perfect specimen of engineering a coup, replete with the exact people who would lead the post-coup “transitional government.” Three and a half weeks before President Yanukovych was deposed.

When the tape appeared on YouTube it created an international furor, not because of what it revealed about plotting the overthrow of a government which shares a 1,200-mile border with the U.S.’s nuclear rival Russia, not because it exposed the most naked form of interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, not because shortly afterward the plot resulted in a what is now a seven-year war with the ever-worsening prospect of a direct military confrontation between the U.S. and NATO on one side and Russia on the other – no, but because the diplomat with decades of diverse experience said, when the ambassador raised the issue of the European Union’s role in the transition, “F-ck the EU.” That made the conversation noteworthy. The only outrage in the West was over the fact that the contents of a private conversation has been divulged. Russia was blamed of course. Three years later Hillary Clinton denounced the leak as an example of Russia “weaponizing” intelligence information. She had no objection to overthrowing a friendly government and plunging Europe into a new war.

Yesterday no doubt there was rejoicing and exultation in Kiev. There should have been weeping and gnashing of teeth in the Donbass and Crimea. And grave concern in Moscow. Nuland like her boss Joe Biden may have unfinished business in Ukraine.

*

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.

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

***

Turkey launched two brand-new operations in Iraq’s Kurdistan region.

The operations against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) began in the provinces of Sirnak and Hakkari on April 29th.

The operation in Sirnak province is code-named Eren Cudi-Besta and the one in Hakkari province is code-named Eren Kazan-Ogul.

They are named after a 15-year-old boy who was a collateral damage death in a clash between Turkish Forces and the PKK in Iraq’s Trabzon province.

Ankara also said that these two new operations are in conjunction with the Claw-Lightning and Claw-Thunderbolt operations, launched in the Kurdistani Duhok province less than 7 days ago.

As of April 26th, Turkey reported on their wild success – armed forces struck about 460 targets, and have neutralized at least 42 members of the PKK.

It should be noted that Ankara greatly enjoys overestimating its achievements in such operations.

On the other side, the PKK claimed that its fighters killed 21 Turkish service members in a series of operations between April 27th and 29th, while Turkey reported a single serviceman losing his life and two others being injured.

Furthermore the PKK said that its fighters had had attacked a secret Turkish base near the village of Sheladize in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region on April 27th.

The group targeted two M60 battle tanks, which were parked in the base, with anti-tank guided missiles.

Even beyond operations, hostilities between Turkey, Turkish-backed forces and Kurdish groups are commonplace.

All of this takes place in addition to regular airstrikes by the Turkish air force.

Ankara’s encroachment on Iraq’s borders simply adds to the chaos that Baghdad has to deal with.

On April 29, Iraqi security forces foiled a terrorist attack and killed a suicide bomber in the center of the northern province of Kirkuk.

ISIS hasn’t claimed responsibility for the attack, but the terrorist group is quite active in the province.

On April 24, ISIS terrorists attacked a post of the Iraqi Federal Police near the town of al-Suss.

On April 28, the terrorists carried out a second, bolder attack by pounding a base of the Iraqi military in al-Zarkah with five mortar shells.

Further south in Iraq, ISIS terrorists raided a post of the Iraqi military in the southern countryside of the western province of al-Anbar.

The militants stormed the post, which is located on the border with Saudi Arabia, without facing any real resistance.

The post’s personnel fled, leaving behind their weapons and equipment.

They set it on fire and simply left.

Meanwhile, United States supply convoys continue blowing up as a result of constant IED attacks.

Thus, US forces are focused on their general security rather than assisting the Iraqi Armed Forces and the Popular Mobilization Units in containing ISIS.

*

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.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: “Turkish Falcon” Protracts Its Claws over Kurdistan Yet Again
  • Tags: , ,

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

***

Titles can be deceptive – “The Crash of Flight 3804” meant nothing for all my readings of history and geopolitics.  It was not about the crash that killed Dag Hammerskjold, nor about any of the more recent crashes like the U.S. navy shoot down of Iran Air 655 in 1988.   Even the subtitle seemed deceptively uninteresting until it read “and the Deadly Politics of the Great Game for Oil.”   As usual, the determining factor became the author – a lawyer, an investigative journalist, and a Middle East reporter of the kind that has actually been on the ground in a few of the controversial areas.   Hesitantly, I decided to give it a read.

Frequently I am asked if there is a book I would recommend to give a primer or an overview for certain geopolitical arenas – usually the Middle East, and Israel/Palestine.  And quite frequently it is difficult to find a book that covers the requested topics in a way to serve as both an introduction and as a significant, accurate, and highly readable ‘story’, although there are many excellent books on specific topics.   This book, “The Crash of Flight 3804”  is now that recommendation.

Apart from the personal aspects of the story, which is the fine and not overstated thread throughout as well as the motivation, Charlotte Dennett has written an excellent book summarizing the geopolitics of the Middle East historically through to current events.  Her main theme is essentially follow the pipelines, follow the money, and by doing so she traces a history of espionage, geopolitical gamesmanship, and terror that defines what makes the Middle East today.

History

The history begins with the personal element, the killing/murder of her father in Flight 3804 from Jidda to Addis Abbab in March 1947.  From that came the revelation that her father Daniel Dennett was a U.S. master spy examining the events in the Middle East before Israel created its state in the 1948 nakba and before the creation of the CIA, but not before oil, pipelines and big money had already shaped the political and geographical landscapes.

The history works mostly forwards but traces back to World War I, the intrigues of the Germans with the Ottoman empire, the attempts by the British, French, and Russians to establish controlling interests in the oil rich region as oil became the power for the military and the industrialists of the era.  It puts in place the Zionist proposals and actions, the Balfour letter (and it was just a letter, not a law), and the situation with the Saudis and other relationships within the declining Ottoman empire.

The focal point for the geopolitics is the story of pipelines, for whoever controls the pipelines controls the movement and endpoint of the vast oil fields of the Middle East.   Fortunately Dennett has included many maps drawing the outlines of the region and the many planned and built pipelines, and for current events, the location of newer oil fields that are and will cause current and  not so future problems – the Levantine Basin in the Eastern Mediterranean, the untapped sources in Yemen, and new potentially large discoveries in the illegally occupied Golan Heights.

Money

As a story of money and oil the names of traditional bankers rise reasonably frequently – the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds predominating.  As I read it occurred to me that she was not really discussing the development of the petrodollar until –

“…the wars [all Middle East wars] have been linked to the US command of the oil-based petrodollar, much as they have been linked to the control of oil, and most significantly Saudi oil…and oil in Iraq…and possibly the oil in Yemen….the larger part of what is known as ”dollar hegemony” is the control of oil.”

The reader is introduced to the wars in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria in particular as part of the need to control petrodollar hegemony, as “a switch by OPEC from a dollar standard to a euro standard would be the Federal Reserve’s biggest nightmare.”  Dennett does not develop this idea but if it needs stating:  without oil being mandated as priced in US dollars, the economy of the US. would collapse as its dollar would become worthless – no one would need the dollars to purchase oil with and the huge U.S. debts supported by the advantage of being the global reserve currency would collapse.

So oil pipelines are big money, the petrodollar is the global reserve currency and the U.S. uses its vast military to support it,

…the country that espouses liberty for all is in fact an economic empire backed by military legions, one only needs to look at the number of US troops and military bases that the United States commands around the world….

Israel

Dennett’s chapter “The Hidden History of Pipeline Politics in Palestine and Israel” provides an insightful summary by way of examining who controls pipelines within the problems that currently beset Israel/Palestine and the general Middle East.  Not many historians mention it but the military-oil aspect of the creation of Israel is well supported.  Using old maps as her guide to some of her research and questions, she asked,

“Where, I asked myself, was the military base that would protect the Trans-Arabian Pipeline?  It wasn’t in Lebanon.  It wasn’t in Syria.  And then it hit me.  It wasn’t in Israel.  It was Israel.”

Historically Dennett begins with World War I,

“…fought, in large part, not to make the world safe for democracy but to help robber barons reap enormous profits and establish spheres of influence in resource-rich parts of the world, including the Middle East.”

The British Empire straddled the world, and the Zionists “advocated for a Jewish state in Palestine as a European outpost to protect the Red Sea and Britain’s vital trade route to India.”  The Balfour Letter among its several purposes was related to British “imperial interests” in Mesopotamian and Palestine.

During World War II, arguably the last battle of World War I,  the geopolitical positioning of the U.S. played an important role in the holocaust.  The U.S. became aware of the genocide in 1943, but worried about Ibn Saud and possible threats to “end the United States’ exclusive oil concession in Saudi Arabia if increased Jewish immigration to Palestine were allowed” the U.S. decided against bombing Auschwitz in order to end that part of the German program.

At the end of the war, British imperial power was in sharp decline and the U.S. was the global leader in military and economic power. At this point,   “Protection of the Saudi oil concession and the Saudi pipeline “at all costs” trumped all other considerations,” and a “strong militarized Israel could serve as the key regional protector of the Saudi pipeline.”  The result is that today, “a powerful coalition comprised of the Zionist lobby,evangelical Protestants and armsmakers now constitutes significant domestic constraint on those who might seek to alter U.S. policy towards Israel.”

Recent events concerning Palestine – in particular Gaza and its Mediterranean coast – and Israel focus on pipelines not yet built as the countries of the Levant argue over the newly discovered oil and gas resources under the Mediterranean.  Once again, a clear map shows the outlines of the gas and oil fields and the coastal water limits of each of the littoral countries.

In sum Dennett argues,

“…as we consider what has happened in the Middle East over the past seven decades, and what is happening today in Syria, Iraq, Gaza, and now Yemen, we have question whether the timeworn quest for oil – to be pursued “at all costs” – lies at the heart of many of these tragedies.”

Afterwords

In her afterwords, Dennett becomes a bit soft and fuzzy towards the CIA as they finally recognize the contribution her father made to espionage efforts in the Middle East and the knowledge he displayed concerning the region.  She and her family are visited by three CIA agents – one a psychiatrist, one in the role of the consoling historian (with the official version) , and the big guy who did not play much of a verbal role.  They presented arguments that Flight 3804 crashed due to bad weather, without knowing that Dennett’s own research indicated the weather was clear and stable for the flight.

Yet after being wined and dined and fêted by the CIA she implies that she accepts their efforts to save American democracy, and wonders about the “marauding militias [Middle East terrorists] killing civilians and frankly undoing the well-intentioned efforts to win over hearts and minds.”  Her last perspective offers two possibilities:  a lifetime of being filled with American exceptionalism and indispensability; or perhaps a caution for herself not to be persecuted and targeted by the CIA.

Surely if she read her own words she would not think the efforts were “well intentioned” except for anyone but the monied oil barons and the interlocking corporations of the military-industrial-financial institutions of the U.S.  As for hearts and minds, she unfortunately reduces her own presentation by denying the  force of her arguments that this had nothing to do with either good intentions or hearts and minds, that killing civilians – as per her own arguments – is what the militarized U.S. does, and above all it is about oil and money.

Better to let her father have the main afterward:

“Pray to God that wherever else we may choose to intervene, the United States will be spared the disgrace of intervening in the Near East.” [Clark University Speech, 1942.]

Read it!

Regardless of her short softened ending, this is an amazing piece of historical writing.  Her unique focus on pipelines quite literally creates a web of intrigue throughout the Middle East.  It can serve as an historical primer for many events concerning the Middle East.  It serves as an excellent summary, introducing and clearly explaining without huge detail, the machinations of U.S. and other imperial interests in the region.  Students, foreign affairs ‘experts’ and officials should have this work as required reading.

This is an engaging insightful book that I recommend as a primer or an overview for the Middle East and the U.S.’ overall imperial drive around the world.

*

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.

Jim Miles is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Crash of Flight 3804 – A Lost Spy, A Daughter’s Quest, and the Deadly Politics of the Great Game for Oil
  • Tags:

May 8: International Festival of Whistleblowing, Dissent and Accountability

May 2nd, 2021 by Centre for Global Justice, Peace and Accountability

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

***

Join us on Saturday 8th May for an enlightening journey into the heart of some of the world’s most grave injustices. Through, art, music, film & theatre as well as practical workshops, panels, interviews and mini-lectures we pause to reflect on how we find out about these injustices, what price was paid for the truth and by whom, how these grave circumstances are understood, spun and reported, and what can be done to facilitate justice.

Which topics will the festival cover? How are these topics selected?

Our aim is to inspire, rejuvenate and refresh all those who contribute and participate. Contributions to the festival cover the law, journalism, technology, psychology, finance, propaganda, social issues and activism, as well as art and music. In addition to respecting the broad themes of the festival, we have tried to spend time with each contributor to understand their passions and interests and then to construct a schedule that is enriching for contributors as well as for participants.

Who will join us on this journey?

Here’s our alphabetical list of confirmed contributors. This list is being refreshed daily. In the next few days, we will also give you a schedule of contributions. In addition to contributions from those listed below, we will also be sharing art, music and more through the day.

  • Mads Andenæs, Lawyer and former chair of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
  • Diani Barreto, Painter and activist
  • Somerset Bean, Graphic designer
  • Max Blumenthal, Investigative journalist and author
  • Jonathan Cook, Journalist and author
  • John Christensen, Founder of the Tax Justice Network
  • Eileen Chubb, Whistleblower and founder of Compassion in Care
  • Marjorie Cohn, Law Professor, writer and former President of the National Lawyers Guild
  • Naomi Colvin, Whistleblower advocate
  • Sevim Dagdelen, Politician and German MP
  • Viktor Dedaj, Author and activist
  • Kareem Dennis (Lowkey), Rapper and activist
  • John Doe, Hacktivist
  • Davide Dormino, Sculptor
  • Suelette Dreyfus, Technology researcher, journalist and writer
  • Rod Driver, Writer
  • Andrew Feinstein, Writer, campaigner and former politician
  • Denzil Forrester, Artist
  • Marianna Fotaki, Academic and Public health expert
  • Andrew Fowler, Investigative journalist
  • Nathan Fuller, Writer and campaigner
  • George Galloway, Politician, broadcaster and writer
  • Chamira Gamage, Campaigner
  • Martin Garbus, Attorney and author
  • Cristina Godoy-Navarrete, Human rights activist
  • Kevin Gosztola, Journalist and filmmaker
  • Deepa Govindarajan Driver, Academic and trade unionist
  • Tareq Haddad, Writer and investigative journalist
  • Nicky Hager, Author and investigative journalist
  • Jeremy Hammond, Hactivist
  • Charles Hector, Lawyer and human rights activist
  • Nancy Hollander, Lawyer
  • Selma James, Writer and activist
  • Lissa Johnson, Psychologist and writer
  • Eva Joly, Lawyer and former magistrate and politician
  • John Jones, Journalist
  • Ögmundur Jónasson, Politician and former interior minister of Iceland
  • Torsten Jurell, Visual artist
  • Peter Kennard, Artist and professor of visual art
  • Kate Kenny, Academic specialising in whistleblowing
  • John Kiriakou, Author and CIA whistleblower
  • Niki Konstantinidou, Playwright and lawyer
  • Niels Ladefoged, Filmmaker
  • Richard Lahuis, Photographer
  • Joe Lauria, Journalist and author
  • Lisa Longstaff, Women’s rights activist
  • Clara López Rubio, Filmmaker
  • Lauri Love, Activist and technology expert
  • David McBride, Lawyer and whistleblower
  • Ray McGovern, Activist and former CIA officer
  • Alan MacLeod, Journalist
  • Franck Magennis, Lawyer and activist
  • Stefania Maurizi, Investigative journalist
  • Barbara Meister, Journalist and author
  • Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on torture and arbitrary detention
  • David Miller, Academic
  • Federica Morelli, Journalist and activist
  • Moritz Mueller, Journalist
  • Iain Munro, Academic
  • Craig Murray, Author and human rights activist
  • Fidel Narvaez, Human rights activist
  • Peter Oborne, Journalist
  • Mohamedou Ould Slahi, Former Guantanamo detainee, engineer and writer
  • Iain Overton, Investigative journalist
  • Juan Passarelli, Filmmaker
  • John Pilger, Journalist and author
  • Sami Ramadani, Academic and anti-war activist
  • Afshin Rattansi, Journalist
  • Margaret Ratner Kunstler, Attorney and author
  • John Rees, Anti-war activist and journalist
  • Piers Robinson, Academic
  • Stephen Rohde, Writer and political activist
  • Maggie Ronayne, Academic, trade unionist and women’s rights campaigner
  • John Russell, Academic and artist
  • Arne Ruth, Retired editor
  • Justin Schlosberg, Academic and media activist
  • Prem Sikka, Academic and tax-justice campaigner
  • Norman Solomon, Journalist
  • Jeffrey Sterling, Lawyer and CIA whistleblower
  • Serena Tinari, Investigative journalist
  • Fred Turnheim, Journalist and academic
  • Cathy Vogan, Journalist and academic
  • Sam Weinstein, Social justice campaigner and trade unionist
  • Chris Williamson, Politician
  • Asa Winstanley, Journalist
  • Andy Worthington, Journalist
  • NHS Whistleblower
  • Probation Whistleblower
  • Support Not Separation

Will it be another set of webinars / Zoom panels with talking heads?

We take an active position of resisting surveillance capitalism. We want to encourage means of participation and organisation through free/libre software, decentralized services and federated platforms, and through the use of end-to-end encryption. We think these are essential building blocks towards our collective goals.

Our festival is an attempt to organise ourselves through decentralized tools such as Mobilizon (for announcements of events and session, scheduling, registration, etc.) and through Big Blue Button (virtual conference rooms) and Jitsi for online gatherings. Unless absolutely necessary, you won’t have to register to attend.

I’m not a techie! Can I have a test drive so I feel confident about using the software on the day

Yes. We are scheduling two drop-in sessions for attendees (on May 6th and 7th) so its all easy for you to use on the day.

Can I watch it afterwards? Will it be live streamed?

Yes, it will be live-streamed via Peertube, Youtube and Twitter. The Courage Foundation will be live-streaming the event, and Consortium News, TruthDefence will also re-stream and cover the festival.

Where is the schedule? How can we pick and choose what we want to go to ?

We are a tiny organising team, so please bear with us. The schedule and the links for each session will be posted here in due course. Typically, all you will need to do is to click the relevant link to attend a session. Please bookmark this page so you can return to it nearer the time and check the most updated plans.

Any institutional sponsors or promoters?

The festival is not sponsored by any organisations. We are grateful that a number of civil society organisations are supporting this festival by promoting it widely. The list includes the Courage Foundation, Blueprint for Free Speech, Resistance TV,  Truth Defence, Labour Campaign for Free Speech and the Global Women’s Strike and we are very grateful for their practical help and solidarity.

Click here for more information.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on May 8: International Festival of Whistleblowing, Dissent and Accountability

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

***

Many people couldn’t help but laugh when Biden told Boris Johnson on March 26 that the USA and it’s NATO allies should create “an infrastructure plan to rival the Belt and Road Initiative” post haste. What would such a program look like? How would it be funded when the USA is so embarrassingly bankrupt? Who among the nations of the world would ever consider buying a ticket onto such a sinking ship?

It took a few weeks for details to finally emerge, but by the end of the April 22-23 Climate Summit hosted by Biden, John Kerry and Anthony Blinken, it has become abysmally clear what delusions possessed the poor president.

After having announced a 52% carbon reduction policy below 2005 levels by 2050, Biden swiftly committed the USA to what he called the most comprehensive infrastructure plan in history with a $2 trillion Green New Deal-like infrastructure program designed to revive the policy of America’s 32nd president Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Mirroring FDR’s Civilian Conservation Corps, Biden has even planned a Civilian Climate Corps, along with a Green Climate Bank to parallel FDR’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

The catch? Biden’s version was written by the same financial technocrats that FDR went to war with 80 years ago and unlike FDR’s version, the modern green version of the New Deal will have the effect of destroying the productive industrial powers and living standards of the nation once green grids are built.

A Comparison of Two New Deals

Where FDR’s New Deal was premised the removal of Wall Street’s hegemony over national sovereignty via the Pecora Commission, Glass-Steagall, and SEC, Biden’s Green New Deal is shaped by Central Bankers’ Climate Compacts and green finance strategies authored by the richest oligarchs on the planet like the Bloomberg-Carney Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. In fact, it shouldn’t come as a coincidence that the first legislative effort to establish a Green New Deal, was not American at all, but was submitted by Britain’s Lord Adair Turner in 2009 while he was acting head regulator of the City of London which remains the nerve center of world finance today as it was a century ago. Up until 2019, Lord Turner was the chair of George Soros’ Institute for New Economic Thinking- an organization devoted to making Huxley’s Brave New World a practical reality and upon which he still serves as Senior Fellow.

Where FDR created large scale infrastructure megaprojects like the Tennessee Valley Authority, Rural Electrification Project, Hoover Dam, Colorado River Basin programs, and St Lawrence Seaway which all had the effect of leap frogging to higher rates of industrial power than at any other time in history, Biden’s Green New Deal professes to do the opposite. Yes, jobs will be created in insulating a few million homes and building windmills and solar panels, however those jobs will be short lived. For once they are built there will be nothing left to do but maintain the solar panels with unionized squeegees in an imaginary world of no change and zero-technological growth that might look good in computer models, but has very little correspondence with humanity’s actual requirements for long term survival.

It appears to be genuinely believed by ivory tower technocrats managing the Biden Administration that financing a green infrastructure program won’t be difficult. The 2020-21 pandemic showed the enlightened elite that money can always just be printed from thin air. The U.S. debt has already risen to 27 trillion, so what’s a few trillion more?

Where that fails, just compensate by imposing Carbon Pricing onto all carbon sinners. Many nations have already gotten onboard that bandwagon with Sweden, Lichtenstein and Canada leading the race charging $129, $96, and $91 per ton of carbon emissions respectively. Coming out of Biden’s Climate Summit, Canada’s Justin Trudeau committed to raising this cost to $170/ton by 2030 while U.S. National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy announced will soon rise to $56/ton in the USA (a seven fold increase from the $1-7/ton price under Trump).

Additionally, cap and trade schemes are always there for wealthy polluters to purchase unused carbon quotas from poorer polluters at home or abroad, so revenue can certainly be found that way. If all else fails, just raise taxes.

In case poor nations of the world might feel like avoiding this sinking ship in order to work more closely with Russia and China, Biden was kind enough to announce a new international green finance strategy to assist the developing sector in their decarbonizing aspirations.

The Problem with Green Energy

For those who doubt the idea that the USA can or even should meet those 2035 carbon reduction targets, they might have solid reasons for their assumptions. For one thing, the USA currently relies upon 1,852 coal fired power plants which would mean that 11 plants would need to be shut down every month until 2035. What would compensate for this loss of capacity?

Obviously not nuclear, since that has become politically-radioactive in the minds of most of Biden’s liberal constituency.

Would it be green energy that fills the gap? Considering that green energy is magnitudes more costly, and unreliable relative to fossil fuels, hydro or nuclear power, that is also unlikely. The truth is, as Germany discovered recently, shutting down coal and nuclear at home, simply forces a nation to keep fossil fuel plants running as back up for the unreliable green energy grids while increasing imports of coal/natural gas-driven electricity from other countries. In Germany’s case, imports of nuclear and coal-generated electricity from Poland and the Czech Republic increased by 60% since the nation’s industrial base understood that green energy sources could never meet it’s needs. In the USA’s case, Mexico would most likely be the top supplier. Across the European Union where most nations have entirely submitted to pressure to “decarbonize” by 2050, coal, gas and crude oil imports now make up 2/3rds of all energy imports.

While some advocates of the Green New Deal applaud the amazing breakthroughs in green energy tech over the past years which they say has reduced the price per kilowatt hour from an unreasonably high 35 cents to as low as 4 cents today… the truth is that the technology remains largely identical to the photovoltaic cells and windmills of yesterday with the only difference being the massively increased infusions of government subsidies given to private companies producing the green energy which the IMF calculated to be $5.2 trillion in 2017 alone (aka: 6.5% of the global GDP). And where do those subsidies come from? you guessed it. The tax payers.

Lest we forget the oft-overlooked fuel source of bioethanol, over 40% of the USA’s corn production currently gets burned in the form of biodiesel and ethanol while billions starve and suffer food shortages around the world. The high cost of being green.

Geopolitical Incompetence 101

You might now be asking: Why would the USA which has admittedly chosen to define itself as an existential rival to Russia and China to the point of risking a full-scale nuclear war, be so intent on subverting its own economic foundations at a moment that both Russia and China (and over 136 nations of the world) have chosen to move on toward a diametrically opposing paradigm of large-scale infrastructure growth and scientific progress?

If we take the old adage “whom the gods would destroy they first make mad” as a truism, then signs for a bright future for the Green New Dealing western community poor indeed.

Since Biden’s first days as president of the USA, the entire fabric of U.S. governance from top to bottom was completely overhauled in the form of omnibus executive orders designed to make the global climate emergency the top priority for all branches and levels of government- economic, military, intelligence, health and beyond. Under this green geostrategic paradigm, vast starvation, migration patterns, and wars have much less to do with imperial abuse, and everything to do with global warming.

Biden created new directorates of climate policy with offices in the White House, demanded that the Director of National Intelligence and State Department overhaul their governance around dealing with the climate crisis and even passed executive orders banning all oil and natural gas drilling and exploration projects on land or offshore where government land is held. Biden even went so far as to assert that 30% of the entire surface of the USA would be brought off limits to all development by 2030.

Sustained vs Sustainable Development

Compare this with China which has simultaneously committed to building green energy systems without deluding itself into thinking that fossil fuels, nuclear or hydro could be taken out of their energy baskets.

In fact, the primary fuel sources driving the large-scale development corridors of the New Silk Road are considered “dirty” sources verboten by the west like coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear and hydro. This fact even drove a delusional Biden to attempt to pressure Xi Jinping to speed up their phase out of coal by 2030 to which the Chinese leader responded “no”.

Biden had earlier described China as the primary climate offender of the world saying: “China is far and away the largest emitter of carbon in the world, and through its massive Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing is also annually financing billions of dollars of dirty fossil fuel energy projects across Asia and beyond.” He even demanded that leaders of the west “rally a united front of nations to hold China accountable to high environmental standards in its Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure projects, so that China can’t outsource pollution to other countries.”

In his remarks at the Climate Summit, President Putin re-emphasized to the western puppet heads of state who were busy massaging each other and chanting “build back better” in unison, that “green growth” should not occur at the expense of “sustainable growth”. Simply put, Putin is committed to putting people before ivory tower energy policies that may demand human sacrifices at the alter of Gaia, and emphasized Russia’s commitment to nuclear power, raising its fertility rate, raising average life expectancy which has already grown from 56 years/male and 61/female in the mid-1990s to 70 years today and plans are to increase that to 78 years by 2030.

The irony about all of this is that China and Russia are increasingly adopting a system of political economy which is fundamentally OPEN and driven by scientific and technological progress without any supposed limits on its potential for improvement. This paradigm is fundamentally in harmony with the original New Deal policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt who himself envisioned a post-imperial world of win-win cooperation (in opposition to a dystopic closed-system world envisioned by Winston Churchill). The USA on the other hand, which professes to be the heir to the New Deal reforms of Franklin Roosevelt has come to embody the worst aspects of the Malthusian elite managing the British Empire for centuries which FDR devoted his life to stop.

It was this empire that considered it “scientifically necessary” to subjugate India, China, Ireland, Africa and every other rival to lives of poverty, war, famine and stupidification.

This was the empire which the republican revolution of 1776 aimed at overthrowing- not only from the Americas, but internationally. It is this same empire which was nearly destroyed by the Russian-U.S. alliance that shaped much of the 19th century and which again arose during WW2 as FDR and Stalin recognized they had much more in common with each other than either had with arch-racist Churchill. The British Empire was always run as a “closed system”, scientifically managed intelligence operation following Malthusian principles and adherence to strict mathematical equilibrium. In this formula for domination, military forces have typically been less important than control of nerve centers of finance, narcotics and other levers of corruption mental and spiritual corruption than many people- even among the most educated historians realize.

And so we have come full circle. The gods have certainly made those elites managing the west mad, but whether or not the entire world will have to pay the price of their insanity yet remains to be seen.

*

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.

Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review.

Featured image: US President Joe Biden departs after delivering remarks on Russia in the East Room at White House, Washington, DC, April 15, 2021 (Source: Indian Punchliine)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Biden’s Anti-Eurasian Green Delusion and America’s Race to Irrelevance
  • Tags:

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

***

 

The study below was reported in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (Publication date April 20, 2021) and details the harm caused by mask wearing and adds to a growing body of under-reported, censored and suppressed public health information that contradicts the biomedical narrative that masks are safe and effective and recommended by the CDC.

65 German Studies: Face Masks Cause Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome (MIES)

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(8), 4344; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084344 ,  April 20, 2021

See: Face Masks (Lack of Safety and Ineffectiveness Research)

Mask Induced Exhaustion Syndrome (MIES)

Here are the pathophysiological changes and subjective complaints:

1.   Increase in blood carbon dioxide

2.   Increase in breathing resistance

3.   Decrease in blood oxygen saturation

4.   Increase in heart rate

5.   Decrease in cardiopulmonary capacity

6.   Feeling of exhaustion

7.   Increase in respiratory rate

8.   Difficulty breathing and shortness of breath

9.   Headache

10. Dizziness

11. Feeling of dampness and heat

12. Drowsiness (qualitative neurological deficits)

13. Decrease in empathy perception

14. Impaired skin barrier function with acne, itching and skin lesions

Results from Mask Wearer Studies

This first-of-its-kind literature review on the adverse effects of face masks, titled “Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?,” reveals there are clear, scientifically demonstrable adverse effects for mask wearers, both on psychological, social and physical levels.

For complete abstract download this.

Abstract

Many countries introduced the requirement to wear masks in public spaces for containing SARS-CoV-2 making it commonplace in 2020. Up until now, there has been no comprehensive investigation as to the adverse health effects masks can cause. The aim was to find, test, evaluate and compile scientifically proven related side effects of wearing masks. For a quantitative evaluation, 44 mostly experimental studies were referenced, and for a substantive evaluation, 65 publications were found.

The literature revealed relevant adverse effects of masks in numerous disciplines. In this paper, we refer to the psychological and physical deterioration as well as multiple symptoms described because of their consistent, recurrent and uniform presentation from different disciplines as a Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome (MIES). We objectified evaluation evidenced changes in respiratory physiology of mask wearers with significant correlation of O2 drop and fatigue (p < 0.05), a clustered co-occurrence of respiratory impairment and O2 drop (67%), N95 mask and CO2 rise (82%), N95 mask and O2 drop (72%), N95 mask and headache (60%), respiratory impairment and temperature rise (88%), but also temperature rise and moisture (100%) under the masks. Extended mask-wearing by the general population could lead to relevant effects and consequences in many medical fields.

Summary

1. Masks in everyday use risk  self-contamination by the wearer both inside and outside, including via contaminated hands [5,16,88]. Masks are soaked by exhaled air, which potentially accumulates infectious agents from the nasopharynx and also from the ambient air on the outside and inside of the mask.

2. Serious infection-causing bacteria and fungi should be mentioned here [86,88,89], but also viruses [87].

3. Masks worn by the general public, are considered by scientists to pose a risk of infection because the standardized hygiene rules of hospitals cannot be followed by the general public [5].

4. History shows that influenza pandemics of 1918-1919, 1957-58, 1968, 2002, in SARS 2004-2005  and 2009, masks DID NOT fight against viral infections [67,144].

5. Even later, scientists and institutions rated the masks as unsuitable to protect the user safely from viral respiratory infections [137,146,147]. Even in hospital use, surgical masks lack strong evidence of protection against viruses [67].

6. The mask is nothing more than a symbol of the wearers fear of infection – reinforced by the collective fear mongering, which is constantly nurtured by mainstream media [137].

7. The mask represents psychological support for the general population as a false sense of security to reduce anxiety.  [152]

8. The WHO’s recommendation of the mask is about giving mask wearers the feeling of a contribution made to preventing the spread of the virus, as well as the reminder to adhere to other measures.  [2].

*

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.

We thank Dr. Gary G. Kohls for bringing this article to our attention.

Full authors

Kai Kisielinski;

Paul Giboni;

Andreas Prescher;

Bernd Klosterhalfen;

David Graessel;

Stefan Funken;

Oliver Kempski and

Oliver Hirsch

Featured image is from Engin Akyurt from Pixabay

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is a Mask that Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?
  • Tags:

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

***

What if you were to know that a cabal of corrupt bureaucrats and scientists at the heart of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have known for almost two decades that vaccines, including the MMR, can lead to autism and other neurological disorders? Most people are unaware that the CDC is a militarized federal agency further influenced by private pharmaceutical interests.

Due to the politicization of national immunization, vaccine efficacy and safety has become all but irrelevant.  Its policies drive profits for itself and its partners. Now the agency is committed to have as many Americans mandated to be fully vaccinated as soon as possible, irrespective of how many lives are destroyed.  The very mindset and disregard for human life that created the notorious Tuskegee experiment is alive and thriving in the innards of the CDC.

It is time to take a hard look at the advocates of compromised pharmaceutical science and the motivations that compel the CDC and it’s vaccine network to systematically mislead the public for personal benefit, power, and greed.  We need to begin to understand that the agency operates as an independent “deep state,” secretive, non-transparent, and conducting itself in covert ways behind the disguise of heralding public health. When the brilliant journalist I.F. Stone wrote, “Every government is run by liars, and nothing they say should be believed,” he may have just as well been speaking about the CDC and its alliance with the pharmaceutical industry, many medical journals, and the mainstream media.

The money-driven institutions of evidence-based medicine and science, which have hijacked America’s health agencies–the CDC, FDA, Health and Human Services (HHS), National Institutes of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Mental Health, the National Cancer Institute, and the USDA– have plunged a stake into the heart of authentic scientific inquiry, knowledge and innovative medical progress.  Its efforts to hermetically seal and silence the debate on vaccination safety with propaganda, coercion, erroneous and deceptive research, and blatant criminality have succeeded in transforming modern vaccinology into an egregious pseudo-science that is today destroying the lives of millions of infants, children and their families.

The deep-seated problems that reside in the CDC are not going unnoticed by a growing number of Americans. A Rand Corporation survey of public trust in the agency during the Covid-19 pandemic found a 10 percent decline. See this. For decades distrust in the CDC has been high among Black Americans; today, levels of trust among non-Hispanic whites and Hispanic respondents are comparable.  One of the fundamental reasons for Americans’ mistrust and skepticism has been the agency’s culture of muddying the lines between scientific facts and compromised opinions that support gross and deep-seated conflicts of interest.

This problem has also entered the ranks of CDC personnel.  A group of CDC scientists who called themselves SPIDER (Scientists Preserving the Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research) became anonymous whistleblowers after releasing a written complaint criticizing the agency for operating as a tax-funded subsidiary of the drug industry in partnership with the FDA.  And after a Congressional Government Reform Committee brought CDC officials to testify before legislators, the Committee concluded the agency had routinely allowed scientists with conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies to serve on its two advisory committees that make recommendations on vaccine policy.

The blurring of the lines between the pharmaceutical industry and our federal health agencies has been a scandal evolving over the course of several decades. The revolving door between private interests and top government employees never ceases to gyrate.  For example, former CDC director Julie Gerberding left government to become president of Merck’s vaccine division, a move that has since earned her upwards to $3 million in stock options.  This may seem to be a modest reward for Gerberding heading the agency now irrefutably responsible for the cover-up of the CDC’s own studies proving the MMR vaccine increases the risk of autism in African American boys.  The MMR is manufactured by Merck.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr, one of the nation’s expert watchdogs in the corporatization of our federal medical establishment, has called the CDC “a cesspool of corruption.” Unlike the FDA, which has a contract with the American public to assure warnings about health risks and contraindications of registered drugs and medical devices, the CDC has no such contract with the nation’s citizenry.  It seemingly holds no ethical standard and abides by no mandated rules of law. For this reason it may be best regarded as an intelligence agency rather than an institution committed to public health.

One recent example of the CDC’s covert activities took place in 2016. Across the mainstream media, journalists en masse denounced the documentary film Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe. The film recounted the events of CDC whistle-blower Dr. William Thompson and his agency’s intentional cover-up and destruction of documents of scientific evidence proving the MMR vaccine caused autism. Rather than denouncing the nation’s vaccine agenda, the film uncovers massive corruption in the CDC’s vaccine division.

But a problem with the media-wide demonization of the film arose, which included outlets such as ABC, CNN, MSNBC, the Guardian, the Washington Post and the New York Times, Forbes, Rolling Stone and many others. The media blitzkrieg occurred before the film’s actual release. None of the journalists had watched it. None knew the underlying story line aside from what could be gleaned from a 3 minute trailer. Our investigative article, “Why is the CDC petrified of the film Vaxxed” uncovered a template for an editorial script upon which all of these reviews were based.  They originated from a single source, and the tracks led to the halls of the CDC. The CDC’s partnership and fellowship programs with the Association of Health Care Journalists is nothing less than an intelligence indoctrination program to train journalists to be the mouthpieces of the CDC’s fake science. The curriculum held at the CDC’s Atlanta campus includes propaganda in federal health policies, epidemiology (no authentic gold standard biological science), pandemic preparedness, vaccine safety and autism. Journalists are also instructed to access CDC publications and databases to peruse federal resources, public relations kits, and propaganda.

Vaccine policy and the development and promotion of the childhood vaccine schedule is only one of the CDC’s many corporate tasks. It is not exclusively concerned with the physical and mental health of the nation. It is also engaged in the design and development of biological weapons and threats of bioterrorism. Because vaccines are biological drugs that may be weaponized, they fall under the CDC’s purview and jurisdiction. Consequently the Centers work closely with the Department of Defense and the intelligence agencies such as the National Security Agency with whom there is the exchange of data collection and sharing of classified information.  In its April 21, 2000 MMWR report entitled “Biological and Chemical Terrorism: Strategic Plan for Preparedness and Response” the CDC reported that for “the first time the CDC has joined with law enforcement, intelligence and defense agencies in addition to traditional CDC partners to address a national security threat.”

This may have been the turning point when the Centers morphed into a pseudo-intelligence agency and assumed a “deep state” role by adopting an inquisitional task of population surveillance and information data collection as a matter of intelligence gathering instead of improving healthcare. During the past years, this has further grown into spying and covert operations against the critics of our national health and immunization policies. Immunization, as described on the CDC’s website, is now a matter of national and global security.

Therefore, no longer are vaccines simply a public health intervention. In fact, immunization has been removed from science altogether and consequently can only rely upon flawed and unreliable research to support policy templates and recommendations that get enacted at state levels. These policies are left for politicians to debate, which is rarely done, and is no longer open for discussion among expert medical researchers outside of the CDC’s ranks and its network of trolls, shills and medical puppets spewing disinformation into the public sector.  This alone is sufficient incentive for targeting and silencing voices challenging vaccine safety and efficacy and who demand a reevaluation of vaccination and its toxic ingredients.

Few people realize that the CDC owns 56 vaccine patents; these patents are licensed to drug makers with royalties who later buy and distribute $4.6 billion worth of vaccines through its Vaccines for Children Program, which accounts for 40% of its budget. This has given rise to a 2015 British Medical Journal investigative report accusing the CDC of becoming a lapdog for commercial interests.

The CDC also controls a separate non-profit institution known as the CDC Foundation, which operates like an astro turf organization. Founded in 1992 through an amendment inserted into the George H.W. Bush’s Preventative Health Act, the Foundation operates outside of Congressional oversight. This is clearly stated in its documentation:

“The Foundation shall not be an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government, and officers, employees and members of the board of the Foundation shall not be officers of the Federal government…. The purpose of the Foundation shall be to support and carry out activities for the prevention and control of diseases, disorders, injuries and disabilities, and for promotion of public health… the Foundation shall establish a fund for providing endowments for positions that are associated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention…”

In other words, the Foundation has been established as a recruiting service, funded by non-Federal sources, which can include private corporations and drug makers, for the sole purpose to serving the tax-funded CDC.  Moreover, endowments to the Foundation are “unrestricted,” which means they can be spent solely based upon the discretion of the donator and to support the giver’s vested interests.  Among the CDC Foundation’s list of partners we find all of the large vaccine makers – Glaxo, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi Pasteur – and of course the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

A Freedom of Information Act submission discovered that the CDC had been providing guidance to the companies for influencing authorities on sugar and beverage policies. For example, the CDC Foundation receives large donations from Pepsi and Coca Cola, and thereby exerts its influence to taint national guidelines about diabetes, liver disease and other illnesses. In another example, Roche, the manufacturer of the drug Tamiflu against influenza infection, donated $193,000 to the Foundation in return for the CDC’s advocating the drug’s benefits for relieving flu symptoms.  This completely undermines the FDA’s own ruling that Tamiflu’s clinical trial data does not support the claims that the drug saves lives or lessens hospitalization.

It has been through the Foundation that Bill Gates’ faux philanthropy has bought off the CDC. Gates has given tens of millions of dollars to the CDC Foundation over the years.  In 2013, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gave $13.5 million to support the CDC’s efforts to undertake surveillance and increase meningitis and rotavirus vaccination rates in Sub-Sahara Africa.

Furthermore, the Centers’ activities are no longer limited to the US’ domestic health; after 911, its mission expanded, far beyond its original mandate, and today the agency is globally engaged.  On the Centers’ website, it defines itself as America’s “Global Health Protection Agency” in charge of “implementing global health security” and works in partnership with other nations. Since 2006, the CDC claimed it had trained over 115,000 professional personnel in its interpretation of health issues. It’s Global Rapid Response Team of over 400 experts “can deploy in as little as 48 hours” to respond to local and regional health emergencies. In brief, the Centers are immersed in the technology of surveillance, information gathering and analysis. These are among the defining characteristics of an intelligence agency.

Other intelligence activities often associated with a “deep state” and now undertaken by the CDC include pressuring peer-reviewed medical journals to retract studies that challenge their ideology or endanger the agency’s reputation.  In 2014, Prof Brian Hooker, a biochemist at Simpson University, reevaluated the CDC’s own data showing a 350% increase in autism among African American boys receiving the MMR. Initially approved for publication by the journal Translational Neurodegeneration, the study was shortly thereafter suspended after the CDC pressured the journal with fabricated claims against Dr. Hooker. This is a textbook case of intelligence sabotage of a critic by false accusation.

Similar to the Pentagon and the CIA, the CDC has also infiltrated Hollywood. Hidden within the corridors on the University of Southern California campus is the relatively unknown organization Hollywood Health and Society. Its top funders include the CDC, the National Cancer Institute, the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the largest private funder of vaccines, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.  The small organization’s mission is to provide “briefings and consultations with experts, case examples, panel discussions about timely health issues” for Hollywood script writers and producers. Among the main topics listed on its website are influenza, smallpox and autism, all official propaganda stamped with the CDC’s seal of approval.

Among the trove of classified national security documents released by NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden, were several regarding the government’s intelligence agencies’ infiltration of the internet in order to manipulate information, deceive the public and destroy personal reputations of opponents, including independent journalists.  Among the documents was a manual, “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.” One of its stated missions is to flood the internet with false information and data to destroy the reputation of its opponents.  Furthermore, the manual provides instructions on taking control of online public discourse in order to generate allegiance to the intelligence agency’s false point of view.

Vaccine opponents often complain about the blogosphere being riddled with anonymous trolls, most who would be unable to debate their way out of cardboard box on scientific issues regarding vaccines, but who nevertheless follow the intelligence manual’s strategies to disparage vaccine critics.  Bill Gates, who is on record condemning parents who refuse vaccines and who is no stranger to the higher echelon of executives in the vaccine industry and department heads at the CDC, funded a professor at the University of Connecticut to develop a monitoring system to track all anti-vaccine internet traffic. Given Gate’s utter disdain towards voices speaking out against vaccines, we can be certain this was not for humanitarian, research purposes but as part of intelligence gathering in the CDC’s war against the health of the nation.  Others who have been CDC mouthpieces yet are viewed as respectable and medically credentialed kingpins, such as Paul Offit, Peter Hotez, Senator Richard Pan, and others are welcomed by the media as the foremost authorities and final voices on vaccine topics.

To our peril, federal agencies take full advantage of the average American’s scientific illiteracy.  An important survey conducted by Michigan State University found that only 4% of American adults had an understanding about stem cells. Seventy percent could “not read or understand” the science section in the New York Times.  An earlier study funded by the US National Science Foundation noted that about half of Americans understood that the earth rotates once around the sun annually, 45% of people had an “acceptable” understanding of DNA, and only 22% knew what a molecule was.  Although scientific illiteracy is an enormous threat to a functioning democracy and an informed public, nevertheless it is a boon for the CDC and the vaccine industry. Manipulating this ignorance with heavy doses of fear tactics, such as revealed through the CDC’s press model to guide the mainstream media’s role in increasing vaccine compliance, health officials have managed to successfully thwart many efforts to educate the public to evaluate the pros and cons of vaccination.

Along with the corporatization of Washington’s three branches of government, and the emergence of a surveillance state watching over the shoulders of every citizen, the politicization of medicine, particularly vaccines, is another sign of the further decay of the nation towards totalitarianism. For almost two decades, fake news and bureaucratic deception, anger, hatred and disproportional distrust has taken the spotlight as the nation’s health further erodes. Annually, the quality of Americans’ health is declining and this is most evident in the younger generations who have received the bulk of vaccines. While the CDC and its allies conjure distorted statistics with no sound scientific basis from thin air in order to convince us that vaccines have saved countless lives, in fact these screeds are no more scientifically reliable than visiting the local gypsy soothsayer to have your palm read. A doctorate in science or a medical degree from Harvard does not excuse a person from duplicitous chicanery.

The good news is that the tide is slowly turning. The populace is steadily losing its faith in government. Autism rates continue to rise and parents are able to access extensive independent medical research to understand the real dangers of vaccines. A fundamental reason why parents increasingly refuse to vaccinate themselves and their children is quite simple; the cartel of pharmaceutical-friendly bureaucrats writing the nation’s healthcare policies has been losing the public’s trust. There is no secret why federal health officials and their absolutist claims to mandate vaccine compliance are untrustworthy. In 2016 over 1500 medical researchers surveyed by the prestigious journal Nature failed to reproduce another scientist’s experimental results. Over half were unable to reproduce their own experiments. The article concludes that the potential reasons for this lack of scientific confirmation are numerous. However, most important is that no single scientific study or paper can claim to be the final word on any medical issue, and this is especially true with vaccine research. The complexities of the human immune system, its biomolecular mechanisms and epigenetic relationships with external environmental factors are not fully understood.  And there remains much more to discover and digest.  Modern immunology still has a long ways to go and needs frequent revision as new discoveries emerge. In contrast, vaccine science continues to rely partially upon an antiquated understanding of the body’s immune system focused almost exclusively on antibody generation.

One example of medical negligence has been the rising epidemic of citizens who are immune-compromised and therefore most susceptible to adverse vaccine reactions. When a severe condition of immunosuppression is clearly diagnosed, it is not uncommon for physicians to withhold vaccinations.  But how many Americans are immune-compromised?  When this question was posed to a researcher at Johns Hopkins University in 2015, to his surprise Dr. Theo Schall discovered there were no population accurate statistics and none of our federal health agencies nor medical institutions were tracking it.  Not only are these people at higher risk for vaccine injury, they are also at a higher risk for infection from wild viruses. Federal vaccine policies do not differentiate the population with weakened immune systems from healthier individuals. The CDC’ immunization schedule is a one-size-fits-all paradigm/ Its bottom line demands that everyone should and must be vaccinated.

After reviewing the different immune-compromised populations (eg, immunosenescence or weakened immunity due to age in the senior population, malnourishment, cancer patients, people with AIDS and HIV, transplant recipients, patients under immunosuppressive drugs with autoimmune conditions, and primary genetic immunodeficiency disorders, Schall estimated there were approximately 122.6 million Americans with a weakened immune system and stand at higher risk for infections. Our revaluation of the available figures places this figure now at 130.4 million, over one-third of the US population.

The question whether 130 million people, including hundreds of thousands of children, should be subject to injections with infectious viruses– live, attenuated or killed – or now the new generation of mRNA Covid-19 vaccines that have no prior precedence for observing long-term adverse effects, is never discussed. Volumes of medical and biochemical research confirming the severe vaccine ingredients are also ignored. Nor is any consideration given to the number of vaccines administered and the risks due to the accumulative levels of toxic ingredients when multiple vaccines are given simultaneously or within short time intervals. Nor do pediatricians routinely evaluate the state of children’s immunological health before determining whether or not to administer vaccines. There is no profit from delaying or postponing vaccination.  No perks are received from insurance companies for increasing vaccination compliance.  And finally, physicians and pediatricians are largely as ignorant as the general public about the scientific evidence supporting and debunking vaccine safety and efficacy myths.  Their primary source of information is channeled through the CDC and its disinformation campaign.

The CDC has yet to conduct or fund definitive and legitimate studies to determine once and for all individual vaccine safety and whether or not vaccines as exogenous factors are contributing to the onslaught of illnesses ravishing the country. Yes, such gold standard studies, which remain absent from the pro-vaccine arsenal, would be very costly.  But that would be the price to pay to bring sanity to the irrational conclusions of the CDC’s decision makers on our nation’s national advisory vaccine committee. Nevertheless, the cumulative financial cost of all previous government sponsored fake science would be a small price to pay for the future well-being of children.

During Congressional proceedings in 2002 into the causes for the unaccountable rise in autism in the United States, CDC officials confirmed no studies have been undertaken to compare the quality of health between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Yet the subcommittee was assured by the CDC that such studies would be conducted. A decade later, when the CDC was again yanked back into a subcommittee, still no studies had been conducted, and again, Congress was assured such studies were forthcoming.

We should not hold our breath. Officials at the CDC and Department of Health and Human Services know perfectly well that vaccinated children are susceptible to far more allergies and illnesses than their unvaccinated peers.  Their greatest fear is a thorough long-term study to see whether unvaccinated children are indeed healthier. Otherwise, the necessary research to prove the health advantages of vaccines would have been conducted long ago.

Yet there are reasons why such studies are not mandated nor funded. Health agencies are fully aware that vaccines are a scourge. Instead they pump out ecological and epidemiological cohort studies, notorious for subjective manipulation, confounders and biases to support their dogma. Such studies, which are little more than algorithmic equations for sifting, shifting and fudging data, are scientifically invalid for determining any medical truth.  Nevertheless, epidemiological studies remain the most cited articles by the most vocal proponents of vaccination and vaccine mandates.

However, corruption at the CDC is not limited to national vaccine policies and the deceptive manipulation of scientific data to further advance a national vaccination regime. The agency has also been discovered to mislead the nation on other health issues that in turn shape government policies. Earlier it was accused of inflating numbers of rapes in the US. The CDC estimated 2 million rapes occurred within a single year (2011); however, the Justice Department’s crime statistics recorded only 238,000. Later Time magazine reported that the manner the CDC gathered its information was extremely flawed and biased.

In 2016 The Hill reported that the CDC misled Congress with its WISEWOMAN project —  a national screening and evaluation project to help reduce heart disease risks in women between 40-64 and to promote healthier lifestyles.  The CDC’s data of the project was all “cooked” to make the results look better than it was and that the project was larger and more inclusive than it actually was.

The writings of Hannah Arendt over fifty years ago about the origins of totalitarian ideologies and states have never been more poignant and prophetic than today.  She worried deeply about the language of absolutism, and particularly in the realm of science, which is now the underlying mission of the CDC to politicize immunization. The attempt to reduce all of human life to well-defined processes, to predictable patterns and primitive linear reductionism, was in Arendt’s view both self-defeating and extremely dangerous for a healthy society. In a totalitarian state, objectivity is tyrannical. Scientific objectivity that threatens the official policy even more so. In the case of vaccines, the entire industry is a creed that has institutionalized a denial of the most fundamental principles of science and fact finding. And worse, the CDC’s ongoing war of terror against the unvaccinated has become lawful.  And this is what gives rise to a totalitarian culture of science.

Arendt was certain that a fascist worldview does not necessarily have to be framed in nationalism, religious doctrine nor based upon race and ethnicity. She worried that science, and its technologies, once they become politicized, would give rise to new forms of totalitarianism and persecution in the future. And today this totalitarian stench breathes through many scientific institutions and universities, throughout the private vaccine industry, and its most pungent odor of rot and decay fills the halls of the CDC.

*

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.

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including The War on Health, Poverty Inc and Plant Codes.

Featured image: The Center for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. (Raed Mansour/Flickr)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Efforts to Silence the Debate on Vaccination Safety: The Weaponization of the CDC Against Public Health
  • Tags: , ,

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

***

Politically savvy individuals know that democracy has rarely existed and probably never outside small groups of humans who deliberately organize themselves to share power or grant it temporarily to one or a small number of people for a particular purpose. In most contexts, ‘democracy’ is simply a label used to deceive the unwary into believing that ordinary people have a say in how we are governed. But this has never been the case in any political framework on a larger scale.

Whatever victories have apparently been achieved in the long struggle to achieve political representation, human rights, dignity, economic justice, cultural and gender identity, ecological sustainability and other causes dear to the hearts of those who have struggled, the elite (local, national or global) has always retained control and merely surrendered the minimum necessary to keep the bulk of the human population submissive.

Consequently, as outlined in ‘Why Activists Fail’, while elite control over human societies started to gather pace with the Neolithic revolution 12,000 years ago, it has simply been progressively consolidated since that time. Real power over anything that matters, including fundamental decision-making and the vast bulk of the world’s wealth, remains firmly in the hands of the elite.

More importantly, as one result of the elite’s long reign and the grotesquely distorted priorities it has advanced within the delusional versions of democracy we have experienced, human society is now characterized by staggering levels of psychological, social, economic, military and geopolitical dysfunctionality and Earth is on the brink of ecological collapse with Homo sapiens threatened by four distinct paths to extinction. See ‘For Whom the Bell Tolls: A Report on the State of Planet Earth at Year’s End 2020’.

But what is interesting about the elite coup that is being implemented now, under cover of the non-existent virus SARS-CoV-2 – see, for example, ‘COVID-19: The virus does not exist – it is confirmed!’ and ‘Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI)’ – and the supposed Covid-19 pandemic, is that the final facade of our ‘democracy’ is being dismantled in plain site with most of the human population begging for it to be done provided that they are kept ‘safe’. It is pitiful to observe and brings to mind one of Benjamin Franklin’s most famous lines: ‘They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.’

How is this final destruction of even the delusion of democracy being executed? Well, the simple answer is this: ‘It is being done in a variety of ways, depending on the context.’ Here are some examples in each of three categories.

Destruction of Democratic Processes, Human Rights and the Rule of Law

While so-called democratic processes have long been a sham and the rule of law (as it is meant to mean in a conventional sense) does not exist  – see ‘The Rule of Law: Unjust and Violent’ – even the sham elements of democracies – rule by Parliament (rather than executive fiat or unelected bureaucrats), respect for human rights (including freedom of speech), obedience of laws and adherence to legal process – have been ignored by virtually all governments (national, provincial and local) around the world as measures decided by the elite and promulgated through its international organizations such as the World Economic Forum and the World Health Organization have simply been implemented by governments without so much as a public (or even a parliamentary) debate. In fact, any attempt to present an alternative view in any mainstream forum leads to one of a range of outcomes such as dismissal from office, censorship – with corporate and major social media leading the way – or howls of accusation such as ‘conspiracy theorist’ to discredit the dissenting voice.

This has happened, of course, because politicians are not beholden to voters, which is why lobbying politicians is a waste of time, unless the issue is of little significance politically, militarily, economically and environmentally. As implied above, the elite controls the political fate of politicians who well know that their political survival has nothing to do with pleasing ordinary voters. Politicians are beholden to the elite that manipulates levers of power such as the corporate media and education systems, employs an army of lobbyists to ensure that elite preference is clearly understood (while using bribes where necessary), and has ready access to removal options such as, at its most benign, withdrawal of pre-selection endorsement.

Moreover, those supposedly basic human rights – such as freedom of speech, assembly and movement – have been eviscerated under the various lockdown, curfew and martial law measures with many people attempting to exercise these rights quickly discovering that they no longer exist except, perhaps, in the very narrowest of circles or in particular contexts (even if those with the courage to do so often find that these ‘rights’ do exist but only if one is courageous enough to exercise them).

As early as March 2020, governments around the world were introducing draconian laws supposedly in response to the ‘pandemic’. For example, Denmark’s parliament ‘unanimously passed an emergency coronavirus law which [gave] health authorities powers to force testing, treatment and quarantine with the backing of the police.’ As noted by Copenhagen University law professor Jens Elo Rytter, the measures were unlike anything passed in the last 75 years: ‘It is certainly the most extreme since the Second World War. There have been some powerful encroachments in various terror packages. But this goes further.’ See ‘Denmark rushes through emergency coronavirus law’.

But with the passing of a full year since the coup began, the progressive destruction of any semblance of democracy is now rapidly in train.

As noted about Switzerland by Peter Koenig, for example, the Swiss Federal Council is considering denying those who refuse vaccination access to restaurants, theatres, cinemas and other venues. See ‘Is Switzerland Sliding into Dictatorship? Social Coercion, Privileges to Those Who Accept the Covid Vaccine’.

Of course, Switzerland is far from alone in considering such measures and there is plenty of evidence that virtually all countries will deny airline travel to those not vaccinated. See, for example, ‘Guidance for global travel’.

And Dr. Rudolf Hänsel in Germany reports that on 13 April 2021, the government of Germany tightened the ‘Infection Protection Act’, with the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI) confirming that this so-called ‘Emergency Brakes Act’ abrogates the fundamental rights of inviolability of home and body. As noted by the renowned legal scholar Volker Boehme-Neßler: The planned coercive measures such as the curfews are ‘unconstitutional, dictatorial and against human nature’. See ‘Germany: The “Dictatorship of Democracy” Secretly Transformed into an “Open Dictatorship”’.

For a wider look at the bigger picture, Dr. Joseph Mercola interviewed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The interview touched on elements of Mercola’s new book The Truth About Covid-19 explaining how ‘The technocrats’ plan, as laid out in various papers and reports, is to use bioterrorism to take control of the world’s resources, wealth and people’. See ‘The Truth About Covid-19’.

But perhaps constitutional lawyer John W. Whitehead, in collaboration with Nisha Whitehead, captures the true depth of what has transpired in these two paragraphs about the United States but equally applicable to other countries:

Not only have the federal and state governments unraveled the constitutional fabric of the nation with lockdown mandates that sent the economy into a tailspin and wrought havoc with our liberties, but they have almost persuaded the citizenry to depend on the government for financial handouts, medical intervention, protection and sustenance.

This past year under lockdown was a lesson in many things, but most of all, it was a lesson in how to indoctrinate a populace to love and obey Big Brother. See ‘After a Year Under Lockdown, Will Our Freedoms Survive the Tyranny of COVID-19?’

And you can read more of the Whiteheads’ sobering analysis in this appropriately-titled article too: ‘The Global Deep State: A New World Order Brought to You by COVID-19’.

Of course, a common response of many people is to fearfully deny that this is actually happening or to deny that it is really as bad as it seems. But reality has a nasty habit of biting, sooner or later, although it won’t be either in this case. It is already happening.

The Great Reset: Rule by Elite Agents including International Organizations

By now many people have heard of the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’ – see ‘The Great Reset’ and Covid-19 – The Great Reset – which is designed to restructure human society through implementation of the measures of the fourth industrial revolution and the transhumanist agenda while substantially reducing the human population. See ‘Corrupt Science and Elite Power: Your Techno-Slavery is Now Imminent’.

And most people are probably aware of the World Health Organization (WHO) providing the endless ‘technical guidance’ for governments to follow in dealing with the supposed virus. See ‘Country & Technical Guidance – Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)’.

But I wonder if you remember voting for the WHO or the World Economic Forum to tell your government to tell you what you to do. In fact, I wonder if you remember having a say in the composition, and hence decision-making, of these international organizations. Do you even know their elite masters?

And yet ‘suddenly’, or so it seems, ‘our’ national, provincial and local governments are doing what these elite agents are telling them to do, which is to tell us what to do in response to this ‘virus’. How did that happen? Do you remember it happening, at least this obviously, previously?

So do you think that voting for some other party at the next election in your country is going to precipitate change?

Of course, it will suit the elite nicely to have you preoccupied over which party will govern your country in future. Because it won’t matter. Just as it never has.

So while you might pin your hopes on some political party (and perhaps, even, a new one) most of what has been familiar about your life in the past will vanish. The changes being wrought by the elite’s corporations as you read this article are profound. For example, vastly more satellites are being shot into Space – see ‘SpaceX launches 60 new Starlink internet satellites, nails latest rocket landing at sea’ – and a staggering array of new infrastructure is being installed on the ground so that 5G (and 6G) can be used to make elite control of our lives total.

This will enable comprehensive surveillance of our daily activities, digital ID (possibly implanted in your brain) linked to your bank account and health records, a social credit ID that will end up dictating every facet of your life, the digitization of money, the robotization of the workforce and military, and the biological and electronic connectivity (through embedded sensors, software and other technologies) of humans and machines through the Internet of Things. And that is just part of what the fourth industrial revolution and the transhumanist agenda will mean for you and me. For a little more, see ‘Beware the Transhumanists: How “Being Human” is being Re-engineered by the Elite’s Covid-19 Coup’.

The ‘good’ news is that the above will only apply to those humans still alive because the agenda of the eugenicists is a substantial depopulation – see Bill Gates talk about this in his 2010 TED Talk: ‘Innovating to zero!’ – but you will get a much fuller explanation, including about ‘Death Panels’ from Peter Koenig in ‘COVID – Bioethics, Eugenics and “Death Panels”: “A Warning”’ and James Corbett in ‘Bioethics and the New Eugenics’.

And if you want further evidence that the global elite is now exercising control over you in ways that were not done so explicitly previously, consider the following: ‘European Plans for “Vaccine Passports” Were in Place 20 Months Prior to the Pandemic. Coincidence?’

More fundamentally, this interview by Dr Reiner Füllmich of WHO insider Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger carefully explains why WHO is a corrupt dictatorship with signatory nations legally required to obey the Director General’s directives and Bill Gates given equivalent status to a member nation-state. See ‘WHO Insider Blows Whistle on Gates and GAVI’.

For more evidence of the ever-tightening centralization of power in elite hands to which this is all leading, see ‘Covid-19 shows why united action is needed for more robust international health architecture’ and ‘WHO Pushes International Pandemic Treaty – Another Stepping Stone to World Government’.

And for further insight into the role of Bill Gates in all this, watch Dr. Vandana Shiva’s thoughtful explanation: ‘Bill Gates and His Empires. “Ushering In the Great Reset”’.

Coups

But the most comprehensive demonstration that any semblance of democracy is being destroyed is perhaps the removal from political office of those presidents who dared to challenge the elite-driven narrative that our world is seriously threatened by a virus.

As recorded in progressive media, at least two presidents openly resisting the elite-driven narrative have been removed in coups, with both presidents killed outright.

President Pierre Nkurunzia of Burundi dismissed Covid-19 as ‘nonsense’. He was then vilified in the western media before expelling the World Health Organization from Burundi. Soon after he died of a ‘heart attack’ and his successor immediately reversed his Covid-19 policies. See ‘President Nkurunzia Says #COVID-19 Is A Hoax’ and ‘Coronavirus and Regime Change: Burundi’s Covid Coup’.

Similarly, President John Magufuli of Tanzania not only rejected the Covid-19 narrative but openly ridiculed it in a televised address, in which he exposed the fraudulent nature of the testing ‘when he covertly had non-human samples – from fruits, goats, sheep, and car oil – tested for Covid on the PCR test, returning positive results from a paw-paw, a quail, and a goat’ thus openly irritating the global elite. See ‘John Magufuli: Death of an African Freedom Fighter’ (which includes the video of President Magufuli exposing the Covid-19 lie).

As always, this led to his vilification by corporate media – see ‘Western Liberal Media Attacks Tanzania’s President John Magufuli for Exposing COVID-19 Tests and Population Control in Africa’ – and their failure to mention the fact that President Magufuli had a PhD in chemistry so was rather more qualified than most to question the elite-driven Covid-19 narrative. See ‘Tanzania – The second Covid coup?’ and ‘Tanzania’s Late President Magufuli: “Science Denier” or Threat to Empire?’

Where is this All Heading?

What is touched on above is, in many respects, just the tip of the iceberg. The profound transformations under way do not bode well for any semblance of a human future worth living.

Apart from the measures already mentioned, you will be fed laboratory-produced synthetic foods. See ‘The “Great Reset”: Will There be Food on the Table? “Who Controls the Food Supply Controls the People”’ and ‘Gates Unhinged: Dystopian Vision for Agrifood Must Not Succeed’.

You will have whatever financial security you think you had taken away. See ‘From “Event 201” to “Cyber Polygon”: The WEF’s Simulation of a Coming “Cyber Pandemic”’ and ‘WEF Warns of Cyber Attack Leading to Systemic Collapse of the Global Financial System’.

And you will watch as your children lose whatever remaining capacity they had for independent thought further broken down by the propaganda directed at them. See ‘Brainwashing our children’.

But this list could go on.

Resisting the Death of Democracy

If you want to strategically resist the elite coup currently in train – that is, to undermine the power of the global elite to take complete control of our lives – there is a comprehensive nonviolent strategy for doing so outlined in ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ with detailed supportive information available in Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy.

And it will be invaluable if you make yourself increasingly self-reliant as the mechanisms that you have been seduced into becoming dependent upon are progressively and rapidly being taken away. See ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’.

If you wish to campaign to avert one or more of the four most immediate paths to human extinction – deployment of 5G, nuclear war, the collapse of biodiversity and the climate catastrophe – you can see a list of strategic goals for doing so here: Campaign Strategic Aims.

Conclusion

Human life as you experienced it until the beginning of 2020 has now ended. It will not return. The long-standing elite plan to take complete control of our lives is now being progressively implemented. Act 1 – the ‘Covid-19 pandemic’ – successfully distracted most people so comprehensively that the measures implemented by the global elite to depopulate humanity and take full control of those still living proceeded rapidly. Act 2 is but a short time away.

If you want any chance of restoring a semblance of the lives we have lost, you are invited to join those strategically resisting the elite coup. If your resistance is not strategic, it will have zero impact.

*

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.

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is [email protected] and his website is here.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


Appendix

The Earth Pledge

Out of love for the Earth and all of its creatures, and my respect for their needs, from this day onwards I pledge that:

  1. I will listen deeply to children. See ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’.
  2. I will not travel by plane
  3. I will not travel by car
  4. I will not eat meat and fish
  5. I will only eat organically/biodynamically grown food
  6. I will minimize the amount of fresh water I use, including by minimizing my ownership and use of electronic devices
  7. I will not own or use a mobile (cell) phone
  8. I will not buy rainforest timber
  9. I will not buy or use single-use plastic, such as bags, bottles, containers, cups and straws
  10. I will not use banks, superannuation (pension) funds or insurance companies that provide any service to corporations involved in fossil fuels, nuclear power and/or weapons
  11. I will not accept employment from, or invest in, any organization that supports or participates in the exploitation of fellow human beings or profits from killing and/or destruction of the biosphere
  12. I will not get news from the corporate media (mainstream newspapers, television, radio, Google, Facebook, Twitter…)
  13. I will make the effort to learn a skill, such as food gardening or sewing, that makes me more self-reliant
  14. I will gently encourage my family and friends to consider signing this pledge.

Our Humanity, Our Identity

May 2nd, 2021 by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

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

***

Identity politics has been on the ascendancy in many parts of the world in the last few decades. Its relationship to ethnicity, culture and religion is what concerns us at this point. To understand this relationship one has to consider the context. We should also try to explain the impact of identity politics upon religion itself.

The United States of America is that one country where identity politics has become more prominent in recent times. Significant elements within the majority community feel that their power has been eroded not only by the alleged assertiveness of the African-American minority (Barack Obama was president of the USA for 8 years from 2008 to 2016) but also by the growing educational and economic clout of the Asian-American communities. Besides, there is the increasing presence of the Hispanic minority and its demographic implications for the country as a whole. Fear of these changes has been exaggerated and distorted to mobilise White supremacist sentiment.

A parallel development of sorts has been occurring in parts of Europe. Segments of the White majority have become antagonistic towards minorities many of whom profess Islam. Cultural differences aside, the flow of migrants from West Asia and parts of the African continent— a huge chuck struggling to survive — has intensified resentment and anger on the part of the majority. If anything, heightened unemployment in some of the host societies has exacerbated the situation. The newly arrived migrant often becomes the target of racist attacks.

Outside Europe and the US, there is another state, psychologically part of the West, where the racist temperature has also risen significantly. This is Israel where identity politics has become a major force marked by anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments among the Jewish population. Needless to say these sentiments are antithetical to Jewish philosophy itself.

Within Israel’s neighbourhood, the emergence of a state committed to Islam as ideology has reinforced identity politics. There are of course other states in the region which also define themselves in terms of religion. When a state projects a religious identity, its internal dichotomies and divisions are often concealed and camouflaged, giving the erroneous impression that a harmonious whole prevails.

As the state’s religious identity becomes more and more decisive, inter-religious ties and even intra-religious relationships are transformed in accordance with the dominant religious complexion of the day. Indeed, even the nation’s history and its evolution is re-interpreted to reflect the narrative set by the national elite. This is happening in a South Asian state today where ancient rites and rituals are revived in order to articulate an explicit religious identity which  undermines the rich diversity and cosmopolitan character of its past and present.

Revivalisms of this sort are often linked to the pursuit and perpetuation of power. We are now witnessing how facets of religion are being exploited to serve the narrow interests of a military-cum –political elite in a certain Southeast Asian state. It has resulted in a situation in which the universal message of peace and compassion at the core of the religion’s teachings has been perverted to legitimise an elite’s obsession with power and wealth.

It is obvious that a variety of factors are responsible for the articulation of identity politics through religion and ethnicity. Politics, power, elite interests and changing economic circumstances, sometimes combine with re-interpretations of religious texts to endow identity politics with a dynamism of its own. As we have hinted, identity politics is seldom the essence of faith. It is not at the crux and core of the philosophy of any religion.

To appreciate this, one has to look at what the illustrious prophets and sages taught at the outset of their mission. The long line of Hebrew prophets was concerned about justice. The Hindu sages focused upon righteous conduct. The Buddha’s primary goal was to restore compassion in the conduct of human affairs. For Jesus Christ love was his central purpose. The quintessence of the Quranic message is justice and compassion embodied in the Oneness of God ( Tauhid) which is the foundation of the unity of creation and the solidarity of the human family.

Within such a vision, there is no room for sectarianism, for a ‘us versus them’ dichotomy. Identity politics thrives upon such divisions. When common values are emphasised, when shared principles are highlighted, it is our common humanity that shines forth.

For that to happen, a radical psychological shift will have to occur in the way in which we understand and practise faith. It is the deed we perform rather than the word we profess that will define who we are and what we are. It is what we do that will signal our humanity. And our humanity will define our identity —- our true, real identity.

*

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.

Dr Chandra  Muzaffar is the president of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST), Malaysia.

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

Featured image: The seven members of the Kings Bay Plowshares, who entered the Georgia naval base on April 4 to protest nuclear weapons, white supremacy and racism. (WNV/Kings Bay Plowshares)

Big Pharma’s Covid Vaccine

May 1st, 2021 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: 7.8 billion people. 

Worldwide, people are led to believe that the corona vaccine is a solution. And that “normality” will then be restored.

The following text is chapter VIII of Michel Chossudovsky’s E-Book.

.

.

To access the full document (Ten Chapters)

click below

The 2020-21 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

***

Introduction

The Covid-19 vaccine is profit driven. The US government had already ordered 100 million doses back in July 2020 and the EU is to purchase 300 million doses. It’s Big Money for Big Pharma, generous payoffs to corrupt politicians, at the expense of tax payers.

The objective is ultimately to make money, by vaccinating the entire planet of 7.8 billion people for SARS-CoV-2.

The Covid vaccine in some cases envisages more than one shot. If this initiative goes ahead as planned, it would be the largest vaccine project in World history and the biggest money making operation for Big Pharma.

The Second Wave of the pandemic commenced in October 2020. The Pfizer Moderna corona vaccine was launched in early November 2020.

Worldwide, people are led to believe that the corona vaccine is a solution. And that “normality” will then be restored.

How is it that a vaccine for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which under normal conditions would take years to develop, was promptly launched on the 9th of November 2020?

Moreover, the vaccine announced by Pfizer, Moderna Inc, AstraZeneka and Johnson and Johnson (J & J) is based on an experimental gene editing mRNA technology which has a bearing on the human genome. Coupled with the mRNA vaccine initiative is the development of a so-called digital passport which will be imposed on entire populations. (See analysis below).

And why do we need a vaccine for Covid-19 when the WHO, the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as well as numerous scientists have confirmed unequivocally that Covid-19 is  “similar to seasonal influenza”.

The mRNA Vaccine is “Unapproved” and “Experimental” 

Four major companies including Pfizer Inc, Moderna Inc, AstraZeneca and Johnson and Johnson (J & J) are currently involved (early 2021) in marketing the experimental mRNA vaccine with the relentless support of national governments.

Amply documented, barely reported by the media, numerous cases of  deaths and injury have occurred.

The “Green Light” to market the experimental mRNA vaccine was granted back in December 2020, despite the fact that according to the FDA, the vaccine is an “unapproved product”.

The FDA in an ambiguous statement has provided a so-called Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, namely “to permit the emergency use of the unapproved product, … for active immunization…” (see below)

There is something fishy and “contradictory” in this statement. The experimental Pfizer mRNA vaccine is both “unapproved” and “permitted”.

I have checked this statement with a prominent lawyer. It is blatantly illegal to market an “unapproved product”.

In the US, the Pfizer-Moderna vaccine is categorized by the CDC as an “investigational drug”. “The emergency use” clause is there to justify the launching of what might be described as an “illegal drug”.

There is an ongoing fear campaign but there is no “Emergency” which justifies “Emergency Use”. Why?

  1. Both the WHO and the CDC have confirmed that Covid-19 is  “similar to seasonal influenza”, It is not a killer virus.
  2. The PCR test used to estimate “confirmed positive cases” is flawed. Since March 2020, the Covid-19 “numbers” have been manipulated, hiked up.
  3. The overall validity of the PCR test (and estimates) as applied since January 2020 has been questioned (January 2021) by the WHO. (See our analysis in Chapter III)

“Fraudulent Marketing” of an “Unapproved Product”

Flashback to 2009. In a historic US Department of Justice decision in September 2009, Pfizer Inc. pleaded guilty to criminal charges. It was “The Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement” in the History of the US Department of Justice:

American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. … have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, … ” (September 2, 2009)

To view the C-Span Video Click Screen below 

 

Déjà Vu: Flash Forward to 2020-2021

How on Earth could you trust a Big Pharma vaccine conglomerate which pleaded guilty to criminal charges by the US Department of Justice including “fraudulent marketing” and “felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act”?

I should mention, however, that in 2009, Pfizer was so to speak “Put on Probation” by the US Department of Justice. It was obliged to enter into “a corporate integrity agreement” with the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). “That agreement provided for “procedures and reviews to … avoid and promptly detect” misconduct on the part of Pfizer, Inc.

Johnson and Johnson and “The Opioid Epidemic” 

At the height of the corona crisis, barely covered by the media, coinciding with the launch of the Covid-19 vaccine in early November 2020, Johnson and Johnson (and its three distributors) (involved in the marketing of prescription opioids)  “reached a tentative $26 billion settlement with counties and cities that sued them for damages”. The class action law suit was “the largest federal court case in American history” (For further details see Chapter VI pertaining to “The Impacts on Mental Health”)

Are these legal antecedents relevant to an understanding of Big Pharma’s vaccine initiative?

Johnson and Johnson is  currently involved in the production and marketing of a Covid adenovirus viral vector vaccine which also entails genetic therapy. (The above J & J 26 billion dollar settlement is one among several law suits against J&J).

Human Guinea Pigs

In relation to the Covid Vaccine, “fraudulent marketing” is an understatement: The mRNA vaccine announced by Pfizer, Moderna Inc, Johnson and Johnson and AstraZeneka is an “unapproved drug” based on the “experimental” gene editing mRNA technology which has a bearing on the human genome.  

Moreover, the standard animal lab tests using mice or ferrets were not conducted.  Pfizer “went straight to human “guinea pigs.”

“Human tests began in late July and early August [2020]. Three months is unheard of for testing a new vaccine. Several years is the norm.” (F. William Engdahl, Global Research, November 2020)

This caricature by Large + JIPÉM  explains our predicament:

Mouse No 1: “Are You Going to get Vaccinated”,

Mouse No. 2: Are You Crazy, They Haven’t finished the Tests on Humans”

Un grand merci aux caricaturistes Large et JIPÉM

Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former Vice President of Pfizer has taken a firm stance

“All vaccines against the SARS-COV-2 virus are by definition novel. No candidate vaccine has been… in development for more than a few months.”:

“If any such vaccine is approved for use under any circumstances that are not EXPLICITLY experimental, I believe that recipients are being misled to a criminal extent.”

In early December,  Dr Michael Yeadon together with Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg “filed an application with the EMA, the European Medicine Agency responsible for EU-wide drug approval, for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV 2 vaccine studies, in particular the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42).

History of the SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Project 

There are many contradictions. The analysis below addresses the earlier stages of the vaccine project as well as the role of the 201 Simulation under the auspices of the John Hopkins School of Medicine held in New York on  October 19, 2019.

The Covid vaccine is a multibillion dollar Big Pharma operation which will contribute to increasing the public debt of more than 150 national governments.

Supported by the fear campaign, Money rather than Public Health is the driving force behind this initiative.

The GSK-Pfizer Partnership 

Five months before the onset of the Covid-19 crisis, two of the largest Worldwide Pharma conglomerates decided to join hands in a strategic relationship. In August 2019, GSK confirmed the formation of a major partnership with Pfizer entitled the Consumer Health Joint Venture.

While the relationship is said to be limited to “trusted consumer health brands”, the agreement envisages joint financial procedures including joint multibillion dollar investment projects. While it does not constitute a merger, the GSK-Pfizer alliance implies selective integration and de facto collusion in many of the two companies’ activities including the vaccine market.

The completion of the joint venture with Pfizer marks the beginning of the next phase of our transformation of GSK. This is an important moment for the Group, laying the foundation for two great companies, one in Pharmaceuticals and Vaccines and one in Consumer Health.”  (GSK, August 1, 2019,  emphasis added)

This GSK-Pfizer relationship also encompasses a network of  partner pharmaceutical companies, research labs, virology institutes, military and biotech entities, etc. many of which are currently involved in the Covid vaccine initiative.

At present, a handful of multinational companies including GSK and Pfizer control 80% of the global vaccine market. Under the agreement between the two companies, GSK-Pfizer is slated to play a dominant and coordinated role in regards to the Covid-19 vaccine.

The October 2019 Coronavirus Event 201 Simulation Exercise

The coronavirus was initially named nCoV-19 by CEPI and the WHO: exactly the same name as that adopted in the WEF-Gates-John Hopkins Event 201 (2019-nCov) pertaining to a coronavirus simulation exercise held in Baltimore in mid October 2019.

The Event 201 John Hopkins simulation addressed the development of an effective vaccine in response to millions of cases (in the October 2019 simulation) of the 2019 nCoV. The simulation announced a scenario in which the entire population of the planet would be affected: “During the initial months of the pandemic, the cumulative number of cases [in the simulation] increases exponentially, doubling every week. And as the cases and deaths accumulate, the economic and societal consequences become increasingly severe.”

The scenario ends at the 18-month point, with 65 million deaths. The pandemic is beginning to slow due to the decreasing number of susceptible people. The pandemic will continue at some rate until there is an effective vaccine or until 80-90 % of the global population has been exposed. From that point on, it is likely to be an endemic childhood disease.

According to the WEF Video below, produced in relation to the 201 Simulation, “we ran a massive viral pandemic simulation.., 65 million deaths Worlwide.”.

See also the analysis of  F. William Engdahl on the 201 Simulation

Video Produced by the World Economic Forum in association with the 201 John Hopkins Simulation

Ironically, on January 30th 2020, the WHO defined the new virus as 2019-nCoV, i.e. the same name as that used in the 201 simulation in October 2019.

It was only later that Covid-19 was identified by the WHO not as a virus but as a disease: coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the Virus was identified as “severe acute respiratory syndrome” coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

Two weeks after the virus had been formally identified by the People’s Republic of China (Jan 7, 2020), a vaccine for the novel coronavirus was announced by CEPI at the Davos World Economic Forum, January 20-24, 2020.

The Central Role of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI)

The lead entity for the novel coronavirus vaccine initiative is the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) an organization sponsored and financed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Note the chronology: The development of the 2019 nCoV vaccine was announced at the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) a week prior to the official launching by the WHO of  a Worldwide Public Health Emergency (January 30) at a time when the number of “confirmed cases” Worldwide (outside China) was 83. (see Chapter II)

The pandemic was launched by the WHO on March 11. And five days later, barely covered by the media, the first tests involving human volunteers were conducted by Moderna in Seattle on March 16.

According to Richard Hatchett, CEO of  the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) the project to develop a vaccine commenced not only prior to the discovery and identification of the coronavirus (January 7, 2020) but several months prior to the October 2019 simulation exercise.

“We did that in the last year or so [early 2019]. … ”

(scroll down for interview with Richard Hatchett)

CEPI is seeking a “monopoly” role in the vaccination business the objective of which is a “global vaccine project”, in partnership with a large number of “candidates”.

It announced funding for its existing partnership with Inovio and The University of Queensland (Australia). In addition, CEPI confirmed (January 23, 2020) its contract with Moderna, Inc. and the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has been instrumental in waging the fear and panic campaign across America: “Ten Times Worse than Seasonal Flu”. (See WEF Video below)

The presentation of the representative from Moderna Inc describing the features of the mRNA vaccine starts at 11’50”.

“We inject instructions … mRNA is a platform”

CEPI was dealing simultaneously with several pharmaceutical companies. The Moderna- NIAID agreement was implemented. The mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was launched in the US in late November 2020.

On January 31st, 2020 the day following the WHO’s official launching of the global public health emergency (PHEIC) and Trump’s decision to curtail air travel with China, CEPI announced its partnership with CureVac AG, a German-based  biopharmaceutical company.

A few days later, in early February 2020, CEPI “announced that major vaccine manufacturer GSK would allow its proprietary adjuvants— compounds that boost the effectiveness of vaccines — to be used in the response”. (The pandemic was officially launched on March 11).

There were many “potential vaccines in the pipeline” with “dozens of research groups around the world  racing to create a vaccine against COVID-19”.

The COV-19 Global Vaccination Program 

CEPI (on behalf of Gates-WEF, which funded the 201 simulation exercise) is currently playing a key role in a large scale Worldwide vaccination program in partnership with biotech companies, Big Pharma, government agencies as well as university laboratories.

The foregoing statement by CEPI was made nearly two months prior to the official declaration of a pandemic on March 11.

“We’re having conversations with a broad array of potential partners”.

And critical to those conversations is:

What’s the plan to make very large quantities of vaccine within a time frame that is potentially relevant to what people seem to be increasingly certain will be a pandemic, if it isn’t already there? …” [Richard Hatchett, CEPI CEO in interview with stat.news.com].  …

The underlying focus was to develop a global vaccine:

And part of that was doing a global survey of manufacturing capacity to think about where we wanted to plant the manufacturing of any successful products we were able to bring forward.

Of significance, Hatchett  confirmed that the project to develop a vaccine commenced not only prior to the discovery and identification of the coronavirus (January 7, 2020) but several months prior to the October 2019 201 simulation exercise.

“We did that in the last year or so. [early 2019]…  We are using the information that we have collected and have that team now thinking about opportunities for scaling vaccines of various different types. That is a work in progress. For some of the technologies the tech transfer [to a manufacturer] may be something that could be done in a time frame that was pertinent to the epidemic, potentially.

I think it is going to be really important to engage those folks who have access to really substantial production capacity. And having the big producers at the table — because of their depth, because of their experience, because of their internal resources — would be very, very important.

The candidate vaccines will be very, very quick. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID [who has been spreading panic on network TV], is out in public as saying he thinks the clinical trial for the Moderna vaccine may be as early as the spring. (emphasis added)

What is now unfolding in real life is in some regards similar to the October 2019 201 Simulation exercise at John Hopkins.

The scenario is how to produce millions of vaccine shots on the presumption that the pandemic will spread Worldwide, and for that you need the Covid-19 “positive cases” to go fly high.

The CEPI sponsored vaccine conglomerates had already planned their investments well in advance of the global Worldwide health emergency (declared by the WHO on January 30, 2020):

I [Hachett] think part of the general strategy is to have a large number of candidates. [and] you want to have enough candidates that at least some of them are moving rapidly through the process.

And then for each candidate, you need to ask yourself the question: How do you produce that? … [And] how are you going to get to that point with production at a scale that is meaningful in the context of a disease that is going to infect the whole of society?(Interview conducted by Helen Branswell, statsnews, February 3, 2020)

Moderna Inc 

Moderna Inc based in Seattle was one of the several candidates involved and supported by CEPI.

Moderna announced on February 24th the development of “an experimental mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, known as mRNA-1273″. The initial batch of the vaccine has already been shipped to U.S. government researchers from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)” headed by Dr. Antony Fauci.

While Moderna Inc initially stated that the first clinical trials would commence in late April, tests involving human volunteers started in mid-March in Seattle: (bear in mind the pandemic was officially launched on March 11)

.

Researchers in Seattle gave the first shot to the first person in a test of an experimental coronavirus vaccine Monday — leading off a worldwide hunt for protection even as the pandemic surges.  …

Some of the study’s carefully chosen healthy volunteers, ages 18 to 55, will get higher dosages than others to test how strong the inoculations should be. Scientists will check for any side effects and draw blood samples to test if the vaccine is revving up the immune system, looking for encouraging clues like the NIH earlier found in vaccinated mice.

“We don’t know whether this vaccine will induce an immune response, or whether it will be safe. That’s why we’re doing a trial,” Jackson stressed. “It’s not at the stage where it would be possible or prudent to give it to the general population.” (FOX news local)

The Covid Vaccine and the ID2020 Digital Identity Platform

While CEPI had announced the launching of a global vaccine at the Davos World Economic Forum, another important and related endeavor was underway. It’s called the ID2020 Agenda, which, according to Peter Koenig constitutes “an electronic ID program that uses generalized vaccination as a platform for digital identity”.

“The program harnesses existing birth registration and vaccination operations to provide newborns with a portable and persistent biometrically-linked digital identity”. (Peter Koenig, March 2020)

The founding Partners of ID2020 are Microsoft, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) among others.

It is worth noting the timeline: The ID2020 Alliance held their Summit in New York, entitled “Rising to the Good ID Challenge”, on September 19, 2019, exactly one month prior to nCov-2019 simulation exercise entitled Event 201 at John Hopkins in New York:

Is it just a coincidence that ID2020 is being rolled out at the onset of what the WHO calls a Pandemic? – Or is a pandemic needed to ‘roll out’ the multiple devastating programs of ID2020? (Peter Koenig, March 2020)

ID2020 is part of a “World Governance” project which, if applied, would roll out the contours of what some analysts have described as a Global Police State encompassing through vaccination the personal details of several billion people Worldwide. According to Dr. David Martin (quoted by Makia Freeman):

“This is not a vaccine … using the term vaccine to sneak this thing under public health exemptions … This is a mRNA packaged in a fat envelope that is delivered to a cell. It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator. It is not a vaccine! Vaccines actually are a legally defined term … under public health law … under CDC and FDA standards, and a vaccine specifically has to stimulate both an immunity within the person receiving it, but it also has to disrupt transmission.

In the Wake of the Lockdown. The Second Wave

The Second Wave: The fear campaign continues in the wake of the lockdown. A new lockdown is unfolding (December-January) in several countries.

Will the hardships of the economic and social crisis (coupled with a fear campaign) encourage people to get vaccinated?

To implement the Global Vaccine, the propaganda campaign must continue. The Truth must be suppressed. These are their “guidelines”, which must be confronted and challenged.

Several governments (aka corrupt politicians) including the US, UK, France, Germany, Canada as well as India have already provided the green light. Information and analysis on the features of the virus (similar to seasonal influential) is being suppressed by the media.

While Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been used to treat patients in both Europe and North America, Big Pharma with the support of the governments is intent upon suppressing evidence on how COVID-19 can be cured, without the need of a vaccine. (See Chapter VI)

The Covid Vaccine and “Herd Immunity”: Changing the Definitions 

Herd immunity is an important concept in medicine. According to Healthline:

“It happens when so many people in a community become immune to an infectious disease that it stops the disease from spreading.

This can happen in two ways:

1. Many people contract the disease and in time build up an immune response to it (natural immunity).

2. Many people are vaccinated against the disease to achieve immunity.

Herd immunity can work against the spread of some diseases. There are several reasons why it often works.” (See Healthline)

The WHO has redefined herd immunity with a view to supporting the multibillion dollar Covid vaccine initiative:

Below (Left) is the official WHO definition (June 2020). And in November (Right) the WHO decided unilaterally to  redefine a fundamental medical concept, focussing solely on the role of vaccination in achieving herd immunity.

.

 

To our knowledge, the peer reviewed definition of herd immunity has not changed.

The new “definition” of the WHO visibly serves the interests of Big Pharma.

.

Flashback: The 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic

Remember the 2009 H1N1 “pandemic” when Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology compared the H1N1 pandemic to the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic while reassuring the public that the latter was more deadly. (CBC: Get swine flu vaccine ready: U.S. advisers).

For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, August 2009 Study on H1N1 Pandemic)

Based on incomplete and scanty data, the WHO Director General Margaret Chan predicted with authority that: “as many as 2 billion people could become infected over the next two years — nearly one-third of the world population.” (World Health Organization as reported by the Western media, July 2009).

It was a multibillion bonanza for Big Pharma supported by the WHO’s Director-General Margaret Chan. 

In a subsequent statement Dr. Chan confirmed that:

“Vaccine makers could produce 4.9 billion pandemic flu shots per year in the best-case scenario”,Margaret Chan, Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO), quoted by Reuters, 21 July 2009).

Swine flu could strike up to 40 percent of Americans over the next two years and as many as several hundred thousand could die if a vaccine campaign and other measures aren’t successful.” (Official Statement of Obama Administration, Associated Press, 24 July 2009).

There was no H1N1 pandemic affecting 2 billion people. Millions of doses of swine flu vaccine had been ordered by national governments from Big Pharma.

Millions of vaccine doses were subsequently destroyed: a financial bonanza for Big Pharma, an expenditure crisis for national governments.

There was no investigation into who was behind this multibillion dollar fraud. Several critics said that the H1N1 Pandemic was “Fake”

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO’s motives in declaring a pandemic. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg, has declared that the “false pandemic” is “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.” (Michael Fomento, Forbes, February 10, 2010)

Michael Fomento  concludes:

Even within the agency, the director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Epidemiology in Munster, Germany, Dr. Ulrich Kiel, has essentially labeled the pandemic a hoax. “We are witnessing a gigantic misallocation of resources [$18 billion so far] in terms of public health,” he said.

They’re right. This wasn’t merely overcautiousness or simple misjudgment. The pandemic declaration and all the Klaxon-ringing since reflect sheer dishonesty motivated not by medical concerns but political ones.

Unquestionably, swine flu has proved to be vastly milder than ordinary seasonal flu. It kills at a third to a tenth the rate, according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. Data from other countries like France and Japan indicate it’s far tamer than that.

H1N1 2009 Vaccine Causes Brain Damage to Children : GSK’s ArepanrixTD applied in Canada

In Memory of a Little Girl Called Amina Abudu

See complete article here

The WHO’s H1N1 pandemic was declared in June 11, 2009. GSK was on contract to the Canadian government. The GSK’s ArepandrixTM vaccine was delivered to Canadian health authorities within less than four months.

“As a result, an impressive 45% of Canadians received protection from the H1N1 virus by being vaccinated with GSK’s ArepanrixTM” according to GSK’S President-CEO Paul Lucas in a statement on  October 9 2009 to Canada’s Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.

Within four months?. Does that give them Time to Test????

Lots of people in Canada fell sick after receiving the H1N1 ArepanrixTD vaccine.

And that vaccine killed a little girl called Amina Abudu, which then led to a ten year lawsuit against GSK.

A vaccine was rushed to market, and the five year old was among millions of Canadians to get the shot, amid widespread fears about the new pathogen.

Five days later, Amina’s older brother found her lying unconscious in the bathroom of the family’s east-end Toronto home. She was dead.

Her devastated parents came to blame the flu shot itself and sued the vaccine’s manufacturer, Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK), for $4.2 million. The little-noticed trial of that lawsuit drew toward a close on Tuesday, a rare judicial airing in Canada of a vaccine’s alleged side effects.

The parents’ lawyer, Jasmine Ghosn, alleged the preventive drug was brought out quickly and without proper testing during a chaotic flu season, as the federal government exerted “intense pressure” on Canadians to get immunized. (National Post, November 2019)

Screenshot of National Post. Death of Canadian girl in 2009  (Report is dated November 2019

It took ten years for a judgment. The Family lost. GSK declined responsibility for her death. And the Canadian government reimbursed GSK’s legal expenses.

That lawsuit against GSK should be reopened. Canada’s government bears the burden of responsibility.

ArepanrixTD (2009) vs PandemrixTM (2009)

GSK has casually acknowledged that the ArepanrixTD which was used in Canada is “similar” to the GSK’s PandemrixTM applied in the UK and the EU, which led to brain damage in Children. It was subsequently withdrawn. But ArepandrixTD applied in Canada prevailed.  An ArepandrixTD (2010) was subsequently released the following year (and compared to PandemrixTD (2009)

GSK acknowledges that PandemrixTD (2009) causes narcolepsy, which is categorized as “a chronic neurological disorder that affects the brain’s ability to control sleep-wake cycles.”

COVID-19 Vaccine is Déjà Vu. Lets not be taken in again.

Important Lessons to be Learned from the 2009 H1N1 Pandemic

The COVID-19 “pandemic” is far more serious and diabolical than the 2009 H1N1. The COV-19 pandemic has provided a pretext and a justification for destabilizing the economies of entire countries, impoverishing large sectors of the World population. Unprecedented in modern history.

And it is important that we act cohesively and in solidarity with those who are victims of this crisis.

People’s lives are in a freefall and their purchasing power has been destroyed.

What kind of twisted social structure awaits us in the wake of the lockdown?

Can we trust the World Health Organization (WHO) and the powerful economic interest groups behind it. The answer is obvious.

Can we trust the main actors behind the multibillion dollar global vaccination project?

Can we trust the Western media which has led the fear campaign?

Disinformation sustains the lies and fabrications.

Can we trust our “corrupt” governments? Our national economy has been devastated.

In recent developments, the Covid vaccine is being implemented in a large number of countries.

Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg who revealed the fraud behind H1N1 is actively involved together with Dr. Michael Yeadon in the campaign against the Covid-19 vaccine.

.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Big Pharma’s Covid Vaccine
  • Tags:

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

***

First published on February 8, 2021

On Dec. 10, 2020, American biotechnology company Moderna, Inc., which is pioneering the development of experimental messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics and vaccines, gave a 12-year old a dose of the company’s mRNA-1273 vaccine in a Phase 2/3 study of the new vaccine. Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel said, “Our goal is to generate data in the spring of 2021 that will support the use of mRNA-1273 in adolescents in advance of the 2021 school year”.1

Moderna was granted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Dec. 18, 2020 for administration of the experimental COVID-19 biologic to adults 18 years or older. The estimated study completion date is June 30, 2022.2

Moderna Admits Struggling to Find Tweens and Teens Willing to Sign Up

Moderna needs to enroll at least 3,000 adolescent participants to provide valid safety and efficacy data, and to get authorization from the FDA for the COVID-19 biologic to be administered to children as young as age 12.3 However, by mid-January, the company acknowledged it was struggling to find enough adolescent volunteers,4 which will potentially delay FDA authorization for the mRNA coronavirus vaccine to be given to this age group.5

Moncef Slaoui, PhD, the scientific head of the previous administration’s Operation Warp Speed COVID-19 vaccination program expressed concern about having trouble getting adolescent volunteers to enroll in clinical trials. On Jan. 12, 2020 he said that, while a vaccine trial in adults is accruing 800 volunteers per day, the teen trial is getting only about 800 per month.6

The Moderna teen trial, called TeenCove, expects to enroll adolescents at up to 15 sites nationwide.7 Katherine Luzuriaga, MD, principal investigator at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, one of the 15 clinical trial sites, said study participants will receive either the experimental biologic or a saline placebo in a 2:1 ratio.

Those receiving the experimental biologic will receive two doses of 100 micrograms each, given 28 days apart, as is authorized for adults. Participants will be followed for one year after receipt of the second dose.8 They’re hoping to enroll children from diverse communities, especially those in Black and other minority communities which reportedly have been the most severely affected by COVID-19. Study participants must be between 12 and 17 years old, in good health, and have never tested positive for COVID-19.

In its “Frequently Asked Questions” section, TeenCove states that, “compensation for your family’s time will be available. We realize it takes time to come for study visits, so we want to make sure this is not too much of a burden for you and your child. The study site will review these details with you.”9

“Hard for Parents to Justify” Enrolling Children in COVID-19 Clinical Trials

Yvonne Maldonado, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford University School of Medicine and chair of the committee on infectious diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), said it’s crucial to get vaccine data for children of all ages. She said, “Many of us want to see kids vaccinated—for their own safety of course, but also because it really reduces the chain of transmission.” She observed that the fact that COVID-19 is usually so mild in minors makes it hard for parents to justify enrolling their kids in trials. “If the disease were something that was very clearly impacting them in a hugely negative way, you’d probably see more interest there,” she said.10

On Jan. 22, 2020 Pfizer, Inc. announced it had finished enrolling children between 12 and 15 years old in a study testing its COVID-19 biologic, as they seek to expand the shot’s use among different age groups. The study, which was announced in October, had enrolled over 2,000 participants, a Pfizer spokeswoman said in an emailed statement to Reuters.11

To Test or Not to Test COVID-19 Vaccines in Children?

Nationwide through Jan. 31, 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported there were 267 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in ages 0-17, which accounted for less than 0.1 percent of all deaths in the U.S since the beginning of the pandemic. Persons over 65 years of age accounted for 81 percent of all deaths.12

Waiting until vaccines appear safe to test them in children is a common practice, as children’s biological responses to vaccination can be different than adult responses. Some doctors think testing in children should begin sooner than later, continuing the current overall push to expedite the development and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to all age groups. Others have argued that because children are less likely to have severe complications or die if they become infected with SARS-CoV-2, the risks of testing COVID-19 vaccines on them could actually be greater than those posed by the severe disease symptoms the shots are designed to prevent.13

The FDA convened a panel of outside experts for its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) that met on Oct. 22, 2020 to review data and advise the agency on candidate coronavirus vaccines. Members of the FDA advisory committee expressed several serious concerns about the testing and approval process. Luigi Notarangelo, MD, chief researcher at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) said:

I think children at this point should not be considered for use of this vaccine until there is sufficient evidence that it’s safe for them, and what we’ve been presented today does not provide that.14

Pressure to return children to school may make testing vaccines in children more urgent, but Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, states it’s “an extra added benefit when we get the vaccine for the kids,” but that it is not a prerequisite for reopening. That sentiment has been echoed by many teachers’ groups and medical experts. “There’s very little concern or sense that school shouldn’t be open because the kids aren’t vaccinated,” said Colin Sharkey, the executive director of the Association of American Educators.15

“This year has been the strangest anyone has ever experienced,” said Lisa Brown, a mother whose 15 year-old son is enrolled in the adolescent arm of the Pfizer mRNA study. “It’s important for this age group to get vaccinated so that they can go back to school, and things can go back to normal.”16

Many parents are “more afraid of COVID than the vaccine,” according to Laurie Evans, whose 16-year-old daughter is enrolled in the Pfizer study.17 But fear is only one element that would attract the thousands of American families Pfizer and Moderna need to enroll children for pediatric clinical trials. Many medical researchers and health officials are also emphasizing the concept that enrolling in COVID-19 vaccine experiments and getting vaccinated is for “the greater good,” suggesting that “getting a vaccine, when it’s available, is not just about you. It’s about protecting your grandmother who has diabetes and Uncle Sean, who is immune-compromised.”18

Limited Long-Term Follow-Up of Pfizer, Moderna COVID-19 Biologics

So far, both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 biologics are believed to be generally tolerable, with most of the reported short-term side effects including fever, chills, fatigue, headache and injection site pain and swelling.19 However, clinical trials only included thousands of participants followed up for a few months. Important safety data won’t be available until they have been followed for many more months and even years.

Pfizer and Moderna have promised to collect and disclose follow-up clinical trial safety and efficacy information when it becomes available.20 However, long-term follow-up for conditions such as cancer and autoimmune diseases will become difficult, if not impossible, if the vaccine makers hasten to offer their vaccines to the placebo groups, which will completely erase the ability for researchers to compare or evaluate potential long term differences in health outcomes among the vaccinated and placebo groups.

Moderna and Pfizer executives have both suggested that the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial participants, who received a placebo, should be vaccinated.21

The challenge of keeping children in the study long enough to evaluate longer-term consequences of the vaccine is well articulated by mother Laurie Evans. She is concerned that the two-year commitment to which her daughter agreed as a COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial participant means that, if she received a placebo, she might be discouraged from getting the actual vaccine when it is approved since that would compromise the ongoing research.

Her daughter is also concerned about that scenario, especially if her school requires students to be vaccinated in order to attend. Evans reports that Pfizer has been surprisingly vague on that point so far and has not yet spelled out what it will expect from placebo recipients.

Vaccine Experiments on Children Have Cruel Past

From 1950 to 1972, Saul Krugman, MD conducted hepatitis vaccine trials on disabled children aged five to ten years old at the Willowbrook State School on Staten Island in New York. One parent, Dianna McCort, said she was “desperate” to find a placement for her daughter. She described how Dr. Krugman offered to jump the long waitlist and put her daughter in the newer, cleaner research wards with more staff, but only if she allowed her daughter to be enrolled in the hepatitis B vaccine experiments.

“I did feel coerced,” McCort said, “I felt like I was denied help unless I took this [opportunity].” Dr. Krugman also told parents that since hepatitis was already prevalent at Willowbrook, their children may as well have the chance to not contract hepatitis B by getting the experimental hepatitis B vaccine.22

Willowbrook was one in a long line of human experiments on children, prison inmates, people in mental health facilities, and minority populations in the U.S.. In 1974, the National Research Act was passed in an effort to create regulations that protected subjects in human research trials. The Act created an ethics task force, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.

Vaccine experiments carried out without parental consent on babies and young children in Mother and Baby homes in Ireland during the 1960s violated the Nuremberg Code created by an international war crimes commission after horrific Nazi experiments on children during World War II were discovered. Patrick Meenan, MD, who led the vaccine program in Ireland and was also a key government advisor on the issue, stated: “There was a tradition of doing testing in orphanages. You went to where the material was to put it crudely.”23

“Mistakes with vaccines can erode the public’s trust”

In the Philippines, 600 child deaths are currently under investigation after children received the Sanofi-Pasteur dengue vaccine, Dengvaxia. Fourteen government officials have been indicted for acting with “undue haste” in procuring the vaccine and launching the mass immunization campaign before the clinical trials were finished.

The debacle in the Philippines offers a key lesson for governments and manufacturers when it comes to approving and selling new vaccines. Physician and bioethicist Keymanthri Moodley, who directs the Centre for Medical Ethics and Law at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, advises researchers and public health officials to “slow down” because mistakes with testing vaccines can erode the public’s trust and have long-term consequences for the health of an entire country. He said,

When a vaccine goes wrong, it creates fear and anxiety in terms of the public, especially the parents. That fear can impact negatively on the established immune programs that are actually safe and work very well.24

*

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.

Notes

1 Press Release. Moderna Announces First Participants Dosed in Phase 2/3 Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate in Adolescents. Businesswire Dec. 10, 2020.

2 U.S. National Library of Medicine. A Study to Evaluate the Safety, Reactogenicity, and Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 Vaccine in Adolescents 12 to <18 Years Old to Prevent COVID-19 (TeenCove). ClinicalTrials.gov.

3 Weintraub K. Moderna struggles to find 3,000 adolescent vounteers needed for COVID-19 vaccine trial. USA Today Jan. 14, 2021.

4 Ellis R. Moderna Needs More Kids for COVID Vaccine Trials. WebMD Jan. 14, 2021.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Spencer S. UMass Medical School researchers to start trial of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in teens. UMass Med News Jan. 26, 2021.

8 Ibid.

9 Moderna. A COVID-19 vaccine study for adolescents. Teen Cove Study.

10 Weintraub K. Moderna struggles to find 3,000 adolescent vounteers needed for COVID-19 vaccine trial. USA Today Jan. 14, 2021.

11 Khandekar A. Pfizer finishes enrolling kids in its COVID-19 vaccine study Reuters Jan, 22, 2021.

12 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Demographic Trends of COVID-19 cases and deaths in the U.S. reported to the CDC. Jan, 31, 2021.

13 Rahhal N. Pfizer will enroll children as young as 12 in its COVID-19 vaccine trials Daily MailNov. 11, 2020.

14 Hilzenrath D. FDA Whitewashes Warnings About Coronavirus Vaccine Trials. POGO Nov. 2, 2020.

15 Nierenberg A, Pasick A. Reopening Schools Before a Children’s Vaccine. The New York Times Dec. 4, 2020.

16 Ring S, Griffin R. Covid Trials for Kids Get Started With First Results by Mid-2021. BloombergJan. 19, 2021.

17 Kluger J. Kids Are Participating in COVID-19 Vaccine Trials. Here’s What Their Parents ThinkTIME Nov. 2, 2020.

18 Children’s Health Defense. Why Are Parents Enrolling Their Kids in Experimental COVID Vaccine Trials? The Defender Nov. 19, 2020.

19 CDC. What to Expect after Getting a COVID-19 Vaccine. Jan. 11, 2021.

20 Feuerstein A, et al. With strong data on two Coid-19 vacines, we have more answers about the road ahead—and questions too. STAT Nov. 16, 2020.

21 Children’s Health Defense. Why Are Parents Enrolling Their Kids in Experimental COVID Vaccine Trials? The Defender Nov. 19, 2020.

22 Rosenbaum L. The Hideous Truths of Testing Vaccines on Humans. Forbes June 12, 2020.

23 Irish vaccine experiments on babies broke Nazi Nuremberg Code rules. Irish Central Jan. 18, 2021.

24 Doucleff M. Rush To Produce, Sell Vaccine Put Kids In Philippines At Risk. NPR May 3, 2019.

Doctors for Assange was led by Dr. Stephen Frost and his colleagues.

The report below was initially published in The Lancet on June 25, 2020

Dr. Frost is currently leading a new initiative entitled Doctors for Covid Ethics

***

Julian Assange Languishes in a British Super Max Prison at the Behest of the Biden Regime. 

The man who helped expose US-NATO crimes now resides in a British supermax prison full of convicted murders and armed robbers.

Julian Assange is kept in solitary confinement amidst incredibly restrictive and harsh conditions. He has been denied visits from his family for over six months now. During this last winter he has been denied the warm clothing sent by his family and left to shiver in a cold prison cell against the background of a deadly global pandemic.

****

On Feb 17, 2020, Doctors for Assange demanded an end to the torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange.1 Yet no responsible authority has acted. Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and two medical experts visited Mr Assange in prison in May, 2019, concluding that his treatment constituted psychological torture, a form of torture aimed at destroying the personality of an individual.2 The situation has deteriorated since then, with continued abuses of Mr Assange’s fundamental rights and the medical risks posed by COVID-19.

.

Since February, 2020, there has been a string of hearings in the context of Mr Assange’s US extradition trial. A timeline is provided in the appendix. His treatment throughout has been described as “shocking and excessive” by the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI).3 He has been held in a bulletproof enclosure unable to fully hear proceedings and denied meetings with his lawyers. He was strip-searched, handcuffed 11 times, moved to five different holding cells, and had privileged client–lawyer communications seized.3

Mr Assange attended, by videolink due to ill health, only one hearing, missing the four following hearings because of COVID-19-related restrictions and medical risks.

Prison lockdowns in the UK have prevented meetings with his lawyers to prepare for future hearings. These irregularities and excesses cause helplessness, arbitrariness, threat, and isolation, all key components of psychological torture.

.

Mr Assange is at grave risk from contracting COVID-19. As he is non-violent, being held on remand, and arbitrarily detained according to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention,4 he meets internationally recommended criteria for prisoner release during COVID-19.56 A bail application with a plan for monitored home detention was refused, however, and Mr Assange is held in solitary confinement for 23 h each day.

Isolation and under-stimulation are key psychological torture tactics, capable of inducing severe despair, disorientation, destabilisation, and disintegration of crucial mental functions. Given recent attacks against journalists, the psychological torture of a publisher and journalist sets a precedent of international concern.

.

Human rights organisations and others have called for Mr Assange’s release and condemned the extradition proceedings. Amnesty International has advocated for Mr Assange’s release on bail.5 The Council of Europe considers7 Mr Assange’s treatment to be among “the most severe threats to media freedom”.8

We reiterate our demand to end the torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange.1 IBAHRI states that, in view of Mr Assange being a victim of psychological torture, his extradition to the USA would be illegal under international human rights law.3 The World Psychiatric Association emphasises that withholding appropriate medical treatment can itself amount to torture,9 and under the Convention Against Torture, those acting in official capacities can be held complicit and accountable not only for perpetration of torture, but for their silent acquiescence and consent.

.

As physicians, we have a professional and ethical duty to speak out against, report, and stop torture.1011 Silence on Mr Assange’s torture might well facilitate his death.12 The silence must be broken. Now. Please join us!

We are members of Doctors for Assange. This Correspondence has 216 signatories, representing 33 countries. A longer version of this Correspondence and the list of signatories is available in the appendix.

*

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.

Notes

1. Doctors for Assange
End torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange. Lancet. 2020; 395: e44-e45

2. Melzer N, State responsibility for the torture of Julian Assange—speech by UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, at the German Bundestag in Berlin, 27 November 2019. https://medium.com/@njmelzer/state-responsibility-for-the-torture-of-julian-assange-40935ea5d7c3

3. International Bar Association’s Human Rights Instititute
IBAHRI condemns UK treatment of Julian Assange in US extradition trial.

4. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
United Kingdom: Working Group on Arbitrary Detention expresses concern about Assange proceedings.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24552.

5. Amnesty International
UK: Assange bail application highlights COVID-19 risk to many vulnerable detainees and prisoners.

6. Reporters Without Borders. UK: Adjournment of Julian Assange’s US extradition hearing considered amidst coronavirus concerns.
https://rsf.org/en/news/uk-adjournment-julian-assanges-us-extradition-hearing-considered-amidst-coronavirus-concerns

7. Council of Europe
Continued detention of WikiLeaks founder and publisher Julian Assange.
https://go.coe.int/WIMX9

8. Council of Europe
Hands off press freedom: attacks on media in Europe must not become a new normal.
https://rm.coe.int/annual-report-en-final-23-april-2020/16809e39dd

9. Pérez-Sales P
WPA position statement on banning the participation of psychiatrists in the interrogation of detainees.
World Psychiatry. 2018; 17: 237-238

10. Keller AS
Human rights and advocacy: an integral part of medical education and practice.
Virtual Mentor. 2004; 6: 33-36

11. Rubenstein LS
The medical community’s response to torture.
Lancet. 2003; 3611556

12. Johnson L
Psychological torture, coronavirus, and Julian Assange.
https://concurrentdisorders.ca/2020/04/03/psychological-torture-coronavirus-and-julian-assange/

Twitter Censors Peer Reviewed Mask Study

May 1st, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

***

Prashant Bhushan, an advocate-on-record for the Supreme Court of India, put a post on Twitter that recommended reading a peer-reviewed study demonstrating that masks are ineffective and can cause substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects.

Twitter removed the tweet, citing a violation of Twitter rules.

The study suggests that by mechanically restricting breathing, wearing a face mask may lead to a low level of oxygen in the blood (hypoxemia) along with excessive carbon dioxide in your bloodstream (hypercapnia), which in turn may lead to numerous long-term health effects

YouTube also removed a video that featured a scientific roundtable on COVID, because a Harvard professor warned that children should not wear face masks

A legal cause has been launched in the U.K., calling for schools to stop requiring children to wear masks in school, due to their harm to psychological health and development

In Weilheim, Germany, a district court concluded that the mask requirement in schools is unconstitutional and void, immediately removing the order on school premises

*

March 26, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) tweeted a post against the use of masks for the general public: “If you do not have any respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough, or runny nose, you do not need to wear a medical mask. When used alone, masks can give you a false feeling of protection and can even be a source of infection when not used correctly.”1

About one year later, Twitter is now censoring tweets that call facemasks for COVID-19 into question, citing a violation of Twitter rules.2 In the span of less than one year, how did we go from public health officials advising against masks to them now being considered infallible and not up for debate?

“Given that masking of healthy populations for long periods of time is a new policy, it is astounding that the media and scientific journals decided within a matter of months that the efficacy of the practice could not be questioned or studied, nor its adverse effects discussed,” Jeffrey Tucker, editorial director for the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) noted.3

The latest to be silenced was Prashant Bhushan, an advocate-on-record for the Supreme Court of India, a respected human rights attorney with 2.1 million Twitter followers.

Prior to its censoring, his tweet recommended reading a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Medical Hypotheses,4 which demonstrates that masks not only are ineffective for blocking the transmission of infectious disease but also that they can cause substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects.5

It’s alarming to say, but as noted by The COVID Blog, “Twenty-something Twitter employees with Starbucks lattes are now the authorities in law and science versus respected, long-time attorneys who have fought corruption their entire lives.”6

What Does the Censored Mask Study Say?

The study, written by Baruch Vainshelboim with Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System/Stanford University, summarizes scientific evidence on wearing facemasks in the COVID-19 era. Four hypotheses are given, with ample scientific support to back them up:7

  1. The practice of wearing facemasks has compromised safety and efficacy profile
  2. Both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to reduce human-to-human transmission and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19
  3. Wearing facemasks has adverse physiological and psychological effects
  4. Long-term consequences of wearing facemasks on health are detrimental

“Interestingly, 99% of the detected cases with SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic or have mild condition, which contradicts with the virus name (severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2),” Vainshelboim notes, pointing out that the initial infection fatality rate of 2.9% was an overestimation based on limited COVID-19 tests that inflated the rate.

“This was confirmed by the head of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from US stating, ‘the overall clinical consequences of COVID-19 are similar to those of severe seasonal influenza,’ having a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%,” he added.8 As for the efficacy of face masks, SARS-CoV-2, which is about 1,000 times smaller than face masks’ thread diameter, can easily pass through a mask.

A meta-analysis of 39 studies also found “possibly no difference between N95 versus surgical masks and probably no difference between surgical versus no mask in risk for influenza or influenza-like illness” in community settings.9

Physiological and Psychological Effects of Masks

By mechanically restricting breathing, wearing a face mask may lead to a low level of oxygen in the blood (hypoxemia) along with excessive carbon dioxide in your bloodstream (hypercapnia).

In turn, Vainshelboim wrote, “Chronic low-grade hypoxemia and hypercapnia as result of using face mask can cause exacerbation of existing cardiopulmonary, metabolic, vascular and neurological conditions.” In addition, wearing a face mask could lead to the following physiological effects:10

  • Hypoxemia
  • Hypercapnia
  • Shortness of breath
  • Increase lactate concentration
  • Decline in pH levels
  • Acidosis
  • Toxicity
  • Inflammation
  • Self-contamination
  • Increase in stress hormones level (adrenaline, noradrenaline and cortisol)
  • Increased muscle tension
  • Immunosuppression

Psychological effects were also noted, which include:11

  • Activation of “fight or flight” stress response
  • Chronic stress condition
  • Fear
  • Mood disturbances
  • Insomnia
  • Fatigue
  • Compromised cognitive performance

Long-term health consequences are also likely, including:12

  • Increased predisposition for viral and infection illnesses
  • Headaches
  • Anxiety
  • Depression
  • High blood pressure
  • Cardiovascular disease
  • Cancer
  • Diabetes
  • Alzheimer’s disease
  • Exacerbation of existing conditions and diseases
  • Accelerated aging process
  • Health deterioration
  • Premature mortality

Breathing through mask materials, and rebreathing the same air, also poses a high likelihood of self-contamination that could have the end result of suppressing the immune system. Vainshelboim explained:13

“In addition to hypoxia and hypercapnia, breathing through facemask residues bacterial and germs components on the inner and outside layer of the facemask. These toxic components are repeatedly rebreathed back into the body, causing self-contamination.

Breathing through facemasks also increases temperature and humidity in the space between the mouth and the mask, resulting in a release of toxic particles from the mask’s materials.

A systematic literature review estimated that aerosol contamination levels of facemasks include 13 to 202,549 different viruses.14 Rebreathing contaminated air with high bacterial and toxic particle concentrations along with low O2 and high CO2 levels continuously challenge the body homeostasis, causing self-toxicity and immunosuppression.”

Are Masks Just Virtue Signaling?

In May 2020, a group of doctors and researchers wrote in a perspective piece published in the New England Journal of Medicine that masks offer little protection outside of health care facilities, except to calm people’s nerves:15

“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection,” they wrote, and went on to describe masks as playing a “symbolic role” as “talismans” to increase the perception of safety, even though “such reactions may not be strictly logical.” “Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of COVID-19,” they add.

Since then, masks have indeed taken on a symbolic role, one that presents an outward visible sign that you’re obeying COVID protocols and are acting as a “moral” COVID citizen. AIER pointed out that this mask orthodoxy is part of what’s driving the rampant censorship online, including by YouTube.

“YouTube has taken it upon itself to censor the opinions of esteemed scientists that depart from the orthodoxy on masks. This is not surprising given that masks have become dogma – a visible symbol of compliance and fealty to the medical/political agenda that elevates the coronavirus above all else,” Tucker wrote.16

Calls for Children to Stop Wearing Masks

YouTube removed an AIER video that featured a scientific roundtable on COVID. In the video, Harvard professor Martin Kulldorff commented,

“Children should not wear face masks. They don’t need it for their own protection and they don’t need it for protecting other people either.”17

According to YouTube, the video was removed because “it included content that contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19.”18

Kulldorff isn’t the only one who’s calling for children to not be masked. Lucy Johnston, health and social affairs editor with the Sunday Express, asked on Twitter, “Why did Govt not trial use of masks in schools to assess benefits vs risks? Two legal cases now show masks causing both mental & physical harm.”19

One such case was launched in the U.K., with two expert reports speaking out against the use of masks for children. The first, a psychology report,20 states that masks are likely to be causing psychological harm to children and interfering with development.21

“The extent of psychological harm to young people is unknown,” the report states, “due to the unique nature of the ‘social experiment’ currently underway in schools, and in wider society.”22 The second report focused on health, safety and well-being. “Figures illustrate that the risk of death from this disease for this age group is negligible,” the report states, continuing:23

“Hence the introduction of compulsory face covering measures for extended periods of each day in the school, which have potential for a range of long-term health, safety and other harms of as yet unknown quantum, is disproportionate. To introduce these without detailed, thorough and meticulous risk assessment, is potentially reckless.

… The precautionary principle applies especially to children who have little power to oppose decisions made by the adults who hold authority over them and responsibility for them. Those same children will carry the health burden of any errors or omissions for the rest of their lives.

The face covering measure imposed on these secondary schoolchildren are intended to reduce the risk of them contracting an infectious disease Sars-CoV-2, but the risk to this age group of death or serious illness from contracting the same pathogen is almost nil. Most don’t have any symptoms at all or experience a sniffle, a cold or mild influenza like illness.”

German Town Deems School Mask Requirement Unconstitutional

In Weilheim, Germany, a district court concluded that the mask requirement in schools is unconstitutional and void, immediately removing the order on school premises.24 The ruling was made after experts, including psychology professor Christof Kuhbandner, suggested masks pose a significant risk to children’s mental and physical well-being, and could interfere with development by disrupting nonverbal communication.

“Mask mouth,” which increases tooth decay, bad breath and gingivitis, was also cited, as was the ineffectiveness of face masks, with experts stating there is no evidence that face masks reduce the risk of infection from SARS-CoV-2 “at all or even significantly.” Increasingly, people are standing up to the fact that little is known about the long- and short-term risks of masking healthy people.

March 30, 2021, Spain’s central Health Ministry announced a new law, published in the Official State Gazette (BOE),25 that would remove the social distancing component, making masks mandatory in all public spaces, even if no one else is around — including when sunbathing at the beach or swimming in the ocean.26

A number of regional governments immediately suggested that they would defy the initial orders, while the tourism industry also criticized the move,27 forcing the health ministry to reconsider, and showing that standing up for what you believe in continues to make a difference.

Circling back to the featured Medical Hypotheses paper, Vainshelboim is doing just that, even though taking a position against masks today “involves serious professional risk.”

As Tucker wrote, “The paper appears in the midst of an ongoing effort … to normalize and universalize mask wearing, even as many states are repealing their mask mandates with public support. The evidence that doing so has had any effect on the trajectory of the virus is scant at best.”28

*

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.

Notes

1 Twitter March 26, 2020

2, 5, 6 The Covid Blog April 12 2021

3, 16, 17, 18, 28 AIER April 15, 2021

4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 Med Hypotheses. 2021 Jan; 146: 110411

9 Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jun 24 : M20-3213

14 Risk Anal. 2014 Aug; 34(8): 1423–1434

15 N Engl J Med 2020; 382:e63 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2006372

19 Twitter, Lucy Johnston April 11, 2021

20, 22 Psychology Report in respect of Civil Proceedings April 9, 2021

21 Express April 11, 2021

23 Health, Safety and Wellbeing Report in respect of Civil Proceedings April 9, 2021

24 Tichys Einblick April 13, 2021

25 BOE March 30, 2021

26, 27 EL PAÍS March 30, 2021

Featured image is from OneWorld

“The Liberal government says it supports small modular reactors to help Canada mitigate climate change. The government is simply barking up the wrong tree, for several reasons: cost, cost and cost, as well as renewables, safety and radioactive waste.”

– Professor M. V. Ramada [1]

“I want to puke.”

–  David Suzuki [2]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

It so happens that this Spring has been the anniversary of three of the most devastating nuclear meltdowns in history – Fukushima Daiichi (March 11, 2011), Three Mile Island (March 28, 1978), and Chernobyl (April 26, 1986). [3]

A nuclear disaster of this magnitude are unique in that they is the only environmental crisis that will continue to be a threat to human health well into the future – for hundreds of years! [4]

According to standard accounts, the death toll from the Chernobyl meltdown ranged from 4,000 to 200,000 although the scientific studies by Doctors Yablokov, Vassily and Nesterenkoin their book Chernobyl:  Consequences of a Catastrophe for People and the Environment placed the numbers closer to 1,000,000.[5]

The triple meltdown of Fukushima Daiichi Atomic Power Reactors event launched radiation affecting Japan and the world. About 160,000 individuals were forced to flee. Wikipedia listed 15,000 deaths mostly attributable to the earthquake and tidal wave that struck the site.[6][7]

However, Chris Busby, scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, predicted a death toll of more than a million through the radiation released and even discovered that the fall-out from radioactive iodine damaged thyroids in children as far away as California. Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear industry senior vice president and chief spokesperson for Fairewinds Energy Education, has been monitoring the situation for years and similarly stated, “I believe we’re going to see as many as a million cancers over the next 30 years because of the Fukushima incident in Japan.” [8]

These incidents have generally turned the Japanese people off of nuclear but there is a key incentive that makes it appear tempting for others outside the country. [9]

The role of nuclear power is being re-examined by leaders as a mechanism for radically reducing climate change. As a result, in October of last year, the government of Canada announced an investment of $20 million dollars in small modular nuclear reactors as an attempt to meet its net zero greenhouse gas emission goals by the year 2050.[10]

Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’ Regan put it bluntly:

“We have not seen a model where we can get to net-zero emissions by 2050 without nuclear…The fact of the matter is that it produces zero emissions.”[11]

The power of the atom is an amazing phenomenon humankind has had the ability to harness. But the costs of nuclear as measured by devastating radiation and the growth of radioactive waste that we’ll have to warehouse for thousands and thousands of years should provoke thoughts among citizens about how badly we need power to boil an egg!

This week’s Global Research News Hour will look at some of the lessons learned and not learned by the meltdown of the past as the Canadian government embraces a carbon diet via a nuclear binge.

In our first half hour we hear from environmental journalist Robert Hunziker about Fukushima ten years later, its plans to allow irradiated water to be dumped directly into the Pacific Ocean, and his thoughts about the nuclear industry getting away with murder.

In our second half hour, Professor M.V. Romana explains the flaws in Canada’s Small Modular Reactors as a strategy for fighting climate change, he goes into the waste generated in them, and explores where this project intersects with energy in the global picture.

Robert Hunziger is a freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated into foreign languages and appeared in over 50 journals, magazines, and sites worldwide. He’s made multiple appearances in electronic media to talk about global climate change as well as the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. He is based in Los Angeles.

Professor M. V. Romana serves as the Simons chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security. He is also the Director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia. His recent article ‘Why the Liberals’ Nuclear Power Plan is a Pipe Dream’ warns of the Small Modular Reactors still being nuclear.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 314)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time. 

Notes:

  1. https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/11/07/Nuclear-Generators-Canada-Future/
  2. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/checkup/is-it-time-to-call-an-election-1.5728483/i-want-to-puke-david-suzuki-reacts-to-o-regan-s-nuclear-power-endorsement-1.5731819
  3. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/brief-history-nuclear-accidents-worldwide
  4. https://www.fairewinds.org/what-is-a-meltdown
  5. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/chernobyls-horrific-true-death-toll-21908352
  6. Justin McCurry (Mar 11, 2021), ‘Japan marks 10 years since triple disaster killed 18,500 people’, The Guardian; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/11/japan-marks-ten-years-since-triple-disaster-killed-18500-people
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties
  8. https://theecologist.org/2014/mar/08/no-one-died-no-ones-health-was-damaged-fukushimas-big-lie
  9. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1198838/japan-opinion-nuclear-power-future/
  10. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bains-small-modular-reactors-net-zero-1.5763762
  11. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/chris-hall-there-s-no-path-to-net-zero-without-nuclear-power-says-o-regan-1.5730197
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ten Years after Fukushima, Canada Still Embraces the Atom: The Debut of the Small Moderate Reactors

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

First published on April 5, 2021

***

Dr. Ryan Cole is the CEO and Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics, one of the largest independent labs in the State of Idaho. Dr. Cole is a Mayo Clinic trained Board Certified Pathologist.

He is Board Certified in anatomic and clinical pathology. He has expertise in immunology and virology and also has subspecialty expertise in skin pathology.

He has seen over 350,000 patients in his career, and has done over 100,000 Covid tests in the past year.

He recently was invited to speak at the “Capitol Clarity” event in Idaho, apparently sponsored by the Lt. Governor’s office, where he discussed successful outpatient treatments for COVID, and to offer his views on the new COVID “vaccines.”

Dr. Cole begins by showing statistics that prove Idaho is no longer in a “pandemic,” but an “endemic.” He states that the highest risk factors for contracting COVID are advanced age, obesity, and low Vitamin D levels.

He also explains that coronaviruses have historically always followed a 6-9 month life cycle. He gives previous examples such as SARS-1, MERS, etc.

One very interesting statistic that he pointed out is that in the U.S. the average annual age of death is 78.6 years old, and the average age of death during COVID has also been 78.6 years old.

Dr. Cole is very adamant that proper levels of Vitamin D are essential to fight coronaviruses. He states:

There is no such thing as “flu and cold season,” only low Vitamin D season.

Slide from Dr. Cole’s presentation.

Slide from Dr. Cole’s presentation.

Dr. Cole then goes on to explain that by law, the government cannot use experimental vaccines on the population if there are already effective treatments.

So all of the current experimental COVID “vaccines,” which Dr. Cole himself admits do NOT meet the legal definition of a “vaccine” to begin with, are all illegal because there are therapies, such as Vitamin D, that are effective in treating COVID patients, as well as older already FDA-approved drugs like Ivermectin.

He points out that the NIH (the National Institute of Health), which is a U.S. government agency involved with approving drugs, holds patents on the Moderna experimental COVID “vaccine,” which is like asking the fox to guard the hen house.

This is also the agency that Anthony Fauci works for, and has been employed there for over 30 years and is one the highest paid politicians in the U.S., making more money than even the President of the United States. (Go ahead and fact check this for yourself.)

Watch the entire presentation by Dr. Cole. We have it on our Bitchute Channel, as well as our Rumble Channel.

*

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.

Featured image: Dr. Ryan Cole. CEO and Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics. (Source: Health Impact News)

The Covid-19 “Experimental” mRNA Vaccine. Are You Being Told the Truth?

By Mike Whitney, April 29 2021

The American people are not being told the truth about Covid, masks, social distancing, lockdowns, mortality or vaccines. In fact, the only thing of which we can be 100 percent certain, is that the government, the public health officials and the media have been lying relentlessly and remorselessly on virtually every topic for the better part of the last year.

Beware of Covid PCR Testing and the Relentless “Vaccinate Vaccinate Vaccinate” Campaign

By Peter Koenig, April 16 2021

This therapy is untested. No substantial animal trials. In the few animal trials carried out, all animals died. Claiming an emergency, the FDA recognizes the gravity of the current public health emergency and has granted a so-called Emergency Use Application (EUA) for what effectively is a gene-therapy, not a vaccine.

European Plans for ‘Vaccine Passports’ Were in Place 20 Months Prior to the Pandemic. Coincidence?

By Paul Anthony Taylor, April 27 2021

In Europe, planning for vaccine passports began at least 20 months prior to the start of the COVID-19 outbreak. Apparently, the pandemic conveniently provided European politicians with the ‘excuse’ they needed to introduce the idea. The ‘European Commission first published a proposal for vaccine passports on 26 April 2018.

Vaccine Passport – The Biggest Attack on Personal Freedom Since the Creation of the EU

By Eric Sorensen, April 29 2021

The founding Partners of ID2020 are Microsoft, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) among others. ID2020 is part of a “World Governance” project which, if applied, would roll out the contours of what some analysts have described as a Global Police State. The EU has adopted the Vaccine Passport.

Big Pharma Conglomerate with a Criminal Record: Pfizer “Takes Over” the EU Vaccine Market. 1.8 Billion Doses

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 27 2021

There is evidence that Pfizer is routinely involved in bribing numerous politicians at the highest levels of government. In turn, draconian governmental measures are being applied which consist in instructing people to take the mRNA vaccine, despite ample evidence that this so-called “vaccination program” has already resulted in countless deaths and injuries.

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi Interview: COVID Vaccine Blood Clot Risk Was Known, Ignored & Buried

By Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi and Taylor Hudak, April 30 2021

Joining us today is Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, here to discuss the ‘dangerous mRNA vaccines’ and how he and his organization warned about the blood clots (and much else now coming to pass) that we are now seeing from the COVID-19 injections, months before they began.

Emergency Use Authorization: The ‘New Normal’ for Pharma Vaccines?

By Paul Anthony Taylor, April 30 2021

Following their decision to give experimental COVID-19 vaccines emergency use authorizations, regulatory bodies around the world are already saying that future vaccines adapted for coronavirus variants will not be required to undergo extensive safety testing.

Identifying Post-Vaccination Complications and Their Causes: An Analysis of COVID-19 Patient Data

By Dain Pascocello, April 30 2021

After several months dealing with capacity-related issues in COVID-19 vaccine administration, US states are set to find themselves with a supply of Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson immunizations outstripping demand for the experimental shots.

Pfizer Vaccine Confirmed to Cause Neurodegenerative Diseases: Study

By Nathaniel Linderman, April 26 2021

In a shocking new report on the COVID-19 vaccines, it has been discovered that the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine may have long term health effects not previously disclosed, including “ALS, Alzheimer’s, and other neurological degenerative diseases.”

Ten Things You Need to Know about the Experimental COVID mRNA Vaccines

By Makia Freeman, April 29 2021

Here’s 10 things you need to know about the COVID vax, plus a list at the end of the article of just some of the horrendous injuries and deaths it has caused thus far.

What’s Not Being Said About the Pfizer Coronavirus Vaccine. “Human Guinea Pigs”?

By F. William Engdahl, April 29 2021

The Pharma giant Pfizer use an experimental technology known as gene editing, specifically mRNA gene-editing, something never before used in vaccines. Before we rush to get jabbed in hopes of some immunity, we should know more about the radical experimental technology and its lack of precision.

31 Reasons Why I Won’t Take the Vaccine

By Rabbi Chananya Weissman, March 22, 2021

The drug companies, politicians, medical establishment, and media have joined forces to universally refer to this as a vaccine when it is not one, with the intention of manipulating people into feeling safer about undergoing a medical treatment.

Rebuttal Letter to European Medicines Agency (EMA) from Doctors for COVID Ethics

By Doctors for COVID Ethics, April 09, 2021

Given the potential for adverse effects, potentially fatal ones, it is completely inappropriate and unacceptable that EMA permits these products, which hold only emergency use authorisations, to be administered to younger (<60y) people who are healthy, as they are at unmeasurable risks from SARS-CoV-2.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Covid-19 “Experimental” mRNA Vaccine. Are You Being Told the Truth?

‘May Day’ Militancy Needed to Create the Economy We Need

By Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese, April 30 2021

To the memory of late Kevin Zeese. His legacy will live. Seventy years of attacks on the right to unionize have left the union movement representing only 10 percent of workers. The investor class has concentrated its power and uses its power in an abusive way, not only against unions but also to create economic insecurity for workers.

US-NATO Geopolitics: Has Washington Lured Erdogan into a Bear Trap?

By F. William Engdahl, April 30 2021

After failing to block Turkey’s purchase of the advanced S-400 Russian air defense system, Washington diplomacy in recent months appeared to have managed to “flip” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to support of US interests in several critical countries.

8,430 Dead 354,177 Injuries: European Database of Adverse Drug Reactions for COVID-19 “Vaccines”

By Brian Shilhavy, April 30 2021

A Health Impact News subscriber in Europe ran the reports for each of the four COVID-19 shots we are including here. Since we have started publishing this, others from Europe have also calculated the numbers and confirmed the totals.

Suicide Cases Among Syrian Children Rising Sharply, Says Save the Children

By Middle East Eye, April 30 2021

The number of children attempting or committing suicide in northwest Syria has risen sharply over the past year, with almost one in five of all recorded suicide cases involving adolescents, Save the Children said on Thursday.

The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 30 2021

One year later the WHO retracts. They don’t say “We Made a Mistake”. It’s carefully formulated. While they do not officially deny the validity of their misleading January 2020 guidelines, they recommend RT-PCR “Re-testing” (which everybody knows is an impossibility).

Revealed: The UK Government Campaign to Force Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy

By Matt Kennard, April 30 2021

The UK government paid £8,330 in November 2018 to bring Ecuador’s defence minister Oswaldo Jarrín to Britain, two months before the planned seizure of Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, it can be revealed.

End of an Era? Afghanistan Is Now Graveyard of Contractors, Too.

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, April 30 2021

The golden post-9/11 years of the war contractor — the providers of food and transportation, fuel, construction, maintenance, IT, not to mention security and interrogation services for the U.S. military — appear to be drawing down.

Racism in America: Biden Police Reforms Prove Inadequate to End Misconduct and Brutality

By Abayomi Azikiwe, April 30 2021

As demonstrations erupt across the United States against the oppression inflicted on the African American people, the first three months of the presidency of Joe Biden and his administration has been marked by ongoing racial unrest and social strife.

What the 2007 Financial Crisis Taught Us About Corrupt Bankers

By Rod Driver, April 30 2021

Prior to 2007, financial companies had come to dominate the economies of many countries. For example, in the US 40% of corporate profits were in banking. In 2007 many countries experienced what has come to be known as the Global Financial Crisis. This was caused by a complex range of connected factors, some of which will be discussed in this post.

Commission Finds Anti-Black Police Violence Constitutes Crimes Against Humanity

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, April 30 2021

On April 27, the International Commission of Inquiry on Systemic Racist Police Violence Against People of African Descent in the United States issued its long-awaited report on the U.S.’s police-perpetrated racist violence.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Has Washington Lured Erdogan into a Bear Trap?

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

***

On April 27, the International Commission of Inquiry on Systemic Racist Police Violence Against People of African Descent in the United States issued its long-awaited report on the U.S.’s police-perpetrated racist violence. The Commissioners concluded that the systematic police killings of Black people in the U.S. constitutes a prima facie case of crimes against humanity and they asked the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to initiate an investigation of responsible police officials.

These crimes against humanity under the ICC’s Rome Statute include murder, severe deprivation of physical liberty, torture, persecution of people of African descent, and inhumane acts causing great suffering or serious injury to body or mental or physical health. All of the crimes occurred in the context of a widespread or systematic attack directed against the civilian population of Black people in the United States, as documented by the findings of fact in the 188-page report.

The 12 commissioners are eminent experts and jurists from Asia, Africa, Latin America, Europe and the Caribbean. I am one of four rapporteurs who helped draft the report. After 18 days of hearings and extensive research, the commissioners found that both U.S. law and police practices do not comply with international law.

Testimony of family members, attorneys, activists and experts about police killings of 43 Black people, and the paralyzing of another, was presented to the commissioners. All of the victims were unarmed or were not threatening the officers or others.

Philonise Floyd, brother of George Floyd, testified before the commissioners. At the press conference announcing the release of the report, he said, “I want to thank the commissioners for recognizing my humanity as a good Black man in America, and for recognizing my brother George’s humanity, and the humanity of other families across this nation. And bringing to light and acknowledging the United States government is perpetrating crimes against humanity against Black people in the United States.

“This finding of crimes against humanity was not given lightly, we included it with a very clear mind,” Commissioner Hina Jilani from Pakistan told the Guardian. “We examined all the facts and concluded that there are situations in the U.S. that beg the urgent scrutiny of the ICC.”

The commissioners made the following findings of fact:

1. Pretextual traffic stops are a common precursor to police killings and uses of excessive force against people of African descent. Tavis Crane was killed by police after his young daughter threw a piece of candy out the window.

2. Race-based street stops, known as “stop-and-frisk,” often trigger the use of deadly force by police. Eric Garner was suspected of selling individual untaxed cigarettes. George Floyd was suspected of using a counterfeit $20 bill.

3. Fourth Amendment violations invariably lead to the use of excessive force and police killings of Black people. Breonna Taylor was killed following the execution of a “no-knock” warrant after a judge had replaced it with a knock warrant.

4. Police routinely use excessive and lethal restraints against Black people. They include Tasers, chokeholds, compression asphyxia, “rough rides” and the use of vehicles as deadly weapons. George Floyd died from asphyxia. Freddie Gray was taken on a 45-minute “rough ride” resulting in his death.

5. Lethal police violence against Black people is exacerbated by officers’ failure to provide medical attention. For example, Andrew Kearse was kept in the back of a squad car for 17 minutes as he begged for help, repeating, “I can’t breathe.” He died of a heart attack in the car.

6. Lethal police violence against Black people experiencing a mental health crisis is systematic. After Daniel Prude’s family called police to provide mental health assistance, he was walking naked in the street. The officers put a spit hood over his head after he began spitting. They held him face down on the pavement for two minutes and 15 seconds, and he stopped breathing.

7. Cis- and transgender Black women, girls and femmes are disproportionately killed by police in the U.S. A friend of Kayla Moore, a mentally ill transgender woman, called for mental health assistance for Moore. Officers found a warrant for someone with Moore’s birth name, but 20 years older. They arrested her, threw her face down onto a futon to handcuff her, and she died of asphyxiation. Then they made disparaging comments about the gender identity of the woman they had killed.

8. Systemic racist police violence kills and traumatizes Black children and youth. Twelve-year-old Tamir Rice was shot to death by police as he played in a park with a toy gun. The young children of Jacob Blake witnessed their father being shot and paralyzed by police.

9. Racist police violence traumatizes and devastates families and communities. Manuel Elijah Ellis was hit, punched, choked and tasered to death by police. “We’re broken, generations of us are emotionally tired. Our bodies are weathered, and it causes us physical illness. It causes us lifelong ailments and diseases. It causes us generational trauma that we are passing on,” Jamika Scott, a friend of the Ellis family, testified. “We are traumatized. We live in a constant state of PTSD, we are hyper vigilant, we are fearful, we are anxious, we are depressed,” she added. “It tears holes in families and communities. And it’s not just one family, it’s what happens to one family in this community, it happens to all of us. And it happens, it has lasting echoes throughout generations.”

10. Black immigrants are particularly vulnerable to systemic racist police violence and police killings. Botham Jean, born in St. Lucia, was eating ice cream in his apartment when an officer walked in, mistakenly thinking it was hers, and shot him dead. “What was she defending,” Allison Jean, Botham Jean’s mother, asked, “as the only weapon he held was the color of his skin?”

11. Legal actors are complicit in police violence and killings of Black people through qualified immunity and systemic impunity of officers. Police officers in the United States enjoy impunity for their racist violence. They are rarely held accountable for killing black people, and qualified immunity protects them against liability for violation of constitutional rights.

  • a) Alarming pattern of destruction and manipulation of evidence, cover-ups and obstruction of justice. Prosecutors have a conflict of interest and medical examiners often do the bidding of police. After Darren Wilson killed Michael Brown as Brown raised his hands and said, “Don’t shoot,” the officer bagged his own gun and washed Brown’s blood off his hands. After police killed Henry Glover, the officers burned the car with his body in it.
  • b) Prosecutorial misconduct and grand jury abuse. The offending officers testified at the grand juries in the killings of both Michael Brown and Tamir Rice, and in neither case was the officer cross-examined. There were no indictments of officers in either case.
  • c) Systemic impunity and lack of oversight by police. Internal affairs investigations invariably exonerate officers. Police can’t be trusted to police themselves. The “blue wall of silence” keeps officers from reporting misconduct by fellow officers. Police unions facilitate impunity of officers. The police union got the body camera footage a few days after the killing of Daniel Prude but it took the Prude family six months to get it, and only after they filed several lawsuits.
  • d) Qualified immunity. A recent U.S. District Court judge wrote, “[J]udges have invented a legal doctrine to protect law enforcement officers from having to face any consequences for wrongdoing. The doctrine is called ‘qualified immunity.’ In real life it operates like absolute immunity.” In case after case heard by the commissioners, victims’ families faced extraordinary obstacles to holding officers accountable for the killing of their family members.

Violations of Human Rights

The commissioners found that systemic racist police violence against people of African descent in the United States has resulted in a pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. These include violations of the right to life; the right to liberty and security; the right to mental health; the right to be free from arbitrary detention; and the right to be free from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including by the use of tasers, chokeholds and compression asphyxia. The U.S. Torture Statute only punishes torture committed abroad.

The commissioners also found violations of the right to be free from discrimination based on race, gender, disability or status as a child. The “stop and frisk” doctrine is an invitation for racial profiling, and the Supreme Court allows pretextual stops for traffic violations even when the officer is motivated by racism, in violation of international law.

In addition, the commissioners found violations of the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence, which constitute extrajudicial killings, as well as the right to be treated with humanity and respect. The commissioners found violations of the duty to provide medical care to detained persons; to ensure investigations of extrajudicial killings that are independent, competent, thorough and effective; and to prosecute suspects and punish perpetrators to ensure they are held accountable.

The commissioners found that both U.S. laws and police practices — as documented in the 44 cases heard by the commissioners and national data — do not comply with the international standards on the use of force.

According to international standards, law enforcement may only use force when strictly necessary, and it must be proportionate to the seriousness of the harm it is meant to prevent. They may not use firearms except in self-defense or defense of others, and only against imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Lethal force cannot be used to protect law and order or to safeguard property, according to international law.

But Supreme Court jurisprudence allows police officers to use deadly force if they have probable cause to believe the suspect committed a pastcrime. No state laws require that lethal force can only be used as a last resort when necessary to prevent imminent death or serious injury.

Not Just “a Few Bad Apples”

The commissioners found that contrary to the popular notion that unjustified killings of Black people by police are merely the actions of “a few bad apples,” the real problem is structural racism that is embedded in the U.S. legal and policing systems.

Collette Flanagan, founder of Mothers Against Police Brutality, whose son Clinton Allen was murdered by police, testified before the commissioners. At the press conference launching the report, Flanagan called out police departments who “are still insisting that policemen when caught on camera using unnecessary deadly force are merely just a few bad apples.” On the contrary, she said, “We are into orchards of bad apples with trees that have diseased roots tainted with racism and white supremacy, and they are bearing rotten fruit.”

Indeed, from March 29 (the day the trial of Derek Chauvin for killing George Floyd began) through April 18, at least 64 people in the United States died at the hands of law enforcement. More than half of the victims were Black or Brown.

Recommendations

The commissioners addressed their recommendations to several entities, including the United Nations Human Rights Council and the High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as the executive branch of the U.S. government and the U.S. Congress. The commissioners recommended several reforms, as well as passage of the BREATHE Act, which is aimed at divesting federal resources from policing and investing instead in new approaches to community safety.

The commissioners call on the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC, upon receipt of this report of the Commission of Inquiry, to initiate an investigation into crimes against humanity committed and condoned by officials in the United States. The U.S. has not ratified the Rome Statute for the ICC. The commissioners call on the executive branch of the U.S. to sign and ratify the Rome Statute. In the meantime, the commissioners recommend that the United States submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC for purposes of an investigation into these crimes against humanity against people of African descent in the U.S.

*

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.

Copyright © Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

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

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Antebellum America Redux

April 30th, 2021 by Philip A Farruggio

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

***

Many Americans can see for their own eyes how people from low income areas speak, due to the overwhelming news coverage (finally) of police killings of unarmed blacks. When there are equally disturbing instances of murders within areas where low income whites and brown folks live, the public can get a view of how these folks speak. Unfortunately, that is perhaps the only occasion for middle income and high income Americans to see how their fellow citizens appear.

In many cases, when family and neighbors of the murdered speak, more than a majority of these people are uneducated and not well versed. Yes, some within these communities are the exception and not the rule. Yet, no one in either politics or the media will touch this subject.

Then we turn to the police officers, not necessarily the ones who did the killing. Most of them are not very well educated people. This writer does not have the statistics to back me up, but I can assure you that most police officers throughout America are not four year college grads. Many were lucky to just get out of high school. Many are ex military, as police departments, ever since our illegal invasions and occupations in the Middle East, heavily recruit from these ranks.

Higher education is the key and has always been so. If a person from a low income, high crime area graduates with a four year degree, do you think their ‘Take‘ on things would be similar to one who has barely, if ever, finished high school? Methinks not. Similarly, someone who has a good paying job is not liable to turn to crime or become lethargic. Obviously, when it comes to drugs it matters not what education or income level one is at.

Drug addiction flows through it all. What would happen is that, with higher education and higher pay, the ‘Inner communities’ would see less of that as opposed to nowadays.  We have an Antebellum society in this country, where the slavery of old is replaced by ‘Jim Crow’ and ‘White Trash’ culture. The former ‘Slave Patrols’, in many instances, have been replaced by local police, where few if any of these folks have the educational standing needed for a better community. The slaves we know were not allowed to be educated. The slave patrols had low educated and low intelligent white men to do the bidding of the plantation masters. This is what the recent revelations as to police killings of the unarmed has shown us… Nothing has really changed.

The Super Rich have always made sure that the plantation system remains intact. There have always been Ghettos (”A part of the city, especially a slum area, occupied by a minority group or groups”) regardless of which city or town it may be. As the Germans did so brutally in Poland after they invaded it, the ghetto is purposely made to be run down, overcrowded and underserviced. Sadly, how the police function  in these areas is very comparable, in some distant instances, to keep the inhabitants in! Yes, there are many well intentioned public servants and police leadership that wish to actually protect and serve those inside of this ‘Rich Man’s Plantation’. Yet, when push comes to shove the protocol becomes to ‘Keep the natives down as much as possible’. As stated before, this goes for poor whites and poor brown people as well.

What is the answer to this problem that has been with our nation since its founding? It would take a book of ideas and solutions to even peel away the crust of this scab. The short answer is to tax the Super Rich, drastically cut the obscene militarist spending and mindset and redistribute income more fairly. A Universal Basic Income for all of us (even at $ 1400 a month every month) is a start. By just those two cuts I suggested, money could be appropriated to build the infrastructure of ALL our low and middle income communities nationwide. Improved local roads, local housing etc is crucial. Police departments should have to only recruit four year college degreed candidates (with majors in either criminal justice, sociology or psychology to name a few). The current police should be mandated to work towards getting four year degrees within a certain time frame or…. OUT! A national program similar to the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) of the FDR years, whereupon millions of young men and women would work on environmental conservation efforts at good pay . Imagine also Public Banking and community owned and operated nonprofit mortgage banks only charging a tad above overhead. Food for thought folks.

*

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.

This article was originally published on Countercurrents.

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, Countercurrents.org, and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 400 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Antebellum America Redux

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

***

Statement of Position

After several months dealing with capacity-related issues in COVID-19 vaccine administration, US states are set to find themselves with a supply of Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson immunizations outstripping demand for the experimental shots.

According to a recent report by the Kaiser Family Foundation, by about mid-May states will reach a “tipping point where demand for rather than supply of vaccines is our primary challenge.”

One official with the American Public Health Association put it this way: “Anybody who’s ever done a public health program knows that the last 20-30% of your target is the hardest.” Perhaps anticipating the challenge, the Biden administration dedicated $48 billion in its stimulus legislation to “implement a national, evidence-based strategy for testing, contact tracing, surveillance, and mitigation with respect to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.”

By means of comparison, the National Intelligence Program budget, which includes the CIA and parts of the FBI, will spend about $62 billion in the current year – just 29% more than a single COVID-related line item in the president’s “American Rescue Plan.”

On April 24, state health authorities in Indiana, New York, Virginia, Missouri, and Michigan resumed administering Johnson & Johnson’s COVID vaccine following an 11-day federal “pause” on the single-shot inoculation. According to published reports, a review by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) advisory committee, known as ACIP, uncovered 15 cases of vaccine side effects involving potentially fatal blood clots. All were women, most under 50 years old. Three died and seven remain hospitalized. ACIP ultimately decided to lift the pause and recommended attaching a warning label to the experimental injection, to which J&J’s chief medical officer agreed to add at a later date.

The CDC’s early warning system for vaccine side effects, its 30-year-old Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, has captured thousands of other “adverse events” since the COVID-19 vaccination effort began in late 2020.

Yet these complications have received a fraction of the attention paid to J&J’s blood-clotting controversy. Why? America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) opposes attempts by state and federal jurisdictions to mandate vaccination for COVID-19 and supports further study by independent health officials before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) replaces its conditional “emergency use authorization” (EUA) for the immunizations with full approval, known as a biologics license, a decision which could come as early as April or May 2021. This AFLDS Issue Brief is intended to provide additional information for concerned citizens, health experts, and policymakers about adverse events and other post-vaccination issues resulting from the three experimental COVID-19 vaccines currently administered under EUA. As always, potential vaccine recipients should weigh the available evidence on medical side effects against their particular needs free of third-party coercion, intimidation, and threats.

Taking Patient Experiences Seriously

Drugmaker Pfizer expects to collect $15 billion in 2021 from sales of its mRNA experimental COVID vaccine. There is an irrepressible economic incentive among pharmaceutical companies for childhood COVID vaccines, boosters, and the like. Public health experts should stop and assess data on possible vaccine side effects and related post-vaccination questions before it is too late. Here are some major categories of concern as-yet publicly unaddressed by either the FDA or CDC. AFLDS believes these patient concerns ought to be taken more seriously by health regulators in the United States and abroad. Failing to consider these and other “known unknowns” is a dereliction of basic medical research.

1. Why is there concern surrounding this particular vaccine?

The COVID-19 vaccines are still experimental. They are currently being used on an “emergency” basis and are not FDA approved. It takes years to be sure something new is safe. The vaccines are new as is the technology they employ. This new biotechnology introduces something called a “spike protein” instead of the traditional attenuated antigen response in a conventional vaccine. No one knows definitively the long-term health implications for the body and brain, especially among the young, related to this spike protein. In addition, if documented problems with the protein do arise, there will never be any way to reverse the adverse effects in those already vaccinated.

2. What about the reported neurological issues? 

There are two major neurological concerns related to the COVID vaccines. These are the spike proteins and the lipid nanoparticles which carry the mRNA into the cell. They are both capable of passing through the “blood-brain barrier” which typically keeps the brain and spinal cord completely insulated from entrants into the body. There simply has not been enough time to know what brain problems and how often a brain problem will develop from that. There is concern amongst many scientists for prion disease (neurodegenerative brain disease).

Traditional vaccines do not pass through the blood-brain barrier. Crossing the blood-brain barrier places patients at risk of chronic inflammation and thrombosis (clotting) in the neurological system, contributing to tremors, chronic lethargy, stroke, Bell’s Palsy and ALS-type symptoms. The lipid nanoparticles can potentially fuse with brain cells, resulting in delayed neuro-degenerative disease. And the mRNA-induced spike protein can bind to brain tissue 10 to 20 times stronger than the spike proteins that are (naturally) part of the original virus.

3. Can the unvaccinated get sick from contact with the vaccinated?‍

The vaccine produces many trillions of particles of spike proteins in the recipient. Patients who are vaccinated can shed some of these (spike protein) particles to close contacts. The particles have the ability to create inflammation and disease in these contacts. In other words, the spike proteins are pathogenic (“disease causing”) just like the full virus. What is most worrisome is that a person’s body is being suddenly flooded with 13 trillion of these particles and the spike proteins bind more tightly than the fully intact virus. Because of the biomimicry (similarity) on the spike, shedding appears to be causing wide variety of autoimmune disease (where the body attacks its own tissue) in some persons. Worldwide cases of pericarditis, shingles, pneumonia, blood clots in the extremities and brain, Bell’s Palsy, vaginal bleeding and miscarriages have been reported in persons who are near persons who have been vaccinated. In addition, we know the spike proteins can cross the blood brain barrier, unlike traditional vaccines.

4. What about interaction between unvaccinated children and vaccinated adults?

AFLDS is concerned that some children will become COVID symptomatic after their parents and teachers get vaccinated. This concern does not relate to risk from infection. Indeed, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association, approximately “1.6% of children with a known case of COVID-19 have been hospitalized and 0.01% have died.” Rather, public health bureaucrats might use these cases of breakthrough transmission or symptoms to speculate that a child’s illness is related to a SARS-CoV-2 “variant,” when in reality it is a reaction to the vaccine. Our other concern is that children could develop long-term chronic autoimmune disease including neurological problems due to the fact that children have decades ahead of them and trillions of the spike proteins mentioned above.

5. Is there a post-vaccination menstrual bleeding risk?

AFLDS is aware of thousands of reports involving vaginal bleeding, post-menopausal vaginal bleeding, and miscarriages following COVID-19 vaccination as well as anecdotal reports of similar adverse events among those in close contact with the vaccinated. We cannot comment definitively on the close contacts yet, other than to say we have heard reports of this worldwide. But there is so much reporting of vaginal bleeding post-vaccination that it is clear a connection between the vaccine and irregular bleeding exists. Despite this clear-cut evidence, menstrual-cycle changes were not listed among the FDA’s common side effects in its phase-three clinical participants. Women’s reproductive health needs to be taken seriously rather than waved away by agenda-driven public health officials.

Conclusion

The continued rollout of COVID-19 vaccines moves along without due consideration of patient side effects and post-inoculation complications. AFLDS calls on state and federal health regulators to release more adverse-event-related data and conduct additional follow-up studies before the FDA fully licenses any of the vaccines currently administered under emergency use authorization. The growing body of evidence is too compelling to ignore.

*

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.

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

***

“Of all the ways we have to run a banking system, the one we have today is the worst” (Mervyn King, former Governor of the Bank of England)

Prior to 2007, financial companies had come to dominate the economies of many countries. For example, in the US 40% of corporate profits were in banking.(1) In 2007 many countries experienced what has come to be known as the Global Financial Crisis. This was caused by a complex range of connected factors, some of which will be discussed in this post.(2)

Setting the Scene 

From the 1980s onwards, governments and their corporate lobbyists had gradually re-structured the economies of advanced nations towards the extreme form of capitalism known as neoliberalism. This system is dominated by a belief in de-regulation or ‘light touch’ regulation, which effectively means that the role of financial regulators is to enable banks to carry out their activities, rather than to police them. This enabled banks to carry out a range of activities that were profitable for them, but caused serious problems for everyone else.

A Series of Interconnected Frauds 

Banks are always trying to come up with schemes to make bigger profits. This led to them lending money to people who could not repay it, mostly as mortgages. The banks used contracts that customers did not understand, with interest rates that started low and rose sharply. These were called liar’s loans(3) or sub-prime mortgages. Salesmen were paid commissions to persuade customers to take out these loans.

The banks then sold these loans to other investors in a process known as securitisation, without explaining that the loans were unlikely to be paid back. Some of these securities became so complex and opaque that hardly anyone could understand exactly what each one was. One of the world’s leading experts on the subject, Bill Black, has explained that the only way to make money from these securities was to deceive the people who were buying them.(4)

The risk of the mortgages not being repaid had been passed on to someone else, so banks had no reason to ensure that they made sensible loans. The more bad loans they could make, the more profit they could make, but the more risk was created for everyone else.(5) Organisations known as Credit Ratings Agencies are supposed to tell investors how safe or risky an investment is, but they failed to rate these securities correctly, suggesting that they were safer than was actually the case.(6)

Some banks, such as Goldman Sachs, then created ways to make even more money, by betting that these loans would not be repaid.(7) The banks made money three times over, by creating mortgages, then advising the investors, then betting against their own investors. Many senior executives claimed that they did not know what was actually going on, but this was part of a deliberate strategy to make their operations as opaque as possible.

The fraudulent mortgages led to a spiral of ever-upward house prices, which enabled borrowers to borrow even more, pushing up house prices. This is known as a house-price bubble. Eventually the bubble bursts, when people are no longer able to pay for such expensive homes. House prices in many places dropped rapidly, so many people had mortgages that were greater than the value of their properties (negative equity). Some banks suffered losses so great that they were effectively bankrupt. Banks stopped lending, even to each other. Many people were removed from their homes, and others were unable to move house. Businesses could not borrow to finance their activities. Many businesses went bust, and many jobs were lost.(8)

Former bank employees have admitted that what they did before the crisis was to steal other people’s money. A former Goldman Sachs trader, Greg Smith, admitted that his bosses described clients as “muppets” to be “ripped off”.(9) Bill Black has explained that all regulatory agencies were complicit in failing to properly regulate the banks.(10) They knew about the different frauds and how to stop them, but chose not to do so.

The frauds described above are just the tip of the iceberg. Since the crisis, the banks have been involved in a wide array of criminal and unethical behaviour. They repeatedly commit fraud on an industry-wide scale.(11) They have sold numerous products that were unsuitable for their clients, and they regularly try to manipulate markets, using all manner of complex schemes, such as placing fake orders. In 2014 British and US banks were fined £2.6 billion for rigging money-markets.(12) US banks have been fined billions of dollars for breaking rules related to terrorism, tax evasion and accounting fraud.(13) These fines sound large, but they are not sufficient to deter criminal behaviour. In 2020, the total amount of fines related to money-laundering was $10 billion.(14) The individuals who run these institutions are hardly ever prosecuted.

Complexity, Contagion and Systemic Risk 

The banks employ armies of lawyers and accountants to re-structure their businesses and their accounts.(15) This is sometimes called legal and financial engineering. The scale and complexity of their operations is so great that no individual has any idea of the overall situation, and no one understands how precarious their financial position is. During the crisis, it turned out that the whole financial system was so complex and interconnected that it created a form of contagion. When some banks went bust, others were technically bankrupt too. What had started as a problem with sub-prime mortgages rippled around the world, de-stabilising the economies of many countries.

Too Big To Fail: Profits for the few, losses for the many 

Many of the biggest financial companies in Britain and the US, such as Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Northern Rock, were involved in these activities. These banks are considered to be so important to the economy, or ‘too big to fail’, that governments believe they have to rescue them when things go wrong. This is known as a bailout. The bailout was much larger than most people realize. In November 2011, secret information became available showing that the total size of the US bailout was at least $7.7trillion.(16) The banks and the regulators repeatedly lied to cover up how unstable the situation had become. The bailout money has not been used to reduce the debts of ordinary people or to finance activity in the real economy. It was given to the banks, and it has ended up increasing the wealth of the super-rich.

Since the crisis, the biggest banks have become even bigger. Numerous commentators have pointed out that the current global banks are not only too big to fail, they are now too big and too complex to regulate or to manage. Matt Taibbi summarised the bailout as follows:

“what we actually ended up doing was…committing American taxpayers to permanent blind support of an ungovernable, unregulated, hyperconcentrated new financial system that exacerbates the greed and inequality that caused the crash…America’s six largest banks now have a total of 14,420 subsidiaries, making them so big as to be effectively beyond regulation. A recent study found that it would take 70,000 examiners to inspect such trillion-dollar banks with the same level of attention normally given to a community bank.”(17)

The banking system is structured in a way that is guaranteed to cause problems. Banks advise clients, but they are also allowed to trade for themselves. This creates what is known as a conflict of interest, where Goldman Sachs can bet against its own clients, or engage in other forms of corrupt trading. Without fundamental reform, these problems are likely to continue. There will be another financial crisis in the future, and no one knows how bad it will be.(18)

This Has All Happened Before 

The fraudulent nature of bankers has been recognized for many years. A former Governor of the Bank of England once said:

“If we closed down a bank every time we found an incidence of fraud, we would have rather fewer banks than we do at the moment”.

The 2007 crisis is not the first catastrophic failure of the financial system. In 1929, the world experienced the great depression, and thousands of US banks failed. There are strong parallels between recent events and those that led up to the 1929 crisis. In both cases, banks had been given more and more freedom to manipulate the system for their own benefit.

After the problems in 1929, the remedies included the complete separation of different types of banks in the US.(19) Banks that do basic lending to homeowners and small businesses were separated from those that focus on gambling on stockmarkets. This worked well and provided a stable financial system for decades afterwards. However, lobbyists persuaded policymakers to gradually reverse these safeguards. Separation is no longer required, and financial crises have become much more commonplace around the world.

The evidence that emerged about the criminality of the banks in the run-up to the 2007 crisis shocked most people, and there were great expectations that new regulations would be introduced. Discussions about the banks became a regular feature of mainstream conversation. A number of solutions were put forward, but in the end, none of the really big problems were fixed, and some have been made even worse.

Executive Pay 

I have talked in previous posts about rentiers – companies and people who receive huge amounts of unearned income, or increases in wealth, because the economy is rigged. The financial system is probably the most extreme example of this. During and after the crisis, executives at the biggest banks kept taking huge salaries despite the chaos they caused. For example, two US firms, known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

“paid out more than $200 million in bonuses­ between 2008 and 2010, even though they lost more than $100 billion in 2008 alone, and required nearly $400 billion in federal assistance during the bailout period.”

Similarly, the giant insurance company, AIG:

“paid more than $1 million each to 73 employees of AIG Financial Products, the tiny unit widely blamed for having destroyed the insurance giant (and perhaps even triggered the whole crisis)”(20)

Self-evidently, executive pay has become a means for powerful people with government connections to extract almost unlimited wealth from the system, with no justification.

Propaganda About Banking Permeates Our Societies

The media presentation of finance gives the impression that it is about rich people investing to make a better economy and a better society, but this is not currently true. Banks are no longer doing what most people believe banks do. Many of their loans are actually for unproductive purposes.(21) They devote vast resources to finding ever more complex ways to extract more wealth from everyone else. The US Federal Reserve Chairman, Paul Volcker, suggested that the ATM was the only financial innovation that has benefitted society in recent years.(22)

The media celebrate the big profits of banks. However, if the financial system is working properly, profits should be small. Big profits, and great wealth for a few people, are signs of a system that is not working properly.

The Future 

The financial crisis triggered serious recessions in many countries. Governments have implemented ‘austerity measures’, which means decreasing government spending, so healthcare, education and social services are under-funded. At the same time, the wealth of the richest 1,000 people in Britain doubled in the five years after the crisis.(23)We have a system where the banks take all the profits when things go well, but taxpayers take the losses when things go wrong. This puts banks in a situation where they know they cannot lose, which encourages them to take even more risks.

Suggesting fundamental changes to the financial system might sound like the impossible dreams of an idealist, but the financial system has often been changed. In 1999, parts of Europe replaced their national currencies with a European currency called the Euro. In 1986, Britain carried out the ‘Big Bang’ where the system was changed dramatically.(24) Before 1971, the US dollar could be converted into gold, but the rules were changed in 1971 so that was no longer possible. In 1944, at a conference that created the World Bank and the IMF, there were in-depth discussions about how the financial system should be structured in the future.

Re-structuring banking, using rules similar to the ones that were introduced after the great depression, is not difficult. The different aspects of banking can be separated, so that gambling does not de-stabilise the rest of the system. Big banks can be broken up so that they can be regulated properly. The biggest obstacle is lack of political will.

*

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.

Rod Driver is a part-time academic who is particularly interested in de-bunking modern-day US and British propaganda, and explaining war, terrorism, economics and poverty, without the nonsense in the mainstream media. This article was first posted at medium.com/elephantsintheroom

Notes

1) Noam Chomsky, ‘Can human civilization survive really existing capitalism’, University College Dublin talk, 3 April 2013, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uuYjUxf6Uk 

2) Other failings that are not discussed here include shareholder-focused governance mechanisms, narrative closure, inadequate mathematical models, capital and liquidity constraints, pro-cyclicality, accounting standards, and structural issues such as international financial imbalances

3) Robert Peston, ‘Liar’s Loans’, BBC, 20 Aug 2007, at https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2007/08/liars_loans.html

4) ‘Banksters – William Black tells the real truth’, House Financial Services Committee, 17 July 2011, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8CqaHTygSc 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_K._Black

5) James Crotty, ‘Structural Causes of the Global Financial Crisis: A Critical Assessment of the New Financial Architecture’, University of Massachussetts Amherst Working Paper, 2008, at https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=econ_workingpaper

6) Mike Collins, ‘The big bank bailout’, Forbes, 14 July 2015, at https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/07/14/the-big-bank-bailout/#2f7522122d83

7) Terry Macalister, ‘Revealed: Goldman Sachs made fortune betting against clients’, The Guardian, 25 April 2010, at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/25/goldman-sachs-senator-carl-levin 

8) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007-2008

9) Joris Luyendijk, ‘Who are the muppets in Greg Smith’s Goldman Sachs letter?’, Guardian, 29 March 2012, at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/joris-luyendijk-banking-blog/2012/mar/29/muppets-greg-smith-goldman-sachs

10) ‘Banksters – William Black tells the real truth’, House Financial Services Committee, 17 July 2011, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8CqaHTygSc 

11) Larry Elliott and Dan Atkinson, The Gods that failed: How blind faith in markets has cost us our future, 2008

12 Jill Treanor, ‘Foreign exchange fines: Banks handed £2.6 billion in penalties for market rigging’, The Guardian, 12 Nov 2014, at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/12/foreign-exchange-fines-ubs-hsbc-citibank-jp-morgan-rbs-penalties-market-rigging 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal

13) James Booth, ‘From tax evasion to terrorism: these are the 10 biggest bank fines of 2020’, Financial News, 30 Dec 2020, at https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/from-tax-evasion-to-terrorism-these-are-the-10-biggest-bank-fines-of-2020-20201230 

14) Hannah McGrath, ‘Regulators issued $10 bn in AML fines in 2020, FStech, 12 Oct 2020, at https://www.fstech.co.uk/fst/Regulators_Issue_10bn_AML_Fines_2020_Fenergo.php 

15) Doreen McBarnett, ‘Financial Engineering or Legal Enginering? Legal work, legal integrity and the banking crisis’, in Iain MacNeil and Justin O’Brien (eds) The Future of Financial Regulation, 2010

16) Matt Taibbi, ‘Secrets and Lies of the Bailout’, Rolling Stone, 4 Jan 2013, at https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/secrets-and-lies-of-the-bailout-113270/

17) Matt Taibbi, ‘Secrets and Lies of the Bailout’, Rolling Stone, 4 Jan 2013, at https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/secrets-and-lies-of-the-bailout-113270/

18) David Felix, cited in Noam Chomsky, Hopes and Prospects, 2010

19) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_legislation

20) Matt Taibbi, ‘Secrets and Lies of the Bailout’, Rolling Stone, 4 Jan 2013, at https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/secrets-and-lies-of-the-bailout-113270/

21) Michael Hudson, ‘Democratizing money – a discussion’, 14 Jan 2020, at https://michael-hudson.com/2020/01/democratizing-money-a-discussion/

22) WSJ, ‘Paul Volcker: Think More Broadly’, Wall Street Journal, 14 Dec 2009, at https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704825504574586330960597134 

23) Juliette Garside, ‘Recession Rich: Britain’s wealthiest double net worth since crisis’, 26 April 2015, The Guardian, at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/26/recession-rich-britains-wealthiest-double-net-worth-since-crisis 

24) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets)

Featured image is from AdobeStock

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

***

Russia is a major world power, and if the EU can attempt to bully it in such a dangerous way, then there’s nothing stopping the bloc from doing the same to comparatively weaker countries.

The European Parliament (EP) passed a resolution on Thursday threatening very serious consequences against Russia if it carries out an “invasion” of Ukraine. These include immediately stopping oil and gas imports from the country and cutting it off from the SWIFT payment system, as well as freezing the assets of so-called “oligarchs” and their families on top of canceling their visas. The text also condemns alleged Russian intelligence operations in Europe, including disinformation operations and the latest claims that its agents were behind the 2014 munitions blast in Czechia. They also want to stop Nord Stream II.

The EP also supports meddling in Russia’s internal affairs. Examples of this include criticism of the country’s recent jailing of anti-corruption blogger Alexei Navalny due to his parole violations and the authorities’ decision to investigate whether his organization is extremist. The resolution expresses support for unsanctioned rallies in Russia too while criticizing the authorities’ response to them. One of the most disturbing proposals put forth is to seriously consider the UK’s proposal for a “Global Anti-Corruption Sanctions Regime”, which could predictably be exploited for political purposes considering the tense relations with Russia.

The EP’s resolution is therefore very dangerous because it shows that ideologically driven anti-Russian political forces in Europe are serious about imposing extreme costs on Moscow solely for warning that it might defend its legitimate border interests and those of its citizens in Eastern Ukraine in the event that Kiev launches a military operation there. Cutting Russia off from the SWIFT payment system might be akin to an unofficial declaration of war considering the country’s international financial dependence on it. In addition, it’s counterproductive to stop importing Russian oil and gas when no viable alternatives exist at the moment.

Russia, like all countries, has an obligation to enforce its laws. Navalny’s jailing was done in accordance with existing legislation on this issue, as is its breaking up of unsanctioned rallies and temporary detainment of their participants. As a case in point, some EU countries have also detained participants of unsanctioned rallies that were organized against their COVID-19 lockdowns in recent months, especially whenever they clash with police. Furthermore, France is currently investigating various organizations as extremist ones, just like Russia is doing too. The basis of Brussels’ proposed meddling in Moscow’s internal affairs is therefore hypocritical.

The rest of the world is rightly concerned after this resolution was just passed. Russia is a major world power, and if the EU can attempt to bully it in such a dangerous way, then there’s nothing stopping the bloc from doing the same to comparatively weaker countries. In addition, similar resolutions might one day be tabled against China too on a similar basis as well. Basically, nobody would be safe if the EU succeeds in cutting Russia off from SWIFT and so openly meddling in its internal affairs by criticizing its law enforcement agencies and their work. That’s why this resolution is so dangerous to world peace.

COVID-19 is still sweeping across the world, and the extended effect of lockdown has been disastrous for the EU member states’ economies, not to mention the psychological health of their citizens. There are much more urgent tasks at hand for the EP to tackle than concocting a list of threats and criticisms to officially make against Russia. It’s disappointing to see that it’s more focused on such issues than those much closer to home. Their supporters might argue that Russia’s alleged assassinations, attacks, and disinformation plots constitute pressing domestic threats, but none of these have been publicly proven and thus remain speculation.

The EU is approaching an historic crossroads whereby it can finally become more independent of American influence or it can continue to languish under the boots of US neo-imperialism. Judging by the latest resolution, it regrettably appears that the EP is opting for the latter after jumping on America’s anti-Russian bandwagon to score political points with their patron across the Atlantic. This is dangerous and counterproductive to EU interests. What’s more, it’s also deeply unfortunate too since the EP can and should put its legislative skills to work trying to solve more urgent crises like COVID-19 instead.

*

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.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The EU Parliament’s Anti-Russian Resolution Is Dangerous
  • Tags:

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

***
As demonstrations erupt across the United States against the oppression inflicted on the African American people, the first three months of the presidency of Joe Biden and his administration has been marked by ongoing racial unrest and social strife.

In the aftermath of the police killings of Ma’Khia Bryant and Andrew Brown, Jr. in Columbus, Ohio and Elizabeth City, North Carolina respectively, many are convinced that the convictions of Minneapolis former police officer Derrick Chauvin will not ease the level of violence by law-enforcement directed toward Black and Brown peoples.

Attorney General Merrick Garland announced on April 16 that the Biden administration was rescinding the limitations on consent decrees related to the monitoring of law-enforcement agencies involving problems of racial bias, the use of lethal force and other issues. These measures were utilized by previous administrations, even Republican, in response to excessive complaints made to police departments and governing bodies.

The cities of Minneapolis, Minnesota and Louisville, Kentucky, the municipalities where police brutally killed George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, Garland has already announced the commencement of federal investigations related to civil rights violations. These two urban areas were the scene of mass demonstrations and rebellions during the summer of 2020, when people all over the U.S. and internationally went into the streets in response to the racist killings by police and vigilantes.

Demands and contentious debates have surfaced surrounding the future of policing in the U.S. as well as Europe. Defunding and dismantling the law-enforcement agencies are topics of discussion in cities such as Minneapolis, Oakland and Detroit. No city government has gone to the extent of completely abolishing police budgets and reinvesting these tax funds to social services, healthcare, education, utilities, clean affordable water services and environmental quality.

Some municipalities have mandated the halting of traffic stops which are utilized as an initial form of contact for the criminal justice system. However, in most areas, the aggressive character of policing has intensified, making many believe that a rash of killings since the convictions of Chauvin may be in response to the anger felt by law-enforcement agents for the mass pressure which was critical in the outcome of the trial in Minneapolis.

In Elizabeth City, North Carolina, where Andrew Brown, Jr., a father of seven was killed on April 23, a local judge blocked the release of all body cam footage of his death which resulted in multiple gunshot wounds to his arms and head, people are marching through the small coastal town on a daily basis. The family of Brown is demanding justice through a complete investigation and the indictment of the police officer responsible. Only 20 seconds of the incident was shown to the family and their attorneys in a private meeting with law-enforcement. Even within this limited time frame the family members say it was clear his death was an unnecessary execution.

The question then becomes, how can the Justice Department response to a myriad of similar cases from the east to the west coasts and all through the southern, northern and midwestern regions of the country, provide relief to the besieged communities? By opening probes into every single municipality where there is police misconduct would surely overwhelm the federal investigative law-enforcement system.

An article published by CNBC says of the process that:

“Consent decrees are court-ordered agreements that can be used to resolve violations of the law or systemic misconduct discovered during federal investigations of state or local law enforcement agencies. For instance, after the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, the DOJ launched an investigation of the Ferguson Police Department for ‘an alleged pattern or practice of unlawful misconduct’ and other issues. Less than a year later, the DOJ said it found ‘a number of patterns or practices of unconstitutional conduct.’ A federal judge in April 2016 approved the consent decree between Ferguson and the DOJ, which required broad changes at the police department. Just before he was fired by Trump in November 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions signed a memo curtailing the Justice Department’s use of consent decrees.’”

Nonetheless, there is the need to examine the actual history of these judgments declared by the federal courts and the DOJ and their effectiveness in curtailing abuses by law-enforcement agencies. These actions by a succession of attorney generals are by no means a novel approach to a centuries-long crisis of policing of the oppressed peoples.

Previous Consent Decrees Did Not End Police Brutality

In the city of Detroit, an epidemic of killings by police officers during the 1990s and early 2000s prompted the formation of a Coalition Against Police Brutality and other mass efforts in response. A November 1992 brutal police murder of 35-year-old Malice Green by two white police officers on the southwest side, prompted the then first African American Mayor Coleman Young to terminate both individuals directly involved.

Former Detroit police officers Walter Budzyn and Larry Nevers were convicted of second-degree murder in a highly publicized trial in the summer of 1993. This represented the first conviction of white law-enforcement agents for murder against an African American in the U.S. The holding of Budzyn and Nevers criminally accountable was due to community mobilization and the threat of another citywide rebellion. Just months prior to the murder of Green in Detroit, the U.S. had exploded over the acquittal of four Los Angeles police officers in the brutal beating of Rodney King.

This unprecedented action was carried out by a jury impaneled in the municipal Recorder’s Court in Detroit. Since Detroit was and still is a majority African American city, the jury backed up by public sentiment, was able to find both white officers guilty of murder. Subsequently, with the retirement of Mayor Young in 1992 and the ascendancy of Dennis Archer the following year, police violence against residents accelerated.

By 2000, the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department had begun an investigation into the Detroit Police Department (DPD). A consent judgment was rendered in 2003, placing the City of Detroit and the DPD under a consent decree related to the use of lethal force and the deplorable conditions existing then in the lock up facilities.

Despite these federal mandates, there were enormous difficulties associated with the process of review and the actual reforms required. There were huge cost overruns and obvious corruption related to the federally appointed monitors. Police abuses and killings would continue during the period following the imposition of the consent decree.

The most egregious incident was the police killing of 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley Jones on the eastside of Detroit in May 2010. This horrendous act was carried out while a national network television program, the First 48, were filming the entire bogus raid which resulted in the death of the child.

There was never anyone held accountable criminally for the killing of Jones. The suspect being sought by police lived in an upstairs flat from where the disastrous raid was executed. A resident of the upstairs residence said that the suspect could have been arrested on several occasions because they were in and out of the home for several days.

Later in 2014, amid an illegally imposed emergency management and bankruptcy, the consent decree by the Justice Department was lifted absent of any public discussion. The current Chief of Police James Craig was appointed by the emergency manager Kevin Orr. Corporate-oriented white Mayor Mike Duggan has kept Craig in office despite his ineffectiveness and ineptitude, resulting in the call by over 40 community-based organizations for his removal during summer of 2020.

At present the DPD is being sued by antiracist activists from Detroit Will Breathe, which surfaced last year in the wake of the murder of George Floyd. The DPD engaged in systematic violence and false arrests of demonstrators and bystanders at the aegis of the Duggan administration and its bank-led backers in the form of the business interests of Quicken Loans, Illitch Holdings, Chase Bank and other ruling class magnets dominating the politics of the majority African American municipality.

These acts of subversion of the people’s will as it relates to the imposition of consent decrees and other police reforms illustrate the institutional and systematic resistance to even minimal efforts to ease pressure on oppressed peoples. Consequently, the capitalist racist structures of oppression and exploitation must be removed in order that genuine equal justice becomes a reality in the U.S.

*

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.

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

Featured image: Detroit rally at Clark Park art work, April 17, 2021 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

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

***

The Chagossian people have sued the British Crown for lost fishing rights.  They are seeking  £1 Billion in restitution in the British Indian Ocean Territory Supreme Court, the case is Nourrice and Prosper et al. v. Her Majesty The Queen.

British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) is best known for the top secret US naval base on Diego Garcia Island and the forced deportation of the original Afro-Creole inhabitants from the Chagos Archipelago (1967-1973) and subsequent apartheid laws barring them from returning home.

The United Nations General Assembly, African Union, and International Court of Justice found the Britain’s deportation of the Chagos Islanders 50 years ago and continued military occupation of the Chagos Archipelago (British Indian Ocean Territory) is a serious violation of international law, the Chagossians are still banned from the territory by apartheid laws and US and British military forces.

The Chagossians are suing British colonial administration for £1 Billion (BIOT) Pounds to compensate them for lost fishing rights.  The Chagos Archipelago is one of the world’s prime fisheries rich in tuna, shell and game fish.  Indigenous fishing rights are recognized by the UN, African Union and many countries with native peoples including the United States, Canada, and Australia.

According to Dr. Jonathan Levy, the international lawyer representing the Chagos islanders:

“There is no doubt the Chagos Archipelago fishing rights have both monetary and cultural value and the Chagossians are barred from even entering the territory’s waters. The colonial administration has the power to issue the currency requested and has no excuse for what amounts to continuing theft of indigenous property and rights.”

The case is Nourrice and Prosper et al v. Her Majesty The Queen.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Chagos Islanders Sue the Queen £1 Billion for Lost Fishing Rights
  • Tags:

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

***

Former UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd once said about Boris Johnson: “he’s the life and soul of the party, but he’s not the man you want driving you home at the end of the evening.”

Yet here we are, almost two years into his leadership, and the British media are still acting with shock and surprise over Boris’s antics. The British are a funny bunch. In all honesty, it seems people are more upset over his negative comments over the John Lewis furniture in No.10 Downing Street than they were when Johnson lied to the Queen in September 2019 to prorogue parliament. There certainly seems to have been more media coverage of it.

In fact, after criticising the decor he and his fiancee Carrie Symonds were left with after the departure of former Prime Minister Theresa May, a “John Lewis nightmare” as it’s been reported, Johnson took pains to dismiss reports that he had anything against the department store in question: “If there’s one thing I object in this whole farrago of nonsense … I love John Lewis!” he insisted. If only he had expressed similar regret over illegally proroguing parliament to try to stymie debate of the Brexit bill. But not Boris.

You do get the feeling though that the establishment have had enough of Boris. It’s as if they’ve decided his time has come. At one time he seemed like the only man who could ‘Get Brexit Done’ and indeed, he did successfully strike a deal with the EU and take Britain out of the trading bloc. But the media campaign against him of late has been overwhelming and packed full of sleaze and corruption scandals.

Firstly last month he was questioned by the media over whether he acted with ‘honesty and integrity’ during his relationship with US businesswoman Jennifer Arcuri, after she gave an interview to The Mirror with all the gory details of Johnson’s four year extra-marital affair.. Under his watch as Mayor of London, Arcuri was given £126,000 of public money in the form of grants for her company and event sponsorship. In addition she was given access to three foreign trade trips led by Mr Johnson. Seemingly Johnson had not committed any criminal wrongdoing, but should have declared a conflict of interest.

Then came Johnson’s controversial former advisor Dominic Cummings, clearly still bitter about his departure from Downing Street, who has spilled the beans on a number of the Prime Minister’s less tasteful comments.  Cummings had clearly stored them up, waiting for the right opportunity to ‘pounce’. And this was it. The first claim is that Johnson said he would “rather see bodies piled high in their thousands” than order another Covid lockdown last autumn. This statement could be easily dismissed as fiction if it weren’t for the fact that two witnesses have come forward to say they would testify that the PM did indeed say that.

Aside from Johnson’s apparent lack of empathy, there are also leaked text messages which appear to demonstrate abuse of power as he promises billionaire businessman James Dyson he will personally ‘fix’ a tax issue so his employees could return to the UK. To be honest this will not come as a surprise to many, as cronyism appears to be rife in Johnson’s cabinet. (Earlier this year it was ruled that Health Secretary Matt Hancock had acted ‘unlawfully’ by not publishing the details of billion-pound PPE contracts, including one given to a friend and neighbour.) Labour and the SNP have called for a full independent public inquiry into why Tory donors and friends have been handed lucrative contracts, special access, tax breaks and peerages by Johnson’s government.

As author Paul Mason wrote in the New Statesman recently, the Conservative government is getting away with corruption ‘on an epic scale”. He said: “In short, we are adrift in a sea of corruption, past and present. If you’ve been anywhere near power, you know how this works. None of it is done in secret. It’s done with the connivance and the blind eye of everyone who sees it happen. Nobody asks awkward questions such as, why is this guy even in the room? Nobody who wants a promotion or an invite to the summer party, that is.”

Paul Mason also added the rather concerning, but valid observation that nobody seems to care. Indeed one does wonder what it would take in the UK for people to protest at such government impropriety. For all our boasting about democracy, it seems when it comes down to it, we’d rather accept the status quo than ruffle any feathers. In England people voted for Boris Johnson, after all, fully aware of his character. As Gina Miller wrote earlier this year in The Guardian: “It is not the British way to make a fuss, and no doubt there are those who think even now that the government taking it upon itself to break the law in “very specific and limited ways” isn’t something to be too concerned about.”

Therefore it is likely that Boris Johnson will survive this latest fiasco. After all, he has endured so many scandals throughout his colourful career to date, and come off relatively unscathed. Some would even say it makes him more human. And of course, the main thing is that he really does love John Lewis.

*

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.

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Can Boris Johnson Survive a Leadership Now Shrouded in Scandal?