How Earth Day Is Being Co-Opted

April 25th, 2021 by Simone Lovera

All Global Research articles 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 United States is back. Back in the Paris Agreement, and back to faithfully promoting the interests of destructive industries and their allies at the global level under the guise of environmentalism. On Earth Day—a day that has been increasingly co-opted by corporations—President Biden is hosting a “Leaders’ Summit on the Climate.” But who are these “leaders?” 

The Biden Administration’s dubious definition is clear from the fact that a key initiative to be announced at the summit is a bilateral agreement between Biden and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. The deal would include significant financial support for Brazil’s “efforts” to reduce illegal deforestation.

If there were ever a prize for the most environmentally destructive president in history, Bolsonaro would stand a good chance to win. In just two years, he has succeeded in increasing deforestation rates in Brazil by 47 percent, triggering the destruction of 11,088 square kilometers of forests in his country in 2020 alone, primarily by allowing and even incentivizing his friends and allies in the industrial livestock sector and other industries to clear as much forest as they want.

Of course, it is basically up to Bolsonaro and his administration to decide what deforestation is legal or illegal—no matter the fact that Heads of State agreed in 2015 in the Sustainable Development Goals that all deforestation should be halted, and thus declared illegal, by 2020.

It is no wonder Brazilian Indigenous peoples, civil society organizations, feminist groups, and social movements are cynical about the proposed deal between the United States and Brazil. In a widely supported letter published on April 6, they denounced the proposed agreement, claiming it is unacceptable to give financial support to a “leader” who is not only destroying his own country, but has also been recommended by Indigenous peoples in Brazil to be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.

Bolsonaro is not the only industry ally the United States is touting as an “environmental leader.” The Biden Administration has shown its commitment to protecting business as usual in climate policy by actively promoting carbon offset mechanisms that would allow some of the dirtiest industries in the country to buy cheap carbon offsets for their emissions under the euphemistic term “nature-based solutions.”

Such “solutions” often boil down to monoculture tree plantations, which have been embraced by companies like Shell and Texaco as a way to profit from pulp or bioenergy sales while pretending to “plant trees” for clients who want to greenwash their petroleum emissions.

These carbon offset mechanisms would allow some of the dirtiest industries to make money selling offset credits based on the use of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, and weed killers that avoid tilling (euphemistically called soil carbon sequestration or even “regenerative agriculture”) or, for example, the use of biogas produced by intensive livestock farming.

The emissions caused by the production of soy feedstock for the intensive livestock industry, a key cause of deforestation in countries like Brazil, are conveniently forgotten in these scenarios. Also forgotten are the devastating impacts on women, Indigenous peoples, and others who’ve borne the brunt of industrial farming, which is associated with massive health impacts due to agrochemicals, land grabbing, and rural depopulation.

Another “leader” who will undoubtedly show up at the U.S. Leaders’ Summit is Bill Gates, a passionate promoter of GMOs and other techno-fixes to address the impacts of  agro-industry on the climate. Through a series of strategic investments in different U.N. institutions, the former Microsoft CEO and his foundation have positioned themselves as the main benefactor and influencer of a wide variety of interlinked global processes.

The U.N. Food Systems Summit is probably the most controversial of these processes. The idea for the summit came from the business-dominated World Economic Forum. And its pro-business agenda was given a human face with the appointment of Agnes Kalibata, the president of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, as special envoy of the conference.

The alliance is an initiative backed by the Gates Foundation to promote GMOs and other techno-fixes for agricultural challenges in Africa. Gates himself has invested heavily in companies like Monsanto/Bayer that stand to profit from such “nature-based solutions.”

With the U.N. Food Systems Summit planned for September 2021, the conditions are right for a corporate-driven agenda to push business-friendly “nature-based solutions” onto the “leaders” gathered at these summits. The winners in this scheme would be destroyers like Bolsonaro and Gates, who seek profit at the expense of some of the most precious forests on the planet.

*

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.

Doctors and Scientists Write to the European Medicines Agency, Warning of COVID-19 Vaccine Dangers for a Third Time

April 25th, 2021 by Doctors for COVID Ethics

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

***

Ahead of European Green Certificate (vaccine passport) vote in the European Parliament on April 28, the experts warn that cardinal symptoms of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) dominate the list of adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines

*

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 Children’s Health Defense

Ethnic Engineering: Denmark’s Ghetto Policy

April 25th, 2021 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

***

The very word is chilling, but has become normalised political currency in Denmark.  Since 2010, the Danish government has resorted to generating “ghetto lists” marking out areas as socially problematic for the state.  In 2018, the country’s parliament passed “ghetto” laws to further regulate the lives of individuals inhabiting various city areas focusing on their racial and ethnic origins.  The legislation constitutes the spear tip of the “One Denmark without Parallel Societies – No Ghettos in 2030” initiative; its target: “non-Western” residents who overbalance the social ledger by concentrating in various city environs. 

The “ghetto package”, comprising over 20 different statutes, grants the government power to designate various neighbourhoods as “ghettos” or “tough ghettos”.  That nasty formulation is intended to have consequences for urban planning, taking into account the percentage of immigrants and descendants present in that area of “non-Western background”.  One Danish media outlet, assiduously avoiding the creepier elements of the policy, saw it as the “greatest social experiment of the century.”

Bureaucrats consider the following: the number of residents (greater than 1,000); a cap of 50% of “non-Westerners”; and whether the neighbourhood meets any two of four criteria, namely employment, education, income and criminality.  Doing so enables the authorities to evict residents, demolish buildings and alter the character of the neighbourhood, a form of cleansing that has shuddering historical resonances.  Central to this is an effort to reduce the stock of “common family housing” – 40% in tough ghettos by 2030 – supposedly available to all based on principles of affordability, democracy and egalitarianism.

The problematic designation of people of “non-Western background” is also a bit of brutal public policy.  It is a discriminatory measure that has concerned the UN Committee on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights (CESCR) and the Council of Europe’s Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (ACFC).  In its concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Denmark from 2019, the CESCR urged the country’s adoption of “a rights-based approach to its efforts to address residential segregation and enhance social cohesion.”  This would involve the scrapping of such terms as “ghetto” and “non-Western” and the repeal of provisions with direct or indirect discriminatory effects “on refugees, migrants and residents of the ‘ghettos’.”

The use of “descendants” also suggests the importance of bloodline that would have seemed entirely logical to the Nazi drafters of the Nuremberg Laws.  The German laws, announced in 1935, made no reference to the criteria of religion in defining a “Jew”, merely the importance of having three or four Jewish grandparents.  Doing so roped those whose grandparents had converted to Christianity and the secular. First came the sentiments; then came the laws.

This irredeemable state of affairs has solid, disturbing implications, though both the CESCR and ACFC tend to be almost mild mannered in pointing it out: You did not belong and you cannot belong.  It is less an integrating measure than an excluding one.  Denmark’s “Ghetto Package”, as the ACFC puts it, “sends a message that may have a counter-effect on their feeling of belonging and forming an integral part of Danish society.”  It also urged that Denmark “reconsider the concepts of ‘immigrants and descendants of immigrants of Western origin’ and ‘immigrants and descendants of immigrants of non-Western origin’.”

For its part, the Ministry of Interior and Housing finds the package all above board, a mere matter of statistical bookkeeping.  Using “non-Western” as a marker adopted to distinguish the EU states, the UK, Andorra, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Norway, San Marino, Switzerland, the Vatican State, Canada, United States, Australia and New Zealand.  “All other countries,” the Ministry curtly observed in a statement, “are non-Western countries.”

Last year, Mjølnerparken, a housing project in Copenhagen’s Nørrebro area, became the subject of intense interest in the application of the Ghetto laws.  With 98 percent of the 2,500 residents being immigrants or the children of immigrants, a good number hailing from the Middle East and Africa, the “tough ghetto” designation was a formality.  Apartment sales were promised, effectively threatening the eviction of the tenants. 

These actions were proposed despite ongoing legal proceedings against the Ministry of Interior and Housing by affected residents.  Declaratory relief is being sought, with the applicants arguing that the measures breach the rights to equality, respect for home, property and the freedom to choose their own residence.

Three rapporteurs from the United Nations also warned that the sale should not go ahead as litigation was taking place.  “It does not matter whether they own or rent all residents should have a degree of security of tenure, which guarantees legal protection against forced eviction, harassment and other threats.”

Such policies tend to consume the reason for their implementation.  Disadvantage and stigmatisation are enforced, not lessened.  Former lawmaker Özlem Cekic suggests as much.  “It is not only created to hit the Muslim groups and immigrant groups but the working class as well.  A lot of people in the ‘ghettoes’, they don’t have economic stability.”

The Ministry has reacted to the protests with proposals that ostensibly reform the legal package.  The word “ghetto”, for instance, will be removed and the share of people of non-Western background in social housing will be reduced to 30% within 10 years.  Those moved out of the areas will be relocated to other parts of the country.  According to Nanna Margrethe Kusaa of the Danish Institute for Human Rights, “the ethnicity criteria has a more sharpened focus on it than before.”  Officials have merely refined the prejudice in one of Europe’s most troubling instances of ethnic engineering.  To this, Cekic has an ominous warning: “How can you expect [immigrants] to be loyal to a country that doesn’t accept them as they are?”

*

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

Biden’s Afghan Exit Alarms Contractors Who Outnumber U.S. Troops

April 25th, 2021 by Roxana Tiron

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

***

U.S. contractors are staring down a tight deadline—with very little direction—to move out of Afghanistan by President Joe Biden’s planned troop withdrawal of Sept. 11.

“The timetable to do this properly is already too tight,” said David Berteau, president of the Professional Services Council representing 400 government contractors, many working in Afghanistan. “We don’t have years, we have only months.”

The Defense Department has 16,832 workers employed by contractors in Afghanistan, of whom 6,147 are U.S. citizens. That’s more than double the remaining 2,500 U.S. troops. Contractors support the military with everything from lodging, laundry, and food to transportation, equipment maintenance, and fuel. Since 2002, the Pentagon has spent $107.9 billion on contracted services in Afghanistan, a Bloomberg Government analysis shows.

“We need a much clearer idea of what the endgame looks like,” Berteau said. “None of that has been revealed to us or our member companies and that is what we’re calling for.”

The contractors’ alarm signals how complicated and fraught with risk the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan will be after almost two decades of combat against an entrenched network of armed forces, and with thousands of contractors supporting U.S. military operations.

Biden set the pullout deadline for the 20-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

Largest Vendors

The largest vendors with Pentagon contracts in Afghanistan are Fluor Corp. with $3.1 billion spent between 2016 and January 2021, and Amentum Parent Holdings LLC, with $1.7 billion during the same period.

Contract data is available only through the first half of January 2021. Both Fluor and Amentum’s largest contract is known as a logistics civil augmentation program. In short, it’s an indefinite delivery and quantity contract given in multiple awards.

Amentum, for example, works on air traffic control, airfield upkeep, unmanned aircraft operations, and maintenance. It also helped with training the Afghans’ national police and army, contract data show.

Amentum doesn’t have a comment for this article, a company spokeswoman said. Fluor officials didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The Pentagon also has spent $1.2 billion for helicopter transport during the same 2016 to January 2021 period, primarily with two companies: Columbia Helicopters, at $966 million, and Construction Helicopters Inc. at $229 million. The Pentagon spent $935 million over four years on contracts with PAE Inc. to include training and mentoring, and for the Afghanistan technical equipment maintenance program.

Meanwhile, one vendor—Secure Movement Logistics Services—received $680 million for petroleum, oil, and lubricant product support. The complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan makes it likely that fuel services will no longer be needed in the country.

‘Devastating’ Removal

“Most of the contractors are going to leave, and certainly the U.S. contractors are going to leave,” Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the head of Central Command, told the House Armed Services Committee on April 20. He offered no details and later in the week, at a Pentagon press briefing, he said, “the U.S. contractors will come out as we come out. That is part of the planned withdrawal we have in place right now.”

The preliminary plan is for at least some contractors to leave during the military withdrawal from Afghanistan, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said this month after Biden’s announcement. The Pentagon has yet to provide details on how many contractors will be extracted. Kirby indicated plans are in flux and could change.

U.S. contractors leaving Afghanistan could be more “devastating” to the Afghan security forces than the U.S. troop pullout, John Sopko, the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, said last month.

The departure of contractors was largely ignored as the focus shifted to when Biden would withdraw the military, Sopko told a forum organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The Afghan government relies on contractors to train in using, and maintain, U.S.-supplied equipment such as Lockheed Martin Corp.’s UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters and C-130 transport aircraft, he said.

The Pentagon is looking at alternatives to help the Afghans in the maintenance effort from a distance, McKenzie said.

“We may be able to work some remote, televised way to do that,” he said at the Pentagon on Thursday. “We’re going to try all kinds of innovative ways. The one thing I can tell you is we are not going to be there on the ground with them.”

Future ‘Boondoggle’

The U.S. decision to send Blackhawks to Afghanistan that the local security forces can’t operate or maintain is ripe for fraud and abuse, said Jason Dempsey, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

“I see it as a total boondoggle,” Dempsey said in an interview. To support the Afghan air force, the U.S. would have to keep sending in contractors, he said, and “contracts are going to be ridiculous” going forward.

“We are going to put in a bunch of contractors, they are going to get hundreds of millions of dollars to maintain this fleet, and the fleet is not going to be used,” he said.

Without contractors, none of these aircraft can remain effective for combat for more than a few months, Sopko warned. Dyncorp International, now a part of Amentum, in December won a task order valued at up to $554 million for support of aircraft. The company said in a statement it would hire 250 people to start work in Afghanistan and Huntsville, Ala., where the program is managed.

‘Easy Part’

U.S. forces coming out of Afghanistan “is kind of the easy part,” said Elaine McCusker, a former acting Pentagon comptroller during President Donald Trump’s administration.

“The key thing is always, what does that detailed planning order look like, and what is the end state?” McCusker, now a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said in an interview.

“Moving the forces out is not as big of a deal; it’s the equipment and then the reset that has to take place. Are you bringing that equipment out of the Middle East, are you just bringing it out of Afghanistan? Where is it going? How much is coming back to the U.S.?” McCusker said. “Those are some of the considerations that are going to play into what the final plan looks like.”

Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s acquisition officials are working on a strategy for any modifications for contracts that support U.S. forces. “But let’s face it, they also support coalition forces,” McCusker said. “It’s not just us that we want to look at what is provided through those contracts.”

The situation “cries out” both for individual review of the specific contracts, and a national review of contracts that would make sense to continue in order to support the Afghan government, and those that the Afghanis can maintain, Berteau, from the Professional Services Council, said.

“This is the kind of effort that if you started today, you’d be at a hard run to be finished by Sept. 11,” he said. “And you don’t even see a sign that it is underway today.”

Regional Bases

Further complicating the situation, the Pentagon plans to base some U.S. troops in the region for future counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan, should they be needed. The U.S. doesn’t have basing agreements with countries around Afghanistan, even as the troop withdrawal is set to begin May 1, McKenzie told lawmakers April 20.

“Any kind of direct support for the military—which from the military’s point of view of course is indirect support—anything like that goes where the military goes,” said Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon’s comptroller in the George W. Bush administration. “Who are they going to serve meals to? If they have been providing fuel to the military, they are no longer going to have to, because there is no more U.S. military to provide fuel to.”

Still, some of the support for contractors now in Afghanistan would have to be reset for those working wherever U.S. troops settle in the region, Zakheim said. Contracts will have to be modified, he said, and the Pentagon could potentially spend more money to set up new bases for the military.

“The military fully understands that this going to be a logistical nightmare,” Zakheim 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.

With assistance from Travis J. Tritten

Featured image: Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, speaks to a NATO Training Mission – Afghanistan advisor during a visit to meet Afghan National Army soldiers at Kabul Military Training Center Jan. 16, 2011. Ernesto Hernandez Fonte | DVIDS

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Biden’s Afghan Exit Alarms Contractors Who Outnumber U.S. Troops

The COVID-19 Vaccine; Is the Goal Immunity or Depopulation?

April 25th, 2021 by Mike Whitney

First published in December 2020

“There is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic… You do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from a disease. You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on human subjects.” Dr. Mike Yeadon PhD, Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory Disease

“What we know about coronavirus from 30 years of experience is that a coronavirus vaccine has a unique peculiarity, which is any attempt at making the vaccine has resulted in the creation of a class of antibodies that actually make vaccinated people sicker when they ultimately suffer exposure to the wild virus.” Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

***

Here’s what I think is currently going on in our country and across much of the western world. A public health crisis– that was manufactured and gamed-out before the initial outbreak in Wuhan, China –has been used to short-circuit long-held civil liberties, strengthen the authority of political leaders, collapse the economy, dramatically remake basic social relations, and impose absolute control over work, school, gatherings and recreational activities. Public policy is now set by unelected technocrats who operate behind the cover of lofty-sounding organizations that are entirely controlled by the world’s biggest corporations and richest oligarchs. President Dwight Eisenhower anticipated this troubling scenario 70 years ago when he said:

“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

Bingo. This is the state of affairs in America today. All real power has been conceded to a globalist oligarchy that operates behind the curtain of corrupt government officials and public health experts. This begs the question of whether the hoopla surrounding the Coronavirus emerged as a spontaneous and appropriate reaction to a lethal and fast-spreading pandemic or whether the hysteria has been greatly exaggerated (Infection Fatality Rate is 0.26% or 1 in 400) to implement a transformational political-social agenda that will not only eradicate democracy and basic human rights, but also pave the way for dangerous vaccines that will dramatically curtail population growth, which is an objective that is widely shared among wealthy elites.

Would it surprise you to know that vaccines have been used in Africa, the Philippines, Nicaragua and Mexico to terminate fertility? Would it shock you to know that “do-goodie” mandarins –who want to save the world from overpopulation and global warming– have used toxic vaccines on unsuspecting young women who didn’t realize that they were being used as lab rats in a malignant eugenics experiment? This is from an article at Global Research:

“According to LifeSiteNews, a Catholic publication, the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association is charging UNICEF and WHO with sterilizing millions of girls and women under cover of an anti-tetanus vaccination program sponsored by the Kenyan government…

… all six samples tested positive for the HCG antigen. The HCG antigen is used in anti-fertility vaccines, but was found present in tetanus vaccines targeted to young girls and women of childbearing age. Dr. Ngare, spokesman for the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, stated in a bulletin released November 4:

“This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine. This evidence was presented to the Ministry of Health before the third round of immunization but was ignored.” (“Mass Sterilization”: Kenyan Doctors Find Anti-fertility Agent in UN Tetanus Vaccine?“, Global Research)

It all sounds rather suspicious, doesn’t it, especially since there was no tetanus crisis in Kenya to begin with. Kenya was merely the testing ground for vaccines aimed at achieving more diabolical goals. For example, why would a tetanus campaign only target women between the ages of 14 to 49 years old? Why did the campaign exclude young girls, boys and men who were equally susceptible to tetanus?

Why?

You know why. It’s because the real objective had nothing to do with tetanus. Tetanus was merely the pretext that was used to conceal the activities of globalist elites working the kinks out of their depopulation strategy. Take a look at this press statement By the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops on the National Tetanus Vaccination Campaign:

“We are not convinced that the government has taken adequate responsibility to ensure that Tetanus Toxoid vaccine (TT) laced with Beta human chorionic gonadotropin (b-HCG) sub unit is not being used by the sponsoring development partners. This has previously been used by the same partners in Philippines, Nicaragua and Mexico to vaccinate women against future pregnancy. Beta HCG sub unit is a hormone necessary for pregnancy.

When injected as a vaccine to a non-pregnant woman, this Beta HCG sub unit combined with tetanus toxoid develops antibodies against tetanus and HCG so that if a woman’s egg becomes fertilized, her own natural HCG will be destroyed rendering her permanently infertile. In this situation tetanus vaccination has been used as a birth control method.” (“Mass Sterilization”: Kenyan Doctors Find Anti-fertility Agent in UN Tetanus Vaccine?)

I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking that they might have conducted these depopulation programs in Africa, but they’d never do anything like that in the United States where our ever-vigilant media would expose what they were up to. Right?

Unfortunately, the media is owned lock, stock and barrel by the same people who create crises to advance their own self-serving agenda. Covid-19 is probably no different in that regard. The fact that the infection is modestly lethal actually helps to achieve the broader goal of reshaping society, restructuring the economy, abandoning representative government, and reducing the population to more sustainable levels. These are the real objectives of this politically-driven farce. Check out this article in Bloomberg (2019) which helps to shed light on today’s Covid developments. The article is aptly titled “Earth Needs Fewer People, Scientists Say”:

“Forty years ago, scientists from 50 nations converged on Geneva to discuss what was then called the “CO2-climate problem.”…Now, four decades later, a larger group of scientists is sounding another, much more urgent alarm. More than 11,000 experts from around the world are calling for a critical addition to the main strategy of dumping fossil fuels for renewable energy: there needs to be far fewer humans on the planet…

“We declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency,” the scientists wrote in a stark warning published Tuesday…

When absorbed in sequence, the charts lay out a devastating trend for planetary health. From meat consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and ice loss to sea-level rise and extreme weather events, they lay out a grim portrait of 40 years of squandered opportunities. The scientists make specific calls for policymakers to quickly implement systemic change to energy, food, and economic policies. But But they go one step further, into the politically fraught territory of population control. It “must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity,” they write. (“”Earth Needs Fewer People, Scientists Say”, Bloomberg)

Forbes published a similar article titled “Over 11,000 Scientists Declare Climate Emergency”. Here’s a short clip:

“Beyond simply sounding the alarm louder than in the past, the letter also offers immediate steps to be taken in six key areas to slow climate change and its impacts…. The steps represent a fairly drastic re-ordering of global society and its underpinning systems, starting with the phasing out of fossil fuels, replacing large-scale land clearing with reforestation efforts, stabilizing global populationand greatly reducing the amount of meat and animal products we consume….” (“Over 11,000 Scientists Declare Climate Emergency“, Forbes)

Finally, there’s this statement published in the journal BioScience by dozens of scientists and endorsed by further 11,000 from 153 nations. The scientists say the urgent changes needed include ending population growth, leaving fossil fuels in the ground, halting forest destruction and slashing meat eating:

“Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.

Still increasing by roughly 80 million people per year, or more than 200,000 per day (figure 1a–b), the world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity. There are proven and effective policies that strengthen human rights while lowering fertility rates and lessening the impacts of population growth on GHG emissions and biodiversity loss. These policies make family-planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access and achieve full gender equity….” (“World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency”, Oxford Academic)

(Notice how population control is a recurrent theme, a theme that coincides with the “zero emissions” agenda of elites and self-anointed “philanthropists.”)

The fact is, there is a growing consensus among corporate leaders and other elites that we are facing a “climate emergency” that will require immediate and draconian changes to our political, social and economic structures. Is it too far-fetched to think that Covid-19 was conjured up in order implement those changes without revealing the real reason? After all, the public is pretty evenly-split on climate change which means that the opposition would likely be organized, well-funded and ferocious. No doubt, that is something the oligarchs wanted to avoid altogether. A greatly-exaggerated global pandemic was the much better choice. With the media already in tow, and enough sell-out public health experts and Democrat governors to do the heavy-lifting, the prospects for success must have looked quite promising. 8 months into the current operation, the checkered flag is now within sight.. State governors remain unopposed in their usurping of special “crisis powers”, Fauci and his ilk are still widely revered, masks are everywhere, rolling lockdowns and ever-tightening restrictions continue to be the order-of-the-day, and we are just weeks away from the icing on the cake, the thinning of the herd with a “nanoparticle-based vaccine containing a synthetic chemical called polyethylene glycol or PEG”. In other words, the stealth sterilization exercises that were conducted in Africa were merely a dress-rehearsal for the main event, the summary injection of billions of people worldwide in an effort to significantly reduce global population. Are we there yet?

Not yet, but soon.

The teams of psychologists who worked with governments (to sell the Covid terror) and who figured out that mundane reality must be turned on its head– through social distancing, masks, shelter-in-place orders, the closing of schools, businesses, public gatherings, and religious services– in order (to create a disorienting and terrifying environment) to usher in a new authoritarian system in which personal freedom extends no further than selecting one’s online purchases from either Costco or Amazon. These psychologists deserve much of the credit for the transformation of the western world into a lockdown police state ruled by scheming miscreants who will now decide our future for us.

THE VACCINE– The Culmination of 8 months of Relentless Disinformation and Hysteria

While it’s clear that the progress on the vaccines was deliberately delayed until after the presidential elections, (in order to hurt Trump’s prospects for reelection.) very few realize the reason vaccines are being so quickly deployed. Simply put, the epidemic is rapidly winding down forcing the vaccine manufacturers to seek hasty approval so distribution can begin. This is a matter of great urgency which means the FDA will undoubtedly cave in to political pressure and approve prospective vaccines way before trials prove them to be safe. On Wednesday:

“the United Kingdom became the first country Wednesday to formally approve the Pfizer and BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine...The first inoculations are set to be rolled out next week…The vaccine has been authorized far more quickly than any other in history, its lightning development outpacing the 15 to 20 years it usually takes to develop these types of medicines.” (“U.K. becomes first country to approve Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine”, NBC News)

Naturally, safety does not factor into the creation of a vaccine that normally requires 10 years to develop but is swiftly slapped together and brought to market in a mere 8 months. By definition, such a vaccine is not safe.

More from NBC: “In the U.S., both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have submitted applications to the FDA for an emergency use authorization..BioNTech CEO Uğur Şahin told NBC News’ Richard Engel that he was “confident that an authorization in the U.S. could also happen within the next two weeks.”..

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization told Reuters that it had received data from the companies and was reviewing it for “possible listing for emergency use” — meaning it could be rolled out quicker in developing countries.” (NBC News)

Why are these turkeys being rushed to market?

As we noted earlier, vaccine distribution is being rushed due to the fact that the pandemic is winding down, in fact, for all practical purposes, it’s already over. In the US, the hospitalization and fatality data are being deliberately inflated to perpetuate the hysteria, (we’ll explain this later) while in the UK, the fatalities attributable to Covid (in the fake “Second Wave”) have never exceeded the 5-year average of “excess deaths”, which is the barometer for deciding whether there is an unusual spike in mortality or not. There isn’t. The Second Wave does not exist. It is pure fabrication. Check out this blurb from Dr. Mike Yeadon, Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory. Yeadon dismisses the “Second Wave” theory as unscientific nonsense. Here’s what he says:

“Viruses don’t do waves… I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature… There have been no examples of multiple waves since and the most recent novel coronavirus with any real spread (SARS) performed one wave each in each geographical region affected. Why a model with a ‘second wave’ in it was even built, I cannot guess. …

Despite the absence of any evidence for a ‘second wave’ – and the evidence of absence of waves for this class of respiratory virus – there was an across-the-board, multi-media platform campaign designed to plant the idea of a ‘second wave’ in the minds of everyone. This ran continually for many weeks. It was successful: a poll of GPs showed almost 86% of them stated that they expected a ‘second wave’ this winter.

As research for this piece, I sought the earliest mention of a ‘second wave’. Profs Heneghan and Jefferson, on Apr 30th, noted that we were being warned to expect a ‘second wave’ and that the PM had, on Apr 27th, warned of a ‘second wave’. The Professors cautioned anyone making confident predictions of a ‘second’ and ‘third wave’ that the historical record doesn’t provide support so to do.

I looked for mentions by the BBC of a ‘second wave’.. On Mar 3rd and 6th, there is mention of a single SARS-CoV-2 wave with most (95%) of the impact early on. What looks to be the final document, Mar 29th, still just refers to one wave. This is what history and immunology teaches….

Despite this bothersome oddity about a ‘second wave’ and almost as if there was a plan for one, the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) testing infrastructure in the UK began to be reshaped….the Portuguese high court determined two weeks ago that this PCR test is not a reliable way to determine the health status or infectiousness of citizens…. With the scientific validity of this test under severe challenges, I believe it must immediately be withdrawn from use.” (“The PCR False Positive Pseudo-Epidemic“, Lockdown Skeptics)

No second wave??

Nope, it’s 100% bunkum. But “there was a plan for one”, which is to say, there was a plan for amplifying the panic to achieve the objectives of elites. That’s clear.

Yeadon then explains how the PCR tests were removed from NHS (National Health Service) labs and delivered to privately-owned “mass testing centers” that replaced “highly qualified and experienced Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) registered biomedical scientists” with ” mainly by volunteer unregistered staff in unaccredited laboratories that have been established within a few weeks.” Naturally, this threw into question the overall reliability of their test results which, in turn, produced massive numbers of false positives that in no way reflected the diminishing impact of the virus.

As Yeadon’s states: such mass testing brings with it, when using PCR as the method, a severe risk of what we call a “PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic”. This could never happen if we were not using PCR mass testing. When a more reliable test was used in Liverpool (Lateral-flow test or LFT) showing that a smaller percentage of people were infected, the test was discarded in favor of the PCR test.

“By September, the great bulk of PCR testing was being run by large, private labs, some of which are called Lighthouse Labs.” That is when the number of infections began to spike sharply which was completely inconsistent with the behavior of epidemics in the past.

Yeadon: “How we can square these claims of tens of thousands of daily “cases” and an unprecedented ‘second wave’ of deaths with the unfeasible quantity of testing using a technique considered by bench experts difficult to perform reliably even on a small scale?”

That’s easy. The whole charade was rigged to make PCR false positives look like a real epidemic. Keep in mind, this isn’t my unprofessional observation, but Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory.

And just look at the extent to which this farce was maintained. Here’s Yeadon explaining how definitions are stretched to the breaking point to exaggerate the number of Covid fatalities:

“A “case” is a positive PCR test. No symptoms are involved. A “COVID-19 admission” to a hospital is a person testing positive by PCR before, on entry or at any time during a hospital stay, no matter the reason for the admission or the symptoms the patient is presenting. A “COVID-19 death” is any death within 28 days of a positive PCR test.”

So, let’s say you have a massive heart attack and die, but a PCR test shows you have harmless RNA fragments in your bloodstream, then the death is labeled “Covid”. Got that? Yeadon summarizes this hanky-panky in one terse sentence:

“We have very strong evidence that the PCR mass testing as currently conducted is completely worthless.” (Yeadon and a panel of experts have since submitted a 10-point paper to the Eurosurveillance editorial board challenging the science upon which the PCR test is based “which has led to worldwide misdiagnosis of infections attributed to SARS-CoV-2 and associated with the disease COVID-19. We are confronted with stringent lockdowns which have destroyed many people’s lives and livelihoods, limited access to education and these imposed restrictions by governments around the world are a direct attack on people’s basic rights and their personal freedoms, resulting in collateral damage for entire economies on a global scale.”)

According to Yeadon and his team of independent researchers:

“The pandemic was over by June and herd immunity was the main force which turned the pandemic and pressed it into retreat. In the autumn, the claimed “cases” are an artefact of a deranged testing system…. While there is some COVID-19 along the lines of the “secondary ripple” …it has occurred primarily in regions, cities and districts that were less hard hit in the spring. Real COVID-19 is self-limiting and may already have peaked in some Northern towns. It will not return in force…

That’s it. All the rest is a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic. The cure, of course, as it has been in the past when PCR has replaced the pandemic itself as the menace in the land, is to stop PCR mass testing.” (“The PCR False Positive Pseudo-Epidemic” Dr Mike Yeadon, Lockdown Skeptics)

Yeadon’s analysis is similar to that of Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at John Hopkins. Briand wanted to see the effect that Covid had on excess deaths using the CDC’s own data. What she found was extraordinary, but consistent with Yeadon’s analysis. Here’s a brief summary of what she discovered:

“From mid-March to mid-September, U.S. total deaths have reached 1.7 million, of which 200,000, or 12% of total deaths, are COVID-19-related….

After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.

Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.

“The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals,” Briand said.

Briand also noted that 50,000 to 70,000 deaths are seen both before and after COVID-19, indicating that this number of deaths was normal long before COVID-19 emerged. Therefore, according to Briand, not only has COVID-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased the total number of deaths.

These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.

…”All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary,” Briand concluded.” (“A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19”, JB Wells News)

The research of both Yeadon and Brand help to show how fake testing results, manipulated mortality data, relentless deception and disorienting state mandates (masks, lockdown etc) have fueled public hysteria creating the compliant population our rulers seek. After 8 months of this psychic-drubbing, the elites are now ready to deliver the coup de grâce, a vaccine containing potentially-toxic substance that will change the course of history.

Do I exaggerate?

Perhaps, but there are plenty of reasons to be concerned. Keep in mind, the most enthusiastic proponents of these experimental vaccines (media) are the same people:

  1. Who lied about Trump-Russia for 3 years nonstop.
  2. Who aggressively censored any information on Hunter Biden’s massive influence peddling operation.
  3. Who covered up any information related to last month’s stolen presidential election.

The media are the enemy of the people, and they have proved that many times over. But, how can we apply this rule to the roll-out of the new vaccines?

We can assume that the interests of the wealthy powerbrokers– who own the media and set their agenda– will take precedence over the people who are in line to be vaccinated. That’s all. Their interests will take priority over your safety. That’s the way it works.

So, one should be extremely wary of vaccines that are rushed to market in record time, just as they should be suspicious of the motives of people who see “skepticism” or “hesitancy” as a “national security threat”. These people are not to be trusted. It’s that simple.

Why, for example, would the British government enlist “military intelligence to seek out and stamp out what The Times calls “anti-vaccine militants” and related “propaganda content” in cyberspace”??

Why would the social media giants remove articles that are critical of the vaccines?

Why are all the media and public health experts pushing for mass vaccination?

Why?

The answer is obvious, isn’t it?

It’s because the wealthy powerbrokers that are orchestrating this operation, want to see We the People vaccinated en masse. That’s what this is all about.

So, the question is: Why? Why is it so important to them? Is it because they want to save lives?

No, that’s not it at all. There’s obviously something else going on that we don’t know about. Maybe it’s climate change, maybe it’s over-population, or maybe it’s a collective determination to transform society into a technocratic dystopia. (“The Great Reset”). We don’t really know, but one thing is certain, all this ballyhoo about Covid is a red herring. It simply diverts attention from the real agenda, which is why we should be cautious about the vaccines. Mass vaccination could, in fact, be the ultimate objective. Check out Yeadon’s take on vaccines in a recent edition of LifeSite News:

“There is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic…. You do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from a disease. You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on human subjects……

Since it is demonstrable that “around 30% of the population had prior immunity,” and if one includes some young children who are “resistant,” 40%, and while considering that the infection rate is “somewhere [in] the mid-20s to low-30s per cent,” this means that around 65 to 72% of the population currently has immunity to COVID-19.

And considering the reality of herd immunity, when susceptibility to a virus falls this low, at around 28 to 35%, “that population can no longer support an expanding outbreak of disease,” and thus the virus “wanes and disappears... The pandemic is effectively over and can easily be handled by a properly functioning NHS (National Health Service). Accordingly, the country should immediately be permitted to get back to normal life.” (“Former Pfizer VP: ‘No need for vaccines,’ ‘the pandemic is effectively over”, LifeSite News)

Is he right? Are the vaccines an unnecessary risk that serve no earthly purpose? Here’s more from Yeadon on the potential downside effects of the new mRNA-based vaccines which are “all the rage”.

“The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination.”

– The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as it may otherwise result in infertility of indefinite duration in vaccinated women.

– The mRNA vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance. This means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.

– The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow.” (“That Was Quick”, Lockdown Skeptics)

Let’s summarize:

  1. The new messenger RNA vaccines could make recipients more susceptible to serious illness or death.
  2. Spike proteins can “trigger an immune reaction” that will “result in infertility.” (Once again, Population control)
  3. The new vaccines contain polyethylene glycol (PEG) which can be “potentially fatal.”
  4. The trials were not long enough to determine whether the vaccines are safe or not. FDA approval does not mean “safe”. Quite the contrary. The FDA is “captured” in the same way the FAA is captured. (Think: Boeing 737 Max)

The new regime of Covid-19 vaccines is both unnecessary and risky. Readers should ignore the hype and do their own research. Take responsibility for your own health and welfare. Do not expect the media or public health officials to tell the truth. They won’t. They want to use you as a guinea pig in their deranged lab experiment. Do not cooperate, do not comply, do not acquiesce, do not give in.

No surrender.

*

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 Unz Review.

Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

VIDEO: Coronavirus vs. H1N1: Spanish Nun Speaks out on the 2009 Swine Flu H1N1 Pandemic: “Crimes and Abuses of the Pharmaceutical Industry”

April 25th, 2021 by Gaspar Hernández

This article first published by Global Research in November 2009 recalls the circumstances of the H1N1 swine flu pandemic, which turned out to be a WHO fraud on behalf of Big Pharma.

Sister Teresa Forcades i Vila has taken off her theologian’s hat and gone back to her doctor in public health role to address the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in a new video  that calls for a calm approach to the disease and emphasizes the right of citizens to refuse to be vaccinated against it.

Sister  Teresa also has a new blog space on catalunyareligió.cat in which she is sharing her writings on the flu and other issues

Editor’s Note. Since publication by GR in March 2020. The video of the interview has been taken down.

***

To View her 2009 Interview in which she reveals the Fraud of Big Pharma and the lies and fabrications of WHO Director General Margaret Chan

Transcript below

BELL TOLLING for the Swine Flu (ENGLISH subtitled) from ALISH on Vimeo.

 

What’s a nun doing talking on the Internet about the dangers of the Influenza A vaccine?

Our rule prescribes five hours of prayer and six of work. Ora et labora.

…

I devote part of the working hours to medical research. I’m a doctor of medicine and in 2006 I published the study Crimes and Abuses of the Pharmaceutical Industry.

When did you decide you had to speak out on influenza A?

In May this year I was asked to give a speech on the papillomavirus vaccine and I was very struck by the lack of scientific basis for the official recommendations. After a few days I spoke on TV-3 about this vaccine and since then I have been receiving requests to comment on the influenza A vaccine.

Doesn’t the World Health Organization deserve to be trusted?

I don’t understand the motives that have led WHO to act in the absurd way it is acting.

Absurd?

Yes. Last May, WHO changed the official definition of a pandemic — it changed from a logical definition (a pandemic is an infection of global proportions and with a high mortality) to an illogical definition (a pandemic is an infection of global proportions).

What are the consequences of this change?

Under the new definition of “pandemic”, the annual [seasonal] flu more than meets the requirements to be one. Are we going to declare a world health alert every fall? Besides absurdity from the scientific standpoint, this has serious financial and policy consequences.

You don’t trust the vaccine. Why?

Unlike the annual seasonal flu vaccine, the influenza vaccine contains such powerful adjuvant substances that they can get the normal immune response to multiply by a factor of 10. In addition, two doses are recommended, to be received after the injection for seasonal influenza, which also contains adjuvants, although less potent. Never before have these substances been injected three times in a row in the general population, starting with children, the chronically ill and pregnant women.

What effects can result?

The artificial stimulation of the immune system can cause autoimmune diseases.

The same prospect of two of the influenza vaccines that have already been approved in Europe (Pandemrix and Focetra) indicates that it is expected that for every million people vaccinated, 99 will experience an autoimmune disease known as Guillain-Barré progressive paralysis.

If that happens, the drug companies would receive demands…

But in the U.S. a decree has already been approved exempting politicians and drug companies from liability.

Are you suggesting that the drug companies have acted irresponsibly?

What they have done is work for their interests.

Can someone be obliged to get vaccinated?

In 2007, WHO adopted a regulation establishing an exception. In all cases except one, the WHO makes recommendations, and only in one case may it give orders that override the sovereignty of member countries.

In the case of a pandemic.

Exactly. In 2007, WHO adopted a regulation that in case of a pandemic, WHO can legally bind member countries to vaccinate all or part of their population. The governments of these countries would be obliged then to impose fines or other penalties for individuals who refuse to be vaccinated.

Do you believe in world conspiracies?

I think there are interests at stake are not the good of the population. How can we justify the money invested in the purchase of vaccines if influenza A is milder than the annual seasonal flu? Spending so much money on vaccines and other preventive measures without sufficient scientific basis is an outrage and we should ask for accountability.

What do your fellow nuns say about the video and your statements?

An almost 90 year old sister raised the objection that the subject of influenza A is very serious and that I couldn’t speak out against the vaccine without having well-founded arguments.

And?

After reading my report, she approached me after vespers and simply said to me: “Understood.”

Aren’t you afraid?

Sometimes.

Do you pray a lot?

As much as I can.


by Gaspar Hernández (translation by Rebel Girl). El Periódico de Catalunya. October 7, 2009

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on VIDEO: Coronavirus vs. H1N1: Spanish Nun Speaks out on the 2009 Swine Flu H1N1 Pandemic: “Crimes and Abuses of the Pharmaceutical Industry”

April 2009, The H1N1 Pandemic: Political Lies and Media Disinformation regarding the Swine Flu Outbreak

April 25th, 2021 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

First published in May 2009

Author’s Note:

Twelve Years ago April 2009: the H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic.

Media disinformation, political lies, fabrications, 4.9 billion vaccine doses were contemplated by the WHO…

The data was manipulated. 

Western governments and the WHO were complicit in a multibillion dollar fraud. 

“On the basis of … expert assessments of the evidence, the scientific criteria for an influenza pandemic have been met. I have therefore decided to raise the level of influenza pandemic alert from Phase 5 to Phase 6. The world is now at the start of the 2009 influenza pandemic. … Margaret Chan, Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO), Press Briefing  11 June 2009)

 ”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)

“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 the US Administration, Associated Press, 24 July 2009).

“The U.S. expects to have 160 million doses of swine flu vaccine available sometime in October”, (Associated Press, 23 July 2009)

“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)

Wealthier countries such as the U.S. and Britain will pay just under $10 per dose [of the H1N1 flu vaccine]. … Developing countries will pay a lower price.” [circa $400 billion for Big Pharma] (Business Week, July 2009)

The WHO casually acknowledged it made a mistake.

There was no pandemic affecting 2 billion people…  

Millions of doses of swine flu vaccine had been ordered by national governments from Big Pharma. Most of them were destroyed: a bonanza for Big Pharma.

This was my first report on the subject published in May 2009. Subsequent reports confirmed unequivocally that this was a fraud.  

The Western media which provided daily coverage of  the pandemic, remained mum on the issue of fraud and disinformation.  

Michel Chossudovsky, April 16, 2016, April 25, 2021

*       *       *

What is the flu? Influenza (the flu) is a serious contagious respiratory illness caused by influenza viruses. Millions of people in the United States get the flu each year. Most people are sick for about a week. Some people (especially young children, pregnant women, older people, and people with chronic health problems) can get very sick and may die from the flu. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

The World Health Organization (WHO) raised its pandemic alert level to Phase 5 on a 6 point scale.

The WHO’s Phase 5 alert means

“there is sustained human-to-human spread in at least two countries and that global outbreak of the disease is imminent… It also signals an increased effort to produce a vaccine… Human cases have been confirmed in Mexico, the United States, Canada, Britain, Israel, New Zealand and Spain.” (emphasis added)

According to reports, the WHO took this decision after  “a 23-month-old [child] died [from the swine flu] in Texas after travelling there from Mexico for medical treatment.”

The swine flu was, according to reports, confirmed in 11 states in the US. Health officials at the WHO in Geneva and Washington are quoted as saying that the “spread of the virus is unlikely to stop”.

The media has gone into full gear with little analysis and review of the evidence, focussing their attention on the more than 2400 cases of non-specific influenza in Mexico.

“the global outbreak is imminent…

all countries should activate preparedness plans”,

The worst health crisis facing the world in 90 years…”

On the day following the WHO’s Phase 5 Pandemic Alert, a scientist attached to the European Union’s Centre for Disease Control and Prevention hinted, without evidence, that the epidemic could potentially affect 40% to 50% of the EU population “in a mild way”. (See europeanvoice.com, April 30, 2009).

Professor Neil Ferguson, a member of the World Health Organisation task force on swine flu, stated that

“40 per cent of people in the UK could be infected within the next six months if the country was hit by a pandemic.”

“We don’t really know what size epidemic we will get over the next couple of months… It is almost certain that, even if it does fade away in the next few weeks – which it might – we will get a seasonal epidemic in the autumn.”

“We might expect up to 30 to 40 per cent of the population to become ill in the next six months if this truly turns into a pandemic.  “We could get substantial numbers infected in the next few weeks but, if I was to be a betting man, I would say it would be slightly longer because we are moving into summer.” Prof. Ferguson said the 152 deaths in Mexico probably made up a relatively small proportion of the total number infected, which might run into tens or hundreds of thousands.” (Daily Express, May 1, 2009)

The media reports are twisted. Realities are turned up side down. Policy statements are not backed by medical and scientific evidence. Professor Ferguson’s statements are unfounded. He has not bothered to check the number of  “laboratory confirmed” swine flu cases in Mexico.

30 to 40 % of the British population?

Up to 50 % of the population of the European Union’s 500 million population?

On what basis are these statements being made?

On April 27, 2009 there was, according to reports, only one case of  swine flu in the entire European Union:

“Europe’s first confirmed case of swine flu has been diagnosed in Spain. The country’s health ministry confirmed the news on Monday morning, after tests on a man who had recently returned from a trip to Mexico.” (BBC, April 27, 2009)


Germany

 

Weakening the Social Protest Movement

Statements of this nature on the “inevitable spread” of the disease, create, quite deliberately, an atmosphere of fear, insecurity and panic. They also serve to distract people’s attention from a devastating global economic crisis which is leading the World into mass poverty and unemployment, not to mention the war in the Middle East and the broader issue of US-NATO war crimes.

The Real Global Crisis is marked by poverty, economic collapse, ethnic strife, death and destruction, the derogation of civil rights and  the demise of State social programs. The EU announcement of the swine flu pandemic inevitably serves to weaken the social protest movement which has spread across Europe.

In Mexico, the swine flu emergency measures which have “closed down” entire urban areas, are widely perceived as a pretext of the Felipe Calderon government to curb mounting social dissent against one of the most corrupt administrations in Mexican history.

In Mexico, the May 1st Parade, which was directed against the Calderon government, was cancelled.

The WHO’s Balance Sheet

The WHO advisory points to 148 laboratory confirmed cases Worldwide of the swine influenza, including 8 deaths, barely a pandemia:

“29 April 2009 — The situation continues to evolve rapidly. As of 18:00 GMT, 29 April 2009, nine countries have officially reported 148 cases of swine influenza A/H1N1 infection. The United States Government has reported 91 laboratory confirmed human cases, with one death. Mexico has reported 26 confirmed human cases of infection including seven deaths.

The following countries have reported laboratory confirmed cases with no deaths – Austria (1), Canada (13), Germany (3), Israel (2), New Zealand (3), Spain (4) and the United Kingdom (5).

Further information on the situation will be available on the WHO website on a regular basis.” (WHO.org)

In a 29 April statement, the WHO Director-General, Dr Margaret Chan confirmed that

“Based on assessment of all available information, and following several expert consultations, I have decided to raise the current level of influenza pandemic alert from phase 4 to phase 5.

Influenza pandemics must be taken seriously precisely because of their capacity to spread rapidly to every country in the world.

… WHO will be tracking the pandemic at the epidemiological, clinical, and virological levels.

… I have reached out to donor countries, to UNITAID, to the GAVI Alliance, the World Bank and others to mobilize resources.

Bonanza for the Pharmaceutical Conglomerates

Big Pharma has been identified by the WHO as the solution to the crisis:

“I [the WHO Director-General] have reached out to companies manufacturing antiviral drugs to assess capacity and all options for ramping up production. I have also reached out to influenza vaccine manufacturers that can contribute to the production of a pandemic vaccine.”

The swine flu pandemic constitutes a corporate bonanza for a handful of BioTech conglomerates. The European Union has already given the green light to work with Big Pharma to develop a vaccine against the swine flu.

Examination of the Evidence

The data used to justify a Worldwide level 5 alert is extremely scanty. The WHO not only asserts that a “global outbreak of the disease is imminent”, it also distorts Mexico’s mortality data pertaining to the swine flu pandemic. According to the WHO Director General Dr. Margaret Chan in her official April 29 statement: “So far, 176 people have been killed in Mexico”. From what? Where does she get these numbers? 159 died from influenza out of which only seven deaths corroborated by lab analysis, resulted from the H1N1 swine flu strain, according to the Mexican Ministry of Health. (For details, see below).

As documented by William Engdahl, the symptoms of swine flu are non specific, similar to those of flu in general. (See William Engdahl, Global Research, April 29, 2009).

Scientific opinion contradicts the WHO official statement:

“Scientists studying the virus are coming to the consensus that this hybrid strain of influenza — at least in its current form — isn’t shaping up to be as fatal as the strains that caused some previous pandemics.

In fact, the current outbreak of the H1N1 virus, which emerged in San Diego and southern Mexico late last month, may not even do as much damage as the run-of-the-mill flu outbreaks that occur each winter without much fanfare.

Mounting preliminary evidence from genetics labs, epidemiology models and simple mathematics suggests that the worst-case scenarios are likely to be avoided in the current outbreak.” (Los Angeles Times, April 30, 2009)

Mexico

Influenza is a common disease. There are millions of cases of influenza across America, on an annual basis.

“According to the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the flu kills up to 2,500 Canadians and about 36,000 Americans annually. Worldwide, the number of deaths attributed to the flu each year is between 250,000 and 500,000″ (Thomas Walkom, The Toronto Star, May 1, 2009)

Most of the reported influenza cases in Mexico do not exhibit the A/H1N1 strain.

From the press reports, most of the Mexican cases of swine flu were “suspected”: they have not been confirmed by an advanced lab examination. The Mexican Minister of Health, José Ángel Córdova confirmed that there were

“2498 serious cases of atypical pneumonia associated with a flu condition” …[which] could be related to the A/H1N1 virus”.

Out of those 2498 cases of influenza, 159 died, of influenza or related ailments, but only seven of these deaths were related to the swine flu, according to the official statement of the Minister of Health.

The figures above are consistent with the overall pattern of influenza observed in Mexico in previous years. “In a normal year, between 6,500 and 7,500 Mexicans die from pneumonia-like diseases” (Ibid)

159 reported deaths  “have been blamed on the outbreak” but the lab reports suggest that the swine flu was the cause of death only in seven out of 159 cases.

For instance, in the Veracruz town of La Gloria where there was an outbreak of acute respiratory infections, out of 450 cases, 35 were tested for the swine flu virus and only one came back positive. (That is a ratio of 1/450)

The press reports are invariably biased. They will quote 152 or 159 deaths from the H1N1 virus, when in fact only seven of these deaths are associated with the A/H1N1 swine flue strain, according to the Minister of Health. The other deaths may be associated with cases of ordinary flu and/or related conditions, but it seems that the reports rarely make the distinction. Moreover, no details were given as to the lab results pertaining to these seven cases.

In the US only one lab in the entire country has the ability to confirm the identify of the virus, namely the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention located in Atlanta.  How many labs are there in Mexico which have the ability to confirm the identify of the virus?

According to reports, samples are being sent to Mexico’s National Institute of Epidemiological Diagnosis and Reference, which then forwards them to government labs in the US and Canada. What this suggests is that there is no lab based analysis which documents the relatively large number of suspected cases. According to the Minister’s statements, the laboratory analysis pertaining to the 159 deaths is being conducted in Mexican labs with the support of the Atlanta based CDCP and that the results are forthcoming.

The US

In the US there have been 109 reported cases of the virus (April 30, 2009), of which only five were hospitalized. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control confirmed that a 23 month child in Texas had died from the swine flu virus, following hospitalisation and clinical examination.

 

U.S. Human Cases of Swine Flu Infection
(As of April 30, 2009, 10:30 AM ET)

States

# of laboratory confirmed cases

Arizona 1 

California 14 

Indiana 1 

Kansas 2 

Massachusetts 2 

Michigan 1 

Nevada 1 

New York 50 

Ohio 1  

South Carolina 10 

Texas 26

Death 1

TOTAL COUNTS

109 cases 1 death

International Human Cases of Swine Flu Infection
See: World Health Organization

Media Disinformation

News reports point to “hundreds of New York schoolchildren reported to have fallen sick with “suspected swine flu“. There was, however, no evidence corroborated by lab examinations of the incidence of the swine flu H1N1 strain. In all likelihood, the children were suffering from the flu, which is part of a common occurrence during the month of April.  “All the cases were mild, no child was hospitalized, no child was seriously ill,” Dr. Frieden said. Health officials reached their preliminary conclusion after conducting viral tests on nose or throat swabs from the eight students, which allowed them to eliminate other strains of flu.”

Tests were conducted on school children in Queen’s, but the tests were inconclusive: among theses “hundreds of school children”, there were no reports of laboratory analysis leading to a positive identification of the influenza virus. In fact the reports are contradictory: according to the reports, the Atlanta based CDCP is the “only lab in the country that can positively confirm the new swine flu strain — which has been identified as H1N1.”  (NYT, April 25, 2009)

Influenza is a common disease. Unless there is a thorough lab examination, the identity if the virus cannot be established.

It is revealing that the Atlanta based CDCP is playing a key role in identifying the virus on behalf of several Latin American countries, including Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Costa Rica. On April 30th, the US government established a CDCP lab in Mexico. In other words, a US government agency is monopolising the conduct of laboratory testing, the data and analysis.

***

Michel Chossudovsky was granted a Project Censored (State University of Sonoma) for his writings on the H1N1` pandemic.

The True Story of the 1918 “Spanish Flu”

April 25th, 2021 by Kevin Barry

For long version of original Kevin Barry article, click this or this.

For over a century, various entities that are involved in the propaganda machinery that has been tasked by the powers-that-be to advance American patriotism and corporate profiteering have covered-up the truth about what actually started the epidemic of  what became known as the “Spanish Flu”, successfully obscuring what was actually a shameful experiment perpetrated by the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research – the uber-wealthy entity that started the American Medical Association and the School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University

For over a century, Americans have been led to believe that what was the true epicenter of the pandemic – US Army military bases – was actually the result of a Rockefeller Instutute vaccine experiment gone awry. The culprit vaccine, nicely documented by author Kevin Barry was perpetrated upon hapless military recruits at a variety of bases in the US. Spain had nothing to do with the epidemic, except for actually allowing its journalists to write about it.

The experimental vaccine was devised when the only vaccine that had ever shown any promise in preventing disease was the smallpox vaccine (which, when evaluated in retrospect, didn’t actually deserve credit for the disappearance of smallpox, since only a small minority of world citizens every actually received the vaccine.)

The crude experimental vaccine was intended to theoretically prevent bacterial (not viral) meningitis in soldiers, which had been a problem in past wars. Barry nicely documents the story that has been left out of the history books, ignored by the Mainstream Media, deleted from the Pentagon archives, and misrepresented by the pharmaceutical and medical industries, the NIH, the CDC, the NIAID and every corporation that seeks to profit from vaccinating as many infants, children and adults that they can. And that includes, of course, the widely discredited Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation that has spent hundreds of billions of dollars funding, founding and subsidizing corporations and other entities that promote universal vaccinations for whatever is proclaimed Big Pharma to be “vaccine-preventable disorders”)

A previous 4261 word Duty to Warn column can be accessed at various websites, including here.

Below are excerpts from the article that was written by author Kevin Barry, whose website is called First Freedoms.

***

By Kevin Barry

“During the war years 1918-19, the US Army ballooned to 6,000,000 men, with 2,000,000 men being sent overseas.  The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research took advantage of this new pool of human guinea pigs to conduct vaccine experiments.”

“During WW1, the Rockefeller Institute also sent its experimental anti-meningococcal serum to England, France, Belgium, Italy and other countries, helping spread the epidemic worldwide.”

“The Rockefeller Institute and its experimental bacterial meningococcal vaccine, contrary to the accepted mythology may have killed 50-100 million people in 1918-1919.”

“The crude anti-bacterial vaccine used in the Fort Riley experiment on soldiers was made in horses.”

“According to a 2008 National Institute of Health paper, bacterial pneumonia was the killer in a minimum of 92.7% of the 1918-19 Pandemic autopsies reviewed.”

“Clean water, sanitation, flushing toilets, refrigerated foods and healthy diets have done and still do far more to protect humanity from infectious diseases than any vaccine program.”

“In 1918, the vaccine industry experimented on soldiers…with disastrous results—but in 2018, the vaccine industry experiments on infants every day. The vaccine schedule has never been tested as it is given.  The results of the experiment are in: 1 in 7 of America’s fully vaccinated children is in some form of special education and over 50% have some form of chronic illness.” The “Spanish Flu” killed an estimated 50-100 million people during a pandemic 1918-19.”

What if the story we have been told about this pandemic isn’t true? What if, instead, the killer infection was neither the flu nor Spanish in origin?

Newly analyzed documents reveal that the “Spanish Flu” may have been a military vaccine experiment gone awry.

Summary

The reason modern technology has not been able to pinpoint the killer influenza strain from this pandemic is because influenza was not the killer.

More soldiers died during WWI from disease than from bullets.

The pandemic was not flu. An estimated 95% (or higher) of the deaths were caused by bacterial pneumonia, not an influenza virus.

The pandemic was not Spanish. The first cases of bacterial pneumonia in 1918 trace back to military bases, the first one in Fort Riley, Kansas.

From January 21 – June 4, 1918, an experimental bacterial meningitis vaccine cultured in horses by the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in New York was injected into soldiers at Fort Riley.

During the remainder of 1918 as those soldiers – often living and traveling under poor sanitary conditions – were sent to Europe to fight, they spread bacteria at every stop between Kansas and the frontline trenches in France.

One study describes soldiers “with active infections (who) were aerosolizing the bacteria that colonized their noses and throats, while others—often, in the same “breathing spaces”—were profoundly susceptible to invasion of and rapid spread through their lungs by their own or others’ colonizing bacteria.” (1)

The “Spanish Flu” attacked healthy people in their prime.  Bacterial pneumonia attacks people in their prime. Flu attacks the young, old and immunocompromised.

When WW1 ended on November 11, 1918, soldiers returned to their home countries and colonial outposts, spreading the killer bacterial pneumonia worldwide.

During WW1, the Rockefeller Institute also sent its experimental anti-meningococcal serum to England, France, Belgium, Italy and other countries, helping spread the epidemic worldwide.

During the pandemic of 1918-19, the so-called “Spanish Flu” killed 50-100 million people, including many soldiers.

Many people do not realize that disease killed far more soldiers on all sides than machine guns or mustard gas or anything else typically associated with WWI.

I have a personal connection to the Spanish Flu.  Among those killed by disease in 1918-19 are members of both of my parents’ families.

On my father’s side, his grandmother Sadie Hoyt died from pneumonia in 1918. Sadie was a Chief Yeoman in the Navy.  Her death left my grandmother Rosemary and her sister Anita to be raised by their aunt. Sadie’s sister Marian also joined the Navy.  She died from “the influenza” in 1919.

On my mother’s side, two of her father’s sisters died in childhood. All of the family members who died lived in New York City.

I suspect many American families, and many families worldwide, were impacted in similar ways by the mysterious Spanish Flu.

In 1918, “influenza” or flu was a catchall term for disease of unknown origin.  It didn’t carry the specific meaning it does today.

It meant some mystery disease which dropped out of the sky.  In fact, influenza is from the Medieval Latin “influential” in an astrological sense, meaning a visitation under the influence of the stars.

*

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 Gary G. Kohls lives in the USA and writes a weekly column, entitled Duty to Warn, for the Duluth Reader, Duluth, Minnesota’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns deal with the dangers of American Friendly Fascism, corporatism, Oligarchy, militarism, racism, malnutrition, and Big Pharma’s over-drugging and over-vaccinating agendas as well as other movements that threaten the environment, democracy, civility, health and the sustainability and livability of the planet and the future of the children. Dr. Kohls is a frequent contributor to Global Research 

Many of Dr Kohls’ columns have been archived at a number of websites, including:

http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2; 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls;

http://freepress.org/geographic-scope/national;

https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/gary-g-kohls/?ptype=article; and

https://www.transcend.org/tms/author/?a=Gary%20G.%20Kohls,%20MD

Americans Are Complacent When It Comes to the Dangers of Nuclear War

April 24th, 2021 by Natylie Baldwin

First published on June 27, 2019

***

In a recent post, I mentioned the Congressional debate over authorizing and funding the use of “low-yield” or usable nukes, which has many worried that the threshold for the utilization of nuclear weapons would be significantly lowered. On June 11th, the Pentagon released its new policy doctrine on war fighting. As Antiwar.com noted, the U.S. has had a difficult time achieving anything resembling military victory in its numerous wars after 9/11 against much less technologically advanced adversaries, so now it appears that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are considering the use of nuclear weapons.

Experts and observers are worried that this is another attempt to get the idea of using nuclear weapons accepted in conflicts where nuclear weapons have not been used first by the opponent – indeed the opponent may not even possess them. According to The Guardian the doctrine was inspired by the theories of Cold War ideologist Herman Kahn, who is believed to have been the inspiration for the iconic Dr. Strangelove character:

The document, entitled Nuclear Operations, was published on 11 June 2019, and was the first such doctrine paper for 14 years. Arms control experts say it marks a shift in US military thinking towards the idea of fighting and winning a nuclear war – which they believe is a highly dangerous mindset.

“Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability,” the joint chiefs’ document says. “Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict.”

At the start of a chapter on nuclear planning and targeting, the document quotes a cold war theorist, Herman Kahn, as saying: “My guess is that nuclear weapons will be used sometime in the next hundred years, but that their use is much more likely to be small and limited than widespread and unconstrained.”

Within a week, the document was removed from the Pentagon’s website, but not before it was downloaded and copied by Steven Aftergood at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), which has made the document available on its website (linked to above under “Nuclear Operations.”)

As Common Dreams added in its reporting on the Pentagon document, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute just released a report pointing out the dangers of the new arms race – estimated at a cost of trillions of dollars – between the world’s nuclear superpowers:

FAS’s publication of the Pentagon document comes just days after the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) released a report (pdf) on the state of military armaments and weaponry across the world. SIPRI found that “despite an overall decrease in the number of nuclear warheads in 2018, all nuclear weapon-possessing states continue to modernize their nuclear arsenals,” making nuclear conflict more likely than the year before.

Earlier this week, a joint poll by YouGov and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists revealed that 1 in 3 Americans would support a preemptive nuclear strike on North Korea if the U.S. discovered that the country had developed a nuclear missile capable of reaching the continental U.S. One could view this as positive that 2/3’s of Americans would not support such an atrocity, but the fact that 1 out of every 3 of my fellow Americans – 1 out of 3 of my neighbors, fellow bus passengers or co-workers – would support it is chilling, especially when the polling found that a significant number would support such a strike even if it killed up to a million North Korean civilians. In reality, it would likely kill many more outside of North Korea if you factor in the effects of nuclear winter, which doesn’t require a lot of nukes to trigger.

The significance of this is brought home to me all the more since I’m at the point in my book where I’m researching the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis in depth. During that time, average Americans had more of a consciousness of the dangers of nuclear weapons. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan was within most adults’ living memory and the fact that an arsenal of much more powerful atomic weapons was in the possession of the two superpower rivals was known and discussed in the news and stories about its dangers were regularly seen in popular culture (the novel and film On The Beach and episodes of The Twilight Zone, for example).

But we don’t seem to have that consciousness – and the fear and disgust that should go along with it – anymore. This, despite the fact that those dangers have not gone away. Both the U.S. and Russia still have over 1,700 nuclear weapons combined on hair trigger alert. With so much antipathy, rancor and distrust having been recklessly stoked by the political class and much of the media toward Russia over relatively minor (and/or false) issues in the big picture – yes, they are minor in the big picture of a nuclear holocaust – don’t give a lot of reason for optimism if a radar error, renegade launch or some escalation spins out of control.

We survived the Cuban Missile Crisis because Kennedy and Khrushchev both had the courage and were allowed the political maneuvering (whatever previous mistakes they both made that led to the confrontation) to hold back their respective hardliners who encouraged escalation. Eyewitness accounts also reveal that both Kennedy and Khrushchev felt visceral fear in the face of what they might unleash. But a remarkably large part of the reason we survived also had to do with dumb luck as historians (and two of the foremost experts on the Cuban Missile Crisis) James Blight and Janet Lang make clear in their 2018 book, Dark Beyond Darkness: The Cuban Missile Crisis as History, Warning and Catalyst.

Blight and Lang have calculated that if the crisis were run 100 times with the same conditions, 95 times it would end in nuclear war.

With the U.S. now having unilaterally abrogated 2 of the 3 nuclear arms control treaties governing the U.S. and Russia’s arsenals and chest-thumping its own nuclear posture, it is demanding that Russia destroy its 9M729 missile, which U.S./NATO claims is in violation of the INF Treaty. Needless to say, Russia is not going to do any such thing – especially after Washington has already withdrawn from said treaty and has placed Aegis nuclear installations in Eastern Europe that can be easily modified as offensive nuclear weapons. Russia is warning of the dangers of another potential crisis reminiscent of the standoff near the shores of Cuba in 1962 if the U.S. doesn’t dump the hubris that has consumed its political class since the 1990’s and has led to this moment.

That hubris is reflected in our actions against Iran, North Korea, and Russia – tearing up critical agreements, issuing dictums, offering nothing in return, and not getting a constructive resolution. Of course, a resolution wouldn’t be desired by the military-industrial-complex or the irrational ideologues who have influence in Washington. There do appear to be people willing to beg trouble on a nuclear war and simply don’t care about the consequences. People addicted to the greed and power associated with the pursuit of such things are like all addicts in that they don’t care about anything accept feeding their addiction. I can’t think of a better explanation for the pathology of these people.

I encourage everyone to read here what Cuban leader Fidel Castro was thinking during the Missile Crisis in 1962, a perspective that isn’t often given much attention – a dangerous omission. It might provide a window into what the leaders of Iran, North Korea and even Russia might be thinking after enduring constant threats and provocations by the most powerful country in the world that’s armed with a large nuclear arsenal.

The potential consequences of Washington’s inflammatory actions against other nations and its inability to engage in cognitive empathy are not benign.

*

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.

Natylie Baldwin is the author of The View from Moscow: Understanding Russia and U.S.-Russia Relations, forthcoming in Autumn of 2019.  She is also co-author of Ukraine: Zbig’s Grand Chessboard & How the West Was Checkmated, available from Tayen Lane Publishing. The book can be purchased in paperback here or electronically here.  Publisher’s page here.

Japan Says Dumping Fukushima Radioactive Water in Pacific Ocean Is Now “Unavoidable”

April 24th, 2021 by Elias Marat

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

***

While Japan last month marked the 10th anniversary of the devastating 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami with solemn ceremonies, the government has also been stressing the successes of its recovery efforts in the country’s northeast.

In truth, however, the country is still coping with the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, which has already cost Japan trillions of yen and whose exclusion zone will require up to 40 more years to fully rehabilitate.

And with contaminated water continuing to build up at the ruined Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga says that the government must finally begin dumping it into the Pacific Ocean.

With nuclear waste and fuel rods still contaminating the area, over one million tons of radioactive waste water continue to seep from the facility, according to The Japan Times, forcing authorities into what Suga describes as the “unavoidable” position of having to dump the water.

Officials claim that the water would be purified to the maximum extent possible, but environmentalist groups like Greenpeace warn that the water contains hazardous material that could damage human DNA and the health of marine life.

Fishers also fear that consumers will refuse to buy fish caught in contaminated waters, worsening their plight amid a restriction of imports from Fukushima prefecture imposed by 15 countries and regions.

Regardless, authorities argue they must deal with the cards that have been dealt.

“What to do with the [treated] water is a task that the government can no longer put off without setting a policy,” Japanese trade minister Hiroshi Kajiyama said on Wednesday.

Suga is expected to formally decide on the course of action by next Tuesday. If he proceeds, authorities will dilute tritium to 2.5 percent of the maximum concentration allowed by the country before it is dumped.

But while Japanese officials say that the water will be safe, it remains an open question whether people will trust their word.

*

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 The Mind Unleashed

Former Pfizer VP Issues Warning: The VaxPass or Vaccine Passport

April 24th, 2021 by Dr. Mike Yeadon

All Global Research articles 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 Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer Dr. Mike Yeadon today related to plans to expand Green Passport implementation with a public plea in which he told America’s Frontline Doctors: “This is Israel now, and the U.K. in just a few weeks.”

His message continues:

Those who think vaccine passports are good or at least ok, I’m addressing you.

If you were a vulnerable person and have been vaccinated, you’re protected. You don’t need to know others’ immune status. Note, even if they’ve been vaccinated, that doesn’t guarantee they can’t carry a single virus particle and donate it to you. So it doesn’t help you or make your safer to know everyone else has been vaccinated.

If you’ve declined vaccination, for example, because you’re not at risk from this virus, noting younger people are at MORE risk from influenza than from COVID-19, you also don’t need to know anyone else’s immune status.

Vaccination protects those who need it. Vaccine passports protect nobody.

But vaxpass is useful to our overlords. It’ll be the worlds first common format database, operable anywhere from Bolton to Bogota, containing your unique digital ID and an editable health status flag (initially about vaccination status).

Who controls that database and any algorithm governing what it permits and denies has absolutely totalitarian control over every aspect of your life.

Imagine a future in which a valid Vaxpass is required to enter a sport ground or museum. Invalid Vaxpass, no entry.

Now imagine the rules are hardened up (they will be). Now you can’t enter large shopping malls or hotels without a valid pass.

Further? Sure, why not. The algorithm is tweaked and now you cannot enter large supermarkets or any public transport.

A tyrannical step might be a Visa/MasterCard tweak that requires a valid Vaxpass BEFORE a terminal will open up for a purchase transaction.

Now you can’t even buy a bottle of water. Or fuel. Or anything.

Ping! Your Vaxpass orders you to report for your top up vaccine. If you don’t, your pass expires. Do you think you’ve got a choice?

Ping! You’re reminded to bring your grandson in, too, as his mother hasn’t. If you don’t, your pass becomes invalid, as does the baby’s mother’s pass. Still think you’ve got a choice?

The fact that I can easily come up with examples must tell you at least that the potential for utterly totalitarian control of the entire population forever lies like a worm at the centre of this beyond-Orwellian future.

It’s not speculative. We’re told this system is about to happen. You’ll be coerced to be vaccinated or you’ll rapidly be marginalised.

Once you’re vaccinated, the limited freedoms they allow you can be withdrawn at any moment.

Don’t kid yourselves that “no one would be this evil”. I refer you to numerous examples during the last century. There are plenty of evil people and the only difference here is SCALE and the irreversible nature of it.

Now you’ve seen what is so easy to do to take complete control of a whole society, you MUST object and find ways to prevent a vaccine passport system from coming into being. By any and all means necessary.

Finally, to those who say this is all a series of unfortunate and incompetent errors, please watch this documentary. Long before you get to the end, you’ll realise, as I did with mounting horror, that this is absolutely not incompetence. It’s rehearsed and exercises like this have been war gamed for years if not decades. It’ll perhaps change your thoughts as to the origins of this mess and crimes.

But please, one thing: do not say you weren’t warned.

*

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.

“Let’s Talk about what Zionism Means to Palestinians”

April 24th, 2021 by Rima Najjar

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

***

For Palestinians, it takes a lot of courage to say, “Let’s talk about what Zionism means to Palestinians… We are not allowed to question the concept of Jewish self-determination in historic Palestine,” as Dima Khalidi, founder and director of Palestine Legal expresses below in an excerpt from a webinar hosted by the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, USACBI, titled: “Weaponizing anti-Semitism: IHRA and Ending the Palestine Exception.” And once we say it, we are not allowed to boost it.

In the two-minute video clip excerpt I boosted, Khalidi is discussing how the IHRA definition entrenches Zionist ideology and answering a question about how that suppresses Palestinian speech (Palestine Legal protects the civil and constitutional rights of people in the U.S. who speak out for Palestinian freedom):

To shield Israel from criticism, to win the rhetorical battle as you say, Professor Falk, and yes, it is intended to legitimize Israel as a Jewish state. It is intended to make it beyond question that Israel is a Jewish state. We are not allowed to question the ideology of Zionism. That’s what the IHRA does. We are not allowed to question the concept of Jewish self-determination in Palestine, in historic Palestine, and this ideology is so entrenched already in the political discourse among the political elite, and I think one of the most important things that IHRA should do is give us the opportunity to say, wait a second, you know, this is really about Zionism. Let’s talk about Zionism. Let’s talk about the foundation of the state of Israel. Let’s talk about what that means for Palestinians and who Palestinians are and what we are. We are working towards our own freedom and self-determination and liberation. so I think that is really one of the main things behind this definition.”

I posted this clip on a Facebook Page I administer called One km to Palestine and boosted it to reach a wider audience with this important message. However, although the ad was reviewed and accepted by Facebook as a post addressing a “political or social issue” for which the Page has been cleared, I received a notification that the ad was shown to “fewer people than would typically see it,” because it contains “a low quality attribute.” That “attribute” turned out to be suppression by “people feedback”, as I learned from the following:

Misleading experiences: When people give us feedback about their experience with advertisers, such as being dissatisfied with advertising and websites that misrepresent products, expected shipping times, customer support experiences and more. Learn more, and, as a reminder, if we detect that an ad violates our Misleading Claims policy, we’ll reject it.

Similarly, a boost of a post about the Deir Yassin massacre is not doing well, and I expect to hear about its “low quality attribute” soon after it runs its course, just as a boost of a post about the 3D reconstruction of the Mughrabi Quarter in Jerusalem and digital mapping of the city with Maryvelma Smith O’Neil was also stopped in its tracks: “LEARN ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE OLD CITY OF #JERUSALEM THAT ISRAEL DESTROYED HOURS AFTER THE JUNE 1967 WAR.”

The website I linked to in the Deir Yassin post was the Palestinian Alternative Path Conference (Masar Badil):

“Together against #Zionism and in support of the Palestinian people’s resistance until liberation and return.” — مؤتمر المَسار الفلسطيني البَديل

As a friend commented, this Facebook practice is “not surprising especially after #Facebook and Instagram appointed Emi Palmor to its Independent Oversight Board. Palmor is a former general director of the #Israeli Ministry of Justice’s Cyber Unit that was responsible for the removal of thousands of pieces of #Palestinian content from Facebook.”

It may not be surprising, but it is certainly galling.

I am a denizen of Facebook in that I spend an inordinate amount of time there. In addition to posting on my profile, I am a member of many Groups and I administer the Page referenced above, One km to Palestine, that has quite a few followers — certainly more than I have here on Medium.

Thoreau once wrote about how the creaking of the crickets reminded him that he was “a denizen of the earth.” He described it as “a sound from within, not without.”

What reminds me I am a denizen of Facebook is the sound from within, the creaking sound of Facebook notifications, which are, to keep borrowing from Thoreau, “at the very foundation of all sound” in Facebook.

Like many on Facebook, I don’t really understand the ebb and flow of that creaking. The whole concept of “algorithms” is a mystery to me. Zionist trolls used to be on the rampage, but Facebook has effectively closed the doors on them. One can “hide all” from troll or “block” troll and that’s the end of it.

When Facebook asked me mindlessly whether I was happy with the suppressed Dima Khalidi post boost I describe above, I “creaked” this response into the void:

“This Page is not a business and the ad was approved as addressing a political/social issue. I don’t understand why it is described as ‘using language that entices people inauthentically to engage with the ad.’ I looked at the examples in the Ads Help Center and they all apply to products not issues. This ad does not seek to deceive the reader in any way; it is an excerpt from a webinar by the Director of Palestine Legal that seeks to educate about an issue central to the Page description.”

The problem is that in the corner of Facebook that has to do with advocacy for Palestinian liberation or preaching the gospel of Zionism, the structure is such that each side is largely preaching to the choir. Furthermore, mechanisms on Facebook meant to chill the Palestinian voice are firmly in place. Boosts offer the chance of stepping outside a little bit.

When I say, “preaching the gospel of Zionism,” I am not using language as metaphor. Zionism as it has manifested in Palestine has now become akin to a religion, and speaking against it is considered by Facebook and much of the world as blasphemy, not to mention antisemitic.

The way, I see it, though, and as I recently posted in One km to Palestine, There is no excuse for Zionism:

One km to Palestine: Zero tolerance for Zionism

NO EXCUSE FOR ZIONISM

Our motto is: Zero Tolerance for Zionism!

The way I see it: Simply put, Zionism in Palestine=Jewish nationalism, Jewish self-determination, Jewish supremacy in Palestine.

If you are an anti Zionist and for one democratic state in Palestine, it follows you are against all that comes after the equal sign, including a bi-national state.

And YES we can, and we will #return.

What would happen now if I try to boost the above post in Facebook? Or a post of this very article for that matter? According to Facebook:

“Pages, ad accounts, and domains that consistently promote low quality ads are more likely to be considered low quality in our system, and as a result, all ads from those entities may be shown to fewer people than would typically see them for their budget.”

As it happens, Mondowiess has also published a story along similar lines:

Facebook censored Palestinians in Gaza from sharing our story with the world

BDS activists in Gaza tried to promote a video on Facebook that compares Israel and apartheid South Africa. The platform rejected the promotion and shadow banned the account. Unfortunately this is not an isolated case.

… Facebook and its platforms rejected a sponsored promotion request for the aforementioned materials after taking no less than 24 hours to consider the request, accepting it for a few hours then shutting it down entirely.

And that’s how the system works when Zionism is at issue. We need “people feedback” on all the ads Facebook publishes glorifying the apartheid Zionist regime in control of Palestine from the river to the sea.

Facebook has grudgingly accepted anti-Zionist speech as long as it portrayed Palestinians as victims, because such language is no threat, as the Zionist so-called narrative excusing the savagery is everywhere.

But with any hint of resistance language that empowers Palestinians and frames the “conflict” as a struggle for liberation and Palestinian self-determination in their own homeland, Facebook comes down on us like a sledgehammer.

*

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.

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Dima Khalidi, founder and director of Palestine Legal (still from “Weaponizing anti-Semitism: IHRA and Ending the Palestine Exception.”

UK Government Has Planned for Vaccine Passports All Along

April 24th, 2021 by Steve Watson

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

First published on April 6, 2021

***

Despite consistently denying it, the UK government has planned for the rollout of vaccine passports all along, prompting charges that the “Covid passes are shrouded in government cover ups, lies and shady contracts.”

Privacy Watchdog Big Brother Watch points to an article in the London Guardian today that details how the vaccine passport system was in advanced stages back in December at the same time as ministers were telling the public there were no plans for them.

The article cites a government report dated 17 December, originating from Swiss-based consultancy firm Zühlke Engineering, the same company involved with the UK NHS track and tracing app.

The Guardian notes that the document “details research into possible public attitudes to a Covid certificate, sometimes called a domestic Covid passport. This would use vaccination status, a recent negative Covid test or proof of coronavirus antibodies to allow people into potentially packed places when the country opens up.”

The report also included diagrams of an app-based Covid certificate with scannable QR codes, all connected to the NHS app.

It almost exactly mirrors how the now official COVID pass looks:

As Summit News also reported in December last year, the British government contracted multiple firms to develop COIVD ‘freedom passports’, that would be used to segregate society between those who have been tested or vaccinated against COVID and those who have not.

Simultaneously, a Deprtment of Health source claimed “It is looking at whether it would be possible,” but urged “There are no plans to introduce immunity passports,”

The plan was always to develop an app based system to integrate a QR code linking to a digital passport, which will be used to gain entry into clubs, venues, cinemas, basically anywhere in public.

As far back as November, we reported on these plans, then in January it became clear that vaccine passports were being rolled out.

Throughout this sorry saga, government ministers have engaged in cognitive dissonance, at once admitting that vaccine passports are being introduced, but then suggesting that they are not actually vaccine passports.

Just over a month ago, it became apparent that the system would apply even to pubs and restaurants.

Then a fortnight ago, Prime Minister Boris Johnson suggested that pubs would be able to use the vaccine passes at their discretion, promoting a huge backlash among landlords and punters.

Johnson then walked back that suggestion last week, announcing that pubs and restaurants would be exempt. The strategy is clear, threaten the worst, then when a bone is offered it appears like a concession has been made, so the people will accept the overall system.

Now, the government has announced that the public will be “urged” to take TWO Covid tests EVERY WEEK in order to reengage in society.

Where does this end?

The answer is with digital face scans to enter pubs, gigs and sports events.

Domestic and international biometric ID systems all eventually interlinked and connected to a Chinese style social credit score system.

It is not too late to stop this nightmare future from unfolding.

UK Ministers are set to vote on the vaccine passport system, and could defeat it, killing off the system, at least in the short term.

Groups such as Big Brother Watch need support in their efforts to stave off a two tier society.

*

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 Pixabay

“Digital Vaccine Passports”: Yes, Bill Gates Said That. Here’s the Proof.

April 24th, 2021 by Robert F. Kennedy Jr

First published on December 14, 2020

***

Gates and his minions insist the billionaire never said we’d need digital vaccine passports. But in a June 2020 TED Talk, Gates said exactly that. Someone edited out the statement, but CHD tracked down the original.

***

Some chiseler altered Bill Gates’ June 2020 TED Talk to edit out his revealing prediction that we will all soon need digital vaccine passports (slide 1). But after considerable effort, we tracked down the original video (slide 2).

Gates’ minions on cable and network news, his public broadcasting, social media and fact-checker toadies all now insist that Gates never said such things. They say he never intended to track and trace us with subdermal chips or injected tattoos.

They dismiss such talk as “conspiracy theories.”

Well, here it is from the horse’s mouth.

In 2019, according to a not-yet-purged Scientific American article, Gates commissioned the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to build an injectable quantum dot dye system to tattoo stored medical info beneath children’s skin. The tattoo was designed to be readable by an iPhone app.

Screenshot: Scientific America, December 18,2019

Gates’ company, Microsoft, has patented a sinister technology that uses implanted chips with sensors that will monitor body and brain activity. It promises to reward compliant humans with crypto currency payments when they perform assigned activities.

Gates also invested approximately $20 million in MicroCHIPS, a company that makes chip-based devices, including birth-control implant chips with wireless on/off switches for remote-controlled drug-delivery by medical authorities.

In July 2019, months before the COVID pandemic, Gates bought 3.7M shares of Serco, a military contractor with U.S. and UK government contracts to track and trace pandemic infections and vaccine compliance.

To facilitate our transition to his surveillance society, Gates invested $1 billion in EarthNow, which promises to blanket the globe in 5G video surveillance satellites. EarthNow will launch 500 satellites allowing governments and large enterprises to live-stream monitor almost every “corner” of the Earth, providing instantaneous video feedback with one-second delay.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation also acquired 5.3 million shares of Crown Castle, which owns 5G spy antennas including more than 40,000 cell towers and 65,000 small cells.

Please make your own copy of these clips — as Gates’ power to disappear inconvenient facts is expanding every digital day.

*

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 F. Kennedy, Jr.’s reputation as a resolute defender of the environment stems from a litany of successful legal actions. Mr. Kennedy was named one of Time magazine’s “Heroes for the Planet” for his success helping Riverkeeper lead the fight to restore the Hudson River.

J & J’s “One Shot and You’re Done Vaccine”:” A New “Experimental” COVID Vaccine. “We Need to Challenge J&J’s Reputation”

April 24th, 2021 by Richard Gale

First published on March 10, 2021

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

***

For decades, according to a Guardian article, “consumers worldwide have named the $347 billion pharmaceutical behemoth Johnson and Johnson (J&J) as one of its most trusted brands.” From its humble beginnings in the 1880s, making cotton gauze dressings and eventually band aids, baby powder and shampoo, J&J  has expanded into one of the most powerful multinational pharmaceutical and medical device companies in the world.  In 1959, it entered the world of Big Pharma as a leading player after succeeding in getting Tylenol approved as an over-the-counter drug.  Shortly thereafter J&J commenced with a flurry of acquisitions to increase its product line, which included Neutrogena, Cordis, DePuy, Janssen Pharmaceutica and Centocor.  Today, in most American home medicine cabinets one will find a popular J&J product:  Listerine, Tylenol and Benadryl, Neutrogena skin cream, Rogaine, Neosporin antibacterial ointment, or Destin to treat diaper rashes.

Now, people are eager for J&J’s “one shot and you’re done” Covid-19 vaccine despite health officials’ fears it may be less effective than Moderna’s and Pfizer’s mRNA competitors. Nevertheless, vaccination centers and pharmacies are racing to get their hands on the new adenovirus-based vaccine.  And as we will further note below, this is from a company that has absolutely no past experience in vaccine development and manufacturing.

However, we need to seriously challenge J&J’s reputation. A 2019 report by the British intelligence firm Alva has noted that J&J’s reputation has sunk dramatically during the past years, from 9th place among 58 major pharmaceutical firms to 57th. Certainly, this is not a company with a clean ethical record.

A review of J&J’s rap sheet over the past three decades presents a dire and contrary image that should lead us to question the company’s claims about its Covid-19 vaccine given the lucrative market the pandemic has created for the most aggressive medical corporations.

Similar to its equally over-sized competitors Glaxo, Merck and Pfizer, J&J too has had to pay out billions of dollars over the decades for civil settlements and criminal activities.  As the pharmaceutical giant receives applause across the mainstream media for the release and FDA emergency approval for its Covid-19 vaccine, Brazil’s Public Prosecution Service started an investigation into J&J’s antitrust activities under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for “possible improper payments in its medical device industry.” This was part of an FBI bribery scheme investigation that included Seimens, General Electric and Philips acting as a larger cartel to illegally payoff government officials in return for securing contracts with Brail’s national health programs.  The charges also include price gouging, inflating prices up to 800 percent the market price to cover bribes.

This is not the first time J&J has violated FCPA laws. In 2011, J&J was charged by the Department of Justice with conspiracy for paying off Greek doctors to advance its product sales.  The SEC also charged civil complaints. The company had to pay out a $70 million penalty for buying off officials in Greece, Poland and Romania. In 2010, an executive for J&J’s subsidiary DePuy was sentenced to a year in prison for corrupt payments to physicians within the Greek national healthcare system.

As one of the world’s leading medical device companies, J&J has had its share of recalls for faulty products including contact lenses and hip implants  In 2013, it paid nearly $2.5 billion to compensate 8,000 recipients for its flawed hip implants  Again in 2016, another $1 billion was awarded to plaintiffs injured from this device.

One particular dubious activity the company became involved with in 2008 was to launch a “phantom recall.”  When its Motrin IB caplets were discovered to not properly dissolve, it hired outside contractors to buy up store supplies in order to avoid making public declaration. No one would have known of this activity and it would have gotten past the eyes of FDA inspectors had the deception not been exposed during a Congressional investigation.

Other major J&J lawsuits and recalls for faulty products include:

  • 1995 – $7.5 million fine for destroying documents to cover up an investigation into wrongful marketing of its Retin-A acne cream to remove wrinkles
  • 1996 – An undisclosed settlement on false claims over condom protection claims to protect against HIV and other STDs.
  • 2000 – J&J’s subsidiary LifeScan was found guilty for selling defective blood glucose monitors and failed to inform the FDA.  All total, $105 million was paid out.
  • 2001 – Paid out $860 million in a class action lawsuit for misleading customers about prematurely discarding its 1-Day Acuvue soft contact lens.  J&J recommended they should only be worn once although it was discovered the lenses were no different than the regular Acuvue lens that would last for two weeks
  • 2010 – $81 million settlement for misbranding its anti-epileptic drug Topamax to treat psychiatric disorders and hiring outside physicians to join its sales force to promote the drug for unapproved conditions.  The following year, J&J paid $85 million for similar charges against its heart drug Natrecor
  • 2011 – Several of its baby products were discovered to contain carcinogenic ingredients
  • 2013 – The US Justice Department charged the company $2.2 billion in criminal fines for marking its autism and anti-psychotic drug Risperdal for unapproved uses. Forty-five states had filed civil lawsuits against J&J in the scandal

Risperdal is  horrendous drug that contributes to rapid weight gain and a condition known as gynescomastia, irregular enlarged breasts in men. Semmelweis reports that J&J’s subsidiary Janssen also had an aggressive campaign to market its use in children with behavioral challenges.  Other serious adverse effects from Risperdal reported by the FDA include diabetes mellitus, hyperprolactinaemia, somnolence, depression, anxiety, psychotic behavior, suicide and death.

The company’s legal problems over Risperdal do not appear to have ended. In October 2019, a Philadelphia jury awarded a man $8 billion in punitive damages for failing to warn that the drug could cause young men to grow breasts. Other recent suits include litigation over its blood thinner Xarelto risks of internal bleeding, and a $775 million settlement to 25,000 plaintiffs.

  • 2016 –  Two women were awarded $127 million in damages for the talc in its J&J Baby Powder causing ovarian cancer.  Later, over 1,000 similar cases came forward. During the trial it was discovered that J&J suspected a link between talcum and ovarian cancer back in the 1970s.  A Missouri verdict fined the company over $4 billion but it was later reduced to $2.1 billion.  A New York Times investigation into internal J&J memos uncovered evidence that the talcum powder may have contained asbestos. These cases continue. In July 2019, J&J made efforts to dismiss 14,000 lawsuits over the talcum-cancer risk.

Image source.

More recently, J&J has been in the spotlight for its role in contributing to the deadly opioid crisis.  The company holds the patent for a unique strain of opium poppy commonly named Norman. It is the leading provider of the opioid for Purdue Pharma’s painkiller OxyContin. An Oklahoma court ordered a $465 million fine. This opened the door for other states to follow suit.  To fully realize how insane the system is, the half a billion dollar civil fine was good news on Wall Street, which anticipated the verdict would be in the billions of dollars. Consequently, J&J’s stock rose 2 percent after the judge’s ruling.  And despite J&J being Purdue’s major supplier, and a major contributor in the US’s opioid epidemic, the latter was forced to file for bankruptcy due to mounting lawsuits for overdose deaths.

Finally, we might ask why a 140 year old company, with no history whatsoever in vaccine development, has now become among the heroes in the immunological war against Covid-19?  J&J is not a household name in the vaccine industry. It is utterly absent, let alone ranks among the world’s 20 major vaccine makers. Among the 53 vaccines for other infections approved and licensed by the CDC, not one is manufactured by the nation’s leader in mouthwash and baby powder.  It is therefore no surprise that the company had to partner with Merck to manufacture its Covid vaccine to meet demand. It has no history or expertise in this medical field.

However, the Covid pandemic is a cash cow for the drug industry’s taking. Bernstein market analyst Ronny Gal predicts Covid-19 vaccine sales will reach $40 billion this year.  A more realistic figure is likely higher since together Moderna and Pfizer project their revenues at $32 billion. Then there are the other major vaccines by AstraZeneca, J&J and Novavax entering the competition.  According to the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine’s vaccine research tracker, over 200 vaccines against Covid-19 are in development worldwide. It is an enormous pumpkin pie and everyone in the medical universe wants a slice from it.  So why shouldn’t we expect a non-vaccine player such as J&J to be eager to leap into the frenzy?

Finally, there is a disturbing question that we have no certain answer for.  How is it that a drug and household health product company, with no prior history in vaccine development, can develop and rush to market its first vaccine against a viral strain that was only identified 14 months ago?  Developing a vaccine requires many years and necessitates the establishment of an R&D infrastructure vastly different than conventional drug development.  The other major companies developing Covid-19 vaccines have been in the business for decades. But not J&J. There is something more to this story that demands investigation.  And if the company’s long rap sheet offers any warning, it is that we must be wary of any claims J&J publicly states about the efficacy and safety of its products.  Especially when the pandemic promise to increase the profits of numerous shareholders.

*

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 Gary Null Show.

Featured image is from Flickr

“Endless Wars”: Biden and US Foreign Policy in the Middle East

April 24th, 2021 by Dr. Dina Y. Sulaeman

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

***

For at least the last twenty years, the United States have constantly been waging wars in the Middle East. On October 7, 2001, George W. Bush began bombing Afghanistan under the pretext of hunting down Osama bin Laden, allegedly the perpetrator of the 911 terrorist attacks.

In 2003, Bush continued his war adventure in Iraq, to ​​the point that the state budget was in deficit and the United States was now heavily indebted. The sum of all outstanding debts by the United States federal government as of March 1, 2021, exceeds $ 28 trillion.

After carrying out an election campaign filled with antiwar narratives and denouncing Republican war policies, Barack Obama then rose to power. Although Obama withdrew most of his troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, the air war continued to expand, mainly using drones. Obama also added special operations forces around the world. In 2016, US specialty operators could be found in 138 countries, increasing by 130% over the Bush era. Obama also supported Saudi Arabia’s attack on Yemen. The Saudi Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir, once said,

“We have British officials and American officials and officials from other countries in our command-and-control centre. They know what the target list is and they have a sense of what it is that we are doing and what we are not doing” (The Guardian,15/1/2916).

Obama’s support to overthrow the Assad government in Syria since 2011 resulted in a prolonged war to this day. The Syrian war represents the greatest hypocrisy of United States foreign policy. The jargon of democracy and anti-terrorism that the US always utters becomes nonsense when at the same time the US is actually providing weapons to Al Qaeda in Syria. As Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said,

“[the U.S. government] quietly supporting allies, partners, individuals and groups who are working directly with al-Qaida, ISIS, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and other terrorist groups by providing them with money, weapons and intelligence support in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government” (NPR, 10/12/2016).

In his eccentric cowboy style, the next president, Donald Trump, promised to “Make America Great Again.” But he ended up increasing his troops in the Middle East, reaching nearly 90,000 soldiers, and continuing his involvement in the Syrian war.

During Trump’s time, the Palestinian Authority has cut off communications with the United States government after Trump unilaterally declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel and moved the US embassy to the holy city. Trump also arbitrarily killed generals Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi Al Muhandis, two figures who played a significant role in the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

This assassination raises the question, doesn’t the US claim to be fighting ISIS, but why were two heroes who went straight to the field fighting their lives against ISIS to be killed? Trump’s action ended in an embarrassing incident, where the most extensive US military base in Iraq, Ain Al Assad, was bombarded by Iran precisely as a form of retaliation.

What about Joe Biden? In his 100 days of his reign, there are several steps by Biden that seem to promise hope. For example, the US has removed at least three Patriot anti-missile batteries from the Gulf region, including one from Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, and reducing its military facilities from the Middle East.

Biden has also stated that he is blocking arms exports to Saudi Arabia (which are used to attack Yemen) and offering Iran to resume nuclear talks. Biden has stated that 2500 military personnel will be withdrawn from Afghanistan from May 1, 2021. However, Biden’s plan needs to be scrutinized.

As Branco Marcetic wrote in Jacobin (16/4/2021),

“If an invading force pulled troops out of the United States but continued bombing and sending covert forces into it, ask yourself if you’d think the war had finished.” The New York Times reported that the Biden administration will likely reinstate the US army with spies, special forces, and private military contractors and the US will continue to use drones to eradicate “suspected terrorists”.

In Syria, the United States Army remains. Middle East Monitor wrote (20/3/2021) that about 90 percent of Syrian oil is under the control of US troops. The total losses suffered by Syria due to losing access to its oil resources reached 92 billion dollars.

In Palestine, the US foreign policy doctrine, namely to equate its national interest with Israel’s national interest, has remained in Biden’s hands. Biden has said he will not change Trump’s decision towards Jerusalem, even though this is a violation of international law, including UN Security Council Resolution 476/1980, which prohibits Israel from taking any legislative and administrative actions that change the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem and this is also a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The position of the United States is undoubtedly very crucial in the political constellation in the Middle East. As Hinnebusch has written in his book, “International Politics of Middle East”, the Middle East countries are generally periphery countries, dependent on core countries (namely Western countries that dominate the Middle East, especially the United States). For this reason, Biden’s foreign policy in the Middle East will significantly affect security in the region.

As President of the United States, Biden should prioritize the interests of his people.

A poll conducted by the Charles Koch Institute in June 2020 showed that 70% of Americans want their soldiers to be sent home from the Middle East.

They want the “endless wars” launched by the United States government in the Middle East to be stopped immediately and that domestic interests be put forward. However, as long as Biden continues the policy of his predecessors, namely continuing various wars in the Middle East, both on the grounds of “fighting terrorism” and protecting Israel, it is unlikely that much change will occur in the region shortly.

*

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. Dina Y. Sulaeman is Director of Indonesia Center for Middle East Studies.

Featured image is CC BY-SA 2.0

Video: Syria to Pay for “Planned Explosion” in Israeli Weapon Factory

April 24th, 2021 by South Front

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

***

On April 20 a large explosion took place in central Israel, at the facility of Tomer, a government-owned defense contractor.

As per the contractor, there were neither damages nor casualties, and the massive mushroom cloud that was seen was a “controlled test.”

The company, Tomer, produces a variety of propulsion systems for various missiles used by Israel.

Videos of the blast were widely shared on social media, prompting speculation that it was the result of a malfunction or sabotage, especially in light of ongoing tension between Israel and Iran. And Tehran’s state media had reports focused on the facility, which led to speculation that it was some form retaliatory attack after the blast in the Natanz facility.

The contractor still maintained that it was all planned, but there were none of the customary warnings in advance of the explosion and no confirmation by either the Ministry of Defense or the company after the fact.

Hours later, after midnight on April 22nd, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) warplanes launched missiles from the skies above the occupied Golan Heights. The targets were located near Damascus and remain unknown.

Syrian Air Defense systems intercepted most of the missiles, and then locked on to the IAF jets and attempted to down them.

This led to a Red Alert in southern Israel and to Syrian Air Defense hitting an open area near the nuclear center in Dimona.

Nearly an hour later, IAF fighter jets circled back and struck a Syrian Air Defense battery, destroying it. Four Syrian Arab Army soldiers were injured in the blast but no deaths were reported.

Separately, in northeastern Syria, a first-of-its-kind incident occurred – a US supply convoy was attacked en route to the Omar oil field on April 21.

The culprit is unknown. Some accused ISIS cells in southeastern Deir Ezzor of carrying out the attack. In neighboring Iraq, however, pro-Iranian forces have been carrying out similar attacks on US supply convoys for more than a year now.

Also, in northeast Syria, in the town of al-Qamishli, heavy clashes broke out between the pro-government Syrian National Defense Forces (NDF) and Asayish, the security wing of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

Asayish claimed that NDF forces attacked one of its checkpoints near the Tayy district in the city.

In the course of the clashes, which lasted until the morning of April 21, Asayish units captured a number of NDF posts. Four fighters of the pro-government force were injured.

The fighting subsided when Russian Military Police intervened. Currently, the two groups are negotiating to restore stability in the town.

*

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

Medical Tyranny on US College Campuses

April 24th, 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).

***

It’s the wrong time for US youths with higher education aspirations in mind. On increasing numbers of US campuses, it’s hazardous to their health and well-being to enroll at colleges and universities whose policies may irreversibly harm them near-or-longer-term.

After Rutgers in March required students to be jabbed with experimental, high-risk, unapproved, rushed to market, DNA altering Pfizer or Moderna mRNA technology that risks irreversible harm to health, a dozen or more US schools of higher education went the same way.

By mandating the above, they’re putting their student body in harm’s way — irresponsibly and recklessly endangering them.

Affected students should transfer to a school that respects their health, and legal right to decide all things related to their well-being.

Schools mandating covid jabs are in breach of federal law and the Nuremberg Code.

The former requires that individuals may “accept or refuse administration of” experimental, unapproved drugs.

According to the Nuremberg Code, voluntary consent is required on all things related to health.

By ignoring the above, US schools that require students to be involuntarily jabbed for covid are in flagrant breach of these standards and contemptuous of the health and rights of their student body.

They include Rutgers, Northeastern, Fort Lewis College, St, Edward’s, Roger Williams, Nova Southeastern, Brown, Cornell, Yale, Columbia, and Columbia College, Chicago.

My esteemed alma mater Harvard University strongly urges students to be jabbed for covid, short of mandating it so far, saying:

“We continue to strongly recommend that you seek vaccination opportunities from all sources available to you to prevent further delay,” falsely adding the following:

“The safety of (covid jabs) is a top government priority (sic).”

Fact: Polar opposite is true, what Harvard suppressed.

Fact: Government mandates and recommendations since last year are intended to inflict harm on individuals following them, not the other way around.

Fact: They’re all about instituting draconian control.

Fact: Experimental covid mRNA technology and vaccines are bioweapons to depopulate the US and other nations of individuals dark forces want eliminated.

Covid jabs “will help protect you from getting” the viral infection (sic).

Fact: Jabs increase the likelihood of being infected. Harvard falsely claimed otherwise.

“(Y)ou may experience some side effects after receiving the injection (sic).

“This is a normal sign that your body is building protection (sic).”

Fact: Toxic jabs risk serious harm to health and no protection.

Fact: The more jabs, the greater the risk.

Fact: Jabs risk contraction of any number of serious diseases short-term or later on.

Fact: For the elderly with weak immune systems, allergic individuals and others, they can kill.

“The cost of the vaccine is covered by the government.”

Fact: To encourage mass-jabbing, US dark forces are incentivizing uninformed Americans to self-inflict harm.

Covid jabs “are one of many important tools to help us stop this pandemic (sic).”

“Once you’ve received your jab, continue to wear your mask and socially distance in public places (sic).

Fact: No pandemic exists, just normal annual outbreaks of seasonal flu-renamed covid to scare us into self-inflicting harm by following draconian mandates and recommendations.

Fact: Masks don’t protect and risk serious harm to health when worn longterm.

Fact: Social distancing provides no protection. It undermines normal interactions — essential to every day life.

Fact: It’s unnecessary and destructive of interpersonal relations, while providing nothing beneficial.

Voice of America, part of the US worldwide propaganda system, falsely said the following:

“The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved use of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines (sic).”

False on two counts! These drugs are NOT vaccines.

They’re hazardous, experimental, unapproved DNA altering mRNA technology — given emergency use authorization when no emergency exists.

According to American College Health Association’s Covid Task Force co-chair Gerri Taylor:

“We would love for all our students to be vaccinated before they go home to either places in the US or places in other countries, because if they go there unvaccinated, they could actually carry the virus to their families and communities (sic).”

All of the above claims are part of the most widespread ever state-sponsored mass deception campaign to convince maximum numbers of unwitting people to follow a high-risk with no reward protocol.

Protecting and preserving health requires rejecting it.

Above all, it’s vital to health and well-being to refuse being jabbed with what’s unneeded and may cause irreversible harm if used as directed.

When I was on campus long ago — circa 1950s — nothing remotely like the above existed.

In college and graduate school, I recall no health-related mandates of any kind.

None should exist today beyond encouraging students not to self-inflict harm by following good health practices — not the other way around like what’s going on today.

A Final Comment

According to draconian Yale and Columbia diktats, students unwilling to be jabbed for covid will be barred from classrooms and prohibited from coming on campus — except for those with medical, religious or other exemptions.

Unacceptable policies instituted by the above colleges and universities  may likely be mandated at many others in the coming weeks and months.

Instead of protecting students, they’ll be harmed near-or-longer-term, proving what’s unthinkable.

In the US, higher education is becoming hazardous to students instead of protecting and preparing them for endeavors they seek to pursue.

*

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/

Featured image is from OffGuardian

US Seeks South China Sea Conflict

April 24th, 2021 by Tony Cartalucci

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

***

Despite hopes by some that with Joe Biden a new US foreign policy will follow – US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has reaffirmed Washington’s committment to seeking conflict in the South China Sea under the guise of “standing with Southeast Asian claimants.”

Reuters in their article, “US stands with SE Asian countries against China pressure, Blinken say”  would claim:

Secretary Blinken pledged to stand with Southeast Asian claimants in the face of PRC pressure,” it said, referring to the People’s Republic of China.

China claims almost all of the energy-rich South China Sea, which is also a major trade route. The Philippines, Brunei, Vietnam, Malaysia and Taiwan have overlapping claims.

The United States has accused China of taking advantage of the distraction of the coronavirus pandemic to advance its presence in the South China Sea.

The US announcement confirms that a confrontational posture toward China will continue regardless of who occupies the White House – as US tensions with China are rooted in unelected  Western special interests and their desire to remove China as a competitor and potential usurper in what US policy papers themselves call “US primacy in Asia.”

US Primacy in Asia

One such paper titled, “Revising US Grand Strategy Toward China,” published by the Council on Foreign Relations in 2015 not only spelled out the US desire to maintain that primacy in Asia vis-a-vis China, but also how it would use overlapping claims in the South China Sea as a pretext to justify a continued – or even expanded military presence in the region and as a common cause to pressure China’s neighbors into a united front against Beijing.

The paper would note specific US goals of militarizing Southeast Asia and integrating the region into a common US-led defense architecture against China.

It is a policy built upon the US “pivot to Asia” unveiled as early as 2011 and a policy that has been built upon in turn during the last four years under the Trump administration – demonstrating the continuity of agenda that permeates US foreign policy.

Turning Disputes into Conflict 

Maritime disputes are common throughout the world – even in the West.

Just at the end of last year, the Guardian in an article titled, “Four navy ships to help protect fishing waters in case of no-deal Brexit,” would report:

Four Royal Navy patrol ships will be ready from 1 January to help the UK protect its fishing waters in the event of a no-deal Brexit, in a deployment evoking memories of the “cod wars” in the 1970s.

The 80-metre-long armed vessels would have the power to halt, inspect and impound all EU fishing boats operating within the UK’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which can extend 200 miles from shore.

In terms of such disputes, the waters of the South China Sea are no exception.

Not only does China have overlapping claims with the nations mentioned in the Reuters article – each nation listed has overlapping claims with one another.

This results in sporadic disputes between all of these nations – occasionally resulting in the seizing of  vessels and the temporary detaining of boat crews.

However – these disputes are regularly settled through bilateral methods – including disputes between Southeast Asian nations and China itself.

A high-profile example of this unfolded in 2015 where a US-led legal case was brought to the Hague on behalf of the Philippines regarding Chinese claims over the South China Sea.

While the Hague ruled in the Philippines’ favor – Manila declined to use the ruling as leverage against Beijing or to seek Washington’s assistance – and instead pursued bilateral talks with Beijing directly on its own.

It is a case that demonstrates the desire by Washington to escalate what are ordinary maritime disputes, into a regional or even international crisis – not unlike the US’ strategy in the Middle East which it uses to justify its perpetual military occupation there.

More recently the issue of the South China Sea has come up at ASEAN Summits.

Al Jazeera in its article, “ASEAN summit: South China Sea, coronavirus pandemic cast a shadow,” would cite Malaysia’s take on the issue, noting:

“The South China Sea issue must be managed and resolved in a rational manner,” Malaysia’s Foreign Minister Hishammuddin Hussein told the meeting. “We must all refrain from undertaking activities that would complicate matters in the South China Sea. We have to look at all avenues, all approaches to ensure our region is not complicated further by other powers.”

While the US poses a champion for Southeast Asia – it is clear that its efforts are unwelcome and viewed instead as a source of instability – not a path toward resolution. It is almost certain that it is Washington the Malaysian foreign minister was referring to when he mentioned “other powers.”

Just as the US nominated itself as protector of European “energy security” in its bid to obstruct the Russian-German Nord Stream 2 pipeline – the US has inserted itself into relatively routine maritime disputes in the South China Sea – not to “stand with” the nations of the region, but to serve as an excuse to impose its “primacy” over them.

The nations of Southeast Asia count China among their largest trade partners, sources of tourism, and for several – a key military and infrastructure partner. The prospect of a regionally destabilizing conflict originating over long-standing disputes in the South China Sea benefits no one actually located in Asia – and only serves the interests of those beyond Asia seeking to divide and reassert their rule over it.

*

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.

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from NEO

Seven Reasons Why a Vaccine Passport (Pass, Certificate or Whatever They Want to Call It) Should Give Us Pause for Thought

April 24th, 2021 by Nick Corbishley

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

***

Vaccine passports (or passes or certificates) are being rushed through around the world, including in places where most people have not even been able to get a vaccine yet. They are being touted as a way of jump-starting the global economy by providing a means for people to prove their vaccinated status, allowing them to travel, shop, go to the gym, attend sporting and cultural events and conduct other indoor activities. Countries like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore have already introduced vaccine passports in the last couple of months.

Of course, the use of the word “passport” is deceptive. “Passport” implies a document endorsed by a state that establishes citizenship and guarantees diplomatic protection. A traditional passport does not require the bearer to participate in a vaccine program, although immunity certificates have existed for diseases such as Yellow Fever. Another difference is that a vaccine passport is likely to come in the form of a digital document. The potential scope of its application is also far broader than that of a normal passport. It could be required not only to establish identity and vaccine status at national borders but also to travel, access public buildings and basic services within one’s own country of residence.

In countries that already have an established national health service, such as the UK and Israel, the vaccine passport has been mandated at state level. In the US tech and health-care companies are firmly in the driving seat. At least 17 alternative programs are currently under development. As for the EU, it has proposed issuing “digital green certificates” that would allow EU residents to travel freely across the 27-nation bloc by the summer as long as they have been vaccinated, tested negative for COVID-19 or recovered from the disease. It’s worth noting that the EU has been studying the feasibility of creating a common EU vaccination card since early 2019.

International Initiatives

There are also initiatives taking place internationally such as the Smart Vaccination Certificate Working Group, whose partners include WHO, UNICEF, ITU and the European Commission. The group “is focused on establishing key specifications, standards and a trust framework for a digital vaccination certificate to facilitate implementation of effective and interoperable digital solutions that support COVID-19 vaccine delivery and monitoring, with intended applicability to other vaccines.”

Another initiative is the CommonPass digital health app being developed by the Commons Project Foundation (CPJ), which was founded by the Rockefeller Foundation and is supported by the World Economic Forum. The CommonPass is both a framework and an app that “will allow individuals to access their lab results and vaccination records, and consent to have that information used to validate their COVID status without revealing any other underlying personal health information.”

Then there’s ID2020, a nongovernmental organization that advocates for digital IDs for the billion undocumented people worldwide and under-served groups like refugees. In 2019, ID2020 launched a new digital identity program in collaboration with the government of Bangladesh and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI). It is now involved in the Good Health Pass Collaborative, “an open, inclusive, cross-sector initiative, bringing together leading companies and organizations from the technology, health, and travel sectors”.

Pause for Thought

Some of these initiatives are already being piloted by companies, including airlines, and local or regional authorities. All Nippons Airways has started a test of the CommonPass on its flights from Tokyo Haneda to New York. Last week New York unveiled its Excelsior pass, which is based on technology from IBM. Other states are likely to follow suit. France has also just completed a month-long trial of a health passport app for Air France passengers travelling to Martninique and Guadeloupe.

The speed at which these initiatives are being rushed out should give pause for thought. Just as with contact tracing apps, the rollout is haphazard and rife with conflicts of interest. The technology is unproven and the privacy issues are glaring. Below are seven reasons why I believe vaccine passports should worry us. Perhaps you can think of more.

1. We still don’t know how effective or safe the vaccines are. The ostensible goal behind the vaccine passport is to provide proof that a person has taken an officially approved vaccine and therefore poses less of a contagion risk. Yet we still don’t know just how effective or safe each vaccine is. Naturally, the efficacy levels of each vaccine vary. As WHO itself concedes, there is still uncertainty over whether inoculation actually prevents transmission of the virus.

We also have no idea how long the immunity — partial or otherwise — provided by each vaccine lasts. What’s more, some of the vaccines appear to have reduced efficacy against some variants, including the B.1.351 strain (originally identified in South Africa).

It’s not just the potential lack of efficacy that should have us worried. There are also big safety concerns. Numerous adverse reactions have already been reported around the world. In the case of the vaccines developed by AstraZenecaand Johnson & Johnson, concerns about blood clotting side effects have led some countries to restrict or even suspend their use.

In the US, the latest VAERs data released on April 12 showed over 46,000 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines. Women have been disproportionately affected, accounting for 77% of cases. Many are experiencing abnormal menstruation, raising fears that the vaccines could even affect fertility.

2. Vaccine geopolitics. To all intents and purposes the West is already locked in a new cold war with China and Russia. Tensions are escalating on an almost daily basis. Against such a backdrop, it’s hardly beyond the realms of possibility that at some point down the line countries or companies in the West will refuse to recognise vaccines certificates that are based on Russian or Chinese vaccines, and vice versa. The justifications for doing so will grow as bad news continues to emerge about the efficacy and safety of vaccines.

Over the past weekend Western news sources reported that George Fu Gao, director of the Chinese Center for Disease Prevention and Control, had publicly acknowledged that Chinese-made vaccines currently offer low efficacy against the virus. “We will solve the issue that current vaccines do not have very high protection rates,” he said, adding that adjusting the dosage or sequential immunisation and mixing vaccines might boost efficacy.

Since then China has backtracked on the comments. But the episode nonetheless raises serious questions for those nations relying heavily on the Chinese jab, including many in Latin America. If Chinese vaccines are not as effective as originally thought, it’s perfectly feasible that some countries in the West will refuse to acknowledge vaccine passes sporting the name of a Chinese vaccine. As such, rather than freeing up global travel, vaccine passports could up erecting new barriers.

3. The potential for mission creep. To begin with, SMART Health Cards are likely to include a person’s complete name, gender, birth date, mobile phone number, and email address in addition to vaccination information. But although advertised as digital vaccination records, they are clearly intended to be used for much more. Public information on the protocol notes that SMART Health Cards are “building blocks that can be used across health care,” including managing a complete immunization record that goes far beyond COVID-19 vaccines, sharing data with public-health agencies, and communication with health-care providers.

The framework is unlikely to be limited to health-care information. The use of the term “digital wallet”, both by the Vaccine Collective Initiative and IBM, to refer to their different digital health passes suggests that economic activity could become an integral part of the frameworks’ functions. The developer of the Vaccine Collective Initiative’s SMART Health Cards framework at Microsoft Health, Josh C. Mandel, hinted in a recent YouTube presentation that SMART Health Cards could soon be used as IDs for commercial activity, such as renting a car.

That this is all happening as central banks around the world are busily laying the foundations for central bank digital currencies, or CBDCs as they’ve come to be known, raises the specter of digital vaccine passports being used as a vehicle for the creation of a purely digital currency system to replace physical coins and notes. That’s not to say this will happen but it is a possibility. If the vaccine passport does become a digital currency wallet and cash is eliminated, opting out will be much harder. And opting in will leave us subject to levels of surveillance and control that were heretofore unthinkable.

4. Creating a two-tier society/world. Since its very inception Covid-19 has been a pandemic of inequality. This is particularly true in Israel, which was already a two-tier society long before Covid came along. It recently became the first country to launch a nationwide vaccine passport scheme, the so-called Green Pass. But its intended target is Israelis, not Palestinians. According to The Guardian, just over 4% of the 5 million Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip have so far received vaccines. Active Covid cases are back near historic highs while in the rest of Israel they are at their lowest level since last June.

Vaccine passports could end up exacerbating social divisions wherever they are used. Those who have access to vaccines can return to some semblance of normal life while those who don’t find themselves left even further out in the cold. This will happen not just within countries but between countries. As the Israeli economy reopens, Palestinians face arguably even more restrictions on their movement and activities than before Covid. But it’s not just Palestinians who are finding themselves being treated as second class citizens; so too are Israelis who refuse to take the vaccine, on religious, ethical or health grounds. Without Green Passes, they are unable to enter certain places or participate in certain activities.

Over time, as life gets more difficult for these people, the pressure to get the jab will grow. At least that’s what vaccine passport proponents like Joan Costa-Font of the London School of Economics are hoping.

“Vaccine passports can be used as an incentive to change behavior. They not only provide some direct benefits, but they signal what society expects from individuals. They exemplify a social norm that individuals are expected to comply with.”

But coercing people to take the vaccine could have the opposite effect, warns an opinion piece in the BMJ:

All in all, there are reasons to conclude that vaccine passports for basic activities may actually undermine vaccine rollout by disincentivising the very populations who most need incentivising. Closer inspection of the Israeli “green pass” scheme serves to reinforce this message. The evidence for passes increasing vaccination uptake is weak, while suspicions of compulsion and reports of people barred from workplaces for not being vaccinated have “resulted in antagonism and increased distrust among individuals who were already concerned about infringement on citizens’ rights.”

5. Loss of bodily autonomy and integrity. Forcing an experimental vaccine upon someone who doesn’t want it clearly contravenes their right to bodily autonomy and integrity.  According to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, “everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity. In the fields of medicine and biology, the following must be respected in particular: the free and informed consent of the person concerned, according to the procedures laid down by law.”

If bodily autonomy and integrity are indeed fundamental human rights, then the issuance of COVID vaccine passports should hinge on the informed consent of the individual and not mandatory adoption, as has been proposed in France, or coercion (and yes, denying people access to basic services is a form of coercion). This is particularly true in the case of vaccines that are approved merely on an emergency use basis.

6. Most governments and tech giants have already shown they cannot be trusted with our most valuable data. Vaccine passports raise huge privacy concerns. Data-hungry companies like Microsoft, a member of the Vaccine Credential Initiative, will be given new opportunities to track our daily movements and activities and share that data with third parties. There are also major concerns about data security. If recent history has taught us anything, it is that no data — no matter how private or precious — is completely secure.

A vaccine certificate is likely to include our most precious data of all: our biometric data. And it is unlikely to be safe. As Peter Yapp, ex-deputy director of UK GCHQ’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) recently warned, building yet another centralised database to store even more of our personal data would create even more opportunity for hackers and cyber criminal organizations to plunder our data:

“Centralised databases means you’re putting a lot of data in one place so it becomes an attractive target for hackers and the like so it’s like a honeypot – it attracts people in and they’re going to have a go because there is so much data… As a software engineer, I know all software has bugs. Bugs create security vulnerabilities, that’s why it’s a terrible idea to gather together so much data of such importance in one place. This is one more nail in the coffin in the idea of Covid certification.”

7. Whatever the politicians might say, a vaccine certificate will be permanent. When the vaccine certificate debate reached fever pitch in the UK last week the Conservative Party tried to assuage voter fears by insisting that the certificate would be temporary.

“It will be time limited and I think the duration of the scheme will be measured in months,” one unnamed insider said. “The party will not wear any longer.”

This is from the same government that publicly insisted for months that it was not even considering vaccine certificates while in private it was examining how they could be used. After going to all the trouble and expenditure to create a digital ID system whose applications and uses can be expanded at ease, there’s no way in the world that the UK government is going to just hand it all back a few months later. As history has taught us time and again, whenever governments reward themselves new temporary powers, they usually find it painfully hard to relinquish them. Such will no doubt be the case with the vaccine passport, pass, certificate or whatever they want to call it.

*

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 Children’s Health Defense

Earth Day 2021: Hope Illusions and Daunting Realities

April 23rd, 2021 by Michael Welch

“We’re here at this summit to discuss how each of us, each country, can set higher climate ambitions that will in turn, create good paying jobs, advance innovative technologies, and help vulnerable countries adapt to climate impacts. We have to move. We have to move quickly to meet these challenges.”

– U.S. President Joe Biden, opening of Virtual climate summit, April 22, 2021 [1]

.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

On Thursday April 22, U.S. President Joe Biden hosted a virtual climate summit attended by 40 other world leaders. [2]

In his opening speech given from the East Room of the White House he earnestly indicated a pledge to rework the country into a new clean economy. He would be devoting efforts to electrifying the system, abandoning oil and gas wells and coal mines and giving workers jobs making electric vehicles, installing and maintaining hundreds of thousands of vehicle charging stations, and engineering and constructing green hydrogen and carbon capture plants. His goal was “to cut greenhouse gases in half, in half by the end of this decade.” [3]

Bold statements, at least judged in relation to his predecessors. [4] But will even that be enough? Reports in this regard are rather disturbing.

According to measurements from the National Snow and Ice Center, from 1978 to 2021, the amount of ice melting at the polar ice cap has melted at a rate of 2.6 per decade, or 39,700 square kilometers. Over the entire 43 year period, that equates to 1.67 million square kilometers – roughly, that’s a loss of sea ice equivalent to the size of the state of Alaska! [5]

In a Siberian-Arctic coast, in the region 150 kilometres north of the Laptev Sea, Russian and Swedish researchers from the ISSS-2000 expedition documented elevated levels of methane at sea level. Methane is a greenhouse gas 80 times greater than carbon dioxide, and there are immense beds of these in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf.[6]

Meanwhile, according to a recent report by Ceballos, Ehrlich and Raven in Proceeding of National Academy Sciences, the sixth mass species extinction is accelerating. [7]

For all our annual commitments of fighting climate change, all signs seem to suggest that our species is verging even closer to our biological annihilation. After 50 years in the U.S. since Earth Day was entrenched as an annual ritual, how fundamentally will we have to change our approach in order not to fulfill Einstein’s definition of insanity? The Global Research News Hour hopes to find alternatives to the solutions on offer this past half century.

Our first guest, Cory Morningstar, addresses the question of the role played by the Non-Profit Industrial Complex, how it has increased its grip on those out to protect the Earth, and how the COVID-19 ‘pandemic’ has increased the trend toward environmental action as the Green Billionaires would like to see it.

Our second guest, Dr Andrew Glikson, introduces some of the developments in Climate Science leading us to a more daunting prospect toward climate hope.

Cory Morningstar is an independent investigative journalist, writer and environmental activist, focusing on global ecological collapse and political analysis of what she calls the non-profit industrial complex. She resides in Canada. Her writings can be found on Wrong Kind of Green, The Art of Annihilation, Political Context, Canadians for Action on Climate, Change and Countercurrents.

Dr Andrew Glikson studies Earth and Paleo-climate science, works at Australia National University (ANU) School of Anthropology and Archaeology, ANU Planetary Science Institute, and ANU Climate Change Institute, and is Honorary Associate Professor, Geothermal Energy Centre of Excellence, University of Queensland. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 313)

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://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/joe-biden-kamala-harris-earth-day-speech-transcript-leaders-summit-on-climate-session-1
  2. https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/22/politics/white-house-climate-summit/index.html
  3. https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/joe-biden-kamala-harris-earth-day-speech-transcript-leaders-summit-on-climate-session-1
  4. https://truthout.org/articles/biden-opens-climate-summit-with-pledge-to-cut-us-emissions-in-half-by-2030/
  5. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
  6. https://www.pnas.org/content/118/10/e2019672118
  7. https://www.pnas.org/content/117/24/13596

Selected Articles: To Jab or Not to Jab

April 23rd, 2021 by Global Research News

The Prospect of a Major False-Flag Operation in the Middle-East Grows by the Day: Remembering June 8th, 1967 the Day Israel Attacked the USS Liberty

By Timothy Alexander Guzman, April 23 2021

So why would a supposedly staunch US ally do such a thing against one of its most loyal servants? Was it an accident or was it a failed false-flag operation?

To Jab or Not to Jab

By Nowick Gray, April 23 2021

The pro-vax message rules the media airwaves, guidance from government and health authorities, social media gatekeeping, and many company policies. Conversely, to question that agenda, or even to “hesitate” for the sake of caution, risks personal abuse and outright censorship, citing a threat to public safety.

Joe Biden: Who is the “Killer President”?

By Christopher Black, April 23 2021

On March 18th President Biden made the absurd accusation that President Putin is “a killer,” an insult not only to President Putin, but to all of Russia.

Video: Experimental Gene-based Injections: “An Urgent Warning to the World” by Dr. Mike Yeadon

By Dr. Mike Yeadon and Perspectives on the Pandemic, April 23 2021

Two of the experimental gene-based injections have been paused or halted, and reports of clotting, stroke, anaphylaxis, miscarriage, Bell’s Palsy, and a host of other neurologic and auto-immune disorders plague the others. And those are just the short-term risks.

The Failure of Imperial College Lockdown Modeling Is Far Worse than We Knew

By Phillip W. Magness, April 23 2021

A fascinating exchange played out in the UK’s House of Lords on June 2, 2020. Neil Ferguson, the physicist at Imperial College London who created the main epidemiology model behind the lockdowns, faced his first serious questioning about the predictive performance of his work.

William Shakespeare and the New World Order: “Hell is Empty and all the Devils are Here”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 23 2021

William Shakespeare’s birthday: he taught us never to despair in our resolve to confront the Lie. “to unmask falsehood and bring truth to light”. War criminals in high office are celebrated as messengers of peace: “And thus I clothe my naked villany. And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.” (Shakespeare, the words of King Richard III)

Vaccine Refusal

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, April 23 2021

If it’s determined that unvaccinated individuals need to be penalized socially, financially or otherwise, then how can we not also penalize other choices that significantly add to the COVID-19 burden?

Russia’s Red Lines, Weaponizing Ukraine for War

By Stephen Lendman, April 23 2021

Ukraine is a virtual US military base along Russia’s border — a high-risk flashpoint for possible hot war in Europe’s heartland. US dark forces installed and control Kiev’s pro-Western puppet regime — a Nazi-infested fascist police state hostile to the rule of law and all things Russia. Moscow has red lines not to be crossed.

Biden’s Appeasement of Hawks and Neocons Is Crippling His Diplomacy

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, April 23 2021

President Biden took office promising a new era of American international leadership and diplomacy. But with a few exceptions, he has so far allowed self-serving foreign allies, hawkish U.S. interest groups and his own imperial delusions to undermine diplomacy and stoke the fires of war.

Forgotten War Crimes: NATO’s 1999 Attack on Serbia’s State TV Headquarters “Wiped from the Record”

By Shane Quinn, April 22 2021

On 23 April 1999, a NATO missile attack on Radio Television of Serbia (RTS) headquarters killed 16 employees of the state broadcaster. The forgotten war crime occurred during the Kosovo War (March 1999-June 1999), and was part of NATO’s aerial campaign alongside the US-backed Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA).

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: To Jab or Not to Jab

Russia Begins Withdrawing Forces Near Ukraine’s Border. Shelling of Donbass by Ukrainian Forces

April 23rd, 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).

***

Russian forces near Ukraine’s border have been engaging in regularly scheduled military exercises. They’re also protecting Russian territory from possible cross-border spillover of US-orchestrated Kiev aggression against Donbass. 

On April 22, Russia’s Defense Ministry announced the following:

Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu “decided to complete a sudden check of the combat readiness of the troops of the Southern and Western Military Districts, since all the goals set have been achieved,” saying:

“The troops demonstrated the ability to provide a reliable defense of the country.”

He ordered them returned to their “permanent deployment points to conduct a detailed analysis and to sum up the results of the sudden check.”

Separately, he said “military activity of the NATO bloc is significantly increasing in this region.”

“Reconnaissnce activities are intensifying. The intensity and scale of operational training activities are increasing.”

“We are closely monitoring the transfer of alliance troops to the area of the upcoming Defender Europe 2021 exercise.”

“Coordination centers have been established in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria to ensure the meeting of NATO troops and cargo.”

Russia is “ready for an immediate response in case of (an) unfavorable development in the areas of the Defender Europe exercise.”

During drills, Russian “servicemen showed a high level of professional training.”

“Formations and military units have fulfilled the standards for bringing to the highest level of combat readiness, moving over long distances, creating groupings of troops and forces, and successfully complete combat training missions by them,” Shoigu stressed.

Returning Russian forces to their bases will begin Friday — to be completed by end of April.

Released video footage showed Russian troops storming Crimean beaches as part of simulated war games, a statement saying:

Exercises “practice(d) tasks of landing troops and overcoming the anti-landing defenses of the conditional enemy.”

According to Russia’s Defense Ministry, drills involved over 60 warships and other vessels, more than 10,000 troops, about 200 warplanes and other aircraft, along with hundreds of military vehicles.

In response to Russia’s Defense Ministry announcement, Ukraine’s pro-Western puppet president Zelensky tweeted the following:

“The reduction of troops on our border proportionally reduces tension.”

“Ukraine is always vigilant (sic), yet welcomes any steps to decrease the military presence and deescalate the situation in Donbass (sic).”

“Ukraine seeks peace (sic)” while it shells Donbass daily.

“Grateful to international partners for their support.”

No threatened Russian invasion exists now, earlier, or looking ahead.

The US and its proxy Ukrainian fighters bear full responsibility for aggression on Donbass.

On Wednesday, the Donetsk People’s Republic News Agency reported that Ukrainian forces shell its territory daily.

Yesterday, “Ukrainian forces reportedly fired grenade launchers at the Shakhta Trudovskaya and Staromikhaiilovka settlements earlier in the day,” it said.

Separately on Thursday, DPR head Denis Pushilin said everything Russian is being “destroyed” in territory controlled by Kiev, adding:

After the Obama/Biden regime’s 2014 coup, “Donbass built the first defense line, but not only on the contact line.”

“Donbass protects its land, homes and families and the whole Russian world from Ukrainian aggression.”

“I want to firmly state that we’re resolved to protect the rights and interests of Russians living in the remaining part of Ukraine.”

On Wednesday, Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) head Leonid Pasechnik said the following:

“In response to Kiev’s criminal laws on the Russian language ban and internment of Russians, we are ready to give our legal support to those whose rights are infringed upon in Ukraine.”

“The LPR adopted the law on persons subjected to political persecution by Ukraine and runs state humanitarian programs which provide assistance.”

Daily shelling of Donbass by Ukrainian forces shows no signs of easing.

Orchestrated by US dark forces, Zelensky follows orders by Biden regime hardliners.

Escalating war by Ukraine on Donbass could happen any time along Russia’s borders if that’s what they have in mind.

*

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/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia Begins Withdrawing Forces Near Ukraine’s Border. Shelling of Donbass by Ukrainian Forces
  • Tags: ,

To Jab or Not to Jab

April 23rd, 2021 by Nowick Gray

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

***

To Jab or Not to Jab

The topic of COVID-19 vaccination is perhaps the most controversial issue at large today. The pro-vax message rules the media airwaves, guidance from government and health authorities, social media gatekeeping, and many company policies. Conversely, to question that agenda, or even to “hesitate” for the sake of caution, risks personal abuse and outright censorship, citing a threat to public safety.

Therein lies the test for everyone: to assess the facts, the balance of risks and benefits, for the healthiest choice.

Disclaimer: I’m an editor, not a doctor. Therefore what I offer here is not medical advice, but an effort to critique a range of information for the sake of clarity.

Information

First, a note about sources of information. Official pronouncements and mainstream media imply a consensus favoring the vaccine. For example, ImmunizeBC:

“While it’s difficult to definitively say whether or not there are long-term side-effects, the medical and scientific community is confident in the long-term safety of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.”

In fact many medical and scientific experts do not share such confidence, but their dissenting view is not allowed on centralized and censored media and social media platforms. Fortunately we still have free access to a broader range of information and evidence, from peer-reviewed journals and official sources, that is less publicized. Three sites offering comprehensive research are Vaccine Choice Canada.ca, Childrens Health Defense.org, and Americas Frontline Doctors.org.

GlobalResearch.ca and Off-Guardian.org also cover this and other issues with daily updates, analysis and commentary.

From my own research I will summarize what appear to be the main risks and benefits of both choices before us: to jab or not to jab. The word “vaccine” itself is misleading, since the COVID-19 mRNA injection is not a vaccine in the traditional sense, but an experimental synthetic gene therapy.

The main purported benefit of the injection is protection from COVID-19.

ImmunizeBC states: “In the clinical trials, 95% of people had full protection after getting the vaccine.”

But what does that mean? For context, survival rates even after a COVID-19 infection, without vaccination, range from 99.997% (under age 20) to 94.6% (over 70) (CDC).

To opt for the jab means at least trying to beat those odds. Can it deliver?

The CDC states in its guidance for fully vaccinated people that there is a “residual risk of fully vaccinated people becoming ill with COVID-19 or transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to others.” Human rights lawyer P. Jerome reports,

“The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have each publicly stated that the vaccines have NOT been shown to prevent infection or transmission… nor do they prevent symptoms of Covid-19 from appearing.”

The only demonstrated benefit is a possible reduction in one or more symptoms.

A report by America’s Frontline Doctors finds,

“The only group that really may benefit is the advanced elderly, and there is very limited data on efficacy and almost none on safety in this group.” The British Medical Journal reports: “None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.”

BC Health and Island Health still tout the unproven benefit of reduced transmission:

“This not only protects you, but also provides greater protection to everyone around you.”

With greater transparency, Salt Spring Island’s Lady Minto Hospital expresses the cautionary disclaimer that the shot offers “no guarantee of full protection against transmission.”

Without or without vaccines, everyone is still required to continue to mask, distance, and isolate, for fear of transmission. Public officials continue to ignore contrary scientific findings, and previous official statements of their own, that asymptomatic, healthy people are not carriers or transmitters of COVID-19.

Source: WHO, @DrEli David, Twitter

Even though the WHO has reversed their definition of “herd immunity” to depend on the role of vaccines, the Covid-19 therapy fails to achieve that benefit. On the one hand, the WHO states:

“‘To safely achieve herd immunity against COVID-19, a substantial proportion of a population would need to be vaccinated, lowering the overall amount of virus able to spread in the whole population.’

This statement contradicts the WHO’s prior admission that ‘We do not know whether the vaccines will prevent infection and protect against onward transmission’” (Jerome).

Risks

Health Canada gave “emergency” approval to the experimental vaccine with less than six months of trial data. New vaccines typically take 15–20 years of research and trials before going to market. This human experiment, lacking the normal animal studies, retains its “trial” status into 2022-23. The agency admits,

“As with all vaccines, there’s a chance that there will be a serious side effect, but these are rare… less than one time in a million.”

ImmunizeBC, however, lists a one in 100,000 chance of a severe allergic reaction (“anaphylaxis”) from all vaccines; the rate with mRNA Covid vaccines is 25 times higher.

With the Moderna vaccine  there have been over 300 reported anaphylactic shock events and 450 permanent disabilities after vaccination (GlobalResearch).

The FDA/CDC reporting system, VAERS, reports 3000 vaccine-associated deaths, among 60,000 adverse events including 8000 serious injuries. According to CDC, these figures are vastly underreported.

Remember the numerous media stories of hospitals “overwhelmed” by Covid cases? With massive vaccinations underway, former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson says,

“I have now heard from multiple people that VAERS (the vaccine side effect reporting system) is – to be polite – overwhelmed, behind on reports, and hardly functioning.”

Are the benefits worth those risks? In one isolated Kentucky monastery, two nuns died of Covid-19 after receiving the vaccines, despite zero Covid cases in the monastery during the previous ten months. The CDC has admitted that nearly 6000 people “have still come down with COVID-19 after being fully vaccinated, and 74 people fully vaccinated against COVID-19 have allegedly died from COVID-19.” That doesn’t sound like the “full protection” advertised.

Dr. Charles Hoffe reports, in an open letter to BC Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry,

“In our small community of Lytton, BC, we have one person dead, and three people who look as though they will be permanently disabled, following their first dose of the Moderna vaccine… These people were not sick people, being treated for some devastating disease. These were previously healthy people, who were offered an experimental therapy, with unknown long-term side-effects, to protect them against an illness that has the same mortality rate as the flu. Sadly, their lives have now been ruined.”

Reports of post-vax deaths and injuries continue to pour in from around the world, leading to a pause or halt of the vaccine rollout in dozens of countries. Adverse effects include transverse myelitis, Bell’s Palsy, possibly permanent infertility, and blood clots.

In February VAERS showed a third of the Covid vaccine deaths occurred within forty-eight hours of the shot. One possible cause—amplified autoimmunity, also known as pathogenic priming or antibody dependent or immune enhancement—could have devastating long-term as well as short-term consequences.

The risk is potentially much higher upon later exposure. The AFD report cautions,

“Initially all seems well. The person seems to have a great immune response but then [it] becomes deadly when the person is exposed to the virus in the wild.”

While animal trials were skipped for the current “emergency” rollout, previous coronavirus vaccine studies that included trials on cats and ferrets produced widespread deaths. Dr. Mike Yeadon, Pfizer’s former VP, says that two to three years down the road, we may see massive genocide-like deaths from mRNA-type injections.

Source: vaccineinjury.info

It must be emphasized, this so-called Covid vaccine is more accurately described as an experimental gene therapy. Moderna CEO Tal Zaks in 2017laid out the concept of the mRNA vaccine: “introduce a line of code or change a line of code… We are actually hacking the software of life.

”The Moderna website openly boasts of their “technology platform that functions very much like an operating system on a computer…. It is designed so that it can plug and play interchangeably with different programs. In our case, the “program” or “app” is our mRNA drug – the unique mRNA sequence that codes for a protein.”

As these “trials” are ongoing, there is insufficient data on the mid-term or long-term adverse effects, and on combination effects with other medications and health conditions. When you sign up to receive your vaccine, are you giving your fully informed consent to be part of an experimental gene therapy trial… and, quite literally, to become reprogrammed as a genetically modified organism (GMO)—and as such, a pre-patented commodity?

 

Bottom Line: Effective & Safe, or Unnecessary & Risky?

What’s the bottom line on your own benefit–risk analysis?

In areas with little to no actual impact of COVID-19, it is prudent to ask what you are gaining by an experimental injection that promises no immunity nor prevents transmission. Lytton’s Dr. Hoffe concludes, “In stark contrast to the deleterious effects of this vaccine in our community, we have not had to give any medical care whatsoever, to anyone with Covid-19. So in our limited experience, this vaccine is quite clearly more dangerous than Covid-19.”

Children’s Health Defense breaks down the risks and benefits, based on the reported injury rate of 1 in every 40 jabs. In short, the 150 shots necessary to avert one mild case of COVID will cause serious injury to at least three people. Trials indicate the rate is likely to increase dramatically after the second shot.

The American Frontline Doctors’ white paper concludes with recommendations by age group, discouraging vaccination as higher risk for all but those aged 70+ with comorbidities, compared to prophylactic treatment with established, safe and proven medications such as HCQ, Ivermectin, zinc and Vitamin D.

Source: Salaf Gilani, Off-Guardian.org

To carefully assess risks and benefits, one must consider information beyond what is filtered to us from a single perspective or authority steering us to a predetermined solution.

*

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 New Agora.

Nowick Gray writes from Salt Spring Island, BC. His books of genre-bending fiction and creative nonfiction explore the borders of nature and civilization, imagination and reality, choice and manifestation. Connect at NowickGray.com to read more. A regular contributor to The New Agora, Nowick also offers perspectives and resources on alternative culture and African drumming, and helps other writers as a freelance copyeditor at HyperEdits.com. 

Featured image is from Facebook

Vaccine Refusal

April 23rd, 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).

***

“Vaccine refusal will come at a cost — for all of us,” Edward-Isaac Dovere, a staff writer for The Atlantic, proclaims in an April 10, 2021, political commentary.1 Unvaccinated individuals “will have higher health care costs,” he says, and the vaccinated will have to foot the bill, either through taxes or insurance premiums.

This argument could have been made for decades, and can still be made today, for any number of groups. Obese individuals have far higher health care costs than those of normal weight. Insulin resistant people and those with Type 2 diabetes end up costing the health care system enormous sums. Who pays for them?

Overall, healthy individuals — people who generally do what they can to take good care of themselves to prevent chronic conditions — have always paid for those who are less particular about their diets and lifestyle.

The Economic Costs of Vaccination Vs. Vaccine Refusal

Dovere predicts the economic costs of vaccine refusal will begin to feature heavily as we move forward. He quotes Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who told him,2 “You have a liberty right, and that unfortunately is imposing on everyone else and their liberty right not to have to pay for your stubbornness.” Not surprisingly, Dovere and Inslee both focus on just one side of what needs to be a two- if not four-sided equation.

When making public health policy, you have an obligation to analyze both the benefit and the cost of any given policy. In this case, what might be the cost of vaccine side effects, both in terms of health care costs and lives lost? As of April 1, 2021, VAERS had received 56,869 adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including 7,971 serious injuries and 2,342 deaths.3 By April 13, the had updated that death toll to 3,005.4

What might be the cost if the vaccines don’t work and you get sick anyway? As of April 15, 2021, some 5,800 Americans who had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 had been diagnosed with COVID-19 post-vaccination; 396 (7%) required hospitalization and 74 died.5 These cases are popping up all over the world.

The vaccines are not foolproof. In fact, so-called “breakthrough cases,” meaning cases in which a fully vaccinated individual is diagnosed with COVID-19 are to be expected. I’m not sure why anyone is surprised, seeing how the vaccine makers have acknowledged that the mRNA injections are not designed to actually make you immune to SARS-CoV-2.

You can still contract the virus and spread it to others. What the shots may do is lessen your symptoms if and when you get infected with SARS-CoV-2. So, of course people can still get sick, as they did before. Some will require hospitalization. Some will die — just like they did previously, before the vaccine.

Then there’s the question of whether vaccinated individuals end up being more susceptible to variants of the virus than unvaccinated individuals. Preliminary research6,7,8,9 found that people who had received both doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine were eight times more susceptible to contracting the South African variant of SARS-CoV-2, called B.1.351, (5.4% compared to 0.7%).

Unfortunately, the study was too small to glean any information about outcomes, so we don’t know whether they developed milder or more serious illness than unvaccinated people sickened by the same variant.

Either way, if vaccinated people are more susceptible to more dangerous variants (which they claim B.1351 is), why assume that unvaccinated people would incur higher health care costs? Variants are now cropping up all over the place, so maybe vaccinated people will end up being responsible for a greater share of medical expenses. Maybe, if they have milder illness and unvaccinated have more serious illness, the costs might end up about the same for each group.

May There Be Economic Benefits to Vaccine Refusal?

In my view, the notion that COVID-19 vaccines will end this pandemic is an illogical fallacy since these shots do not provide actual immunity. The fizz in Dovere’s argument starts going flat on that basis alone. But there’s much more.

To really determine what’s best for public health, you’d also want to do the benefit and cost analysis of not vaccinating and relying on naturally-acquired immunity in combination with immune-boosting strategies instead, such as improving vitamin D levels across the entire population, for example.

Only when you have made all of those calculations — the benefit and cost of vaccinating, and the benefit and cost of not vaccinating — can you compare the two and begin to make statements about how certain groups of people may incur higher health care costs, and which strategy is likely to save the most lives. As of right now, it’s pure guesswork as to who’s going to cost more in the long run.

For example, I don’t know of any actual data showing that the health of people who are planning to forgo the vaccine place them at increased risk of serious COVID-19. If I were to guess, and this is pure speculation, people who have decided not to get vaccinated may be doing so because a) they know they’re in a low-risk category and/or b) they are health-conscious people who feel confident that they can prevent and/or treat COVID-19 in other cost-effective ways, should they get sick.

There are a lot of data that need to be compiled and analyzed before we can start declaring the COVID-19 vaccination campaign a public health care success, let alone a cost-saving imperative.

Appeal to Illogical Reasoning

Dovere goes on to discuss some of the messaging campaigns employed to lure people out of their vaccine hesitancy:10

“Two appeals seem to work best: First, the vaccines are safe, and they’re more effective than the flu vaccine. Second, you deserve this, and getting vaccinated will help preserve your liberty and encourage the government to lift restrictions.

(That last idea is what Jerry Falwell Jr. focused on in the vaccination selfie he posted11 this week, captioned, ‘Please get vaccinated so our nutcase of a governor will have less reasons for mindless restrictions!’) Inslee hopes that emphasizing those points will persuade more Republican men to get their shots.”

Sometimes it can help to spell out a logical fallacy using different words. (Personally, I believe Falwell was simply trying to be funny, but Dovere and Inslee have apparently seized the “lift restrictions” angle as a social conditioning opportunity, so that’s really what I’m addressing here.)

One rewrite of Falwell’s plea could be: “Please ignore your current health status and potential vaccine risks and just obey so that our governor will have less reason to impose unconstitutional and unscientific limitations on our basic rights and freedoms.”

In my view, a more appropriate way to prevent “mindless restrictions” would be to peacefully disobey and/or take the governor to court, as has been done to California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The Supreme Court has ruled against him no less than six times, finding he abused his power, overstepped his authority and violated the Constitution with his pandemic restrictions on churches.12

Urging someone to take a vaccine to prevent an elected official — who can be unseated — from implementing unscientific and/or unconstitutional restrictions is hardly rational. Let’s not forget that cost-benefit analyses13 have actually been done for lockdowns — perhaps one of the most mindless of restrictions — and the cost is far greater than the benefit.

The cost of the lockdowns in the U.K., in terms of Wellbeing Years (WELLBY), is five times greater than might optimistically be saved, and may in reality be anywhere from 50 times to 87 times greater. The cost for lockdowns in Canada is at least 10 times greater than the benefit.

In Australia, the minimum cost is 6.6 times higher, and in the U.S., the cost is estimated to be at least 5.2 times higher than the benefit of lockdowns. A cost-benefit analysis performed for New Zealand, which looked at the cost of adding just five extra days of “COVID-19 alert level 4” found the cost in Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) was 94.9 times higher than the benefit.

Should We Penalize Obesity and Vitamin D Deficiency?

If it’s determined that unvaccinated individuals need to be penalized socially, financially or otherwise, then how can we not also penalize other choices that significantly add to the COVID-19 burden? We know, for example, that vitamin D deficiency significantly raises your risk of COVID-19. In one analysis,14 82.2% of COVID-19 patients were vitamin D deficient.

I published a scientific review15 on the impact of vitamin D in COVID-19 in October 2020, co-written with William Grant, Ph.D., and Dr. Carol Wagner, both of whom are part of the GrassrootsHealth expert vitamin D panel. You can read the paper for free on the journal’s website.

Another major COVID-19 factor is obesity. As reported by CNN16 March 5, 2021, the COVID-19 death rates were more than 10 times higher in countries where more than half the adult population was overweight, compared to countries in which the obesity rate was below 50%. The COVID-19 death rates also rose in tandem with the prevalence of obesity, thereby strengthening the link, according to the report, released by the World Obesity Federation.

At the lowest end is Vietnam, which has an obesity rate of 18.3% and a COVID-19 death rate of 0.04 per 100,000. Toward the high end is the U.S., which has an obesity rate of 67.9% and a COVID-19 death rate of 152.49 per 100,000. (Of course, this report used COVID-19 mortality statistics that have been proven to be wildly exaggerated, as detailed in my interview with Dr. Henele.)

Making an already dire situation worse, recent data17 show 42% of U.S. adults have packed on unwanted pounds, with an average weight gain of 29 pounds, since the start of the pandemic. Only 18% report undesired weight loss, with an average weight loss of 26 pounds.

Government Has Ignored the Value of Healthy Population

According to the World Obesity Federation report, obesity was the second most important risk factor for hospitalization and death from COVID-19 — old age being the primary risk factor — and as noted by Johanna Ralston, CEO of the World Obesity Federation:18

“Old age is unavoidable, but the conditions that contribute to overweight and obesity can be highly avoidable if governments step up and we all join forces to reduce the impact of this disease. The failure to address the root causes of obesity over many decades is clearly responsible for hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths.”

Lead author of the report, Dr. Tim Lobstein, added:19

“Governments have been negligent, and ignored the economic value of a healthy population at their peril. For the last decade they have failed to tackle obesity, despite setting themselves targets at United Nations meetings. COVID-19 is only the latest infection exacerbated by weight issues, but the warning signs were there. We have seen it in the past with MERS, H1N1 and other respiratory diseases.”

Let’s Not Accept Hypocrisy and Double Standards

Even WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus commented on the report saying it “must act as a wake-up call to governments globally,” as “The correlation between obesity and mortality rates from COVID-19 is clear and compelling.”

That said, let’s get back to Dovere’s argument that unvaccinated people are bound to incur higher health care costs due to COVID-19, and therefore there must be some way to penalize those people or force them into compliance.

Using that logic, what, then, do we need to do about obese individuals, whose risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19 is anywhere from 40% to 113% greater, and their chances of requiring intensive care 74% higher,20 than that of their non-obese peers? What do we need to do about people who just refuse to get their vitamin D levels up, and end up taking up the lion’s share of hospital beds?

To be clear, I am NOT proposing we penalize people based on their weight, metabolic flexibility or vitamin D status. I do not support that any more than I support penalizing unvaccinated people — and that is the whole point. Most would agree that this would be completely ridiculous.

My point is, if you cannot fathom penalizing obesity, insulin resistance, diabetes or vitamin D deficiency — conditions known to significantly raise your risk of severe COVID-19 — then how could you possibly consider penalizing an unvaccinated person based on that single parameter alone?

The question is especially valid because, again, vaccinated persons can contract and spread SARS-CoV-2 like anyone else. It’s really unclear how vaccinated people are “safer” than unvaccinated ones, when the only person standing to gain from these shots is the person getting it (in the form of milder symptoms when sickened).

Are You ‘Pure’ Enough for Your Government?

I think it’s important to realize that the COVID-19 vaccine campaign is less about protecting public health and more about creating the infrastructure and psychological climate required for the implementation of global tyranny, which will likely begin with the introduction of vaccine passports that are very similar to the China social credit system.

As discussed in “Vaccines Are the New ‘Purity Test,’” it can almost be likened to a loyalty test. Or perhaps it could best be described as a totalitarian submission test?

Getting private companies to require these vaccine passports only makes sense if there is a strong vaccine push, and this is one of many clues as to what’s really behind the stated “need” for the whole world to get vaccinated.

We’re not all at risk for COVID-19. For a vast majority of individuals, the vaccines make little or no sense, as for young, healthy individuals, their risks outweigh the benefit. Now they are pushing to vaccinate children, whose risk of getting COVID-19 is well-established as being profoundly minuscule.

They are at exponentially higher risk from many other factors. There are currently fewer than 500 children who are reported to have died from COVID-19, even with the massively manipulated causes of death. Remember, if you had a positive COVID test and died from terminal cancer or a motorcycle accident, you were classified as a COVID-19 death.

As you can see from the graph below, there are 10 higher risks of death than COVID-19 for children. To be logically consistent, the government would need to be equally rigid about addressing all of these causes as aggressively as they are pursuing COVID-19 vaccination for children.

10 leading causes of child and adolescent death in the U.S.

But it’s not about simply getting a vaccine into your arm. Ultimately, it’s about getting you tied into the digital system being launched in the form of vaccine passports. As explained by former Clinton adviser and author Naomi Wolf (whom I will be interviewing shortly) in a March 28, 2021, interview with Fox News’ Steve Hilton:21,22

“‘Vaccine passport’ sounds like a fine thing if you don’t understand what those platforms can do. I’m [the] CEO of a tech company, I understand what these platforms can do. It is not about the vaccine, it’s not about the virus, it’s about your data.

Once this rolls out, you don’t have a choice about being part of the system. What people have to understand is that any other functionality can be loaded onto that platform with no problem at all. It can be merged with your Paypal account, with your digital currency. Microsoft is already talking about merging it with payment plans.

Your network can be sucked up. It geolocates you everywhere you go. You credit history can be included. All of your medical and health history can be included … It is absolutely so much more than a vaccine pass … I cannot stress enough that it has the power to turn off your life, or to turn on your life, to let you engage in society or be marginalized.”

Dangerous Curves Ahead

Wolf also points out the horrific history of IBM, which developed a sophisticated system of punch cards that allowed Nazi Germany to create a two-tier society and ultimately facilitated the rounding up of Jews for extermination. Fast-forward to today, and IBM is now a leader in the vaccine passport business. I wrote about this in “IBM Colluded With Hitler, Now Makes Vaccine Passports.”

In Nazi Germany, the obsession with purity — both in terms of hygiene and race theory — drove the genocide of Jews, the old, the handicapped and the mentally challenged.

In present day, the public narrative has eerily followed Nazi Germany’s playbook for genocide, starting with the scapegoating of healthy people, as the rapid spread of COVID-19 was blamed on asymptomatic individuals not properly masking, social distancing and self-isolating.

That then grew into the nurturing of prejudice against people who refuse to wear masks, and now we’re seeing the narrative building toward persecution of those who do not want to get the vaccine. It will start with discrimination, and already, we’re hearing talk of how only vaccinated people ought to have the right to partake in certain social activities. If that is tolerated, then outright persecution will be the inevitable next step.

This is why I reject and counter commentaries such as that by Dovere. These half-baked, one-sided, persecutory arguments must be challenged at every turn, because they only lead us one way. And unless you’re part of the technocratic elite, you — regardless of how you feel about vaccination right now — do not want to end up there.

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) recently posted more than 50 video presentations from the pay-for-view Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination held online October 16 to 18, 2020, and made them available to everyone for free.

The conference’s theme was “Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century” and it featured physicians, scientists and other health professionals, human rights activists, faith community leaders, constitutional and civil rights attorneys, authors and parents of vaccine injured children talking about vaccine science, policy, law and ethics and infectious diseases, including coronavirus and COVID-19 vaccines.

In December 2020, a U.K. company published false and misleading information about NVIC and its conference, which prompted NVIC to open up the whole conference for free viewing. The conference has everything you need to educate yourself and protect your personal freedoms and liberties with respect to your health.

Don’t miss out on this incredible opportunity. I was a speaker at this empowering conference and urge you to watch these video presentations before they’re censored and taken away by the technocratic elite.

*

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

Notes

1, 2, 10 The Atlantic April 10, 2021

3 The Defender April 9, 2021

4 CDC, Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination April 13, 2021

5 The Defender April 15, 2021

6 Epoch Times April 11, 2021

7 Reuters April 10, 2021

8 Washington Examiner April 11, 2021

9 Medical Xpress April 11, 2021

11 Twitter Ruth Graham April 8, 2021

12 Townhall April 13, 2021

13 Preprints.org 2020: 2020100330 DOI: 10.20944/preprints202010.0330.v2

14 The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism October 27, 2020; dgaa733 [Epub ahead of print], Results

15 Nutrients October 31, 2020;12, 3361; doi:10.3390/nu12113361

16, 18, 19, 20 CNN March 5, 2021

17 APA.org Undesired Weight Change Since Start of Pandemic

21 Real Clear Politics March 29, 2021

22 The Epoch Times March 29, 2021

Featured image is from Mercola

The Prospect of a Major False-Flag Operation in the Middle-East Grows by the Day: Remembering June 8th, 1967 the Day Israel Attacked the USS Liberty

April 23rd, 2021 by Timothy Alexander Guzman

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

***

June 8th, 1967 is a date in history that the world should recognize because it was the day that Israel attacked the USS Liberty, a US Navy spy ship during the Six-Day War.  So why would a supposedly staunch US ally do such a thing against one of its most loyal servants?  Was it an accident or was it a failed false-flag operation? 

In this time of uncertainty, the Israelis have been planning numerous ways to stop Iran’s nuclear program but the question is how would they accomplish such a task?  Israeli officials including its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who is perhaps, the most vocal of the crowd would do almost anything at this point to prevent Washington from re-entering the Joint Comprehension Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement with Iran since the Trump administration abruptly pulled out from the deal in 2017.

Tel-Aviv is getting anxious to derail Iran’s nuclear program, so would they orchestrate another false-flag operation to commit the US into a shooting war with Iran since the bonds of friendship between both countries are unbreakable?  How long before Israel pushes the US into another war in the Middle East?  I mean why not? They got their wish when the US invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003 since Israel and its hard-line supporters  pushed Washington to declare war by the “Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction”propaganda from the Bush neocons and powerful lobbyists such as American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and of course, the Israelis themselves led by Netanyahu. That one tragic day in 1967 is relevant to today’s dangerous situation developing in the Middle East between Israel and Iran.

The USS Liberty incident occurred during the Six-day War between Israel and its Arab neighbors including Egypt, Syria, Jordan. Lebanon and even Iraq who had a minor role in the war.  It began when Israel had attacked the USS Liberty, a US Navy technical research ship (or a spy ship) with its fighter jets and motor torpedo boats that had killed 34 and injured 171 crew members including marines, naval officers, seamen, and a civilian employee from National Security Agency (NSA).  The US Naval ship was in international waters in the north of the Sinai Peninsula at the time.  There were multiple investigations from the US and Israeli governments who both claimed that it was a mistake while the crew members who were aboard the ship say it was deliberate.  So was it a mistake as claimed by both government’s or was it deliberate?

During the Six-Day War, the US had maintained its ‘neutral country status.  A week before the war began, the USS Liberty was ordered to the eastern Mediterranean sea for an intelligence collection mission near the north coast of Sinai, Egypt.  During the mission, the Israel Air Force (IAF) had flown over the USS Liberty claiming that they were searching for Egyptian submarines that had been previously spotted near the coast.  Around 2 pm, the IAF had sent two Mirage III fighter jets to oversee the ship which they had claimed had no “distinguishable markings” or any flag on the ship.  The USS Liberty was then attacked.  However, right before the attack, the Mirage fighter jets codenamed Kursa had verbal exchanges between a command post weapons systems officer, air controllers and a chief air controller who reportedly questioned whether there was the possibility of a US ship in the area and around 1:57 pm, the chief air controller, Lieutenant-Colonel Shmuel Kislev gave the green light to attack the USS Liberty as the fighter jets unleashed 30-mm cannons, rockets and napalm killing and injuring scores of US crew members.

The Israeli fighter jets had purposely jammed US communications frequencies before the attack meaning that they knew it was an American naval ship.

There were also three Israeli torpedo boats as they too had launched an attack on the ship with cannons, mounted machine guns and torpedoes.  One of the torpedo’s that hit the Liberty killing 25 crew members as the lower decks became flooded.  The Israeli torpedo boats had also damaged the life rafts as the crew had prepared to abandon the ship.  At around 3:15, two Israeli helicopters appeared with armed IDF personnel leading to the conclusion by those who were on the ship that the Israelis were there to kill the remaining survivors, but miraculously, that did not happen.  Meanwhile, the ship was still under attack as the crew members reinforced their lines of communications and called for help.  When the USS Saratoga and the USS America received the message, they had ordered US fighters to help protect the ship, but in a bizarre move, the mission was aborted by direct orders from Washington.  Israel already knew that the US fighter jets were on their way when they picked up the transmission and immediately called off the attack.  Israel’s torpedo boats and helicopters quickly returned to their base of operations.

Israel then notified Washington that they had mistakenly attacked an American ship and once again its fighter jets were recalled for a second time.  There is an interesting fact to ponder regarding President Lyndon B. Johnson and his Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara who halted the rescue mission.  A high-ranking official Admiral L. R. Geis, the commander of the Sixth Fleet carrier force, told Lt. Commander David Lewis of the USS Liberty that he had challenged McNamara’s orders to recall the rescue mission, but then it was reported that LBJ got on the phone and said he didn’t care if the ship sank, and that he wasn’t going to embarrass an ally.  The communications officer from the Liberty in charge of the transmission has given the same testimony.

It was not until 2007 that new revelations on the Israeli attack became readily available.  Citing more than two dozen US Navy veterans who survived the onslaught, The Chicago Tribune’s ‘New Revelations in Attack on American Spy ship‘ reported about the anger directed at both Israel and the US government’s NSA “that it never intercepted the communications of the attacking Israeli pilots — communications, according to those who remember seeing them, that showed the Israelis knew they were attacking an American naval vessel.”  The article also suggests that there was a cover-up by both the US government and Israel:

The documents also suggest that the U.S. government, anxious to spare Israel’s reputation and preserve its alliance with the U.S., closed the case with what even some of its participants now say was a hasty and seriously flawed investigation.

In declassifying the most recent and largest batch of materials last June 8, the 40th anniversary of the attack, the NSA, this country’s chief U.S. electronic-intelligence-gatherer and code-breaker, acknowledged that the attack had “become the center of considerable controversy and debate.” It was not the agency’s intention, it said, “to prove or disprove any one set of conclusions, many of which can be drawn from a thorough review of this material,” available at http://www.nsa.gov/liberty

How did Israel know that it as a US Naval ship? Earlier that day, Israeli jets had repeatedly circled the Liberty before they began their attack:

Beginning before dawn on June 8, Israeli aircraft regularly appeared on the horizon and circled the Liberty. The Israeli Air Force had gained control of the skies on the first day of the war by destroying the Egyptian air force on the ground. America was Israel’s ally, and the Israelis knew the Americans were there. The ship’s mission was to monitor the communications of Israel’s Arab enemies and their Soviet advisers, but not Israeli communications. The Liberty felt safe.

Then the jets started shooting at the officers and enlisted men stretched out on the deck for a lunch-hour sun bath. Theodore Arfsten, a quartermaster, remembered watching a Jewish officer cry when he saw the blue Star of David on the planes’ fuselages. At first, crew members below decks had no idea whose planes were shooting at their ship

But the information that the Liberty was 13 miles off the Sinai Peninsula was somehow “lost”:

An Israeli military court of inquiry later acknowledged that their naval headquarters knew at least three hours before the attack that the odd-looking ship 13 miles off the Sinai Peninsula, sprouting more than 40 antennas capable of receiving every kind of radio transmission, was “an electromagnetic audio-surveillance ship of the U.S. Navy,” a floating electronic vacuum cleaner.

The Israeli inquiry later concluded that that information had simply gotten lost, never passed along to the ground controllers who directed the air attack nor to the crews of the three Israeli torpedo boats who picked up where the air force left off, strafing the Liberty’s decks with their machine guns and launching a torpedo that blew a 39-foot hole in its starboard side

Image below: President Lyndon B. Johnson and McNamara at a cabinet meeting, 1968 (Public Domain)

What is interesting about these new revelations is what actions were undertaken by the Defense Secretary Robert McNamara as told by J.Q. “Tony” Hart, who was a chief petty officer at a U.S. Navy relay station in Morocco.  Hart was in-charge of communications between Washington and the US Navy’s 6th Fleet remembered that McNamara had ordered Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis, the commander of the carrier to bring back the jets:

When Geis protested that the Liberty was under attack and needed help, Hart said, McNamara retorted that “President [Lyndon] Johnson is not going to go to war or embarrass an American ally over a few sailors.”

McNamara, who is now 91, told the Tribune he has “absolutely no recollection of what I did that day,” except that “I have a memory that I didn’t know at the time what was going on”

How convenient that McNamara could not remember what happened in 1967 to his own countrymen.

One other main question that is always up for debate regarding the USS Liberty is whether the American flag was visible?

For all its apparent complexity, the attack on the Liberty can be reduced to a single question: Was the ship flying the American flag at the time of the attack, and was that flag visible from the air?

The survivors interviewed by the Tribune uniformly agree that the Liberty was flying the Stars and Stripes before, during and after the attack, except for a brief period in which one flag that had been shot down was replaced with another, larger flag — the ship’s “holiday colors” — that measured 13 feet long.

Concludes one of the declassified NSA documents: “Every official interview of numerous Liberty crewmen gave consistent evidence that indeed the Liberty was flying an American flag — and, further, the weather conditions were ideal to ensure its easy observance and identification”

Of course, the Israeli court of inquiry investigated the attack and had concluded that “throughout the contact,” it declared, “no American or any other flag appeared on the ship.”  Another comment was made by Steve Forslund on the declassified documents was a former intelligence analyst for the 544th Air Reconnaissance Technical Wing, a high-level position within the strategic planning office in the Air Force said that “the ground control station stated that the target was American and for the aircraft to confirm it”Forslund had remembered that “the aircraft did confirm the identity of the target as American, by the American flag” and that the  ground control station had “ordered the aircraft to attack and sink the target and ensure they left no survivors.” 

The Chicago Tribune also interviewed James Gotcher, an attorney in California who served with the Air Force Security Service’s 6924th Security Squadron, part of the NSA network at Son Tra, Vietnam who said that “it was clear that the Israeli aircraft were being vectored directly at USS Liberty” Gotcher said in his e-mail that “Later, around the time Liberty got off a distress call, the controllers seemed to panic and urged the aircraft to ‘complete the job’ and get out of there.”

Former Air Force Capt. Richard Block in charge of the intelligence wing that monitored communications from Middle Eastern countries had remembered that there “were teletypes, way beyond Top Secret. Some of the pilots did not want to attack,” Block said. “The pilots said, ‘This is an American ship. Do you still want us to attack?’ continued “and ground control came back and said, ‘Yes, follow orders.”

According to the Chicago Tribune, “Gotcher and Forslund agreed with Block that the Jerusalem Post transcript was not at all like what they remember reading.”  Obviously, corrupt officials at the NSA and the Israelis manipulated the transcripts as Gotcher points out, “there is simply no way that [the Post transcript is] the same as what I saw,” he continued “more to the point, for anyone familiar with air-to-ground [communications] procedures, that simply isn’t the way pilots and controllers communicate.” 

One other person who was interviewed for the report was Oliver Kirby, the NSA’s deputy director for operations during the attack on the USS Liberty had confirmed what was actually said in the NSA transcripts, “they said, ‘We’ve got him in the zero,’” Kirby recalled, “whatever that meant — I guess the sights or something.” According to Kirby’s account, they saw the American flag, “Can you see the flag?’ They said ‘Yes, it’s U.S, it’s U.S.’ They said it several times, so there wasn’t any doubt in anybody’s mind that they knew it.”

Obviously, those transcripts were manipulated to fit a certain narrative as Kirby himself said that the Jerusalem Post transcript were “something that’s bothered me all my life. I’m willing to swear on a stack of Bibles that we knew they knew.” 

A decade later, Haaretz decided to revisit the USS Liberty incident in an article that can be best described as spin, ‘But Sir, It’s an American Ship.’ ‘Never Mind, Hit Her!’ When Israel Attacked USS Liberty‘ by Ofer Aderet claims that the Israeli attack on the US Naval ship was a mistake and that

“Israel apologized and paid compensation to the victims’ families. Israeli and American commissions of inquiry found that the attack was a mistake. But naturally, as often happens in such events, to this day there are some who believe Israel attacked the ship with malicious intent.” 

Yes, they did compensate the families of the crew members who were either killed or injured with US taxpayer’s money they receive from Washington in the name of providing aid to Israel.  The article touches upon a book that was released on the 50thanniversary of the attack titled ‘Remember the Liberty!: Almost Sunk by Treason on the High Seas’ , the article starts off with the positive outcome for Israel during the Six-Day War which is described as a celebration, but later mentions what happened on June 8th,

“Amid the  jubilee celebrations for the Six-Day War, the tragic story of the American spy ship USS Liberty – which was bombed by an Israeli fighter jet and torpedo boats on June 8, 1967 in the eastern Mediterranean – was somewhat overlooked.”

Well it obviously it has been overlooked by the media, US politicians and historians.  Aderet asks, ‘Is it “A conspiracy? Healthy suspicion?”  He declares “Call it what you will.”

However,the book ‘Remember the Liberty!: Almost Sunk by Treason on the High Seas’ was written by Phillip F. Nelson, Ernest A. Gallo, Ronald G. Kukal and Philip F. Tourney is mostly accurate in terms of what happened on that tragic day, but what they get completely wrong is who would have benefited if the ship had sunk?  Israel’s intended goal was to drag the US into a war which could have led into a World War III type of scenario at the time.

The problem is that the authors of the book believe that US President Lyndon B. Johnson was actually the mastermind behind the plan, that it was his idea all along which leads us to believe that Israel had a minor role in the plot.  The author’s conclusion gives Israel a pass since it was Johnson’s idea to sink the USS Liberty to get US forces to join Israel in its war against its Arab neighbors.  Israel has a long-term plan to destroy their neighbors so that they can expand beyond their borders, acquiring more land in the process with help from the US military.  Yes, it is true that Israel was behind the attack, and it is also true that LBJ went along with the plan, but not as the mastermind, rather more like another controlled puppet of Israel:

A new book published in May in the United States (its authors include several survivors of the attack) promises that “the truth is being told as never before and the real story revealed.” The 302 pages of “Remember the Liberty!: Almost Sunk by Treason on the High Seas” include quite a number of documents, testimonies, arguments and information that were gathered in the subsequent 50 years.

The authors’ bottom line is that then-U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson was behind the attack, in an attempt to blame then-Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser – an excuse that would then enable the United States to join the Six-Day War

Aderet mentions a censored CIA document that contains a quote from an anonymous source,

“they said that [then-Israeli Defense Minister Moshe] Dayan personally ordered the attack on the ship, and that one of his generals adamantly opposed the action and said, ‘This is pure murder.”

Aderet argues that “there is no dispute about the authenticity of the document, but clearly not every sentence written in an intelligence document is the unvarnished truth.”   A former U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, Dwight Porter had spoke about a conversation that was picked up by an NSA aircraft and sent to multiple CIA offices. Here is what was sent to the intelligence community:

“Israeli pilot to IDF war room: This is an American ship. Do you still want us to attack?

IDF war room to Israeli pilot: Yes, follow orders.

Israeli pilot to IDF war room: But sir, it’s an American ship – I can see the flag!

IDF war room to Israeli pilot: Never mind; hit it“

Dr. Michael Oren is an American-born Israeli author, historian, politician, a former ambassador to the United States from 2009–2013, also a former member of the Knesset and a former Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office who claims that he researched the incident and conveniently rejects the claim that Israel had deliberately attacked the USS Liberty.  Here is what he said to Haaretz:

“There is no doubt,” he says. “Not even the smallest percentage. I’ve taken part in wars. I know what ‘friendly fire’ is. There’s a lot of chaos. It was a classic screw up.

A classic screw up, especially in wartime, has more than one reason. It’s a sequence, a chain of screw ups.”

Oren adds: “I’m a historian. I have to stick with the facts. I can’t get into conspiracies and theories. A historian must proceed on the basis of the data before him. Today, almost all the papers have been publicized, including the texts of the recordings of the U.S. spy plane and spy submarine.

“Attempts to explain why Israel was interested in attacking the Liberty have failed thus far,” he continues. “They’re trying to answer the question ‘Why?’ and they’re having difficulty. It began with the claim that the Liberty discovered the Israel Defense Forces’ intentions or preparations to occupy the Golan Heights. And then they said it had homed in on some preparations in Dimona [the site of Israel’s nuclear reactor]. And finally, that it had listened in on the slaughter of Egyptian prisoners of war – I don’t know how slaughter sounds on the communications network. All kinds of bizarre theories.

“If we start with the assumption that the attack was deliberate and planned in advance, the question is why. And nobody answers this question. The answer is that it wasn’t planned.

“What continues to fuel these conspiracy theories?” Oren asks. “The subject is revived every few years. It is part of a ‘theory’ that Israel, together with Russia and China, spies on the United States. As Israel’s ambassador to the United States I saw this undercurrent, which is also sometimes anti-Semitic”

Since the attack on the USS Liberty, Israel has of course continued to wage numerous wars throughout the Middle East with help from the US.  Israel’s wars led to the destruction of Lebanon, Syria and the biggest obstacle at the time, Iraq.  Israel was instrumental in the lead-up to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.

It’s was all part of the long-term plan and Iraq was part of that plan, in fact, the most powerful lobby in Washington is AIPAC and the Bush neoconservatives including Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, Elliot Abrams and others who pushed Washington into a war with Iraq.  According to John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, authors of ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ AIPAC was a major supporter for the War on Iraq:

AIPAC usually supports what Israel wants, and Israel certainly wanted the United States to invade Iraq. Nathan Guttman made this very connection in his reporting [in Haaretz, April 2003] on AIPAC’s annual conference in the spring of 2003, shortly after the war started: “AIPAC is wont to support whatever is good for Israel, and so long as Israel supports the war, so too do the thousands of the AIPAC lobbyists who convened in the American capital.” AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr’s statement to the New York Sun in January 2003 is even more revealing, as he acknowledged “‘quietly’ lobbying Congress to approve the use of force in Iraq” was one of “AIPAC’s successes over the past year.” And in a lengthy New Yorker profile of Steven J. Rosen, who was AIPAC’s policy director during the run-up to the Iraq war, Jeffrey Goldberg reported that “AIPAC lobbied Congress in favor of the Iraq war” 

It was all part of the larger plan.  The US Army War College published a strategy research project ‘Assault on the USS Liberty: Deliberate or Tragic Accident?‘ by Colonel Peyton E. Smith who came to the conclusion that the attack on the USS Liberty was deliberate, “The attack was most likely deliberate for reasons far too sensitive to be disclosed by the US (or) Israeli government and that the truth may never be known.”   Smith said that the only way to expose the truth on what happened on June 8th, 1967 is by having both the US and Israeli governments release all of the data available, but that obviously won’t happen anytime soon:

Since this event occurred almost forty years ago, much personal testimony has surfaced regarding the incident. Based on the testimony of many eyewitnesses and the memoirs of senior government officials, the attack on the USS Liberty was most likely deliberate. Unfortunately, this issue may go to the grave unresolved unless the US government and the government of Israel release all data related to the incident. Perhaps forty years ago at the height of the cold war and with fears of major Soviet expansion into the Middle East, the information regarding the USS Liberty, the unknown subsurface contact (submarine), and the intelligence collecting aircraft (EC121) that were supposedly not there, would have been too sensitive to disciose.106 However, now that the Cold War is long over and the global conditions have changed, the US and Israeli governments should release all pertinent information and conduct an official inquiry. There is no discernable national security rational for continuing to keep these records secret. Only when they are finally released for careful scrutiny can we finally close the book on this unfortunate and tragic naval incident

The only possible reason Israel attacked the Liberty was to get the US into the Six-Day War so that Israel can step aside, spare its own soldiers and allow their American counterparts to fight their Arab neighbors for them.

Israel’s plan to dominate the Middle East continues today as it aims to destabilize Iran in the process since it is one of the last remaining obstacles to solidify its goal of complete hegemonic control over the Arab world.  The reason why Israel wants Iran destroyed is because they can be an economic and political powerhouse in the Middle East especially now with its close economic and political ties with China and Russia.

The bottom line is that it all fits into The Yinon Plan, The Zionist Plan for the Middle East, a plan to expand Israel’s territorial claims and dominate the region as a Jewish state under “God”.  Rabbi Fischmann was a member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine who openly declared in his testimony to the United Nations Special Committee of Enquiry on July 9th, 1947 that “the Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”  Israel can initiate another false-flag operation so that they can blame Iran and force the US into another unwinnable war in the Middle East.  Will Israel succeed?  Unfortunately, the answer may be yes.

*

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.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Biden’s Appeasement of Hawks and Neocons Is Crippling His Diplomacy

April 23rd, 2021 by Medea Benjamin

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

***

President Biden took office promising a new era of American international leadership and diplomacy. But with a few exceptions, he has so far allowed self-serving foreign allies, hawkish U.S. interest groups and his own imperial delusions to undermine diplomacy and stoke the fires of war.  

Biden’s failure to quickly recommit to the Iran nuclear deal, or JCPOA, as Senator Sanders promised to do on his first day as president, provided a critical delay that has been used by opponents to undermine the difficult shuttle diplomacy taking place in Vienna to restore the agreement.

The attempts to derail talks range from the introduction of the Maximum Pressure Act on April 21 to codify the Trump administration’s sanctions against Iran to Israel’s cyberattack on Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility. Biden’s procrastination has only strengthened the influence of the hawkish Washington foreign policy “blob,” Republicans and Democratic hawks in Congress and foreign allies like Netanyahu in Israel.  

In Afghanistan, Biden has won praise for his decision to withdraw U.S. troops by September 11, but his refusal to abide by the May 1 deadline for withdrawal as negotiated under the Trump administration has led the Taliban to back out of the planned UN-led peace conference in Istanbul. A member of the Taliban military commission told the Daily Beast that “the U.S. has shattered the Taliban’s trust.” 

Now active and retired Pentagon officials are regaling the New York Times with accounts of how they plan to prolong the U.S. war without “boots on the ground” after September, undoubtedly further infuriating the Taliban and making a ceasefire and peace talks all the more difficult. 

In Ukraine, the government has launched a new offensive in its civil war against the ethnically Russian provinces in the eastern Donbass region, which declared unilateral independence after the U.S.-backed coup in 2014. On April 1, Ukraine’s military chief of staff said publicly that “the participation of NATO allies is envisaged” in the government offensive, prompting warnings from Moscow that Russia could intervene to protect Russians in Donbass. 

Sticking to their usual tired script, U.S. and NATO officials are pretending that Russia is the aggressor for conducting military exercises and troop movements within its own borders in response to Kiev’s escalation. But even the BBC is challenging this false narrative, explaining that Russia is acting competently and effectively to deter an escalation of the Ukrainian offensive and U.S. and NATO threats. The U.S has turned around two U.S. guided-missile destroyers that were steaming toward the Black Sea, where they would only have been sitting ducks for Russia’s advanced missile defenses.

Tensions have escalated with China, as the U.S. Navy and Marines stalk Chinese ships in the South China Sea, well inside the island chains China uses for self defense. The Pentagon is hoping to drag NATO allies into participating in these operations, and the U.S. Air Force plans to shift more bombers to new bases in Asia and the Pacific, supported by existing larger bases in Guam, Japan, Australia and South Korea.

Meanwhile, despite a promising initial pause and policy review, Biden has decided to keep selling tens of billion dollars worth of weapons to authoritarian regimes in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other Persian Gulf sheikdoms, even as they keep bombing and blockading famine-stricken Yemen. Biden’s unconditional support for the most brutal authoritarian dictators on Earth lays bare the bankruptcy of the Democrats’ attempts to frame America’s regurgitated Cold War on Russia and China as a struggle between “democracy” and “authoritarianism.”

In all these international crises (along with Cuba, Haiti, Iraq, North Korea, Palestine, Syria and Venezuela, which are bedevilled by the same U.S. unilateralism), President Biden and the hawks egging him on are pursuing unilateral policies that ignore solemn commitments in international agreements and treaties, riding roughshod over the good faith of America’s allies and negotiating partners. 

As the Russian foreign ministry bluntly put it when it announced its countermeasures to the latest round of U.S. sanctions, “Washington is unwilling to accept that there is no room for unilateral dictates in the new geopolitical reality.”

Chinese President Xi Jinping echoed the same multipolar perspective on April 20th at the annual Boao Asian international business forum.

“The destiny and future of the world should be decided by all nations, and rules set up just by one or several countries should not be imposed on others,” Xi said. “The whole world should not be led by unilateralism of individual countries.” 

The near-universal failure of Biden’s diplomacy in his first months in office reflects how badly he and those who have his ear are failing to accurately read the limits of American power and predict the consequences of his unilateral decisions. 

Unilateral, irresponsible decision-making has been endemic in U.S. foreign policy for decades, but America’s economic and military dominance created an international environment that was extraordinarily forgiving of American “mistakes,” even as they ruined the lives of millions of people in the countries directly affected. Now America no longer dominates the world, and it is critical for U.S. officials to more accurately assess the relative power and positions of the United States and the countries and people it is confronting or negotiating with.

Under Trump, Defense Secretary Mattis launched negotiations to persuade Vietnam to host U.S. missiles aimed at China. The negotiations went on for three years, but they were based entirely on wishful thinking and misreadings of Vietnam’s responses by U.S. officials and Rand Corp contractors. Experts agree that Vietnam would never violate a formal, declared policy of neutrality it has held and repeatedly reiterated since 1998.

As Gareth Porter summarized this silly saga,

“The story of the Pentagon’s pursuit of Vietnam as a potential military partner against China reveals an extraordinary degree of self-deception surrounding the entire endeavor. And it adds further detail to the already well-established picture of a muddled and desperate bureaucracy seizing on any vehicle possible to enable it to claim that U.S. power in the Pacific can still prevail in a war with China.”    

Unlike Trump, Biden has been at the heart of American politics and foreign policy since the 1970s. So the degree to which he too is out of touch with today’s international reality is a measure of how much and how quickly that reality has changed and continues to change. But the habits of empire die hard. The tragic irony of Biden’s ascent to power in 2020 is that his lifetime of service to a triumphalist American empire has left him ill-equipped to craft a more constructive and cooperative brand of American diplomacy for today’s multipolar world. 

Amid the American triumphalism that followed the end of the Cold War, the neocons developed a simplistic ideology to persuade America’s leaders that they need no longer be constrained in their use of military power by domestic opposition, peer competitors or international law. They claimed that America had virtually unlimited military freedom of action and a responsibility to use it aggressively, because, as Biden parroted them recently, “the world doesn’t organize itself.”

The international violence and chaos Biden has inherited in 2021 is a measure of the failure of the neocons’ ambitions. But there is one place that they conquered, occupied and still rule to this day, and that is Washington D.C.

The dangerous disconnect at the heart of Biden’s foreign policy is the result of this dichotomy between the neocons’ conquest of Washington and their abject failure to conquer the rest of the world. 

For most of Biden’s career, the politically safe path on foreign policy for corporate Democrats has been to talk a good game about human rights and diplomacy, but not to deviate too far from hawkish, neoconservative policies on war, military spending, and support for often repressive and corrupt allies throughout America’s neocolonial empire.

The tragedy of such compromises by Democratic Party leaders is that they perpetuate the suffering of millions of people affected by the real-world problems they fail to fix. But the Democrats’ subservience to simplistic neoconservative ideas also fails to satisfy the hawks they are trying to appease, who only smell more political blood in the water at every display of moral weakness by the Democrats.

In his first three months in office, Biden’s weakness in resisting the bullying of hawks and neocons has led him to betray the most significant diplomatic achievements of each of his predecessors, Obama and Trump, in the JCPOA with Iran and the May 1 withdrawal agreement with the Taliban respectively, while perpetuating the violence and chaos the neocons unleashed on the world. 

For a president who promised a new era of American diplomacy, this has been a dreadful start. We hope he and his advisers are not too blinded by anachronistic imperial thinking or too intimidated by the neocons to make a fresh start and engage with the world as it actually exists in 2021.

*

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.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

Featured image: President Joe Biden, joined by Vice President Kamala Harris and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, delivers remarks during a press conference Wednesday, Feb. 10, 2021, at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)

Joe Biden: Who is the “Killer President”?

April 23rd, 2021 by Christopher Black

All Global Research articles 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 March 18th President Biden made the absurd accusation that President Putin is “a killer,” an insult not only to President Putin, but to all of Russia. On April 18, the Belarus KGB and Russian FSB revealed that they had exposed a plot, set in motion on Biden’s orders, to murder President Lukashenko of Belarus along with numerous officials, officers and family members, to stage a right wing coup and establish a government that would allow NATO to use Belarus as a base for further hostile actions against Russia. Two of the people involved in trying to arrange the plan have been arrested, one of them a US citizen, have been interrogated and have stated their orders came from the top in the USA.

Russian Institute of CIS studies Deputy Director Vladimir Zharikhin said,

“I believe that, after this very well-thought-out operation – a joint operation by Russian and Belarusian intelligence – that the Belarusian opposition is not knocked out yet, but knocked down. Undoubtedly, the opposition’s dependence on external forces – from the US first and foremost – is being unveiled quite clearly. Second, the methods that were being discussed on the video tapes clearly turn the Belarusian opposition from ideological fighters into members of a terrorist group rather than an ideological one.”

The exposure of the plot does reveal the so-called opposition to Lukashenko to be a gang of murderers and terrorists and, once again, exposes the US leadership to be equally criminal. The Americans see assassinations of foreign leaders standing in their way as a routine method in their quest for world dominance.

Another name for the USA could be the name of a Mafia hit group in the US, Murder Incorporated. Trujillo, Arbenz, Allende, Diem, Lumumba, Ghaddafi, Sadat, Hussein, are just a few of the names of their victims that come to mind. Readers can no doubt add more to the list with attempted murders, such as Fidel Castro. But let us not forget the assassinations of their own leaders who stood in the way of the powers behind the presidency in the US; victims such as Jack Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King.

Beyond the killing of individuals, Biden surpasses Trump in his lust for war and blood, with his rapid escalation of hostilities towards Russia and China, and the increased barrage of propaganda against both to demonise them in the minds of the public in the west. The situation has so far deteriorated because of American provocations, that China has warned that it is prepared to battle both the US and Japan if that is what it takes to protect their sovereign rights over Taiwan, and Russia recalled its ambassador from Washington in March and several days ago essentially told the US ambassador to leave Moscow and, despite his bluster about not leaving, he has left.

Normally such a deserved humiliation for the US would be front-page news in the west but there is hardly any reporting of the fact, nor that the US plots against Belarus have been exposed. The American and allied peoples are not allowed to know the truth when it embarrasses their leaders and exposes them for what they are.

An objective history of America from its inception would label this nation as a killer nation, for its leaders and people are only content when they are killing others to enrich themselves, and killing each other as their brutal society descends into a daily record of mass shootings, and police terrorism against the black population, about which Biden does absolutely nothing.

The people are not protected for their government is unable, and worse, unwilling, to do so. But what can we expect from Biden when he has enthusiastically supported every war the Americans have started in the world since he was old enough to talk; has enthusiastically called for the deaths of millions of people to advance American interests.

And now he is risking World War Three, a nuclear war that will erase his nation from history, along with the rest of us, if he keeps up the hostile rhetoric and the hostile actions against those nations who refuse to bow to US diktats. I was told once in Moscow that the Americans are viewed as completely irrational, and so very dangerous. They live in a world of illusions, believing the illusions to be reality, and are convinced they are invulnerable. Perhaps it is this that has driven them to the fundamental mistake of trying to fight a war on several fronts at once, against Russia, against China, against Iran, North Korea, all of which can inflict fatal damage on them if war breaks out but if it does it means the end of all humanity as well.

Russia, China, Iran, North Korea have all called for peace, for dialogue, for respect for international law, for reductions in arms of all types, for a just world order not a brutal American world order. But these calls are rejected out of hand and met with more demands to obey the USA, as if this nation, founded on slavery and genocide, has any moral authority to tell anyone anything.

Russia, China, and the other nations have truth on their side, But as Clausewitz wrote in On The Nature of War,

“Truth in itself is rarely sufficient to make men act…The most powerful springs of action in man lies in his emotions.”

This of course, is the key to the propaganda war being waged by the US, to spread a false “truth” but with sufficient emotional content to motivate their people to support the aggression they plan. The nations resisting are in possession of the real truth but are limited in their ability to influence thought and action among the peoples of the west because of the complete control over the media in the west.

The political objectives of the Americans and their NATO vassals will guide their use of violence to achieve their ends. This is not easy to determine just based on rhetoric, on words, and so has to be determined by their actions, what they do instead of what they say. The Americans claim to be for peace and democracy yet live by war and the destruction of democracy. They claim to be for “human rights” yet recognise none unless imposed by themselves and use it as the bait for the naïve to drag them down the road of war. They claim they care about that little man Navalny, but they want the destruction of Russia as a state, just as Hitler and his Nazis did, while their political prisoner, Leonard Peltier, languishes for decades in prison at Ft. Leavenworth. They are no different from the Hitlerites, use the same methods, make the same threats, care nothing for the law or morality. They claim they want stability in Europe yet mass their armies up against Russia’s borders, ring it with missile systems, and plan nuclear war. They do the same to China.

Their insane internal logic drives them to the abyss. Their society is falling apart at the seams. The world sees it. The world knows it. If they had no nuclear arms no one would give them a second thought, except as a sad and tragic example of how a society, based on selfishness and the individual’s unlimited ability to exploit others, leads to a form of hell on earth.

We are now at a nadir in the political relationship between Russia and the US. They no longer have ambassadors present in the other’s capital. Dialogue, which the Russians have been urging for years has broken down and has done so because there is no goodwill coming from the USA whatsoever, only insults, threats, and preparations for war. You can’t talk to a mad dog.

We can hope more reasoned voices appear Washington, but that is a dim hope indeed since all factions in both of their parties seek to dominate the world and are ever eager for war. We can hope that Russia continues to play a cool hand, but the other side knows no rules and anything is possible. The Russian and Chinese governments, the government of the other nations under threat from the USA know what they face.

But do the people of the world realise what the future holds if the situation does not change for the better? I don’t think they do or take it seriously if they do. So, it seems to me we should call for an international defence of the people of Russia and China and the other victim nations, with the objective of exposing the lies, the objectives behind the lies and the risks of annihilation that we face unless they, the Americans and their puppets are stopped. For if we leave it to world war to stop them, we are lost.

*

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.

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons

Video: Experimental Gene-based Injections: “An Urgent Warning to the World” by Dr. Mike Yeadon

April 23rd, 2021 by Dr. Mike Yeadon

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

***

Two of the experimental gene-based injections have been paused or halted, and reports of clotting, stroke, anaphylaxis, miscarriage, Bell’s Palsy, and a host of other neurologic and auto-immune disorders plague the others. And those are just the short-term risks.

Has all humanity been enrolled in a vast and unimaginably dangerous phase-three clinical trial without our informed consent? All for a disease that for the overwhelming majority of us is, officially, 99.7% or better survivable… if we even get it?

Dr. Mike Yeadon, formerly a Vice President and Chief Science Officer at Pfizer, believes the big experiment is well under way, and that the hypothesis it seeks to prove is as bold as it is terrible.

A cogent and clear thinker who has been attacked in proportion to his qualifications, Dr. Yeadon, at great personal risk, issues a chilling warning, not just about the grave dangers surrounding the injections, but about the looming threat of digital health “passports” that will take inexorable control over every aspect of our lives.

If we allow them.

We have been warned.

*

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

Russia’s Red Lines, Weaponizing Ukraine for War

April 23rd, 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).

***

Ukraine is a virtual US military base along Russia’s border — a high-risk flashpoint for possible hot war in Europe’s heartland.

US dark forces installed and control Kiev’s pro-Western puppet regime — a Nazi-infested fascist police state hostile to the rule of law and all things Russia.

Moscow has red lines not to be crossed.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov explained that what Putin mentioned refers to “Russia’s national interests,” adding:

They’re “also certainly related to bilateral relations with other nations, including Ukraine, and relations with different international alliances.”

Crossing them would generate a harsh response.

Putin criticized “unfriendly actions toward Russia,” explaining that “speedy…tough asymmetrical” ways will defend its interests as needed.

Restoration of Russian/US dialogue on issues of mutual concern is off-the-table in Washington.

What Moscow seeks is unattainable because US dark forces are hellbent for wanting Russia transformed into a subservient client state, its resources plundered, its people exploited — forever war by hot and/or other means its favored strategies.

Endless US war on humanity at home and abroad shows what its hegemonic aims are all about.

Its rage for unchallenged global dominance risks unthinkable global war 3.0.

The US, its imperial partners, and colonized Ukraine destroyed bilateral relations with Russia.

Days earlier, Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) head Leonid Pasechnik said “Kiev has no intention to negotiate and resolve the conflict peacefully.”

“Again and again, we are convinced that Kiev only imitates the process, but does not intend to stop the hostilities in Donbass.”

Its actions “either sabotage or block the entire negotiation process.”

“This show goes on amid the escalating situation at the contact line.”

Washington calls the shots. Kiev salutes and obeys.

Controlled by a higher power in Washington, its US-installed regime has been waging intermittent war on the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics in Donbass for over seven years.

There’s no prospect for stepping back from the brink because dominant US hardliners reject conflict resolution.

They want a permanent state of hot war in Europe’s heartland along Russia’s borders.

US-dominated NATO supports Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity (sic), its press service said.

Kiev’s conscript forces, “are in a high degree of combat readiness (sic),” according to its commander.

On Thursday, Ukraine’s envoy to Washington Oksana Markarova said the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously agreed to supply Kiev with another $300 million worth of heavy and other weapons — for warmaking, not defense.

Defying reality, she falsely claimed it’s in response to “escalat(ed) Russia(n) aggressive behavior toward Ukraine (sic).”

Adoption of the measure by Congress is virtually certain, perhaps unanimously.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Robert Menendez falsely accused Russia of “inva(ding)” Ukraine (sic).

He turned truth on its head about Kiev’s illegitimate regime.

Waging endless war on Donbass to advance US hegemonic aims, he defied reality by claiming that involuntary Ukrainian conscripts “have selflessly and courageously continued to defend their homeland against Russian ground, sea, and cyberspace assaults that violate Ukrainian sovereignty and security (sic).”

The Biden regime and Congress “stand by (Nazi-infested fascist) Ukraine.”

Western media invent their own falsified reality on all things Russia.

According to London-based Financial Times (FT) disinformation, “Moscow…threat(ens) Europe’s southeastern flank (sic).”

Falsely blaming Donbass for Kiev aggression, the FT slammed Russia for US-orchestrated events following the Obama/Biden regime’s 2014 coup that transformed Ukraine into a fascist police state.

On Thursday, Zelensky regime national security advisor Oleksiy Danilov falsely accused Russia of “want(ing) to bring back the empire in those borders that existed in the previous century (sic).”

According to State Department spokesman Price on Thursday, the Biden regime is “monitor(ing) the situation” along Russia’s border with Ukraine.

Ignoring US-orchestrated Kiev aggression against Donbass, Price turned truth on its head, adding:

Moscow “needs to refrain from escalatory actions (sic) and immediately cease all its aggressive activity in and around Ukraine (sic).”

Washington continues to pour weapons, munitions, and military equipment into colonized Ukraine for endless war on Donbass along Russia’s border.

Price falsely claimed it’s to provide its (US-controlled) regime with “security assistance it needs to defend itself against Russian aggression” that doesn’t exist.

The risk of undeclared US war on Russia by other means turning hot is ominously high.

Europe’s heartland and world peace are threatened by Biden regime recklessness.

A Final Comment

According to Russia’s eastern military district this week, a MiG-31 warplane was scrambled to escort a Pentagon reconnaissance aircraft away from Russian Pacific Ocean airspace, a statement saying the following:

“To identify the air target and prevent violation of the state border of the Russian Federation, a MiG-31 fighter from the air defense forces of the eastern military district was deployed.”

“The crew of the Russian fighter identified the air target as a strategic reconnaissance aircraft RC-135 of the US Air Force and escorted it over the Pacific Ocean.”

The above is one of many examples of provocative behavior by Washington toward Russia.

These actions could spark direct confrontation ahead between both nations by accident or design.

*

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/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia’s Red Lines, Weaponizing Ukraine for War
  • Tags:

The Failure of Imperial College Lockdown Modeling Is Far Worse than We Knew

April 23rd, 2021 by Phillip W. Magness

All Global Research articles 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 fascinating exchange played out in the UK’s House of Lords on June 2, 2020. Neil Ferguson, the physicist at Imperial College London who created the main epidemiology model behind the lockdowns, faced his first serious questioning about the predictive performance of his work.

Ferguson predicted catastrophic death tolls back on March 16, 2020 unless governments around the world adopted his preferred suite of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to ward off the pandemic. Most countries followed his advice, particularly after the United Kingdom and United States governments explicitly invoked his report as a justification for lockdowns.

Ferguson’s team at Imperial would soon claim credit for saving millions of lives through these policies – a figure they arrived at through a ludicrously unscientific exercise where they purported to validate their model by using its own hypothetical projections as a counterfactual of what would happen without lockdowns. But the June hearing in Parliament drew attention to another real-world test of the Imperial team’s modeling, this one based on actual evidence.

As Europe descended into the first round of its now year-long experiment with shelter-in-place restrictions, Sweden famously shirked the strategy recommended by Ferguson. In doing so, they also created the conditions of a natural experiment to see how their coronavirus numbers performed against the epidemiology models. Although Ferguson originally limited his scope to the US and UK, a team of researchers at Uppsala University in Sweden borrowed his model and adapted it to their country with similarly catastrophic projections. If Sweden did not lock down by mid-April, the Uppsala team projected, the country would soon experience 96,000 coronavirus deaths.

I was one of the first people to call attention to the Uppsala adaptation of Ferguson’s model back on April 30, 2020. Even at that early date, the model showed clear signs of faltering. Although Sweden was hit hard by the virus, its death toll stood at only a few thousand at a point where the adaptation from Ferguson’s model already expected tens of thousands. At the one year mark, Sweden had a little over 13,000 fatalities from Covid-19 – a serious toll, but smaller on a per-capita basis than many European lockdown states and a far cry from the 96,000 deaths projected by the Uppsala adaptation.

The implication for Ferguson’s work remains clear: the primary model used to justify lockdowns failed its first real-world test.

In the House of Lords hearing from last year, Conservative member Viscount Ridley grilled Ferguson over the Swedish adaptation of his model: “Uppsala University took the Imperial College model – or one of them – and adapted it to Sweden and forecasted deaths in Sweden of over 90,000 by the end of May if there was no lockdown and 40,000 if a full lockdown was inforced.” With such extreme disparities between the projections and reality, how could the Imperial team continue to guide policy through their modeling?

Ferguson snapped back, disavowing any connection to the Swedish results: “First of all, they did not use our model. They developed a model of their own. We had no role in parameterising it. Generally, the key aspect of modelling is how well you parameterise it against the available data. But to be absolutely clear they did not use our model, they didn’t adapt our model.”

The Imperial College modeler offered no evidence that the Uppsala team had erred in their application of his approach. The since-published version from the Uppsala team makes it absolutely clear that they constructed the Swedish adaptation directly from Imperial’s UK model. “We used an individual agent-based model based on the framework published by Ferguson and coworkers that we have reimplemented” for Sweden, the authors explain. They also acknowledged that their modeled projections far exceeded observed outcomes, although they attribute the differences somewhat questionably to voluntary behavioral changes rather than a fault in the model design.

Ferguson’s team has nonetheless aggressively attempted to dissociate itself from the Uppsala adaptation of their work. After the UK Spectator called attention to the Swedish results last spring, Imperial College tweeted out that “Professor Ferguson and the Imperial COVID-19 response team never estimated 40,000 or 100,000 Swedish deaths. Imperial’s work is being conflated with that of an entirely separate group of researchers.” It’s a deflection that Ferguson and his defenders have repeated many times since.

As it turns out though, Ferguson and the Imperial College team were being less than truthful in their attempts to dissociate themselves from Sweden’s observed outcomes. In the weeks following the release of their well-known US and UK projections, Ferguson and his team did in fact produce a trimmed-down version of their own modeling exercise for the rest of the world, including Sweden. They did not widely publicize the country-level projections, but the full list may be found buried in a Microsoft Excel appendix file to Imperial College’s Report #12, released on March 26, 2020.

Imperial’s own projected results for Sweden are nearly identical to the Uppsala adaptation of their UK model. Ferguson’s team forecast up to 90,157 deaths under “unmitigated” spread (compared to Uppsala’s 96,000). Under the “population-level social distancing” scenario meant to approximate NPI mitigation measures such as lockdowns, the Imperial modelers predicted Sweden would incur up to 42,473 deaths (compared to 40,000 from the Uppsala adaptation).

The Imperial team did not specify the exact timing of when they expected Sweden to reach the peak of its outbreak. We may reasonably infer it though from their earlier US and UK model, which anticipated the “peak in mortality (daily deaths) to occur after approximately 3 months” following the initial outbreak. That would place Sweden’s peak daily death toll around mid-June, or almost the exact same time period as the Uppsala team’s adaptation.

Figure I: Imperial College Model for Sweden, March 26, 2020

imperial model

It turns out that Viscount Ridley’s line of questioning was correct all along. The Uppsala adaptation of Ferguson’s model not only projected exaggerated death tolls in Sweden. Ferguson’s own projections for Sweden advanced similar numbers, all wildly off the mark from what happened.

Imperial College’s multi-country model used its earlier and more famous projections for the US and UK to claim validity for its more expansive set of international extrapolations. As Ferguson’s team wrote on March 26, 2020: “Our estimated impact of an unmitigated scenario in the UK and the USA for a reproduction number, R0 , of 2.4 (490,000 deaths and 2,180,000 deaths respectively) closely matches the equivalent scenarios using more sophisticated microsimulations (510,000 and 2,200,000 deaths respectively)” that they released a few weeks prior. If Imperial’s US and UK projections matched, a similar validity could be inferred for the other countries they modeled in the multi-country report.

The Imperial College team fully intended for its multi-country model to guide policy. They called on other countries to adopt lockdowns and related NPIs to reduce the projected death toll from the “unmitigated” scenario to “social distancing.” As Ferguson and his colleagues wrote at the time, “[t]o help inform country strategies in the coming weeks, we provide here summary statistics of the potential impact of mitigation and suppression strategies in all countries across the world. These illustrate the need to act early, and the impact that failure to do so is likely to have on local health systems.”

Failure to act, they continued, would lead to near-certain catastrophe. As Ferguson and his team wrote, “[t]he only approaches that can avert health system failure in the coming months are likely to be the intensive social distancing measures currently being implemented in many of the most affected countries, preferably combined with high levels of testing.” In short, the world needed to go into immediate lockdown in order to avert the catastrophes predicted by their multi-country model.

(Note: Imperial College also included a third possible mitigation scenario for stricter measures on top of general population NPIs, aimed at further isolating elderly and vulnerable people, projecting it could reduce Sweden’s numbers to between 16,192 and 33,878. They further modeled a fourth possible “suppression” scenario consisting of a severe lockdown that would reduce human contacts by 75% for the duration of the pandemic and maintain them for a year or more until population-wide vaccination was achieved. It predicted 14,518 deaths. Sweden clearly did not adopt either of these approaches).

One year later we may now look back to see how Imperial College’s international projections performed, paying closer attention to the small number of countries that bucked his lockdown recommendations. The results are not pretty for Ferguson, and point to a clear pattern of modeling that systematically exaggerated the projected death tolls of Covid-19 in the absence of lockdowns and related NPIs.

Figure II compares the Imperial College model’s projections for its “social distancing” scenario and “unmitigated” scenario against the actual outcomes at the one-year mark after its release. These projections reflect an assumed replication rate (R0) of 2.4 – the most conservative scenario they considered, meaning Imperial’s upper range of projections anticipated substantially higher death tolls. The countries examined here – Sweden, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea – are distinctive for either eschewing lockdowns and similar aggressive NPI restrictions entirely or for relying on them in a much more limited scope than Imperial College advised. The United States, where 43 of 50 states adopted lockdowns of some form, is also included for comparison.

Figure II: Performance of Imperial College Modeling in 4 Non-Lockdown Countries & the United States

As can be seen, Imperial College wildly overstated the projected deaths in each country under both its “unmitigated” scenario and its NPI-reliant “social distancing” scenario – including by orders of magnitude in several cases.

Similar exaggerations may be found in almost every other country where Imperial released projections, even as most of them opted to lock down. The Imperial team’s most conservative model predicted 332,000 deaths in France under lockdown-based “social distancing” and 621,000 with “unmitigated” spread. At the one year mark, France had incurred 94,000 deaths. Belgium was expected to incur a minimum of 46,000 fatalities under NPI mitigation, and 91,000 with uncontrolled spread. At the one year anniversary of the model, it reached 23,000 deaths – among the highest tolls in the world on a per capita basis and an example of extreme political mismanagement of the pandemic under heavy lockdown to be sure, but still only half of Imperial College’s most conservative projection for NPI mitigation.

Just over one year ago, the epidemiology modeling of Neil Ferguson and Imperial College played a preeminent role in shutting down most of the world. The exaggerated forecasts of this modeling team are now impossible to downplay or deny, and extend to almost every country on earth. Indeed, they may well constitute one of the greatest scientific failures in modern human history.

*

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.

Phil Magness is a Senior Research Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research. He is the author of numerous works on economic history, taxation, economic inequality, the history of slavery, and education policy in the United States.

Does the NDP Want a War with Russia?

April 23rd, 2021 by Yves Engler

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

***

Does the NDP want to go to war with Russia? Unfortunately that is the logic of a recent statement by its deputy foreign affairs critic.

In an interview with Ukrainian-Canadian media outlet New Pathway, Heather McPherson said the government should promote Ukraine joining NATO. Additionally, she wants Ottawa to expand its military presence in the nation. Asked whether the NDP “support Ukraine’s bid to join the MAP [Membership Action Plan] program and advocate for this with our NATO allies” and “expand both the scope of Operation Unifier and number of CAF [Canadian armed forces] personnel within the program?” McPherson responded:

“The NDP will continue to strongly support Ukraine’s bid to join the MAP program and we have and will continue to push the government to advocate for this with our NATO allies. That Prime Minister Trudeau and (Foreign Affairs) Minister (Marc) Garneau have been unwilling to explicitly state their support for Ukraine’s bid and their failure to adequately support the bid via advocacy efforts and multi-lateral diplomacy is very disturbing.

“Further, the NDP would expand both the scope of Operation Unifier and number of CAF personnel within the program. In December 2018, the NDP called for an extension of operation UNIFIER after an unprecedented act of aggression by Russia which seized three Ukrainian ships and their 20 crew members off the coast of Crimea. As you know, in March 2019 the operation was renewed. The support needs to be renewed and increased to acknowledge recent increased aggression by Russia.”

Image on the right: Heather McPherson (Source: Yves Engler)

McPherson’s position is highly provocative. As part of Operation UNIFIER, 200 Canadian troops “train” Ukrainian forces that have integrated far right militias who use the Nazi “Wolfsangel” symbol and praise officials who helped slaughter Jews and Poles during World War II. When extending the mission in 2018, the Liberals also eased restrictions that required the Canadians to stay in the western half of Ukraine, away from the fighting in the east that has left over 10,000 dead.

Canadian troops also lead a NATO mission in another nation bordering Russia. Alongside 550 Canadian troops in Latvia, Canadian naval vessels have recently patrolled in the Baltic Sea and Canadian fighter jets have been stationed in Romania.

Massing NATO troops on Russia’s border is highly belligerent. It also violates a US, German and French promise to Soviet/Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev regarding the reunification of Germany, an important Cold War divide. In 1990 Gorbachev agreed not to obstruct German reunification, to withdraw tens of thousands of troops from the east and for the new Germany to be part of NATO in return for assurances that the alliance wouldn’t expand “one inch eastward”. Now, the alliance includes countries on Russia’s border and North American troops are stationed there.

Officially NATO operates on the idea that an attack against one member is an attack against all members. Currently the government in Kiev claims Russia is backing a secessionist movement in the largely Russian speaking east of the country and illegally occupying Crimea so adding Ukraine to NATO would put the alliance on a war footing with Russia.

Fortunately, there’s push back to McPherson’s reckless position. In retweeting a Canadian Foreign Policy Institute message stating, “Yikes. NDP is criticizing government for not supporting bringing Ukraine into NATO and says it wants to send more Canadians troops there”, former MP and foreign affairs critic Svend Robinson wrote: “NDP should be calling on Canada to withdraw from this discredited Cold War NATO alliance and redirect arms expenditures into fighting real enemies of climate emergency and obscene inequality in Canada and globally. Canada Out Of NATO.”

Employing more strident language, Rabble blogger David Climenhaga added: “Oh FFS! What is it about Canadian progressives that they have to prove they can be warmongering lunatics too? NATO has no business camped on Russia’s doorstep — it’s bad tactics AND bad strategy. What is the Canadian Greens position on this? I may have to change my vote.” Hoping to stir up dissent within NDP ranks, Green MP Elizabeth May retweeted Robinson’s criticism.

My guess is that Climenhaga and Robinson’s position is closer to that of most NDP activists, members and even voters. A resolution calling on the NDP to “actively campaign to get Canada out of NATO” and “remove the NATO nuclear ring around Russian borders” was submitted by two riding associations to the party’s recent convention (it was never debated). At a time when NATO had at least a nominal Cold War justification, NDP members voted to leave the organization. After years of internal debate over NATO party members called on Ottawa to withdraw from the alliance in 1969. But the position was partially reversed by the NDP leadership in the mid-1980s, culminating in a 1987 “security” policy paper that equivocated on the subject.

Whether or not one believes Canada should withdraw from NATO, pushing to expand the alliance in a way that could put Canada on a war footing with Russia is reckless.

*

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.

The Israeli People Committee’s April Report on the Lethal Impact of Vaccinations

April 23rd, 2021 by Gilad Atzmon

All Global Research articles 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 Israeli People Committee (IPC), a civilian body made of leading Israeli health experts, has published its April report into the Pfizer vaccine’s side effects.* The findings are catastrophic on every possible level.

Their verdict is that “there has never been a vaccine that has harmed as many people.”  The report is long and detailed. I will outline just some of the most devastating findings presented in the report.

“We received 288 death reports in proximity to vaccination (90% up to 10 days after the vaccination), 64% of those were men.” Yet the report states, “according to data provided by the Ministry of Health, only 45 deaths in Israel were vaccine related.” If the numbers above are sincere then Israel, which claimed to conduct a world experiment, failed to genuinely report on its experiment’s results. We often hear about blood clots caused by the AstraZeneca vaccine. For instance, we learned this morning about 300 cases of blood clots in of Europe. However, if the IPC’s findings are genuine, then in Israel alone the Pfizer vaccine may be associated with more deaths than AstraZeneca’s in the whole of Europe.

“According to Central Bureau of Statistics data during January-February 2021, at the peak of the Israeli mass vaccination campaign, there was a 22% increase in overall mortality in Israel compared with the previous year. In fact, January-February 2021 have been the deadliest months in the last decade, with the highest overall mortality rates compared to corresponding months in the last 10 years.”

The IPC finds that “amongst the 20-29 age group the increase in overall mortality has been most dramatic. In this age group, we detect an increase of 32% in overall mortality in comparison with previous year.”

“Statistical analysis of information from the Central Bureau of Statistics, combined with information from the Ministry of Health, leads to the conclusion that the mortality rate amongst the vaccinated is estimated at about 1: 5000 (1: 13000 at ages 20-49, 1: 6000 at ages 50-69, 1: 1600 at ages 70+). According to this estimate, it is possible to estimate the number of deaths in Israel in proximity of the vaccine, as of today, at about 1000-1100 people.”

Again, if this statistical analysis is correct then the numbers reported by the Israeli health authorities are misleading by more than 22-fold.

Those who follow my writing are aware of my work on the undeniable correlation between vaccination, Covid-19 cases, deaths and the spread of mutant strains. The IPC confirms my observation, providing more crucial information regarding age groups. “There is a high correlation between the number of people vaccinated per day and the number of deaths per day, in the range of up to 10 days, in all age groups. Ages 20-49 – a range of 9 days from the date of vaccination to mortality, ages 50-69 – 5 days from the date of vaccination to mortality, ages 70 and up – 3 days from the date of vaccination to mortality.”

The IPC also reveals that the “the risk of mortality after the second vaccine is higher than the risk of mortality after the first vaccine.”

But death isn’t the only risk to do with vaccination. The IPC reveals that “as of the date of publication of the report, 2066 reports of side effects have accumulated in the Civil Investigation Committee and the data continue to come in. These reports indicate damage to almost every system in the human body.…Our analysis found a relatively high rate of heart-related injuries, 26% of all cardiac events occurred in young people up to the age of 40, with the most common diagnosis in these cases being Myositis or Pericarditis. Also, a high rate of massive vaginal bleeding, neurological damage, and damage to the skeletal and skin systems has been observed. It should be noted that a significant number of reports of side effects are related, directly or indirectly, to Hypercoagulability (infarction),  Myocardial infarction, stroke, miscarriages, impaired blood flow to the limbs, pulmonary embolism.”

In Israel, the government is desperate to vaccinate children. The IPC stresses that such a move can be disastrous.  “In light of the extent and severity of side effects, we would like to express the committee’s position that vaccinating children may also lead to side effects in them, as observed in adults, including the death of completely healthy children. Since the coronavirus does not endanger children at all, the committee believes that the Israeli government’s intention to vaccinate the children endangers their lives, health and their future development.”

The IPC stresses that “there has never been a vaccine that has affected so many people! The American VARES system presents 2204 mortality reports of vaccinated people in the United States in the first quarter of 2021, a figure that reflects an increase of thousands of percent from the annual average, which stood at 108 reports per year.”

I should mention that there has been very little coverage of the IPC’s work in the Israeli press. Those health experts are engaged in brave work, knowing that their license to work in the medical profession and livelihoods are at severe risk.

*

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 Gilad Atzmon

COVID Natural Remedies Banned as DOJ and FTC Seek to Silence Doctors Promoting Vitamin D, C, Zinc, etc.

April 23rd, 2021 by Brian Shilhavy

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

***

When people in Europe started dying from fatal blood clots shortly after receiving experimental COVID injections last month (March, 2021), some countries began criminal investigations over the deaths, including Italy which launched a manslaughter investigation after several people died following the injections.

Here in the U.S., as of this week, the CDC is stating that they have received 3,486 reports of people dying following the experimental COVID injections.

So what is the U.S. Government’s response to all these deaths being reported? Are they investigating them to see if the pharmaceutical companies are acting criminally?

No, last week the Department of Justice announced that they were going to start enforcing a new bill signed into law back in December by then President Donald Trump, which makes it illegal for anyone to promote non-pharmaceutical products as treatments for COVID-19.

Source: Health Impact News

The law is called the “COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act.”

The name is mislabeled, however, as it does not protect consumers from dangerous products that can harm or kill them, such as the experimental COVID “vaccines,” but it protects the pharmaceutical industry instead, by eliminating free speech for non-pharmaceutical remedies for COVID-19.

This law really should be named the “COVID-19 Pharmaceutical Protection Act.”

And the first victim to suffer under this new law is a St. Louis chiropractor who was recommending Vitamin D and zinc supplements to his clients, and is now charged as a criminal.

Such is the state of “law” today in the U.S., where the federal criminal justice system, as well as Congress, protects criminals, the Big Pharma corporations with rap sheets longer than any Mexican drug cartel operators, and attacks law-abiding citizens for practicing their Constitutional rights, such as Freedom of Speech on alternative health remedies, which are clearly a threat to Big Pharma.

Otherwise, why would they be spending so much time and resources to go after alternative care practitioners, who are harming nobody, but instead are “guilty” of healing or preventing disease independent of Big Pharma drugs?

Nobody is dying from Vitamin C, Vitamin D, zinc supplements, or other natural remedies, and yet if one promotes these remedies, they are now treated as criminals.

***

Feds On Vitamins and COVID: Shut Up or Pay Up!

by Alliance for Natural Health

More lunacy from the federal government threatens doctors with $10,000 fines if they tell you the science about how vitamins and minerals can help with COVID. Action Alert!

The Department of Justice (DoJ) recently announced the first enforcement action against “deceptive marketing” of COVID treatments. The case involves a Missouri chiropractor who is alleged to have advertised that a vitamin D and zinc supplement could prevent or treat COVID—claims that are well-supported in the scientific literature. This is a disturbing and outrageous escalation in the federal government’s actions against doctors and health professionals that inform the public about natural ways of staying healthy during the pandemic, underscoring the need to change the law to allow the free flow of information about foods and supplements.

Previously, the FDA and FTC sent hundreds of warning letters to doctors and clinics discussing the role of natural medicines promoting public health during the pandemic. Then a strategy was put in place to enable the FTC to go after these health professionals with more force. The COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act was introduced on December 20th in the House and Senate, then added to an appropriations bill on December 21. On December 27th it was signed into law.

That’s right: right before the Christmas holiday, when the government knew focus would be elsewhere, this law was introduced, buried in a spending bill to further conceal it, and signed into law—all within seven days.

The law “prohibits deceptive acts or practices associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation or diagnosis of COVID-19,” violation of which can result in civil penalties. Statute allows the FTC to assess $10,000 for each violation; multiple fines can be doled out based on a single claim. State consumer protection laws could also come into effect, allowing potential class actions.

This is a clear warning to those in the natural health profession: either push vaccines and drugs for COVID-19, or keep your mouth shut.

The DoJ’s actions are astounding. For one, we are in the midst of a pandemic and don’t have time to wait for the ongoing RCTs—which can take years—when strong clinical evidence shows that supplements that pose little risk can be helpful. And the evidence we have for things like vitamin D and zinc is strong. We recently reviewed the evidence for vitamin D’s role in COVID, noting the dozens of studies that show COVID patients with higher vitamin D have better outcomes, not to mention vitamin D’s key role in immune function. There are also clinical trials confirming vitamin D’s ability to prevent upper respiratory infections.

Zinc is also incredibly important for immune function. Although more common in the developing world, 12 percent of Americans are estimated to be at risk for zinc deficiency. We know that immune function is compromised with zinc deficiency; indeed, those with low levels of zinc are at much greater risk of being hospitalized and experiencing severe COVID disease. There is increasing evidence for the role of zinc in reducing the severity of COVID-19 disease and also in COVID prevention.

It is incredibly irresponsible for the federal government to target healthcare professionals who disseminate information about these vital nutrients. We can help right this wrong with our legislation that allows the free flow of information about supplements.

Continue reading 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.

 

FDA Slams Troubled COVID Vaccine Manufacturer over Quality Control Issues as Shareholders Sue Company

April 23rd, 2021 by Megan Redshaw

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

***

A new FDA report said Emergent BioSolutions, which received millions in taxpayer funding, mixed up more doses of J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines than previously thought. The report also said the plant was too small, poorly designed and dirty.

A Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccine manufacturing plant where an ingredient mix-up last month resulted in 15 million doses of J&J vaccine being discarded may have contaminated additional doses, according to a report released Wednesday by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The 13-page report also identified a series of other problems at the Baltimore facility owned by Emergent BioSolutions. Emergent, which in June received $628 million in taxpayer funding through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish the primary U.S. manufacturing facility for J&J’s and AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccines, agreed this week to temporarily shut down operations.

According to the FDA report, “There is no assurance that other batches have not been subject to cross-contamination.” The report also said the plant was “not maintained in a clean and sanitary condition.” Inspectors found peeling paint and unidentified black and brown residue on the floors and walls, as well as a failure to properly decontaminate waste generated during the manufacture of the vaccine.

During an FDA inspection completed Tuesday, the Baltimore plant was found to be too small, poorly designed and dirty. Unsealed bags of medical waste were observed, along with damaged floors and walls that could inhibit proper cleaning, inspectors said.

Emergent also “failed to adequately train personnel involved in manufacturing operations, quality control sampling, weigh and dispense, and engineering operations to prevent cross-contamination of bulk drug substances.”

“I’m shocked — I can’t put it any other way,” said Dr. José R. Romero, chairman of a panel advising the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that will meet Friday to determine whether to lift the pause on J&J’s vaccine announced last week after reports of blood clots associated with the vaccine. “Inappropriate disinfection, the prevention of contamination — those are significant and serious violations,” Romero said.

In statements Wednesday, the FDA, Emergent and J&J said they were working to resolve the problems at the factory, but gave no indication of how long that would take.

Emergent’s pattern of errors ignored

Just two weeks after the government handed J&J control over the “error-prone” Emergent plant, the FDA asked Emergent to suspend production of J&J’s COVID vaccine after inspecting the facility.

At the FDA’s request, the company agreed on April 16 not to make any new COVID materials at the Baltimore facility and to quarantine existing materials already manufactured there “pending completion of the inspection and remediation of any resulting findings,” according to an 8-K U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing.

According to The Washington Post, J&J said it was working to resolve the situation at Emergent and would address any findings at the conclusion of the inspection. The facility was cited for the same quality control problems in April 2020 that led to the COVID vaccine production errors.

According to CNBC, an FDA inspection of the Baltimore plant in April 2020 revealed Emergent lacked necessary personnel to produce a COVID vaccine. Another inspection, in June 2020, determined Emergent’s plan for producing vaccines was inadequate due to poorly trained staff and quality control problems.

A series of confidential audits last year, obtained by The New York Times, warned about risks of viral and bacterial contamination and a lack of proper sanitation at the Baltimore facility.

A top federal manufacturing expert cautioned last June that Emergent would have to be “monitored closely” — raising questions as to why the company did not fix problems earlier and why federal officials who oversaw its lucrative contracts did not demand better performance.

An examination by The Times of manufacturing practices at the Baltimore facility found serious problems, including a corporate culture that ignored or deflected missteps and a government sponsor, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, that was not policing the plant.

It was allegedly human error that botched 15 million doses of J&J’s vaccine in March. But Emergent CEO Robert Kramer disputed published reports that the problem stemmed from employees mixing up ingredients from J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines, which are made at the same plant.

Internal logs showed Emergent also had to discard one batch of AstraZeneca’s vaccine in October 2020 because of suspected contamination, and four more in December. Those four were spoiled by bacterial contamination of equipment, a former company official said.

In November 2020, production of a batch of J&J’s vaccine had to be discarded after workers “hooked up” the wrong gas line and accidentally “suffocated” the cells where the virus for the vaccine is grown, logs show.

In December, records indicated workers making AstraZeneca’s vaccine deviated from manufacturing standards on average more than three times a day. About one-fifth of the deviations were classified as major.

Congress launches investigation, shareholders file lawsuit

Before Emergent received the $628 million from HHS to establish Baltimore operations, the company received billions from the U.S. government to help prepare the nation for biowarfare, The Washington Post reported.

According to a February report by Accountable.US — a nonprofit nonpartisan public advocate and watchdog organization that monitors public corruption — executives at five drug companies, including Emergent, made net profits of more than $250 million by dumping company stocks during the first six months of Operation Warp Speed.

According to SEC filings, from the beginning of September through November 15, 2020, executives and directors at Pfizer, Moderna, Novavax and Emergent, who received government COVID vaccine funding, made stock transactions valued at a net profit of more than $105 million.

Accountable.US sent a letter to Emergent calling for the release of the 10b5 automatic trading plans used by top executives who made millions of dollars dumping company stock, and requested the CEO freeze sales until the SEC could investigate and release updated guidance regarding automatic trading plans for companies receiving taxpayer funding and advance purchase guarantees — resulting in millions in profits for pharmaceutical CEOs.

A congressional investigation was launched Tuesday into Emergent BioSolutions’ federal vaccine contract and shareholders filed a class action lawsuit Monday, alleging Emergent and some of the Gaithersburg-based company’s made false statements about the company’s readiness to mass-produce vaccines.

The lawsuit alleges “false and misleading” comments by company executives drove up the share price, which substantially dropped when news media outlets exposed a major mistake that forced the company to discard millions of vaccine doses and revealed a history of problems found in inspections.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on FDA Slams Troubled COVID Vaccine Manufacturer over Quality Control Issues as Shareholders Sue Company
  • Tags:

Texas Ended Lockdowns and Mask Mandates. Now Locked-Down States Are Where COVID Is Growing Most

April 23rd, 2021 by Ryan McMaken

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

***

Early last month, Texas governor Greg Abbott announced he would end the state’s mask mandate and allow most businesses to function at 100 percent capacity.

The response from the corporate media and the Left was predictable. California governor Gavin Newsom declared the move “absolutely reckless.” Beto O’Rourke called the GOP a “cult of death.” Joe Biden called the move “Neanderthal thinking.” Keith Olbermann insisted, “Texas has decided to join the side of the virus” and suggested Texans shouldn’t be allowed to take the covid vaccine. Vanity Fair ran an article with the title “Republican Governors Celebrate COVID Anniversary with Bold Plan to Kill Another 500,000 Americans.”

Other states have followed in Texas’s wake, and Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia are now all states where covid restrictions range from weak to nonexistent.

Georgia and Florida, of course, are both notable for ending lockdowns and restriction much earlier than many other states. And in those cases as well, the state governments were criticized for their policies, which were said to be reckless and sure to lead to unprecedented death. Georgia’s policy was denounced as an experiment in “human sacrifice.”

Yet in recent weeks, these predictions about Texas’s fate have proven to be spectacularly wrong. Moreover, many of the states with the worst growth in covid cases—and the worst track records in overall death counts—have been states that have had some of the harshest lockdowns. The failure of the lockdown narrative in this case has been so overwhelming that last week, when asked about the Texas situation, Anthony Fauci could only suggest a few unconvincing lines about how maybe Texans are voluntarily wearing masks and locking down more strenuously than people in other states. In Fauci’s weak-sauce explanation we see a narrative that simply fails to explain the actual facts of the matter.

Texas vs. Michigan

The Texas situation is just one piece of a state-by-state picture that is devastating for the lockdowns-save-lives narrative.

For example, let’s look at covid case numbers as of April 20.

Case numbers are a favorite metric for advocates of stay-at-home orders, business closures, mask mandates, and repressive measures in the name of disease control.

In Texas, the total new cases (seven-day moving average) on April 20 was 3,004. That comes out to approximately 103 per million.

Now, let’s look at Michigan, where a variety of strict mask mandates and partial lockdowns continue. Restaurant capacity remains at 50 percent, and the state continues to issue edicts about how many people one is allowed to have over for dinner.

In Michigan, the seven-day moving average for new infections as of April 20 was 790 per million—nearly eight times worse than Texas.

covid

By the logic of lockdown advocates, states with harsh lockdowns should have far fewer cases and less growth in cases.

This, however, is most certainly not the case. In New Jersey, for example, where lockdowns have been long and harsh, case growth is nearly four times what it is in Texas. And then there are Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Maine, and New York, all of which have new case growth rates of more than double what’s going on Texas.

Indeed, the only state with notably lax covid policies that’s in the top ten of case growth is Florida, which nonetheless is experiencing growth rates that are slower than in states run by lockdown fetishists like Andrew Cuomo and Phil Murphy.

Moreover, Florida’s covid-19 overall outbreak has been far less deadly than those in the states that embraced lockdowns long and hard. New Jersey, for example, has the worst covid death rate in the nation at 2,838 per million as of April 20. Right behind are New York and Massachusetts with total deaths per million at 2,672 and 2,537, respectively.

Florida, on the other hand, is twenty-eighth in the nation in terms of covid deaths, at 1,608. Texas has total deaths per million at 1,721.

covid

In other words, Florida isn’t likely to catch up to New York or New Jersey any time soon, and it’s certainly not going to soon catch up with Michigan, which is leaving other states in the dust in terms of case growth. For those who are scared to death of covid, they’d be better off in Florida or Texas or Georgia than in the states that have long embraced lockdowns and claim to be “following the science.”

So how can this be explained?

The lockdown advocates don’t seem to have an explanation at all.

Last week, Anthony Fauci, head of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) struggled to come up with an explanation as he testified to Congress.

In previous weeks, Fauci tended to rely on the old tried-and-true claim that if we only wait two to four more weeks, cases will explode wherever covid restrictions are lessened or eliminated. Lockdown advocates tried this for months after Georgia ended its stay-at-home order, although Georgia consistently performed better than many states that continued their lockdowns.

But now that we’re six weeks out from the end of Texas’s mask mandate and partial lockdowns, Fauci could offer no plausible explanation. Rather, when pressed on the matter by Representative Jim Jordan, Fauci insisted that what really matters is compliance rather than the existence of mask mandates and lockdown mandates:

There’s a difference between lockdown and the people obeying the lockdown…. You know you could have a situation where they say, “We’re going to lock down,” and yet you have people doing exactly what they want—

Jordan asked if this explains the situation in Michigan and New Jersey (and other states with quickly growing covid case rates). Fauci then claimed he couldn’t hear the question, and Jordan was cut off by the committee chairman.

No one who is familiar with the situation in states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia, however, would find it plausible that the spread of covid has been lessened in those areas by more militant use of masks and social distancing. Fauci’s testimony was clearly just a case of a government “expert” grasping about for an explanation.

But don’t expect Fauci and his supporters to give up on insisting that New York and Michigan are doing “the right thing” while Texas and Florida are embracing “human sacrifice” as a part of a “death cult.”

The actual numbers paint a very different picture, and even casual observers can now see that the old narrative was very, very wrong.

*

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.

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wire and Power&Market, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado and was a housing economist for the State of Colorado. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Texas Ended Lockdowns and Mask Mandates. Now Locked-Down States Are Where COVID Is Growing Most
  • Tags: ,

Fake COVID Vaccines Discovered in Mexico and Poland

April 23rd, 2021 by Zero Hedge

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

***

While scammers have been selling fake or forged COVID-19 vaccination cards, another scam has been discovered involving counterfeit versions of the vaccine. 

WSJ reports fake versions of the COVID-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech have been found in Mexico and Poland.

In Mexico, a man who claimed to be a biotech expert injected upwards of 80 people with the fake vaccine – charging $1,000 per dose. WSJ said none of the people had been physically harmed by the injection.

Dr. Manuel de la O, the health secretary of Nuevo León state in Northeastern Mexico, said fake vials of the vaccine were found in what appeared to be beer coolers. The counterfeit vaccines had “different lot numbers than those sent to the state and a wrong expiration date,” the health secretary said.

Reports of counterfeit vaccines were also found in Poland, where authorities seized a stockpile from a man’s apartment. The substance found inside the vials was likely an anti-wrinkle treatment, Pfizer said.

“Everybody on the planet needs it. Many are desperate for it,” Lev Kubiak, Pfizer’s world head of security, told WSJ. “We have a very limited supply, a supply that will increase as we ramp up and other companies enter the vaccine space. In the interim, there is a perfect opportunity for criminals.”

Pfizer is also working with law enforcement on counterfeit vaccine cases like those recently uncovered in Mexico and Poland. Johnson & Johnson and Moderna are other top producers of COVID vaccines. They, too, are working with authorities to monitor fake vaccine distribution.

Across the world, dozens of websites have been shut down for fraudulently claiming to sell vaccines. Some of the websites appeared to be seeking personal information for identity fraud schemes than actually injecting people with vaccines.

In other countries, including China and South Africa, authorities seized thousands of doses of counterfeit vaccines, according to Interpol.

The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, an investigative arm of the US Department of Homeland Security, has also been investigating fraud related to the virus pandemic globally. Investigators have removed 30 websites and seized 74 web domains, according to IPR officials. So far, no counterfeit vaccines have been found on US soil.

Countries that are struggling to obtain vaccines appear to be the most prone to fraudulent schemes.

“Whenever you see this mismatch between demand and supply in certain areas, there are people who are willing to fill that difference with counterfeits,” said Tony Pelli, a consultant with BSI Group who concentrates on drug security. “For new drugs, it’s usually just a matter of time before you see people trying to counterfeit them.”

What appears evident is that low-income countries struggling to obtain vaccines are ripe for fraud.

*

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 Zero Hedge

US Sanctions Against Venezuela Violate the Human Rights They Claim to Protect, Says UN Special Rapporteur on Sanctions

April 23rd, 2021 by Saheli Chowdhuri

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

***

“You cannot claim to protect human rights by violating human rights,” asserted Alena Douhan, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, while detailing the human cost of the unilateral sanctions imposed on Venezuela by the United States and its allies. 

Prof. Douhan, who teaches international law at Belarusian State University, made this remark at a recent conference organised by the Canadian Latin American Alliance and co-sponsored by the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute and Common Frontiers. In the panel Prof. Douhan was joined by Don Davies, distinguished lawyer and Canadian Member of Parliament for the New Democratic Party (NDP), who discussed the role of Canada in the application of sanctions against Venezuela.

Sanctions—much more than political

Alena Douhan, in her capacity as UN Special Rapporteur, visited Venezuela for two weeks in early February to assess the impact of the US-imposed unilateral coercive measures on the Venezuelan economy and the living conditions of the Venezuelan people. She met officials of the government as well as members of the opposition, representatives of public and private sectors, social organisations and trade unions, and national and international NGOs working in Venezuela. She submitted a preliminary report on February 12, detailing the “devastating effect” of the sanctions on the Venezuelan  economy, health, education, industry, social programmes, and other sectors. The final report will be submitted in September 2021.

“In the international sphere, sanctions are generally discussed politically, while their legal and human effects are not considered [a] priority,” said Prof. Douhan. “Yet, both targeted sanctions and general sanctions violate international law, like the sovereign equality of states, the policy of non-intervention in internal affairs of countries, and principles of human rights, including the rights to life and to development.”

Douhan stressed that targeted sanctions against individuals, although not as damaging as overarching sanctions against a country, are still in contravention of legal principles. “Presumption of innocence is the starting point of law, and the burden of proof is on the accuser. Anyone facing any accusation has the right to a fair trial; that is an inherent human right. However, unilateral coercive measures are imposed on the presumption of guilt of the accused, which violates the right to due process. You cannot have one set of rights for the so-called bad guys and another set for the so-called good guys; human rights are for everyone.”

She noted that the first sanctions that Venezuela faced were targeted sanctions imposed by the US government in 2015, against Venezuelan officials and entities that, according to the US government, were involved in drug trafficking or corruption, or had violently repressed protests or persecuted political opponents. Recently, several countries including the US even sanctioned members of the Venezuelan opposition who participated in the National Assembly elections of December 6, 2020.

“This means that these individuals cannot represent Venezuela in court cases in the sanctioning countries, although they were elected by the people of their own country,” highlighted Douhan. “In many instances, sanctions were imposed on individuals for actions that do not constitute a crime. For example, captains of Iranian oil tankers supplying gasoline to Venezuela were sanctioned for ‘supporting and financing international terrorism’ because in 2015 the US declared Venezuela ‘an unprecedented threat to US security and foreign policy,’” she cited.

Impact on economy and life in Venezuela—the human cost

In her report, the Special Rapporteur described in detail the impact of the unilateral coercive measures amounting to a total blockade against the Venezuelan economy, generating a humanitarian crisis in the South American nation. At the conference she explained,

“Over a century, Venezuela has been dependent on oil trade, particularly with the United States and Europe. Having the largest oil reserves on the planet, naturally it was the main source of foreign exchange.”

Although the economy had started facing downturns since oil prices began falling in 2014, the situation was exacerbated with the imposition of increasingly harsher sanctions since 2015. “The oil revenue has dropped by 99%, and the country is currently living on only 1% of its pre-sanctions income,” stated the Special Rapporteur. In addition, Venezuelan assets abroad, worth about US$ 6 billion, remain seized or frozen in various countries. Together, these factors have resulted in hyperinflation and severe devaluation of the bolívar, “which has led to public sector salaries dropping from the equivalent of US$ 150–500 a month in 2015 to US$ 2–10 in 2020, and a steep rise in poverty levels,” explained Douhan. “Further, the state-owned oil company PDVSA, the mining sector, transport, aircraft, cryptocurrency—all are under sanctions. Many people working in these sectors either lost their jobs or were forced to quit because of salaries decimated by the sanctions. The hardest hit has been the public sector, that has lost 30-50% of its qualified staff, leading to disorganisation, overburden, and reduced quality of services.”

High dependence on imports has been another factor aggravating the situation.

“Before the sanctions, Venezuela had money to buy everything necessary for maintaining its infrastructure and social development projects,” commented Douhan. “Most products, like machinery, spare parts, technology, even food, medicine and medical equipment were imported mainly from Europe and the US.”

With the sanctions impeding all imports, every aspect of life in Venezuela, including the main industry, oil, has been affected.

“Venezuelan oil deposits are mostly heavy crude, requiring intensive refining processes to be usable,” explained Douhan. “The necessary chemicals were imported from USA or Switzerland, now it is impossible. Also, due to lack of spare parts and new machinery, the refineries cannot be maintained, so at present Venezuela is not able to produce enough gasoline, diesel and cooking gas to meet even its domestic demand. Fuel shortages have severely curtailed movement of people for daily activities including going to hospitals, jobs or schools.”

Even she was not able to visit states far from the national capital due to fuel shortages.

“State supply of subsidised cooking gas is not enough, and prices are tremendous in ‘free markets,’ so people have to use wood to cook in the open, which is an environmental concern,” continued Prof. Douhan. “Electricity lines are presently able to function at about 20% of their capacity, again due to shortages of fuel, machinery and qualified staff. The national water supply system is unstable because of power outages, and water can be supplied only in rotation to ensure distribution to the entire country. This means that most households can get water for a few hours every five to seven days, and that water has to be boiled to make it potable, because the government is not able to import all the chemicals needed for proper purification. Even hospitals lack continuous supply of water. Now, during the COVID-19 pandemic, when we are instructed to wash our hands frequently, how can it be possible for people in Venezuela?”

The Special Rapporteur found that impediments to food imports and high prices of available items have resulted in reduced food intake and rising malnutrition over the past six years. People are increasingly dependent on the government-subsidised food supply programme (CLAP), but that too has been forced to reduce the diversity of items. School meal programmes have been reduced or entirely suspended, as well as other school supplies like books, computers, uniforms, backpacks, etc.

As a result of the devastation of national economy and degradation of state programmes, 40% of the working population is involved in the ‘gray economy’—insecure jobs or even criminal activities including drug and human trafficking. Between one and five million people have migrated from the country in search of better living conditions, with a corresponding rise in family separations, violence, child labour, and prostitution. “Girls as young as 12-13 years of age have gone into prostitution, with deleterious effects like rise in teenage pregnancies and opportunistic infections,” observed Douhan.

“This has overburdened a healthcare system already reeling from shortages,” she continued. “The Venezuelan government used to provide excellent healthcare to the population, including transplants and services for chronic and life-threatening conditions like diabetes, cancer, HIV—all either free or highly subsidised. This was paralysed by the seizure of state assets abroad. In 2017-2018, the country faced serious shortages of HIV tests and medicines, syringes, vaccines against measles, yellow fever, malaria, leading to [a] steep rise in death rates. In this crisis, the government increased cooperation with UNDP, UNICEF, UNAIDS, PAHO, other international agencies, private sector, churches, NGOs, which has improved the health sector. But conditions of other sectors remain as distressing as ever.”

“The problem gets compounded due to sanctions on third parties—public and private sector companies of countries that recognise the Venezuelan government, and over-compliance with sanctions by companies fearing sanctions on themselves,” stated Douhan. “This fear is not unfounded, as traders get regularly threatened with seizure of assets and blocking of funds by US authorities. PDVSA’s Russian and Italian partners have been sanctioned.”

Why unilateral coercive measures are illegal

“To discuss why unilateral sanctions are illegal, we should consider what measures are legal under international law,” said Douhan. “If one state believes another is not complying with human rights obligations, the former can cut diplomatic relations with the latter, may not conclude a treaty or may withdraw from an existing treaty following the provisions of that treaty. The matter can also be taken to the UN Security Council in situations that threaten peace or constitute a breach of peace.”

However, the Special Rapporteur was cautious about the last, citing the UN sanctions on Iraq that generated one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent time.

“What is not legal is gross violation of humanitarian or international law,” she continued. “The announced goal of the maximum pressure campaign is to change government in Venezuela—that is illegal.”

“These sanctions are actually illegal as well as immoral,” added Canadian MP Don Davies. “The sanctions are causing enormous amount of suffering to the Venezuelan people, particularly the most marginalised and vulnerable groups.”

Recalling the long, documented history of colonisation of Latin America by European powers and the US, the parliamentarian remarked, “I find it not coincidental that the United States is one of the countries of the world that almost exclusively refuses to ever submit to international jurisdiction.” According to him, “the United States and its capitalist allies simply cannot and will not tolerate the development of a different model other than the neoliberal, capitalist, pro-business market economy that they seem to insist has to be the path for countries in Central and South America, and around the world.”

“Unilateral coercive measures against sovereign nations constitute a form of collective punishment,” continued the MP. “The aim is to make life so intolerable that it would generate widespread civil discontent, so that the people themselves will welcome regime change.” On Douhan’s detailed report on the death and destruction caused by the sanctions in Venezuela, Davies remarked, “You can drop a bomb on someone or you can cut off their electricity or water, the result is often the same.”

Regarding Canada’s role in the situation in Venezuela, Davies referred to an “informal partnership between Canada and the United States formed in 2017,” which has been used by the Trudeau government to justify its decision to join the US administration in the blockade against Venezuela.

“Canada is part of Five Eyes, NATO, and a number of political organisations, formally and otherwise,” elaborated the MP. He characterised the Lima Group, which his own country initiated in 2017 as a hostile political front against the Venezuelan government, as “just a discredited group of right-wing countries, after the withdrawal of Bolivia and Argentina, where leftist—leftish governments have returned.” He continued, “Both the Lima Group and the OAS [Organisation of American States] are used as political cover by the Canadian government, so that the Canadian people would consider the illegal agenda as legitimate.”

Special Rapporteur Douhan also pointed out that the seizure of Venezuelan foreign assets violates the norms of immunity of state property. “The assets of the Central Bank of Venezuela, CITGO [PDVSA’s US subsidiary], other funds frozen in international banks—these belong to the State of Venezuela, not to its government. Blocking or seizing state assets on the grounds of non-recognition of a government is illegal in international law.”

She highlighted that the application of sanctions to nationals and companies of third countries for cooperating with public authorities, companies and nationals of Venezuela, is outside the jurisdiction of the US, Canada and other sanctioning countries. She also underlined that “the existing humanitarian exemptions are ineffective and insufficient, and do not cover the delivery of spare parts or machinery required for maintenance and restoration of public services.”

While commending the measures adopted by the Venezuelan government to combat the crisis, the Special Rapporteur stated that the sanctions are undermining potential positive impacts of the measures. She expressed that all disputes between countries should be resolved within the framework of international law, and not with unilateral measures. In this regard, she mentioned the referral submitted by Venezuela to the International Criminal Court in 2020, considering the deaths caused by the blockade as “aggression” against the nation. It is estimated that the sanctions have already caused over 100,000 deaths in Venezuela.

“Humanitarian concerns should always prevail over political ones,” she concluded.

*

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.

Saheli Chowdhury is a millennial from West Bengal, India, studying physics for profession but with a passion for writing. She is interested in history and popular movements around the world, especially in the Global South. She is a contributor  and works for Orinoco Tribune.

Steve Lalla is a journalist, researcher and analyst. His areas of interest include geopolitics, history, and current affairs. He has contributed to Counterpunch, The Canada Files, Resumen LatinoAmericano English, ANTICONQUISTA, and others.

Featured image: Alena Douhan, Special United Nations Rapporteur on the effects of sanctions in human rights during her official visit to Venezuela in February 2021. File photo.

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

April 23rd, 2021 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on This Week’s Most Popular Articles

Virtual Bunny Hugging: Boasting About Climate Change Goals

April 23rd, 2021 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

***

He seemed frustrated.  While Scott Morrison’s international colleagues at the Leaders Summit on Climate were boastful in what their countries would do in decarbonising the global economy, Australia’s feeble contribution was put on offer.  Unable to meet his own vaccination targets, the Australian prime minister has decided to confine the word “target” in other areas of policy to oblivion.  Just as the term “climate change” has been avoided in the bowels of Canberra bureaucracy, meeting environmental objectives set in stone will be shunned.

Ahead of the summit, Nobel Prize laureates had added their names to a letter intending to ruffle summit participants.  Comprising all fields, the 101 signatories urged countries “to act now to avoid a climate catastrophe by stopping the expansion of oil, gas and coal.”  Governments had “lagged, shockingly, behind what science demands and what a growing and powerful people-powered movement knows: urgent action is needed to end the expansion of fossil fuel production; phase out current production; and invest in renewable energy.” 

Deficiencies in the current climate change approach were noted: the Paris Agreement, for instance, makes no mention of oil, gas or coal; the fossil fuel industry was intending to expand, with 120% more coal, oil and gas slated for production by 2030. “The solution,” warn the Nobel Laureates, “is clear: fossil fuels must be kept in the ground.”

To Morrison and his cabinet, these voices are mere wiseacres who sip coffee and down the chardonnay with relish, oblivious to dirty realities.  His address to the annual dinner of the Business Council of Australia took the view that Australia would “not achieve net zero in the cafes, dinner parties and wine bars of our inner cities.”  Having treated environmental activism as delusionary, he suggested that industries not be taxed, as they provided “livelihoods for millions of Australians off the planet, as our political opponents sought to do when they were given the chance.”

US President Joe Biden had little appetite for such social distinctions in speaking to summit participants.  (Unfortunately for the President, the preceding introduction by Vice President Kamala Harris was echoed on the live stream, one of various glitches marking the meeting.)   After four years of a crockery breaking retreat from the subject of climate change, this new administration was hoping to steal back some ground and jump the queue in combating climate change.  The new target: cutting greenhouse gas emissions by half from 2005 levels by 2030.

Biden wished to construct “a critical infrastructure to produce and deploy clean energy”.  He saw workers in their numbers capping abandoned oil and gas wells and reclaiming abandoned coal mines.  He dreamed of autoworkers in their efforts to build “the next generation of electric vehicles” assisted by electricians and the installing of 500,000 charging stations. 

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken laboured the theme of togetherness in his opening remarks: “We’re in this together. And what each of our nations does or does not do will not only impact people of our country, but people everywhere.”  But Blinken was also keen, at least in terms of language, to seize some ground for US leadership.  “We want every country here to know: We want to work with you to save our planet, and we’re all committed to finding every possible avenue of cooperation on climate change.”   

A central part of this policy will involve implementing the Climate Finance Plan, intended to provide and mobilise “financial resources to assist developing countries reduce and/or avoid greenhouse gas emissions and build resilience and adapt to the impacts of climate change.”

While solidarity and collaboration were points the Biden administration wished to reiterate, ill-tempered political rivalries were hard to contain.  On April 19, Blinken conceded during his address to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation that China was “the largest producer and exporter of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, electric vehicles.”  It held, he sulkily noted, almost “a third of the world’s renewable energy patents.” 

Environmental policy, in other words, had to become the next terrain of competition; in this, a good degree of naked self-interest would be required.  “If we don’t catch up, America will miss the chance to shape the world’s climate future in a way that reflects our interests and values, and we’ll lose out on countless jobs for the American people.”  Forget bleeding heart arguments about solidarity and collective worth: the US, if it was to win “the long-term strategic competition with China” needed to “lead the renewable energy revolution.”

Others in attendance also had their share of chest-thumping ambition. The United Kingdom’s Boris Johnson was all self-praise about his country having the “biggest offshore wind capacity of any country in the word, the Saudi Arabia of wind as I never tire of saying.”  The country was half-way towards carbon neutrality.  He also offered a new target: cutting emissions by 78 percent under 1990 levels by 2035.  Wishing to emphasise his seriousness of it all, Johnson claimed that combating climate change was not “all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’.”

Canada also promised a more ambitious emissions reduction target: the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) would be reduced by 40-45 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.  “Canada’s Strengthened Climate Plan,” stated Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, “puts us on track to not just meet but to exceed our 2030 emissions goal – but we were clearly aware that more must be done.”

Brazil’s President and climate change sceptic Jair Bolsonaro chose to keep up appearances with his peers, aligning the posts to meet emissions neutrality by 2050.  This shaved off ten years from the previous objective.  He also promised a doubling of funding for environmental enforcement.  Fine undertakings from a political figure whose policies towards the Amazon rainforest have been vandalising in their destruction.

Japan’s Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga also threw in his lot with a goal of securing a 46 percent reduction by 2030. (The previous target had been a more modest 26 percent reduction based on 2013 levels.)  This did little to delight Akio Toyoda, president of Toyota Motor.  “What Japan needs to do now,” he warned, “is to expand its options for technology.”  Any immediate bans on gasoline-powered or diesel cars, for instance, “would limit such options, and could also cause Japan to lose its strengths.”

Toyoda’s sentiments, along with those of Japan’s business lobby Keidanren, would have made much sense to Morrison.  In a speech shorn of ambition, the Australian prime minister began to speak with his microphone muted.  Then came his own version of ambitiousness, certain that Australia’s record on climate change was replete with “setting, achieving and exceeding our commitments”. 

It was not long before he was speaking, not to the leaders of the world, but a domestic audience breast fed by the fossil fuel industries.  Australia was “on the pathway to net zero” and intent on getting “there as soon as we possibly can, through technology that enables and transforms our industries, not taxes that eliminate them and the jobs and livelihoods they support and create, especially in our regions.”  His own slew of promises: Australia would invest in clean hydrogen, green steel, energy storage and carbon capture.  The US might well have Silicon Valley, but Australia would, in time, create “Hydrogen Valleys”.

With such unremarkable, even pitiable undertakings, critics could only marvel at a list of initiatives that risk disappearing in the frothy stew.  “Targets on their own, won’t lead to emission cuts,” reflected Greenpeace UK’s head of climate, Kate Blagojevic.  “That takes real policy and money.  And that’s where the whole world is still way off course.”  Ahead of COP26 at Glasgow, Morrison will be hoping that the world remains divided and very much off course.

*

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

Selected Articles: Vaccine Passports: One Passport to Rule Them All

April 22nd, 2021 by Global Research News

Vaccine Passports: One Passport to Rule Them All

By Makia Freeman, April 22 2021

The purpose of vaccine passports is clear, despite whatever flimsy and mealy-mouthed excuses given to justify them: to restrict the movement of the unvaccinated, or in plainer terms, to restrict the movement of those who have seen through the agenda.

Still Believe Digital Vaccine Passports Are Something Made Up by Conspiracy Theorists?

By Robert Wheeler, April 22 2021

While the EU debates what sort of technology to use and what parameters will be included, various European countries are taking matters into their own hands, choosing instead to create their own versions of a vaccine passport, all varying between each country.

Fellow Citizens, Do You Want to Finance a Killer “Vaccine” and be “Inoculated” with It? Pass Me the Cup of Hemlock!

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, April 22 2021

Because of the relentless fear campaign of an unscrupulous “elite”, out of negligent ignorance or out of an incomprehensible good faith towards Big Pharma, we EU citizens are allowing this pharmaceutical conglomerate to inject us with a killer “vaccine”.

Yale Public Health Professor Suggests 60% of New COVID-19 Patients Have Received Vaccine

By Dorothy Cummings McLean, April 22 2021

An American Professor of Epidemiology at Yale University revealed that the majority of people now coming down with COVID-19 have been vaccinated against the virus.

Fake News Reports. is Russia Preparing to Invade Ukraine? Zelensky Ready for War?

By Stephen Lendman, April 22 2021

When major media operate exclusively as press agents for wealth, power, and privilege, fourth estate credibility no longer exists. Nothing they report can be taken at face value. They’re waging all-out war of words on Russia.

Zelensky’s Failure to Secure Support in Paris Demonstrates Ukraine’s Isolation from Europe

By Paul Antonopoulos, April 22 2021

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky returned to his country after a failed tour of Paris that did not secure the full support of Europe. Neither the French head of state, Emmanuel Macron, nor the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, promised Zelensky military support following their meeting on Friday.

Guilty on All Charges: Chauvin, Cops and the Racist System

By Abayomi Azikiwe, April 22 2021

These proceedings are rare within the context of the United States legal system. More often than not, law-enforcement personnel are routinely absolved of culpability when their interactions with civilians result in serious injury and death.

Afghanistan: US Exit Is with Caveats

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, April 22 2021

The United States and NATO are yet to begin the withdrawal of their forces from Afghanistan but the eyes are cast over the horizon at what lies after the ‘forever war’ formally ends.

Worried About the Autonomous Weapons of the Future? Look at What’s Already Gone Wrong

By Dr. Ingvild Bode and Dr. Tom Watts, April 22 2021

A close look at the history of one common type of weapons package, the air defense systems that militaries employ to defend against missiles and other airborne threats, illuminates how highly automated weaponry is actually a risk the world already faces.

Agriculture’s Greatest Myth

By Dr. Jonathan Latham, April 22 2021

For policymakers, the big obstacle to global promotion and restoration of small-scale farming (leaving aside the lobbying power of agribusiness) is allegedly that, “it can’t feed the world”.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Vaccine Passports: One Passport to Rule Them All

Still Believe Digital Vaccine Passports Are Something Made Up by Conspiracy Theorists?

April 22nd, 2021 by Robert Wheeler

All Global Research articles 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 my past articles I wrote about Digital Vaccine Passport pilot programs in New York, global announcements and along the same lines, health passports and vaccine passport apps in which a traveler (or event goer, employee, or shopper) uploads their COVID-19 test results or vaccination status. 

Unless the EU Parliament suddenly became enamored with conspiracy theorists, that is exactly what is going to happen.

The EU announces the Digital Vaccine Passport proposal

In March, the European Commission opened a proposal to create a “Digital Green Certificate” to allow travel inside the EU during the “pandemic.”

This Digital Green Certificate would serve as a documentation that a person has been vaccinated for COVID, received a negative test for COVID, or has recovered from it. It will include a QR Code to ensure the authenticity and security of the certificate and will be made free of charge in paper or digital form.

The Digital Green Certificate will have three certificates included within it including:

  • Vaccination certificates, stating brand of the vaccine used, data and place of inoculation and number of doses administered.
  • Negative test certificates (either a NAAT/RT-PCR test or a rapid antigen test). Self-tests will be excluded for the time being.
  • Medical certificates for people who have recovered from COVID-19 in the last 180 days.

According to Euro News,

“Where member states accept proof of vaccination to waive certain public health restrictions such as testing or quarantine, they would be required to accept, under the same conditions, vaccination certificates issued under the Digital Green Certificate system,” the Commission said in a statement.

. . . . .

The instrument will be valid in all EU countries and will be open for Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway as well as Switzerland. It will be issued to EU citizens and their family members, regardless of their nationality.

Other countries are following suit in the Digital Vaccine Passport scheme

But while the EU debates what sort of technology to use and what parameters will be included, various European countries are taking matters into their own hands, choosing instead to create their own versions of a vaccine passport, all varying between each country. For instance, Estonia is planning to launch its own pilot program at the end of April. France is doing the same.

In addition, the World Health Organization, who recently opposed the creation of a vaccine passport, is now working to do just that. And they are all working with the usual suspects – Google, Apple, Microsoft, IBM and a host of other corporations. What is more likely is that European countries will all implement different versions of the passport and, in the midst of chaos, the EU will have to step and standardize the process. The WHO will likely lead the charge in implementing the process worldwide.

What does a Vaccine Passport mean for you as an American? A lot, actually

First, if you plan on travelling to or through Europe anytime soon (and possibly forever) you may have to grab yourself one of these passports. Of course, the EU Commission has stated that the move is temporary. Once the World Health Organization (now owned by Bill Gates) declares an end to the global health emergency the digital passports will be suspended. So they say.

“The Digital Green Certificate will not be a pre-condition to free movement and it will not discriminate in any way. A common EU-approach will not only help us to gradually restore free movement within the EU and avoid fragmentation,” explained Commissioner Reynders. Except that a “pre-condition to free movement” is the whole point and “discrimination” is at the core of the passport.

But back to America. There are already plans to introduce a similar scheme in the United States. In fact, “coincidentally” the United States is now discussing a similar vaccine passport. As tens of millions of Americas, having been terrorized for a year, line up like cattle for their “vaccines,” the United States is planning to develop a “vaccine passport” that will allow those vaccinated to travel and “enjoy other aspects of pre-pandemic life.” In other words, freeze the unvaccinated out of normal life altogether.

Digital Vaccine Passports in the US are up for debate

A senior advisor to the White House has signaled that the government will be taking a hands off approach to the whole ordeal saying “”it’s not the role of the government to hold that data and to do that”

So with that in mind, it’s likely that private corporations will be enlisted to act as the new feudal overlords that Carroll Quigley predicted years ago. More than likely, it will be companies like RAND who are involved in developing and implementing the vaccine passport scheme. In fact, RAND analysts are already making public comments on the type of scheme that will be implemented.

“Inevitably I think there are going to be these passports because people are eager to go back to a sense of normalcy,” said Dr. Mahshid Abir, a senior physician policy researcher for the RAND Corp. “From both the supply and demand side, there is impetus to get tourism and traveling back on track, and go back to some semblance of normalcy.”

US News and World Report quotes Abir further when it writes “One other potential benefit of requiring a vaccine passport to travel, eat out or attend a rock concert might be that it would pressure some vaccine-hesitant folks into getting their inoculation, Abir said.”

Some states, however, have refused to participate in this gross violation of civil liberties. Florida and South Carolina have been clear they are opting out. But some Communist controlled states like New York are already implementing the passport scheme. As USA Today wrote,

Starting Friday, New Yorkers will be able to pull up a code on their cellphone or a printout to prove they’ve been vaccinated against COVID-19 or recently tested negative for the virus that causes it.

The first-in-the-nation certification, called the Excelsior Pass, will be useful first at large-scale venues like Madison Square Garden. But next week, the pass will be accepted at dozens of event, arts and entertainment venues statewide. It already lets people increase the size of a wedding party, or other catered event.

Still don’t believe Digital Vaccine Passports are coming?

So there you have it. A vaccine passport being rolled out in the EU (“temporarily” of course) and simultaneously in the United States. Still think this is not a coordinated effort to restrict travel and civil liberties? If you do, then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you. But, unless you’ve been vaccinated, you won’t be able to travel to see it.

What are your thoughts about this proof of vaccination?

If you plan to get vaccinated, is it because you want to or because you have to?

What will you do if you’re forced to get the vaccine to keep your job or continue your education? Or go to stores or travel? It’s a  real rock and a hard place situation for many. Let’s talk about it in the comments. (Please be respectful of the choices of others – this goes both ways.)

*

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 Wheeler has been quietly researching world events for two decades. After witnessing the global network of NGOs and several ‘Revolutions’ they engineered in a number of different countries, Wheeler began analyzing current events through these lenses.

Featured image is from The Organic Prepper

Zelensky’s Failure to Secure Support in Paris Demonstrates Ukraine’s Isolation from Europe

April 22nd, 2021 by Paul Antonopoulos

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

***

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky returned to his country after a failed tour of Paris that did not secure the full support of Europe. Neither the French head of state, Emmanuel Macron, nor the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, promised Zelensky military support following their meeting on Friday. 

Zelensky was likely aware that he was not going to get what he had hoped for, but nationalist pressure in Ukraine forces him to engage in fruitless efforts. At least for the purpose of public opinion, he must be seen frequently contacting NATO and the European Union under the false idea that Ukraine is on the path for membership into these multinational organizations.

However, the French and German positions are very clear: they are not going to make any effort towards Ukraine’s far off, if ever, entry into NATO. Macron justified his non-support under the guise that it must be a unanimous decision between NATO’s thirty members, something that is unlikely ever going to occur.

The majority of Europe, with the exception of Poland and the Baltic states, is not interested in being militarily entangled in Ukraine against Russia. This of course does not negate that Europe will diplomatically and rhetorically support Ukraine against Russia, but there won’t be European troops setting foot in Donbass. In any case, France and Germany already said on multiple occasions that Ukrainian NATO membership is a red line for Moscow that they are not willing to cross.

Although Zelensky was likely aware that he was not going to achieve anything during his visit to Paris (Merkel participated in discussions virtually), he knows that other international players are more interested than the Europeans in supporting his country’s anti-Russia campaign. President Joe Biden confirmed the “United States’ unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russia’s ongoing aggression in the Donbas and Crimea” and promised assistance in reform processes that are “central to Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations.”

Since then, Western media has overhyped Russian troop movements within their own territory to justify the need to activate U.S. military forces in Europe. This is to promote the idea that Ukraine’s protection against alleged Russian aggression hinges on its involvement in the Atlanticist military alliance.

Biden’s provocative tone towards Russian President Vladimir Putin, Washington’s financial and diplomatic sanctions against Moscow, and the strengthening of U.S. military personnel in Eastern Europe provides the justification for Ukraine’s accelerated pathway into NATO. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, the Chief of the General Staff Mark Milley, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin have all said that there is a crisis in Ukraine. Jens Stoltenberg, the notoriously Russophobic NATO Secretary General, added to these voices by demanding Russia to “end this military buildup in and around Ukraine” and to “stop its provocations and de-escalate immediately.” This is despite the fact that Ukraine was the first to start mobilizing tens of thousands of troops and heavy military equipment on the Line of Contact separating the Ukrainian military from the Donbass militias.

This also challenges the U.S. claim that it supports Kiev’s reforms that are “central to Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations.” Does this turn to “Euro-Atlantic aspirations” (Western liberalism) also include the closure of three Ukrainian television stations belonging to the main opposition leader?

Zelensky, who began his mandate with a supposed desire to resolve issues with Russia, has been bending to pressure from nationalists who interpret any attempt of negotiations as a concession. With the country’s health and economic situation worsening, and the president’s consequent loss of popularity, it is not surprising that the Atlanticist argument comes to the fore again. This of course is with the help of Biden who, already second to Barack Obama, made Ukraine one of his favorite travel destinations, and not just to support his son’s businesses.

In his efforts to obtain foreign support, especially as the European are mostly disinterested, Zelensky’s meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan – who does not recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea – provides an alternative that could bring him diplomatic and arms support. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said last week that Moscow “strongly recommends” Turkey and other countries to “analyze the situation and the Kiev regime’s constant belligerent statements, and we also warn them against encouraging these militaristic aspirations.” Although Turkey sells war drones to Ukraine, does not recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea, and claims the Crimean Tartars are persecuted, it remains to be seen whether Turkey is willing to antagonize Moscow further.

Therefore, it is likely that tensions will continue in the coming weeks and months because of the Defender Europe 21 NATO military exercises, and Russia’s upcoming Zapad (West) 21 exercises in Belarus. Nonetheless, Zelensky has found out the hard way that the major European Union powers are not interested in military engagements on the continent and will limit their role to diplomatic support, and perhaps even impose further sanctions against Russia if conflict breaks out. This leaves the U.S., a continent away, as Ukraine’s main ally, besides European minnows like Poland and Lithuania.

*

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.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Video: Towards All Out War? Worldwide Chaos Just a Step Away in Eastern Ukraine

April 22nd, 2021 by South Front

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

***

Preparations for open conflict in Ukraine are ongoing as a sense of impending urgency is felt in the air.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky invited Russian President Vladimir Putin for a meeting in Eastern Ukraine in a video address. He said that he went to the contact line every month, claiming that if war was to be avoided, discussions need to be held.

There is a diplomatic impasse between Russia and Ukraine and its allies. Diplomats were expelled throughout and any talks appear to come to a dead end.

The US Ambassador to Moscow was recommended to leave Russia back on April 16. Initially, he boasted that he would not cave to the pressure, but then went to “visit relatives” back in the US.

On April 20th, the Normandy Format talks also concluded and achieved nothing of significance.

Russia closed the airspace over the Black Sea and Crimea for civilian flights between April 20th – 24th due to security threats. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said that the combat capabilities of the Southern Military District are increasing due to NATO’s attempts to oppose the normalization of the situation in some countries of the Caucasus and the Middle East. As a result, a new motorized rifle division had been formed in the district.

On April 20th, servicemen of the Russian military base in Abkhazia carried out controlled firing from various types of weapons on the Black Sea coast. More than 2,000 servicemen, as well as more than 500 units of modern military equipment, were involved.

Exercises in the Black Sea were carried out by the Russian Black Sea Fleet, as well as by warplanes from the Russian Aerospace Forces. Dozens of warships and warplanes were involved.

The concentration of Russian forces near the Ukrainian borders is fact, and it includes units from every branch of the military.

On the other side, American F-15E Strike Eagle fighter-bombers will arrive in Estonia for training flights on April 21st.

On April 19, twenty US F-15s from RAF Lakenheath in the UK and four F-16s from Spangdahlem air base in Germany were deployed to Poland within the framework of an Agile Combat Employment exercise.

The United Kingdom is to send warships to the Black Sea, and all the chips are falling into place and waiting for the incoming storm.

Ukraine itself is preparing for hostilities. The Security Service of Ukraine has declared high alert for its units in all regions. Kiev reportedly began digging trenches and setting up mines and fortifications in the Kherson Oblast, just north of Crimea.

The Ukrainian 128th Mountain Assault Brigade from the Transcarpathian region was deployed to the south of the DPR, near Mariupol. The unit replaced the 36th Marine Brigade, which went to its point of permanent deployment.

A chain reaction was initiated on April 15th, with the United States’ renewed row of sanctions, and the beginning of diplomatic expulsions, and they could all lead to a new hot war in the coming days.

*

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

Syrian Election Amid Terrorism and the US Occupation

April 22nd, 2021 by Steven Sahiounie

All Global Research articles 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 19, the Russian Aerospace Forces killed approximately 200 terrorists during airstrikes on a camouflaged base northeast of Palmyra in the Syrian desert. 24 pickup trucks with large-caliber machine guns, as well as about 500 kilograms (1,100 pounds) of ammunition and components for creating improvised explosive devices, were also destroyed in the attack.  The hidden base was serving as headquarters for terrorists organizing attacks ahead of next month’s presidential election. 

Rear Admiral Aleksandr Karpov, deputy head of the Russian Reconciliation Center for Syria [RRCS], gave details of the operation to the media.  According to intelligence sources, terrorists are plotting a terror attack on government institutions in big cities ahead of May 26 presidential polls in Syria.

In the last election, June 2014, there were some terror attacks on election polls carried out by the defunct US-backed Free Syrian Army.

Karpov added, “Terrorists are being trained at training camps located on territories that are not controlled by the Syrian authorities, including in the US-controlled al-Tanf zone.”

Russia intervened in Syria at the invitation of the government in Damascus in September 2015.

Syrian Presidential election

Syria’s parliament has announced plans to hold a presidential election on May 26.

Hammouda Sabbagh, Speaker of the parliament, said “I call on Syrian citizens inside and outside the country to practice their right in electing the president of the republic.”

Candidates must have lived in Syria for the past decade, which restricts the opposition supported by foreign countries.

Following the 2012 constitution, the presidential election is held every 7 years, with the last election in June 2014, which was the first multi-candidate and multi-party election in 40 years.  President Assad won 88% of the vote, while Hassan al-Nouri and Maher Hajjar received the remainder.  The 2014 election was Assad’s first term under the 2012 constitution, which set a two term limit.

Syrians abroad will be able to vote at embassies on May 20. Syrian embassies in over 30 countries participated in 2014, but western nations such as the US, UK, and Germany have closed the embassies and have thus prevented Syrians living there to participate in a democracy.

Presidential candidates to date are Abdullah Salloum Abdullah, Mohammad Firas Yasin Rajjouh, and the first female candidate, Faten Ali Nahar. President Assad announced his candidacy for his second term today, and many believe he has the support to win again, as a member of the oldest and most well-known Al Ba’ath political party.

The Assad administration is secure with the main cities under government control. However, the economy is in dire straits, as food prices soar and the Syrian currency is devalued, which is due to US-EU sanctions.

Geir Pedersen of the UN said he called on all sides to build trust and reach a negotiated solution.

On March 22, tribal sheiks of the Deir Ez Zor region attended a forum in support of President Assad, and released a statement that they “stand by the Syrian army under Assad’s command.”

The tribes have suffered at the hands of the Kurdish SDF, ISIS, and do not want the occupation of both the US and Turkey to continue.

Sheikh Nawaf al-Bashire of the Bakara tribe, who said,

“We uphold the unity of the Syrian territories and we stand by the Syrian Arab Army in its fight against terrorism. Our choice in the upcoming elections will be the President Bashar al-Assad, who represents our guarantee for Syria’s national security.”

Fadel Najjar, the governor of Deir Ez-Zor, agreed, while Sheikh Abboud al-Fares of the Akidat tribe said,

“The [tribal] forum was held for a purpose, which is to show support for the president in the [upcoming] elections. The tribes of Deir Ez-Zor, from Abu Kamal to the border of Raqqa, send a message to the world that they stand by the president to lead the nation.”

The tribes are Arabs and have been targeted by the Kurds who drove them out of their lands and homes in an ethnic cleansing supported by the US.

The American occupation of Syria

US President Joe Biden is under political pressure to end America’s so-called forever wars, which both he and President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail.

Lt. Gen. Paul Calvert, who commands the US-led counter-ISIS mission in Iraq and Syria, was asked if he had received new guidance from Washington after Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, he said: “The policies in Syria are still the same.”

Col. Scott Desormeaux leads Louisiana’s 256th Infantry Brigade Combat Team in northeast Syria, which is carrying out a mission inherited from Obama and Trump that seems to have no end and has left roughly 900 troops lost in the desert of a stalemate.

In 2015, the Obama administration began offering arms, training, and payroll to the Kurdish-led militia known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).  In 2016 US special forces were partnered with the SDF in the fight against ISIS, who were eventually defeated in 2019 by the US, SDF, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), and their partners the Russian military who were on the ground fighting terrorism long before the US invaded.

The US military illegally occupies the area around Al-Tanf, on the border with Jordan in the south. On Monday, the Russian defense ministry said that terrorists were being trained in several camps in areas not controlled by the SAA, “including in the area of Al-Tanf, which is controlled by the U.S. military.”

The US illegally established a garrison at Al-Tanf in 2016.  Both Moscow and Damascus have said the US base serves as a safe haven for terrorists, and the US partnered militia there has been involved in the illegal drug trade in Captagon.

Trump ordered the US and allied troops to be withdrawn from Syria in 2019 but left behind a contingent to prevent the Syrian oil from being used by the Syrian people for their domestic needs, such as electricity, heating fuel, and gasoline

The Kurdish-led Syrian Defense Forces (SDF)

The US-backed SDF militias occupy the northeast of the country where they have committed atrocities and human rights violations. Residents of SDF-controlled areas have long suffered from kidnappings, recruiting child soldiers, torture, ethnic cleansing, and forced displacement in Syria.

The SDF is responsible for holding ISIS prisoners and their families in camps. Occasionally, the SDF will recruit and release ISIS prisoners.

60 ISIS terrorists were deployed in the al-Omar oil field, in the eastern Deir Ez Zor province.   Local sources said that the terrorists were sent there by helicopters belonging to the US Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve.

The al-Omar oil field was seized by ISIS in 2014, and is considered one of the largest fields in eastern Syria, where the pre-war production was at 400,000 barrels per day (BPD), but fell to just around 89,000 BPD in 2020. Up to 80,000 BPD came from areas that are currently under the occupation of the SDF. This keeps the Syrian people without electricity and gasoline unless crude oil is imported.

The SDF operates dozens of detention facilities scattered across northeastern Syria, holding about 10,000 ISIS terrorists, among them are about 2,000 foreigners whose home countries have refused to repatriate them, including about 800 Europeans. The SDF signed a deal with a US oil company, Delta Crescent Energy, to exploit the Syria oil deposits, which constitute a significant source of income. The Turkish Foreign Ministry condemned the agreement and declared that the American firm was “financing terrorism,” and stealing natural resources which belong to the Syrian people.

Jonathan Hoffman, a Pentagon spokesperson, said in 2019 that the income from oil fields in northern Syria went to the SDF, in violation of international law.

Sources said that ISIS terrorists received special training and tactics from the SDF before being sent to the oil field.

Turkey maintains the SDF poses a national security threat to Turkey and has destroyed homes and forced locals to flee.

Turkey

Turkey had been the US designated point of entry for Al Qaeda terrorists coming from the four corners of the world.  All payroll and weapons provided to the ‘moderate rebels’ were funneled through Turkey, and the CIA office oversaw the organization of the fight against the Syrian people for ‘regime change’.  In 2017, Trump shut the CIA operation down, as there were no ‘moderate rebels’, only terrorists following the political ideology of Radical Islam.

Turkey invaded Syria in 2019 because they consider the US partner, SDF, to be terrorists.  The result is Idlib is secured in the hands of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham [HTS], formerly named Jibhat al-Nusra, the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, and Turkey keeps the Russian and Syrian military from regaining the province which is an agricultural area in the northwest known for growing olives. There is a cease-fire in Idlib but does not protect Al Qaeda or ISIS which are both US-EU and UN-designated terrorist groups.  However, the western media portrays the terrorists as ‘moderate rebels’ when in fact the Free Syrian Army no longer exists or holds any territory in Syria.

*

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 Mideast Discourse.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syrian Election Amid Terrorism and the US Occupation
  • Tags:

Mitbürger, wollt Ihr einen Killer-„Impfstoff“ finanzieren und euch damit „impfen“ lassen? Reicht mir den Schierlingsbecher!

April 22nd, 2021 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

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

***

Nachdem meine Ehefrau den aufrüttelnden Artikel von Prof. Chossudovsky „Großes Pharma-Konglomerat mit Vorstrafenregister: Pfizer ‘übernimmt‘ den EU-Impfstoffmarkt“ in „Global Research“ (1) aufmerksam gelesen hatte, meinte sie: „Wir Bürger bezahlen also das Gift, das Big Pharma uns injizieren will, selbst.“

In der Tat: Aufgrund der unerbittlich geschürter Angstkampagne einer skrupellosen „Elite“, aus fahrlässiger Unwissenheit oder aus einer unbegreiflichen Gutgläubigkeit gegenüber Big Pharma erlauben wir EU-Bürger diesem Pharmakonglomerat, uns einen Killer-„Impfstoff“ zu injizieren. Dieser ist dem antiken Getränk aus giftigem „Gefleckten Schierling“ vergleichbar, der im 5. und 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. in Athen bei Hinrichtungen und freiwilligen Selbsttötungen verwendet wurde.

Verlässlicher Partner? Das Strafregister von Pfizer 

Nach den gründlichen Recherchen von Prof. Chossudovsky handelt die Europäische Kommission mit dem Pharma-Konglomerat Pfizer gegenwärtig einen Vertrag über die Produktion von 1.8 Milliarden mRNA-Impfstoffdosen aus – das größte Impfstoffprojekt der Weltgeschichte. Damit soll jeder einzelne Mensch in der Europäischen Union innerhalb von zwei Jahren (2021 bis 2021) viermal geimpft werden.

Doch die mRNA von Pfizer – wie auch die seiner Konkurrenten einschließlich Astrazeneca, Moderna und J & J – sind illegale Medikament. Das heißt, sie werden in den USA als „nicht zugelassene“ und „experimentelle Produkte“ eingestuft. Es ist also eklatant illegal, ein „nicht zugelassenes Produkt“ zu vermarkten. Hinzu kommt, dass das „Impfstoff“-Projekt 41 Milliarden Dollar in die Kassen von Big Pharma spült und es nach der „Impfung“ keine Rückkehr zum „New Normal“ geben wird.

Bezüglich der „Verlässlichkeit“ des EU-Partners Pfizer (von der Leyen) erinnert Chossudovsky an eine „Büchse der Pandora“, die die EU nicht öffnen will:

„Das größte Impfstoffprojekt eines ‚nicht zugelassenen Medikaments‘ soll von einem Big- Pharma-Unternehmen durchgeführt werden, das seit langem für die Bestechung von Ärzten und Gesundheitsbehörden bekannt ist.“

Pfizer sei ein „Gewohnheitstäter“, der in den USA vorbestraft ist und 2009 vom US-Justizministerium wegen „betrügerischem Marketing“ angeklagt wurde. Pfizer bekannte sich schuldig und stimmte einem 2,3-Milliarden-Dollar-Vergleich zu. In Erinnerung zu rufen sind auch die vielen Todesfälle und Verletzungen durch den „Experimentalimpfstoff“ mRNA. 

Ausreichend dokumentiert: Der Impfstoff ist nicht erforderlich. Es gibt keine Pandemie! 

„Warum“, resümiert Chossudovsky abschließend, „solle die EU-Kommission 1.8 Milliarden Dosen von Pfizers mRNA-‚Impfstoff‘ kaufen, von dem von vorne herein bekannt ist, dass er zu Todesfällen und Verletzungen geführt hat, einschließlich Autoimmunrektionen, Blutgerinnungsanomalien, Schlaganfall oder inneren Blutungen.“ Sodann fordert Chossudovsky:

„Sagen Sie NEIN zu einem Killervirus!

Der von der EU gesponserte Pfizer-„Impfstoff“ muss Gegenstand einer koordinierten Graswurzelbewegung in allen 27 Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union sowie weltweit sein. Die wissenschaftlichen Beweise bestätigen hinreichend, dass ein Covid-19-Impfstoff NICHT erforderlich ist.“ 

*

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. Rudolf Hänsel ist Diplom-Psychologe und Erziehungswissenschaftler.

Fußnote

1. https://www.globalresearch.ca/groses-pharma-konglomerat-mit-vorstrafenregister-pfizer-ubernimmt-den-eu-impfstoffmarkt-18-milliarden-dosen/5743054

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Mitbürger, wollt Ihr einen Killer-„Impfstoff“ finanzieren und euch damit „impfen“ lassen? Reicht mir den Schierlingsbecher!
  • Tags: , ,

Russia Increases Its Defense, While U.S. Backs Down from Provoking World War III

April 22nd, 2021 by Eric Zuesse

All Global Research articles 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 stooge-President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, appears to be trapped between what he has promised to do — which is for Ukraine to retake both Donbass and Crimea — and what will be within his power to do.

Ever since Joe Biden became America’s President in January, America’s hostile and threatening actions and rhetoric against (as Biden refers to him) the ‘killer’ Vladimir Putin, Russia’s President, have made clear to Putin that the U.S.

Government’s determination to impose regime-change upon Russia will continue undiminished. This hostility from Biden has dashed Putin’s hope that the string of sanctions which the U.S. Government has constantly been adding to ever since President Obama started the anti-Russian sanctions in 2012, would end, or at least not continue to be added to, under Biden.

Perhaps the clincher, in Putin’s mind, was Biden’s appointment, on January 16th, of Victoria Nuland to the #2 spot in the U.S. State Department, where, during Obama’s Presidency, as a third-ranked official who reported directly to Obama (instead of to her nominal boss the Secretary of State), she had planned, and organized the bloody coup that installed a rabidly anti-Russian Government in Ukraine on Russia’s border.

This is as if during the Cold War the Soviet Union were to have perpetrated a bloody coup installing an anti-U.S. government in Mexico or in Canada (something that the U.S. Government would never have tolerated for even a moment — consider the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 as an example), and Putin now is making clear that he will not tolerate any further increases in America’s anti-Russian threats and aggressions. (In fact, Nuland also was one of the chief planners of America’s aggressions against Syria, which has long been an ally of Russia. The plans against both Ukraine and Syria were first being firmed-up under her during 2011.)

America’s meta-strategy, at least since 2006, has been to ‘win’ WWIII against Russia, whereas Russia has always remained with what had been the meta-strategy on both sides, of having nuclear weapons only in order to be able to deliver an annihilating retaliatory response if the opposite side blitz-attacks it with nuclear weapons. That previous (in the United States, but still current in Russia) meta-strategy is called “Mutually Assured Destruction,” or “M.A.D.” for short.

As I had headlined and documented on 3 May 2017, “America’s Top Scientists Confirm: U.S. Goal Now Is to Conquer Russia”. That article quoted America’s top experts on nuclear war as saying that America’s “boosting the overall killing power of existing U.S. ballistic missile forces by a factor of roughly three … creates exactly what one would expect to see if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.”

This would nearly be sufficient superiority of U.S. forces to fulfill the plan which had been first described publicly in America’s two most prestigious international relations journals, as being a suitable replacement for “M.A.D.”: “Nuclear Primacy”. That’s the goal for America to blitz-nuclear attack Russia so quickly that Russia won’t have enough time to launch a retaliatory response. America’s Establishment wants it to happen. (They are even buying luxurious deep-underground nuclear-bomb-proof shelters so that they will be among the few survivors from it.)

Putin is now taking the situation to be so dangerous for Russia so that he has publicly established “red lines” in U.S. policies, which, if crossed by the United States or its allies, might be responded to by Russia’s being the first to strike — the start of WWIII — even though that would destroy the entire world, including Russia itself.

Though he takes a great risk with these “red lines,” he seems to believe that by establishing them, there is less of a risk to Russians than if he continues to pretend that M.A.D. remains as being American policy. He is, in effect, forcing Joe Biden to choose now, between Nuclear Primacy versus M.A.D. Putin is now publicly warning the U.S. Government and America’s allies what could possibly be responded to by Russia’s blitz-attacking them. That’s what this new Russian policy is all about: pre-announced red lines.

The biggest hot spot, where a world-destroying nuclear war is the likeliest to be sparked, is in Ukraine, after Barack Obama’s February 2014 coup in Ukraine (on Russia’s border) which coup illegally and violently overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected President and replaced him by a racist-fascist (or nazi) anti-Russian regime that promptly began an ethnic cleansing operation in its far south and far east in order to eliminate voters who had (in the far east, the Donbass region) voted 90%+ for him, and (in the far south, including Crimea) voted 75%+ for him. (Only by eliminating those people could the Obama-imposed regime remain in power after an election.) Obama had started planning this operation in 2011, and by the time of June 2013 a part of this plan was for America to replace Russia’s largest naval base, which was (and remains) in Crimea, by establishing yet another U.S. naval base there. (Putin — with the strong backing of the Crimean people — blocked that part of Obama’s plan.)

On April 15th, the U.S. regime’s Associated Press (AP) propaganda agency headlined a thousand-word “EXPLAINER: What’s behind the conflict in eastern Ukraine?” and devoted one section of it to “WHAT ARE THE ROOTS OF THE CONFLICT?” and another section to “WHAT’S THE U.S. ROLE?”, but nowhere in it was anything that has just been documentedhere, via the links, to be true, was even so much as just mentioned, in that entire article.

Here are headlines from April 17th regarding Ukraine:

“Ukraine’s military chief urges authorities to refrain from creating armed formations”: This reports an announcement by Ukraine’s Government telling its independently organized volunteer nazi battalions: please do not invade Donbass unless and until authorized to do so. Those battalions had previously been given to understand that they would soon be authorized to invade. The Ukrainian General is here telling those battalions that premature actions on their part might be exploited by Russia for its purposes (for Russian propaganda). This plea to those far-right mercenaries can only be very disappointing to them. Both of Ukraine’s two nazi Parties, Svoboda (originally the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine), and Right Sector (meaning “Right Wing” in the extreme senses), are on the front lines there, and have publicly threatened to overthrow Ukraine’s current President if he fails to invade Donbas soon. Those mercenaries could quickly turn against him.

“Russia Shuts Ukraine’s Military Access To [the Sea of Azov]”: Beginning “next week,” and continuing at least until October, Russia will prevent any military vessels of or allied with the United States from passing through the Kerch Strait, which transits from the Black Sea, into the Sea of Azov, which latter is Ukraine’s sole coastal waters. (That U.S.-written headline erroneously said “Russia Shuts Ukraine’s Military Access To Black Sea,” because confusing the Black Sea with the Sea of Azov is common. However, that news-report provided an excellent map which shows what the article was actually reporting: Russia will close off U.S.-and-allied warship-access to Ukraine’s coast.) The implication of this news-report is that until (at least) October, Ukraine must avoid invading Donbas, or else do it without being able to be militarily resupplied by the U.S. and its allies.

“FAA issues warning for flights in Russia-Ukraine border airspace”: This is a warning to airlines to avoid that area because of the possibility of war breaking out imminently there (warning them to avoid events like the 17 July 2014 MH17 incident).

In other words: Putin is finally putting his foot down. He won’t tolerate any more of what Obama and Trump were dishing out.

On April 15th a headline was “U.S. drops plans to send destroyers into the Black Sea due to concerns over Russia”. This is one of several strong signs that Biden understands that crossing one of Putin’s red lines would be extremely dangerous.

The stooge-President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, appears to be trapped between what he has promised to do — which is for Ukraine to retake both Donbass and Crimea (the same thing that his predecessor Petro Poroshenko had promised) — and what will be within his power to do. Even the U.S. empire, which had placed him (and Poroshenko — and Poroshenko’s predecessor “Yats” Yatsenyuk) into nominal control over that country, won’t actually risk WWIII in order to keep him in power there. At the present point in time, the best that Zelensky can reasonably hope for is to survive beyond his clearly doomed Presidency. He is learning that being a stooge is not a comfortable position to occupy.

*

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.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Featured image is from the public domain

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia Increases Its Defense, While U.S. Backs Down from Provoking World War III
  • Tags: ,

Fellow Citizens, Do You Want to Finance a Killer “Vaccine” and be “Inoculated” with It? Pass Me the Cup of Hemlock!

April 22nd, 2021 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

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

***

After my wife carefully read Prof. Chossudovsky‘s startling article “Big Pharma Conglomerate with a Criminal Record: Pfizer ‘Takes Over’ EU Vaccine Market” in “Global Research” (1), she said,

“So we citizens are paying for the poison Big Pharma wants to inject us with.”

Indeed, because of the relentless fear campaign of an unscrupulous “elite”, out of negligent ignorance or out of an incomprehensible good faith towards Big Pharma, we EU citizens are allowing this pharmaceutical conglomerate to inject us with a killer “vaccine”. This is similar to the ancient drink of poisonous “spotted hemlock” used in executions and voluntary suicides in Athens in the 5th and 4th centuries BC.

Reliable partner? The Pfizer criminal record

According to Prof. Chossudovsky’s thorough research, the European Commission is currently negotiating a contract with the pharmaceutical conglomerate Pfizer for the production of 1.8 billion mRNA vaccine doses – the largest vaccine project in world history. With this, every single person in the European Union is to be vaccinated four times within two years (2021 to 2021).

But Pfizer’s mRNA – as well as those of its competitors including Astrazeneca, Moderna and J & J – are illegal drugs. That is, they are classified as “unapproved” and “experimental products” in the US. So it is blatantly illegal to market an “unapproved product”. In addition, the “vaccine” project is flushing $41 billion into Big Pharma’s coffers and there will be no return to the “New Normal” after the “vaccination”.

Regarding the “reliability” of the EU partner Pfizer (von der Leyen), Chossudovsky recalls a “Pandora’s box” that the EU does not want to open:

“The largest vaccine project of an ‘unapproved drug’ is to be carried out by a Big Pharma company long known for bribing doctors and health authorities.”

Pfizer, he said, was a “habitual offender” with a criminal record in the US and was indicted by the US Department of Justice in 2009 for “deceptive marketing”. Pfizer pleaded guilty and agreed to a $2.3 billion settlement. Also to be recalled are the many deaths and injuries caused by the “experimental vaccine” mRNA.

Sufficiently documented: The vaccine is not required. There is no pandemic!

“Why,” Chossudovsky concludes, “should the EU Commission buy 1.8 billion doses of Pfizer’s mRNA ‘vaccine’, which is known from the outset to have caused deaths and injuries, including autoimmune reactions, blood clotting abnormalities, stroke or internal bleeding?” Next, Chossudovsky demands:

“Say NO to a killer virus!

The EU-sponsored Pfizer “vaccine” must be the subject of a coordinated grassroots movement in all 27 member states of the European Union, as well as worldwide. The scientific evidence sufficiently confirms that a Covid 19 vaccine is NOT needed.”

*

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 Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1. https://www.globalresearch.ca/big-pharma-conglomerate-with-a-criminal-record-pfizer-takes-over-the-eu-vaccine-market-1-8-billion-doses/5742812

Guilty on All Charges: Chauvin, Cops and the Racist System

April 22nd, 2021 by 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).

***

Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was found guilty on three counts of murder in the brutal death of 47-year-old African American George Floyd. 

The jury impaneled in the historic case only deliberated 11 hours prior to reaching a unanimous conclusion that it was the action of Chauvin and other police officers which caused the untimely demise of Floyd, who had been shopping earlier in a neighborhood store.

Police initially reported that Floyd died due to a medical emergency. This same line of argument was articulated by the defense lawyer in a failed effort to absolve his client of murder.

Despite the videotaped murder of Floyd which was viewed by billions of people throughout the world, Chauvin plead not guilty requiring a trial. Many governments, media agencies, popular organizations and interested individuals followed the hearings with intense anticipation.

These proceedings are rare within the context of the United States legal system. More often than not, law-enforcement personnel are routinely absolved of culpability when their interactions with civilians result in serious injury and death.

After the widely publicized police killing of Floyd, people rose up in anger and rebellion in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area as well as throughout the U.S. The response was in fact global when outrage over the blatant violation of Floyd’s civil and human rights spread to continents across the world. The plight of George Floyd became a rallying cry for those committed to ending racism, national oppression and all forms of injustice.

Within the U.S. last summer, people took to the streets both nonviolently and violently. Cities many miles away from Minneapolis such as Chicago, Milwaukee, New York City, Philadelphia, Detroit, Grand Rapids, Atlanta, Portland, Oakland, Los Angeles, among others, saw mass demonstrations which attracted hundreds of thousands of participants.

Minneapolis crowd reacts to Derek Chauvin guilty verdict (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Floyd’s murder prompted a fierce debate surrounding the origins and character of policing in the U.S. Once again there was the recognition that policing in the U.S. directed towards African Americans is a continuing remnant of the period of enslavement. The character of law-enforcement practices is often the first entry by the oppressed and the working class to the prison-industrial complex.

African Americans and people of Latin American descent are disproportionately represented in instances of racial profiling, arrests, convictions and imprisonment. Black and Brown populations constitute over 50% of all those incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons. Clearly, in viewing these statistics, it becomes quite obvious that the criminal justice system is designed to contain these oppressed peoples in an effort to maintain white supremacy and capitalist class rule.

In response to the guilty verdicts, the family of George Floyd along with millions of others felt a sense of jubilation that justice had been done. The sister of Floyd, LaTonya, said of the situation:

“I feel like heaven is standing on my shoulders. My brother got justice, and that’s very rare. He didn’t deserve that. He didn’t deserve none of that. I just miss him so much. I am so hurt right now, but I am so happy. When I watch this man get handcuffed in court behind his back, just like he did my brother, he is not in control anymore. He has no power. But my brother does. My brother does.” (See this)

Hundreds were gathered outside the courthouse and the Cup Foods store where Floyd was murdered eagerly awaiting the announcement of the jury’s decision. People around the U.S. and internationally breathed a sigh of relief feeling that some semblance of justice was served to Floyd and his family.

Police Killings Continue Around the U.S.

While the verdict against Chauvin was being read, police in Columbus, Ohio shot and killed a 16-year-old African American woman named Ma’Khia Bryant. Police claim that Bryant was holding a knife and threatening another woman. A video of the incident was released the following day on April 21 by the Columbus police and city administration.

As usual, the police and city rulers are attempting to justify the shooting death of this young person. Demonstrations erupted in the aftermath of the death of Bryant while people all over the U.S. were compelled to think that the conviction of Chauvin will not prevent future incidents of this nature.

Other police killings have been reported in recent days leading up to and after the Chauvin verdicts. Adam Toledo, a 13-year-old youth in Chicago was gunned down while his hands were up facing the officer who took his life. Police in this instance said that Toledo had been carrying a gun. Yet the video released by the police and the city administration of Mayor Lori Lightfoot, illustrates that the teenager was not holding a weapon at the time of the discharge of the police officer’s firearm.

In Knoxville, Tennessee, at Austin-East Magnet High School, 17-year-old Anthony J. Thompson, Jr. was killed by police in what was described as a confrontation with law-enforcement officers on April 16. The Knoxville police claimed that Thompson fired one shot and that they responded with two rounds killing the teenager. Protesters gathered outside the Knoxville police station on the following day demanding that the video cam of the police officers involved be released to the public.

Detroit police reported on April 18 and April 20 that they had killed two people in separate incidents. Police Chief James Craig as normal immediately declared the killings as being justifiable homicide. The names of the individuals gunned down were not released by the authorities or the corporate media which typically defends the police in such incidents.

The Detroit police are being sued by local anti-racist activists for brutality and false arrests during mass demonstrations during the summer of 2020 in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd and later Hakim Littleton, a 20-year-old was killed by law-enforcement in July. The Wayne County Prosecutor Kim Worthy has refused to file charges against police in the Littleton killing, saying the cops were justified in shooting the youth in the head while he was already subdued.

On April 21, police while serving a search warrant in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, shot dead Andrew Brown, Jr., who was unarmed. The local authorities in the North Carolina city of 18,000 have not released much information on the death of Brown saying the case is under investigation while the officer involved has been placed on paid leave.

The U.S. System of Law-enforcement and Criminal Justice Must be Dismantled

Not only are people around the U.S. demanding the defunding of the police, calls for their abolition are growing among significant segments of the African American, Latin American and other sectors of the population. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib of the 13th District in metropolitan Detroit drew the ire of the police by issuing a statement demanding the end of policing as we know it in the U.S.  Chief Craig soon called a press conference where he said the Congresswoman, who is a Palestinian American, should leave her office from which she was duly elected.

The Moratorium NOW! Coalition and its allies later issued a statement calling for Craig’s resignation saying he was a holdover from emergency management illegally imposed by the-then Republican Governor Rick Snyder and the right-wing legislature in Lansing at the aegis of the banks on the majority African American city during 2013-2014. Craig is now an appointee of the corporate-oriented Mayor Mike Duggan who has designated 30% of the municipal budget to the police. Moratorium NOW! Coalition wants the police budget slashed to fund education, city services and mental health centers.

An announcement on April 21 by the U.S. Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland said the division is conducting a review of the Minneapolis Police Department in the aftermath of the guilty verdict against Derek Chauvin, saying the administration of President Joe Biden wants to determine whether the policies of law-enforcement are guided by racial bias. It is quite obvious from looking at arrest records in Minneapolis, noting that African Americans are detained at a rate of 300% percent above their numbers within the population which is just 19%, suggest strongly that racism is an important factor.

Until the issue of racist policing and the prison-industrial-complex is resolved there will be no peace in the U.S. A total political, economic and social overall of the capitalist system is required to end the national oppression and class exploitation of the majority of people inside the country and indeed 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.

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

Featured image: Columbus youth Ma’Khia Bryant gunned down by police; all images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated

Pentagon Scientists Reveal a Microchip that Senses COVID-19 in Your Body before You Show Symptoms and a Filter that Extracts the Virus from Blood

April 22nd, 2021 by Harriet Alexander

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

***

Pentagon scientists working inside a secretive unit set up at the height of the Cold War have created a microchip to be inserted under the skin, which will detect COVID-19 infection, and a revolutionary filter that can remove the virus from the blood when attached to a dialysis machine.

The team at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) have been working for years on preventing and ending pandemics.

They assess the issues and come up with ingenious solutions, which at times appear more from a science fiction novel than a working laboratory.

One of their recent inventions, they told 60 Minutes on Sunday night, was a microchip which detects COVID infection in an individual before it can become an outbreak.

The microchip is sure to spark worries among some about a government agency implanting a microchip in a citizen.

Officials who spoke to the 60 Minutes team said the Pentagon isn’t looking to track your every move.

A more detailed explanation was not given.

Retired Colonel Matt Hepburn, an army infectious disease physician leading DARPA’s response to the pandemic, showed the 60 Minutes team a tissue-like gel, engineered to continuously test your blood.

‘You put it underneath your skin and what that tells you is that there are chemical reactions going on inside the body, and that signal means you are going to have symptoms tomorrow,’ he explained.

To read the complete article on the Daily Mail click here

Our thanks to the Daily Mail for bringing this article to our attention

*

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 CBS

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pentagon Scientists Reveal a Microchip that Senses COVID-19 in Your Body before You Show Symptoms and a Filter that Extracts the Virus from Blood
  • Tags: , , ,

Fake News Reports. is Russia Preparing to Invade Ukraine? Zelensky Ready for War?

April 22nd, 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).

***

When major media operate exclusively as press agents for wealth, power, and privilege, fourth estate credibility no longer exists.

Nothing they report can be taken at face value.

They’re waging all-out war of words on Russia.

Yet fake news reports on Ukraine falsely claim otherwise — an Obama/Biden regime established fascist police state in Europe’s heartland.

In recent days, reinvented reality headlines screamed the following:

  • NYT: “A Threat From the Russian State (sic): Ukrainians Alarmed as Troops Mass on Their Doorstep (sic)”
  • NYT: “Ukraine’s President Warns of Possible War With Russia (sic)”
  • Washington Post: “Russia is expanding ‘offensive’ military strength near Ukraine border (sic)”
  • WSJ: “Russia’s Putin Issues Warnings Amid Military Buildup (sic)” 
  • Business Insider: “Russia seems to be preparing to invade Ukraine (sic)”
  • Yahoo: “Is Russia About To Invade Ukraine?”
  • Newsweek: Same headline: “Is Russia About to Invade Ukraine (sic)?”
  • UK owned and controlled BBC: “Is Russia going to war with Ukraine (sic)?”
  • Al Jazeera: “Will Russia attack Ukraine (sic)?”
  • Foreign Policy (FP) magazine: “Is Russia Preparing to Go to War in Ukraine?”

Ignoring reality, other fake news headlines screamed in similar fashion — despite no Russian threat to Ukraine or other nations.

Based on talking points supplied by Western regimes, claims otherwise are invented, not real.

According to Newsweek fake news, “speculation grows over whether Moscow intends (to invade) Ukrainian territory (sic).”

Troops in its own territory engaged in scheduled military exercises are “threatening” Ukraine (sic).

According to Business Insider’s reinvention of reality:

“Putin has ordered thousands of troops to the Russian border with Ukraine and mounted a sea blockade (sic).”

“It looks as if he is planning to invade (sic).”

“Russia has done this before (sic).”

According to Foreign Policy (FP), Russia’s “military buildup has been accompanied by increased saber-rattling by (its) officials (sic).”

“Putin is drumming up the besieged Russia narrative (sic).”

FP defied reality by falsely claiming that “Putin’s approval ratings have continued to slump to an all-time low (sic).”

According to Statista Research on February 25, “65 percent of Russians approved of activities of Russian President Vladimir Putin.” His popularity way exceeds how his Western counterparts fare.

All of the above screaming headlines and content are fake news and the steady drumbeat of Russophobic propaganda.

According to US-installed, pro-Western Ukrainian president Zelensky — a caricature of the real thing — his regime is “ready” for war with Russia (sic).

He signed legislation to let Ukraine’s military mobilize reservist conscripts in 24 hours.

According to the press service of Ukraine’s military, US-dominated NATO is ready to aid Kiev defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity — despite no Russian or other foreign threat.

Commander of the NATO’s Allied Land Command, General Roger Cloutier said the following:

“This is our opportunity and indeed our responsibility to provide ground support.”

“It sends a powerful message when NATO Corps commanders speak in one voice.”

Ukrainian General Oleksandr Sirsky defied reality, falsely accusing Russia of “aggression,” adding:

“The ground forces of the armed forces of Ukraine are in a high degree of combat readiness, ready to carry out tasks as intended (sic).”

Its conscript force is largely comprised of Ukrainians abhorrent of war, compelled to serve involuntarily.

A joint statement by US-colonized Ukraine, Poland and Lithuania condemned nonexistent “aggression” by Russia.

Zelensky’s bluster came at a time of increased US-led NATO military activity near Russia’s borders — including warplanes, warships, combat drones, and reconnaissance aircraft.

Russia and the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in Donbass seek restoration of ceasefire and conflict resolution.

Bipartisan hardliners in Washington and complicit NATO partners want a permanent state of war along Russia’s borders that could escalate to something much more serious.

In March, the Zelensky regime approved actions — not implemented — to seize the Russian Republic of Crimea and port city of Sevastopol, home of Moscow’s Black Sea fleet.

According to Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytry Kubela via Twitter:

“The signal is clear: we don’t just call on the world to help us return Crimea, Ukraine makes its own dedicated and systemic efforts under…Zelensky’s leadership.”

Separately, he announced a Crimean Platform Initiative to:

“improve the efficiency of the international response to the occupation of Crimea (sic)…”

“respond to growing security challenges (sic)…”

“step up international pressure on Russia…”

“prevent further human rights violations (sic)…”

“protect victims of the occupying power (sic), and achieve the de-occupation of Crimea (sic) and its return to Ukraine (sic).”

The above is bluster with no intention of follow-through.

Crimea is sovereign Russian territory. Moscow won’t tolerate threats to the Republic and its people.

The Biden regime is pouring weapons, munitions and equipment into Ukraine for warmaking, not defense.

Zelensky’s claim about Ukraine being “ready” for war is blustering nonsense.

Its armed forces have no intention of attacking militarily superior Russia — able to smash its regulars in a few days at most in self-defense if needed.

If escalated war on Donbass by Kiev erupts ahead, it’ll be made-in-the-USA.

If Russia’s security is threatened, its well-trained, heavily armed military is very much ready and able to defend the nation against foreign aggression.

*

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/

Featured image is from PravdaReport

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fake News Reports. is Russia Preparing to Invade Ukraine? Zelensky Ready for War?
  • Tags:

Prague’s Call for EU “Solidarity Expulsions” Against Russian Diplomats Falls on Deaf Ears

April 22nd, 2021 by Paul Antonopoulos

All Global Research articles 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. failed to impose new sanctions on Russia and expel diplomats when Poland hastily declared persona non grata on three employees of the Russian embassy. Washington and Moscow even did a tit for tat by expelling each other’s diplomats from their respective countries, with ten Americans being expelled on Thursday alone. However, the Czech decision to expel 18 diplomats is the most provocative diplomatic action against Moscow in recent times as it threatens to have a domino effect across Europe.

Czechia’s parliament described the 2014 army warehouse explosion as “the biggest attack on our territory since 1968,” and called on the EU to condemn “Russia’s sabotage” and impose new sanctions. Czechia (more commonly known as the Czech Republic) accuses Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, the Russian suspects blamed by London for the 2018 Skripal poisoning in Salisbury, of exploding an army warehouse in Vrbětice. This accusation comes at a time of heightened Russophobia amidst the West’s push to propagate about Russia’s supposed upcoming invasion of Ukraine.

Former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves demanded the EU to stop giving Russian citizens visas, and French President Emmanuel Macron even suggested for global powers to draw “clear red lines” with Moscow.

Jaroslav Štefec, a military analyst and former director of the armaments service of Czechia’s Ministry of Defense, believes the 2014 explosion was carried out by Czech intelligence services, something not being contemplated by the likes of Ilves or Macron. He also questioned why this issue was brought up now and emphasised that camera recordings can very easily be edited.

Nonetheless, 18 employees of the Russian Embassy in the Czech capital of Prague were deported and identified as members of the Russian intelligence services. In response, Moscow expelled 20 employees of the Czech Embassy, including a deputy ambassador.

Prague’s escalations against Moscow also had the goal of purging pro-Russian elements in the country. It is for this reason that President Miloš Zeman and Foreign Minister Tomáš Petříček had a public row, with the latter eventually being sacked. Zeman, considered pro-Moscow, managed to avoid the political manoeuvrings of Petříček, but could not avoid Russian energy giant Rosatom from being excluded in a multi-billion-euro tender for a new unit at the Dukovany nuclear power plant. This now puts U.S.-based Westinghouse, Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power and France’s EDF as leading candidates to build the $7.2 billion project after China had earlier already been excluded from the tender process following pressure from Czech security services and right-wing opposition parties. With China already eliminated from the tender process, Prague’s accusations of Moscow-backed terrorism “legitimized” a reason for Rosatom to also be excluded.

Czechia’s accusations and expulsion of Russian diplomats are more provocative than the U.S. expulsions as they are trying to frame this issue as an EU one. In yesterday’s resolution, voted for by 67 out of 72 senators, the Czech Senate stated that the attack in Vrbětice was an act of state terrorism by Russia against an EU member state. In connection with this, members of the upper chamber of the Czech parliament described the incident as an attack on the entire Union.

Within this scope, Acting Foreign Minister Jan Hamáček had the audacity to ask for a “collective action […] aimed at a solidarity expulsion of identified members of Russian intelligence services from EU and NATO member states.”

There of course was little enthusiasm Europe-wide for Prague’s call for “solidarity” as the majority of member states are not interested being entangled with actions against Russia.

In one example, Greek Tourism Minister Harry Theocharis completed a four-day tour of Moscow on the weekend after meeting with Russian ministers, tourism organizations and media. Seeing as Greece’s economy relies on a tourism industry that has greatly suffered because of the COVID-19 pandemic, whilst at the same time Russia has ended flights to Greece’s main rival Turkey for the next month and a half, it is highly unlikely that Athens will expel Russian diplomats as the country sets to open to international tourists on May 15 and expects at least half a million Russian visitors over the summer. In the context of a greater geopolitical struggle between Athens and Ankara, as well as a Greek economy struggling to recover after more than a decade of austerity, Greece is now positioning itself to lure millions of Russian tourists who usually visit Turkey to spend their cash.

For this reason, in the Greek case, and for other economic and geopolitical factors in other European countries, Prague’s call for a “solidarity expulsion” of Russian diplomats will likely lead to naught, with perhaps exceptions from Poland and the Baltics. Although this call will likely lead to nothing in Europe, Washington will certainly jump on Czechia’s demand and begin consolidating the country as a U.S. partner against Russia. This in itself can have long-term ramifications, especially if there is potential for military cooperation and an opening of a U.S. base on Czech territory.

*

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.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Eastern Europe and the Balkans: From Socialist Bloc And Non-Alignment To U.S. Military Colonies

April 22nd, 2021 by Rick Rozoff

First written by renowned NATO analyst Rock Rozoff in May 2010.

April 23, 2021. Today, we commemorate the 22nd anniversary of the bombing of the Radio TV of Serbia headquarters.

***

Twenty-two years ago the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was in the seventh week of a bombing war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, one which saw over 1,000 Western military planes fly over 38,000 combat missions, bombs dropped from the sky and Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from the Mediterranean Sea.

Having quickly exhausted military targets, NATO warplanes resorted to bombing so-called targets of opportunity, including bridges on the Danube River, factories, Radio Television of Serbia headquarters in the capital (where sixteen employees were killed), a refugee column in Kosovo, the offices of political parties and the residences of government officials and foreign ambassadors, a passenger train, a religious procession, hospitals, apartment courtyards, hotels, the Swedish and Swiss embassies and the nation’s entire power grid.

U.S. Apache gunships and British Harrier jet aircraft were deployed for attacks on the ground and Yugoslavia was strewn with unexploded cluster bomb fragments and depleted uranium contamination.

The 78-day bombing campaign, NATO code name Operation Allied Force and U.S. Operation Noble Anvil, was promoted in Washington and other Western capitals as history’s first “humanitarian war.”

The U.S. and NATO dramatically escalated the reckless assault with an overnight attack on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade on May 7 in which five American bombs simultaneously struck the building, killing three and wounding 20 Chinese citizens. The government of China denounced the action for what it was, a “war crime,” a “barbaric attack and a gross violation of Chinese sovereignty” and “NATO’s barbarian act.”

During the long Cold War it was assumed that military action by the North Atlantic military bloc would result in the death and injury of soldiers and civilians in member states of the Warsaw Pact. But NATO’s first victims were Serbs and Chinese.

When the war ended on June 11, the West had achieved what it set out to accomplish:

50,000 troops under NATO’s command entered Serbia’s Kosovo province, where over 12,000 remain eleven years later.

The Pentagon commissioned Kellogg, Brown & Root to construct the nearly 1,000-acre Camp Bondsteel and its sister base Camp Monteith in Kosovo, which continue to operate to the present day.

Kosovo had been wrenched from Serbia and on February 17, 2008 declared itself an independent nation, recognized as such by the U.S. and most all of its NATO allies, though not by almost two-thirds of the world’s nations.

In 1999 NATO Secretary General Javier Solana moved across the street as it were in Brussels to become the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, in which post he supervised a “trial separation” for what remained of Yugoslavia, and the very name of Yugoslavia was wiped from the map as the Western-sponsored State Union of Serbia and Montenegro succeeded it in 2003.

Three years later Montenegro, with a population smaller than that of the American city of Memphis, became the world’s newest nation. To demonstrate after the fact what had been planned before, a U.S. guided missile cruiser visited the coastal city of Tivat within months and an American submarine, USS Emory Land, arrived there in 2007 to mark the first anniversary of Montenegro’s nominal independence.

In the year following the break-up of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, the last-named joined NATO’s Partnership for Peace apprenticeship program and the following year was granted an Individual Partnership Action Plan and signed a Status of Forces Agreement with NATO for which the U.S. is the depositary government. In late 2009 it received a Membership Action Plan, the final step before full NATO membership. This March Montenegro became the 44th nation to contribute troops for NATO’s war in Afghanistan. All these developments occurred in four years.

Since the beginning of NATO’s post-Cold War expansion in 1999, nations of the former Warsaw Pact and of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have become Western military colonies, hosting visits by and basing troops and military equipment from NATO and its individual members, especially the U.S. So far this year former Warsaw Pact countries Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and most recently Albania have announced their willingness to accede to U.S. and NATO requests for interceptor missile facilities to be stationed on their territories.

The U.S. has acquired four military bases in Romania and three in Bulgaria over the past four years and will soon activate a Patriot Advanced Capability-3 interceptor missile installation in the east of Poland, 35 miles from the Russian border. Longer-range anti-ballistic missile interceptors are to follow according to Polish officials.

NATO has a major training center in Poland, the world’s first multinational strategic airlift operation at the Papa Air Base in Hungary, and de facto possession of a former Soviet air base in Lithuania. After meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates earlier in the month, Lithuanian Defense Minister Rasa Jukneviciene announced that the Pentagon chief confirmed U.S. support for a permanent military base in the Baltic Sea region where NATO warplanes have been conducting air patrols since the induction of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into the bloc in 2004.

The Lithuanian defense chief also said the Pentagon wants to extend NATO air patrols in the area “till 2018 and beyond.”

Washington plans to establish a missile shield communications center in the Czech Republic, where Britain is currently leading multinational air combat exercises, Operation Flying Rhino 2010, with 2,000 foreign and 1,000 Czech troops.

Air bases in Bulgaria and Romania were employed for the attack on and invasion of Iraq in 2003 and have been used regularly for the nearly nine-year U.S.-NATO war in Afghanistan.

After the invasion of Iraq, new NATO members the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland sent troops to the country, as did then NATO candidates and partners Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine.

Offering Washington troops for the war in Iraq was a prerequisite for advanced NATO partnerships and eventual full membership. Nine of the above nations were awarded the second in return for their services. Bosnia, Macedonia and as of last year Montenegro have been granted Membership Action Plans, introduced at the 1999 NATO fiftieth anniversary summit in Washington, D.C. as the penultimate stage of full integration. Georgia and Ukraine were presented special Annual National Programs by NATO shortly after Georgia’s war with Russia in August of 2008.

All twelve new Eastern European NATO members have troops in Afghanistan, as do prospective members Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Georgia, Macedonia and Montenegro.

NATO has taken over the former Warsaw Pact and former Yugoslavia, in the first case without firing a shot. In the second through two bombing campaigns (Bosnia in 1995 and Serbia in 1999) and three deployments of ground troops (Bosnia in 1995, Kosovo in 1999 and Macedonia in 2001).

All ex-Warsaw Pact nations outside the former Soviet Union now have soldiers killing and dying under NATO command in Afghanistan, as all but the erstwhile East Germany did in Iraq, though none of them did under Warsaw Pact obligations during the ten years of Soviet involvement in the South Asian nation. Seven of fifteen former Soviet republics also have troops serving under NATO in the Afghan war zone.

The U.S. and other major Alliance powers conduct regular multinational Partnership for Peace military manuevers in all three former Soviet Republics in the South Caucasus – Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia – and have held comparable exercises in Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

The major purpose of the war games and other drills is to prepare the militaries of the host and participating nations for interoperability in military, including combat, missions abroad, most prominently in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past few years.

Georgia had 2,000 troops in Iraq in 2008, at the time the third largest foreign contingent, although its population is only slightly over four million, a fraction of that of the U.S., Britain and other major troops providers.

Most of those troops were flown back to Georgia on U.S. military transport planes during the five-day war with South Ossetia and Russia in August of 2008. Georgia will soon have almost 900 troops in Afghanistan, the largest per capita contribution of any of the 50 nations supplying soldiers to NATO for the fighting there.

During the 36 years of the Warsaw Pact member states aside from the Soviet Union rarely deployed military units outside their borders and never overseas.

In the past decade all non-Soviet members and all former Yugoslav republics but Serbia have had their sons and daughters deployed by NATO to such frequently farflung war and conflict zones as the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq and adjoining countries like Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan (Germany) and Kuwait. Over a hundred Polish, Romanian, Bulgarian, Czech, Estonian, Latvian, Hungarian, Lithuanian and Slovak soldiers have returned to their homelands from Afghanistan and Iraq in coffins.

When the Soviet Red Army left Bulgaria in 1947 no foreign troops were stationed in that nation until U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited it two years after its NATO accession to sign an agreement on three military bases there: The Bezmer Air Base, the Graf Ignatievo Air Base (recently certified as meeting “100% compliance” with NATO requirements) and the Novo Selo Training Range.

The last Soviet troops left Romania in 1958. When Nicolae Ceausescu became leader of the nation in 1965, he distanced his country from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, forbidding exercises and deployments involving other states.

In 2005, the year after Romania gained full NATO membership, Condoleezza Rice visited Bucharest and secured four bases for the Pentagon and NATO: The Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base (already used for the war against Iraq), the Cincu and Smardan training bases, and the Babadag firing range.

The U.S. recently concluded military exercises with Bulgaria – Operation Thracian Spring – from April 22 to 28 and led joint air force exercises with Bulgaria and Romania from April 12 to 16 at the Aviano Air Base in Italy.

This February Romanian and Bulgarian government officials announced that they would accept American and NATO Standard Missile-3 interceptor installations and the troops to man them.

In 1960 Albanian leader Enver Hoxha turned against the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact allies, aligning himself with the People’s Republic of China. No foreign troops or bases were allowed in the country.

Starting in 1993 the U.S. Sixth Fleet began conducting naval exercises with Albania, acquired the use of military bases there and deployed troops to a foward base it established near the port city of Durres for the war against Yugoslavia in 1999.

Last week the nation’s prime minister and the chief of staff of the armed forces – after meeting with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen – announced their willingness to host U.S. and NATO interceptor missile facilities and the soldiers who will accompany them.

Albania, along with Croatia, with whom U.S. Special Operations Command
Europe just concluded two months of air exercises for what was described as “large-scale counterinsurgency, stability and counterterrorism operations” abroad, are NATO’s newest members, joining in 2009.

NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, American Admiral James Stavridis, was in Bulgaria on April 26 and 27 and Secretary General Rasmussen is expected there on May 20.

Even affiliating with the Brussels-based bloc demands conditions that are onerous and inflexible. NATO partners are told which Western arms manufacturers they must purchase weapons from, where their troops are to be deployed, who their friends and who their enemies are around the world. The full foreign policy orientation of candidates and members is dictated from Brussels and Washington.

NATO is a bloc that no nation has ever withdrawn from or will be allowed to leave.

Before his visits to Albania and Croatia late last month the latter said at NATO headquarters in Brussels, “My dream will come true if – one day – we could see all countries in the Balkans as members of NATO. They belong to the Euro-Atlantic Community. I hope to see their flags represented here among all other NATO nations.”

Bulgarian Foreign Minister Nikolay Mladenov visited Washington, D.C. at the end of April to meet with among others U.S. National Security Advisor James Jones, and pledged support for NATO and European Union membership for both Serbia and Kosovo.

At last month’s NATO foreign ministers meeting in Estonia, Bosnia’s Membership Action Plan was approved.

NATO’s Kosovo Force is training and arming the Kosovo Security Force, an army in formation under NATO control.

With the demise of the Cold War former members of the Warsaw Pact may have hoped for a demilitarized Europe, one free of armed blocs. Instead the first and preeminent Cold War military alliance, NATO, will soon have engulfed almost every nation on the continent.

The new nations of former Yugoslavia, a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement which had never been in any military bloc, will not be spared that fate.

Rasmussen won’t have long to wait for his dream to be realized and for the flags of all nations and pseudo-nations in Eastern Europe to fly at NATO headquarters. And at bases in Afghanistan and other combat zones.

Foreign troops will be based permanently on their soil as their troops are deployed far abroad.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Eastern Europe and the Balkans: From Socialist Bloc And Non-Alignment To U.S. Military Colonies

Vaccine Passports: One Passport to Rule Them All

April 22nd, 2021 by Makia Freeman

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

***

Vaccine passports are a major goal of those orchestrating Operation Coronavirus, though not the ultimate end goal of the COVID agenda. The purpose of vaccine passports is clear, despite whatever flimsy and mealy-mouthed excuses given to justify them: to restrict the movement of the unvaccinated, or in plainer terms, to restrict the movement of those who have seen through the agenda. There are no clever legal arguments that can distract from this basic truth: vaccine passports are inherently discriminatory. In a sane society, no nation that even pays lip service to caring about human rights could claim that vaccine passports are in alignment with their existing laws on individual rights, freedom of choice, freedom of movement, informed consent and medical sovereignty. However, it hardly bares stating that we do not live in a sane world. Below is a brief list of the vaccine passport schemes that are either proposed, about to be rolled out or already in existence. This is a worldwide agenda being rapidly promoted and implemented.

EU Planned for Vaccine Passports in 2018

Long before the word ‘coronavirus’ become a household world, or the term ‘COVID’ even existed, the European Union (EU) was planning for a vaccine passport scenario. The European Commission (the executive arm of the EU) published a proposal for vaccine passports on April 26th 2018 in a document entitled

“Proposal for a Council Recommendation on Strengthened Cooperation against Vaccine Preventable Diseases”.

It lays out the plan for a “vaccine passport” or “vaccine card” and “vaccine portals”:

“HEREBY WELCOMES THE COMMISSION’S INTENTION TO:

17. Examine issues of insufficient vaccine coverage caused by cross-border movement of people within the EU and look into options to address them, including developing a common EU citizens’ vaccination card/passport, compatible with electronic immunisation information systems and recognised for use across borders.

…

HEREBY WELCOMES THE COMMISSION’S INTENTION TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS, IN CLOSE COOPERATION WITH THE MEMBER STATES:

10. Aim at establishing a European Vaccination Information Sharing (EVIS) system, coordinated by the European Centre for Diseases Prevention and Control (ECDC), in order to:

a. Together with the national public health authorities,

i. examine the options of establishing, by 2020, guidelines for a core EU vaccination schedule, aiming to facilitate the compatibility of national schedules and promote equity in Union citizens’ health protection, and subsequently ensuring broad uptake of the core schedule as well as a common vaccination card;

ii. strengthen the consistency, transparency, and methodologies in the assessment of national and regional vaccination plans, by sharing scientific evidence and tools with the support of National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs);

iii. design EU methodologies and guidance on data requirements for better monitoring of vaccination coverage rates across all age groups, including healthcare workers, in cooperation with the World health Organisation (WHO). Collect such data and share them at EU level;

b. By 2019, establish a European vaccination information portal, with the support of the European Medicines Agency, to provide online objective, transparent and updated evidence on vaccines, their benefit and safety, and the pharmacovigilance process.

c. Monitor online vaccine misinformation and develop evidence-based information tools and guidance to support Member States in countering vaccine hesitancy, in line with the Commission Communication on tackling online disinformation.”

Interestingly, on pg.13, this document also mentions the term vaccine hesitancy as it recommends a “Joint Action on Vaccination, co–funded by the third Programme for the Union’s action in the field of health … to address vaccine hesitancy.”

Vaccine hesitancy has also become a theme in the COVID op because so many people have become aware of just how toxic vaccines can be and how experimental these ones are in particular; in my article from August 2020 I revealed how a Yale study was analyzing how to combat vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake through a variety of psychological techniques and manipulation.

European Vaccine Passports

Given the above documents, it’s no great surprise that Europe is at the forefront of implementing vaccine passports.

The UK and many European countries are getting close to rolling out their passport scheme; on March 17th 2021, the European Commission proposed the following draft legislation to create a “Digital Green Certificate” as you can see from this document. In a classic example of doublepseak, Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders, said:

“With the Digital Green Certificate, we are taking a European approach to ensure EU citizens and their family members can travel safely and with minimum restrictions this summer. The Digital Green Certificate will not be a pre-condition to free movement and it will not discriminate in any way. A common EU-approach will not only help us to gradually restore free movement within the EU and avoid fragmentation.“

No pre-condition for movement? Not discriminate in any way? The very essence of the vaccine passport is regulate and restrict movement, as well as to discriminate. Otherwise, what is the point of it? This is a constant theme of the COVID op. Politicians make rules to control your life, and right when they announce these rules, they claim they are not controlling you. Black is white, up is down and tyranny is freedom.

American Vaccine Passports

They’re coming to America too.

The US state of New York was the first state to introduce a pilot program. Authorities have said it’s optional, but that’s how all these schemes of control initially work; first they’re optional to break down resistance and get people accustomed, and then they’re mandatory. New York is calling its vaccine passport the “Excelsior Pass” and the official announcement states:

“Developed in partnership with IBM, the Excelsior Pass will use proven, secure technology to confirm an individual’s vaccination or a recent negative COVID-19 test through a confidential data transfer to help fast-track the reopening of theaters, stadiums and other businesses in accordance with New York State guidelines…The Excelsior Pass will play a critical role in getting information to venues and sites in a secure and streamlined way, allowing us to fast-track the reopening of these businesses and getting us one step closer to reaching a new normal.”

On the upside, there are certain states which have preemptively banned vaccine passports in some form or another, including Florida, Texas, Arizona, Montana and Idaho. As for much of the duration of the COVID op, support or resistance to vaccine passports is mostly following party lines, with the left-wing Democratic states supporting it and the right-wing Republican states resisting it.

Vaccine Passports in Israel, China and India

Israel has earned itself another dubious distinction by leading the world in COVID vaccination rates, and by already implementing its vaccine passport program. Unvaccinated Israelis are being banned from going to so-called non-essential places. Tyrannical Israeli Health Minister Yuli Edelstein warned:

“Whoever doesn’t vaccinate will only go out to supermarkets or pharmacies, while the vaccinated will go to stadiums and gyms.”

The tyranny doesn’t stop there. Israel has also issued “Freedom Bracelets” to be worn by those entering the country from abroad. Israel’s parliament joined action taken previously by the Spanish governmentin approving a law to create a registry of people refusing the COVID vax. Interestingly, UK Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove was recently seen arriving in Israel for what they say was “vaccine passport talks” but in reality, from those who know the backstory of the Zionist New World Order (NWO), was likely his marching orders.

China and India have both joined the vaccine passport game. China called their version the “International Travel Health Certificate” (downloadable from its WeChat mobile app) while India has a QR code certificate version.

One Passport to Rule Them All

No matter what fancy and different names these passports, apps and QR codes have, there are plans afoot to link them all via a common software or framework.

The leading developers of this technology include AOK Pass, Common Pass, the Vaccination Credential Initiative, Good Health Pass Collaborative and the IATA Travel Pass. This is a clear manifestation of the NWO Agenda of a One World Government with detailed information on every single person (except for the ruling elite) on Earth, who are planned to be its subjects or slaves.

This has been a long time coming. It seems like a long time ago now – over a year ago – when Bill Gates started mouthing off about the need for immunity certificates and digital vaccine passports. The plan is not hidden, but rather wide out in the open. Of course, there is a distinct lack of logic about the whole issue. First of all, as I have exhaustively documented, there is no evidence that the virus SARS-CoV-2 exists. But putting that inconvenient truth aside for a moment, why couldn’t natural immunity to the virus qualify you for the vaccine passport? Mainstream brainwashed medical authorities may say it’s because you can still get re-infected. However the same goes for the vaccine … hence all the talks of a 2nd and 3rd shot (actually the plan is to give people countless shots as they upgrade and rewire their DNA operating system). This is the very same group of vaccines which by the way don’t give you proper immunity and are even admitted to only protect against mild symptoms and not to stop transmission.

It’s not about actual real immunity to disease. It’s about finding out who is vaccinated and who is unvaccinated, and subsequently punishing the non-compliant, disobedient, recalcitrant unvaccinated ones.

For those who want their shiny new vaccine passport – think about this. What happens when the authorities say that you have to keep getting vaxxed … and vaxxed … and vaxxed … every year … just to keep your passport and privileges? Are we going to stand in our inherent soveriegn rights or grovel beneath the slavemasters for government-bestowed privileges?

Final Thoughts

The truth is that vaccine passports are a scheme to force people into getting vaxxed so that they become genetically modified humans. The vaccine is the real bioweapon, not an imaginary virus. The vaccine passports will function to make life uncomfortable for the unvaccinated, and also as a registration system to distinguish between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, so the NWO controllers know exactly which citizens have certain nanotechnology embedded inside of them – which you can be sure will be used to further whatever nefarious goals the NWO manipulators have in mind.

*

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 Freedom Articles.

Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles, author of the book Cancer: The Lies, the Truth and the Solutions and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com. Makia is on Steemit and LBRY.

Sources

https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2018/EN/COM-2018-244-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF

https://thefreedomarticles.com/toxic-vaccine-adjuvants-the-top-10/

https://thefreedomarticles.com/10-things-to-know-experimental-covid-vaccines/

https://thefreedomarticles.com/same-fake-pandemic-similarities-1976-swine-flu-2020-covid/

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_1181

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0130

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-pilot-program-testing-excelsior-pass-madison-square-garden-and

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/these-states-are-attempting-ban-or-curtail-use-vaccine-passports-n1264665

https://www.timesofisrael.com/government-plans-to-punish-businesses-that-serve-unvaccinated-customers-report/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgd_mVbZBcU

https://www.politico.eu/article/spain-coronavirus-vaccine-refusal-registry-with-eu-countries/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-israel-law-personal-information-privacy/

https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/michael-gove-arrives-in-israel-for-vaccine-passport-talks/

https://thefreedomarticles.com/israel-planned-home-of-new-world-order/

https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Coronavirus/COVID-vaccines/China-rolls-out-vaccine-passport-aiming-to-revive-foreign-travel

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/others/got-covid-19-vaccine-you-ll-get-qr-code-certificate-on-phone-101610479579084.html

https://www.aokpass.com/

https://thecommonsproject.org/commonpass

https://vci.org/

https://www.goodhealthpass.org/

https://www.iata.org/en/programs/passenger/travel-pass/

https://thefreedomarticles.com/digital-vaccine-certificates-bill-gates-plan-post-coronavirus/

https://thefreedomarticles.com/10-reasons-sars-cov-2-imaginary-digital-theoretical-virus/

https://truthunmuted.org/vaccine-passports-and-medical-martial-law/

Featured image is from The Freedom Articles

Face Masks Don’t Protect and Risk Serious Harm to Health. Stanford Study

April 22nd, 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).

***

US-dominated Western governments lie and otherwise mass deceive their people on key domestic and geopolitical issues.

So do their press agent media. On most all things mattering most, nothing they claim can be taken at face value. Secret motives are concealed.

***

A new Stanford University study — conducted under the auspices of the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) — concluded that face masks don’t protect against covid (or other) viral droplets and risk serious harm to health if worn longterm.

The NCBI study’s abstract said the following:

“Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (covid).”

“(S)cientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking…”

“(A)dverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established.”

It’s “hypothesized that facemasks have compromised safety and efficacy profile and should be avoided from use.”

“The current (assessment) comprehensively summarizes scientific evidence with respect to wearing facemasks in the (covid) era…”

It “provid(es) information for public health and decision making.”

The NCBI study concludes as follows:

“(E)xisting scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for (covid).”

“The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such (as) SARS-CoV-2 and (covid), supporting against the usage of facemasks.”

“Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects.”

“These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression.”

“Long-term consequences of wearing facemask(s) can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death.”

“Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize (a) scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.”

Face masks can’t protect. They’re porous to permit breathing. Otherwise, they’d hermetically seal wearers and suffocate them.

Peer-reviewed studies showed no relationship between their use in public and protection from covid.

Aerosolized viral droplets are too minute to be blocked.

If exposed when masked, they penetrate what’s worn and accumulate inside.

Pathogens are then inhaled into lungs in concentrated form.

Nations and local communities with the lowest incidence of mask-wearing had fewer outbreaks.

The NCBI study and considerable other scientific evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that virtually everything mandated and recommended by US-dominated Western countries on all things covid risks serious harm to health — not the other way around.

Countless millions of people in the US, West, and elsewhere have been — and continue to be — conned to believe what’s shown up annually for time immemorial with no fear-mongering created mass hysteria became harmful to health and well-being like never before.

So it became necessary to institute draconian policies to address it.

Countless numbers of medical and scientific experts profoundly disagree.

What’s gone on since last year is state-sponsored/media supported madness.

Ignored is that the survival rate for seasonal flu-renamed covid for individuals under age-70 is 99.95% — 95% for people over age-70.

Since last year in the West, countless numbers of reported deaths from causes unrelated to covid were falsely attributed to the renamed viral illness.

Artificially inflating numbers is all about fear-mongering ordinary people to self-inflict harm by going along with draconian/harmful to health policies.

They include multiple inoculations with experimental, high-risk, unapproved, rushed to market, DNA altering mRNA technology and vaccines for covid.

When taken as directed, they risk serious harm to health — including contraction of the illness they’re claimed to protect against.

If ongoing madness continues unchecked — what’s highly likely in the West — the toll on health and well-being may be catastrophic.

*

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/

Featured image is from Engin Akyurt from Pixabay

Yale Public Health Professor Suggests 60% of New COVID-19 Patients Have Received Vaccine

April 22nd, 2021 by Dorothy Cummings McLean

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

***

An American Professor of Epidemiology at Yale University revealed that the majority of people now coming down with COVID-19 have been vaccinated against the virus. 

“Clinicians have been telling me that more than half of the new COVID cases that they’re treating are people who have been vaccinated,” said Dr. Harvey Risch.

A professor at the Yale School of Public Health, Risch appeared on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” program and contrasted the public’s perception of the vaccines’ efficacy with that of the medical establishment.

Click here to watch the interview.

“I think the American public has been sold on the vaccine by the research that shows that they reduce the infection of mild to moderate symptomatic infection by somewhere between 60-90% depending upon age and vaccine and so on and that is pretty good performance for an individual who wants to take a vaccine to protect himself,” Risch said.

“However, that is not the measure that public health infrastructure, administration, and Dr. Fauci are using to look at the efficacy of the vaccine.”

What the medical establishment is most interested in, Risch believes, is whether or not the vaccines prevent the spread of the infection. As Big Pharma has not provided this information, Risch recommends looking at the data from places where the vaccine has been used.

“For that the best place so far has been the mass rollout in Israel where the Pfizer vaccine was given to more than half the population now,” the epidemiologist said.

“And in Israel, the studies there show that it reduces the spread of the infection by somewhere around 50-60% so that contributes to herd immunity,” he continued.

“But it is not an overnight shutting down of the spread. It is a slow and continuing benefit for society to do that. But it is totally different than each individual’s protection of, say, 90%.”

This should be a wake-up call to people who think the vaccine will “free them up from all restrictions,” he said. This cannot happen because, although they might not get symptoms, the vaccine cuts the actual transmission of the virus only by a half. Risch said clinicians have told him that over half of new coronavirus cases have already had a vaccine.

“They’ve estimated that more than 60% of the new cases that they are treating – COVID cases – have been people who have been vaccinated,” Risch said.

Last summer Dr. Risch caused a stir in medical circles, including his own workplace, when he advocated the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for the coronavirus. On May 27, he published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology entitled “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis.” In August, he told Fox News host Mark Levin that the evidence was “overwhelming” that hydroxychloroquine reduces risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19.

*

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 Yale Public Health Professor Suggests 60% of New COVID-19 Patients Have Received Vaccine
  • Tags:

Afghanistan: US Exit Is with Caveats

April 22nd, 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 United States and NATO are yet to begin the withdrawal of their forces from Afghanistan but the eyes are cast over the horizon at what lies after the ‘forever war’ formally ends. The US exit strategy in Afghanistan assumes the look of that random arbitrariness of a lottery that was the case with its Iraq war ending inconclusively in 2011. 

Evidence is piling that the US president Joe Biden’s declaration of April 14  on total troop withdrawal by September 11 may not be the last word on that topic. The Pentagon commanders and the CIA seem to be “tweaking” the decision. 

On the day after Biden spoke, the New York Times reported under the byline of two of the paper’s noted senior correspondents that “the Pentagon, American spy agencies and Western allies are refining plans to deploy a less visible but still potent force in the region to prevent the country (Afghanistan) from again becoming a terrorist base… Pentagon is discussing with allies where to reposition forces.” 

The report mentioned that although NATO forces would formally withdraw, Turkey, a member of the alliance, “is leaving troops behind who could help the C.I.A. collect intelligence.” Besides, some of the Pentagon contractors (mercenaries) who include 6000 American personnel could also be redeployed.  

The Times report also disclosed that “Pentagon actually has about 1000 more troops on the ground there than it has publicly acknowledged. The murky accounting results from some Special Operations forces having been put “off the books” … to include some elite Army Rangers, who work under both the Pentagon and the C.I.A.” Pentagon might even slip these undisclosed troops into Afghanistan after the departure deadline of September 11. 

On the same day as the Times report appeared, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, speaking from Kabul, confirmed to the media after talks with Afghan government officials that “even when our troops come home, our partnership with Afghanistan will continue. Our security partnership will endure. There’s strong bipartisan support (in Washington) for that commitment to the Afghan Security Forces.” 

Blinken sidestepped the scale of future CIA presence in Afghanistan — the tricky part. But Moscow solved the riddle when the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova alleged on April 17 that “there are persistent reports that the US is itself giving support to terrorist groups, including ISIS, in Afghanistan, and that Washington plans to build up the presence of its intelligence service in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as it withdraws its troops from that country.” 

Zakharova said, “these circumstances are giving rise to serious concern not only in Russia but in other countries of the region as well. We are looking forward to receiving explanations from the American side.” Indeed, this is not the first time that Russia has alleged a nexus between the US intelligence and ISIS to destabilise the Central Asian region.

In fact, on April 19, Russia conducted a major air strike at a remote region near Palmyra in Syria against camps for terrorists in which 200 terrorists were killed. The Russian statement alleged that terrorists were being trained in the US-controlled al-Tanf zone in the border region in southeast Syria straddling the Baghdad-Damascus highway. 

Earlier, in January, Shanghai Cooperation Organization officials were also quoted as voicing concern over “growing” numbers of ISIS fighters being transferred from Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan. 

Suffice to say, even as the US and NATO are preparing to formally withdraw forces from Afghanistan, Pentagon and CIA are calibrating their future operations in the country, notionally to assist Afghan security forces but in reality, in pursuit of the larger regional interests of Washington, which today narrow down principally to the containment of Russia and China. The Afghan state structure is in meltdown and the US special forces and CIA operatives would have operational freedom to do they want. 

Interestingly, after his return from Kabul, Blinken announced on Tuesday an “additional civilian assistance” of $300 million to the Kabul set-up “as part of our commitment to invest in and support the Afghan people.” This is laughable, coming as it does at a juncture when, as Washington Post reported from Kabul recently, “The scramble for peace in Afghanistan is fracturing Kabul’s political leadership and undermining the U.S.-backed government.” Is Blinken so hopelessly out of touch with the situation in Kabul? In reality, this appears to be Washington’s gift to the power brokers in the Afghan security establishment. 

The bottom line is that the CIA is pushing ahead with its blueprint to use Afghanistan as a staging post to destabilise Russia, Iran and China. On the other hand, the postponement of the high-level conference in Istanbul from 24th April to 4th May means that the peace process has been derailed and the Doha Pact’s May 1 deadline for US troop withdrawal stands erased. Put differently, Washington has shifted the goal post and has also in the bargain granted a fresh lease of life to the Ashraf Ghani regime. 

Perhaps, India is the only friend Washington genuinely has in the region today to lean on. Blinken telephoned External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar on Monday “to reaffirm the importance of the US-India relationship and cooperation on regional security issues.” The White House readout claimed that the two ministers “agreed to close and frequent coordination” over the Afghanistan situation. 

Indeed, at a hearing at the House Armed Services Committee in Washington on Tuesday, the commander of the US Central Command Gen. Kenneth McKenzie Jr. has said that for conducting future operations in Afghanistan, the US will “firstly require heavy intelligence support” and American diplomats are working now “to find new places in the region” to base the intelligence assets. 

Surely, Pakistan cannot be one of those “new places”. Against this complicated backdrop, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi arrived in Tehran on Wednesday for talks with the Iranian leaders. The press reports from Tehran speak of Iran’s willingness to cooperate with Pakistan (here and here). But it is no secret that the two countries have different outlooks, interests and priorities in Afghanistan.

Having said that, both countries might also sense today a certain congruence of interests in the emergent situation, with the Afghan peace process in suspended animation, the Doha Pact in cold storage and the Taliban resentful, and the US finessing its future options. The extent to which Tehran and Islamabad can reconcile their approaches and coordinate will no doubt impact the future course of events. Conceivably, that is also what Moscow and Beijing would expect.

As things stand, the continuing instability in Afghanistan and the derailment of the peace process can only work to Washington’s advantage to reset the clock and rearrange its pawns and proxies on the chessboard for a fresh game to begin. The prospect for an inclusive interim government in Kabul has receded lately. Certainly, Pakistan has been under pressure to restrain the Taliban.

Can it be mere coincidence that  terrorists chose this moment to stage a well-planned, professionally executed attack in Quetta, shattering the country’s internal situation? Who stands to gain? There are no easy answers. A sense of déjà vu would only be natural.

*

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: Raider Brigade Soldiers with 2nd Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division conduct a foot patrol in Afghanistan, Dec. 22, 2018, in support of Operation Resolute Support and Operation Freedom’s Sentinel. (Source: Army/defense.gov)

Worried About the Autonomous Weapons of the Future? Look at What’s Already Gone Wrong

April 22nd, 2021 by Dr. Ingvild Bode

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

***

To the casual observer, the words “military AI” have a certain dystopic ring to them, one that’s in line with sci-fi movies like “Terminator” that depict artificial intelligence (AI) run amok. And while the “killer robots” cliché does at least provide an entry point into a debate about transformative military technologies, it frames autonomous AI weapons as a challenge for tomorrow, rather than today. But a close look at the history of one common type of weapons package, the air defense systems that militaries employ to defend against missiles and other airborne threats, illuminates how highly automated weaponry is actually a risk the world already faces.

As practical, real-world examples, air defense systems can ground a debate over autonomous weapons that’s often abstract and speculative. Heads of state and defense policymakers have made clear their intentions to integrate greater autonomous functionality into weapons (and many other aspects of military operations). And while many policymakers say they want to ensure humans remain in control over lethal force, the example of air defense systems shows that they face large obstacles.

Weapons like the US Army’s Patriot missile system, designed to shoot down missiles or planes that threaten protected airspace, include autonomous features that support targeting. These systems now come in many different shapes and sizes and can be typically operated in manual or various automatic modes. In automatic modes, the air defense systems can on their own detect targets and fire on them, relegating human operators to the role of supervising the system’s workings and, if necessary, of aborting attacks. The Patriot air defense system, used by 13 countries, is “nearly autonomous, with only the final launch decision requiring human interaction,” according to research by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Air defense systems have been used by militaries for decades. Researchers began developing some of the first so-called “close-in weapons systems” to provide warships a last line of defense against anti-ship missiles and other high-speed threats in the 1970s. Modernized versions of these systems—including the Phalanx, which entered production in 1978—are still in use on US and allied warships. By one estimate, at least 89 countries operate air defense systems; the weapons have shaped the role of human operators.

Our research on the character of human-machine interaction in air defense systems suggests that over time, their use has incrementally reduced the quality of human oversight in specific targeting decisions. More cognitive functions have been “delegated” to machines, and human operators face incredible difficulties in understanding how the complex computer systems make targeting decisions.

Maintaining appropriate human control over specific targeting decisions is particularly important when thinking about the concept of meaningful human control, which plays a prominent role in the international regulatory discussion on autonomous weapons systems. This is because, as previous research suggests, the brunt of a soldier or the military’s obligations under international humanitarian law (such as complying with the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution enshrined in the Geneva Conventions) apply to specific, battlefield decisions on the use of force, rather than to the development and testing of weapons systems.

A study of air defense systems reveals three real-world challenges to human-machine interaction that automated and autonomous features have already created. These problems are likely to grow worse as militaries incorporate more AI into the high-tech weapons of tomorrow.

Targeting decisions are opaque. 

The people who operate air defense systems already have trouble understanding how the automated and autonomous features on the weapons they control make decisions, including how the systems generate target profiles and assessments. In part, that’s due to the sheer complexity of the systems’ internal workings; how many people understand the algorithms behind the software they use, after all? But high-profile failures of air defense systems also suggest that human operators are not always aware of known system weaknesses.

The history of Patriot systems operated by the US Army, for instance, includes several near-miss so-called “friendly fire” engagements during the First Gulf War in the 1990s and in training exercises. But as John Hawley, an engineering expert working on automation in air defense systems, argued in a 2017 report, the US Army was so convinced of the Patriot system’s successes that they did not want to hear words of caution about using the system in automatic mode. Rather than addressing the root-causes of these deficiencies or communicating them to human operators, the military appears to have framed the issues as software problems that could be fixed through technical solutions.

Another problem that operators of air defense systems encounter is that of automation bias and over-trust. Human operators can be overly confident of the reliability and accuracy of the information they see on their screens. They may not question the algorithmic targeting parameters provided to them by the machine. For example, the Patriot system was involved in two well-documented friendly-fire incidents and one near miss during the 2003 Iraq War. When a Patriot system shot down a Royal Air Force Tornado fighter jet over Kuwait in 2003, the British Ministry of Defense’s accident report said “the operating protocol was largely automatic, and the operators were trained to trust the system’s software.” But human operators need a more balanced approach; they need to know when to trust the system and when to question its outputs.

The combat information center on the Vincennes.

The combat information center on the Vincennes. Credit US Navy.

Operators can lose situational awareness.

As militaries integrate more automated and autonomous features into the critical functions of air defense systems, human operators’ roles have changed. They’ve shifted from actively controlling the weapons systems to monitoring their operations. In real terms, the machines are now performing the bulk of the cognitive skills involved in operating an air defense system, not just the motor and sensory tasks. Human operators are increasingly either overloaded or underloaded with tasks vis-à-vis those delegated to the machine, and they have sometimes lost situational awareness, which the researcher Mica Endsley defines as “the perception of elements in the environment … the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future.” Particularly in the context of high-stress combat situations, this can make it nearly impossible for human operators to question system outputs and to make reasoned deliberations about whether certain targets are appropriate.

The tragic 1988 downing of an Iranian Air flight carrying 290 passengers and crew by a US Navy warship, the Vincennes, illustrates how human operators in the midst of combat can misinterpret computer outputs and make fatal mistakes. The Vincennes, a ship so advanced it was jokingly called a “Robocruiser” because of its AEGIS air defense system, was designed to handle the type of threat the Soviet Navy might pose on the high seas. It could track and respond to hundreds of airborne threats at a time. But during a skirmish with a few light Iranian gunboats, the crew of the Vincennes misinterpreted data on their computer screens and identified an Iranian Airlines Airbus as an F-14 fighter plane descending to attack. A 1992 Newsweek investigation found that senior personnel on the Vincennes were unfamiliar or uncomfortable operating the AEGIS’s complex combat computer system.

A plane crash.

The wreckage of a Ukraine International Airlines passenger plane. Fars News Agency. CC BY 4.0.

War is already too fast.

Improvements in the speed and maneuverability of modern weaponry continue to reduce the time human operators have to decide whether to authorize the use of force. Take what happened to an unfortunate Ukraine International Airlines jet as a recent example. The Iranian operators of a Tor-M1 system near Tehran’s airport shot down the civilian plane carrying 176 passengers and crew members in January 2020, only minutes after the plane took off. Iran blamed human error for the incident, saying the missile defense system hadn’t been recalibrated after being repositioned. Operating without a full picture of known traffic in Iranian airspace at the time, they mistook the plane for an incoming American cruise missile. According to Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of Aerospace Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the operators of the Tor-M1 had 10 seconds to decide whether to fire or not. The point here is not to excuse this tragedy but to highlight the almost impossible demands that such a timeframe represents for critical deliberation in high stress combat scenarios.

When taken together, these three challenges call into question the level to which humans can exercise meaningful control over specific situations in existing systems that rely on autonomy in targeting. While these tragedies have prompted episodic introspection, they have not necessarily led to a more fundamental reassessment of whether it is appropriate to further integrate automated and autonomous features into air defense systems.

Failures of air defense systems typically arise from the complexities inherent with human-machine interaction. But when things go wrong, it’s frequently the individual human operators at the bottom of the chain of command who bear responsibility for what really are structural failures. Focusing on “human error” shifts attention away from a closer scrutiny of how the use of automated and autonomous technology structures the use of force.

Regulating autonomous weapons.

In our assessment, the decades long process of integrating automated and autonomous features into the critical functions of air defense systems has contributed toward an emerging norm governing the use of air defense systems. The norm is that humans have a reduced role in use of force decisions. Unfortunately, much of the international debate on autonomous weapons systems has yet to acknowledge or scrutinize this norm, which likely will apply to future systems, too.

Countries have been debating possible regulations on lethal autonomous weapons systems at the United Nations since 2014. Many states have agreed in principle that human responsibility for using weapons systems has to be retained to ensure that autonomous weapons systems are used in compliance with international humanitarian law. But this raises two questions. First, how can human control over the use of force be defined; and second, how can such control be measured to ensure that it is people, not machines, who retain ultimate control over the use of force?

Almost a decade after a nonprofit called Article 36 introduced the concept of meaningful human control, there is no agreement on what exactly makes human control meaningful. Not only does this lack of a shared framework complicate efforts to regulate autonomous weapons development; in a more practical sense, it also makes it difficult to assess whether the control humans have over various weapon systems meets the necessary legal and moral standards on a case-by case-basis.

Policymakers should analyze the precedents that the use of highly automated air defense systems and other existing weapons systems with automated or autonomous features in their targeting functions (such as active protection systems, counter-drone systems, and loitering munitions) have set and the ways in which these weapons are altering the relationship between humans and technology. Too often, incrementally integrating more and more autonomous features into weapons systems is presented as either an inevitable trajectory of technological progress or as a reaction to what adversaries are doing. The current crop of more-or-less autonomous weapons has created norms for human control over lethal force, and policymakers need to understand how these may undermine any (potential) international efforts to regulate autonomous weapons systems.

*

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 Ingvild Bode is Associate Professor at the Centre for War Studies, University of Southern Denmark.

Dr Tom Watts is a Lecturer in Politics and International Relations at Hertfordshire University.

Featured image: Patriot missiles in Israel target an Iraqi Scud missile. Alpert Nathan / Government Press Office. CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

With British Columbia’s Last Old-growth at Risk, Government Falters: Critics

April 22nd, 2021 by Justin Catanoso

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

***

For old-growth forest advocates in British Columbia last year, it sounded like a political turning point. In the race to preserve what’s left of some of the rarest, most ancient tall trees and endangered ecosystems in North America, the provincial government promised action.

“In early September, we moved to protect nearly 353,000 hectares [1,363 square miles] of old-growth forests,” said John Horgan, BC’s premier and head of the New Democratic Party (NDP) majority government, as he spoke last October. “But that’s just the beginning. Many of our old-growth stands are worth more standing up than they ever could be cut down, especially… acknowledge[ing] the broader benefits for communities and the environment.”

Horgan went further. He announced that the NDP had accepted in its entirety the recommendations of a 71-page NDP-commissioned 2020 report, a detailed land-use plan created by foresters Garry Merkel and Al Gorley, explaining why and how to preserve BC’s vanishing coastal and interior primary and old-growth forests.

All 14 report recommendations were agreed to, including an immediate deferral of logging “in old forests where ecosystems are at very high or near-term risk of irreversible biodiversity loss.”

Horgan’s proclamation and the report’s adoption were seen as a bold sea change for BC — a Canadian province that has long favored the economics of forestry over conservation.

Biologically productive old-growth forests are complex ecosystems. From the 2020 report A New Future for Old Forests: “Old forests meld light and dark; their structural complexity can include large old living trees, large standing dead snags, long downed logs, a multi-layered canopy, horizontal patchiness with canopy gaps that allow understory growth, and hummocky micro-topography.” Image by Jakob Dulisse.

From bold pledges to ‘Talk and log’

Barely six months later, once-hopeful forest advocates are calling Horgan’s statements “talk and log.”

Nearly half the area he said had been protected remains open to logging for timber and wood pellet-for-energy manufacture. Much of the rest doesn’t qualify as the intact, biodiverse forests chosen for logging deferrals by the 2020 report. Meanwhile, the timber and forest biomass industries are moving ahead fast to procure and cut new forest tracts.

“I see BC slowly slipping away from this brighter future that was promised,” said Tegan Hansen, a forest campaigner with the environmental group Stand.earth. “Instead, we’re doubling down on a forestry paradigm that is leveling primary forests and further degrading high-risk species and ecosystems.”

Researchers and policymakers worldwide acknowledge that without aggressive regulation at regional and national levels, the environmental protections needed to save forests, curb climate change and protect biodiversity will not likely occur.

But as with the Kyoto Protocol, Paris Climate Agreement, and the 25 past U.N. climate conferences, soaring government rhetoric is rarely transformed into significant action, while business as usual continues to warm the planet.

In interviews with leading BC environmental and political figures, each grapples here with the dire implications for their province and the world if sustainable forest management fails there.

Low productivity forests like this one don’t have anywhere near the same capacity for sequestering carbon as do old-growth forests. Image by TJ Watt for Ancient Forest Alliance.

‘We will run out of old-growth’

A year ago, forest ecologist Karen Price and colleagues Rachel Holt and Dave Daust produced a different, but alarming, report based on BC provincial data. While the government asserted that 23% of the province’s standing forests were old-growth (51,000 square miles), in reality less than 1% (1,544 square miles) existed as the towering, centuries-old red cedar and western hemlock inland rainforests that define biodiverse old-growth.

In the year since, many of those tall trees have been lost to timbering.

“If the NDP doesn’t act, we will run out of old-growth in five to 10 years,” Price told Mongabay. “We need the deferrals [Horgan promised] so that we can have meaningful land-use discussions and planning while there is still old-growth left to make decisions about.”

However, Price says she’s been told repeatedly by the government that saving trees takes time. The 2020 Merkel/Gorley report recommended, for example, that some 200 First Nation tribes in BC be consulted about land they want protected before regulations are written. Such talks are ongoing, says the NDP.

Except that, “Across BC, there are First Nations who have already requested moratoria of harvesting old-growth in their territory,” Price said. “There are some [Indigenous] nations who have areas mapped out ready to share with the government. The forestry industry has taken those maps and it appears [to be] prioritizing logging in those places now.… And the government is doing nothing to protect this old-growth land.”

Conservation North, a forest-protection advocacy group, put together an interactive map called: Seeing Red: BC’s last primary forests. The province-wide, full-color map illustrates the extent of deforestation in British Columbia as well as the smaller areas where primary and old-growth forests remain.

Price and other leading environmentalists say they are exasperated by the government’s lack of action, noting that grim deforestation field reports, letters to provincial forestry ministers, and anguished public statements only receive vague official NDP responses.

“We are frustrated because the stakes are so high,” Price said. “This is a government that purportedly listens to science. There are good people in the NDP [re-elected by historic margins in November]. But as we continue to log in BC — some 200,000 hectares per year (772 square miles) — a lot of that is old-growth.

“If we don’t keep those standing, Canada is not going to meet its carbon-reduction goals under the Paris Agreement. We need to maintain our inland and coastal rainforests. It’s critical for working toward Canada’s and the world’s climate mitigation.”

Forest activists fear that British Columbia’s last old-growth forests could be reduced to wood pellets burned abroad for energy. Image found on Flickr.

Industry versus nature?

Garry Merkel told Mongabay he was not surprised that his, and fellow forester Al Gorley’s, groundbreaking 2020 report, A New Future for Old Forests, was embraced by BC Premier Horgan. Afterall, the pair was hand-selected by the NDP, spent months gathering stakeholder input, and enjoy a reputation for non-partisan environmentalism.

Aside from their immediate old-growth logging deferral recommendation, he and Gorley called for a radical shift in policy in a province whose economy was built on logging and timber exports. Their recommendation: nature must come before industry. As such, they wrote, “conservation of ecosystem health and biodiversity of BC’s forests [becomes] an overarching priority,” with laws enacted to establish protection over timber interests.

In British Columbia, current laws seem to protect forests, wildlife, visual impacts and wilderness recreation. But there’s a catch: none of that can reduce the “Annual Allowable Cut” of timber by more than 10%. According to forest activists, the actions of Horgan and the NDP show that BC’s generations-old mantra still holds: forestry industry first; nature a distant second.

“We need to fundamentally change our paradigm to manage for ecosystem health and health of the land,” Merkel said. “We cannot continue to head down this road of managing for [timber] resources subject to constraints. That model doesn’t work for anybody.

“Our job was to make recommendations on how to take a much more scientific approach to managing old-growth in BC,” he added. “It’s [now] the government’s job to figure out the balance.”

Merkel still believes the NDP is doing just that “as fast as they possibly can.” He agrees however, that logging deferrals haven’t been put in place as promised. He said he believes it will take two to three years to enact the new regulations the NDP adopted, and that imperiled old-growth forests will likely be lost in the meantime.

Others doubt whether the NDP can shift the province’s historical forestry-centric model. They note that while the industry is down to just 3% of provincial GDP, it still holds political clout.

That too needs to change, Merkel said. “We built BC on the back of the forest industry; it’s a part of our core culture.” In a once forested province four times bigger than California, it must have seemed once that trees existed in endless supply. But “They’re not endless. That’s the direction we’re heading — [toward] a more sustainable model for everyone.”

Pinnacle Renewable Energy’s Strathnaver facility which produces wood pellets exported and burned to make electricity. Wood when burned releases more carbon dioxide per unit of electricity produced than coal or gas, and a newly planted sapling replacing a mature tree requires several decades to reabsorb the carbon dioxide emitted by burning — time the world doesn’t have as it rushes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Image by Mary Booth.

BC forestry minister speaks

Mongabay requested an interview with Katrine Conroy, the NDP’s forestry minister. She declined through a spokesperson, but offered a statement which was unresponsive to specific questions.

“We want to make sure people can appreciate old-growth trees for years to come, while supporting a sustainable forest sector for workers and communities,” Conroy wrote. “In September, we worked collaboratively with First Nations on a government-to-government basis and protected old-growth in nine different areas that were at high-risk across BC. This was an important step in acting on the top two recommendations from the [Merkel/Gorley] old-growth report.

“We know there is much more work to do. To get this right, we will follow the advice of the old-growth report and fully engage Indigenous leaders, industry, workers, communities and environmental groups to find the right way forward for old-growth forests in BC.”

Price, the forest ecologist, called Conroy’s statement an example of “talk and log.” Published reports note that logging is now taking place in all of those “nine different areas.” Critically important Merkel/Gorley recommendations have not yet been implemented, said Price.

In an op-ed co-authored for the Victoria Sun in October, Price estimated that the amount of BC’s majestic old-growth newly protected from logging is just 14 square miles scattered from coast to interior.

Pinnacle Renewable Energy operates seven inland pellet mills in BC and is the province’s largest pellet producer. Pictured here is its Burns Lake facility. In February, Drax Group of the United Kingdom announced it was acquiring Pinnacle, helping assure the gigantic power plant its wood supply. Image by Google Earth, CNES-Airbus 2021.

The green of money versus the green of conservation

Forestry expert Kevin Kriese chairs BC’s Forest Practices Board. He’s witnessed decades of BC policy that accelerated logging across the province.

Of the NDP he said:

“I think the government made a political commitment and is not sure what it committed to. You read the Merkel/Gorley report, there’s a lot of room for interpretation. Some think it’s obvious; others see the devil in the details. Regardless, the government needs to commit significant resources to carry out this plan, and right now, the money isn’t there.”

That economic imbalance between forestry and conservation is being partly driven by the wood pellet industry, which experts say accounts for 10% of BC’s wood consumption in either lumber waste, diseased trees and whole trees less valuable as timber, but valuable as standing forests, carbon sinks and biodiversity havens. The BC wood pellet export industry has created several hundred jobs, even as thousands of saw mill jobs have been lost.

And that industry appears to be digging in for the long haul. In February, Drax Group of the United Kingdom announced it was acquiring BC’s largest pellet producer, Pinnacle Renewable Energy and its seven inland pellet mills.

Drax provides up to 12% of the U.K.’s energy at the world’s largest pellet-burning plant — a facility the U.K. claims to be carbon neutral, though science has repeatedly shown that to be false. Drax is also a major manufacturer of pellets in the U.S. Southeast for export. One stated company goal: securing supply for a growing market to Japan for wood pellets for energy.

Canadian caribou thrive in old-growth forests. Image courtesy of the Canadian government / © John A. Nagy.

Kriese sees a political conundrum for the NDP, as it embraces two goals at cross purposes — continued forestry industry support and greater forest protection.

For “Those with a strong agenda on conservation, every stick of old-growth matters,” he said. “But there are those who still think we can harvest some old-growth and still conserve some… This is the challenge [inside the NDP].”

The meteoric growth of the wood pellet industry complicates this conundrum, especially as lumber waste declines and whole trees are harvested more for pellets. But today, pressure on tall, old-growth forests still comes mostly from the timber industry economy as the government seeks to protect a shrinking number of rural community jobs.

“We have committed to something the bureaucracy has never done before — the balance shift between conservation and logging,” Kriese said. “What shade of green will it be? It’s going to take a while.”

One crucial question remains as the clock ticks, a question common to all regions and nations: is there the political will to make decisions that benefit a dangerously warming planet first, while coping later with the economic impact?

Anzac Valley clearcuts in British Columbia’s boreal rainforest. Image by Taylor Roades courtesy of Stand.earth.

Fairy Creek: ‘the litmus test’

Sonia Furstenau has demonstrated since she entered local politics in 2014 that she has the political will. But now as leader of the Green Party, with just two seats in BC’s parliament, she doesn’t have the power.

“I know what they say [in the NDP], but I don’t know what this government’s long-term vision is for forestry,” Furstenau told Mongabay. “They are adhering to the status quo that is giving us the same outcomes we’ve had for decades.

“I was on the finance committee a few years ago. I spent a lot of time in small planes flying over the province. When you fly over British Columbia, it is a landscape of devastation. It’s heart-wrenching to see it from the sky, just how little intact forest there is left.”

A steady parade of BC governments has practiced a policy of deforestation on “crown land,” she said. “It is owned by the public. It is a public asset. And the NDP is allowing for decisions to be made about this public asset while not adhering to the promises it made.”

As such, standing forest and forestry continue to collide. Logging is allowed within a mere 100 meters of the pristine West Coast Trail on Vancouver Island. A proposed wood pellet mill in Fort Nelson threatens the largest remaining tract of primary and old-growth forest in BC’s northern interior.

And at Fairy Creek — only 1,200 hectares (4.6 square miles) — the last intact watershed of old-growth forest on southern Vancouver Island is at risk. Protesters blocked roads there for months to keep a logging company out, but the BC Supreme Court ordered demonstrators removed in early April.

Furstenau likens the massive, centuries-old western red cedars and yellow cedars at Fairy Creek to the world’s endangered megafauna — rhinos, elephants and lions.

This video features a contentious exchange during a session of the British Columbia Parliament on March 25, as Green Party leader Sonia Furstenau asks Forestry Minister Katrine Conroy if the NDP government intends to keep loggers away from Fairy Creek, the last intact watershed of old-growth forest remaining on southern Vancouver Island.

“We recognize the role, the rareness and the value that those large animals have in their African ecosystems,” she said. “It’s the same here in BC. These are the last giants. And to just drop them for timber or wood pellets is heartbreaking and so short-sighted.”

Fairy Creek is on the front line, say activists, of the sort of majestic old-growth forest desperately in need of immediate protection as described by the Merkel/Gorley report. But when asked by Mongabay if the NDP would protect it, Forestry Minister Conroy declined to respond.

“I went down to Fairy Creek a few weeks ago,” Furstenau said. “To get there, you have to drive through clear cuts all around. And then you get to that intact forest, and you are altered by being in a place like that. You are surrounded by an abundance of life. And to get there, you have to drive through this landscape of death.”

British Columbia’s remaining old-growth forests aren’t only valuable for the carbon storage they provide; they are also cherished for their uniqueness, the biodiversity they harbor, and the awe they inspire. Image by Jakob Dulisse.

Furstenau understands economic realities. She realizes logging and conservation in BC must co-exist. But she said,

“If we want to protect jobs, the way to get there is not to cut down as much timber as possible in the shortest amount of time.… If you want jobs and sustainability, short-term profits can’t come before all else.”

The NDP, with its unchallenged provincial parliamentary majority, could intervene at any time in Fairy Creek, Furstenau stressed. It could, if it chose, buy back the logging permits and protect these ancient endangered trees.

“They have the power to do that,” Furstenau said. “They are the government. This is crown land. So this is the litmus test. This will show if they actually mean what they say. If they do not act to protect all of Fairy Creek, then their words are meaningless.”

*

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.

Justin Catanoso, a regular contributor to Mongabay, is a professor of journalism at Wake Forest University in North Carolina. Follow him on Twitter @jcatanoso

Featured image: Ancient old-growth forest near Prince George, British Columbia. Image courtesy of Stand.earth.

Agriculture’s Greatest Myth

April 22nd, 2021 by Dr. Jonathan Latham

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

***

Sustainable, local, organic food grown on small farms has a tremendous amount to offer. Unlike chemical-intensive industrial-scale agriculture, it regenerates rural communities; it doesn’t pollute rivers and groundwater or create dead zones; it can save coral reefs; it doesn’t encroach on rainforests; it preserves soil and it can restore the climate (IAASTD, 2009). Why do all governments not promote it?

For policymakers, the big obstacle to global promotion and restoration of small-scale farming (leaving aside the lobbying power of agribusiness) is allegedly that, “it can’t feed the world”. If that claim were true, local food systems would be bound to leave people hungry and so promoting them becomes selfish, short-termist, and unethical.

Nevertheless, this purported flaw in sustainable and local agriculture represents a curious charge because, no matter where one looks in global agriculture, food prices are low because products are in surplus.

Often, they are in huge surplus, even in the hungriest countries. Farmers will tell you they are going out of business because, as a result of these surpluses, prices are low and continuously falling. Indeed, declining agricultural prices are a broad trend continuing, with the odd blip, for over a century, and applying to every commodity. This downward trend has continued even through a recent biofuel boom designed to consume some of these surpluses (de Gorter et al., 2015). In other words, the available data contradict the likelihood of food shortages. Despite the rising global population, food gluts are everywhere.

Global food models

The standard justification for claiming that these surpluses will one day turn into global food shortages comes from various mathematical models of the food system. These models are based on food production and other figures supplied to the UN by national governments. Whereas anecdotal or local evidence is necessarily suspect, these models claim to be able to definitively assess and predict the enormous, diverse, and highly complex global food system.

The most prominent and most widely cited of these food system models is called GAPS (Global Agriculture Perspectives System). GAPS is a model created by researchers at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Rome (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012). These models – and most often GAPS – are thus what is being cited in any quantitative discussion of future food needs. GAPS, for example, is the basis for the common ‘60% more food needed by 2050’ prediction, what Britain’s chief scientist John Beddington called “a perfect storm” facing humanity.

How reliable are these food system models?

In 2010 Professor Thomas Hertel of Purdue University gave the annual presidential address of the U.S. Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. He chose to discuss the ability of mathematical models like GAPS to predict future supplies (this work was subsequently published as Hertel, 2011). Hertel told his audience that those models are faulty.

What Hertel highlighted is that economic analysis has plainly shown that food supplies respond to long-term prices. That is, when prices for food items increase, food production also increases. For example, when prices increase, it becomes more worthwhile for farmers to invest in boosting their yields; but when prices are low there is little such incentive. Other actors in the food system behave similarly.

Yet global food models, noted Hertel, have adopted the opposite interpretation: they assume global food supplies are insensitive to prices.

In the firm but diplomatic tone expected of a Presidential Address, Hertel told his audience:

“I fear that much of this rich knowledge has not yet worked its way into the global models being used for long run analysis of climate, biofuels and agricultural land use……it is not clear that the resulting models are well-suited for the kind of long run sustainability analysis envisioned here.”

This is rather important. Since the whole point of these models is long-term prediction, if global food models underestimate the ability of food systems to adjust to higher demand, they will tend to predict a crisis even when there isn’t one.

Like all mathematical models, GAPS and other food system models incorporate numerous assumptions. These assumptions are typically shared across related models, which is why they tend to give similar answers. The reliability of all such models therefore depends crucially on the validity of shared assumptions like the one Hertel focused on.

Hertel’s analysis therefore prompts two important questions. The first is this: If GAPS contains an assumption that contradicts the collective wisdom of conventional agricultural economics, what other questionable assumptions hide in global food models?

Surprisingly though, given the stakes, scarcely any attention has been devoted to rigorous independent testing of these crucial assumptions (Scrieciu, 2007; Reilly and Willenbockel, 2010; Wise, 2013; Lappé and Collins, 2015).

The second question is this: Is it significant that the error identified by Hertel will tend to generate predictions that are unnecessarily alarmist?

Critiquing the critical assumptions

In a new peer-reviewed paper, The Myth of a Food Crisis, I have critiqued FAO’s GAPS – and by extension all similar food system models – at the level of these, often unstated, assumptions (Latham, 2021).

The Myth of a Food Crisis identifies four assumptions in food system models that are especially problematic since they have major effects on the reliability of modeling predictions. In summary, these are:

1) That biofuels are driven by “demand”.

As the paper shows, biofuels are incorporated into GAPS on the demand side of equations. However, biofuels derive from lobbying efforts. They exist to solve the problem of agricultural oversupply (Baines, 2015). Since biofuels contribute little or nothing to sustainability, land used for them is available to feed populations if needed. This potential availability (e.g. 40% of US corn is used for corn ethanol) makes it plainly wrong for GAPS to treat biofuels as an unavoidable demand on production.

2) That current agricultural production systems are optimized for productivity.

As the paper also shows, agricultural systems are typically not optimised to maximise calories or nutrients. Usually, they optimise profits (or sometimes subsidies), with very different results. For this reason, practically all agricultural systems could produce many more nutrients per acre at no ecological cost if desired.

3) That crop “yield potentials” have been correctly estimated.

Using the example of rice, the paper shows that some farmers, even under sub-optimal conditions, achieve yields far in excess of those considered possible by GAPS. Thus the yield ceilings assumed by GAPS are far too low for rice and probably other crops too. Therefore GAPS grossly underestimates agricultural potential.

4) That annual global food production is approximately equal to global food consumption.

As the paper also shows, a significant proportion of annual global production ends up in storage where it degrades and is disposed of without ever being counted by GAPS. There is thus a very large accounting hole in GAPS.

The specific ways in which these four assumptions are incorporated into GAPS and other models produces one of two effects. Each causes GAPS to either underestimate global food supply (now and in the future), or to overestimate global food demand (now and in the future).

Thus GAPS and other models underestimate supply and exaggerate demand. The cumulative effect is dramatic. Using peer-reviewed data, the discrepancy between food availability estimated by GAPS and the underlying supply is calculated in the paper. Such calculations show that GAPS and other models omit approximately enough food annually to feed 12.5 billion persons. That is a lot of food, but it does perfectly explain why the models are so discrepant with policymakers’ and farmers’ consistent experiences of the food system.

The implications

The consequences of this analysis are very significant on a number of fronts. There is no global shortage of food. Even under any plausible future population scenario or potential increases in wealth, the current global glut will not disappear due to elevated demand. Among the many implications of this glut is, other things being equal, global commodity prices will continue to decline. The potential caveat to this is climate chaos. Climate consequences are not factored into this analysis. However, for people who think that industrial agriculture is the solution to that problem, it is worth recalling that industrialised food systems are the leading emitter of carbon dioxide. Industrialising food production is therefore not the solution to climate change –­ it is the problem.

Another significant implication of this analysis is to remove the justification for the (frequently suggested) adoption of special and sacrificial ‘sustainable intensification’ measures featuring intensive use of pesticides, GMOs, and gene edited organisms to boost food production (Wilson, 2021). What is needed to save rainforests and other habitats from agricultural expansion is instead to reduce the subsidies and incentives that are responsible for overproduction and unsustainable practices (Capellesso et al., 2016). In this way, harmful agricultural policies can be replaced by ones guided by criteria such as ecological sustainability and cultural appropriateness.

A second implication stems from asking: if the models err on such elementary levels, why are critics largely absent? Thomas Hertel’s critique should have rung alarm bells. The short answer is that the philanthropic and academic sectors in agriculture and development are corrupt. The form this corruption takes is not illegality – rather that, with important exceptions, these sectors do not serve the public interest, but their own interests.

A good example is the FAO, which created GAPS. The primary mandate of FAO is to enable food production – its motto is Fiat Panis – but without an actual or imminent food crisis there would hardly be a need for an FAO. Many philanthropic and academic institutions are equally conflicted. It is no accident that all the critics mentioned above are relative or complete outsiders. Too many participants in the food system depend on a crisis narrative.

But the biggest factor of all in promotion of the crisis narrative is agribusiness. Agribusiness is the entity most threatened by its exposure.

From Syngenta's career page April 2021

From Syngenta’s career page (April 2021)

It is agribusiness that perpetuates the myth most actively and makes best use of it by endlessly championing itself as the only valid bulwark against starvation. It is agribusiness that most aggressively alleges that all other forms of agriculture are inadequate (Peekhaus, 2010). This Malthusian spectre is a good story, it’s had a tremendous run, but it’s just not true. By exposing it, we can free up agriculture to work for everyone.

The article on which this post is based appeared in the book: Rethinking Food and Agriculture Edited by L. Kassam and A. Kassam. Woodhead Publishing. 2021.

*

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.

Sources

Alexandratos, N., & Bruinsma, J. (2012). World agriculture: Towards 2030/2050. ESA working paper no. 12-03 Rome: FAO.

Baines, J. (2015). Fuel, feed and the corporate restructuring of the food regime. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 42(2), 295–321.

Capellesso, A. J., Cazella, A. A., Schmitt Filho, A. L., Farley, J., & Martins, D. A. (2016). Economic and environmental impacts of production intensification in agriculture: comparing transgenic, conventional, and agroecological maize crops. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 40(3), 215-236.

de Gorter, H., Drabik, D., & Just, D. R. (2015). The economics of biofuel policies: Impacts on price volatility in grain and oilseed markets. (Palgrave studies in agricultural economics and food policy). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hertel, T. W. (2011). The global supply and demand for agricultural land in 2050: A perfect storm in the making? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93, 259–275.

Lappé, F. M., & Collins, J. (2015). World hunger: Ten myths. Grove Press.

Latham, J. (2021). The myth of a food crisis. In Rethinking Food and Agriculture (pp. 93-111). Woodhead Publishing.

Peekhaus, W. (2010). Monsanto discovers new social media. International Journal of Communication, 4, 955–976.

Reilly, M., & Willenbockel, D. (2010). Managing uncertainty: A review of food system scenario analysis and modelling. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 365, 3049–3063.

Scrieciu, S. (2007). Commentary: The inherent dangers of using computable general equilibrium models as a single integrated modelling framework for sustainability impact assessment. A critical note on Böhringer and Löschel 2006. Ecological Economics, 60, 678–684.

Wilson, A. K. (2021). Will gene-edited and other GM crops fail sustainable food systems? In Rethinking Food and Agriculture (pp. 247-284). Woodhead Publishing.

Wise, T. (2013). Can we feed the world in 2050? A scoping paper to assess the evidence. In Global development and environment institute working paper no. 13-04.

Featured image is from Independent Science News