Global Research

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

***

An exceedingly well-qualified physician, who was censored by YouTube last year, addressed the Texas State Senate Health and Human Service Committee last month providing thorough information on successful treatments of COVID-19, the present high-level of herd immunity from the disease, the very limited potential of “vaccines,” and the data that shows early treatment could have saved up to 85 percent of the “over 500,000 deaths in the United States.”

Dr. Peter McCullough, MD is an internist and cardiologist, along with being a professor of medicine at Texas A&M University Health Sciences Center. He is distinguished as the most published person in history in his field and an editor of two major medical journals.

McCullough explained that from the beginning of the pandemic, he refused to let his patients “languish at home with no treatment and then be hospitalized when it was too late,” which was the typical treatment protocol being discussed, promoted and offered across the west.

Click here to watch the video.

He thus “put together a team of doctors” to study “appropriately prescribed off-label use of conventional medicine” to treat the illness and they published their findings in the American Journal of Medicine.

“The interesting thing was, (that while) there were 50,000 papers in the peer-reviewed literature on COVID, not a single one told the doctor how to treat it,” he said. “When does that happen? I was absolutely stunned! And when this paper was published … it became … the most cited paper in basically all of medicine at that time the world.”

With the help of his daughter, Dr. McCullough recorded a YouTube video incorporating four slides from the “peer-reviewed paper published in one of the best medical journals in the world” discussing early treatments for COVID-19. The video quickly “went absolutely viral. And within about a week YouTube said ‘you violated the terms of the community’” and they pulled it down.

Due to the “near total block on any information of treatment to patients,” Sen. Bob Johnson hosted a November hearing on this important topic where McCullough was the lead witness.

With such an aggressive suppression of information on early treatments, and the default policy in COVID-19 testing centers to not offer any such resources to those who test positive for the infection, McCullough said, “No wonder we have had 45,000 deaths in Texas. The average person in Texas thinks there’s no treatment!”

And the blackout of such vital information goes well beyond the blatant censorship of big tech companies. McCullough said,

“What has gone on has been beyond belief! How many of you have turned on a local news station, or a national cable news station, and ever gotten an update on treatment at home? How many of you have ever gotten a single word about what to do when you get handed the diagnosis of COVID-19? That is a complete and total failure at every level!”

“Let’s take the White House: How come we didn’t have a panel of doctors assigned to put all their efforts to stop these hospitalizations? Why don’t we have doctors who actually treated patients get together in a group and every week give us an update? … Why don’t we have any reports about how many patients were treated, and spared hospitalizations? … This is a complete and total travesty to have a fatal disease, and not treat it,” he said.

“So what can be done right here, right now?” McCullough proposed to the legislators. “How about tomorrow, let’s have a law that says there’s not a single (test) result given out without a treatment guide, and without a hotline of how to get into research. Let’s put a staffer on this and find out all the research available in Texas, and let’s not have a single person go home with a test result with their fatal diagnosis, sitting at home going into two weeks of despair before they succumb to hospitalization and death. It is unimaginable in America that we can have such a complete and total blind spot.”

In reference to early treatments that have been widely used outside the west with great success (with around 1 percent to 10 percent of the death rates of the first world), McCullough turned his attention to broad media suppression of information once again asking, “When was the last time you turned on the news and ever got a window to the outside world? When did you ever get an update about how the rest of the world is handling COVID? Never. What’s happened in this pandemic is the world has closed in on us.

“There’s only one doctor whose face is on TV now. One. Not a panel. (As) doctors, we always work in groups, we always have different opinions. There’s not a single media doctor on TV who’s ever treated a COVID patient. Not a single one. There’s not a single person in the White House Task Force who has ever treated a patient,” he said.

“Why don’t we do something bold. Why don’t we put together a panel of doctors that have actually treated outpatients of COVID-19, and get them together for a meeting. And why don’t we exchange ideas, and why don’t we say how we can finish the pandemic strongly.”

“Isn’t it amazing?! Think about this. Think about the complete and total blind spot (regarding home treatments),” he said.

Herd immunity and vaccination

“The calculations in Texas on herd immunity … right now with no vaccine effect (is) 80 percent,” McCullough said. “And more people are developing COVID today. They’re going to become immune (as well).”

“People who develop COVID have complete and durable immunity. And (that’s) a very important principle: complete and durable. You can’t beat natural immunity. You can’t vaccinate on top of it and make it better. There’s no scientific, clinical or safety rationale for ever vaccinating a COVID-recovered patient. There’s no rationale for ever testing a COVID-recovered patient,” he continued.

“My wife and I are COVID-recovered. Why do we go through the testing outside? There’s absolutely no rationale (for such testing).”

Given the high levels of herd immunity, McCullough said any impact from broad vaccination in preventing COVID-19 can only be minimal at best.

“There’s plenty of COVID-recovered patients. Let them forgo the vaccine and let people who are clamoring for it get it. But at 80 percent herd immunity, in the vaccine trials fewer than one percent … in the placebo actually get COVID. Fewer than one percent. The vaccine is going to have a one percent public health impact. That’s what the data says. It’s not going to save us, we’re already 80 percent herd immune,” he said.

“If we’re strategically targeted we can actually close out the pandemic very well with the vaccine,” the cardiologist stated. “But strategically targeted. (For) people under 50 who fundamentally have no health risks, there’s no scientific rationale for them to ever become vaccinated.”

Addressing the broad “misinformation” of asymptomatic transfer of COVID-19, which has supported the need for lockdowns due to the notion that the virus can be unintentionally spread by infectious, asymptomatic people, the medical professor said, “One of the mistakes I heard today as a rationale for vaccination is asymptomatic spread. And I want to be very clear about this: My opinion is there is a low degree, if any, of asymptomatic spread. Sick person gives it to sick person. The Chinese have published a study … [of] 11 million people. They tried to find [evidence of] asymptomatic spread. You can’t find it. And that’s been, you know, one of important pieces of misinformation.”

Finally, McCullough highlighted the impact of suppressing information on effective and safe early treatments during this last year. Citing two “very large” studies, he said “when doctors treat patients early who are over age 50 with medical problems, with a sequence multi-drug approach … there’s an 85 percent reduction in hospitalizations and death.”

“We have over 500,000 deaths in the United States. The preventable fraction could have been as high as 85 percent (425,000) if our pandemic response would have been laser-focused on the problem: the sick patient right in front of us,” he 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.

Featured image: Dr. Peter McCullough, MD addresses the Texas State Senate Health and Human Service Committee. (Youtube Screenshot)

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

***

Children’s Health Defense has made significant progress in the case against Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg since the last court filing, and looks forward to its next court date, May 5.

In August 2020, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed a lawsuit against Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and two of Facebook’s “fact checkers.” The lawsuit asserts claims of illegal censorship in violation of the First Amendment, illegal “taking” in violation of the Fifth Amendment and corporate fraud in violation of federal law — Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) and Lanham Acts.

On Nov.13, 2020, CHD filed a 150-page first amended complaint in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, detailing factual allegations regarding the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), CDC Foundation and World Health Organization’s (WHO) extensive relationships and collaborations with Facebook and Zuckerberg.

CHD has made significant progress in the case against Facebook and Zuckerberg since the last court filing — including filing a second amended complaint on Dec.15, 2020, which contained considerable factual amplification of the allegations set forth in our initial filings.

As set forth in the second amended complaint, CHD believes children are being exposed to health and life-threatening injuries by the multi-billion-dollar vaccine industry and that 5G technology, promoted by behemoth internet interests, poses similarly severe risks.

To alert the public to these serious potential dangers, CHD posts links to articles in reputable scientific journals, and publishes opinions expressed by doctors, scientists and others, including CHD Chairman, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. This material is constitutionally protected speech on matters of serious public concern.

As alleged in our second amended complaint, since early 2019, Facebook and Zuckerberg have engaged in a deliberate, systematic effort to degrade and destroy CHD by fraudulently branding our Facebook content as false, directing users to competitors’ sites and preventing Facebook users from donating to CHD.

The complaint specifically identifies 15 instances of defendants falsely labeling CHD content as inaccurate.

The complaint also sets out in detail the reason behind the defendants’ animus against CHD: CHD is a nonprofit organization dedicated to warning the public about the potential risks of certain vaccines and technologies in which the defendants have immense financial interests and investments.

The complaint also outlines how federal actors and agencies encouraged and pressured defendants to engage in their censorship scheme against CHD and jointly participated in that scheme.

The resulting threat to free speech is especially serious because government agents have in essence “deputized” Facebook to do what the government itself is constitutionally forbidden to do.

As the latest complaint details, the defendants were pressured by a prominent Congressman to suppress so-called vaccine “misinformation” — incredibly defined to include content that “casts doubt on the safety or efficacy of vaccines.”

The complaint also alleges that in censoring CHD, the defendants acted with the joint participation of the CDC — a federal agency — and its proxy, the World Health Organization, with which Facebook partnered to create its “fact-checking” protocol.

As a consequence, and as CHD has consistently argued, Facebook and Zuckerberg were not acting merely as private parties, but were functioning as government actors — and thus are subject to the First Amendment’s strictures against government censorship.

As anticipated in this hard-fought litigation, on Dec. 21, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. Facebook apparently seeks special dispensation, not available to other parties, to dismiss CHD’s allegations of government joint action and of Facebook’s responsibility for its “fact-checks” because Facebook claims that it isn’t working with the government or with these same “fact-checkers.”

Facebook also claims that its “fact-checks” aren’t statements of fact at all, but merely protected “opinions,” and that Facebook is merely labelling CHD’s content as “potentially” misleading.

CHD is confident the district court will see through these arguments and that ultimately CHD’s rights will be vindicated. Toward this end, CHD vigorously opposed defendants’ motions to dismiss, filing detailed opposition briefs on Feb. 5. These briefs carefully and thoroughly elaborate the legal basis for CHD’s claims and explain why we should be permitted to proceed through the discovery process and on to trial, rather than be dismissed.

On March 8, CHD filed a motion to supplement the second amended complaint, asserting new and additional allegations based on very recent efforts by Facebook to injure and retaliate against CHD.

In CHD’s motion to supplement, CHD asserts that since the filing of the second amended complaint, Facebook and Zuckerberg have engaged in further acts of censorship and retaliation against CHD, and in further acts of joint participation with the federal government to suppress CHD’s constitutionally protected speech.

Among the specific acts that CHD has moved to include as supplemental allegations in the action are:

(1) On Feb. 10, Facebook terminated the Instagram account of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CHD’s founder and chairman, which at that time had more than 800,000 followers.

(2) In late February, federal actors and Facebook itself publicized significant encouragement to censor vaccine-related information. These statements represent a clear acknowledgement by companies such as Facebook and government sources that federal officials are directly engaged with Silicon Valley in censoring social media users.

(3) On March 5, Facebook published a “warning label” on a third-party user’s Facebook account, which included the message: “Unfollow Children’s Health Defense.” The warning label also implies that CHD is promulgating false and harmful information on its Facebook page; encourages users to visit the WHO’s COVID page for accurate information; and allows users to stop seeing posts from CHD by clicking on an accompanying icon. CHD’s briefs in support of its motion to supplement were filed on March 8 and March 29.

Oral arguments on defendants’ motion to dismiss and CHD’s motion to supplement the second amended complaint are scheduled to be heard by the Court (the Honorable Susan Illston) on May 5.

In what may be an encouraging sign, the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in a recent concurrence to the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in another case, indicated a receptivity to the kind of First Amendment argument that CHD is making in the action against Facebook, alleging that when private companies censor based on government pressure, they may be considered state actors.

Referring to digital platforms such as Facebook and others, Justice Thomas remarked on the “unprecedented … concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties.” As a result, he noted, “[w]e will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated privately owned infrastructure such as private platforms.”

After analyzing the possibility that legislative or regulatory action might be taken to limit the platforms’ ability to exclude speakers or engage in viewpoint censorship, Justice Thomas noted that, even in the absence of such legislation, the First Amendment is relevant and “some speech doctrines might still apply in limited circumstances, as this Court has recognized in the past.”

In words that appear to be germane to our First Amendment arguments opposing Facebook’s motion to dismiss, Justice Thomas remarked that “although a private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment, it is if the government coerces or induces it to take action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as censor expression of a lawful viewpoint.”

Examples of the kind of government conduct that could render a private entity subject to the First Amendment could include threats made by the government. As Justice Thomas explains:

“The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly. Under this doctrine, plaintiffs might have colorable claims against a digital platform if it took adverse action against them in response to government threats.”

Justice Thomas acknowledged in his concurrence, however, that “[w]hat threats would cause a private choice by a digital platform to be ‘deemed … that of the state’ remains unclear,” and the question was not directly presented in the case in which he issued his concurrence.

To what extent Judge Illston may prove receptive to these ideas reflected in CHD’s pleadings and briefs remains to be seen. Stay tuned.

*

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

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

***

Ten years ago, on March 19, 2011, US/NATO forces began their bombardment of Libya by air and by sea. The war was initiated directly by the United States, first through Africa Command (AFRICOM), and then through NATO under US command. Over the course of seven months, US/NATO airplanes carried out 30,000 missions, including 10,000 strikes involving over 40,000 bombs and missiles. Italy – with the consensus of its multi-party Parliament (with the Democratic Party-Pd in the front row) – played a part in the war, providing seven air bases (Trapani, Gioia del Colle, Sigonella, Decimomannu, Aviano, Amendola and Pantelleria), fighter-bombers Tornado, Eurofighter and other warplanes, and the Garibaldi aircraft carrier and other warships. Even before the air-naval offensive, tribal and Islamist groups hostile to the government had already been financed and armed, and special forces were infiltrated, especially by Qatar, in order to spread armed conflict within the country.

And that’s how an African country which, as documented by the World Bank in 2010, maintained “high levels of economic growth”, where GDP rose 7.5% a year, which demonstrated “high human development indicators” such as universal access to primary and secondary education and a 40% university attendance rate, came to be destroyed.

Taking disparities into account, the average standard of living in Libya was higher than in other African countries. About two million immigrants, mostly African, found work there. The Libyan state, which possessed the largest oil reserves in Africa, in addition to natural gas, ceded limited profit margins to foreign companies. Thanks to energy exports, the Libyan balance of trade was in the black to the tune of $27 billion USD per year.

Those resources enabled Libya to make about $150 million USD in foreign investments. Libyan investments in Africa were decisive in the African Union’s creation of three financial organizations: the African Monetary Fund, headquartered in Yaoundé, Cameroon; the African Central Bank, based in Abuja, Nigeria; and the African Investment Bank, headquartered in Tripoli. The mission of these organizations was to create a common market and common currency in Africa.

It’s no coincidence that the NATO war to destroy the Libyan state was initiated barely two months after the rise of the African Union, which, on January 31, 2011, led to the creation that year of the African Monetary Fund. This is proven by emails written by the Obama Administration’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, later released by WikiLeaks, showing how the United States and France wanted to eliminate Qaddafi before he used Libya’s gold reserves to create a pan-African currency as a an alternative to the dollar and the CFA franc, the currency France imposed on 14 former colonies.

It’s also proven by the fact that the banks were released even before the bombers in 2011, seizing $150 million USD of Libya’s foreign investments, most of which have disappeared. Goldman Sachs, the most powerful investment bank in the United States, whose vice president was Mario Draghi, played a leading role in the looting.

In Libya today, energy export revenues are hoarded by power groups and multinationals amidst the chaos of armed conflicts. The standard of living for most of the population has been decimated. African immigrants, accused of being “Qaddafi’s mercenaries,” have been imprisoned in zoo cages, tortured and killed. Libya has become the main transit route for human traffickers in a chaotic wave of migration towards Europe that has taken the lives of more victims than the 2011 war. In Tawergha, the NATO-supported Islamist militias of Misurata, who assassinated Qaddafi in October 2011, have truly carried out an ethnic cleansing, forcing around 50,000 Libyan citizens to flee with no hope of returning.

Also responsible for all of this is the Italian parliament, which on March 18, 2011 committed the Italian government to “adopt any and all initiatives (including the entrance of Italy into the war against Libya) to ensure the protection of the region’s populations.”

*

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 in Italian on Il Manifesto. Translated by Danica Jorden.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

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

***

All Global Research articles 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 Weimar District Court has ruled that the obligation to wear a mask, to maintain minimum distances and to perform rapid tests in schools pose a threat to the mental, physical or emotional well-being of the child. So serious that, without any intervention, significant harm to children can be foreseen with a high degree of certainty. The judge stated in his decision:

“There is such a risk here. Because the children are not only endangered in their mental, physical and spiritual well-being, but are also currently damaged by the obligation to wear face masks during school time and to keep their distance from one another and from other people. This violates numerous rights of children and their parents under the law, the constitution and international conventions. This applies in particular to the right to free development of personality and to physical integrity from Article 2 of the Basic Law as well as to the right from Article 6 of the Basic Law to education and care by parents (also with regard to health care measures and ‘objects’ to be carried by children ).”

The entire judgment (Weimar District Court, decision of April 8th, 2021, Az .: 9 F 148/21) comprises 178 pages and is a general statement with the Corona regulations in schools. You can find it under this post.

It is astonishing that initially nothing about the judgment could be found in the big media, at least about Google. Only smaller sites like 2020 News report. It was only after the report here that major media outlets such as Focus Online followed suit. Even in the headline, they are scolding judges and framing in the interests of the government (dubious expert reports as the basis – questionable judgment: Weimar District Court prohibits the use of masks and tests in schools). This silence or this scolding of the judges is extremely remarkable for a democratic media landscape. Even if it is only a judgment from the first instance that is very likely to be overturned by a higher instance: it is an important document in contemporary history. It remains to be seen with excitement whether a discrediting campaign against the judge will be started soon, as was the case in January against a judge at the Weimar District Court, who passed a judgment critical of the Corona measures (see here). According to the lawyers, the present judgment was not passed by the same judge. This is a family judge.

In the judgment it says:

“I. The directors and teachers of the schools for children A, born on … and B, born on …, namely the state regular school X, Weimar, and the state primary school Y, Weimar, as well as the superiors of the school management are prohibited for them and all to order or prescribe the following to other children and pupils taught at these schools:

• to wear face masks of all kinds in class and on the school premises, in particular mouth and nose covers, so-called qualified masks (surgical mask or FFP2 mask) or others,
• Maintain minimum distances between each other or to other people that go beyond what was known before 2020,
• to take part in rapid tests to determine the SARS-CoV-2 virus

II. The directors and teachers of the schools for children A, born on … and B, born on …, namely the state regular school X, Weimar, and the state primary school Y, Weimar, as well as the superiors of the school management are offered for these and all other children and pupils taught at these schools to maintain face-to-face teaching at the school.

As a justification, the judge stated: “The children are harmed physically, psychologically and educationally and their rights are violated, without this being of benefit to the children themselves or to third parties.” The judge came to the conclusion that the school administrators and teachers could not rely on the state regulations on which the measures are based. This is because these regulations are unconstitutional and therefore void. The judge justified this with the fact that they violated the principle of proportionality and thus the rule of law.

The judgment states:

“According to this principle, also known as the prohibition of excess, the measures envisaged to achieve a legitimate purpose must be suitable, necessary and proportionate in the narrower sense – that is, when weighing the advantages and disadvantages achieved with them. The measures that are not evidence-based, contrary to Section 1 (2) IfSG, are already unsuitable for achieving the fundamentally legitimate purpose they pursue, namely avoiding overloading the health system or reducing the rate of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. In any case, however, they are disproportionate in the narrower sense, because the considerable disadvantages / collateral damage they cause are not offset by any discernible benefit for the children themselves or for third parties, ”the judge explained.

He also noted a “lack of benefit from wearing a mask and observing distance regulations for the children themselves and third parties”:

“To the court’s conviction, she summarized that the effectiveness of masks for healthy people in public has not been proven by scientific evidence . Likewise, ‘third-party protection’ and the ‘unnoticed transmission’, with which the RKI justified its ‘reassessment’, are not supported by scientific facts. Plausibility, mathematical estimates and subjective assessments in opinion contributions cannot replace population-based clinical-epidemiological studies. Experimental studies on the filter performance of masks and mathematical estimates are not suitable for proving effectiveness in real life. The international health authorities are in favor of wearing masks in public spaces, but also say that there is no evidence from scientific studies for this. Rather, all currently available scientific results suggest that masks have no effect on the infection process. All publications that are cited as evidence for the effectiveness of masks in public spaces do not allow this conclusion. This also applies to the so-called Jena study, as the expert explains in detail in the report. “

The ruling on the Jena study also states:

“Because in the Jena study – like the vast majority of other studies, a purely mathematical estimation or modeling study based on theoretical assumptions without real contact follow-up with authors from the field of macroeconomics without epidemiological knowledge – As explained in detail by the expert, the decisive epidemiological circumstance is not taken into account that the infection values already fell significantly before the introduction of the mask requirement in Jena on April 6, 2020 (about three weeks later in the whole of Germany) and there was no relevant at the end of March 2020 There was more infection in Jena. “

In the judgment of the judge, the dangers of wearing a mask are pointed out:

“Every mask must be worn correctly, as the appraiser explains, in order to be effective in principle. Masks can become a contamination risk if touched. However, on the one hand they are not worn properly by the population and on the other hand they are very often touched with their hands. This can also be seen in politicians who can be seen on television. The population was not taught how to use masks correctly, there was no explanation of how to wash your hands while on the move or how to effectively disinfect your hands. It also failed to explain why hand hygiene is important and how to be careful not to touch your eyes, nose and mouth with your hands. The population was virtually left alone with the masks. The risk of infection is not only not reduced by wearing the mask, but is increased by incorrect handling of the mask. In her report, the expert explains this in detail as well as the fact that and for what reasons it is “unrealistic” to achieve the appropriate use of masks by the population. “

The transmission of the corona virus through “aerosols” is not medically plausible and scientifically unproven, the judge continued:

“According to the most recent presentation of the transmission routes by the WHO (from 01.12.2020), the new coronavirus (like all other respiratory viruses ) transmitted through (large) pots of respiratory secretions and through direct and indirect contact with the respiratory secretions of infected people. Aerosol transmission outside of medical care (where aerosol-producing measures may be used, such as open endotracheal suctioning of intubated patients) cannot be ruled out, but a detailed examination of all published clusters, for which the respective authors postulated aerosol transmission or at least considered it likely, suggested, according to the WHO, that transmission via so-called large droplets and / or contaminated objects (i.e. contact) could also explain the pathogen transmission within these clusters. The other international health authorities (ECDC, CDC) also agree that the pathogen causing COVID-19 – like other viral respiratory pathogens – is mainly transmitted via large droplets and contact [117, 118]. The RKI does not commit itself and considers aerosol transmission to be possible in principle, but does not emphasize this transmission route [119]. The role of airborne transmission in SARS-CoV-2 is scientifically at least unclear. “

The transmission by aerosols is a hypothesis that goes back mainly to aerosol physicists, who, according to the expert, cannot understandably assess medical contexts from their area of ​​expertise, according to the court’s statements: The * aerosol theory is extremely harmful for the coexistence of the People as a whole and has a destructive effect on contacts between people of all ages. Therefore, in appropriately planned epidemiological investigations, direct and indirect contacts – via (large) droplets and / or contact (especially hand contact) – must be reliably excluded in order to be able to consider airborne transmission. “

The explanations of the policy on masks, first fabric masks in 2020, then since the beginning of 2021 either surgical masks or FFP2 masks, lacked any clear line, according to the judge’s ruling. Surgical masks and FFP masks are medical masks, but have different functions and are therefore not interchangeable:

“Either the politicians who made these decisions themselves did not understand what type of mask is basically suitable for, or it does not matter to them only on the symbolic value of the mask. From the expert’s point of view, the mask decisions made by politics are incomprehensible and, to put it mildly, can be described as implausible. “

With reference to the expert Prof. Dr. Kuhbandner writes the court that “so far there is no high-quality scientific evidence that wearing face masks can significantly reduce the risk of infection. According to the expert’s findings, the recommendations of the RKI and the S3 guideline of the professional associations are based on observational studies, laboratory tests on the filter effect and modeling studies, which only provide low and very low levels of evidence, because no really valid conclusions on the effect from such studies due to the underlying methodology can be removed from masks in everyday life and at schools. In addition, the results of the individual studies are heterogeneous and more recent observational studies also provide contradicting results. ”

In addition, according to the judge,

“the extent to which the risk of infection can be reduced by wearing a mask in schools is very low, because infections very rarely occur in schools even without masks. Accordingly, the absolute risk reduction is so low that a pandemic cannot be fought in a relevant way with it … According to the expert, the currently allegedly increasing number of infections in children is in reality due to the fact that the number of tests in the children was in the previous one Weeks has increased sharply. Since the risk of infection in schools is very small, even with a possible increase in the infection rate with the new virus variant B.1.1.7 in the range assumed in studies, the virus spread in schools is not expected to increase significantly. This little benefit is offset by numerous potential side effects related to the physical, psychological and social well-being of children that many children would have to suffer to prevent a single infection. The expert presents these in detail, among other things, using the register of side effects published in the journal Pediatric Journal. “

Under the heading “The unsuitability of PCR tests and rapid tests for measuring the infection rate” it says in the judgment:

“Already the expert Prof. Dr. med. In her report, Kappstein points out that only genetic material can be detected with the PCR test used, but not whether the RNA comes from viruses that are capable of infection and therefore capable of replication (= capable of reproduction). The reviewer Prof. Dr. rer. biol. hum. In her molecular biology expert report, Kämmerer confirms that a PCR test – even if carried out correctly – cannot make any statement as to whether a person is infected with an active pathogen or not. Because the test cannot differentiate between “dead” matter *, e.g. a completely harmless genome fragment as a remnant of the fight of the body’s own immune system against a cold or flu (such genome fragments can still be found many months after the immune system “takes care of” the problem hat) and “living” matter, ie a “fresh”, reproductive virus. For example, PCR is also used in forensics to reproduce residual DNA from hair residues or other trace materials by means of PCR in such a way that the genetic origin of the perpetrator (s) can be identified (“genetic fingerprint”). “

The judge continues:

“Even if everything is done“ correctly ”when performing the PCR including all preparatory steps (PCR design and establishment, sampling, preparation and PCR execution) and the test is positive, ie: one If the genome sequence recognizes which may also exist in one or even the specific “Corona” virus (SARS-CoV-2), this does not mean under any circumstances that the person who tested positive has a replicating SARS-CoV -2 infected and therefore contagious = dangerous for other people.

Rather, to determine an active infection with SARS-CoV-2, additional, specifically diagnostic methods such as the isolation of viruses that are capable of replicating must be used.

Regardless of the fundamental impossibility of determining an infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus with the PCR test, the results of a PCR test also depend on the statements of the expert Prof. Dr. Treasurer from a number of parameters, which on the one hand cause considerable uncertainties and on the other hand can be manipulated in such a way that many or a few (apparently) positive results are achieved. “

The “result” at the end of the 178 page long judgment says:

“The compulsion imposed on school children to wear masks and to keep their distance from one another and from third parties harms the children physically, psychologically, educationally and in their psychosocial development, without any more than marginal benefit for the children themselves or third parties.

Schools do not play a major role in the “pandemic” event.

The PCR tests and rapid tests used on their own are in principle not suitable for determining an “infection” with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

According to the explanations in the expert report, this already results from the own calculations of the Robert Koch Institute. According to RKI calculations, such as expert Prof. Dr. Kuhbandner explains, in mass tests with rapid tests, regardless of symptoms, the probability of actually being infected if a positive result is obtained is only two percent with an incidence of 50 (test specificity 80%, test sensitivity 98%). That would mean: For every two genuinely positive quick test results there would be 98 false positive quick test results, all of which would then have to be retested with a PCR test.

A (regular) compulsion for mass testing without cause on asymptomatic, i.e. healthy people, for whom the medical indication is already lacking, cannot be imposed because it is disproportionate to the effect that can be achieved with it. At the same time, the regular compulsion to take a test puts the children under psychological pressure, because their ability to go to school is constantly put to the test.

Based on surveys in Austria, where masks are not worn in primary schools, but rapid tests are carried out three times a week nationwide, according to the explanations of the expert Prof. Dr. Cow bandner:

100,000 primary school students would have to put up with all the side effects of wearing a mask for a week in order to prevent just one infection per week.

To describe this result as disproportionate would be a completely inadequate description. Rather, it shows that the state legislature regulating this area has gotten far removed from the facts and has assumed dimensions that appear to be historical.

By ordering such measures, the well-being of the children is endangered, as shown, § 1666 BGB. The teachers are therefore not allowed to order them. They cannot invoke the relevant state ordinances and the cited general decree, since they, because of their unsuitability to achieve the desired goals, in any case violate the principle of proportionality because of their disproportionate nature and are therefore unconstitutional and null and void.

In addition, the children have a legal right to accessible school lessons.

According to the current state of the investigation, it appears very likely that this result will be confirmed in the main proceedings. Further details are left to a decision there.

In the context of an assessment of the consequences, when issuing an interim order, the disadvantages that arise if the regulation sought by the parents of the children are not initially made by the family court in the interim order, but then later in the main proceedings, and the effects that arise if the family court already meets the regulation sought by the parents of the children in the preliminary injunction procedure, but later does not confirm it in the main proceedings.

The disadvantages for the children if the intended regulation is delayed by the family court predominate considerably.

In any case, the parents are not able to avert the danger, § 1666 BGB. With the Easter holidays coming to an end, there is also an urgent need to act immediately.

After all that, the decision evident from the tenor was necessary. Since the classmates of the children named in the tenor are affected in the same way, the court made its decision in favor of them.

Here is the verdict:

Click here to read the document.

*

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.

Translated from German.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

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

***

In the face of constant attacks by US officials over alleged human rights abuses, China released a report on Friday that blasts the US for its many military interventions that have created humanitarian disasters.

The report, titled “Severe Humanitarian Disasters Caused by US Aggressive Wars against Foreign Countries,” was released by the China Society for Human Rights Studies (CSHRS), which falls under China’s State Council Information Office.

“The majority of the aggressive wars were launched by the US unilaterally. They resulted in mass casualties and destruction of property and led to appalling humanitarian catastrophes. Such foreign interventions lay bare America’s selfishness and hypocrisy,” the report reads.

The report said that from the end of World War II to 2001, the US was responsible for 81 percent of the world’s armed conflicts. “According to incomplete statistics, from the end of World War II in 1945 to 2001, among the 248 armed conflicts that occurred in 153 regions of the world, 201 were initiated by the United States, accounting for 81 percent of the total number,” the study reads.

The report examined statistics of seven armed conflicts the US was involved in, from the Korean War to recent intervention in Syria. CSHRS said that besides direct military involvement, the US has also “intervened directly or indirectly in other countries’ affairs by supporting proxy wars, inciting anti-government insurgencies, carrying out assassinations, providing weapons and ammunition, and training anti-government armed forces.”

In recent years, US officials have turned up the rhetoric against China, and the Biden administration has been especially hostile. Beijing has maintained a more diplomatic tone, but since in-person talks between the two countries’ top diplomats in Alaska turned hostile last month, China seems more willing to call out Washington’s hypocrisy.

*

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.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

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

***

Turkey has confirmed an earlier CNN report that the U.S. will send warships to the Black Sea in what a Pentagon official cited by CNN said was a demonstration of support to the government of Ukraine in response to claims of increased Russian military presence on Ukraine’s eastern border. The Black Sea is nowhere near the current conflict zone in the Donbass, further east of which the alleged Russian build-up is occurring.

Under terms of the 1936 Montreux Convention naval vessels from non-littoral nations have to notify Turkey, whose territory the Dardanelles and Bosporus Straits linking the Black Sea to the Mediterranean are, of a planned visit to the Black Sea nine days in advance. The ships, which will enter the sea on April 14 and 15 and stay until May 4 and 5, are the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers USS Donald Cook and USS Roosevelt. The Convention regulates by tonnage individual ships and groups of ships entering the sea. More than two U.S. destroyers might surpass the limit of the latter maximum.

What advanced warships like the Tomahawk- and Standard Missile-3-equipped American destroyers are doing in a sea half a world away from the U.S. seems to be a question no one ever asks.

Russian news reports of the past twenty-four hours have quoted from the CNN feature the words of the unnamed Defense Department official that the deployment would “sent a significant signal” to Moscow. Delivering a message sounds innocuous enough. The traditional term for such an action is brinkmanship.

The CNN feature mentioned that U.S. Navy routinely operates in the Black Sea, crisis or no crisis, but that dispatching additional warships to the sea would “send a specific message to Moscow that the US is closely watching.” The equivalent of what’s being considered would be Russia sending several guided-missile cruisers through the St. Lawrence Seaway to the Great Lakes to “send a message” to the U.S. over Washington moving troops in the direction of the Canadian border.

The same Defense Department official informed CNN that U.S. Navy was flying reconnaissance flights over the Black Sea where Russia maintains its naval fleet of that name at Sevastopol in Crimea.

To increase U.S. and allied NATO military presence in the Black Sea region would mean a substantial forward presence indeed, as the U.S. had three guided-missile destroyers and a guided-missile cruiser in the Black Sea in the last three months, frequently two at a time: USS Thomas Hudner, USS Porter, USS Donald Cook and USS Monterey. The first three are destroyers, the last a cruiser. The destroyers can carry 56 Tomahawk missiles apiece, and both the destroyers and cruisers are part of the Navy’s Aegis Combat System and can also be equipped with Standard Missile-3 anti-ballistic missiles that could shoot down Russian missiles.

CNN also reported that on April 7 two American B-1 supersonic bombers (previously nuclear-capable) flew over the Aegean Sea, which gives access to the Black Sea.

The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier with its attached carrier strike group is currently in the Eastern Mediterranean. Four guided-missile destroyers and a guided-missile cruiser are assigned to the group. The warships could have as many as 280 Tomahawk cruise missiles. Dwight D. Eisenhower has 90 fixed-wing planes and helicopters in addition to Sea Sparrow anti-aircraft and anti-missile missiles and Rolling Airframe Missile surface-to-air missiles. All within immediate striking range of the Black Sea.

The above comes against the backdrop of mounting anti-Russian rhetoric from Washington, with White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki stating on April 8:

“The United States is increasingly concerned by recently escalating Russian aggressions [sic] in eastern Ukraine, including Russia’s movements on Ukraine’s border. Russia now has more troops on the border of Ukraine than any time since 2014. Five Ukrainian soldiers have been killed this week alone. These are all deeply concerning signs.”

In recent days President Biden, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan have all had conversations with Ukrainian counterparts on the intensified fighting in the Donbass and in regard to reported Russian “aggressions.”

Also on April 8 Interfax reported the Russian Defense Ministry announced it was relocating ten navy vessels, described as landing craft and artillery warships, from the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea for exercises. (As the Caspian is landlocked, the vessels can’t be of great size as they would be required to be moved overland.)

Without doubt we are witnessing the most serious escalation of tensions between the world’s two major nuclear powers since the first Soviet troops crossed the Oxus River to enter Afghanistan in late 1979. In fact maybe since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

*

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 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).

***

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been detained at the high-security Belmarsh prison in London for two years.

During that time, Assange became the first publisher to be indicted under the United States Espionage Act and prevailed after a district judge denied the U.S. government’s extradition request. He completed a sentence for “jumping bail” when he sought asylum from Ecuador. He also survived multiple COVID-19 outbreaks in prison.

“It’s long past time for this injustice to end, and we continue to appeal to the United States and the Department of Justice to drop the appeal and all the charges against Julian. This gross injustice must come to an end,” WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson declared.

Stella Moris, Assange’s partner, acknowledged the protests and solidarity actions that are planned throughout the world.

Mobilizations were planned for April 11 in Los Angeles, New York, Washington, D.C., Denver, Chicago, Raleigh, San Jose, Seattle, Tulsa, Toronto, London, Glasgow, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Mexico City, Melbourne, Perth, Auckland, and Wellington.

Several actions will take place over the course of the week in cities like Boston, Berlin, Brussels, Dresden, Vienna, and Hamburg.

“Anniversaries are a platform to educate, nurture compassion and solidarity, and bring like-minded people onboard,” Moris stated.

The U.S. Justice Department dramatically escalated the political prosecution against Assange on April 11, 2019, when it unsealed a single charge indictment against the WikiLeaks founder. Ecuador allowed British police to enter their London embassy and drag him to a van.

While video posted showed a vulnerable person in distress, begging the United Kingdom and everyone around the world to resist this prosecution, many focused on his unkempt appearance—his long hair and shaggy beard—and mocked him.

Nils Melzer, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, shared,

“During my visit, he explained to us that his shaving kit had been deliberately taken away three months earlier.”

This was all part of Ecuador President Lenin Moreno‘s U.S.-backed pressure campaign to force Assange to leave the embassy.

In 2012, Assange was granted political asylum, when Rafael Correa was president of Ecuador. Correa’s administration considered “legal evidence” that Assange would not receive a fair trial if extradited to the U.S. and endorsed Assange’s fears of due process violations and cruel and inhuman treatment if he was handed over to Sweden.

At Assange’s extradition trial in September, his defense team presented evidence of an espionage operation backed by U.S. intelligence that was carried out against him at the London embassy.

Undercover Global S.L., a Spanish security company, bugged the embassy and had a “real obsession” with spying on Assange’s legal team. Beyond that, U.C. Global Director David Morales talked about plots to kidnap Assange or even poison him, and the company ordered employees to steal diapers so they could figure out if he fathered a child.

In October 2019, a Spanish high court charged Morales with offenses “related to violating the privacy of the WikiLeaks founder and passing the information on to the United States’ intelligence services,” according to El Pais.

That case is still unfolding in Spain, however, the Justice Department has sought to obstruct proceedings by refusing cooperation unless whistleblowers from the company reveal their identities.

The unsealed indictment against Assange was initially limited to a “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion” offense under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and a general statute against any conspiracies to “defraud” the U.S. government, which prompted a number of Western pundits to erroneously insist prosecutors avoided a case that would implicate the First Amendment.

However, the indictment declared,

“The WikiLeaks website publicly solicited submissions of classified, censored, and other restricted information. Assange, who did not possess a security clearance or need to know, was not authorized to receive classified information of the United States.”

The indictment relied upon language straight from the Espionage Act. Prosecutors explicitly singled out Assange as an “aider” and “abettor” of “espionage” for publishing unauthorized disclosures of classified information, even though reporters and editors at media organizations throughout the world routinely produce stories based upon sensitive documents without a U.S. security clearance.

A little over a month later, in May 2019, the U.S. Justice Department unsealed a superseding indictment with 17 charges under the Espionage Act. It dispelled any illusions journalists throughout the world may have had.

*

President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Attorney General Merrick Garland now have the obligation, if they are serious about press freedom, to drop the charges that were issued under Trump by a Justice Department deeply politicized by Attorney General Bill Barr.

The Biden administration should recognize how much time has passed, including how long ago it was that Attorney General Eric Holder‘s Justice Department examined the evidence against Assange and chose not to indict a publisher. (Biden was President Barack Obama’s vice president.)

Whether the Biden administration returns to a norm that existed under Obama, Stella Moris suggests that those opposed to the prosecution “remind people that the judge threw out the U.S. extradition request in January.”

“Remind them that Julian published information because he defends people’s right to know what the government does in their name. Remind them that he has done nothing wrong and to put him in prison is to criminalize journalism. Remind them that he has a family and that he is suffering,” Moris concluded.

Those who support freedom of the press may also recall the U.S. war crimes in Iraq that Assange helped to expose by publishing disclosures from Pfc. Chelsea Manning. They may recall diplomatic cables that revealed how the British government sought to limit an inquiry into the U.K.’s involvement in the Iraq War. They may recall the pressure European countries faced to not investigate CIA torture, and the extrajudicial assassinations by CIA and U.S. military forces in Pakistan, which became widely known. And they may recall how documents showed the CIA enlisted U.S. officials to spy on UN officials and foreign diplomats at the UN in New York.

Though the above represents only a sliver of the information published, it is some of the most compelling evidence that Assange was targeted for enabling scrutiny of a global superpower.

The U.S. government has appealed the January ruling by the British judge against extradition. Assange’s team has also appealed because his attorneys believe the judge issued a decision that was far too dangerous for the future of press freedom in the world.

The High Court of Justice will decide in the coming months whether to hear the appeal.

Meanwhile, in Ecuador, President Moreno’s right-wing, neoliberal, and U.S.-backed agenda has been entirely rejected. A runoff is taking place on the same day as the anniversary of Moreno’s flagrant violation of Assange’s human rights.

*

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 @DC_Mobile_Ads on Twitter

All Global Research articles 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 few lessons to be learnt from the wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death in the British media:

1. There is absolutely no commercial reason for the media to have dedicated so much time and space to the Prince’s death. The main commercial channel ITV, which needs eyeballs on its programmes to generate income from advertising, saw a 60 per cent drop in viewing figures after it decided to broadcast endless forelock-tugging. Audiences presumably deserted to Netflix and Youtube, where the mood of “national mourning” was not being enforced. Many viewers, particularly younger ones, have no interest in the fact that a very old man just died, even if he did have lots of titles. 

The UK is one of the world's most propagandised nations on the planet.

Just look at the top of the @BBCNews website or the major 'newspapers' today. pic.twitter.com/mv9si3863X

— Media Lens (@medialens) April 10, 2021

The BBC, the state broadcaster, similarly ignored the wishes of its audiences, commandeering all of its many channels to manufacture and enforce the supposedly national mood of grief. That even went so far as placing banners on the CBBC channel for children encouraging them to forgo their cartoons and switch to the BBC’s main channel paying endless, contrived tributes to Philip. The resulting outpouring of anger was so great the BBC was forced to open a dedicated complaints form on its website. It then had to hurriedly remove it when the establishment threw a wobbly about viewers being given a chance to object to the BBC’s coverage.

BBC inundated with complaints over ‘too much’ Prince Philip coverage https://t.co/1t7YfTyQCr

— The Independent (@Independent) April 10, 2021

2. The BBC is reported to have heavily invested in coverage of Philip’s death for fear that otherwise it would face a barrage of criticism from Britain’s rightwing press for showing insufficient patriotism and revealing a supposed “leftwing bias”. That was what apparemtly happened when the BBC failed to grovel sufficiently to the royal family over the Queen Mother’s death in 2002. But if that is the case, doesn’t it simply underscore how vulnerable the supposedly “neutral” state broadcaster is to pressure from the rightwing billionaire owners of the establishment media?

If Rupert Murdoch and company can force the BBC into alienating and antagonising many of its own viewers with endless homilies to a royal little loved by large sections of the population, how else is the BBC’s coverage being skewed for fear of the potential backlash from corporate media tycoons? Is the fear of such repercussions also responsible for the BBC’s complicity in the recent, evidence-free smearing of a socialist Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, or the BBC’s consistent failures in reporting honestly on countries like Syria, Libya, Iraq and Venezuela – all of them in the oil-rich regions of the Middle East and Latin America that the United States and the west demand control over?

If the BBC makes its editorial decisions based on what rightwing and far-right newspaper tycoons think is good both for the country and for the world, then how is the BBC not equally rightwing?

3. The BBC is also reportedly afraid that, if it is not seen to be deferential enough to the royal family, it risks being punished by the ruling Conservative party, which regards the institution of the monarchy as sacrosanct. The BBC’s licence fee and wider funding – which need government approval – might be in jeopardy as a result.

But that is no less troubling than that the BBC is kowtowing to billionaire media magnates. Because if the ruling Conservative party can wield a stick sufficiently big to dictate to the BBC how and to what extent it covers Philip’s death, why can the government not also bully the BBC into giving it an easy ride on its failures to deal with Covid and its cronyism in awarding Covid-related contracts?

At what point does the UK officially become a banana republic? At the point when its health secretary awards a massive contract for medical supplies to his former neighbour and pub landlord? https://t.co/9DPlVXj5DB

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) November 27, 2020

Similarly, if the BBC is quite so craven, why can the ruling party not also intimidate it into ignoring the biggest current assault on journalism: Washington’s relentless efforts to imprison for life Wikileaks founder Julian Assange after he exposed US war crimes?

And what would there be to stop Tory leader Boris Johnson from arm-twisting the BBC into ignoring the rampant racism documented in his own party and pressuring the state broadcaster instead into presenting the Labour party as riddled with antisemitism, even though figures show that Labour has less of a problem with racism than wider British society and the Tories?

And there is the rub. Because that is exactly what the BBC has been doing, serving as little more than a propaganda channel for the right.

That same fear of the ruling Conservative party might explain why the BBC keeps filling its top posts, and its most influential editorial jobs, with stalwarts of the right. Most egregiously that includes the BBC’s new chairman, Richard Sharp, who is not only one of the Tory party’s biggest donors but helped to fund a firm accused of “human warehousing” – stuffing benefit recipients into “rabbit hutch” flats – to profit from a Conservative government scheme.

New BBC chair Richard Sharp is not only a major donor to the Conservative party but he helped to fund a firm accused of 'human warehousing', stuffing benefit recipients into 'rabbit hutch' flats to profit from a Conservative government scheme https://t.co/nR4wOeZozv

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) February 26, 2021

It would also explain the appointment in 2013 as head of BBC news of James Harding, a Murdoch loyalist and former Times editor who vowed that he and his newspaper were unabashedly “pro-Israel”. It would explain too why Sarah Sands, editor of the unapologetically rightwing Evening Standard, was seen as suitable to serve as editor of the Radio 4’s morning news programme, Today.

4. The truth is that these factors and more have played a part in ensuring there have been only wall-to-wall tributes to Prince Philip. Corporate media is not there simply to make quick profits. Sometimes, it is seen by its billionaire owners as a loss-leader. It is there to generate a favourable political and social climate to help corporations accrete ever greater power and profits.

Manufacturing the pretence of patriotic solidarity in a time of supposed national loss or calamity; cultivating a reverence for tradition; promoting unquestioning respect for socially constructed authority figures; reinforcing social hierarchies that normalise grossly offensive wealth disparities is exactly what establishment media is there to do.

Is the worst our corporate media has to say about Prince Philip that he could have a 'gruff exterior'? Why is the supposedly 'liberal-left' Guardian offering page after page of homily? Could his death not have been wrapped up in one story, leaving it to the redtops to grovel? pic.twitter.com/IUAyf8XzqM

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) April 10, 2021

The corporate media, from the rightwing Daily Mail to the supposedly liberal BBC and Guardian, is there to make the patently insane – mourning an entitled man most of us knew little about and what little we did know made us care even less for him – seem not only natural but obligatory. To refuse to submit to compulsory grieving, to state that Philip’s death from old age is less important than the deaths of tens of thousands of people in the UK who lost their lives early from the pandemic, is not rudeness, or heartlessness, or a lack of patriotism. It is to cling to our humanity, to prize our ability to think and feel for ourselves, and to refuse to be swept up in a carnival of hollow emotion. 

And most important of all, it is to sense – however briefly – that the wall-to-wall propaganda we are being subjected to on the death of a royal may look exceptional but is in fact entirely routine. It is simply that in normal times the propaganda is better masked, wrapped in the illusion of choice and variety.

*

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 essay first appeared on Jonathan Cook’s blog. 

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

***

Introduction by Dr. Gary G. Kohls

If Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca or any of the host of for-profit, Vaccine Pushing, corporate-connected entities that inhabit the CDC, the NIAID, the NIH, the Departments of Health, Dr Fauci, Dr Osterholm, Dr Offit, Dr Hotez, “Dr” Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum, the WHO, your personal physician, your nurse practitioner, your neighbors or friends, your hospital or clinic CEOs or your talking heads on TV urge you to get the Covid shot after already having had the disease (or perhaps even simply having had a “positive” PCR test along with some influenza-like symptoms), you will know that you are being given irresponsible, dangerous, potentially lethal advice from a relatively vaccinology-illiterate source that probably has financial conflicts of interest, and you should search elsewhere for unbiased, ethical advice.

Shamefully, all of the truly science-based, vaccinology-literate sources of accurate information have had their “dangerous” books figuratively burned or black-listed/banned from YouTube, Google, FaceBook, etc,. – a reality that should make everybody eager to know exactly what is so threatening to the industries of Big Pharma, Big Media, Big Medicine and assorted for-profit governmental agencies, all of which that have been turning once-honorable vaccinologists into crass pseudo-scientists who do what their corporate paymasters demand of them.)

Getting a Covid “vaccine” after having had the infection should be regarded as a relative contradiction until comprehensive clinical studies are done that have established both short and long-term safety and efficacy. So far there are no such research studies being done. Vaccine Pushers are not interested in getting to those truths and the propaganda has been so intense, that the narrative has been established, so that admitting that there are problems is not an option.

However there is already plenty of evidence exposing the dangers of blindly inoculating everybody on the planet (Bill Gates wants all 7+billion people – including infants – to be inoculated and then given regular booster shots with any one or more of the experimental Covid “vaccines”!). The following article summarized important information that is accumulating in the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) – recognizing that only about 1% of actual adverse events ever get reported to the site.

The author of this important piece – Luke Yamaguchi – had to do a lot of pain-staking research to collate the information on the patients (as of April 1, 2021) that died after receiving the Covid-19 shot. Because the full article came to well over 5000 words, I have abbreviated for this Duty to Warn article it by deleting the clinical data for each of the patients. That information can be easily obtained by clicking on the link provided.

Dr. Gary G. Kohls, April 11, 2021

***

On January 26, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm sent an open letter to the FDA and Pfizer warning of the potential dangers of giving Covid vaccines to people who have already had (or currently have) COVID-19. As a physician-scientist with an MD and PhD in cellular immunology, Dr. Noorchashm based his warning on an “immunological prognostication” outlined below:

• People who have recently had (or currently have) COVID-19 can have viral antigens present in the endothelial lining of blood vessels, among other tissues.
• If these viral antigens are present, the immune response triggered by Covid vaccination will target these tissues causing inflammation and damage.
• In blood vessels, this can result in blood clot formation with the potential for major complications.

In other words, people who have previously had COVID-19 will be at greater risk of adverse events if they receive Covid vaccinations. To be clear, this is a theory based on an understanding of immunology. But is there any evidence to support this hypothesis?

According to an article in The Telegraph, recent data shows that Covid vaccine side effects are seen up to three times more often in people who have previously had COVID-19. The data comes from the King’s College ZOE app which has logged details from more than 700,000 vaccinations. The ZOE data shows that 12.2% of people reported side effects after their first dose of Pfizer vaccine, but that jumped to 35.7% in people who had previously had COVID-19. For the AstraZeneca vaccine, 31.9% of people reported symptoms following their shot, rising to 52.7% for people who had previously been infected with COVID-19.

In addition to this data, anecdotal stories in the news suggest that some people who previously had COVID-19 and recovered, died after receiving a Covid vaccination.

Dr. J Barton Williams, a 36-year-old orthopedic surgeon from Tennessee, is one such case. According to a local news report, Dr. Williams died of a “COVID-related illness” known as multi-system inflammatory syndrome that causes inflammation in the blood vessels and other tissues. He also tested positive for COVID antibodies, meaning he previously had COVID-19 but never knew it. Dr. Williams died just weeks after receiving his second Covid vaccination.

It is ironic that he survived COVID-19 without even knowing it, only to die after receiving a Covid vaccine intended to save his life.

In another news report, a California resident who had tested positive for COVID-19 in December, died just hours after receiving his Covid vaccine on January 21, 2021.

Turning our attention to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), we see many such cases of people who got COVID-19 and survived, only to die soon after receiving their Covid vaccine.

What follows in Annex is a compilation of such cases.

---

ANNEX

Deaths Same Day as Vaccination

VAERS ID: 940955

VAERS ID: 967830

VAERS ID: 915682

VAERS ID: 914961

VAERS ID: 915920

VAERS ID: 924456

Deaths One Day After Vaccination

VAERS ID: 1082717

VAERS ID: 1106667

VAERS ID: 1092651

VAERS ID: 949474

VAERS ID: 946225

VAERS ID: 1046915

VAERS ID: 1000280

VAERS ID: 937773

VAERS ID: 1095238

VAERS ID: 944732

VAERS ID: 970976

VAERS ID: 974172

VAERS ID: 1074955

VAERS ID: 946959

VAERS ID: 1075097

VAERS ID: 1125079

Deaths Two Days After Vaccination

VAERS ID: 1003382

VAERS ID: 934507

VAERS ID: 961705

VAERS ID: 991997

VAERS ID: 934059

VAERS ID: 1020227

VAERS ID: 1032873

VAERS ID: 1105193

VAERS ID: 1038635

VAERS ID: 1038442

Deaths Three Days After Vaccination

VAERS ID: 1112164

VAERS ID: 965561

VAERS ID: 982541

VAERS ID: 935343

VAERS ID: 1030712

VAERS ID: 992599

VAERS ID: 1022397

VAERS ID: 1075657

Deaths Four or More Days After Vaccination

VAERS ID: 1006303

VAERS ID: 998138

VAERS ID: 1069118

VAERS ID: 979926

VAERS ID: 1000228

VAERS ID: 1006316

VAERS ID: 952881

VAERS ID: 1012047

VAERS ID: 1010114

VAERS ID: 1033448

VAERS ID: 1055149

VAERS ID: 953754

VAERS ID: 1017675

VAERS ID: 975744

VAERS ID: 975206

VAERS ID: 964795

VAERS ID: 998419

*

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

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

***

“I am not going to be talking about numbers today,” Australia’s Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly told Australia’s Radio National on April 12.  This echoed suggestions from the Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, who had adopted the position that Australia best forget meeting any clear vaccination targets.  Having left battling the pandemic to State governments, the Federal government has found itself unable to execute its program, if one dare call it that.

Part of the monumental failings of the government can be put down to its stubbornness in prioritising the use of one vaccine.  AstraZeneca was meant to be the vaccine wonder, the Godhead, the miraculous deliverer.  CSL, Australia’s only vaccine manufacturer, was given the task of producing the majority of 54 million ordered doses at its Broadmeadows factory in Melbourne.  Many of those now risk being essentially useless.

AstraZeneca’s product has been plagued by a profile that has become a ballooning public relations nightmare.  While various medical authorities in Europe delayed the application of jabs fearing a possible link between the vaccine and a rare blood-clotting syndrome, Australia looked on with goggle-eyed wonder, insisting that no pause was necessary.  Administrative objectives took priority over medical ones.

Last week, Morrison’s medical advisers made things even more trying by suggesting that the AstraZeneca vaccine be ruled out for those under 50.  In a media release on April 8 by the Department of Health Secretary Brendan Murphy and Chief Medical Officer Kelly, it was revealed that they had “received very important advice” from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI).  ATAGI had been considering European and US findings regarding any possible link between the AstraZeneca vaccine and any possible cause of “thrombosis with thrombocytopenia” characterised by “blood clots with low platelet counts.”

In Europe, one in every 250,000 people who had received AstraZeneca had been diagnosed with the rare blood clot condition.  But Australia had not been spared, with one patient suffering thrombosis  and a low platelet count after being vaccinated on March 22.

ATAGI had recommended that those under 50 years of age should take the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine instead.  “This recommendation is based on the increasing risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 in older adults – and hence a higher benefit from vaccination – and a potentially increased risk of ‘thrombosis with thrombocytopenia’ following AstraZeneca vaccination among those aged under 50.”

The advisory group also recommended, obliquely, that the AstraZeneca vaccine might still be used for adults aged under 50 in cases “where the benefits clearly outweigh the risk for that individual” and the individual in question had made “an informed decision based on an understanding of the risks and benefits.”  Patients, it would seem, beware.

Ominously, the health officers had to accept that the decision to accept the ATAGI advice would have “implications for the vaccine rollout program.”  One of them was already in evidence by the end of last week.  Victoria’s Department of Health was taking few chances.  “Until updated consent forms and consumer information are available from the Commonwealth Department of Health, and immunisation teams have been familiarised with these materials, it is advised that the AstraZeneca COVID-19 is not administered to eligible persons aged under 50 years.”

Those who had made vaccination appointments for April 9 at the Royal Exhibition building in Melbourne were denied the jab.  “They just turned me away,” St. John Ambulance employee Athena Stathoulas explained to the ABC.  “I had no idea it was for 50s and over. I had no notification.”

The Morrison government has been scrambling.  The Prime Minister announced on Friday that Australia had secured a further 20 million Pfizer vaccine doses, in addition to current orders for 20 million.  He tried to distract critics by noting that 170 million doses of vaccines in total, spanning deals with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novavax and COVAX, had been secured.  (Delivery has been quite another matter.)

None of this could conceal the fact that vaccination timetables had been shredded.  An October deadline had been proposed for all Australians wishing to be vaccinated to receive at least one dose.  Prior to that, the government had dreamily suggested a target of 4 million vaccinated Australian adults, with all remaining adults being finished by October.  On April 8, Morrison emphasised “uncertainties” and “many, many variables” that doomed any coherent planning.  “This is not a certain world and we’re not on our own.  The whole world is dealing with the same uncertainty.”

Government incompetence has also taken on a patriotic dimension. Stupidity can be forgivable, if it is shown to be defending the national interest.  Agriculture Minister David Littleproud is a startling example of this, refusing to consider how ordering other vaccines might ameliorate the problem.  Having not consulted the entire Australian population on the matter, he could confidently tell Channel Nine that he did not “think any Australian would want the Chinese vaccine or the Sputnik vaccine.”  He spoke of an approach “calm and methodical about making sure that we give the best vaccine with confidence, and however long it takes”.

The National COVID-19 Commission, through member Jane Halton, is also of the same view.  “The trick now is for people to calm down a little bit and get back to basics.”  Prizer would be the stand-in hero here.  Think, warbles Halton, that “there will be 40 million doses in total” of it.

The current state of calm, understanding of basics, and methodical application means that a further two years will be required for Australians to be fully vaccinated.  Daily tallies such as 27,209 are a far cry from the suggested number put forth by epidemiologist Mary-Louise McClaws, who opines that a total between 100,000 and 120,000 would be eminently more suitable.

AstraZeneca’s future is not promising in other respects.  The European Medicine Agency is currently reviewing reports on a possible cause of capillary leak syndrome.  Other drug titans are also not being spared scrutiny, with Johnson & Johnson’s own Janssen vaccine potentially being tarnished by the same blood clot problem.  “At present, no clear casual relationship has been established between these rare events and the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine,” stated the company in an email.

The damage, certainly in terms of public relations and the vaccination program, deepens.  But in Australia, the issue cuts deeper.  Bureaucratic incompetence has become the Siamese twin of unoriginal selections and poor supply lines.  With the State governments having performed the lion’s share of the work protecting populations from COVID-19, the Federal government has shown various, fabulous ways of soiling the stable.  A near future of closed borders, snap lockdowns and an increasingly enfeebled economy, seems likely.

*

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]

Featured image: Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison Photo: Xinhua

All Global Research articles 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 Académie nationale de médecine, an independent but official learned society in France, published a statement on Thursday warning that nasopharyngeal swabs used for PCR tests to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus “are not without risks.” The alert came days before nasal auto-testing kits will become available in French pharmacies.

According to the statement published online by the Academy, a growing amount of data show that “complications” can and do occur, some of them “serious.”

Most are “benign,” and include “discomfort, pain or bleeding.” But the statement notes that over the last weeks, scientific articles have been appearing in medical journals describing undesirable events “including breaches of the anterior skull base associated with a risk of meningitis.”

Several studies were quoted by the Academy, including one documenting “meningitis due to cerebrospinal fluid leak after nasal swab testing for COVID-19.”

The nasopharyngeal swab is done with a long, thin cotton swab introduced high up into the nasal cavity, often successively via both nostrils, and rotated quickly each time in order to collect a sample of cells and mucus to analyze for the Wuhan virus using the highly controversial PCR test, or to be used in view of an antigenic test.

The Academy noted that these tests have now become extremely common. The learned society is concerned because swabs are being increasingly used, and that more and more individuals are getting repeat tests, “sometimes in inadequate conditions.”

“It is important to recall that precautions need to be taken and that risks do exist,” it said.

The Academy advises that medical personnel should be making the swabs, and then exclusively those who received training to be able to observe the necessary “technical conditions.”

These include asking patients whether they had a medical history of accidents or surgery in the ORL field that may have modified the anatomy of the nasal and sinus cavities, and not placing their heads in hyperextension during sample taking: they should remain in a natural position, with the chin “parallel” to the floor. Swabs should be introduced “horizontally following the base of the nasal cavity and they should under no circumstance be deviated upwards, in the direction of the base of the skull.”

The Académie de médecine appears to be particularly worried about children, strongly suggesting that they should be tested using saliva samples “because of both their safety and their acceptability.”

Regarding the upcoming auto-tests that also rely on nasal swabs, the statement said that their users should be warned about their use. “Auto-sampling can lead to false negatives when the swab is too shy and too superficial, but it can also become dangerous when the swab goes too deep and is orientated in the wrong direction,” it said.

Auto-tests are not exactly like the nasal swabs used by health professionals in France since the beginning of the COVID crisis: the swab is shorter, wider, and less disagreeable and only requires entering three to four centimeters into the nasal cavity – some of these swabs, but not all, include a little “collar” showing how far to go. Instead of being processed in special lab instruments, the auto-test will give a positive or negative result within minutes. If negative, people are advised to continue “social distancing” and wearing masks; if positive, the result needs to be confirmed by an RT-PCR test in order to mark the “variant” and allow contact-tracing.

French health authorities are hoping that the tests will be used by private individuals who want to know their status before a visit to a vulnerable person, for instance, but they also expect to use them for large-scale testing in apartment buildings or high schools for people aged over 15.

In Germany, similar tests are being marketed and will include a flash code allowing the identification and tracking of “positive cases.”

At the beginning of the crisis in March 2020, very little testing was done even on symptomatic patients, to the detriment of isolation procedures that would have stopped the spread of the virus much more efficiently. If early treatment of positive patients had been allowed and recommended, many would not have seen their condition worsen: according to Professor Christian Perronne, 24,500 deaths out of 30,000 during the spring epidemic last year could have been avoided.

Now testing in France is beyond imagination. Since March 1, 2020 and April 4 of this year, some 70 million tests were done: 57.7 million PCR tests, the rest antigenic, according to a public health statistics institution, DREES. And the numbers are going up and up: from March 29 to April 4, 3.8 million test results were validated in one week. They were obviously not limited to people with flu-like symptoms.

PCR tests remain the so-called gold standard of COVID-19 testing, even though the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that they should mostly be considered as an “aid for diagnosis” and that their results should be carefully interpreted according to manufacturers’ guidance and accompanied by clinical observations, among others. The WHO also said that “the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases.”

Present curves representing the evolution of positives, hospitalizations, and deaths in France show a slow increase of the latter and a fast increase of the former as thousands of people test each day and “positives” keep climbing, while hospitalizations and deaths remain quite stable.

With the introduction of more and more kinds of tests and auto-tests, the “epidemic of cases” is not set to end.

*

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 Shutterstock

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

***

Below is the summary of Forbes analysis on how the Corona Crisis has contributed to a massive increase in billionaire wealth.

The report points to the enrichment of CEO’s connected to Big Pharma and the covid vaccine, as well as Chinese business interests in the areas of covid health products. 

While the focus of the Forbes report is on billionaire wealth, it should also be understood that global enrichment has been marked by an accompanied by process of impoverishment of large sectors of the World population in the course of the last 14 months. According to the FAO, famines have erupted in at least 25 developing countries according to UN sources. 

This concentration of global wealth has been accompanied by a wave of bankruptcies affecting both Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SME) as well as large Corporations. The evidence suggests that small and medium sized enterprises are literally being wiped out. According to a survey by the International Trade Centre, quoted by the OECD, pertaining to SMEs in 132 countries:

“Based on several surveys in a variety of countries, McKinsey (2020) indicates that between 25% and 36% of small businesses could close down permanently from the disruption in the first four months of the pandemic. (OECD Report, emphasis added)

.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, April 12, 2021

***

Shortly after the World Health Organization declared Covid-19 a global pandemic on March 11, 2020, markets collapsed and economies around the world plunged into recession. At the same time, hundreds of billionaires fell from the ranks of Forbes’ World’s Billionaires list, capturing a snapshot of the pandemic’s impact on the fortunes of the world’s wealthiest people.

One year later, things couldn’t be more different: a record 493 new billionaires joined the list this year, propelled by a red-hot stock market and unprecedented economic stimulus. Among those newcomers are at least 40 new entrants who draw their fortunes from companies involved in fighting Covid-19. Some, such as Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel and BioNTech cofounder Uğur Şahin, have become household names thanks to the vaccines they helped develop. Others got rich making everything from personal protective equipment and diagnostic tests to antibody treatments and software that helps authorities schedule vaccination campaigns, which will be essential in reopening economies and returning to normal life.

The richest of these new billionaires is Li Jianquan, the president of Chinese medical products manufacturer Winner Medical, which ramped up production of masks and medical overalls to supply frontline workers across the globe. Winner Medical’s IPO on the Shenzhen stock exchange in September 2020 instantly made Jianquan, 64, a billionaire several times over thanks to his 68% stake in the company, worth $6.8 billion.

Some vaccine companies have been so successful that their rise over the last year has minted several new billionaires from the same company, including four apiece from Moderna and Tianjin-based CanSino Biologics, which saw its one-shot vaccine approved by Chinese regulators in February. And it’s not just the vaccine discoverers: companies that mass produce the vaccines and contract research firms that help firms run clinical trials have both reaped the rewards, creating new fortunes for people like Juan López-Belmonte López of Spanish pharma outfit Rovi and Karin Sartorius-Herbst and Ulrike Baro of German biopharma firm Sartorius AG.

Read complete report

Click here to read the 40 newcomers with ties to companies battling the Covid-19 pandemic; net worths are as of March 5, 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.

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

***

One year ago, following the declaration of the Covid-19 pandemic, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterrres appealed to G-20 leaders to lift all of their economic sanctions against the poorest countries of the world for the duration of the pandemic. Guterres noted, “Let us remember that we are only as strong as the weakest health system in our interconnected world.”

Not a single G-20 leader complied. Some, like Trump, actually increased their coercive economic measures against countries such as Venezuela and Iran, hoping that the combination of economic sanctions and pandemic would lead to regime change in those countries.

Here in Canada, two peace organizations, one each from the two main language groups in the country, united to amplify the Secretary-General’s appeal to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by organizing an open letter from 100 prominent Canadians on April 13, 2020, asking Trudeau to lift Canada’s economic sanctions against 20 countries of the world, 9 of which are in Africa. Regrettably, the PM did not even bother to reply to the substance of the open letter.

In response, the two organizations organized both a Change.org petition to the PM with the same demands. When that too failed to elicit a response, they also initiated parliamentary petition e-2630, sponsored by NDP MP Scott Duvall. The parliamentary petition did finally get a response from MP Rob Oliphant, Parliamentary-Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. However, that response found little favour with the two peace groups.

Below is a rebuttal of the government’s position, as stated by Parliamentary-Secretary Rob Oliphant:

1) The government of Canada must respect the rule of international law. The UN Charter recognizes that economic sanctions are an act of war that often kill more people than bullets and bombs and therefore reserves the right to level these coercive economic measures solely for the Security Council. Canada’s economic sanctions against 19 countries of the world are unilateral, i.e., they don’t have the approval of the UNSC. Therefore, they are illegal. Moreover, they constitute meddling in the internal affairs of other sovereign countries, which is also illegal under the UN Charter and many centuries of international law. Canada needs to stop applying unilateral coercive economic measures.

2) Human rights have been weaponized by many western governments, including Canada’s. Alleged human rights violations, which are cherry-picked unilaterally by these governments, have been used respectively to invoke the doctrines of humanitarian interventionism and the responsibility to protect (R2P) against countries, such as the former Yugoslavia and Libya, to destroy entire states and turn large populations into refugees. Human rights violations are never used as excuses to intervene or level sanctions in major human-rights-violating countries such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or the apartheid State of Israel, because these states are within the sphere of influence of the main imperial power, the USA.

3) We take exception to the Parliament-Secretary’s characterization of Canada’s sanctions as “appl(ying) a targeted approach and rigorous analysis to minimize adverse consequences for the civilian population, including vulnerable groups… such as women and children.” In fact, Canada’s sanctions on Syria and Venezuela, for example, have caused widespread unemployment, devaluation of currencies, loss of life-savings, fuel and food shortages, lack of medications, homelessness, increases in crime, and death. Furthermore, these adverse consequences of economic sanctions disproportionately affect marginal groups, such as women and children. In Venezuela, for example, 40,000 people are estimated to have perished due to sanctions organized by the Lima Group, of which the Trudeau government of Canada is a founding member. In Syria, combined with the incursions of proxy armies of mercenaries sponsored by the US Coalition, of which the Harper government of Canada was a founding member, coercive economic measures contributed to turning nearly 5.5 million Syrians into refugees. The well-to-do in both countries have the resources to ride out the economic sanctions. It is the poor and marginalized who suffer most or flee. In the context of hybrid war and widespread poverty, human trafficking has risen in both countries, affecting especially women and girls, who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of Trudeau’s allegedly feminist foreign policy.

4) It is fallacious for Mr. Oliphant to state his government “ensure(s) sanctions regimes do not present an unintended barrier that would hinder the humanitarian response to the pandemic.” In fact, the US government has forced other countries to obey its sanctions regime (in which the Government of Canada is a partner) against targeted states through the use of extraterritoriality, that is, by penalizing foreign corporations which dare to trade with countries which the USA has sanctioned. This extraterritoriality is deterrent enough in practice for virtually every financial institution in the world NOT to provide the necessary funding and paperwork to facilitate the transfer of food and medical supplies to sanctioned countries. For example, Iran was unable to receive doses of Covid-19 vaccines from COVAX although the vaccines were offered to that country.

5) Finally, the Trudeau Government of Canada would do well to look into the mirror. Rather than looking abroad for the “gross human rights violations, significant corruption, or behaviour that flouts the rule of law and threatens global peace and security”, which Parliamentary-Secretary Oliphant notes are the raison d’être of Canada’s coercive economic measures, the federal government ought to focus on eliminating systemic discrimination that results in dozens of native communities still lacking potable water as well as adequate medical and educational facilities. It also resulted in RCMP killings of alarming numbers of native persons last year as well as thousands of murdered and missing native women. These “gross human rights violations”, a term used by Oliphant in his response, are on top of the residential schools, the forced sterilization of native and Metis women, the Chinese Head Tax, the wartime internment of Japanese-Canadians, the refusal to allow Jewish refugees of Nazism to land in Canada, the deportation of would-be Sikh immigrants, and many other national disgraces. Canada also suffers from corruption of which the SNC Lavelin affair and the We Charity were recent examples. As for upholding the international rule of law, the parliamentary-secretary should blush at his government’s kidnapping of Meng Wanzhou, its growing sales of arms to Saudi Arabia for its illegal war on Yemen, and its continued support for the juntas in Haiti and Ukraine, which were put into power respectively by Canadian-backed coups in 2004 and 2014.

People in glass houses should not throw stones.

Conclusion

On this first-year anniversary of Secretary-General Guterres’ call for G-20 countries to lift all their economic sanctions for the duration of the pandemic, Prime Minister Trudeau ought immediately to drop all of Canada’s sanctions against twenty countries of the world – permanently.

*

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

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

***

Ramsey Clark’s Legacy Will Live Forever

First published by GR in September 2013.

Abby Martin speaks with former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, discussing Iraq before the first Gulf War, his opinions on Syria, why he legally represented Saddam Hussein, and how US sanctions have a far greater negative effect on people than on the regimes of the countries these sanctions target.

Like this video? Visit our YouTube channel and click the “Subscribe” link to get the latest videos from Global Research!

Tune into Global Research TV for the latest video updates from Global Research!

*

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

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

***

Our thoughts are with Ramsey Clark. His legacy will live forever. This article was first published nine years ago in March 2012.

What happens in the international community is not by chance, and what happened In Libya is not by chance, what is happening in Syria and Iran is not by chance. And what is happening in Syria and Iran?

Who is behind the acts of terrorism? What is behind the assassinations and murder of intellectuals and high-ranking officials in both countries? We are building up to what, exactly? And where is the truth in the international press?

As usual, the obedient press, along with the U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has managed to come up with the same goods time and time again and so long as a gullible public, obediently swayed to where it is supposed to be by swallowing the tidy controlled media package daily, it is going to work: public opinion will acquiesce to the schemes of the arms and energy and banking lobbies which control Washington, and by proxy, NATO and the USA’s allies.

What you also do not know is that the squeaky-clean media package placed before you daily in your nice crisp newspaper or your TV News is the result of a process of sinister manipulation — brainwashing. How many people were informed of Colonel Gaddafi’s positive humanitarian record – for which he was to receive an award from the UN in March 2011?

Interview with Ramsey Clark

How many people knew he was spending his time trying to reduce casualties among the terrorists attacking his country to the minimum, negotiating with them before an attack took place? Who informed the readers that NATO broke the rules, broke international law, supported terrorists on their own proscribed lists and committed acts of murder and war crimes? Now let us move on to Syria and Iran.

Where are the stories about the mass acts of murder inside both countries, taking out Generals, strategists and high-ranking politicians and scientists? Who is perpetrating these evil deeds, who are these terrorists? Why are these acts being committed? The answer is perfectly simple. Syria is the last frontier between sanity and a balanced international community, a world ruled by the forces of right and reason and good, and the Satanic desires of the evil and invisible lobbies which are currently in power in Washington, and which in turn control the foreign policy of its allies.

We are speaking here of those responsible for torture, for maintaining concentration camps such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, those who urinate on dead, commit acts of sodomy on prisoners, those responsible for torture, for maintaining concentration camps such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, who detain persons without due process, without the right to a lawyer, to an accusation or a trial, who commit rape and murder, who break international law, who breach the UN Charter and Geneva Conventions and commit war crimes. And this same evil clique is now swinging into action in the Middle East.

First objective: Lebanon and Syria; second objective: The Islamic republic of Iran; third objective: the resources of Central Asia, leading to direct confrontation with Russia and the People’s Republic of China, which passes by installing Washington-friendly regimes in all these countries so that guess who can siphon off the resources? This is why Syria is the final frontier, this is why Syria must resist the intrusion of enslaved by NATO Arab League and this is why Syria must destroy the demonic elements running amok inside the country committing acts of arson, butchery, terrorism, vandalism, murder and torture.

It is not difficult to stir up trouble, take advantage of internal divisions, divide and rule and reap the consequences from the chaos that is sown. That is exactly what the West has been doing for hundreds of years and continues to do today. It has to do not with freedom and democracy – why did NATO not allow the Libyan Jamahiriya government to hold an election? It has to do with control of resources and guaranteeing that the US dollar is used as the international currency in major deals, and that includes oil. Why is it that when a country threatens to swap the USD for another currency in its dealings, it is invaded?

As for what we can do, the bottom line is keep informed and hold the politicians responsible for their actions. Democracy does have a fatal fault for those who try to manipulate it, and that is the fact that the power lies ultimately in the hands of the people. Bring international policy onto the political agenda and don’t let them lie to you and fool you about what is really going on. If you really feel your vote makes a difference, then create the conditions for this to be the case. Let us use citizen power to avoid World War Three. After all those who push for it, will their sons be on the front line? Would anyone survive?

Comments by Stop NATO Crimes

*

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

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

***

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on Friday said they will allow the Dakota Access oil pipeline to continue to flow without a federal permit. The decision was revealed in a court filing in federal District Court the District of Columbia.

The Corps officially refrained from taking a position by saying they need more time, which will allow the pipeline to continue operating illegally, without a valid permit.

The decision comes despite strong pressure by Native Americans and environmental groups that had their hopes up the Biden administration would order the pipeline will be shut down. Last week a group of Native Americans youth marched throw the streets of Washington to outside the White House to send a strong message to President Biden to shut down the pipeline.

“We are gravely concerned about the continued operation of this pipeline, which poses an unacceptable risk to our sovereign nation,” Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Mike Faith said. “In a meeting with members of Biden’s staff earlier this year, we were told that this new administration wanted to ‘get this right.’ Unfortunately, this reported update from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shows it has chosen to ignore our pleas and stick to the wrong path.”

Native Americans have opposed Dakota Access pipeline because long the pipeline’s route underneath the Missouri River and the Lake Oahe reservoir constituted a major threat to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation and the region’s drinking water.

Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman, who has represented the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe since 2016, feels the Corps missed an opportunity for the Biden administration to make good on their promised they have been making about improved tribal consultation and doing some to stop climate change.

“This was their chance. There have been so many things, the new administration has said about tribal sovereignty and about environmental justice,” Hasselman said during a press conference on Friday afternoon. “The importance of addressing the climate crisis, that are so important and so meaningful but today was the day to see whether this this rhetoric was going to be met with actions, and they fell short.”

Last July, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe won a victory when U.S. District Judge James Boasberg vacated a federal permit allowing the line to run under Lake Oahe and ordered a new environmental review.

The Corps could have shut down the pipeline as it conducts its environmental review, but instead on Friday threw the matter to the court to decide.

Judge Boasberg allowed the pipeline’s owner until April 19 to makes its case keeping the oil flowing. Hassleman said he expects the Boasberg to make his ruling in early May.

In 2016, the opposition to the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline was the impetus of the largest gathering of American Indians in over a century when tens of thousands tribal citizens from over 350 tribal nations converged on Standing Rock.

The Dakota Access pipeline ships up to 575,000 barrels of crude oil daily.

*

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.

Levi Rickert (Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation) is the founder, publisher and editor of Native News Online. He can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image: Last week, Native American youth were in Washington, D.C. to tell President Biden to shut down the Dakota Access pipeline. Photo courtesy of the Indigenous Environmental Network

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

***

In response to the Covid-19 pandemic governments across the world implemented an unprecedented and untested strategy to slow the spread of the disease. Colloquially known as lockdowns, these public health interventions effectively shut down most normal societal functions through the use of stay-at-home orders, school closures, business closures, bans on large gatherings, and travel restrictions. This policy apparatus effectively relegated the vast majority of people to a form of self-quarantine and completely upended the standard social functioning of society. Although these measures were advertised in the United States as a short-term measure, the now infamous two weeks to flatten the curve policy to shut down societal functions to control the spread of Covid-19 dragged on for over a year. 

The damage to society was certainly extensive, with a 3.5 percent annualized economic retraction record in 2020 and a 32.9 percent decline in Q2 of 2020, making this one of the sharpest economic declines in modern history. However, the level of suffering and trauma caused by these policies cannot be appropriately expressed by economic data alone.

Lockdown policies may have caused a substantial amount of financial damage but the social damage is just as concerning, if not more so. Across the board, there have been increased reports of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety, that are linked to social isolation, substantial life disruptions, and existential dread over the state of the world. Unlike lost dollars, mental health problems leave real and lasting damage which could lead to complications later in life, if not self-harm or suicide. For young people, a drastic increase in suicides has claimed more lives than Covid-19. That is because they are far less vulnerable to Covid than older segments of the population but far more negatively impacted by lockdowns.

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

***

When the Pentagon began gearing up for a future war with China in 2018, Defense Department officials quickly realized that they needed access to Vietnamese territory for troops armed with missiles to hit Chinese ships in a US-China conflict. So they initiated an aggressive campaign to lobby the Vietnamese government, and even Communist Party officials, in the hope that they would eventually support an agreement to provide them the permission.  

But a Grayzone investigation of the Pentagon’s lobbying push in Vietnam shows what a delusional exercise it was from its inception. In a fit of self-deception that highlighted the desperation behind the bid, the US military ignored abundant evidence that Vietnam had no intention of giving up its longstanding, firmly grounded policy of equidistance between the United States and China.

Vietnam as a key base in US war strategy

Between 2010 and 2017, China developed intermediate-range missiles capable of hitting American bases in Japan and South Korea. To counter that threat, the Pentagon and military services began working on a new strategy in which US Marines, accompanied by an array of missiles, would spread out over a network of small, rudimentary bases and move continuously from one base to another.

Vietnam was the logical choice for such sites. Australia and the Philippines publicly ruled out hosting US missiles capable of hitting China, and South Korea was considered unlikely to agree. Indonesia and Singapore were too economically dependent on China to be interested.

But as Chris Dougherty, the former senior advisor to the deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, who had written large parts of the 2018 National Defense Strategy, told the Military Times last September, “Vietnam has some wonderful geography. You can have good external lines against the Chinese.” Pentagon strategists also knew that Vietnam had soundly defeated a poorly conceived Chinese invasion in 1979 designed to punish the Vietnamese for their ties with the Soviet Union.

The Pentagon’s focus on Vietnam began when then-Defense Secretary James Mattis visited Vietnam in both 2017 and 2018, meeting several times with Defense Minister General Ngo Xuan Lich, who had previously visited him in Washington. During his January 2018 visit, Mattis waxed enthusiastically about the future of US-Vietnam cooperation, calling the two countries “like-minded partners.”

In April 2019, the commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command, Adm. Philip S. Davidson, visited Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City during a four-day trip. Mattis’s successor, Mark Esper, went even further in a November 2019 trip, meeting not only with the defense minister, Lich, but with executive secretary of the Communist Party, Tran Quoc Vuong, as well.

Officials were pleased with what they believed was a breakthrough for the Pentagon, despite the Vietnamese Defense Ministry’s abrupt cancellation of 15 previously planned “defense engagements” with the United States without public explanation the previous month.

In the Defense Department’s pursuit of Vietnam’s active involvement in its new war strategy, however, US military brass were ignoring the fundamental fact that the Communist Party of Vietnam and military leadership were not going to budge from the strategic policy to which it had been publicly committed for two decades.

The policy was summed up in three fundamental principles: no military alliances, no aligning with one country against another, and no foreign military bases on Vietnamese soil. The Vietnamese commitment to those “three noes”, first made public in a national defense white paper published in 1998, was repeated in successive white papers in 2004 and 2009.

Those principles clearly ruled out the kind of military cooperation that the Pentagon sought from Vietnam. But there was apparently too much at stake for top Pentagon officials to let that reality stand in the way of their enthusiasm.

The Defense Department’s main corporate research arm, the RAND Corporation, which was heavily invested in the idea of a viable new military strategy for war with China, was equally unwilling to acknowledge the truth. In January 2019, Derek Grossman, RAND’s specialist on Vietnamese defense policy, publicly reassured the policymakers that Hanoi was not really bound by any of those three “three noes.”

On the principle of “no military alliances,” Grossman claimed that Vietnam had “essentially created a major loophole in its own rule” by defining alliance as a military agreement requiring another country to defend Vietnam if it were attacked. He came up with equally creative explanations for why the other “noes” were also loosely defined in practice.

When Vietnam’s long-awaited new National Defense White Paper was published in late November 2019, Grossman discovered new reasons for pressing ahead with the Pentagon’s bid for Vietnam’s cooperation with the US military against China.

Grossman suggested that the Vietnamese had planted “subtle messages of opportunity for Washington” in the document, including its readiness to participate in “security and defense mechanisms in the Indo-Pacific region.” And he pointed to a new supplement to what had now become Vietnam’s “four noes.”

“[D]epending on the circumstances and specific conditions,” the principle said, “Vietnam will consider developing necessary, appropriate defense and military relations with other countries.” In practice, that merely meant that if Vietnam were seriously threatened by a Chinese attack, it could abandon its commitment to those “four noes.”

But the addendum was hardly a signal of Vietnamese readiness to participate in a US “Indo-Pacific Strategy”. Rather, the “four noes and one depend” in the defense white paper were part of a larger strategy of maintaining equidistance between China and the United States, as first adopted by the Party Central Committee in 2003 as “Resolution 8”.

The Pentagon’s Vietnam bubble bursts

Washington’s optimism about a new era of US-Vietnam defense cooperation against China was based on little more than wishful thinking.

By late 2020, it was apparent that the bubble of Pentagon hopes for a breakthrough with Vietnam had burst: there would be no Vietnamese involvement in a US anti-China military strategy in the region. Nor would there be high-level Pentagon or military visits during the year. More importantly, no further US-Vietnam military activities were announced.

The RAND Corporation’s Derek Grossman finally acknowledged in August 2020 that Vietnam had not been poised to begin deeper military collaboration against China after all. He now admitted the reality that Hanoi was taking a “conservative approach” to the “four noes and one depend” that he had marketed only months before as an open door to more US cooperation.

Grossman conceded that Vietnam had carried out a “delicate balancing act,” avoiding any move likely to antagonize China. The country’s careful approach, he wrote, is “disappointing for Washington and should temper American assessments of the extent to which Hanoi might be willing to play a role in the US Indo-Pacific strategy,” clearly implying that the Trump administration’s “high hopes” for a “like-minded partner” strategy in Vietnam were misplaced.

Nguyen The Phuong, a research associate at the Centre for International Studies at Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City, confirmed in an interview with The Grayzone that the basic Vietnamese policy of maintaining equidistance between China and the United States is not questioned by anyone within the Vietnamese government.

Nguyen observed that both civilian and military officials believe the US Navy had no effective strategy for curbing Chinese operations in the maritime zone that Vietnam claims.

The only difference of opinion which had arisen within that consensus, he said, was that many Vietnamese diplomats with whom he has talked believe that the US Coast Guard, which is not under the control of Defense Department — but which the US nevertheless considers a military service — would be more effective tool in countering China’s tactics in the contested maritime zone in the South China Sea than the US Navy has been.

They also believed that giving the Coast Guard access to Vietnam’s deep-water port at Cam Ranh Bay would not be provocative to China. The military leadership, however, has rejected that idea, according to Nguyen.

But what the Pentagon desired from Vietnam primarily was access to bases for American ground troops with missiles.

In September 2020, after the Defense Department reached an agreement with Palau on bases in the Pacific island, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia Heino Klinck revealed in an interview with the Wall Street Journal that what the Defense Department truly sought was “access to places instead of permanent bases.”

As the article explained, “US security policy in Asia calls for a heavier presence of American forces, but on a rotational basis, whereby troops switch in and out for training and exercises.”

The Marines that the Pentagon would like to have positioned in Vietnam would otherwise have been sitting ducks for Chinese missiles. But Nguyen The Phuong does not believe that any Vietnamese official, whether civilian or military, would even consider allowing such access. “If the US tried that approach on Vietnam, it would certainly fail,” he said.

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 US power in the Pacific can still prevail in a war with China.

*

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.

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist who has covered national security policy since 2005 and was the recipient of Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2012.  His most recent book is The CIA Insider’s Guide to the Iran Crisis co-authored with John Kiriakou, just published in February.

Featured image is from US Indo-Pacific Command/Flickr

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

***

According to a report in the London Telegraph, anyone wishing to drink in a pub garden in Britain from Monday (only the outside areas will open) will be forced to hand over their phone to venue staff who must check the individual is registered on the government’s tracking app.

Venues will face fines of £1000 if they are found to be admitting people who have not registered on the NHS Test and Trace app with all their personal details and then scanned a QR code on entry to the outdoor portion of the venue.

The official government guidance notes “should someone choose to check in with the official NHS QR code poster, a venue should check their phone screen to ensure they have successfully checked in”.

The word ‘choose’ is odd because the guidance makes clear that it is mandatory for everyone to individually register on the app, or fill in a paper form.

There is no ‘choice’ in the matter.

Pubs have also been told to refuse entry to anyone they believe has given false details.

LOL – not fucking happening. Jog on. https://t.co/bXSjC5eyKq

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) April 8, 2021

The only type of person who asks to check your phone are abusive and controlling partners.
So this does fit the government's pattern of behaviour and mode of thought perfectly.

— Martin Farnell (@timpers7) April 9, 2021

As we have previously highlighted, the much maligned ‘test and trace’ app is completely voluntary and authorities have no grounds to enforce its adoption legally. This is yet another example of how bureaucratic control freaks are simply inventing laws and justifying intimidation by means of coronavirus hysteria.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson ‘rewarded’ Brits recently by announcing that coming vaccine passports would not be required to enter pubs, however this policy directly undermines that and is essentially a small step away from being the exact same thing.

As we have previously noted, the vaccine passports are set to be integrated with the test and trace app via a QR code system. That has been the plan all along. Further dystopian systems, including biometric face scanning, are also being touted.

Responding to the latest developments, Madeleine Stone of privacy advocacy group Big Brother Watch, told The Telegraph: “Requiring every single person who enters a cafe or pub to show their phone screen and hand over their personal details poses a serious risk to privacy and data rights and is based on exclusion, criminal sanctions and police enforcement.”

“Businesses won’t be able to comply with this draconian new diktat as well as data protection law, which is why we’ve sent legal letters to the Department of Health and Information Commissioner’s Office as to whether these intrusive requirements are safe and lawful,” Stone added.

🛂 THREAD 🛂

5 reasons why Covid passes 𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐓 be stopped 🛑

Read our full report 'Access Denied – The Case Against a Two-Tier Britain Under Covid Certification' ⬇️https://t.co/PVWIyjDPro pic.twitter.com/3zM5map8X9

— Big Brother Watch (@BigBrotherWatch) April 8, 2021

Venue owners have also expressed dismay at the guidance, expressing concern that it is unenforceable and will leave already stretched staff vulnerable to abuse from angry punters who don’t want to be tracked by the government just to have a pint of beer.

So long as being "at pub" is like being "at airport," I won't be "at pub". Sorry.

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) April 8, 2021

Surely handing someone a phone which is covered in germs to someone who’s handled presumably many phones that day is irresponsible due to the risk of the virus spreading?

— Ted (@IBoyd1966) April 8, 2021

Also from the same article: Drinkers will still have the option of registering manually by filling out a form with their name and telephone number.

Wider question is, why is T&T needed when everyone will be outside, where the risk is minuscule? Vallance himself said this.

— Pierceck (@Pierceck2) April 8, 2021

And at the same time, i can’t even get it to work on my phone!

— Railway, London & Maritime Bloke (@RailLondonSeaYT) April 8, 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.

Featured image is from OffGuardian

Sul filo del rasoio: nel mezzo della crescente tensione tra Kiev e il Donbass, Natalia Nikonorova, ministro degli Esteri della Repubblica Popolare di Donetsk, descrive la situazione militare ed economica nel suo paese e le aspettative durante la nuova amministrazione USA. “Sappiamo che l’Ucraina sta trasferendo sulla linea del fronte un’enorme quantità di armamenti. Ne abbiamo conferma dall’osservatorio di monitoraggio dell’Ocse. Siamo pronti a difenderci”.

 

Guarda e commenta su DavveroTV/Pangea

Guarda e commenta su YouTube/Pangea

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

***

AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine has dominated headlines as reports of rare blood clots mounted, but now European drug safety regulators are investigating potential clotting risks from Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine.

So far in the J&J vaccine’s U.S. rollout, EU officials have tracked three cases of unusual blood clots with low blood platelets following vaccination, the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA’s) Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee said Friday. Another case came in a clinical trial. One of the cases was fatal.

All four were “serious cases,” the committee says. The reports “point to a ‘safety signal,’ but it is currently not clear whether there is a causal association,” PRAC says. The group will decide whether any regulatory steps, such as a warning about side effects, are appropriate.

A J&J spokeswoman said the company is working with regulators as more data come in and supports the “open communication” of any new findings with healthcare providers so they can monitor for risks.

“We are aware that thromboembolic events including those with thrombocytopenia have been reported with all COVID-19 vaccines,” J&J’s spokeswoman said. “Our close tracking of side effects has revealed a small number of very rare events following vaccination. At present, no clear causal relationship has been established between these rare events and the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine.”

So far, the vaccine is only available in the U.S., but European officials recently authorized it and rollouts there are expected to start soon. It wasn’t immediately clear whether the U.S. FDA is also reviewing the cases. The agency had not responded to questions by press time.

Meanwhile, the U.S. vaccine rollout has run into some issues in recent weeks. Just 700,000 doses are set to ship out to states next week, down from 4.9 million this week, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday. And two vaccination sites, in Colorado and North Carolina, temporarily closed after adverse reactions in a limited number of recipients, CBS News reports.

J&J’s vaccine has also been in the news lately due to manufacturing missteps at its partner Emergent BioSolutions. Weeks ago, workers at an Emergent plant in Baltimore ruined a large batch of vaccines containing millions of doses, and in response the Biden administration put J&J in charge at the plant. That forced AstraZeneca, which had also partnered with Emergent, to look for a new manufacturing partner.

About 14.5 million J&J vaccine doses have been delivered to states so far, and 4.9 million doses have been administered, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. The vaccine is given as a single dose.

As for AstraZeneca’s shot, European regulators this week added a warning over rare blood clots after reviewing 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and 24 cases of splanchnic vein thrombosis in the EU as of March 22. As of that date, around 25 million people had received the vaccine.

But in a new revelation Friday, the EMA’s safety committee says it’s looking into five cases of capillary leak syndrome after vaccination with AZ’s shot. It isn’t clear whether the cases are linked to the vaccine, but, again, the reports “point to a ‘safety signal,’” PRAC 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.

Featured image: A Johnson & Johnson vaccine factory in Leiden, Netherlands, is one of the facilities producing its COVID-19 shot. (J&J)

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

***

Lawyers suing Swiss chemical company Syngenta are asking a U.S. judicial panel to consolidate more than a dozen similar lawsuits under the oversight of a federal judge in California. The move is a telling sign of the expansion of litigation that alleges the company’s weed killing products cause Parkinson’s Disease.

According to the motion, filed April 7 by the Texas-based Fears Nachawati law firm with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, there are currently at least 14 lawsuits filed by eight different law firms in six different federal courts across the country. The lawsuits are all filed on behalf of plaintiffs who have been diagnosed with the neurodegenerative disorder, and they allege exposure to Syngenta’s weed killers made with a chemical called paraquat for the disease. Several other cases making the same allegations are pending in state courts.

“The cases are excellent candidates for coordinated pretrial proceedings because they arise from the same poisonous toxin causing the same crippling disease resulting from the wrongful conduct of the same three defendants,” the Fears Nachawati brief in support of its motion states. “Movant expects that the number of similar cases filed in state and federal courts across the country will expand rapidly.”

The motion seeks transfer specifically to Judge Edward Chen in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Majed Nachawati, a partner with the Fears Nachawati firm, said the firm was still investigating the size and scope of the overall litigation but believes the paraquat litigation against Syngenta “will be significant and material in nature…”

“Very soon, there is going to be litigation in dozens of federal courts across the country,” Nachawati said.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers will be seeking internal corporate documents as well as depositions of corporate officials related to the “testing, design, labeling, marketing, and safety of paraquat herbicides,” along with corporate research and evaluations of the toxicity and safety of its paraquat products.

The Miller Firm of Virginia, which helped lead the Roundup cancer litigation against Monsanto that resulted in an $11 billion settlement with Monsanto owner Bayer AG, is among the law firms joining in the paraquat litigation. The Miller firm supports the effort to consolidate the federal actions in California, where thousands of Roundup cases were also consolidated for pretrial proceedings, according to the firm’s lead attorney Mike Miller.

“We are confident that science strongly supports the causal connection between paraquat and the devastation of Parkinson’s disease,” Miller said of the motion. “The Northern District of California is well equipped to handle these cases.”

The cases against Syngenta also name Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. as a defendant. Chevron distributed and sold Gramoxone paraquat products in the United States starting with an agreement with a Syngenta predecessor called Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), which introduced paraquat-based Gramoxone in 1962. Under a license agreement, Chevron had the right to manufacture, use, and sell paraquat formulations in the U.S.

Syngenta and Chevron have denied the allegations.

Syngenta says that its paraquat products have been approved as “safe and effective” for more than 50 years and it will “vigorously” defend the lawsuits. Syngenta is owned by China National Chemical Corporation, known as ChemChina.

Scientific studies

Parkinson’s is an incurable progressive disorder that affects nerve cells in the brain, leading in advanced cases to severe physical debilitation and often dementia. Many Parkinson’s experts say the disease can be caused by a range of factors, including exposure to pesticides such as paraquat, as well as other chemicals.

Several scientific studies have linked paraquat to Parkinson’s, including a large study of U.S. farmers jointly overseen by multiple U.S. government agencies. That 2011 research reported that people who used paraquat were twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s disease as people who did not use it.

“Numerous epidemiological and animal studies have linked paraquat to Parkinson’s disease,” said Dorsey Ray, a professor of neurology and director of the Center for Human Experimental Therapeutics at University of Rochester in New York. Dorsey is also the author of a book about prevention and treatment of Parkinson’s Disease.

“The evidence linking paraquat to Parkinson’s disease is probably the strongest of any pesticide commonly used,” he said.

Some studies have not found any clear links between paraquat and Parkinson’s and Syngenta asserts that the most recent and authoritative research does not show a connection.

Indeed, a study published in 2020 found connections between some other pesticides and Parkinson’s, but no strong evidence showing paraquat causes the disease.

Upcoming trial

One case filed in a state court is scheduled to go to trial next month. Hoffman V. Syngenta is slated for trial May 10 in St. Clair County Circuit Court in Illinois. A status conference is scheduled for the end of this month.

Missouri lawyer Steve Tillery, who is representing the plaintiffs in the Hoffman case as well as several other plaintiffs in other paraquat lawsuits, said despite Syngenta’s assertions to the contrary, he has accumulated evidence that includes internal company records showing Syngenta has known for decades that its product causes Parkinson’s Disease.

“They shouldn’t be selling this product, said Tillery. “This chemical should be off the market.”

*

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

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

***

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) held an Extraordinary Double Troika meeting on 8th April in Maputo to deliberate on measures on addressing terrorism and its related impact on the current development specifically in the Mozambique and generally in southern Africa. The Cabo Delgado crisis started in 2017 with insurgents taking control of parts of northern Mozambique.

One of the two troikas consists of the current, incoming and outgoing chairs of SADC (namely Mozambique, Malawi and Tanzania), while the second is formed by the current, incoming and outgoing chairs of the SADC organ for politics, defence and security cooperation (Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe).

South African president Cyril Ramaphosa and the ministers of international relations, defence and state security attended the meeting. It was also attended by Mozambique, Botswana, Malawi Zimbabwe and Tanzania.

The summit was called in the wake of the terrorist attack of 24 March against the town of Palma in the northern Mozambican province of Cabo Delgado, but the leaders did not pledge any immediate practical support for Mozambique.

SADC Troika heads however said the acts of terrorism perpetrated against innocent civilians in Cabo Delgado, Mozambique, could not be allowed to continue without a proportionate regional response and reported that 12 decapitated bodies have been found behind a hotel in the region.

Mozambican President Filipe Nyusi has called for cooperation in cross-border surveillance as essential to stem the flow of foreign fighters fomenting terrorism in Cabo Delgado, warning of the spread of violence throughout Southern Africa.

Among the measures that the SADC countries should implement to combat terrorism is strengthening border control between Southern African countries, he said, and further added that Southern African police and judicial systems must consistently work to combat trafficking and money laundering that funds terrorism.

Nyusi stressed that the organization should implement practical acts to combat this scourge of terrorism to prevent its expansion and destabilization of the region, and warned of the risk that the actions of armed groups with a jihadist connotation could hinder regional integration.

According official reports, SADC fends off United States / European Union anti-terror intervention in Cabo Delgado. It further said no to another Mali / Somalia / Libya / Syria disaster on the African continent, adding that the global Anti-Terror lobbies are frustrated.

Deeply concerned about the continued terrorist attacks in Cabo Delgado, especially for the lives and welfare of the residents who continue to suffer from the atrocious, brutal and indiscriminate assaults, the leaders decided at their meeting to deploy a technical mission to Mozambique. It’s not clear what action the region will take but the deployed technical mission will report back to heads of state by April 29.

The final communiqué from the summit condemned the terrorist attacks “in the strongest terms” and declared that “such heinous attacks cannot be allowed to continue without a proportionate regional response” but it did not suggest what such a regional response might consist of.

The Summit expressed “SADC’s full solidarity with the government and people of Mozambique” and reaffirmed “SADC’s continued commitment to contribute towards the efforts to bring about lasting peace and security, as well as reconciliation and development in the Republic of Mozambique.”

The summit ordered “an immediate technical deployment” to Mozambique, and the convening of an Extraordinary Meeting of the Ministerial Committee of the Organ by 28 April 2021 that will report to the Extraordinary Organ Troika summit on 29 April 2021. The extremely brief communiqué mentioned no other specific measures.

The violence unleashed more than three years ago in Cabo Delgado province took a new escalation about a fortnight ago when armed groups attacked the town of Palma, which is about six kilometres from the multi-million dollar natural gas, according to United Nations data.

The attacks caused dozens of deaths and forced thousands of Palma residents to flee, worsening a humanitarian crisis that has affected some 700,000 people in the province since the conflicts data. Several countries have offered Maputo military support on the ground to combat these insurgents, but so far there has been no openness, although reports and testimonies are pointing to security companies and mercenaries in the area.

*

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

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

***

Sir!

As a German citizen and long-time friend of the Serbs, it is an urgent matter for me to express to you my deeply felt indignation and disapproval because of your interview statement on the US-NATO war of aggression against the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999, which was contrary to international law. An apology to the Serbian people for this extremely rude behaviour towards the host country is the least I expect from you.

I moved with my wife, a retired Serbian diplomat, from paradisiacal Lindau on Lake Constance to Belgrade one and a half years ago. As a German, I would no longer dare to join the community of my relatives, friends and acquaintances if I did not take a clear stand on your statement, which is difficult for me and probably for most Serbs to understand.

According to Serbian and German media, you said – even at a time when the Serbian people were commemorating the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Belgrade during World War II – that the bombing of the country was “necessary” to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and genocide in Kosovo. What a grotesque falsification of history!

Since I have already written several well-founded articles about this dark chapter of the Western community of values, and in particular about the bombardment of the country with highly toxic and radioactive uranium shells, which in addition to countless killed and wounded over the years have resulted in more and more multiple cancers in young and old, I would just like to say this:

I am appalled that a German diplomat is giving himself up without any need to engage in cheap NATO propaganda, and I wonder whether this man can be kept as ambassador. But that is for the Serbian government and the Serbian people to decide – even though Serbian President Alexandar Vucic has, astonishingly, come to your defence as a friend of the Serbs. In any case, I will also offer this Open Letter for publication in Germany and other countries.

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

Educationalist and graduate psychologist

11040 Belgrade

*

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

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

***

Ever since the former President Rafael Correa-backed presidential candidate, Andrés Arauz, won first place with 32.7% of the national election vote on February 7 (first round), the U.S.-backed Pachakutik candidate, indigenous eco-activist Yaku Pérez has been trying to defame Arauz and prevent him from participating in the April 11^th runoff election.

The National Electoral Council (CNE) initial conclusion for second place was 20.1% for Pérez and 19.5% for banker Guillermo Lasso, former head of Coca Cola in Ecuador. This changed after four days of meticulous counting: Lasso ended in second place with 19.74% and Pérez in third place with 19.38%.

The Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE), founded in 1986 to represent indigenous land rights, their culture and language, is the largest indigenous organization in the country. Its political wing, Pachakutik Plurinational Unity Movement – New Country (MUPP or Pachakutik), backed Pérez.

Yaku Sacha Pérez Guartambel is the son of campesino parents from the Andean region. He changed his name, Carlos, to Yaku Sacha, “mountain water” in his native language of Kichwa. He is not the left-wing, eco-socialist that he sometimes claims to be.

“Pachakutik is closely linked to NGOs funded by Washington and EU member states. The party’s leaders have been trained by the U.S. government-funded National Democratic Institute (NDI), a CIA cutout that operates under the auspices of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED),” wrote investigative reporter Ben Norton.

“The NED publicly lists more than $5 million in grants for NGOs in Ecuador just in the years from 2016 to 2019. Much of this money has bankrolled anti-Correa opposition groups like Pachakutik and its allies.”

Guillermo Lasso leads the capitalist Creating Opportunities (CREO-PSC) party. Lasso is the key founder of the center-right CREO, and stood for its presidency in 2013. In this election, CREO merged with the Social Christian Party (PSC). Founded in 1951, PSC has associated center-right parties throughout Latin America and Europe.

Eighty-one percent of 13 million registered voters cast their votes. Ecuador has a population of 17.3 million people, 1.1 million of whom are indigenous.

During two months of second round campaigning, Pérez maneuvered to accomplish his objective of demonizing Arauz. He had the aid of the sitting president, Lenin Moreno, the United States government, the leadership of the Organization of American States (OAS), Colombia’s right-wing drug-dealing government, and confused U.S./European intellectuals sympathizing with indigenous people yet misinterpreting identity politics with justice and equality for all.

Despite all these elite powers, as of April 3, it looked like Arauz, the first presidential candidate of the new socialist party, Union of Hope (UNES), has the best chance of winning the majority of Ecuadorian voters over second place candidate Guillermo Lasso. After internal debate, CONAIE called for support of Pérez at a rally where its president, Jaime Vargas, and Arauz embraced.

Vargas said that the major indigenous organization “officially supports Andrés Arauz.” He has “absolute support of the indigenous movement,” reported the major Ecuadorian daily, El Universo.

This vote of confidence should be what it takes for UNES’ candidate to win the upcoming second round. However, CONAIE sub-coordinator, Cecilia Velasque, a leader of Pachakutik, called this decision “treason.” Velasque called for voters to turn in blank ballots. In May, the divided CONAIE will hold internal elections.

A Confusing Election Campaign

During this election, there were 16 candidates for president/vice president, and the entire 137-seat legislature was contested. At first round figures, Arauz’s party would have 49 seats.

Taking fourth place was an alleged social democratic party, Left Democrats. Its candidate, Xavier Hervas, won 15.69% of the vote. In his youth, he was a baker; he then went on to study agricultural engineering and supported capitalist policies. He publicly proposed forming an alliance with Lasso and Pérez. Lasso agreed.

Alianza PAIS candidate Ximena Peña, the only woman running, garnered only 1.5% of the votes. In the first round of the 2017 elections, PAIS candidate Lenin Moreno, then backed by President Rafael Correa, received 39% of the votes. After Moreno turned sharply right, the party split up. Peña went with Moreno, and Correa forces later formed UNES.

In August 2020, the 35-year-old economist Arauz was selected for the presidency. He had been Correa’s Minister of Knowledge and Human Talent (2015-17). He planned for Correa to be his vice president, but a court denied Correa the right to run for political office.

In April 2020, an Ecuadorian court found Correa guilty of corruption and sentenced him to eight years prison, in absentia. Correa was living in Belgium following Moreno’s betrayal. From there, he denied any wrongdoing.

The court found Correa and 19 other defendants guilty of accepting $7.5 million from private firms in exchange for state contracts. Those convicted were banned from any political role for 25 years.

“Well, this was what they were looking for: manipulating justice to get what they could never get via the ballot box,” Correa quipped. He has since decided to stay in Belgium and leave the political world, preferring to write.

As president, Lenin Moreno sacked the CNE of Correa supporters. Some current CNE members are followers of either Lasso or Pérez. Its president, Diana Atamaint, is a member of Pérez’s party.

On February 12^th, subsequent to the revision of who came in second place, it was announced that CNE planned to conduct a partial recount of votes cast after Pérez made unsupported allegations of vote-counting fraud.

CNE president Atamaint apparently had not listened to all of its members. She had met privately with Pérez and Lasso and decided to concur with Pérez’s request for a recount of about 40% of all votes in 17 of 24 national provinces, singling out areas where Pérez had done poorly, which raised suspicions of a potential swindle.

The next day, CNE announced that only two of the five members had voted for a recount. So, with egg on her face, Atamaint declared that there would, “unfortunately,” not be a recount.

Besides being an “eco-activist” concentrating on preventing mining for minerals on indigenous land, Pérez is also an attorney. He used his skills to find other means to prevent a fair electoral second round.

Lasso wanted to unite with Pérez to defeat Arauz in the second round. At first, Pérez seemed to agree, but then he changed his mind. On February 17^th, Pérez tweeted a confusing message. After four years of Pérez supporting the political agenda, close to his own, of Lasso’s party, he blasted the banker, saying that his indigenous supporters will “never support his corruption.” He claimed that Lasso and even the CNE committed fraud.

This laid the basis for government intervention. After speaking with the U.S. ambassador in Ecuador, President Moreno sent in his Comptroller General Pablo Celi to inspect CNE’s computer system. Arauz and Lasso, as well as the Network of Electoral Observers, rejected this tactic, and criticized the attempt to affect the electoral calendar with technological excuses.

“Taking copies of the count and recount files is something normal, but taking the computer equipment and impeding the ballot is an attack on democracy,” said Arauz. UNES will send its citizen-overseers to scrutinize the process, and the party warned that democracy is under real threat.

“The country needs us united on the same front to make Ecuador a land of opportunities,” Lasso added, rejecting the interference of the Moreno administration in electoral matters.

The CNE stopped its activities after receiving the audit demand from Comptroller Celi. He stated the process should be completed in less than three weeks and should not affect the April 11 ballot.

Ben Norton reported, “The leftist’s overwhelming victory prompted the U.S. State Department, the right-wing government of neighboring Colombia, and the Organization of American States (OAS) to mobilize to prevent [Arauz] from entering office.” 

The recount would be “overseen by the OAS, which inspired a military coup, November 2019, targeting Bolivia’s elected government.”

“The head of the OAS electoral mission in Ecuador, Isabel de Saint Malo [“Saint Bad” in English] the staunchly conservative former vice-president of Panama, was intimately involved in the U.S.-led coup attempt against Venezuela, working closely with Juan Guaidó and the pro-Washington Lima Group.” Guaidó had declared himself president at a news conference without being elected.

“The OAS disseminated lies about Bolivia’s October 2019 election, falsely accusing the government of fraud. Now, the Colombian government is spreading a remarkably similar series of lies about Ecuador’s election and its first-place candidate, Arauz,” Norton wrote.

The Biden administration’s acting assistant secretary for the State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Julie Chung, tweeted,

“U.S. government applauds the February 12 announcement by [CNE] to verify votes in 17 provinces in Ecuador’s February 7 presidential election. This allows the electoral process to advance with enhanced guarantees to the candidates and citizens alike.”

At the same time, Colombia’s right-wing Iván Duque government intervened. It sent its justice department head, Francisco Barbosa, to Ecuador claiming that Arauz had been funded by “Uriel,” a guerrilla leader of the National Liberation Army (ELN). The lie was revealed by linguistic and forensic experts’ evaluation of a falsified viral video.

Even Colombia’s ex-president, Ernesto Samper (1994-98), warned that his country’s government was in a plot with the OAS to steal Arauz’s electoral victory. On February 13^th, the liberal wrote:

“I can confirm that these claims are slander and form part of a dirty game that radical right-wing sectors from both countries are organizing, from inside Colombia, to interfere in the second round of the Ecuadorian presidential elections.”

Despite the lie being uncovered, Ecuador’s right wing and Pérez persist in spreading the fake news. They apparently hope that if UNES wins the election, it will be stamped as fraudulent by a conspiracy of Pérez and the U.S./OAS/Colombia axis and make it difficult for UNES to rule. The consequences would be “regime change” as usual.

Yet another ploy of Pérez is to smear the veracity of the excellent journalist Ben Norton by making damaging accusations without any evidence.

“A collection of coup-supporting academics are lobbying to censor The Grayzone’s factual journalism exposing Ecuador’s presidential candidate Yaku Pérez. Pérez is a self-declared environmentalist from a U.S. government-backed party who has supported numerous right-wing coups in Latin America, advanced xenophobic conspiracies, and demonized poor people in his country,” Norton said.

“The academics have published a deceptive and distortion-laden open letter that egregiously misrepresents my factual reporting and absurdly smears me as ‘racist and misogynist,’ based on absurd insinuations and outright falsehoods.

“Besides deploying a litany of baseless ad hominem smears, the academics resorted to a wild array of demonstrably false claims that were contradicted by the very same article they are seeking to censor.

“The academics’ open letter called on the left-wing website Monthly Review to retract a report that it posted on February 10. The story was a reprint of an article initially published at The Grayzone a few days before, titled “How Ecuador’s US-backed, coup-supporting ‘ecosocialist’ candidate Yaku Pérez aids the right-wing.”

“Monthly Review promptly succumbed to the censorship campaign, removing the article from its website. [1]

“In addition to targeting my reporting, the open letter attacks The Grayzone contributor Denis Rogatyuk, calling on Jacobin Magazine to censor an article that he published documenting Pérez’s reactionary views and political record.

“The academics’ diatribe represents a desperate defense of Yaku Pérez, flagrantly whitewashing the candidate and leaving out all of the inconvenient facts that my reporting revealed—such as Pérez’s support for the 2019 military coup in Bolivia; his endorsement of the soft coup against Brazil’s Workers’ Party government; his cheering for violent U.S.-backed coup attempts against leftist governments in Venezuela and Nicaragua; his classist deprecation of poor people in his country; his racist incitement against Venezuelan immigrants, and his repeated echoing of a debunked right-wing conspiracy theory targeting Ecuador’s leading socialist candidate.”

“Yaku Pérez’s wife and campaign advisor, Manuela Picq, is a prominent French-Brazilian academic with close links to some of the very same scholars who signed the letter. In fact, Picq’s own mother, Lena Lavinas, is a signatory, and was involved in a similar denunciatory open letter a week before that featured high-profile supporters of the 2016 soft coup that toppled Brazil’s democratically elected left-wing government.”

False Prophet Yaku Pérez Backs Counter-Revolutions

Pérez’s activism is based on limiting mining and fossil fuels. He decided to become a lawyer to fight international mining companies from drilling by court order, especially in indigenous territories. To do so, he has also helped mobilize many people in legitimate protests. At the same time, he befriends and supports businessmen, and takes handouts from the U.S. government.

Pérez “supported coups in Bolivia, Brazil, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. . . . Pachakutik and its supposedly ‘left-wing’ environmentalist campaign is being promoted by right-wing corporate lobbyists,” wrote Norton.

In November 2016, Pérez praised the U.S.-backed “soft coup,” which removed Brazil’s left-wing Workers’ Party government from power, while also endorsing a right-wing legal warfare campaign targeting Argentina’s progressive President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.

“Corruption ended the governments of Dilma [Rousseff] and Cristina,” Pérez tweeted approvingly. “Now all that’s missing is for Rafael Correa and [Venezuelan President] Maduro to fall. It is just a matter of time.” In another tweet, he wrote that, “Arauz is the Maduro of Ecuador.”

“Pérez’s ostensibly progressive ideology is filled with contradictions. While the Correista candidate Arauz has proposed giving $1000 checks to one million working-class Ecuadorian families, Pérez has attacked the plan on the grounds that poor citizens would ‘spend all the money on beer in one day,’” Norton wrote.

Leonidas Iza Salazar, a Kichwa-Panzaleo and president of MICC (Indigenous and Peasant Movement of Cotopaxi), warned that, “right-wing activists and members of the banker Guillermo Lasso’s conservative CREO party are in Pérez’s inner circle and are advising him.”

Pérez’s “eco-socialism” policies include seeking money from the IMF; promoting commercial relations with the U.S. and big business; reducing the role of government in social welfare; and even reducing the role of grassroots assemblies.

Some Western ecological organizations, however, which do not take on imperialism or support socialism, such as Extinction Rebellion, oppose the socialist and anti-imperialist UNES and support Pérez.

Beth Pitts is such a voice. She wrote that the current election pits “the indigenous defender against the former president who jailed him, [providing] a battleground for two opposing ideologies. On one side, an expansion of extractivism and authoritarianism. On the other, a ground breaking move towards a more democratic and ecological future for Ecuador.”

No doubt the most pertinent conclusion about such contradictions, and within Ecuadorian “Identity Politics” today, is how Ben Norton concluded his piece:

“The United States is desperate to prevent the socialist wave that washed across Latin America during the first decade of the 21st century from coming back. And in Washington’s bid to stop the tide, ‘eco-socialist’ figures like Yaku Pérez are perfect tools.”

Yaku Pérez with U.S. Amabassador Michael Fitzpatrick. [Source: thegrayzone.com]

Lenin Moreno Campaigns for Pérez

Lenin Moreno came from a left-wing middle class mestizo family. His father, who became a senator, admired Vladimir Lenin and named his son after him. This Lenin studied public administration and psychology. In 1998, he was shot in a robbery attempt and lost the ability to walk. He has since used a wheelchair.

Lenin Moreno with Trump, Pence and Pompeo as Ecuador election campaign unfolds. [Source: commons.wikimedia.org]

Within months of winning the 2017 election, Moreno started moving away from his election platform, thus igniting a feud with ex-President Correa. Moreno reversed several key pieces of legislation passed by the Correa administration that targeted wealthy individuals and banks. He allowed greater profit for national and international corporations by paying less in taxes, and let them mine in areas protected by indigenous people’s ecological base culture. [2]

In February 2019, Moreno announced that he had obtained a loan of more than $10 billion from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigated a meeting between former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and President Moreno in Quito shortly after he became president.

Moreno talked with Manafort about removing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, in a plot to get him extradited to the United States. Correa had granted Assange citizenship and political asylum in 2012.

In June 2018, Moreno met with Vice President Mike Pence to consolidate “security” measures with the U.S., including buying weapons, radar sets, six helicopters, as well as sharing military training and intelligence. They also spoke about the mutual threat of Julian Assange.

In August 2018, Moreno withdrew Ecuador from Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA).

In January 2019, Moreno supported Venezuelan opposition leader and self-declared president Juan Guaidó. Soon thereafter, the IMF approved a $4.2 billion loan for Ecuador. Then the World Bank approved the Social Safety Net Project for Ecuador, a $350 million loan designed to assist poor households that was to be repaid over 30 years.

On April 11, 2019, Moreno revoked Assange’s citizenship and asylum, allowing British police to drag him out of the embassy. Judges threw him in a maximum lock-down prison where he remains. The police left all his possessions at the embassy; WikiLeaks documents and his legal documents were then turned over to U.S. intelligence.

By mid-2019, Moreno moved Ecuador’s diplomatic position even closer to U.S. dominance by allowing it to use a military airstrip on the Galápagos Islands, allegedly to monitor drug trafficking and illegal fishing. Charles Darwin had studied the Galápagos ecosystem, which became an essential part of his Theory of Evolution. Correa accused the government of capitulating to U.S. pressure. Moreno’s government faced protests from environmentalists at the airbase on Galápagos Islands.

In September 2019, pro-choice demonstrators protested proposed legislation, which would have relaxed the nation’s strict abortion laws to allow for abortion in the case of rape. The legislation failed to pass.

On October 2, 2019, Moreno abolished fuel subsidies, sparking the greatest and longest protests in his term. The government lost control of the capital and moved its headquarters from Quito to Guayaquil. Accounts vary, but between seven and 11 people were killed, up to 1500 wounded, and 2,100 arrested during the resistance, which forced Moreno to restore the subsidies.

Moreno enjoyed a popularity rating as high as 77% shortly after his election in 2017. His approval dropped to 69% by the start of 2018. After the October 2019 Ecuadorian protests, Moreno reached an all-time low approval rating of 7%. He decided not to run again.

In yet another Norton investigative article, he wrote:

“While [Moreno’s] government was busy clamping down on the left in Ecuador, Lenin Moreno himself was in the United States. Just two weeks before the election, he visited DC for several days.”

Moreno had a series of meetings with powerful figures, including:

• the director for the Western Hemisphere of the U.S. National Security Council, Juan Sebastian Gonzalez, a special assistant to President Joe Biden;
• the secretary-general of the Organization of American States (OAS), Luis Almagro, who helped oversee a coup against Bolivia’s democratically elected socialist government in 2019;
• the director of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva;
• hawkish U.S. Senators Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Ben Cardin (D-MD);
• and the president of the Inter-American Development Bank, Maurico Claver-Carone.

Lenin Moreno and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 28, 2021. [Source: foreign.senate.gov]

Encouraged by the Empire, Perez Persists in Trying to Steal the Election

Even though the ploy for a recount and confiscating CNE computers failed, Pérez persisted in his anti-democratic campaign.

On March 9th, he called upon the state’s Contentious Electoral Tribunal (TCE) to intervene. Again, he approached an electoral authority privately.

“The U.S.-backed candidate seeks a recount of votes … [TCE] agreed to process an appeal filed by candidate Yaku Pérez to recount over 20,000 tally sheets from the first round …”

“The appeal occurred amid the controversy unleashed by an alleged meeting between the Indigenous candidate and TCE judge Ángel Torres in a private building in Quito. According to the Tribunal regulations, no candidate can meet with electoral judges.”

The same day that TCE judge Torres said the Tribunal would look into the matter, “Ecuador’s third-place presidential candidate, Yaku Pérez Guartambel, has called for direct military intervention in his country’s political system, requesting a purge of electoral authorities and a nullification of the results of the February 7 election that he lost,” Ben Norton reported.

“Pérez has also demanded that Ecuador’s corrupt and undemocratic Lenín Moreno government immediately issue a legal judgment against the socialist-oriented candidate Andrés Arauz, who won the first round of the presidential election in a landslide, in an effort to disqualify him based on a debunked conspiracy alleging he received money from Colombian socialist guerrillas in the ELN.”

“In a post on his official Facebook page on March 9^th, Pérez endorsed an extremely controversial article that demands that the Ecuadorian military take-over, that Arauz be tried, that all of the members of the National Electoral Council be replaced, and that the first round of the election be nullified.”

The next day, March 10^th, TCE judge Torres apologized for meeting with Pérez privately.

On March 14th, the TCE voted unanimously (four judges) to deny Pérez’s request for a recount, which they considered “subjective,” and not based on evidence of fraud. This put an end to Pérez’s and his party Pachakutik’s attempts to stop the election date and impose an arduous recount of votes cast.

On March 16th, the majority five-member CNE voted once again not to take a recount. “National Electoral Council vice-president Enrique Pita said that he doubted whether the call to spoil ballots would affect the result of the run-off.”

The desperate loser had called upon supporters to spoil their ballots after he lost the battle for a recount bid.

UNES Program

Since Rafael Correa was disallowed as a political candidate, UNES chose communicator and political analyst Carlo Rabascall Salazar as its vice-presidential candidate. In his campaign launch event, he condemned Moreno’s decision to make an advance $2 billion payment on the foreign debt during the peak of the coronavirus pandemic. The funds were taken from public health and education systems. Thousands of health workers were fired during this pandemic. This caused the second highest death rate per capita in the world, after Peru.

Shortly after UNES candidates Arauz-Rabascall won the first round, Moreno sent a bill to the National Assembly that aimed to place the Central Bank under the control of private interest groups. Arauz rejected the “defense of dollarization” bill, which would place corporate-sponsored people on the board of directors of the Central Bank of Ecuador.

“If this pro-bankers’ bill is approved, the next government will not have effective instruments to make positive changes on issues such as credit management,” Arauz said.

UNES’ main four-year objectives are:

1. Justice for life and the reproduction of life
2. Participatory and deliberative democratic justice
3. Productive and economic justice
4. Intergenerational justice
5. Global justice, sovereignty and integration
6. De-colonial, pluri-national and inter-cultural justice
7. Ecological justice and energy transition
8. Equal justice for women and excluded groups
9. Digital justice and the new economy
10. Cognitive justice
11. Fair and impartial justice

Once the impact of Pérez’s and his associates’ scurrilous attacks waned, and manipulations by governmental authorities had largely failed, Arauz and Lasso settled down to discussing and campaigning about real politics.

They have been debating how best to end the coronavirus pandemic, whether an unfettered “free market” economy is superior to state-supported programs (similar to New Deal social democracy), free or paid education and health care, what to do with Ecuador’s U.S. dollar value, relations with all the Americas, and other practical matters.

The presidency of Rafael Correa has not taken a central place in the campaign, but his legacy is very much on the minds of most Ecuadorians—a good portion of whom remember him and the progress he brought to the working class and poor with nostalgia.

Rafael Correa Presidency

Governments preceding Rafael Correa instituted neoliberal austerity and privatization programs, prompting inequality, poverty and unemployment to soar. Ecuador deteriorated into one of the poorest and least developed nations in the region. Poverty reached 56% of the population. Two million people fled the country between 1998 and 2003.

Ecuador’s Citizens’ Revolution arose from popular repudiations of neoliberalism and neocolonialism, similar to Chavista Venezuela and Morales’s Bolivia. It did not reject capitalism entirely but redirected government budgets away from the wealthy and toward social programs and infrastructure investments to benefit the majority.

Correa speaks in Guayaquil in January 2016 to commemorate the 9^th anniversary of Ecuador’s Citizens’ Revolution. [Source: greenleft.org]

Rafael Correa’s rule (2007-17) was characterized by a new constitution, which advanced rights of the indigenous peoples; nationalization of oil/gas companies, which would not share profits with the state; large-scale social welfare spending and infrastructure projects, as well as defaulting on foreign loans; and tensions with the U.S. government, military and corporations.

William Blum wrote in Killing Hope that the CIA in Ecuador had “infiltrated, often at the highest levels, almost all political organizations of significance, from the far left to the far right. In virtually every department of the Ecuadorian government could be found men occupying positions high and low who collaborated with the CIA for money.”

Ecuador was saddled with the U.S.’s largest air base in the region at Manta, which was instrumental in the murderous Plan Colombia, and in enforcing international banking and corporate rule over Ecuador. The new constitution of 2009, based upon a referendum, banned all foreign military bases on Ecuadorian soil.

“We can negotiate with the U.S. about a base in Manta, if they let us put a military base in Miami,” Correa quipped. These bases are used to assure U.S. control of other nations’ natural resources, and kicking a base out of the country is often met by Washington’s retaliation. (In 2014, U.S. “defense” department staff was expelled).

Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, President Rafael Correa and Minister of Foreign Affairs Ricardo Patiño. [Source: commons.wikimedia.org]

A year later, groups of police held violent demonstrations against a law that they claimed cut their benefits. Correa tried to speak to officers at a police barracks, but was physically attacked. After being overcome by tear gas, he was taken to a police hospital where he was basically held captive by police. The Correa government had actually doubled police wages over the past four years. The law would not cut benefits but rather restructure them. This “misunderstanding” was used to rationalize the police protest.

The most extreme attempt at destabilizing Correa’s government came with a violent U.S.-backed coup attempt on September 30, 2010. Defectors from the Ecuadorian police and military occupied the parliament, blocked major streets, took over state institutions, and effectively kidnapped Correa.

Military officers involved in attempted coup against Correa in 2010. [Source: telesurenglish.net]

Five people were killed in the attempted putsch, and hundreds were wounded. Ecuador’s opposition nearly succeeded in removing the elected president from power.

Pachakutik published an open call for Correa to be removed from power, expressing public support for the police and soldiers who had defected. Nevertheless, thousands of ordinary Ecuadorians mobilized to defend him, surrounding the hospital. Tires were burned in front of every police station, causing smoke to cloud the sky. Citizens and soldiers freed their president.

Many indigenous people and alliances were outraged at MUPP and Pérez, and then again when he supported the U.S.-backed military coup in Bolivia in November 2019. When Luis Arce won the October 2020 election in Bolivia, numerous Ecuadorian indigenous leaders were invited to the inauguration but Pérez was not. “When asked why, it was made clear that Pérez was shunned because he had supported the coup.”

Quite similar circumstances to the Ecuadorian coup attempt occurred in Venezuela, April 11, 2002.  Right-wing groups kidnapped President Hugo Chávez, declared a new government, which the U.S. immediately backed. Within 48 hours, thousands of citizens and loyal soldiers freed their president.

The year before the coup attempt against Correa, another U.S.-backed coup succeeded in the original “Banana Republic,” Honduras (November 2009).

Nobel Peace Prize recipient President Barack Obama recognized the military coup as another “change of government” when U.S. Army School of the Americas-trained generals overthrew capitalist rancher President Manuel Zelaya.

He had taken measures to improve social conditions and joined ALBA—a great sin by U.S. standards.

The coup-makers subsequently withdrew from the progressive alliance.

Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro founded ALBA, in 2004, hoping to consolidate regional economic integration based on a vision of social welfare, bartering and mutual economic aid. Correa brought Ecuador into ALBA in 2009. The alliance has stood firm against U.S. subversion in Latin America, and cultivated relations with Russia, China and Iran.

Between winning independence from Spain in the 1830s, to the First World War, Honduras underwent 200 armed conflicts, most of them due to U.S. intervention in the “Banana Wars” for United Fruit Company profits.

A major weapon in the world policeman’s arsenal is the hideous use of torturing humans who the United States armed forces/CIA view as non-compliant to its rule.

“U.S. Army intelligence manuals used to train Latin American military officers at an Army school from 1982 to 1991 advocated executions, torture, blackmail and other forms of coercion against insurgents, Pentagon documents released yesterday show,” reported Dana Priest, in The Washington Post on September 21, 1996.

In 2000, the U.S. Congress renamed the “School of the Americas” the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), rather than closing it down.

We resisters still call it the “School of Assassins.” I flew from Denmark to be with a friend at a large demonstration in front of the base on November 13, 2013. We made crosses and drew or painted victims’ names on them.

As we marched outside the torture chamber military base surrounded by three layers of barbed wire, each of us carried a cross with the name of a person tortured/killed by an SOA graduate. We stopped before the fence and shouted his or her name. My spiritually connected brother was Felix Rolando Murillo López, murdered on September 17, 2001, in Honduras. Presente camarada Murillo!

Liberation theology priest Roy Bourgeois spoke for us: “It has always been about solidarity—to accompany and to make another’s struggle for justice and equality your struggle.”

Progress Under President Correa

“Correa rejected IMF and World Bank policies, which had made Ecuador numerous loans to entrap the country in debt, a game plan for Western countries to dominate the global economy. Ecuador’s debt was $14 billion in 1980, the country paid back $7 billion, and it still owed $14 billion because of interest. The IMF demanded cuts in wages and state budgets, that 80% of the oil revenues go to debt payment, or it would use international courts to seize their fleet and their contents,” wrote Stansfield Smith, a COHA scholar.

Correa renounced one-third of the then-existing debt as illegitimate interest. He imposed significant taxes on the rich, including on capital flight. These measures generated $1 billion in revenues in three years.

He compelled the Central Bank to repatriate billions in assets held abroad and renegotiated more favorable oil contracts with multinationals, which he used to triple investments in infrastructure and public services. Correa diversified the economy so that non-oil exports accounted for two-thirds of export income. These measures enabled Ecuador to earn a 4.2% annual growth rate from 2007 to 2015, even during the international financial crisis brought on by Wall Street corruption.

Correa’s government invested $20 billion in education, making all education free for everyone. Financing came largely from royalties for mining projects and state oil revenues. Low-income students were provided with free school supplies, books, uniforms, and meals. More than 300,000 children who used to have to work went back to school.

Correa visits a new school built through state oil revenues in Azuay in October 2015. [Source: telesurenglish.net]

To preserve Original Peoples’ identity, the government provided new schools in native languages, and fostered public TV and radio stations promoting programs in Quechua and other languages. The 2013 Media Law gave the indigenous communities greater access to community media. By December 2014, 14 radio frequencies, combined with funding and training, were assigned to each of the country’s indigenous groups.

Ecuador’s minimum wage was doubled, from $170 a month to $375, one of the highest in Latin America. Companies could not pay dividends until all employees earned a living wage. The labor of homemakers, contributing to 15% of the GDP, was legally recognized. Consequently, 1.5 million homemakers received social security benefits, including disability compensation and a pension.

Correa invested $16 billion in quality free health care over his entire administration. In the 40 years prior to the Citizens’ Revolution, not one new public hospital was built in any of the main cities. During Correa’s time, 13 new hospitals were constructed and 18 more were under way. The health system added 34,000 medical professionals. Thanks to free health care (still a dream in the U.S.) and greater access to services, visits to the doctor have almost tripled in ten years.

The United Nations recognizes only eight countries as meeting the two minimum criteria for sustainable development. In the Americas, there are only three, Ecuador, Cuba and Colombia. Ecuador made major advances in converting to renewable energy, one of the highest percentages of renewable energy in the world (85-95%). By 2015, Ecuador had cut the rate of deforestation in half.

Correa’s government made it illegal for employers to discriminate due to sexual orientation and same-sex unions were legalized. A gender identity law allows citizens to state on their ID their gender identity instead of the sex given at birth.

Affirmative action laws require companies to reserve 4% of jobs for people with disabilities, and other quotas for minority ethnic groups, indigenous and Afro-descendants.

Four of the five TV channels were owned by the four largest banks. Correa’s government backed a referendum that prohibited banks from owning the media. Airwaves were divided into three groupings: one-third private, one-third state-owned, and one-third for community grassroots outlets. A company cannot own more than one AM station, one FM station and one television station.

Achievements of Ecuador’s Citizens’ Revolution. [Source: greenleft.org]

During 2016, the nation suffered a recession due to lower oil prices, and a severe earthquake that cost 668 people’s lives and $3.3 billion in damage. Still, when Correa ended his term the annual growth rate was 3.3%. Poverty had been reduced from 37.6% to 22%.

When Correa became president, the richest 10% accounted for 42 times as much wealth as the poorest 10%. At the end of his terms, this gap was cut in half, one of the most dramatic reductions in inequality in Latin America.

Conclusion

If Arauz wins the presidency, he may appoint an important economist and ideologist of the “Citizens’ Revolution” to a government post. Ricardo Patiño was Correa’s first minister of economy, then minister of foreign affairs (2010-16), and defense minister at the end. In the early 1980s, he aided the Nicaraguan Sandinista government’s socialist economic direction.

The Washington, D.C.-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) conducted an interview with him as Ecuadorians went to the polls on February 7. He spoke about the “Citizens’ Revolution” during the time of Correa’s presidency—what went well and what was lacking:

“We ran a good government from the top but not enough with the people, and that was a serious mistake, which we must correct,” he explained. “Our political process did not sustain the peoples’ movements. We did not prepare our people to carry out the historic movement.”

“When Moreno took power and immediately turned his back on our advances, our population did not have enough consciousness and did not mobilize to undo that betrayal,” not for some time. “Many got confused by Moreno’s lies, which the mass media propagated.”

“We [leaders] must [focus on] a systematic structural basis to aid in strengthening social movements to consolidate, to advance, to become historic agents for [fundamental] change.” [3]

Patiño believes Arauz understands that damage and will seek to repair it. Patiño believes that work to broaden the media base, in order to represent peoples’ needs and movements, is one of the first essential tasks of a new government. More cooperative self-production must become incorporated in the infrastructure. Better education of teachers and students should be a priority, as should much less dependence on foreign companies and their technology.

*

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.

Ron Ridenour is a U.S.-born author and journalist, anti-war and civil rights activist since 1961. After joining the U.S. Air Force at 17, he saw the inner workings of U.S. imperialism first hand and resigned. In the 1980s and 1990’s he worked with the Nicaraguan government and on Cuban national media.

Notes

[1] Monthly Review has been a solid anti-imperialist, pro-socialist magazine for decades. I certainly hope that the current editors apologize to Ben Norton and replace his articles on its site. The left is becoming even more divided, because so many white leftists refuse to comprehend that some people of color can be wrong in their politics. Another example of this dilemma is that of Oglala Sioux and American Indian Movement (AIM) leader Russell Means. In 1973, Means co-led the occupation of Wounded Knee, in South Dakota, in which I participated and worked with Means. Yet in 1985, he aligned himself with Miskito natives in northern Nicaragua and southern Honduras in their opposition to the revolutionary Sandinistas. Means even declared that he would take up arms with Miskitos, who became supporters of the CIA/Reagan-backed Contras. This reactionary action led to further splits within AIM and its supporters. Means soon became a Hollywood actor in Cowboy-Indian movies.

[2] I have been unable to find any source that explains what made Moreno turn tail so drastically and so quickly.

[3] Given my eight-year long experience as a media worker in Cuba (1988-96), a year in Nicaragua working with the Sandinistas, months in Chávez’s Venezuela and with Morales’s Bolivia, I view Patiño’s judgment to be exactly what has been missing to various degrees with all revolutionary governments. Delivering power from top to bottom, in which the working class and citizen allies can become the key protagonists to provide real leadership, has never occurred. That is a key reason for the dissolution of the Russian Revolution/Soviet Union. Following its dissolution, many people who were revolutionary minded, also in the major capitalist countries, either gave up struggling for such or reduced visions to “liberalizing” the establishment.

Featured image: Jaime Vargas, right, the president of Ecuador’s largest indigenous organization CONAIE, supports socialist candidate Andrés Arauz, center, at an April 3 rally. [Source: orinocotrubune.com]

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

***

Despite campaign promises made by now US President Joe Biden to return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) better known as the Iran Nuclear Deal – Washington’s return to the deal has predictably stalled.

In February 2021, AP would report in its article, “Biden repudiates Trump on Iran, ready for talks on nuke deal,” that:

The Biden administration says it’s ready to join talks with Iran and world powers to discuss a return to the 2015 nuclear deal, in a sharp repudiation of former President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure campaign” that sought to isolate the Islamic Republic.

The US had unilaterally withdrawn from the 2015-2016 deal brokered under the Obama-Biden administration in 2018 under US President Donald Trump. The deal was deemed “defective” and much more stringent conditions were demanded by the US with crushing economic sanctions under a policy of “maximum pressure” imposed until Iran capitulated.

Despite Biden’s attempts to distinguish his administration from Trump’s, his promise to return to the deal was conditional, requiring Iran to recommit to the deal’s conditions before the US lifts sanctions – and only after additional conditions are discussed – and until then, sanctions and other mechanisms of political pressure will be applied to Tehran.

In other words – Biden’s policy is exactly the same policy pursued by the Trump administration.

Desire to Overturn “Trump’s Policy” an Admission it was the Wrong Policy 

Biden’s apparent desire to return to the table with Iran is in itself an admission that the Trump administration’s decision to leave the deal was a mistake.

The US – as self-proclaimed leader of the international community – would be expected to demonstrate good leadership by not only admitting to its mistakes, but assuming responsibility for them – returning to the Iran Nuclear Deal unconditionally and approaching additional concerns only after the original terms of the deal were back in place – with Iran in full compliance, and US sanctions lifted as promised under the original agreement.

Iran has every motivation to come in full compliance with the original agreement should sanctions be lifted – as it had in good faith complied before the US withdrawal in 2018. And while Iran has rolled back several of its commitments – it has not taken any steps yet which are not easily reversible. It is a signal from Tehran that it still desires to engage – but not without leverage.

It was the US – not Iran – who unilaterally withdrew from the deal, breaking its conditions and endangering the deal’s future. Iran would be remiss if it returned to the negotiation table in full compliance to the deal, with no leverage, and sitting across from the US who has so far acted in bad faith at every critical juncture throughout previous negotiations.

A Deal Meant to Be Broken… 

The disparity between Washington’s words and its actions should come as no surprise however – especially considering that US foreign policy is not the product of the White House or even the Capitol – but rather corporate-funded policy think tanks chaired by special interests who transcend US elections.

It is worth repeating that a 2009 policy paper produced by the corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran,” detailed plans to lure Iran in with a deal related to its nuclear technology, accuse Iran of rejecting it, and thus serving as a pretext for further US aggression up to and including the invasion of Iran by military force.

The paper explicitly stated that (emphasis added):

…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. 

The paper then laid out how the US could appear to the world as a peacemaker and depict Iran’s betrayal of a “very good deal” as the pretext for an otherwise reluctant US military response (emphasis added):

The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

In 2009 when these words were originally published it might have been difficult to imagine just how literally and overtly the US would attempt to execute this ploy against Tehran.

Yet in hindsight it is clear that the administration of US President Barack Obama (with Biden as Vice President) disingenuously offered this deal to Iran with full knowledge it would be betrayed in the near future – and was under Trump – with attempts to sabotage the deal further clearly underway by the Biden administration.

While the Biden administration repeatedly claims it wants to return to the deal, it has created conditions it knows Iran will never accept while simultaneously carrying out a series of provocative military strikes across the Middle East against militias backed by Iran combating dangerous extremism within the borders of Iran’s closest regional allies.

The 2009 Brookings paper also noted Israel’s role as provocateur – nominating Israel to carry out strikes on Iranian targets in the hopes of provoking an Iranian retaliation the US could use as a pretext for wider war.

We can see the US and Israel both engaged in attempts to escalate towards just such a scenario.

While occupants in the White House have changed three times now – a singular, belligerent US policy towards Iran – as laid out by the Brookings Institution’s 2009 paper – has remained unchanged and faithfully pursued for over a decade now.

The world now teeters upon a dangerous inflection point where the US finds itself out of excuses to delay returning to the deal and the window closing to “credibly” blame Iran for the deal’s failure. The political momentum of Washington’s accusations will fade fast and require expedient provocations to see this policy through to its end – or risk missing an opportune pretext for war and the required international “sympathy” needed to successfully execute it.

Iran has been and will need to continue avoiding these provocations, demonstrating its commitment to peace and stability in the region and distinguishing itself from the tactics, strategies, and agendas of the US and its regional allies. It must do all of this while also sustaining its economy under the extreme pressure of US sanctions and with the absolute necessity to ultimately address Iran’s national security against obvious threats within and along its borders.

Another important point to make when describing the negotiation table and the context it sits within – is the fact that US forces illegally occupy nations to the east and west of Iran’s borders as well as one of Iran’s closest regional allies – Syria.

US expectations that Iran obediently return to the table in full compliance to the original Nuclear Deal – across from the very nation responsible for its near total collapse – and a nation whose military – thousands of miles from its own shores occupies nations on either side of Iran’s borders – are not reasonable. That the Western media – a reflection of Washington’s actual agenda – attempts to portray this otherwise, gives a full sense to just how broad and deep the ill-faith is the US comes to these negotiations with.

Finally – Europe – also involved in the Nuclear Deal – needs to decide between peace, stability, and the economic benefits of working with Iran into the future – or continued capitulation to its Transatlantic partner, a continuously destabilized Middle East, and the prospect of a catastrophic war between the US and its allies against Iran.

Russia and China will play key roles in stacking the deck in favor of Europe’s siding with the former over the latter – and this stacking has been ongoing. But whether it will be enough to back the US off the warpath once and for all and begin its irreversible withdrawal from hitherto perpetual war and occupation across North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia – only time will tell.

*

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.

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

All Global Research articles 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 European Court of Human Rights has ruled that mandatory vaccinations are legal in a significant judgment that could have a big impact on the rollout of the COVID-19 jab.

The ruling was in response to a complaint from a group of Czech families who had been fined and had their children denied nursery care over their refusal to let their kids take mandatory vaccinations against against nine diseases including diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, hepatitis B and measles.

The parents argued that the law was in violation of of Article 8 on the right to respect for private life, but the court disagreed and said that the compulsory jabs were in the “best interests” of children to ensure “every child is protected against serious diseases, through vaccination or by virtue of herd immunity.”

Mandatory vaccinations “could be regarded as being ‘necessary in a democratic society’,” the court judgment read.

Although not directly related to COVID, the ruling could have significant implications given current debates over vaccine passports and whether workers in some jobs should be forced to take the vaccine as a condition of employment.

This judgment “reinforces the possibility of a compulsory vaccination under conditions of the current COVID-19 epidemic,” Nicolas Hervieu, a legal expert specializing in the ECHR, told AFP.

It’s also worth noting that despite having left the European Union as a result of Brexit, the UK, which is currently in the process of planning for domestic vaccine passports, is still a member of the European Court of Human Rights.

*

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 Vaccine Reaction

Ramsey Clark has passed away.

His legacy and commitment to peace and justice will live forever.

He has been a source of inspiration to antiwar activists for more than half a century.

Below Ramsey’s February 2016 interview with Christina Tobin 

***

Former Attorney General Questions the Legitimacy of American Democracy, Points to Roadblocks Against Full Participation of Voters and Candidates as Well as Lack of Information and the Dominance of the Wealthy

“We talk about democracy but our action to make our country a true democracy where there is full participation, full knowledge, and full independent choice is still a long way to go . . . we’re not a real democracy when an elite sect of the society determines the election outcomes and money in the campaigns. We need to take money out of politics so that the merit will decide not money.”

These were among the comments were made by Ramsey Clark, who served as Attorney General under President Lyndon Johnson, when he was interviewed by Christina Tobin, the executive director of the Free and Equal Elections Foundation, an organization which seeks to broaden electoral choices through education.

In his career, Mr. Clark was involved in drafting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Inspired by civil rights activists such as Amelia Boynton Robinson, Mr. Clark believes we can overcome racism and war, and although we have made progress in some racial issues while uncovering more, he believes that America has not yet solved the issues of war.

Mr. Clark has staunchly supported the right to vote and the creation of a participatory democracy through removing money from politics and curbing its influence over our elections. He has also dedicated his life to standing for justice and accountability, and along with Ms. Robinson, Mr. Clark supports the mission of Free and Equal by bringing awareness to the inequality of our electoral system. In order to overcome the odds, we must unite together to bring truth to the land and power to the people.

Mr. Clark has also announced his intent to speak at the United We Stand Fest’s Open Presidential Debate at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Coors Event Center, which will take place this October co-hosted by #StudentVoicesCount.

The Covid Vaccine Is an Integral Part of “The Great Reset”

By Anthony Hall, April 09 2021

“Not only they were presented the next 5-year plan 2021 to 2025 we were presenting three subsequent plans all the way to 2035. They’re already thinking about the technical commercial configuration of China in 2035 so that’s the… I would say cosmically, the cosmic difference between the way the Chinese think about the future and the way the West, especially the U.S. thinks about the future.”

– Pepe Escobar, from this week’s interview (below).

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

With the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, people began to enjoy a period of relative peace they had not known about in well over half a century. [1]

That blissful existence came to an end by the end of the twentieth century with NATO mobilized in the wake of managing conflict in Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina and eventually Kosovo. But then the pivotal event that put warfare back into focus was the 9/11 attacks and the so-called Global War on Terrorism.[2][3]

The pattern of attacks went as follows: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia/Kenya, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. [4]

At first, the once damaged Russia started to become a problem when it absorbed Crimea into its territorial realm following a simple referendum. But by 2015 they let it be known that terrorist factions in Syria supported by US forces are not going to result in another broken State without major resistance. Getting involved in the war in Syria was the principle location where the Western gang realized players started to surface in a big way and let the Western world know there’s another power in town. [5][6][7]

Couple this with the rising power that is China and the fading power of the U.S. and it’s clear to see that another Cold War is on…with a vengeance![8]

Following four years of Trump resetting the stage for world diplomacy with a chaotic foreign policy, we now have a Democrat in the White House who seems to be doing everything possible to burn whatever bridges might linger between the U.S. and its two major rivals.[9][10]

Having already started his administration with a violent attack on Iranian based militia in Syria supposedly in retaliation for attacks against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, followed by less than courteous exchanges in meetings with Russian and Chinese officials and multiple sanctions soon to be on the horizon, it is expected that the traction among the biggest countries on the globe can only deepen.

Now with COVID throw into the mix, where is all this going to lead? That is the magic question we will attempt to answer on this week’s Global Research News Hour.

Dominating this episode, we are joined by none other than that globe trotting writer, journalist, and geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar! As someone who has been a columnist and correspondent throughout Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, and throughout Central Asia and the Middle East, and as a man who is Brazilian by origin, he would no doubt bring a unique and even refreshing perspective to these global confrontations.

After that conversation, we turn the table and bring in a Canadian anti-war activist who operates from his home in Hamilton. Ken Stone ends our hour speaking to where the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War invests most of their time and energy in 2021.

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok.  His most recent book is entitled Raging Twenties: Great Power Politics Meets Techno-Feudalism. He is also a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Ken Stone is a veteran antiwar activist, a former Steering Committee Member of the Canadian Peace Alliance, an executive member of the SyriaSolidarityMovement.org, and treasurer of the Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War [hcsw.ca]. Ken is author of “Defiant Syria”, an e-booklet available at Amazon, iTunes, and Kobo. He lives in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

(Global Research News Hour episode 311)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Transcript – Interview with Pepe Escobar, March 9, 2021.

Part One

Global Research: What did the Assad actually do or not do on a certain date to convince U. S. entities that this is the last straw, we’re taking him out? Or was it just a long-time mission?

Pepe Escobar: Well, this touches the…the absolute inconsistency of US foreign policy. And the fact that the only thing that they can more or less agree on is that we need to prevent Russia from doing this and doing that. We need to control Southwest Asia as a whole, we need to come up with a new bogeyman now that we don’t have Saddam Hussein anymore. There’s so many reasons.

One of the key reasons was a pipeline stuff as I call it. I wrote extensively about this 10 years ago, in fact. I tried to demonstrate that one of the key reasons for this demonization of Bashar al-Assad and engaging in a proxy war in Syria had to do with the fact that Iran, Iraq and Syria were more or less…they had already a memorandum of understanding to build a gas pipeline which would end up in the eastern Mediterranean and it would be an absolutely a strategic move for the three of them. Iran, Iraq and Syria. And this from the point of view of the U. S. deep state was an act of war, and of course, also from the point of view of Saudi Arabia and the point of view of Israel for different reasons.

So this was always the unstated motives to create a proxy war in Syria. So when you need to sell this through public opinion inside U.S. or at least across Atlanticist circles because obviously this was not bought by Eurasia, by Africa, by Latin America. So basically, you’re talking in your bubble, in your Atlanticist bubble. You have to come up with a scarecrow, which was a very handy. Bashar al-Assad is killing his own people, so that became the mantra. Basically repeated 24/7 for years until the Russians saw one of the other ulterior motives of this whole operation, which was to basically corral Syrian forces in Latakia and probably create problems for a Syrian…a Russian naval base they used to militarize.

So there was one of the last straws for the Russians. The other one was the movement of a Jihadist or aspiring Jihadist in the Syrian theater, including a lot of people from the Southern Caucasus. Czechians, Kazakhstanis, et cetera, some people from Central Asia. Uzbecs, basically affiliated with the Islamic movement of Uzbekistan. Uyghurs from Xinjiang western China as well. For the Russians this, the Russian saw it basically on the map, which they know very well, that the distance from Aleppo to Growzy 900 kilometers.

So this became an obsession for Russian intelligence. It takes only 900 kilometers to have these Jihadis here in the underbelly of the Russian federation. So we have to, we need to do something about that. So when the decision arrived at the Kremlin and the Ministry of Defense to interfere in the Syria theater, the Russians already had the long view road map. So first of all, we’re gonna go there with a small, in fact was a small task force but with some excellent aviation assets. We pose our presents. We coordinate on the ground, with ground forces at the Syrian Arab army, Hezbollah, Iranian advisers et cetera… so then we can create a moving organic mechanism to take care of these Jihadis, wherever they come from, whatever their affiliation, names, et cetera because it changes all the time in Syria. You have more than 100 different brigades, militias et cetera.

This happened in 2015, so since then that’s it. There was the turning point, and obviously the people at the Pentagon and the whole Atlanticist circle they were caught. Wow, what do we do next? There’s nothing you can do next, because once the Russian military get involved we’re talking serious stuff, it’s not a joke anymore.

So that’s it. That after 10 years, what do we have? We have the virtual destruction of large straits of Syria. At least we now, we have re-construction going on in Damascus, in Aleppo, but we have parts of northeast Syria still occupied illegally by American forces which are still by the way stealing their oil as they were during the Trump administration. And we have the major problem which in the northwest, the Idlib cauldron which is a tremendous problem in terms of… the Syrian Arab army by itself cannot take over this whole region in Idlib without inflicting major civilian casualties, and that’s the number one reason why they haven’t done it yet.

So you need a very complex air and ground operations once again involving everybody: Russian aviation, Hezbollah, Iranian advisors, the Syrian Arab army and then you create a cauldron with only Jihadis inside and you take them out. So this is something that takes a while. So it takes, for instance retaking village by village, which is at the stage that we are on now for instance, including crazy, there is a sort of new Jihadi hub very close to Aleppo again.

So you know, it’s a hard slog, little by little, so we have to exterminate, nail Jihadi hub then you have to take the next village, et cetera…this is something that takes months, you know, but it’s inevitable. There will be a final offensive which is may be, what, one year away maybe, not before that.

What is the geopolitical consequence of all that? The reinforcement of what in southwest Asia is known as the “Axis of Resistance”… Iran, Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah. The problem, there is no final victory because there won’t be a final victory because even if you exterminate the Jihadis, even if some of the Jihadis are transported to Afghanistan, as they did from the Syrian theatre to that outfit called, calling themselves ISIS Khorasan there are at least 3 to 4000 former Syrian Jihadis in Afghanistan, part of ISIS Khorasan. But at least if you can have most of Syrian territory back to Damascus control which is not the case at the moment, if you can have 90 percent of Syrian territory back to Syria, to their rightful owners, you can consider that a victory but we’re still far away from that.

What we know for sure by now is that the proxy war by the usual suspects, by imperial interests with Saudi Arabia weaponizing and financing behind, with Israel obviously all the time creating all sorts of hells to the Syrian military. They lost this war because the Russian intervention in 2015 which was straight to the point. When the Russians started to send in those missiles from ships in the Caspian with absolutely precision maneuvering, I’m sure the Pentagon got the message and in fact they did. The problem is the neocons, the hidden interests in the Belt Way et cetera, but that’s it. And whatever they come up next, it’s going to be a special forces operation, it’s going to be pinpointed operations here or there, but it’s not going to change the outcome, essentially.

GR: Well we’ve got, I mean, there’s so many different interests there. I mean you’re not just United States and Russia but Turkey and the Kurds as well, Israel of course, and so however I you got the United States continuing to maintain control over certain key areas so it’s you know, the idea of a regime change so to speak is out of the question, but at the end of the day you have these, your major forces some of them have interests in common, others they contradict, but at the end of the game, I mean, I’m just wondering , maybe Syria. I don’t know if it’s going to be in such good shape. But who among the outside rivals, who’s winning? Who’s losing? Did you have a way to tell what the outcome is going to be?

PE: Yeah, no, I don’t think in terms of winning and losing. It so…it’s much more complicated than that. it’s a basically extendage of political influence. So from the point of view of battle-hardened Hezbollah commanders for instance, or very good Iranian military advisors, you know, this is a win for that. They have battleground experience now in terms of coordinating forces throughout the Axis of Resistance. It’s a win for them in terms of possible, hopefully not possible, future wars in southwest Asia.

In terms of a Syrian unity among the population to defend the state of Syria, the nation state Syria against this bunch of Takfis, male Jihadis, infiltrated agents, fifth columnists, you name it, that was a demonstration of force. That was great. That was an example for the whole global south in fact. If your nation is attacked not only by foreign forces, but also by infiltrated agents, by fifth columnists inside your nation state, this is how you do to get rid of them, this is how, this is what you do to win. And we see that in this renewed pride among Syrians that we are rebuilding Damascus we are rebuilding Aleppo, we are rebuilding Palmyra.This is very, very important and of course there’s nothing they can do about the north east because there is this American force over there, so they have to make it clear for the Americans that one day they’re going to have to leave.

So this is, this is a hard slog, look at Iraq for instance. And that once the Americans are somewhere, in their hubs, lily pads, mini pile of bases, of large bases, like in Iraq they don’t leave. We know that. So in Afghanistan for instance, most Afghans are dreaming of a Saigon 1975 moment. The Americas essentially because of deep state interests and geopolitical interests they cannot afford, according to their interpretation, to leave a base right in the middle of Eurasia, in the case of Afghanistan, or very important bases right in the center of Mesapotamia and very close to the eastern Mediterranean, same thing.

So this is going to be protracted, whoever is in power in the White House, it doesn’t matter if you have Trump, Biden, you know a dog, whatever, it doesn’t matter. What matters is the long term so-called strategic interests of the predominant factions in the deep state. And for them, it’s anathema to abandon a theater. In all this region, from the rim land to the heartland, from the eastern Mediterranean to the Hindu Kush, what they used to call greater Middle East, you know, and they are losing on all fronts, but still that’s not enough, they never learned their lesson.

Intermission

Part Two

GR: Now I mean Russia and China seem to have a such a tight concept now, and they’re banded together, and I’m wondering if the U.S. …facing an adversary with the those two powers. Is this new adversary something that they can ultimately defeat, or is their control of the dollar and its expensive military help to maintain their dominance? What do you think of that?

PE: Well, the owners of the empire, the guys who run the show, they are terrified because everything that they heard from other people like Brzezinski since the nineties, even before the end of the millennium, Brzezinski was the guy who basically conceptualized the ultimate nightmare which was the emergence a peer competitor in Eurasia. This had to be prevented at all costs. Now you have not only eight peer competitors but a strategic partnership of peer competitors.

And it gets even worse because one of them has military superiority over the U.S. The U.S., in terms of state-of-the-art weaponry in hypersonic weapons is generations behind Russia. And this is something that has been proven by Andrei Martyanov which is arguably, if not the top, one of the 3 top military analysts in the world, and it helps that he is, he was born in the former Soviet Union, in Azerbaijan in Baku, but he works in the U.S. for a long time and he knows the industrial military complex from the inside. So his comparisons are real politics based and based in actual weaponry developed on both sides and the state of the Russian industrial military complex and the state of the American industrial military complex.

So when you read Martyanov it’s all there, including mathematical equations, the stuff that most people have no clue how to interpret, everything. And he’s only one of them, we’re not even talking about the Russian guys who only write in Russian, in Russian military journals et cetera.

And China obviously all know what’s going on. It is already the largest trade power in the world, commercial power in the world. They’re striking a deal, a free trade deal with European Union which is a major game changer. Everybody in Asia, their major trade partner is China. Where I am here, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the Pan ASEAN, the major partner for the ten of them is China.

The place I live here, the Chinese tower I live here is a Chinese tower, it’s owned by Chinese. The business center here in Bangkok is owned by Chinese, essentially. So…and obviously all the global ramifications in terms of, since the launch of the New Silk Road, the Belt and Road Initiative in 2013. And that in Chinese terms eight years is nothing. And if you look at the original timetable of implementation of a new Silk Road projects it starts in 2021, so what we have so far these first eight years was just planning, preparation. So this is an extremely long term project which is something that so called China experts in U.S. are absolutely clueless because they’re thinking what’s going to happen next week or quarterly? They can never think five years, ten years, fifteen years.

Last year, last week we had the presentation of the next 5-year plan in China. I wrote a detailed column about that. Not only they were presented the next 5-year plan 2021 to 2025 we were presenting three subsequent plans all the way to 2035. They’re already thinking about the technical commercial configuration of China in 2035 so that’s the… I would say cosmically, the cosmic difference between the way the Chinese think about the future and the way the West, especially the U. S. thinks about the future.

So now, what we have, we have the so-called masters of the universe or the people who run the industrial military complex in the U.S. they look at this strategic partnership between Russia and China and say, “What we do next?”

We have nothing. First of all, we have nothing to offer the global south, nothing absolutely nothing. There’s no American project selling an American vision to help Eurasia, to help Africa, to help the interconnection between Eurasia and Africa, to help Latin America, nothing. The country is completely indebted, it’s corroded inside, it’s rotten to the core inside. Outside has absolutely no credibility in terms of foreign policy. So you know, you have people who control the funds, of course they control the global financial markets, but they look at the possible, little by little, of course, this is a work in progress. Germany, Russia…entente cordiale as we used to say in the vast diplomatic language, Russian China solidifying their strategic partnership. The merge of projects by the Chinese in the New Silk Roads and across the New Silk Roads with the Russian vision for uniting Europe with Eurasia, which is called greater Eurasia, that’s the official Russian policy. Which was elaborated by Russian think tanks that President Putin now shares this vision.

It’s what the Minister of Foreign Relations in Moscow has been spreading and talking about. It includes a merge of Eurasian economic union and the Belt and Road Initiative, little by little, and different projects, but in the end, they are thinking about integrating Eurasia with two major players, Russia and China, other major players such as Iran, Pakistan, India, Turkey, Kazakhstan as well, very important. Kazakhstan is a bridge between Russia and China and a bridge between these two ideas, and Kazakhstan happens to be a member of both. Kazakhstan is a member of Belt and Road and is a member of the Eurasia Economic Union.

So all these major powers across Eurasia, they are little by little uniting. They are seriously discussing mechanisms to bypass the U.S. dollar, which is the key point in all this. It involves the BRICS Bank, it involves the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, it involves all sorts of bilateral trade between all these powers with their own currencies bypassing U. S. dollar. So this is an immeasurable process, when we are here in Asia and watching it from the inside, and you know before COVID, in my case I was able to travel everywhere and see on the ground, this process going on, and you compare it to the paralysis and hysteria in fact, especially in US, and in Brussels, which is also corroded from the inside, the contrast is, wow, it’s like intergalactic, you know. But obviously, when you have elites in the west which are self-referential, and they were used to profit from the rigged game that they installed post-1945 they simply cannot understand what’s going on from their point of view on the other side of the world, here.

GR: COVID is perhaps an example of something that might have, you know, get you to change gears a little bit. What kind of differences have come as a result of COVID?

PE: Well China and Russia proved that scientifically, they can cope with COVID. There are vaccines now, they are accepted and lots of countries in the global south are eagerly awaiting for Sinovac and for Sputnik. So in scientific terms it was a big victory for both as well, especially the fact that they are a traditional vaccines and they are not mRNA, they are not basically genetic modified organisms that are being sold as vaccines with no testing at all. And people who take the trouble to study the scientific aspects of it, they would rather be inoculated with the traditional vaccine then become genetic experiments. And this applies to a lot of people in Europe as well, where you have to take Pfizer, AstraZeneca et cetera, you know. And the Cuban vaccine is coming, and this could also become a major game changer, major, especially across the global south and Cuba, they have the magical know-how, the absolute top of the line medical know-how to pull that off.

So these are game changers in terms of establishing perceptions all across the world, especially across the global south, much more than the Atlanticist circles because we know how it works, the Atlanticist circles you know. The Americans control everything basically and Europe is mostly occupied territory for American interests, practically everywhere you know. But the world that really matters, I mean the bulk of the world, 80 percent of the world, 85 percent of the world, they are paying very much attention to what the Russians doing, Chinese are doing, and now what Cuba is doing.

So, this has changed a lot, and in many places where you could still have a sort of admiration for western achievements in all areas, that’s not the case anymore. And the way that Asia essentially, especially east Asia, dealt with COVID-19 compared to the absolute chaos, especially in the US and most of western European countries, you know, it’s something that people see every day and then they start thinking about it, and you know, it changes their world view in fact.

GR: What location do you think could be the next flashpoint triggering major changes on the world stage?

PE: Well my work for the past almost ten years is basically focused across Eurasia. So, the Russia China strategic partnership, the evolution of the BRICS, the evolution of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. I travel to Central Asia before COVID, I wanted to go back last year, I could not, but it’s on my list this year, go back to Afghanistan because of this confluence between Central Asia South Asia and it’s an absolute strategic area. Turkey, I need to go back to Turkey as well. Iran, which I go every two years at least, so I was always on the road. Okay, in Europe, I live in Europe as well. I live between east and west for, I don’t know, 25 years at least, maybe more. And when I’m in Europe, I follow Brussels very closely because something that I used to do in the nineties, very, very closely, so if I’m in Paris I can follow, not only France, Italy, UK but also Brussels. An hour and a half by train and I am in Brussels.

And on the ground, I was everywhere from Turkey to China. Siberia is missing, Siberia was on my list as well, probably later this year, especially to check on the ground the power of Siberia, the interaction between Russian and China in their borders for instance. This is stuff that you need to see on the ground how it works for instance. The China Pakistan economic corridor if you don’t go there and you see how it works on the ground, anything, anything that you say is bulls–t. So I could see how it works in the north part of Pakistan near the Chin… I went all the way to the Chinese border. The problem is I couldn’t go to the south to gather report because they told me straight away, look it’s a very dangerous area, we cannot allow a foreign journalist specially to go there, if anything bad happens to you, for us it is even worse.

I understand their motives right because don’t forget that there is an embryonic guerilla movement in Baluchistan which is absolutely against the China Pakistan economic corridor because they are against Islamabad in the first place. So the only way to see this process of Eurasian integration is actually obviously traveling to all these places which is something that last year with COVID, we are, all of us, we are stuck. So hopefully we can come back in the next few months.

In terms of geopolitical flashpoints where major trouble could arise, there are two that are particularly, I would say, graphic: one of them is Syria. So we don’t know exactly what the new configuration in the Belt Way would come up with in the terms of you know, throwing at least a spanner in the works against the Russia, Syria, Iran, Hezbollah in Syria, but that’s one possibility. And the other one which day by day becomes even more worrying, Ukraine. What will they come up with in terms of weaponizing and financing Kiev to launch an offensive against Donbass? This is a work hypothesis, but it’s very very plausible, even for the next few months, let’s say a summer offense for instance. What we do know is that Donbass is more than prepared for it, if it happens and if it gets really, really, really hard core, there might be a swift Russian intervention and finish this thing off like they did in Georgia in 2008. They finished the whole thing in 5 days. And the Russians have the capacity to finish any stupid move by NATO for instance in Ukraine against Donbass in less than five days, so these are major flashpoints.

And of course, I would say relatively distant third would be Venezuela. If these clueless clowns in the Belt Way try to come up with some regime change operation against Venezuela, which is not totally out of the cards, don’t forget that Biden-Harris already recognized ‘Random’ Guaidó as the president of Venezuela, which does not even qualify as a joke, right? And the official policy remains regime change. So let’s say these are the three main possible flashpoints in the near future.

GR: This has been a really exciting and interesting interview. I thank you for joining me on the show.

PE: Thank you, it’s a pleasure and thanks for Global Research for republishing many of my columns, that’s really cool, and I know that a lot of people, many parts of the world, sometimes they read my columns first on Global Research and then at the source. This is really cool, thanks, thanks very much.

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. Lebow, Richard Ned. “The Long Peace, the End of the Cold War, and the Failure of Realism.” International Organization, vol. 48, no. 2, 1994, pp. 249–277. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2706932.
2. Kaufman, Joyce P. “NATO and the Former Yugoslavia: Crisis, Conflict and the Atlantic Alliance” UNB Libraries: Journals Centre for Figital Scholarship, Vol. XIX No. 2, Fall 1999, https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/4355/5009
3. Daalder, Ivo H. and Lindsay, James M (December 1, 2001) ‘Nasty, Brutish and Long: America’s War on Terrorism’. Brookings; https://www.brookings.edu/articles/nasty-brutish-and-long-americas-war-on-terrorism/
4. https://www.thoughtco.com/american-involvement-wars-colonial-times-present-4059761
5. Russia’s Annexation of Crimea: An Analysis under the Principles of Jus ad Bellum, LexisNexis; https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/international-law/b/international-law-blog/posts/russia-s-annexation-of-crimea-an-analysis-under-the-principles-of-jus-ad-bellum
6. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34416519
7. Bishara, Azmi. Russian Intervention in Syria: Geostrategy Is Paramount. Arab Center for Research & Policy Studies, 2015, www.jstor.org/stable/resrep12697. 
8. Kumari, Pushpa. (2018). Superpower War of the 21st Century-Declining America and Fading Capitalism Versus Rising China and Shining Communism! Will US Trade War Conclude the Third World (Cold) War Started in the 20th Century?. ; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326265600_Superpower_War_of_the_21st_Century-Declining_America_and_Fading_Capitalism_Versus_Rising_China_and_Shining_Communism_Will_US_Trade_War_Conclude_the_Third_World_Cold_War_Started_in_the_20th_Century/link/5b432cba458515f71cb5944c/download
9. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/14/trump-foreign-policy-wins-losses-over-four-years-china-middle-east-coronavirus-pandemic/
10. KELLY, Laura AND CHALFANT, Morgan (March 20, 2021), ‘Russia, China tensions rise with White House’, The Hill; https://thehill.com/policy/international/544109-russia-china-tensions-rise-with-white-house?rl=1

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

***

Big pharmaceutical companies have not come out of COVID-19 looking like model global citizens. Pfizer has been accused of bullying South American governments after demanding they put up military bases as collateral in exchange for vaccines. Meanwhile, Bill Gates persuaded Oxford University to sign an exclusive deal with AstraZeneca for its new offering, rather than allow it to be copied freely by all. The British/Swedish multinational quickly announced it would fall 50 million vaccines short on its first shipment to the European Union.

But what if there were a looming health crisis that could make COVID look almost minor in comparison?

The World Health Organization (WHO) has been warning of just such a case for some time now, predicting that antimicrobial resistance will kill up to 10 million people every year by 2050 — almost four times as many as the coronavirus has killed in the past 12 months.

“Antibiotic resistance is one of the biggest threats to global health, food security, and development today,” they write, noting that without effective antibiotics all manner of conditions — including pneumonia, tuberculosis, gonorrhea, and salmonellosis — could become far more deadly. Drug companies are making this situation worse by encouraging the overuse of our precious stores of antibiotics, particularly in the Global South and also by refusing to invest enough resources into creating new ones.

Global overuse

The more antibiotics are used, the more resistant bacteria become to them, meaning that humanity must guard its reserves and slow down the pathogens’ adaptive evolution by using them only when necessary. Between 2000 and 2015, antibiotic consumption decreased by 4% in rich nations but increased by 77% in developing ones, and their overuse has become rampant across the world. The poorer enforcement of medical laws in these countries leads manufacturers to “adopt unethical marketing approaches and develop creative ways to incentivize prescribing among healthcare providers,” in the words of Dr. Giorgia Sulis, an infectious disease physician and epidemiologist at McGill University, Quebec.

As Sulis explained to MintPress:

India is perhaps the best example in this regard, due to its large pharmaceutical market and the predominant role of the private sector in healthcare delivery. A private sector that is highly fragmented and largely unregulated, where a substantial proportion of providers lack any sort of formal medical training, is extremely vulnerable to [these kinds] of bad business strategies.”

Superbugs already kill an estimated 58,000 babies inside the country each year.

While India does have a national healthcare system, it is chronically understaffed and underequipped, leaving most of the population to rely on one of the millions of informal providers — health workers who have no official qualifications. Informal providers vastly outnumber trained professionals.

“There is a very haphazardly integrated type of medicine, which is practiced all over India. We have a professionalized modern healthcare system with regulations. But it is a system that is limited” in its size and scope, explained the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine’s Meenakshi Gautham, an expert on antibiotic use in South Asia. “Informal providers or para-health workers are the ones who continue to meet the healthcare needs of millions of people who don’t have access to the formal health system.”

These informal providers are a goldmine of profits for big pharma. A 2019 study by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that a host of drug companies ply them with cash incentives, gift cards, medical equipment, vacations, televisions, free samples, and discounts on bulk purchases — all of which were intended to increase antibiotic use, thereby risking overprescription. Some salesmen admitted to undercover reporters that they knew the drugs were being misused, but that they were motivated purely by profit. They also revealed that they would promote drugs to informal providers based on their profitability, not their efficacy.

These informal workers are commonly written off derisively as “quacks” who give out treatments mindlessly. While Dr. Gautham’s work found that they often do have major holes in their medical understanding, she defended them as a vital part of a healthcare system under which seeing a qualified doctor is beyond the financial means of millions. “You might assume that they are illiterate and they are quacks and they do not know what they are doing but that is not true. What we found was that about 30% may even be graduates or postgraduates,” she said, adding that most had worked as doctors’ assistants and continued to be mentored by them.

Informal practitioners are usually respected and important members of their communities and, when in doubt, often consult qualified doctors on the best course of action. Dr. Gautham’s study also found that they did not prescribe any “reserve” antibiotics — powerful medications considered a last resort and therefore used in hospitals as sparingly as possible.

Unfortunately, informal practitioners routinely prescribe less than full courses of antibiotics, despite the fact that this is a huge driver of resistance. This is not done out of ignorance, but rather because India is such an unequal society that poor patients simply cannot afford long courses of antibiotics. “Packages are customized based on patients’ paying capacity. If the patient cannot afford a full course, then they will be given two or three days of antibiotics — or even less,” Dr. Gautham noted. The effect of this is that bacterial infections become stronger and more resistant to treatment with antibiotics. And bacteria do not respect borders. Consequently, the extreme inequality in much of the Global South is a direct threat to human survival elsewhere.

Thus, any top down approach simply banning informal practitioners from handing out antibiotics would surely do more harm than good, given the huge shortage of qualified doctors. Furthermore, Dr. Sulis’s study found that qualified practitioners were actually more likely to prescribe antibiotics than the so-called “quacks.” This could be because licensed professionals are subject to exactly the same incentives and financial rewards that their unlicensed peers are under — a system that also prevails across the United States.

In 2019, ProPublica found more than 700 American doctors who had received more than $1 million each from drug and medical device companies. It is commonplace for U.S. doctors to receive financial and other rewards for prescribing certain drugs, a system that undermines their neutrality. Across the world, big pharma wines and dines medical professionals in expensive resorts, claiming these events are educational conferences. But the line between informative events and expense-paid vacations is not always easy to distinguish.

Making a big problem bigger

A second way in which giant pharmaceutical corporations are aiding the spread of resistance is their refusal to devote the necessary resources towards replenishing stores of new antibiotics. Investment in the area has rapidly dwindled. “The big problem is that we do not have any novel antibiotics in the pipeline that we can expect to see in the near future… So we really have to protect those that we do have,” Dr. Gautham told MintPress.

And while the Global South overprescribes antibiotics, in the West farm animals are pumped full of them, farmers even giving them to healthy animals so they can be packed tighter in ever-increasing herd sizes. The WHO notes that in many countries, 80% of medically important antibiotic consumption goes to farm animals and has strongly recommended a wholesale reduction of the practice.

Antibiotics used in farms spill over into the surrounding environment through run-off and waste, creating resistance to drugs and endangering human health. Unfortunately, the for-profit corporate agriculture sector has little regard for the consequences. As one paper in the British Journal of General Practice noted,

In animals and fish, antibiotics are used as a substitute for good hygiene, with little understanding of how this might impact on antimicrobial resistance in humans. As a society we must urgently reconsider how we use antimicrobials to preserve this valuable resource for future generations.”

The hyper-exploitation of animals is also leading to dangerous outbreaks of zoonotic (animal to human) diseases.

Ultimately, the problem of antibiotic overprescription is structural in nature, and there is little end to it in sight. As Dr. Sulis told MintPress: “The industry has no interest at all in raising awareness on the importance of using antibiotics wisely and the potential implications of inappropriate use, including overprescription,” although she noted that it was difficult to accurately weigh up the proportion of blame they deserved and to disentangle their role from other key drivers of the crisis.

Nothing to see here, just a looming disaster

The negative effects of this looming scenario are profound. Since the adoption of penicillin in the 1940s, the widespread use of antibiotics is estimated to have extended average life expectancy by 20 years. Dr. Gautham noted that “as antibiotic overuse keeps increasing, then all those antibiotics that we have today will slowly become ineffective against even the most common infections.”

Thus the conditions of the past will become the maladies of the future. Cancer treatments such as chemotherapy, cesarean sections, and other common surgeries will be in major jeopardy, as they require antibiotics to prevent any post-surgical and opportunistic infections. Healthcare costs will spike as conditions that were treatable in a few days will draw on for weeks, and some cases may not be recoverable. As Dr. Sulis warned:

The consequences ultimately affect everyone on the planet. We are already facing a dramatic increase in incidence of multi-drug- and extremely drug-resistant infections, but we are running out of effective therapeutic options. This scenario is bound to get worse over the next few years and, in the absence of countermeasures, it will have an impact on healthcare as a whole, not to mention the economic losses.”

For such a profound problem, which threatens the very foundation of modern medicine, the story is receiving barely any attention in the media. Indeed, so uninterested is the press in pharmaceutical profiteering accelerating superbugs that media-literacy group Project Censored chose it as one of their top 25 most censored stories of 2019-2020. The only substantial corporate reporting on the unethical sale of antibiotics, their research showed, was a single 2016 investigation by The New York Times.

Unlike with COVID, there is still time to prevent mass suffering. And yet this systemic problem appears to be getting worse, not better, as we move closer towards it. If the past year has taught humanity anything, it is that bugs do not respect borders and increased global planning and cooperation are vital to meet the planet’s most pressing problems head-on. Unfortunately, it seems we are sleepwalking into another preventable catastrophe. And few are even talking about 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.

Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.org, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams.

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

***

Last weekend’s arrest of several prominent people in Jordan, including the unofficial house arrest of former Crown Prince Hamzah, on suspicion of conspiring to destabilize the country in possible coordination with foreign intelligence agencies is more than likely a preemptive security operation aimed at thwarting a latent threat and not an urgent response to what some have feared was an imminent regime change attempt.

An Unexpected Conspiracy In The Heshemite Kingdom

Jordan is one of those few countries that’s friends with everyone and enemies with no one, which is why the world paid attention last weekend after the arrest of several prominent people on suspicion of conspiring to destabilize the country in possible coordination with foreign intelligence agencies.

This included the unofficial house arrest of former Crown Prince Hamzah, who subsequently released footage of himself condemning alleged corruption in the monarchy that he claimed was responsible for worsening his citizens’ living standards, after which he pledged loyalty to King Abdullah II to de-escalate the crisis (presumably while under pressure). Former Crown Prince Hamzah had also reportedly met with some tribal leaders who’ve purportedly been unhappy with the stagnant – if not, according to some accounts, gradually deteriorating – socio-economic situation in the Kingdom. Amman has since banned all coverage of this palace scandal on traditional and social media in an attempt to quell the uncertainty that it provoked in this so-called “oasis of regional stability”.

A Saudi, “Israeli”, Or Joint Saudi-”Israeli” Coup Attempt?

These fast-moving developments prompted a lot of speculation about what might really be going on behind the scenes, especially concerning the possible role of foreign intelligence agencies. It can’t be known for sure, but it doesn’t seem like there was any imminent regime change attempt that was thwarted at the last possible minute by the security services.

Rather, it appears to be the case that the government staged a preemptive security operation after finally obtaining enough indisputable evidence that something foul was afoot, hoping to nip this latent threat in the bud long before it blooms. Some have suggested that the connections that two of the detained individuals have with Saudi Arabia hints at Riyadh’s covert involvement in recent events.

Others, meanwhile, saw a hidden “Israeli” hand behind everything due to the Mossad ties that the businessman who reportedly offered to fly former Crown Prince Hamzah out of the country is alleged to have. It’s unlikely, however, that those secretly allied governments played any significant role in what just happened in Jordan.

Interpreting The Reported Foreign Intelligence Connections

It’s an open secret that foreign intelligence agencies, especially those based and/or active in the Mideast, cultivate a broad network of agents, informants, and “useful idiots”. Neither Saudi Arabia nor “Israel” have any serious problems with Jordan that can’t be amicably resolved, and therefore wouldn’t benefit from a destabilizing regime change in the neighboring kingdom between them.

It’s therefore likely the case that while both of their intelligence agencies probably at least have some indirect presence close to the Jordanian royal family, they each lack the strategic motivation whether unilaterally or jointly with one another to overthrow King Abdullah II. In all likelihood, they might have been aware of former Crown Prince Hamzah’s recent meetings with increasingly unhappy tribal leaders and perhaps even his speculative resentment at being passed over for the throne by the current King in favor of the latter’s son in 2004, but it’s doubtful that they sought to operationalize this in any way. They likely only observed and monitored it, that’s all.

A Possible Disruption To The “Phased Leadership Transition”?

This brings the analysis around to discussing the domestic situation in Jordan. Many people are reportedly unhappy with everything there, and have allegedly been so for quite a while already, but the majority of the population is also loyal to the royal family and doesn’t seem to harbor any serious aspirations of replacing it with a republican form of government or any other.

Like all monarchies, Jordan will inevitably undergo a “phased leadership transition” one way or another when power is transferred from the current King to his successor at some point in the future, but it’s here where the security services might have feared that a speculatively resentful former Crown Prince Hamzah might try to make a last-ditch move in an attempt to reassert what he and his unclear network of supporters (likely a combination of civil society elements, tribal leaders, and perhaps even some members of the royal family) believe is his rightful claim to the throne. They therefore probably acted preemptively in order to thwart that scenario before it had a chance to materialize.

Concluding Thoughts

As it stands, Jordan’s stability doesn’t seem threatened. Palace intrigue is normal in any monarchy, just like intrigue between members of a democracy’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) is too, but it was nevertheless unexpected that something so dramatic took place in Jordan last weekend since few thought that such intrigue had became so intense to warrant such a high-profile security response.

At the very least, former Crown Prince Hamzah’s reported closeness with increasingly frustrated but also supposedly influential tribal leaders was a cause of serious concern for the Kingdom’s security services since they feared that it represented a latent regime change threat which might materialize in the midst of the inevitable “phased leadership transition” from King Abdullah II to his son sometime in the future. There might even be a bit more to it than just that, but it’s extremely unlikely that any such speculation will ever be confirmed.

For now, King Abdullah II doesn’t seem to have anything to worry about except for the economy.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is CC BY 2.0

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

***

A country without a media is lost to the follies of its government, and that is precisely the position of America today.  In the nuclear era, the entire world is at the mercy of Washington’s follies.  At the present moment the incompetent fools that an insouciant American public permits to rule them are preparing nuclear Armageddon by placing offensive missiles on Russia’s border.

By using their media whores to brand President Trump a “Putin stooge” and “Russian agent,” the military/security complex managed to force President Trump to accept the demise ot the stabilizing INF Treaty.  

Having got rid of the Treaty, Washington is now talking about putting missiles on Russia’s border.  The only purpose of such missiles is to enable a first strike.  In other words, the Kremlin sees the missiles as a prelude to an American first strike.

Russia does nor have a hostile ideology or any plans or aspirations to militarily conquer the West.  This makes Washington’s constant name-calling and false accusations look like propaganda intended to justify an attack on Russia.  This is extremely irresponsible.  If the Russians see the situation this way, the Kremlin is unlikely to sit waiting on an attack.

Washington’s European puppets whom insouciant Europeans permit to govern them are stupid beyond belief if they permit Washington to locate offensive missiles in their countries.  The consequence will be that all major European and British cities will be targeted by Russia.  

This is a situation rife with the danger of warning system errors resulting in nuclear war. 

Missiles on Russia’s border leave Russia no time to investigate if the warning is an error.  During the long Cold War there were many warning system errors, but they were caught in time. What Washington is doing is collapsing the time, which means a single warning system error could launch a nuclear war.

The neoconservatives cheered when the INF Treaty was dissolved by Washington.  Why cheer a dramatic strategic error that maximizes the chance of war?  Instead, there should be widespread demand for reinstating the treaty by foreign policy experts.  The trouble is that the West has propagandists, not experts.  So-called Russian experts are truthfully Russiaphobic.  They write from the standpoint that all is Russia’s fault.  

For example, consider the consequence of the mindless guarantee given to Ukraine that America will come to their aid if Ukraine renews its invasion of Donbass and Russia intervenes.

Russia knows how crazy the Ukrainian government is and is rightly concerned that the guarntee will lead to a renewed attack on the Russian people in Donbass.  The Kremlin’s response was to try to forstall an attack by rushing military forces to the Ukrainian border.

How did the US government and so-called “Russian experts” respond?

The election thief in the White House called the Ukrainian president and affirmed

“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.”  

The pathetic Peter Dickinson an “expert” at the Russiaphobic Atlantic Council ignores the US buildup of Ukranian military forces in preparation for renewed attack on Donbass and singles out Russia’s defensive response to the threat as raising the specter in the “international community”—Washington always claims that Washington speaks for the world—of a “Russian offernsive that could push beyond the areas of eastern Ukraine” and conquer Ukraine. The two-bit propagandist Dickinson blames Russia for “ dramatic escalation” and asserts “a number of factors point to the possibility of a looming Russian offensive.”  

Dickinson incorrectly attributes the breakaway Donbass republics’ defense against Ukrainian attack as Russian military action.  That he would state such an obvious untruth is proof that he knows that America has no real experts to correct him. 

Dickinson demonstrates that his colleagues at the Atlantic Council are as dishonest as he.  His colleague John Herbst attributes “brinkmanship in Ukraine” not to the American guarantee intended to encourage Ukrainian aggression against Donbass, but to Russia’s response to the guarantee.

In the United States Russian Studies has been corrupted by payoffs. You can’t be a Russian expert unless you are Russiaphobic. A balanced view is an indication of a Trump supporter, and the person would be hounded out of the university.  Unlike during the 20th century Cold War, there is no discussion and no one to put the brakes on a provocative policy that will lead to war.

Ron Paul sets out the true picture:

“On March 24th, Ukraine’s President Vladimir Zelensky signed what was essentially a declaration of war on Russia. In the document, titled Presidential Decree No. 117/2021, the US-backed Ukrainian leader declared that it is the official policy of Ukraine to take back Crimea from Russia.

“The declaration that Ukraine would take back Crimea from Russia also followed, and was perhaps instigated by, President Biden’s inflammatory and foolish statement that “Crimea is Ukraine.”

“US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who was a chief architect of the US-backed coup against Ukraine in 2014, continued egging on the Ukrainians, promising full US support for the “territorial integrity” of Ukraine. Many Americans wonder why they are not even half as concerned about the territorial integrity of the United States!

“Not to be outdone, at the beginning of this month US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin – who previously served on the board of missile-maker Raytheon – called his counterpart in Ukraine and promised ‘unwavering US support for Ukraine’s sovereignty.’ As the US considers Crimea to be Ukrainian territory, this is clearly a clear green light for Kiev to take military action.

“Washington is also sending in weapons. Some 300 tons of new weapons have arrived in the past weeks and more is on the way.

“As could be expected, Moscow has responded to Zelensky’s decree and to the increasingly bellicose rhetoric in Kiev and Washington by re-positioning troops and other military assets closer to its border with Ukraine. Does anyone doubt that if the US were in the same situation — for example, if China installed a hostile and aggressive government in Mexico — the Pentagon might move troops in a similar manner?

“But according to the media branch of the US military-industrial-Congressional-media complex, Russian troop movements are not a response to clear threats from a neighbor, but instead are just more ‘Russian aggression.’”

See this.

Crimea has been part of Russia since 1783.  In 1954 when Russia and Ukraine were part of the same country, Crimea was attached to the Ukrainian republic of the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the US using Yeltsin began dismantling the Soviet Union, making independent countries of many Soviet and formerly Russian provinces. The Ukraine was split off from Russia and made an independent state in 1991. Crimea was organized as an Autonomous Republic and Russia retained the right to continue basing its fleet in Crimea under long-term treaty.

When the US overthrew Ukrainian president Yanukovych and installed a puppet government, Crimea voted to be reunited with Russia and was.  The puppet government in Kiev provoked the withdrawal of Crimea and Donbass from Ukraine by reprisals against Russians and by abolishing the official use of the Russian language.

Washington was very frustrated by its failure to deprive Russia of its Black Sea naval base, and has been doing all it can to provoke conflict between Ukraine and Russia for the past  seven years.  

It is a mystery why Russia has put up with this.

At some point patience wears out.  If Washington misjudges that point, hell will come to breakfast.

UPDATE:  It is 1939 and the “Polish Guarantee” all over again

The Collection of Idiots in Washington that Pretends to be a Government is Insane

Moscow warns of ‘measures’ against any Western troop deployment in Ukraine, as Kiev cites guarantees of US support in a conflict. See this.

*

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

Featured image is from InfoRos

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

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

***

Compulsory Vaccination in Europe

Today the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has just opened the door for mandatory COVID-19 vaccines across the continent. It voted against the right of parents in the Czech Republic to refuse mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for their children. The judgement was based on the value of the “common good” which, according to the court, is above the human right to refuse vaccination. See here.

RT reports today,

“The COVID-19 pandemic has coughed up many issues about what our governments and public health authorities can do, none more controversial or divisive than those surrounding the mass compulsory vaccination of entire populations.” 

This is setting a precedent throughout Europe for the governments to proceed with compulsory vaccination against what was once upon a time a “human right”.

The seemingly unavoidable tyranny is taking form, every day more and clearer. It seems, all courts have been taken over by the “satanic cult” that pretends to rule our world, our humanity 

SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028

On another note, is there a plan to launch a new pandemic (plandemic), the SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028.

This is based on a Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security paper that was apparently written already in 2017, as a fictitious scenario “in the future”.

This, just 2 years before the infamous Event 201 (18 October 2019 in NYC), where a SARS coronavirus simulation gave birth to the COVID-19 plandemic the humanity is presently burdened with.

It had been written for “decision-makers”, government officials, the co-opted scientific and medical community and politicians. Is it real, or is it fake to deviate public opinion from what is being imposed today on humanity?

Why would it surface now, and why would they tell us what strategy those who are to betray us shall apply?

Be the judge.

Below, two important recent articles by Peter Koenig: 

Human Rights for Children: Saving Children from COVID Measures Abuses (6 April 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.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

 

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

First published on April 1, 2021

***

From Doctors for Covid Ethics

Emer Cooke, Executive Director, European Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

April 1st, 2021

Ladies and Gentlemen,

FOR THE URGENT PERSONAL ATTENTION OF: EMER COOKE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE EUROPEAN MEDICINES AGENCY

We acknowledge receipt of your March 23 reply to our letter dated February 28, seeking reassurance that foreseeable risks of gene-based COVID-19 “vaccines” had been ruled out in animal trials prior to human use. Our concerns arise from multiple lines of evidence, including that the SARS-CoV-2 “spike protein” is not a passive docking protein, but its production is likely to initiate blood coagulation via multiple mechanisms.

Regrettably, your reply of March 23 is unconvincing and unacceptable. We are dismayed that you choose to respond to our request for crucially important information in a dismissive and unscientific manner. Such a cavalier approach to vaccine safety creates the unwelcome impression that the EMA is serving the interests of the very pharmaceutical companies whose products it is your pledged duty to evaluate. The evidence is clear that there are some serious adverse event risks & that a number of people, not at risk from SARS-CoV-2, have died following vaccination.

1. You concede that the “vaccines”, which are more accurately described as investigational gene-based agents, enter the bloodstream but you can obviously provide no quantitative data. In the absence of the latter, any scientific assessment you purport to have undertaken lacks foundation.

2. Your statement that non-clinical studies do not indicate any detectable uptake of the vaccines into endothelial cells lacks credibility. We demand to see the scientific evidence. If not available, it must be assumed that endothelial cells are targeted.

3. Auto-attack could not have been excluded in animals unless they had been immunologically primed beforehand. We demand evidence that such experiments had been performed. Similar experiments have been undertaken before with previous, unsuccessful candidate vaccines, and fatal, antibody-dependent enhancement of disease was observed.

4. We requested scientific evidence, not a vague description of what was purportedly seen in non-valid animal experiments. Your cursory mention of laboratory findings in humans is cynical. In view of the plausible connection between production of spike protein and the emergence of thromboembolic serious adverse events (SAEs), we demand to see the results of D-dimer determinations. As you are aware, D-dimer is a very good test as an aid to diagnose thrombosis.

After delivery of our letter to you on March 1, events followed that debunk your response to our last three queries to an extent that can only be termed embarrassing. As we feared, severe and fatal coagulopathies occurred in young individuals following “vaccination”, leading 15 countries to suspend their AZ-“vaccination” program. An official investigation by the EMA into the cases of afflicted younger individuals followed, the results of which were announced by the WHO on March 17, 2021, stating: “At this time, WHO considers that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine outweigh its risks and recommends that vaccinations continue.”

What was this decision based upon? The WHO is not a competent body for formally evaluating drug safety. That is explicitly the role of the agency you lead.

In your press release, you disclosed the following information to support your conclusion. You had scrutinized data on two mortally dangerous conditions that had followed within 14 days of “vaccination”: DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; and CSVT, cerebral sinus vein thrombosis. 5 DIC and 18 CSVT were on record, with a total death toll of 9. Most cases were <55 year-old individuals. 5 DIC and 12 CSVT were under 50 years of age. None were reported as having had serious pre-existing illness.

You stated numbers that “normally” would be expected : DIC <1, CSVT 1.3.

Consequently, for these very rare conditions, a link to vaccination could not entirely be dismissed. However, given that 20 million individuals had been “vaccinated”, the benefits were deemed to far outweigh the risks.

But in fact, your Press Release rendered it glaringly apparent that the AZ-“vaccine” does have the potential to trigger intravascular coagulation, that the true risks far outweigh any theoretical benefits, and that any authority with the slightest sense of responsibility must suspend its further use.

1. Regard your incidence numbers for <50 year old individuals in the “vaccinated” versus “normal” population:

CSVT : 12 versus 1.3.

A 9-fold increase is beyond the range of coincidence.

DIC : 5 versus <1.

As we hope you know, DIC neveroccurs out of the blue in healthy individuals. The incidence should not be stated as <1 when in reality it is ZERO.

ACCORDINGLY, THE DIC CASES REPRESENT CONCLUSIVEEVIDENCE THAT THE AZ-VACCINE ALONE CAN TRIGGER INTRAVASCULAR COAGULATION .

2. Assume that 10 million recipients of the “vaccine” were < 60 yrs and this was followed by 9 deaths due to DIC and SVCT. The death toll upon 60 million “vaccinations” would be extrapolatable to 54.

The pandemic hit around 60 million individuals < 60 yrs in Germany.

During the first 6 months it reportedly claimed 52 lives of individuals without pre-existing illness (See this)

Because of the unreliability of PCR testing and because of the completely novel way that deaths ‘with covid19’ are determined, the value of 52 is an over-estimate of the real burden of disease, further weakening your already-inadequate claim for risk-benefit.

How, then, can you declare that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks? We demand your reply supported by facts and figures that we will convey to the public.

3. Further considerations expose the truly frightful dimensions of your irresponsible assertion.

CSVT, cerebral venous thrombosis, is always a life-threatening condition that demands immediate medical attention. The number of cases you conceded had occurred can represent just the tip of a huge iceberg. As you must know, the most common symptoms of CSVT are piercing headache, blurred vision, nausea and vomiting. In severe cases, stroke-like symptoms occur including impairment of speech, vision and hearing, body numbness, weakness , decreased alertness and loss of motoric control.

Surely, you are not oblivious to the fact that countless individuals suffered from precisely such symptoms directly following “vaccinations” with all the experimental gene-based agents.

Clot formation in deep leg veins can lead to lethal pulmonary embolisms. Surely you must know that peripheral venous thromboses have repeatedly been reported following “vaccinations” with all the experimental gene-based agents

Microthromboses in the lung vasculature can lead to misdiagnosis of pneumonia. In combination with false-positive PCR (with high cycle thresholds), these will then be registered as COVID 19 cases. Surely you must know that this scenario has probably repeatedly taken place following “vaccinations” with all the experimental gene- based agents.

In all events, extensive thrombi formation can lead to consumption of platelets and coagulation factors, resulting in hemorrhagic diathesis and bleeding at all possible locations. Surely you must know that profuse skin bleedings have repeatedly been observed following “vaccinations” with all the experimental gene-based agents.

Given that there is a mechanistically plausible explanation for these thromboembolic adverse drug reactions (TE ADRs), namely that the gene-based products induce human cells to manufacture potentially pro-thrombotic spike protein, the reasoned & responsible assumption must now be that this may be a class effect. In other words, the dangers must be ruled out for all emergency-authorised gene-based vaccines, not merely the AZ product.

We urge you to adopt this stance unless and until there is data providing high clinical confidence to the contrary. We are very willing to liaise with the Agency in order to help craft a focussed pharmacovigilance plan to accomplish this goal. With the above in mind, we hope you are aware that all thrombotic events can be rapidly diagnosed by measurement of D-Dimers in blood. And that good medical practice imperatively demands that attempts are undertaken to diagnose CSVT in any and every patient, young or old, presenting with the typical signs and symptoms following “vaccination”.

Given the potential for adverse effects, potentially fatal ones, it is completely inappropriate and unacceptable that EMA permits these products, which hold only emergency use authorisations, to be administered to younger (<60y) people who are healthy, as they are at unmeasurable risks from SARS-CoV-2.

Not to make this explicit is, in our view, a reckless stance to have taken in the first place and doubly so now.

Of equal importance, you are bound by duty to investigate whether reasons exist for the waves of deaths that have occurred following “vaccination” of elderly residents in care and senior homes. Or are you asserting that dangers of “vaccine”-derived thrombotic events are limited to younger individuals? If not, restricting their use solely in one age group — as decided upon in Germany — equates with nothing less than monstrous, condoned genocide of the other.

In closing, failure to inform “vaccine” recipients of the risks and negligible benefits outlined here represents serious violations of medical ethics and citizens’ medical rights. Those violations are especially grave as all the risks we describe can be expected to increase with each re-vaccination, and each intervening coronavirus exposure. This renders both repeated vaccination and common coronaviruses dangerous to young and healthy age groups, for whom — in the absence of “vaccination” — COVID-19 poses no substantive risk.

Such is the real risk-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 “vaccines”. Either the EMA lacks the subject-matter expertise to appreciate the molecular science of this reality, or it lacks the medical ethics to act accordingly.

At best, we regard the EMA’s complacent stance on vaccine dangers to be symptomatic of the fact that, under the prevailing politico-medical response to COVID-19, medical ethics has migrated from the consulting room to a geopolitical stage. Faced with a medical problem, mass-medical intervention has seen the practice of medicine taken from doctors’ hands.In this politicized context, corporate and political actors may consider themselves free from ethical constraints, operating unbound by a medical code of ethics, unlike medical doctors. All actors, however, are bound by the Nuremberg Code.

The Nuremberg Code prohibits human experimentation of the very kind being endorsed and defended by the EMA. Even under the terms of their own original FDA authorization, COVID-19 vaccines are deemed “investigational” and their recipients “human subjects”, who are, by definition, entitled to informed consent. See this.

Misleading populations into accepting investigational agents such as the gene-based COVID-19 “vaccines”, or coercing them through “vaccine passports”, constitutes clear and egregious violations of the Nuremberg Code. The Nuremberg Code mandates voluntary informed consent “without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit [or] duress”. See this.

In other words, citizens have the right under the Nuremberg Code and related protections not to be subject involuntarily to medical experiments. It is clear that these experimental agents should be CONTRA-INDICATED in individuals not at elevated risk of serious illness & death if infected by SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, the use of the experimental agents must also be withheld in the elderly population until a risk-benefit assessment has been properly conducted. In any event, the vaccine label must be revised to reflect the recently emerged serious adverse events addressed here.

We remind the EMA that Nuremberg violations constitute crimes against humanity under the Geneva Convention. Crimes against humanity are deemed “the worst atrocities known to mankind”, and are prosecuted under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. See this.

Given the hundreds of millions and eventually billions of people who may be coerced into accepting these agents, the EMA, in persistently shrinking from open debate and the truth, will be seen by lawyers and historians as having actively assisted in crimes against humanity, with the full weight of the implications to all involved. We demand thatyou engage openly with us to ensure that the public have an objective understanding of the clinical risk profile of these gene-based interventions.

You understand that coercive pressure is being placed on citizens to receive COVID-19 vaccines, which are experimental medical treatments. Your responsibility to those citizens includes ensuring that they are informed of the adverse event risks of every such treatment. To date you have failed to do so, and have instead misled the public on the reality of the “vaccines’” risk-benefit profile.

If you continue to conceal the truth, efforts will be made to bring this to light and to see that justice is done. For the sake of the injured and the dead, and to protect further lives from similar fates.

Notice

For the avoidance of doubt, if your regulatory body does not immediately suspend its “emergency” recommendation of potentially dangerous inadequately tested gene-based “vaccines”, while the matters which we have highlighted to you are properly investigated, we hereby put the European Medicines Agency on notice of being complicit in medical experimentation, in violation of the Nuremberg Code, which thereby constitutes the commission of crimes against humanity.

Furthermore, it is your indirigible duty as a regulatory body to ensure that all doctors worldwide are advised that they are taking part in medical experimentation via “vaccination” programmes, whether wittingly or unwittingly, with all the legal and ethical obligations that such involvement entails.

This email is copied to the lawyer Reiner Fuellmich. It is also copied to Charles Michel, President of the Council of Europe, and to Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission.

Yours faithfully,

Doctors for Covid Ethics

*

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

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

***

It seems increasingly likely that the COVID jabs are part of a much larger set of interlocking projects sometimes described as “the Great Reset.” The COVID jabs seem to be the essential agents in the merger of biological with psychological warfare pointed our way. We are the targets. 

Over decades there has been a marriage of military and medical operations in the Coronavirus Business, an enterprise subject to thousands of patents. The Coronavirus Business is a transnational operation that involves many prominent universities. It also involves research activities in very specialized labs with high-tech innovations meant to contain deadly pathogens. Do these labs ever leak? These p4 labs include the inter-related research facilities in, to mention only a few locations, Wuhan China, Fort Detrick Maryland, and Winnipeg Manitoba.

See this.

Dr. Michael Yeadon has emerged as a very important expert voice with a very penetrating interpretation of the dangers entailed in the COVID jabs. With his impeccable credentials, the Whistleblower Dr. Yeadon is now near the center of the COVID crisis. As a former Vice-President and Research Director of Pfizer, Dr. Yeadon is very credible especially in his own areas of research expertise. Dr. Yeadon came to prominence in his research into allergies and viruses in the development of respiratory illnesses.  

Last autumn Dr. Yeadon announced the COVID crisis was over and it was time to dismantle the enormous bureaucracy it is creating.

Then in the early winter Dr. Yeadon called for a stop to the wrongheaded methods for the supposed testing of the COVID jabs taking place under the regulatory auspices of the European Medical Authority. Then as the jabs were being wheeled out in Great Britain and the rest of Europe, Dr. Yeadon entered the fray again. He was part of the effort to deal with the plague of blood clots caused by the some of the injection products.

One can tell that Dr. Yeadon’s dissident voice is having a significant public impact by the hysterical nature of the smear piece put together by news reporters at Reuters.

See this.

In March of 2021 Dr. Yeadon entered a new phase of his raising the alarm. As published by America’s Frontline Doctors he explained,

“I’m well aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the world’s population.

“I feel great fear, but I’m not deterred from giving expert testimony to multiple groups of able lawyers like Rocco Galati in Canada and Reiner Fuellmich in Germany.

“I have absolutely no doubt that we are in the presence of evil (not a determination I’ve ever made before in a 40-year research career) and dangerous products.

Dr. Mike Yeadon Sends Out a Major SOS to the World

In Dr. Yeadon’s has now follow up on his assertion that the COVID interventions are outright “evil” rather than merely the product of well-intentioned incompetence. He addresses the possibility that the COVID jabs really are about global depopulation and the purposeful assault on female fertility. He heads right down the rabbit hole to observe,

‘To anyone confused by what’s going on, with: 

Untrustworthy PCR mass testing (so we don’t really know where each nations epidemics stand & we certainly cannot have confidence in numbers of deaths attributed to Covid19), through

Mask mandates (not supported by any trials evidence) and

Lockdowns (which are repeatedly proven not to work, nor would you expect them too, given it’s infectious contacts which matter, which requires symptoms and illness, such people are not out & about, so shutting down most of civil society isn’t going to reduce infectious contacts, which occur mostly in institutions) and now to

Vaccination of everyone – not only those at risk but everyone else, including, in due course, minor children & even newborns.

Globally repeated almost everywhere. What a coincidence, I’m sure it’s merely coincidence theorists who ignore all this information hiding in plain sight.

can you come up with a benign explanation for all this? No, me neither.

Ok, right down the rabbit hole. Feel free to laugh nervously. Then show why I’m wrong. If you cannot, please don’t later say “We never knew! We didn’t recognise it as fascism! We just followed orders!”

We face imminent medical tyranny.

I believe the combination of vaccine passports & superfluous ‘top up vaccines’ are to be used for malign purposes.

Obviously I do not know the details, as it’s not my crime. But crimes against humanity are certainly being committed in my country & elsewhere.

My deductions are solidly based as I’m a pretty well educated immunologist. I’ve also checked in with several top class immunologists.

Of course, you already know this: do not accede to vaccination, unless for sound, medical reasons. Otherwise, if you are not at risk from the virus, do not conspire with our captors. Your vaccination doesn’t protect others. All the vulnerable in U.K. have been protected. Only non-vaccinated people could acquire the virus & get ill. Almost no one will die. So it’s madness what’s happening. Even pregnant women are being lied to & deceived in order to pressure them to get vaccinated (see letter on UKMFA) Does that sound like a measured policy? Nothing I write is faintly controversial.

Yet the EU has just voted for vaccine passports, contrary to numerous international laws arising from the last time medical fascism ruled. Unfortunately it’s happening again, which is why there’s reckless pressure to vaccinate people not at risk. That this is being allowed tells us medical ethics has died in U.K. as vaccinating tens of millions of younger, healthy people has the inevitable consequences of injuring or killing some people who would not have died.

This is inevitable as no medical intervention comes with zero risk. I’m not even alleging specific risks (though these exist and we tried to warn the EMA about blood clots a month ago, and later put out an open letter to this effect, but I was completely censored, even having used a commercial news wire service).

I fear that, for the first time in history, every human will have a digital ID associated with his or her health status including vaccination. I think the vaccination is not even very relevant. Its just a ready means. It’s the digital ID, in one place, which will be used to grant, or not, any privileges by the controller of the database. That’s never happened before in human history. It will be abused. Don’t get vaccinated. Accept the limitations & fight the illegality. Accepting vaccination will lead to the next part.

I am sure as an immunologist that virus variants have no chance whatsoever of escaping immunity. No variant is less than 99.7% identical to the original virus. It’s laughable to suggest that a change similar in proportion to me putting sunglasses on will mean that people who know me will then not recognise me.

Yet pharma is actually manufacturing top up vaccines. Global medicines regulators have decided that because these are similar to the original vaccines, no safety studies are needed.

If I’m right, and I’m sure I am, superfluous genetic sequences will be administered to a large slice of the world’s population. For no benign reason.

Associated to vaccine passports & I can see none other than a very, very dark future ahead.

I know that what I outline is so extreme that people won’t hear, listen, take in or believe it. They’ll assume I’ve lost my mind. I have not. Instead, I’ve read more original research articles in the last year than at any time since I stood down as CEO of a biotech company I‘d co-founded. My life in the surface would be much more fun if I just shut up. Don’t think I too don’t want to run & hide from this. But I just can’t. It’s not for me but my children & grandchildren. I want you to feel protective towards yours.

In this information & psychological operations war, there are no Allies. No one is about to come & save us. Only we can save ourselves. Peacefully, firmly & in huge numbers, say & show that WE DO NOT CONSENT. I’m a law abiding citizen, but as a former senior judge said, in essence, when laws are bad, you have an obligation to dispute them. Do not assist in medical tyranny by using the thin excuse that “you were only following orders”. 

Yet my heart is sure, as is my brain. I was raised by foster parents who’s relatives died in the Nazi death camps. They were incredible people. Determined & compassionate, they took in a lost, moody teenager & helped shape the person I became. I owe them & their memory & fight. I will fight, no matter the cost. This is my obligation.

But how can I communicate this, without immediately being classified as insane? I would value the opportunity to liaise with anyone with whom I can be a force multiplier.

With best wishes. Though I wasn’t raised in a specific faith, I’ve started signing off with may God save us all.

Mike

Dr Mike Yeadon

References relevant to immunology & variants: see this, this, and this.

See more here: dailyexpose.co.uk

Dr. Yeadon’s cry of conscience is similar to that of Dr. Geertz Vanden Bossche. From different angles both whistleblowers are looking at the terrible dangers being visited upon us. David Icke has come up with an extraordinary commentary on Dr. Yeadons most recent address. David Icke has for more than a generation made himself a perennial target of those pushing specious official narratives sanctioned by the corrupt ruling elites. See this.

COVID Jab Outcasts 

Authors are starting to address the prospect of living in a world where only those who have submitted to the COVID jabs and so-called “immunity passports” can travel internationally and conduct various transactions locally. See, for instance, Mike Whitney’s essay, “You Refuse to Get Vaccinated, But Are You Ready to Be an Outcast.” See this.

See also C.J. Hopkins “The ‘Unvaccinated’ Question.”

Deeply Flawed Systems for Reporting Deaths and Injuries from the COVID Jabs

We have a major problem with officialdom’s very flawed system for getting out information on the deaths and injuries inflicted on those who get the COVID jabs. In 2011 the US Department of Health and Social Services commissioned the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care unit to study the efficacy of the US Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS). The VAERS reporting system is operated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Both these agencies are notorious for giving up their independence and objectivity to better accommodate the very industries they are supposed to regulate. 

The Harvard Study found that the VAERS system massively underestimates the number of vaccine deaths and vaccine injuries. The authors of the study estimated that only about 1% of the real numbers became the official numbers. On this basis it is posited that since 1986 there have actually been about 800,000 vaccine-related deaths in the USA and well over a million and a half “vaccine-related disabilities.” Whatever the actual numbers are, it is clear the public is not being presented with a clear and honest picture about the effects of the COVID jabs. See this.

The reporting of deaths and other adverse effects of the COVID jabs is even more problematic and opaque in Canada. The Canada Vigilance Program is operated by Heath Canada and the Canadian Public Health Agency. It is Canada’s equivalent to the VAERS program. See this.

The Canadian government reported on March 26 that it had information on 26 cases of death that took place shortly after the deceased individuals received the COVID jabs. The claim is made that 14 of these deaths were deemed to be unrelated to COVID injections. In other words, we are being told that 14 deaths that took place shortly following the injections were just a matter of coincidences. The other 13 of these deaths are said to be “still under investigation.” See this.

It is worth pointing to the contrast between the well-documented overestimates of COVID-19 deaths and the probable chronic underestimations of deaths and injuries from the COVID jabs.

The deep corruptions entailed in industry control over Health Canada have been the subject of an important whistleblower’s memoire. In Corrupt to the Core longtime Health Canada employee Shiv Chopra outlines in detail the extent and nature of systematic conflict-of-interest he witnessed in the industrial capture of the Canadian equivalent of the FDA. See this.

The nature of this industrial capture of a hollowed out regulatory agency is indicated by the fact that the organizers of Health Canada’s so-called Vigilance Program is under the thumb of the very businesses it is supposed to regulate. 

All information on vaccine deaths and injuries comes to the government of Canada via the corporate “holders” of the emergency authorization certificates. In other words the Canadian government is entirely dependent on what is reported by the likes of Johnson and Johnson and Pfizer in calculating injection deaths and injuries. The essence of this process is that the Big Pharma companies  are basically regulating themselves when it comes to manufacturing and distributing the COVID jabs.

Advertising Campaigns to Promote the Taking of COVID Jabs

The treatment of human beings as subjects in such a massive experiment on human subjects is unprecedented.

The experiment clearly violates the Nuremberg Code. The media’s 24/7 coverage of this experiment as if it is all a good news human-interest story as well as a suitable topic for massive advertising campaigns, is as obscene as it is immoral. The constant media flow of connived disinformation is quite likely illegal as well.

We need to emphasize that the intensity of the whistle blowing coming from top level experts in immunology and vaccinology to make it imperative that the COVID injections must be withdrawn immediately from public distribution. Those responsible for this worldwide round of Russian roulette cannot claim in the future they were not made aware of the immense risks currently being incurred.

*

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

All Global Research articles 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 Anchorage, Alaska, on 18-19 March 2021, top diplomats of China and the U.S. met and declared the new Cold War. The U.S. side was represented by Anthony Blinken, Secretary of State and Jake Sullivan, National Security Advisor, while China was represented, by Wang Yi, Chinese Foreign Minister and Yang Jiechi, top diplomat of China. 

Anthony Blinken said ” China’s actions pose a threat to a rule-based order designed to maintain global stability:”

Translation: “You unthankful China, listen carefully! Do not dare challenge the world in which Washington feels comfortable. Otherwise!” This is the declaration of the cold war.

On his part, Wang Yi said: “Beijing is firmly against US interference in domestic affairs. We will take firm actions in our response.”  “Most countries in the world do not recognize US values as global values.”

Translation: “Listen You Washington,. China has done a lot for you. China has something to tell you! China has had enough of your bullying. If Washington wants to fight, well, China is ready!

On March 22, Wang Yi, foreign minister of China and Sergei Lavrov, foreign minister of Russia met to protest against Washington’s sanction imposed on Russia and China. Next day, on March 23, Xi Jinping, president of China and Kim Jong-un, president of North Korea exchanged letters for mutual cooperation. This is the beginning of China’s recruiting of cold war alliances.

All these events mean one thing. The Global Cold War has begun and the world will be divided once again between the West and the East and the Cold War is likely to become Global Hot War and we will be all dead.

Before I begin, I would like tell this to Beijing and Washington!

In 2020, the combined GDP of China and the U.S. was 35 trillion USD, or 42% of the global GDP of 84 trillion USD.

You China and the U.S. listen! You have become rich and powerful, because the world has worked hard for you. The world has provided low-cost labour, high quality raw materials and people’s precious savings; the world has bought your products.

Remember! The world belongs to every human being and every country.

Please behave like responsible global super powers. You have no right to ruin the world with your hegemonic fight.

So, China and the U.S. please stop the dreadful cold war and take responsibility of assuring global peace, safety and prosperity.

*

In this paper, I am asking these questions.

• Why does Washington declare the new cold war now?
• What are the American objectives of the cold war?
• What are the cold war Strategies of the U.S. and China?
• Can Washington win the cold war?
• Can the hot war happen?
• What will be the impact of the Sino-American war on the humanity?

Why does Washington declare the New Cold War Now?

There are two possible reasons for Washington’s decision to declare the Cold war against China, a war which actually began since Barack Obama’s Asia Pivot. The first reason is that Joe Biden needs an enemy dangerous enough to unify the American people and to deal with the impossible task of restoring the economy and justify the raison d’être of the existence of the government.

The Pearl Harbour attack was devastating enough to wake up the sleeping Americans to unite and follow the Washington’s leadership. But I wonder if the Chinese challenge is grave enough to unify the Americans and trust Washington and cooperate for the policy of restoring the economy.

The second reason is more convincing. It is matter of coping with the Chinese economic threat when China’s military challenge is still manageable. The Chinese economy is catching up with the U.S. economy at a threatening rate, while the Chinese military capability is still far weaker than American military capacity. In other words, Washington has decided to hit hard Beijing when it is still a weak attacker and get rid of the economic threat.

I have done some calculations to see the evolution of economic and military power of the two super powers. I have assumed that the Chinese GDP will increase per year, at a compound growth rate of 5 %, from US$ 15.42 trillion in 2020 to $ 24.98 trillion in 2031, or a cumulated increase of 62%. As for the United States, it is assumed that its GDP will increase by 2% a year from $20.93 trillion in 2020 to $25.32 trillion in 2031, or cumulated increase of 21%.

This means that, in 2020, the Chinese GDP was 73.6% of the U.S. GDP to reach 98.7% in 2031. This is surely threatening to Washington.

Thus, the Chinese GDP is expected to catch up with the U.S. economy in ten years. But, we have a different picture as far as military strength is concerned.

We have examined the 10-year evolution of national defence budget of the two countries. It is assumed that the share of the defence budget in the GDP will remain the same throughout the 10 year period. The Chinese 2020 national defence share was 1.15% of GDP yielding $ 178 billion. In 2031.The Chinese defence budget will be $287 billion. Now, for the U.S. in 2020, the national defence budget was $730 billion, or 3.6% of GDP, this rate is applied for 2031 to get $911 billion.

This means that despite rapid rise, the Chinese catching up for the defence budget is much slower than the case of GDP. In fact, in 2020, the amount of Chinese national defence expenditures was 24.5% of that of the American national defence budget to increase only to 30.2% in 2031. This may allow Washington to feel safe as far as the Chinese military threat is concerned.

So, Washington’s strategy is to strike China before the Chinese economy catches up with the U.S. economy while Beijing’s is still “militarily weak”. 

What are the Objectives of the U.S. initiated Cold War?

The principal objectives of the Cold War is to prevent China from becoming a Global Power threatening the cumulated interests of the U.S. and its allies.

What are the Cold War Strategies of the U.S. and China?

The weapons of the New Cold War are likely to include the following:

• Security Alliance War
• Ideological War
• Economic War
• Security War

Security Alliance War

The security alliance is designed to maximize the “friendly supports” for the country’s war efforts. On this ground, the U.S. has a definite upper hand. Actually, China has only a few alliances; its potential alliances would include North Korea, Russia, Cambodia, Myanmar and Pakistan. But, there is no guarantee that these potential alliances will help China in a  Sino-American war. On the other hand, Washington has a lot of alliances.

The U.S. has many security alliances in the East Asian region: the U.S.-Japan Security Alliance, the U.S.-South Korea Security Alliance, the U.S.-Australia Security Alliance, the U.S.-the Philippines Security Alliance. The U.S. has security partnership with Singapore and Taiwan.

The U.S. has the Quad (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) composed of Australia, India, Japan and the U.S.

Moreover, there was the TPP (Trans-Pacific Economic Partnership) led by Washington. It had 12 member countries. Since Trump withdrew, it has become CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership) with 11 member countries. But, Biden might rejoin it, because it is supposed to be a free-trade alliance, but, in reality, it is a part of China-containment alliance. It includes five East Asian countries: Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam. In addition, most of the East Asian countries have some sorts of security cooperation with Washington. Thus, the U.S. has a lot of countries with which it has security related relations.

But, the question is whether these security alliances will join the U.S.-initiated anti-China war. They may cooperate with Washington as long as the cold war remains cold. However, what they should do is to persuade Washington to end the cold war, for it is the best way to keep their economy going in peace. This is suggested by Graham Allison, the author of his famous book, “Destined for War: Can America and China escape Thucydides Trap?” (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston-New York, 2017) 

Ideological War

The purpose of the ideological was is to demonize the rival country in order to justify the country’s war on the one hand, and on the other, to maximize global support for the war.

The ideological war relies on the following weapons:

• Human Right Violations
• Freedom of the Press
• Violation of law-Based Rules
• Authoritarianism
• Assertiveness
• Violation of the UNCLOS

Human Right Violations:

The U.S. accuses China for violating minority groups’ rights to maintain autonomous values and political system. But, Beijing argues that it upholds the rights of minority groups. China would say that it has to intervene in order to prevent minority regions from becoming independent, thus threatening the sovereignty of China.

China may ask Washington how it would react, if the State of Alaska fights for its separation from the United States. Moreover, China openly criticises widespread human right violations in the U.S. against minority groups including the Black Africans, Native Indians and other minority groups.

The Canadian Human Right Commission defines human rights as the fundamental right of all human beings for a life of dignity, respect and equality. Hence, all human beings have rights to enjoy public goods such as health, education, housing, racial equality, physical safety on the street. These rights may be violated not only by the government but also by individuals and institutions. Any government which fails to protect these rights is violator of human rights.

In the mainstream media, the perception of human rights violation is limited to the harsh measures taken by the government. The human rights issue has become a political tool in international relations. The debate on human rights issue should, on the contrary, focus on a solution to human rights violations rather than political gain.

In regards to Washington’s policy of China’s human rights violations, I am quite puzzled by its lack of consistency. In fact, for decades since the time of Richard Nixon to the era of Barack Obama, human rights violations in China was not a major issue.

Joe Biden makes human right the key issues in Sino-American relations. Why? Is it because he considers China as a threat to U.S. hegemony?

 

Freedom of the Press:

The American media criticizes China for lack of the freedom of press. It is true that the press in China is closely managed by the State in order to minimize criticism of government policies. China may react by asking if there is freedom of press in the U.S. China may ask if the American press is free to criticize large corporations which finance the media.

Here, I may ask one question which may interest both China and the U.S.

Is the freedom of the press the raison d’être of the press? What happens, if the free press is biased and behaves in such a way that it is harmful to the welfare of the ordinary people? The Korean press is the freest press in the world, owing to the liberal policies of the government of Moon Jae-in.

Unfortunately 98% of the press present biased report, fabricate stories, publish lies in order to protect the corrupted vested interests of the conservatives cumulated for 70 years; the press is the integral part of the corruption; its sole purpose is to destroy the liberal government and retake the power so that it could enjoy the privileges and wealth provided by the corruption culture. The freedom of press is important, but without political neutrality, it can hurt the nation.

In fact, in the context of the Sino-U.S. cold war, one of the most dangerous weapons is the press. Unfortunately, the press gives itself the mission of demonizing the enemy through lies, biased reports, presenting prepared horror pictures. In a way, the outcome of the New Cold War depends largely on the “press war”. So, my humble wish is that the press in the U.S. and China give itself the mission of stopping the Sino-American cold war and not intensifying it.

Law-Based Rules:

If there is any universal consensus in the West, it is the belief that China does not respect law-based rules. But, we seldom find any concrete incidences where China violates such rules.

The trouble is that rules cannot cover all things and all behaviours. Besides, rules must evolve in function of the need of the time. There are hundreds of reports and research papers which give the impression that China does not respect the international rules. But seldom do they point out which laws are violated. If China is such a violator of international laws, how could it trade with other countries and how could it realize the economic miracle without respecting international laws? Have any international institutions including IMF, WTO, WHO and other international institutions complained about China’s not respecting international laws?

China would react. First, it may ask Washington to provide the actual cases of China’s rule violation. In addition, China may add that most of the international rules being conceived and imposed by the U.S., they may not be suitable for countries of different cultures and judicial traditions. Therefore, China might suggest a reform of the international laws more flexible and inclusive.

Authoritarianism:

Another favourite pass time topic in Washington elite circle and media is the sins of China’s authoritarian regime. This is rather amazing, because the U.S. is a lover of authoritarian regimes in numerous countries, provided these regimes are good boys obeying Washington’s command.

Washington loved General Park Chung-hee and General Jun Doo-hwan for their oppressive authoritarian regime, because they were obedient to Washington.

Chiang Kai-sek was a more than an authoritarian dictator in Taiwan, but he was an asset for America’s China policy.

China may tell the U.S. not to worry about the authoritarian character of the Chinese political regime. China may tell Americans that the authoritarianism has been the core of Chinese values and culture. Besides, as a country of 1.5 billion people with more than a hundred dialects and constant threats of [US supported] independence of minority regions, China needs a strong top-down authoritarian decision-making process.

China’s Assertiveness:

China is accused also for its being assertive with its BRI project, its relations with ASEAN countries and, especially, its militarization of the South China Sea.

China is accused for its assertiveness in connection with its Belt-Road Initiative (BRI). The often quoted incident of such assertiveness is the China’s debt-trap applied to Sri Lanka. However, according to studies by Sri Lankans, the story of debt trap is a lie or misunderstanding by so-called China haters. The project of the Hambantato Port was initiated by current prime minister (former president) in the early 2000s.

It was a purely commercial project and managed by a Chinese government-owned enterprise (GOE). Sri Lanka excessively borrowed money from Western financial institutions including the IMF. Sri Lanka’s debt was so high that the cost of servicing the debts represents 44% of government revenue; this is the debt trap which has nothing to do with the BRI. In fact, Chinese loans represent mere 9% of Sri Lankan government debt. The Hambantato Port is leased for 99 years managed by a Chinese enterprise, CMPort. Sri Lanka has to pay the debt to China for the loans. By the way, the port cannot be used by Chinese navy.

China is accused also for bullying South East Asian countries. This is contentious, according to several studies, these countries do not experience Chinese political assertiveness. On the contrary, Chinese soft business diplomacy is greatly appreciated.

Moreover, China’s productive participation in the activities of ASEAN, APT (ASEAN plus Three), ARF (Asia Regional Forum), EAS (East Asia Summits), RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) Shangri-La Dialogue, and numerous FTAs is highly valued. Even those countries such as the Philippines and Vietnam which have security cooperation with Washington do not feel the pressure of apparent Chinese assertiveness.

Chinese assertiveness which is the most criticized is its alleged military assertiveness. To see more clearly the nature of China’s military assertiveness, we need to study its evolution, which shows that China’s assertiveness was the reaction to American assertiveness.

In 2008, The U.S. joined the TPSEP (Trans-pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) which became later the TPP (Trans-Pacific Economic Partnership) which was more a security alliances than FTA (Free Trade Agreement).

In March 2009, China was under surveillance by an American vessel’s surveillance activities near Hainan Island, the key Chinese navy port.

In September, 2009, the U.S. adopted the Air and Sea Battle (ASB) which was another threat to Chinese A2/AD (Anti-Air/Area-Denied) strategy.

In 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that the U.S. had interests in the South China Sea, meaning the strong military presence in Asia.

In 2012, Barack Obama announced the Asia-Pivot or “Rebalancing” of American military might in favour of the Asia-Pacific region. It is important to point out here that this series of Washington’s assertive activities hostile to China inevitably invited China’s assertive actions.

In fact, in the period, 2013-2014, China extended its ADIZ (Air-Defence Identification Zone) to as far as the region of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Island.

In September 2013, China started its Island-Building operations in the South China Sea.

In 2013, a Chinese navy vessel dangerously approached USS Cowpens, U.S. navy guided-missile destroyer.

Thus, Chinese assertiveness was, largely, the counter defensive actions to the American assertiveness. In short, so called, Chinese assertiveness, cannot not be used for China denunciation.

The building of the South China Sea islands and the militarization of these islands have been the principal object of China demonization. In fact, this operation started in 2013 and completed in 2016. Several reefs including the Mischief Reef, the Subi Reef and the Fiery Reef all became islands armed with missile launch facilities and airstrips for jet fighters. The reason behind this operation may be the fear of blockade of the South China Sea by the U.S. and its allies, a military operation which will make China to starve to death.

Unfortunately, the American assertive actions followed by Chinese counter actions have inevitably led to the deterioration of the Washington-Beijing relations.

In 2014, Barack Obama visited Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore in order to strengthen the China containment operations. What is disturbing is the fact that Barack Obama promised Shinzo Abe, Japanese prime minister, that the U.S. would be ready to intervene, if  a Japan-China conflict took the form of military confrontation. Obama did not, however, commit himself to US military intervention. In contrast, Biden’s Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, promised, during his recent visit to Japan, US military intervention in case of China-Japan confrontation involving the Diaoyu/Senkaku Island. This is indeed a dangerous decision on the part of the U.S.

Violation of UNCCLOS:

Another item on the China demonization menu is the theory that China does not respect the UNCLOS (UN Convention of the Law of Sea) and that China prevents free maritime traffic in the South China Sea. But, there is no actual evidence of China’s violation of free maritime traffic in the South China Sea.

To sum up, the Sino-U.S. ideological war has failed to make China’s regime to deserve global suspicion and denunciation.

Washington has no assurance that the region’s neighbouring countries would rally behind the U.S. because of China’s regime and ideology. This does not mean, however, that China is the winner. . 

Economic War 

As I pointed out above, in ten years, Chinese economy will catch up with the U.S. economy assuming that the American GDP will increase by 2% per year, while the Chinese GDP will rise by 5% per year. My assumptions may be wrong, but one thing which is certain is that China’s GDP will soon catch up with that of the US.

There are several reasons:

First, the Chinese per capita is about $11,000 meaning that there is a lot of room for further growth, while in the U.S. where the per capita GDP is $63,000 the potential growth is approaching its limit.

Second, under the intensification of the trade war, the diversification of trade partners becomes strategic. The American trade partners being highly developed countries, the diversification of trade partners will not be a great help, whereas, China’s trade partners being Asian countries with high growth rate, its trade partner diversification will be an advantage.

Third, the U.S., the economy being dependent on high technology, economic growth is unable to create jobs and it creates unequal income distribution at the expense of ordinary Americans, which in the long run, it will slow down the growth of the American economy.

Fourth, the U.S. economy is excessively dependent on the domestic market, the strength of which is the consumer demand. Remember that, in the U.S., the consumer demand accounts for as much as 70% of GDP as against 50% in China. The consumer demand requires strong middle-income class. Unfortunately, in the U.S. the rising inequality of income distribution has almost destroyed the middle class, which will make it difficult to sustain the domestic market.

The COVID-19 crisis has worsened the problem. In short, it will be difficult to stop the Chinese economy from catching up with the American economy.

Security War

As we saw above, it is more than possible that by 2031, Chinese GDP will have caught up with the U.S. GDP. Moreover, if China allocates 3% of its GDP, instead of the present 1.15 %, its military spending will be $ 749 billion, or 82% of Washington’s military expenditures.

The U.S. may beef up its striking force by deploying its 3rd fleet to strengthen the power of its Sea Air Battle (ASB). China will be able to improve its 2A/AD strategy. So, there will be no clear cut winner.

Under such circumstance, God knows what will happen, if China and the U.S. start to “shoot one another”. The message is clear. The shooting war will bring the dooms day for us all. The dooms day will come, if bloody cold war continues.

Can Washington win the Cold War?

The answer is: “it cannot.” There are several reasons.

First, it seems clear that none of the anti-China strategies will give clear upper hand to Washington. In fact, none of the China demonization tactics, the economic war and the military confrontation promises Washington’s victory.

Second, since the fall of the Berlin Wall of 1989, the ideological difference has been much diluted. Hence, the anti-China antagonism is much weaker than it was during the Soviet-U.S. cold war. The implication is that Washington will have difficulties in ganging up its supporters, which will make American offensive uncertain victory.

Third, China being the world’s factory and the world’s consumer market, most of the U.S. allies will be reluctant to support the cold war.

Fourth, the decadence of the U.S.-led neo-liberal economic system and the world wide corruption of the American version of democracy will make it difficult to attract U.S. sympathisers.

In short, neither the U.S. nor China can be the winner. In their cold war, there will be no winner. If there is one, it will be the suffering of all humanity.

If the U.S. cannot win the cold war, that is, if it cannot prevent China from catching up the U.S. economy and the U.S. power, it means that Washington has failed to attain its objectives.

Then, Washington might decide to declare a hot war. But, American generals and admirals know very well that China is not the (former) Soviet Union and that China is much stronger and richer than the Soviet Union. Moreover, there will be few allies including the UK which will join Washington’s shooting war fight.

However, misguided political leaders might make dangerous decisions to venture into a “shooting war with China” to save the honour and the glory of the U.S. At any rate, we must all try to stop the shooting war, because it will destroy what the humanity has built so far.

Thus, neither the U.S. nor China can win the cold war. The hot war will kill us all.

So, the only way out for Washington is to admit China as co-leader of the world and cooperate for the global security, safety, peace and prosperity.

There are so many areas where they should cooperate and lead including public health, climate change, natural disasters and terrorism. There are so many global enemies that we need the U.S. and China to deal with these enemies.

Can the Hot War happen?

The hot war should not happen, but it can.

The possible flash points of shooting war are the South China Sea, the East China Sea, Taiwan, North Korea especially the Dioayu/Senkaku Island. But, none of these flashpoint countries is likely to lead to shooting war with one exception, namely the Dioayu/Senkaku Island.

Major wars are often sparked by allies of major powers. Graham Allison in his Book (pp 34-38) tells us that the Peloponnesian war between Athena and Sparta, started because of the conflict between Corinth, alley of Sparta and Megara, alley of Athena. In fact, for this reason, Allison is saying that Washington’s plan of expanding security alliances is a very risky game.

If there is any Washington’s ally  which might ignite war with China, it will be Japan. (Graham Allison, pp.178-179) There are many reasons. But, I may point out two of them. First, Japan is a military might; its Self Defence Force (SDF) is the third most powerful military force in Asia and it will be much more strengthened by Washington, if the Cold War continues. Incidentally, despite the Peace Constitution, the SDF can go to war and assist the U.S. forces. That is, Japan can participate in the Sino-American war.

The second reason is Japan’s ambition to rule the world. For last 70 years, Japan has been ruled by far-right imperial nationalist conservatives who dream of reviving the Japan of the pre-WWII era.

This extreme right-wing of Japanese politics is inspired by the Japan Conference, led by imperialist symbolized by Shinzo Abe and encouraged by Washington, The Sino-American war provides a golden opportunity for Japan to rearm and realize its dream.

There are four psychic elements which might induce Japan to get into a war against China. These elements are the Hak-Ko-Ichi-U, the Tanaka Memorial of 1929, Shintoism and Bushido.

The Hak-ko-Ichi-U means that the single roof (Japan) should rule the eight corners (the world). This psychic was well represented by the Tanaka Memorial which argued that it was Japan’s sacred destiny to conquer Manchuria for raw materials using Korea as the royal high way to Manchuria, then conquer China for slave labour, then the rest of Asia, and then the U.S.(Pearl Harbour).

Shintoism is back and the Japanese accept the Emperor as God. Bushido has returned and the Japanese people seek redemption by dying for the Emperor. True, many of ordinary Japanese are free from such psychic, but they have no power to participate in Japan’s national policy.

What could happen is Japan’s provocation of military confrontation in the Dioayu/Senkaku Island. Japan could be tempted to provoke war against China just like it did in Manchuria in 1930 and Nanking in 1937.

Moreover, Washington might welcome the Sino-Japan war, not only because it can ruin China and but also the fight between Asian powers would weaken Asia facilitating Washington’s control of Asia. This is something the world should be concerned with. To avoid this, the U.S. should dissolve its security alliance with Japan. For that matter, to avoid shooting war, the U.S. should dissolve all its security alliances.

What we need is huge anti-war alliances including Japan, South Korea and other Washington’s alliances. The same goes for Chinese alliances, although it has few alliances. The ultimate mission of the anti-war alliances is to prevent the super powers from getting into war so that humanity can be saved from total annihilation.

What would be the Impact of the Sino-American War on humanity?

There is no point of talking about the consequences of a hot war, because it is bound to lead to nuclear war and the end of human civilization.

What interests us is the consequence of the cold war. One thing sure is that the longer it lasts, greater become its negative impact. The cold war is likely to have the following impacts.

• Globalization impact
• Political and ideological Impact
• Economic Impact

Globalization impact: the world will be de-globalized and decoupled. There will be Washington-led bloc and China-led bloc. There will be regional globalization led by Washington and Beijing.

Political and Ideological Impact: there will be emergence of two political and ideological blocs. The China bloc will have varying types of political regimes including hybrid regimes, while the U.S. bloc will maintain liberal democracy. Washington’s ambition of evangelical propagation of its democracy will be compromised.

Economic Impact: there will be China-led free trade bloc in which member countries’ sovereignty is respected and trade negotiations will allow accommodations for member countries specific needs. On the other hand, there will be Washington-led free trade bloc in which member countries sovereignty is minimized and the trade negotiations are likely to be controlled by large corporations.

It is difficult to estimate the cost of the cold war. The Rand Corporation is reported to suggest that the American GDP will fall by 30% because of the cold war. It could be more than that because of the pronounced interdependence of national economies. One thing sure is that the longer the cold war lasts, the greater will become the cost.

To conclude, we have to stop, at all costs, the Sino-American Cold War which will surely throw  humanity into the deep and dark bottom of the Thucydides Trap.

It is not too late for academics, research centers, thin-tanks, social movements, decent media and, above all, people’s organizations at the grassroots to launch anti-cold war movements throughout 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.

Prof. Joseph H. Chung, Professor Joseph H. Chung is professor oe economics and co-director of the East Asia Observatory (OAE) of the Study Center of Integration and Globalization (CEIM), Quebec University in Montreal (UQAM)

Professor Chung is Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from Global Village Space

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

***

At the end of 2020, there were large public demonstrations opposing severe restrictions on civil liberties, including in Germany^1,2 and Great Britain.³ In Denmark, there was a public protest against proposed legislation that would mandate COVID-19 vaccination.⁴

There is increasing civil unrest in many countries after a year of experiencing the crippling side effects of government public health policies that have restricted autonomy and freedom of assembly^5,6 and caused mass unemployment and destruction of small businesses,^7,8,9 steep increases in substance abuse, depression and suicide,^10,11,12,13 and inadequate treatment for other diseases like cancer.^14,15

Since the beginning of 2021,¹⁶ demonstrations calling for an end to COVID lockdowns and voluntary vaccination have spanned the globe from Canada¹⁷ to the Netherlands¹⁸ and Lebanon.¹⁹ February and March 2021 saw anti-lockdown protests in Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Bulgaria, Serbia, Poland²⁰ and other countries.

The Netherlands: ‘Love, Freedom, Stop Dictatorship’

In January 2021, the government of The Netherlands instituted strict lockdown rules that banned gatherings of more than two people, shut bars and restaurants and imposed a 9 p.m. to 4:30 a.m. curfew, the first since the Nazi’s issued orders to Dutch citizens to “stay at home” during World War II.

People who break the curfew face a 95 Euro ($115) fine. Schools and “nonessential” shops have been closed since December 2020.²¹ On January 24, 2021, the police used water cannons and dogs to disperse hundreds of protesters opposed to curfews.

Tear gas was fired on a crowd of several hundred protesters in Eindhoven, where there were reports of looting and at least 30 arrests and a COVID testing center was burned in the city of Urk.²² In early March, a test center in another city near Amsterdam was the scene of a pipe bomb explosion.²³

On March 14, 2021, Dutch riot police broke up a crowd of several thousand anti-lockdown protesters gathered at The Hague. Water cannons, batons and dogs were used by police after protesters violated social distancing rules and disregarded warnings to disperse. Holding yellow umbrellas and chanting, “love, freedom, stop dictatorship,” about 20 people reportedly were detained by police and two demonstrators were injured.²⁴

Ireland: ‘Let Ireland Live’

On February 17, 2021, hundreds of people gathered in Dublin carrying signs like “End the Lockdown” and “Let Ireland Live” and clashed with police, resulting in 23 arrests.

The demonstration was held after the government extended the country’s third lockdown until April, which meant that all nonessential businesses, restaurants, pubs and gyms would remain shut, with the government recommending people stay at home and placing a 3-mile travel limit on movements.²⁵

On St. Patrick’s Day and on March 20, 2021, the Irish police (Gardai) arrested a number of demonstrators for violating pandemic public health restrictions on public gatherings.²⁶ The majority were not wearing face masks and some carried banners opposing mandatory COVID vaccinations.

Denmark: 1,200 Rally Against Lockdown Restrictions

On February 28, 2021, eight demonstrators were arrested in Copenhagen, Denmark, in front of the Town Hall during a mostly peaceful anti-lockdown rally attended by a crowd of about 1,200 people.

Organized by “Men in Black,” it was the first protest since the government announced the extension of many COVID health restrictions to April 4, which includes the closure of bars, restaurants and most secondary schools and universities. Danish police said the eight demonstrators were arrested for rowdy behavior and using fireworks during the protest.²⁷

Sweden: First Protest Opposing New Public Health Rules

Unlike most other European countries, Sweden did not lockdown at the beginning of the COVID pandemic and there were few social distancing restrictions through most of 2020.²⁸ However, when COVID cases began to rise in later in the year, the government instituted stricter rules.

On March 6, 2021, Swedish police broke up a rally of hundreds of people who had assembled in Stockholm to demonstrate against COVID public health restrictions.²⁹ The rally, which was the first to protest the country’s new public health laws restricting movement, was organized by Freedom Sweden, a citizen group that maintains the new laws violate human freedom.

Switzerland: Protest Against ‘Dictatorial Powers’

On March 6, 2021, 4,000 Swiss citizens walked peacefully in the town of Chur, Switzerland, carrying banners in a protest against use of “dictatorial powers” by the government to implement restrictive COVID public health policies that include the continued closure of bars and restaurants.

In Zurich, police reportedly dispersed several public gatherings that violated the 15-person gathering limit outside (five people limit inside buildings).³⁰

Greece: Lockdown Fatigue Fuels Protests

During the month of March, dozens of demonstrations took place in Athens and other cities in Greece against strict COVID lockdown measures that have included nightly curfews and police patrols on university campuses. There also have been riots protesting police brutality related to enforcement of social distancing rules.

One politician in Greece alleged the government is “taking advantage of the pandemic as a pretext to impose harsh measures, restrict democratic rights and freedoms, and advance an agenda that is damaging the public interest.”³¹

Australia: This All Ends When We Say NO!

On February 13, 2021, health officials in Victoria, Australia put into effect a hard “circuit breaker” five-day lockdown and told citizens “you cannot leave your home unless you are doing it for one of four reasons: shopping for necessary goods and services; care and caregiving; exercise; and essential work.”³²

Protests across Melbourne against the new restrictions resulted in several arrests. The protesters urged Australians to “make your voices heard” because, they said, the people cannot endure another lockdown. One demonstrator held a sign that said, “This All Ends When We Say NO!”³³

Canada: March of the Rebellious and Walk for Freedom

On March 13, 2021, in Quebec, Canada, thousands of people chanting “liberte” held a “March of the Rebellious” in opposition to Canada’s COVID strict curfews and other lockdown measures.³⁴ The demonstrators asked the Quebec government to support the need for all its COVID-19 health regulations with published scientific reports and “allow people to make informed decisions about vaccines.”

Several people were arrested and tickets issued for failure to wear masks or to social distance. Hundreds of Canadians in the province of Alberta participated in a “Walk for Freedom” demonstration in Calgary on March 20, 2021. Like the protest in Quebec, their goal was to communicate opposition to ongoing pandemic public health restrictions.³⁵ No tickets were issued or arrests made.

Several hundred residents of North Bay in Ontario, Canada, gathered at the North Bay waterfront holding banners that said “No More Lockdowns” and “No Vaccines” and called for an end to pandemic lockdowns and restoration of people’s freedoms.³⁶

Germany: ‘We Are the People’

On March 20, 2021, more than 20,000 German citizens rallied in protest against pandemic lockdown restrictions in the city of Kassel, clashing with police in riot gear. Many of the protesters were chanting “Wir sind das Volk” — “We are the people” — a slogan that was used by protesters calling for and to the Berlin Wall and communist East Germany.³⁷

According to Deutsche Welle(DW), some protesters tried to break through a police barrier, and police used mace and batons in scuffles with protesters and then used water cannons to disperse some demonstrators outside the area authorized for the rally. Police had warned that the demonstration would be broken up if protesters did not wear masks or social distance.³⁸

Britain: ‘Stop Destroying Our Kids’ Lives’

On March 20, 2021, 10,000 British citizens holding banners with slogans like “Stop Destroying our Kids Lives” and “Fake Pandemic” marched in London against COVID pandemic rules that prohibit groups to gather together and engage in public protests for any reason.³⁹ A number of demonstrators were arrested for violating pandemic restrictions on public protests.

According to AP/AFP, the march took place after “more than 60 lawmakers signed a letter demanding that the government change the law and allow protests to take place even when pandemic restrictions bar other types of gatherings.” The letter was coordinated by Liberty and Big Brother Watch, two civil rights groups.⁴⁰ There also were demonstrations in Newcastle and Manchester.

According to Britain’s Daily Mail, hundreds of protesters in Manchester marched to police headquarters, characterizing the COVID lockdown as a “crime against humanity,” while one of the groups marching through the center of London, Jam For Freedom, emphasized the need to avoid violence, reportedly instructing its members to: ‘Stay tight, stay aware, stay peaceful and polite.’⁴¹

France: Thousands Ignore New Lockdown Rules

On the weekend of March 20, 2021, thousands of protesters gathered in Marseille and Paris to oppose new COVID lockdown orders announced by the government. Many Parisians ignored the order and gathered outdoors in parks and promenades to enjoy the warm spring weekend, while more than 6,500 gathered in Marseille to attend a rule-breaking street carnival.⁴²

Under the new restrictions in France, people are not required to spend most of the day confined at home, but “non-essential” shops are closed and people’s movements are confined to a six-mile radius from their home residence.

On March 20, about 400 people without masks marched through city streets to the parliament building in Helsinki, Finland carrying signs like “Let the people speak!” and “Facts and numbers don’t add up.” Police said the marchers protesting the government’s COVID restrictions violated social distancing requirements and crowd limits on public gatherings but was peaceful.⁴³

Romania: Parents, Protect Your Children!

Romania’s capital of Bucharest saw more than a thousand protesters opposing mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations. According to an AP/AFP report, “the largely maskless crowd honked horns, waved national flags and chanted messages such as ‘Block vaccination’ and ‘Freedom.’ One placard read: “Parents, protect your children! Stop the fear!”⁴⁴

*

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 Fisher BL. Biggest Anti-Lockdown Freedom Day Protest Held in Berlin. The Vaccine Reaction Aug. 3, 2020

² Fisher BL. German Police Fire Water Cannons at Lockdown Protesters and Arrest Hundreds. The Vaccine Reaction Nov. 23, 2020

³ Fisher BL. Major Protests in Berlin and London Opposing Forced Masking and Lockdowns. The Vaccine Reaction Aug. 31, 2020

⁴ Lee M. Denmark Citizens Refuse Law Mandating Forced COVID-19 Vaccine. The Vaccine Reaction Nov. 23, 2020

⁵ Napolitano AP. Coronavirus fear lets government assault our freedom in violation of Constitution. Fox News Mar. 19, 2020

⁶ Harris J. You don’t have to be a lockdown sceptic to worry about how Covid is being policed. The Guardian Jan. 10, 2021

⁷ Associated Press. Job losses from coronavirus pandemic 4 times as bad as global financial crisis of ’09, UN report says. KTLA5 Jan. 25, 2021

⁸ The Economist. What is the economic cost of covid-19? Jan. 9, 2021

⁹ Elliott L. A year of Covid lockdowns has cost the UK economy 251B pounds, study says. The Guardian Mar. 22, 2021

¹⁰ Sparks H. Alarming rise in alcohol abuse during COVID pandemic, study finds. New York Post Feb. 18, 2021

¹¹ Budryk Z. Mental health ratings sink to new low: Gallup. The Hill Dec. 7, 2020

¹² McDonald K. Youth Depression, Suicide Increasing During Pandemic Response. Foundation for Economic Education Jan. 27, 2021

¹³ Leicester J. Global rise in childhood mental health issues amid pandemic. Associated Press Mar. 12, 2021

¹⁴ Davies J, Daily Mail Mar. 16, 2021

¹⁵ Wooler S, Leathem X, Sultan K, Daily Mail Mar. 21, 2021

¹⁶ Carstensen J. European Governments Worry Violent Anti-Lockdown Protests Could Spread. CNS News Jan. 27, 2021

¹⁷ Robertson B. Toronto sees another weekend of arrests at multiple anti-lockdown protests. blogTO Jan. 24, 2021

¹⁸ Didili Z. Mass anti-lockdown protest in Amsterdam. New Europe Jan. 18. 2021

¹⁹ Dadouch S, Durgham N. Anti-lockdown protests erupt in Lebanon as the unemployed clash with security forces. The Washington Post Jan. 28, 2021

²⁰ Pleasance C, Daily Mail Mar. 22, 2021

^21, 22 Carr J, Daily Mail Jan. 24, 2021

²³ Bradley S. How the Netherlands anti-lockdown movement turned violent. The Week Mar. 4, 2021

²⁴ Reuters. Dutch Police Break up Anti-Lockdown Protest Ahead of Election. U.S. News & World Report Mar. 14, 2021

²⁵ Baibhawi R. ‘Let Ireland Live:’ Police, Protesters Clash at Andi-lockdown Demonstrations in Dublin. Republic World Mar. 1, 2021

²⁶ Roscommon Herald. Gardai make arrests after anti-lockdown protesters march through Dublin. Mar. 20, 2021

²⁷ AFP. Eight arrested at anti-lockdown protest in Denmark. The Guardian Feb. 28, 2021

²⁸ Raines K. Sweden’s Different Response to COVID-19 Based on Mutual Respect and Trust. The Vaccine Reaction May 18, 2020

²⁹ Associated Press. Hundreds in Stockholm protest Sweden’s virus restrictions. The Star Mar. 6, 2021

³⁰ MENAFN. Switzerland – Anti-government protests continue over Covid policy. Mar. 6, 2021

³¹ Gatopoulos D. Greece: “Lockdown fatigue” blamed for fueling mass protests. Associated Press Mar. 12, 2021

³² Neilsen I. Everything you need to know as Victoria’s five-day lockdown kicks off. 9 News Feb. 13, 2021

³³ Neilsen I. Hundreds gather in Melbourne CBD to protest COVID-19 lockdown. 9News (AU) Feb. 13, 2021

³⁴ Maratta AS. Thousands protest Quebec’s COVID-19 lockdown measures, several arrests made: Montreal police. Global News Mar. 17, 2021

³⁵ Wilson J. COVID-19: Calgary rally joins worldwide anti-lockdown protests. Global News Mar. 20, 2021

³⁶ Rangione R. North Bay residents rally for end to COVID lockdowns and return to normalcy. Toronto Star Mar. 22, 2021

^37, 38 Jones T. Germany: Anti-lockdown protest turns violent in Kassel. Deutsche Welle (DW) Mar. 20, 2021

³⁹ Reuters. Scuffles and Arrests as Anti-Lockdown Protesters March Through London. US News & World Report Mar. 20, 2021

^40, 43, 44 AP/AFP. Anti-lockdown protests erupt across Europe as tempers fray over tightening restrictions. France 24 Mar. 21, 2021

⁴¹ Gant J, Davies J, Daily Mail Mar. 20, 2021

⁴² Pleasance C, Daily Mail Mar. 22, 2021

Featured image is from Mercola

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

***

Botswana and Namibia should stop fossil fuel exploration threatening a unique and rich ecosystem which is home to endangered elephants, rhinos, pangolins and other species.

EIA Wildlife campaigners are deeply concerned about ongoing oil and gas exploration in the Okavango region of Botswana and Namibia, home to the world’s largest remaining elephant herds.

A Canadian petroleum exploration company, ReconAfrica, has been granted permits to undertake oil and gas activities in the protected biodiversity-rich Kavango Basin, an area that spans both countries.

Despite expert opinion calling into question the validity and integrity of the Environmental Impact Assessments conducted for the project, ReconAfrica had already broken ground in December 2020 to drill test wells in Namibia.

Should these tests prove successful, ReconAfrica will be allowed to continue drilling hundreds of wells in the area. Permits for the Botswana area are still pending.

Source: reconafrica.com via EIA

The drilling activities may affect protected conservation areas and wildlife reserves, including the UNESCO World Heritage-listed Okavango Delta, the world’s largest inland delta.

EIA Wildlife Campaigner Rachel Mackenna said:

“While the world slowly but surely turns away from fossil fuels in a bid to address climate change, ReconAfrica’s push for oil and gas – and possibly fracking – in one of the world’s last remaining wilderness areas is a disturbing illustration of how unsustainable extractive projects can undermine the survival of an entire ecosystem, as well as the livelihoods and traditions of local communities.

“We call on the governments of Namibia and Botswana to stop this oil and gas exploration and put their people, wildlife and their heritage above the pursuit of profit, especially at a time when the coronavirus pandemic has pushed the international community to recognise the integral value of environmental protection and tackling climate change.”

Drilling is set to take place in the habitat of more than 30 species which have been variously classified by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as critically endangered (including the black rhino), endangered (wild dogs, elephants) and vulnerable (pangolins).

The Okavango area is also the sanctuary of the world’s largest remaining elephant herd – a species the IUCN recently announced was closer to extinction than previously assessed.

Source: Pixabay

EIA is equally concerned that if Botswana grants permits to ReconAfrica, the country’s rampant levels of rhino poaching will be further exacerbated by the opening of wilderness areas to human industrial activity.

Local communities also risk losing control over their land and water resources, having lived in harmony with their environment for many years. More than 600 working farms fall under ReconAfrica’s drilling remit, yet it is far from transparent how, or indeed if, these communities are being consulted.

Under Namibian law, local communities may provide opinions and feedback about infrastructure projects that can affect them, but while a number of public consultations have been held online or in person, 85 per cent of those living in ReconAfrica’s license area have limited or no access to the internet and the COVID-19 pandemic has severely restricted travel and public meetings. It is unclear whether their voices are being heard.

*

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 ReconAfrica promotional film via EIA

All Global Research articles 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 hardly made the evening news, but the New York Times reported last week that after twenty years of fighting the Taliban are confident that they will fully control Afghanistan before too long whether or not the United States decides to leave some kind of residual force in the country after May 1^st. The narrative is suggestive of The Mouse that Roared, lacking only Peter Sellers to put the finishing touches on what has to be considered a great humiliation for the U.S., which has a “defense” budget that is larger than the combined military spending of the next seven countries in order of magnitude. Those numbers include both Russia and China. The Taliban, on the other hand, have no military budget to speak of. That enormous disparity, un-reflected in who has won and lost, has to nurture concerns that it is the world’s only superpower, admittedly self-proclaimed, which is incapable of actually winning a war against anyone.

In fact, some recent wargaming has suggested that the United States would lose in a non-nuclear conflict with China alone based on the obsolescence of expensive and vulnerable weapons systems that the Pentagon relies upon, such as carrier groups. Nations like China, Iran and Russia that have invested in sophisticated and much cheaper missile systems to offset U.S. advantages have reportedly spent their money wisely. If the Biden foreign policy and military experts, largely embroiled in diversifying the country, choose to take on China, there may be no one left around to pick up the pieces.

Those who are warning of the apparent ineffectiveness of the U.S. armed forces in spite of their global presence in more than one thousand bases point most commonly to the historical record to make their case. Korea, fought under United Nations auspices, was a stalemate, with the peninsula divided to this day and a substantial American military force continuing to be a presence along the DMZ to enforce the armistice that not quite ended the war. Vietnam was a defeat, resulting in more than 58,000 Americans dead as well as an estimated 3 million Vietnamese, most of whom were civilians. The real lesson learned from Vietnam was that fighting on someone else’s turf where you have no real interests or stake in the outcome is a fool’s game, but the Pentagon instead worked to fix the mechanics in weapons and training at great cost without addressing why people fight wars in the first place. The other lesson was that the United States’ military was perfectly willing to lie to the country’s civilian leadership to expand the war and keep it going, a performance that was repeated in 2001 with the “Iraq is supporting terrorists and will have nuclear weapons” lies and also with the current crop of false analogies used to keep thousands of Americans in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

As a veteran of the Vietnam War army, I can recall sitting around with fellow enlisted men reading “Stars & Stripes,” the exclusive in-house-for-the-military newspaper that was covering the war. The paper quoted a senior officer who opined that the Soviets (as they were at that time) were really envious of the combat experience that the United States Army was obtaining in Vietnam. We all laughed. That same officer probably had a staff position away from the fighting but we draftees knew well that the war was a very bloody mistake while he may have tested his valor post-retirement working for Lockheed-Martin. The “Soviets” in any event demonstrated just how much they envied the experience of combat when they fought in Afghanistan in the 1980s, eventually withdrawing with their tails between their legs just as the U.S. had done in Vietnam after they lost 15,000 men. The “Grave of Empires,” indeed.

Since Vietnam there have been a number of small wars in places like Panama and Grenada, but the global war on terror has been a total disaster for American arms. Afghanistan, as it was for the Russians, is the ulcer that keeps on bleeding until it ends as a major defeat for the United States with the Taliban fully in control, as they are now predicting. Likewise, the destruction of a secular Iraq, regime change in Libya, and a continuing war against a non-threatening Syria have all failed to make Americans either safer or more prosperous. Iran is next, apparently, if the Joe Biden Administration has its way, and relations with major adversaries Russia and China have sunk even lower than they were during Donald Trump’s time as president. The White House has recently sent a shipload of offensive weapons to Kiev and the Ukrainian government has repeated its intention to retake Crimea from Russia, a formula for a new military disaster that could easily escalate into a major war. What is particularly regrettable is the fact that the United States has no compelling national interest in encouraging open warfare between Moscow and Kiev, a conflict that it will be unable to avoid as its is supplying Ukraine with weaponry.

There was almost no discussion of America’s wars during the recent election. One should take note, however, of a recent article by former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb that appeared on National Review which seeks to provide an explanation for “The Real Reason the U.S. Can’t Win Wars Anymore” in spite of the fact that it is “the most powerful country in the history of the world.” To be sure, Kolb largely blames the policymakers for the defeat in Vietnam, aided and abetted by a culture of silence in the military where many officers knew that the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which escalated the conflict, was a fraud but chose to say or do nothing. He also observes that the war itself was unwinnable for various reasons, including the observation by many working and middle class Americans that they were little more than cannon fodder while the country’s elites either dodged the draft or exploited their status to obtain national guard or reserve commissions that were known to be mechanism to avoid Vietnam. Kolb notes that “…the four most recent presidents who could have served in Vietnam avoided that war and the draft by dubious means. Bill Clinton pretended to join the Army ROTC; George W. Bush used political connections to get into the Air National Guard, when President Johnson made it clear that the reserve component would not be activated to fight the war; Donald Trump, of course, had his family physician claim he had bone spurs, (Trump himself cannot remember which foot); and Joe Biden claimed that the asthma he had in high school prevented him from serving even though he brags about his athletic exploits while in high school.”

Kolb also reveals how America’s presumed prowess on the battlefield has distorted its “democracy building” endeavors to such an extent that genuine national interests have been ignored. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, success in overthrowing the Taliban was derived from critical assistance from Iran, which correctly regarded the extremist Sunni group as an enemy. But the Bush White House, far from showing gratitude, soon thereafter added Iran to its “axis of evil” list. A golden opportunity was wasted to repair a relationship which has poisoned America’s presence in the Middle East ever since.

One might add something else to Kolb’s assessment of failure at war. Most American soldiers have been and are proud of their service and consider it an honor to defend their country but the key word is “defend.” There was no defending going on in Vietnam nor in Afghanistan, which did not attack the U.S. and was willing to turn over Osama Bin Laden if the White House could provide evidence that he was involved in 9/11. Nor was there anything defensive about Obama’s destruction of Libya and the decades long “secret” wars to overthrow the Syrian and Iranian governments. Soldiers are trained to fight and obey orders but that does not mean that they can no longer observe and think. Twenty years of “Reconstruction” duty in Afghanistan is not defending the United States and the morale of American soldiers in the combined Democratic and Republican Parties’ plan to reconstruct the world is not a sufficient motivator if one is being asked to put one’s life on the line. Sure, American soldiers can still win wars, but it has to be a real war where there is something genuine at stake, like protecting one’s home and family. That is what the people who run Washington, very few of whom are veterans and most of whom first ask “But what’s in it for me?” fail to understand.

*

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.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.orgaddress is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from wallpaperuse.com

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

***

A mass vaccination site in Colorado was shut down and 600 people with appointments turned away after 11 people experienced reactions, but state officials say side effects were “consistent with what’s expected.”

More than 600 people with appointments were turned away from a mass vaccination site in Commerce City, Colorado, after several vaccine recipients suffered adverse reactions to the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) one-shot COVID vaccine.

Centura Health, which helped run the community vaccination center at Dick’s Sporting Goods Park, said in a statement posted to Twitter that 11 patients who received the vaccine experienced adverse reactions. Two people were transferred to the hospital after medical staff determined they required additional observation. Centura officials did not specify what reactions were observed or their severity.

An update on today's mass vaccination clinic at Dick's Sporting Goods Park pic.twitter.com/TgwWimfqVj

— Centura Health (@CenturaHealth) April 8, 2021

“Following the administration of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and during onsite observation, we saw a limited number of adverse reactions to the vaccine,” Centura Health officials said. “We followed our protocols and in an abundance of caution, made the decision — in partnership with the state — to pause operations for the remainder of the day.”

The 640 patients who were turned away were automatically rescheduled for another vaccine clinic on Sunday, April 11, Centura Health said. The site will administer Pfizer doses, which were previously scheduled for use for Sunday’s appointments at the Dick’s Sporting Goods site.

In a separate statement, state officials said there is no reason for others who were vaccinated at the site on Wednesday to be concerned.

Scott Bookman, COVID-19 Incident Commander, said he knows it can be alarming to hear about people getting transported to the hospital, but wanted to reassure Coloradans that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) closely monitors authorized vaccines and the side effects were consistent with what can be expected.

The first J&J COVID vaccine was administered in the U.S. on March 2. The latest CDC data on adverse reactions to COVID vaccines shows that as of March 26, of the 50,861 adverse reactions reported to VAERS for Pfizer, Moderna and J&J COVID vaccines, 2,797 adverse reactions, including 29 deaths, were attributed to the J&J vaccine.

Between March 2 and March 26, VAERS data showed 518 reports of anaphylactic reactions to J&J’s COVID vaccine, which is distributed under the company’s Janssen subsidiary. There were also seven cases of Bell’s Palsy reported during the same period.

J&J’s vaccine was granted Emergency Use Authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Feb 27. As The Defender reported, days later J&J revealed plans to test its one-shot vaccine on infants, including newborns, pregnant women and the immunocompromised. The expanded clinical trials were laid out in the company’s application for emergency use approval and in briefing materials provided to the FDA and discussed briefly during the meeting.

According to FDA analysis, J&J’s vaccine consists of a modified adenovirus vector like that used in AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine, as opposed to the mRNA technology used by Moderna and Pfizer.

The J&J vaccine also contains a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, citric acid monohydrate, trisodium citrate dihydrate, ethanol, 2-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HBCD), polysorbate 80, sodium chloride, sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid — cultured in the PER.C6® aborted fetal cell line.

On Wednesday, EU Regulators confirmed a ‘possible link’ between AstraZeneca and blood clots resulting in suspension of AstraZeneca’s vaccine in younger populations in many European countries and guidance in the UK that the vaccine not be used in people under 30.

The European Medicines Agency said Wednesday during a press conference that it is also looking carefully at the J&J vaccine, as three cases of blood clots associated with low platelets, similar to the cases reported after AstraZeneca vaccines, have been reported, as well as one instance of thrombosis in a clinical trial.

Although the FDA identified no safety concerns with J&J’s COVID vaccine, The Defender reported in October 2020 that the company temporarily paused phase 3 clinical trials of its COVID vaccine after one participant experienced an “unexplained illness” believed to be connected to the experimental vaccine.

At the Oct. 30, 2020, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting, J&J’s Dr. Jerald Sadoff was pressed by no fewer than six committee members to reveal the illness. He refused, citing confidentiality.

The FDA found J&J’s COVID vaccine to be only 67% effective in preventing moderate to severe symptoms at least 14 days after vaccination, and 66% effective in preventing moderate to severe symptoms at least 28 days after vaccination. This is the first vaccine J&J has produced.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

***

Is there “competition” between Big Pharma giants?

An IBT report (see below), points to governmental vaccine guidelines in France and Germany which consist de facto in “dumping” AstraZeneka in favour of Pfizer and Moderna.

According to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), there is “a possible link between the AstraZeneca vaccine and the rare cases of blood clots in people who had received the shot”.

In Germany, health authorities have “instructed people below the age of 60 who got the AstraZeneca shot to opt for a different vaccine as the booster dose.”

Health authorities in France have adopted similar measures in favour of Pfizer and Moderna.

Does this mean that the Pfizer and Moderna Inc vaccines are “safe” in comparison to those of Astrazeneka?

While AstraZenaka has been the object of suspension, the vaccine related deaths and injuries are significantly larger in regards to the Pfizer vaccine. Over 100,000 injuries and 64% of the deaths (relating to the Pfizer vaccine) (See data below).

How is it that AstraZeneka has been the object of restrictions by 18 European governments, while no limitations have been considered with regard to Pfizer and Moderna Inc? The deaths and injuries related to the Pfizer vaccine do not make the headlines.

Are these Big Pharma vaccine companies competing with one another?

Is the EMA in conflict of interest?

According to EMA’s executive director Emer Cooke: “The risk of mortality from COVID is much greater than the risk of mortality from these rare side effects.”

Emer Cooke was appointed to head the EMA in mid-November 2020 coinciding with the launching of the mRNA vaccine. She previously worked for The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) which represents the major pharmaceutical companies.

The Death and Injuries. EU Data Base

Below is the Eudra Vigilance data on vaccine deaths and injuries for the period December 27, 2020 to March 13, 2021 pertaining respectively to AstraZeneka, Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna Inc.

The deaths and injuries associated with the Pfizer vaccine are significantly larger:

2,540 deaths and 102,100 injuries 

Moreover, the number of deaths  recorded in relation to the Moderna vaccine is more than double that of AstraZeneca:

973 deaths and 5939 injuries 

Here is the Breakdown:

Total reactions for the experimental vaccine AZD1222 (CHADOX1 NCOV-19) from Oxford/ AstraZeneca: 451 deaths and 54,571 injuries to 13/03/2021

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2, Comirnaty) from BioNTech/ Pfizer: 2,540 deaths and 102,100 injuries to 13/03/2021

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine mRNA-1273 (CX-024414) from Moderna: 973 deaths and 5,939 injuries to 13/03/2021

 

EudraVigilance states with regard to the data:

“Only a detailed evaluation and scientific assessment of all available data allows for robust conclusions to be drawn on the benefits and risks of a medicine.”

“Robust conclusions” were not taken by the EMA in regards to the deaths and injuries resulting from the Pfizer-BionTech and Moderna Inc mRNA vaccines.

See excerpts of the IBT report below.

 

Michel Chossudovsky  Global Research, April 9, 2021

*****

 

AstraZeneca Woes: France to Give Pfizer or Moderna Vaccines as Second Dose, Says Report

by Jacob J.

International Business Times

April 9, 2021

Amid uncertainty over the use of AstraZeneca vaccine in many regions including Europe, the top health body in France said people who got the first dose of AstraZeneca vaccine should receive a messenger-RNA vaccine as the second dose.

The Haute Autorite de la Sante (HAS), which is tasked with deciding how vaccines can be rolled out in France, was considering this option, Reuters reported.

Earlier this week, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) said found a possible link between AstraZeneca vaccine and the rare cases of blood clots in people who had received the shot.

Citing sources the agency reported that HAS is going ahead with the use of two mRNA vaccines — Pfizer-BioNTech and from Moderna — for those aged below 55.

Meanwhile, Germany had also instructed that people below the age of 60 who got the AstraZeneca shot must opt for a different vaccine as the booster dose.

This is an interesting development as the procedure to give a different vaccine as the second dose was not tested during any human trials so far.

Reuters cited an expert saying that all these vaccines are complementary as all of them target the same “spike” protein of the coronavirus.

Read complete article

 

*

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

All Global Research articles 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 remains the world’s biggest exporter of major arms, and countries across the Middle East are importing weapons at record highs, a report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri) has found.

The Trends in International Arms Transfers report, released in late March, found that while global arms sales levelled off during the 2016-2020 period, imports by the Middle East and North Africa grew by 25 percent.

According to Sipri, around 47 percent of US arms exports between 2016-2020 went to the Middle East – an increase of 28 percent from the previous five years.

These increases included US arms exports to Israel rising by 335 percent, Qatar by 208 percent and Saudi Arabia by 175 percent.

The report concluded that not only was the US the largest exporter of major arms, a position it has held since the end of the cold war, but its global share of arms exports also increased from 32 to 37 percent over the last five years.

In contrast, Russian arms exports decreased by 22 percent over the last five years, increasing the gap between two of the world’s largest exporters of arms.

Sipri, based in Sweden, publishes arms transfer data in five-year instalments, “to give a more stable measure of trends given the significant year-on-year fluctuations in international transfers”.

In its new report, countries that saw the largest percentage shift in imports include Qatar (+361 percent), Egypt (+136 percent) and Saudi Arabia (+61 percent) – as compared to the previous five years. Others, like Algeria, saw imports increase by 64 percent, whereas Morocco and the UAE saw a decrease in imports by 60 percent and 37 percent respectively.

Even then, the UAE remained the world’s ninth-largest importer of arms, a majority of which is secured from the US, France and Russia.

Illustration: MEE/Hossam Sarhan

Parts of the Middle East have remained interminably unstable for decades and arms and subsidies from the US and other Global North countries have been used by a variety of authoritarian governments and armed groups in the region.

During the 43-month Saudi-imposed blockade on Qatar that began in 2017, US major arms exports to both sides increased substantially, elevating tensions in the regions further.

“The increases in arms imports by several states in the Middle East occurred against the backdrop of tense relations between several states in the Gulf region and in the eastern Mediterranean,” Alexandra Kuimova, a researcher at Sipri, told Middle East Eye.

“Many states in the region seek to play a major role in the Middle East and use arms as a key tool in the pursuit of this aim,” Kuimova said.

Between 2016-2020, the US supplied major arms to 96 states, far more than any other country.

Saudi Arabia, the report found, accounted for 24 percent of all US arms sales.

Kuimova said there were particularly large increases in US arms exports to several states over the past five years.

“In 2016–20, total arms exports by the USA were 85 percent higher than those of Russia -the second-largest exporter – compared with 24 percent higher in 2011–15.”

According to Sipri, 65 states around the world exported major arms over the past five years, with the five largest suppliers – the US, Russia, France, Germany and China – making up 76 percent of all arms exports.

Countries in North America and Europe accounted for 86 percent of all arms exports.

Exports from France increased by 44 percent, with a majority of these weapons being imported by India, Egypt and Qatar.

Azadeh Shahshahani, legal and advocacy director of Project South, described the findings as “deplorable”.

“The US government, specifically, is willing to close its eyes on the atrocities committed by governments if they are reliable importers of US-made war-making machines.

“Instead of supporting peace, the Global North continues the colonial tradition of war-making. This also explains the lack of concrete action on the systematic human rights abuses of countries such as Saudi [Arabia] and Egypt,” Shahshahani said.

Illustration: MEE/Hossam Sarhan

Sipri’s latest report also found that leading arms-producing and military service companies were still overwhelmingly from the Global North, particularly the United States, where the top five companies were based.

For the first time, Edge, the UAE state-owned arms company, entered Sipri’s list of top 25 arms-producing companies, having accounted for 1.3 percent of global arms sales.

Edge supplies weaponry to the UAE armed forces and develops drones, unmanned vehicles, smart weapons, and electric warfare equipment.

“Edge is a good illustration of how the combination of high national demand for military products and services with a desire to become less dependent on foreign suppliers is driving the growth of arms companies in the Middle East,” Pieter Wezeman, senior researcher with the Sipri arms and military expenditure programme, said.

In February, Edge’s CEO Faisal al-Bannai said it would produce parts for F-35 fighter jets if Washington agreed to sell US warplanes to the UAE following the Biden’s administration’s decision to review deals made both to the UAE and Saudi Arabia during the latter days of Donald Trump’s presidency.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the review included deals made on precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia and F-35 fighter jets to the UAE.

Illustration: MEE/Hossam Sarhan

Saudi Arabia remains largest market for arms 

Over the past five years, Saudi Arabia made up 11 percent of the major arms import market, and according to Sipri’s data, is the biggest importer of US, UK and Canadian arms.

In early February, in his first foreign policy address as president, Biden said the US would no longer support the Saudi-led war in Yemen. Two months later, activists and lawmakers are still asking for clarity as to what the new policy would entail.

“This is the third administration actively fuelling this war. Despite recent promises – and there have been positive developments – the war is still going and the bombs are still dropping with US support, even if that support looks a little different,” Shireen al-Adeimi, an assistant professor at Michigan State University, said in late March during an online discussion with the anti-war movement, Win Without War.

“How can the US talk about peace in Yemen while it is still engaged in the bombing of civilians, the starving of civilians?” Adeimi said.

A study released in late March by the Yemen Data Project found that the Saudi-led coalition conducted around 22,766 air raids in Yemen and up to 65,982 individual air strikes over the past six years.

The report says that an estimated 30 percent of the strikes hit non-military sites, including schools, residential areas and hospitals.

Meanwhile, India remains second on the list of biggest importers of major arms on the planet, despite having reduced imports from Russia and increasing domestic manufacturing. India has also become Israel’s largest importer of Israeli arms, as the relationship between the two countries deepens.

“Avoiding risks of over-dependence on a single arms exporter (Russia), India has been pursuing a policy of diversifying its arms suppliers by signing a number of arms deals with various arms suppliers including Israel, France and the USA,” Kuimova said.

Israeli arms exports represented three percent of the global flows and were 59 percent higher than the previous five years, the report said.

Sipri said while there have been suggestions that the Covid-19 pandemic had led to a fall in arms transfers in 2020, it found that several states “actually had higher levels of arms deliveries in 2020 than in some other years in the period 2011–19.”

“For example, US arms exports in 2020 were higher than they were in three years in 2011–19 and French arms exports in 2020 were higher than in five years in the same period,” the group said.

Illustration: MEE/Hossam Sarhan

*

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 LobeLog

All Global Research articles 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 Europe Command has raised its posture to the highest level, “potential imminent threat”, as USAF surveillance flights have tracked Russia’s border over the past 48 hours.

The current flare of tensions sparked on March 26, when four Ukrainian military servicemen were killed by a landmine while inspecting minefields near the village of Shumy. Kiev and their partners the US and NATO used the deaths to blame the forces of the Donetsk People’s Republic, who denied any attacks.

Dmitry Peskov, the Russian presidential spokesman, said the Kremlin was worried the Ukrainian side might create the risk for a civil war if they initiated provocation in southeastern Ukraine.  Peskov added that Russia would take “additional measures” if NATO were to use provocation.

The US forces are now on high alert in Europe and blaming “Russian aggression” in the area. An official from NATO said to Reuters that Russia was undermining efforts to reduce tensions in eastern Ukraine.

Rebels seized parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk region in April 2014, and the Kremlin says Russian “volunteers” have been assisting the rebels.

Maria Zakharova, the Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman, said during Friday’s briefing,

“I would like to warn the Kiev regime and the hotheads that are serving it or manipulating it against further de-escalation and attempts to implement a forceful scenario in Donbass.”

Zakharova said that Ukrainian officials regularly accuse Russia, while not adhering to, and implementing the agreements reached previously on settlement in eastern Ukraine.

“At the same time, Kiev is trying to convince everyone that Moscow is allegedly a conflict side and that it allegedly has some obligations within the Minsk Package of Measures,” Zakharova added.

The Minsk Agreements outline the conflict sides in Donbass as Kiev, Donetsk, and Lugansk. However, Kiev attempts to place blame on Moscow.

Zakharova said,

“The unwillingness of Ukrainian negotiators to recognize this fact and their refusal to find agreements with Donbass is the reason that hinders the establishment of long-lasting peace in the region.”

US President Joe Biden spoke by phone with Mr. Zelensky in Kiev on Friday. The White House said in a statement that the call “affirmed 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.”

The Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project bypasses Ukraine.  When completed it will connect Russia’s Ust-Lug and Germany’s Greifswald with natural gas. The construction of the pipeline from the coast of Russia through the Baltic Sea was expected to be completed before the end of 2019 and will be 1,220 km long.

Source: Mideast Discourse

Ukraine, the US, Poland, and the Baltic States oppose the pipeline, while Russia’s Gazprom is in alliance with several European companies.

Ukraine stands to lose approximately $3 billion annually in gas transit fees because of the bypass.

The US is pressuring European allies, and private companies, involved in the pipeline to stop their involvement in Nord Stream 2, and the US is planning broader sanctions against the Russian project within the month.

The Rose Revolution was a US-instigated ‘regime change’ project in Georgia in November 2003, which culminated in the ousting of President Eduard Shevardnadze. At the same time, it served as a proxy attack on Russia, which had been close to Georgia.

Demonstrators led by Mikheil Saakashvili, who was funded by George Soros, stormed the Parliament session with red roses in hand.

US support for the Shevardnadze government declined from 2000 to 2003, with pressure coming from George Soros, Richard Miles, the US ambassador to Georgia, and allies of the Bush administration, including a visit from James Baker, the former U.S. Secretary of State.

The US and allied organizations gave financial assistance to NGOs and opposition parties within Georgia. This tactic was classical US State Department procedure to bring about ‘regime change’, or other manipulations in foreign countries.

The 2014 Ukrainian revolution from November 2013 to February 2014 culminated in the ousting of the elected Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, who had been close to Russia, and the overthrow of the Ukrainian government.

US Senator John McCain came in December 2013 to rally protesters,

“We are here to support your just cause, the sovereign right of Ukraine to determine its own destiny freely and independently, and the destiny you seek lies in Europe.”

The Obama administration backed ‘regime change’ in Ukraine, and Vice President Joe Biden was handed the Ukrainian file to manage.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov arrived in China on March 22 and met with the Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi.  The two discussed recent developments with the US and urged the US to rethink the damage it has caused to international peace.

Lavrov and Yi urged the US to stop its global bullying tactics, and interference in other countries’ internal affairs, and to stop forming alliances with other nations to manipulate and provoke confrontations.  The two urged all countries to follow the UN Charter to boost peaceful international relations.

Chinese spokesperson Hua Chunying said,

“China and Russia, standing shoulder to shoulder with close cooperation and firm opposition to hegemony and bullying, have been a pillar of world peace and stability.”

Lavrov called for promoting other international currencies that can replace the US dollar and gradually move away from the Western-controlled international payment system so that the risks posed by US or Western sanctions against Russia and China can be reduced, and several Russian banks have joined the China International Payment System to facilitate bilateral trade settlements.

The four dead Ukrainian servicemen may be used to stop Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The men who died while inspecting minefields may be used as a tool to blame Russia for Ukrainian inaction on the Minsk Agreements, and to prevent the important Russian pipeline from completion.  The US-NATO war machine has worked in collusion before in Serbia, Libya, and Syria. Biden’s bullying and manipulations in Ukraine and Russia may prove to be the first test of his administration on the world stage.
*

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

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist.

Featured image is from Fort Russ

All Global Research articles 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 a time after Joe Biden took office not quite three months ago, among the questions raised was how the new administration would address the Syria question.

I do not think we will have to wonder about this much longer. It is early days yet, but one now detects the Biden’s administration’s Syria policy in faint outline. From what one can make out, it is bleak, it is vicious, it is unconscionably cruel to the Syrian people.

And it may prove yet worse than anything the Trump administration came up with, the Bible-banging Mike Pompeo in the lead as secretary of state.

Will Biden’s national security people drop the covert coup operation Barack Obama set it in motion nine years ago, its failure long evident? Or will they reinvigorate American support for savage jihadists in the name of “regime changing” the secular government in Damascus? What about the American troops still operating illegally on Syrian soil? What about the oilfields the Trump administration took to “protecting” from the nation that owns them? What about the brazen theft of crude from those fields?

And what, of course, about the murderous sanctions that various executive orders have escalated on numerous occasions since the Bush II administration imposed the first of them 17 long years ago?

Queues all over Syria for bread and fuel after the US and NATO looted Syria’s oil and burned its wheat.

The US is a sadistic regime that thrives on the misery of nations. Syria was once a self-sufficient country. Before America decided Syria needs “democracy and freedom”. pic.twitter.com/GFJcURInO5

— Hadi Nasrallah (@HadiNasrallah) April 4, 2021

What will Biden and his people do, in short, about the godawful mess the U.S. has made of the Syrian Arab Republic since it bastardized legitimate demonstrations against the Assad government in early 2012 (at the latest) by perverting them with Sunni extremists and hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of weapons?

These were the questions. Answers now begin to arrive.

February Bombing

The first suggestion of things to come came in late February, when U.S. warplanes bombed sites inside Syria’s border with Iraq said to have been used by militias backed by Iran. This action coincided roughly with talks in Washington with senior Israeli intelligence and military officials, convened to determine whether and how the administration would re-enter the accord governing Iran’s nuclear programs. Those talks merely confirmed what was already evident: The Biden administration will make no move in Iran’s direction without Israel’s approval. Ditto in the Syrian case.

As a long record shows, Israel wants to destabilize Syria as long as it is not governed by a pliant Western client; it continues to bomb Syrian targets, including Damascus, on a regular basis. With these realities in view, we can confidently surmise that the Biden administration does not actually have a Syria policy, just as it does not actually have an Iran policy. Apartheid Israel has a Syria policy it dictates to the professedly Zionist Biden administration.

“When I think of the suffering of the Syrian people, including Syrian children, I think of my own two children,” Antony Blinken tweeted last week. “How could we not take action to help them? Our common humanity demands it. Shame on us if we don’t.”

When I think of the suffering of the Syrian people, including Syrian children, I think of my own two children. How could we not take action to help them? Our common humanity demands it. Shame on us if we don't. pic.twitter.com/IcOECZPUwt

— Secretary Antony Blinken (@SecBlinken) March 30, 2021

One already grows accustomed to our new secretary of state’s wildly disconnected remarks on social media and elsewhere. This guy has a troubled relationship with reality, we must begin to conclude. As The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal replied to this morbid hypocrisy, “If you treated your children like you treat the Syrian people you would be jailed for child abuse.”

Would you starve your two children and deprive them of medicine with sanctions, and steal their belongings at gunpoint?

If you treated your children like you treat the Syrian people you would be jailed for child abuse. https://t.co/8AgmBIxTnc

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) March 30, 2021

But let us set aside the preposterous assertion that, while starving Syrians of bread, fuel, medicines and reconstruction funding other nations would otherwise provide, Blinken thinks of suffering Syrians as he does his children. As boilerplate propaganda this offensive stuff may seem trivial and worthy of no note. But in this case we are left with a question worth posing.

Why ‘Common Humanity’ Now?

Why would Blinken broadcast these things on social media at this moment? Why would he summon “our common humanity” when there is no shred of evidence that he or anyone else among Biden’s national security crew gives a tinker’s damn about those human beings commonly known as Syrians?

I have two answers, of equal importance.

One, the Biden administration appears to be preparing Americans for a round of Washington’s morally bankrupt, grossly illegal campaign to bring down the government of a sovereign nation because it does not conform to America’s imperial diktat (and because, as noted, this will please the Israelis). Liberal and “progressive” consciences must be eased. And among others a state of slumber must be maintained.

Two, Blinken has in all likelihood begun the work of keeping Washington’s “coalition partners,” notably the French and British, in the Syrian subversion game by providing cover for the savagery that is to come. Reading straight from the Vietnam-era script, Blinken wants America’s “allies and partners” — a favorite phrase of his — to be confident that when they bomb Syrian children the world will understand it is in order to save them.

Never go to Tony if you are in search of an original thought.

Reading into these matters, text and subtext, we can begin to brace ourselves for what is probably on the way in Syria. The coup operation is again on. American troops will remain on the ground, almost certainly to increase in number over time. The U.S., in concert with the same fanatics it has to date bankrolled, trained and supplied, will continue to sequester Syria’s oilfields and the fertile wheat fields that ought to be feeding the population.

The hypocrisy to come will be yet greater than anything the Trump administration tried on — a forecast I offer confidently. Here comes the bankruptcy of the “responsibility to protect” at its very worst. This will be liberal righteousness with a genteel veneer worthy of your grandmother’s mahogany dining table.

PBS Report

Another piece of the puzzle arrived just before Easter (of all times), when PBS broadcast an interviewwith Abu Mohammad al–Jolani, the head of Hayat Tahir al–Shalam, HTS, the latest among the name-changing cutthroats our mainstream press still refers to as Syria’s “moderate opposition.” Martin Smith’s exchange with Jolani is a piece of a full-dress documentary on Jolani that Frontline plans to air in the not-distant future. Herein lies a tale.

Alert readers will recall that Jolani was once an Islamic State commander who went on to found Jabhat al–Nusra, the worst of the worst among al–Qaeda’s shape-shifting affiliates operating in Syria. The State Department declared Jolani a “specially designated global terrorist” in 2013. This designation still stands.

Jolani now runs what he calls a “salvation government” in Idlib, the remaining retreat of Islamist extremists in northwestern Syria. Yes, he remains an Islamist theocrat determined to impose Sharia law on secular Syria. But (the big “but”) is that he is committed to fighting Assad and so shares “common interests with the United States and the West,” as PBS delicately puts it.

Human rights NGOs have implicated Jolani and HTS — videos, witness testimonies, interviews with victims — in numerous cases of torture, violence, sexual abuse, arbitrary arrests, disappearances and the rest of the inexcusable stuff these groups get up to. Jolani denies it all in his encounter with Smith: “There is no torture, I completely reject this,” he says on camera.

To be fair to Smith and Frontline, they have covered themselves carefully by laying out the record of Jolani’s and HTS’s crimes against innocent Syrians. But Smith also wants us to know of Jolani’s emergence “as a leading Islamist militant” — note the “Islamist” remains — “and his efforts, despite his history with al–Qaeda and allegations of human rights abuses, to position himself as an influential force in Syria’s future.”

As if to certify this judgment, PBS cites the noted remark recently of James Jeffrey, the self-confessed liar who served as President Donald Trump’s special envoy to Syria, to the effect that HTS is “‘an asset’ to America’s strategy in Idlib.”

What are we looking at here? There are two ways to consider this question.

One, PBS’s generous reporting on Jolani’s past is at bottom part of a rehabilitation job. It is once again a case of text and subtext. Read the PBS report accompanying the video of Smith’s interview. The list of HTS’s sins is a lengthy apologia, the intent of which appears to be to preclude the criticisms sure to arise along with Jolani’s emergence as “an influential force in Syria’s future.”

My conclusion: Syria may shortly get its version of Juan Guaidó and Alexey Navlany, the two Dummköpfe Washington has ridiculously elevated to some status of saintly democrats in Venezuela and the Russian Federation respectively. My verb is “may” because the Jolani project could prove so preposterous as to fail  before it gets airborne.

Two, we watch the redeployment of a tried-and-disastrous strategy Zbigniew Brzezinski sold to President Jimmy Carter in late 1979. Paranoiacally anti–Soviet, Carter’s national security adviser persuaded the peanut farmer from Plains the best way to snooker the Soviets in Afghanistan was to finance and arm its adversaries. Osama bin Laden, al–Qaeda — indeed, the fundamentalist freak show that has unfolded in Syria for nearly a decade: Need one say more about the consequences of Zbig’s idiocy?

One would think the policy cliques in Washington would learn something once in a while, but no. They cannot learn because they cannot quite get to thinking.

This column concerns early signs of another foreign policy disaster that may be impending. Should these signs prove out, we will watch as an empire already on its back foot makes another desperate attempt to defend its fading hegemony. Let us, once again, bitterly hope for failure.

America could knock over whoever it wished long ago, and it could send men to the moon. No longer does it seem able to do either.

*

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.

Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century. Follow him on Twitter @thefloutist. His web site is Patrick Lawrence. Support his work via his Patreon site. 

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

Ukrainian President Headed to War Zone as U.S., Allies Push NATO Membership

By Rick Rozoff, April 08 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).

***

In October 2011 and February 2012 the US-NATO alliance, with the support of the Gulf autocracies, tried to obtain UN Security Council resolutions, which in all probability would have served as a pretext for an invasion of Syria.

These efforts replicated the underhand game that America, Britain and France had played in securing a resolution regarding Libya, on 17 March 2011, which they immediately violated in bombing that country. By the autumn of 2011, the Russians and Chinese knew that US-NATO was attempting the same deception again, in their desire to topple Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. Moscow and Beijing therefore vetoed the resolutions.

Not discouraged by these setbacks, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lobbied heavily in 2012 for a military intervention against Syria. Clinton said she had the backing of former CIA director Leon Panetta, and felt the Americans should have been “more willing to confront Assad”; she insisted “I still believe we should’ve done a no-fly zone”, the green light for a US-NATO invasion as was the case in Libya.

Clinton said she wanted to “move aggressively” on Syria and drew up a plan to do so, but it was never implemented (1). She had previously backed the US-led invasions of Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011).

In their attitude towards Syria, Washington and NATO were adopting a similar stance to terrorist organisations like Al Qaeda, which from the beginning was supporting the drive to oust Assad. On 27 July 2011, the new Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri outlined his solidarity with the jihadists. Zawahiri called for Assad to go, and expressed regret that he could not be in Syria himself. “I would have been amongst you and with you” he said, but continued that “there are enough and more Mujahideen and garrisoned ones” already in Syria. He described Assad as “America’s partner in the war on Islam”. (2)

Zawahiri forgot that the Syrian president had opposed the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Assad was, in fact, the first Arab leader other than Saddam Hussein to condemn the attack. Less than 10 days into the invasion Assad predicted, “The United States and Britain will not be able to control all of Iraq. There will be much tougher resistance”. He said of the Anglo-American forces “we hope they do not succeed” in Iraq “and we doubt that they will – there will be Arab popular resistance and this has begun”. (3)

The revolts that started in Syria, during the spring of 2011, would have lasted only a couple of months but for outside intervention that radicalised it (4). Syria did not have to endure the ensuing years of warfare, yet the foreign powers – notably the imperial trio of America, Britain and France – had sustained it with the assistance of their allies from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, not to mention the jihadist groups. The opening protests in March 2011 were not against Assad to begin with, but had been directed towards inadequacies at provincial level.

Neil Quilliam, a scholar who specialises in the Middle East, said of the unrest in Syria which began in the southern town of Daraa: “The rebellion as it started was very localized. It was much more to do with local grievances against local security chiefs – it was about corruption at the local level” (5). The discontent was erroneously depicted in the West as directed at Assad’s administration. It was then exploited by the US-NATO powers to attempt regime change in Syria for geopolitical purposes.

Israel’s military intelligence website, DEBKAfile, reported that since 2011 special forces from the British SAS and MI6 were training anti-government combatants in Syria itself. Other UK personnel from the Special Boat Service (SBS) and the Special Forces Support Group (SFSG), units of the British Armed Forces, had also been training insurgents in Syria from 2011. Moreover, that same year French foreign agents of the General Directorate for External Security (DGSE), and the Special Operations Command, were encouraging unrest against Assad. (6)

As 2011 advanced, the anti-Assad revolts were infiltrated by growing numbers of Al Qaeda members. On 12 February 2012, in an eight minute video Zawahiri urged jihadists in Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan to come to the aid of their “brothers in Syria” and to give them “money, opinion, as well as information”. Zawahiri said that the United States was insincere in demonstrating solidarity with them. (7)

Also in February 2012, Hillary Clinton admitted that Zawahiri “is supporting the opposition in Syria” and she intimated that the US was on the same side as him (8). Clinton promised that the Americans would continue to provide logistical help to the insurgents, so as to co-ordinate military affairs on the ground.

Zawahiri’s demand for jihad against Syria was supported by Al Qaeda’s number two, Abu Yahya al-Libi. He was a terrorist from Libya who had participated in the recent conflict against Muammar Gaddafi, alongside numerous other extremists. Al-Libi said in a video from 18 October 2011, “We call on our brothers in Iraq, Jordan and Turkey to go to help their brothers [in Syria]” (9). By late 2011, there were links between the jihadists who overthrew Gaddafi, and those attempting to inflict a similar fate on Assad.

With the Russian and Chinese vetoes on the UN resolutions, Washington was unable to launch a large-scale invasion of Syria, but the goal of the Barack Obama administration and its allies remained that of regime change. Through 2011 and beyond, the leaders of America (Obama), Britain (David Cameron), France (Nicolas Sarkozy) and Germany (Angela Merkel) separately called for Assad to leave, disingenuously raising concerns over the Syrian people’s plight.

Merkel for instance, who had approved of the US invasion of Iraq, stated on 18 August 2011 that Assad should “face the reality of the complete rejection of his regime by the Syrian people”. This allegation was repeated by other Western leaders, and likewise the EU High Representative Catherine Ashton. It was all nonsense of course.

Less than six months later the English correspondent Jonathan Steele, citing a reliable poll, noted that 55% of Syrians wanted Assad to remain as president. Steele observed how this inconvenient reality “was ignored by almost all media outlets in every western country whose government has called for Assad to go” (10). It did not quite match the fantasies spun by politicians and parroted by the press.

A great game was being played out on Syrian soil, obscured by the theatrical performances of diplomats at the UN. As envisaged, Assad’s fall would enhance US power in the Mediterranean and Middle East, while delivering a blow to Russian, Iranian and Chinese influence. The Kremlin would have to abandon its old naval base in Tartus, western Syria, pushing Russia out of the Mediterranean. Supply routes through which weaponry was delivered to Hezbollah in neighbouring Lebanon would also be cut off.

With a Western-friendly outfit in Syria, the ring could only have been closed tighter around Iran. There are vast quantities of oil and gas astride the Syrian coastline in the Levantine Basin, as the major powers are aware.

However, Syria was a more difficult and complex problem for the US-NATO partnership than the likes of Libya. In Syria the West was challenging the core interests of Russia, China and Iran, three countries with ample resources and powerful militaries.

Meanwhile, the jihadists were starting to wreak havoc. Germany’s intelligence agency BND informed the Bundestag (parliament) that, from late December 2011 until early July 2012, there were 90 terrorist attacks carried out in Syria by organisations tied to Al Qaeda and other extremist groups (11). The “moderates” were executing suicide and car bombings against Syrian government forces and civilians. One suicide raid on 18 July 2012 killed Assad’s brother-in-law, General Assef Shawkat, and the Syrian defence minister, General Dawoud Rajiha. The Free Syrian Army, supported by US-NATO and the Gulf dictatorships, claimed culpability for this terrorist attack. (12)

The jihad served only to harm and delegitimise the insurgents’ aims, and effectively that of the West. The Syrian public could see, just a year into the conflict, that considerable numbers of those trying to eliminate the Syrian Arab Republic were extremists. In a double whammy blow, the terrorism ensured that defections to the opposition almost came to a halt.

From now on, the majority of military personnel remained loyal to Assad. More terrorist assaults in early October 2012 killed 40 people, consisting of four car bombings which damaged the government district in Aleppo. This further undermined the insurgents. Al-Nusra Front, linked to Al Qaeda, took responsibility for these insane acts which served no purpose but to inflict bloodshed on innocent people. Suicide bombings grew in frequency.

When Japan’s generals unleashed kamikaze squadrons on the Allies from the autumn of 1944, they could at least claim desperation; Imperial Japan was fighting for its life. They never dreamed of using kamikaze pilots two years before, in 1942. By 1944, however, Tokyo’s forces were set firmly in retreat. The terrorists invading Syria had no such excuses, which shows how much more extreme the Islamic jihadists are than even Japan’s diehard military men.

The atrocities shocked Syria’s populace and bolstered sympathy for Assad. The Syrian president undoubtedly reacted to the terrorist rampages with an iron fist; his severe response may have been influenced too by the ongoing threat of a US-NATO invasion, as Western politicians continued to call for his resignation.

Israel’s head of military intelligence, Major General Aviv Kochavi, told the Israeli parliament in mid-July 2012 that “radical Islam” was establishing a foothold in Syria. Kochavi said, “We can see an ongoing flow of Al Qaeda and global jihad activists into Syria”. He was worried that “the Golan Heights could become an arena of activity against Israel” which was “as a result of growing jihad movement in Syria” (13). The Golan Heights, 40 miles south of Damascus, is Syrian territory under Israeli occupation since 1967. Kochavi believed that Assad “won’t survive the upheaval”.

The Western-supported Free Syrian Army in part consisted of mercenaries recruited from Libya, along with Al Qaeda, Wahhabi and Salafist extremists. As the Al Qaeda boss Zawahiri had demanded, the radicals poured into Syria from neighbouring Lebanon and NATO state Turkey, and were focused on prosecuting a sectarian war – through massacring Syria’s ethnic groups such as the Alawites, Christians, Shia and Druze; that is, those generally supportive of Assad whom the jihadists considered to be heretics.

The Syrian National Council (SNC), an anti-Assad coalition based in Istanbul, Turkey, was founded in August 2011. It had been organised by the secret services of the Western powers, and was supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Turkey’s leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan continued to substitute secularism with Islamism in Turkey, and he became centrally involved in fanning the flames of war in Syria. The Turks were acting as a US-NATO proxy force.

Erdogan allowed the Free Syrian Army to use Turkish bases in Antakya and Iskenderun, located in the far south of Turkey and beside the Syrian border. With Turkey’s assistance, NATO armaments were smuggled to the terrorists waging holy war on the Syrians. US intelligence agents were active in and around the southern Turkish city of Adana. (14)

Islamic jihadists arrived in Syria from distant European countries, such as Norway and Ireland; 100 of them alone entered Syria originating from Norway. Radical muslims of Uyghur ethnicity from Xinjiang province, north-western China, were fighting in Syria at the side of Al Qaeda from May 2012. The Uyghur militants belonged to the terrorist organisation, the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP), and also the East Turkistan Education and Solidarity Association, the latter group centred in Istanbul. Al-Libi, Al Qaeda’s second-in-command, publicly championed the TIP’s terrorist campaign against China’s authorities in Xinjiang.

Altogether, jihadists from 14 African, Asian and European countries were estimated to be present in Syria from early in the conflict (15). They came from such states as Jordan, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc. This was partly a consequence and spillover of the March 2011 US-NATO invasion of Libya. In early 2012, more than 10,000 Libyan mercenaries were trained in Jordan, bordering Syria to the south. The militants were each paid $1,000 a month courtesy of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, in order to compel them to participate in the war on Syria. The Saudis were shipping weapons to the most extreme elements in Syria, something which Riyadh never denied.

In the first week of August 2012, Assadist special forces captured 200 insurgents in an Aleppo suburb in north-western Syria. Government soldiers subsequently found Saudi and Turkish officers commanding the mercenaries. During early October 2012, in another district of Aleppo (Bustan al-Qasr), Assad’s divisions repelled an attack and killed dozens of armed militia. They had entered Syria through Turkey and among them were four Turkish officers. Beside the American air base at Incirlik in southern Turkey, the jihadists received special training in modern weapons of war: anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, grenade launchers and US-made stinger missiles.

NATO aircraft, flying without insignia or coat of arms, were landing in Turkish military bases close to Iskenderun, near Syria’s border. They carried armaments from Gaddafi’s former arsenals, as well as taking Libyan mercenaries to join the Free Syrian Army. Instructors from the British special forces continued to co-operate with the insurgents. The CIA, and contingents from the US Special Operations Command, were dispensing with and operating telecommunications equipment, allowing the “rebels” to evade Syrian Army units (16). The CIA was furthermore flying drones over Syrian air space to gather intelligence.

In September 2012, almost 50 high-ranking agents from the US, Britain, France and Germany were active along the Syrian-Turkish frontier (17). The Germans, at the behest of their intelligence service BND, were operating a spy service boat ‘Oker (A 53)’ in the Mediterranean, not far from Syria’s western coastline. On board this vessel were 40 commandos specialising in intelligence operations, using electromagnetic and hydro-acoustic equipment. As Germany is a NATO member, these activities were most probably undertaken in agreement with Washington.

The Bundeswehr (German Armed Forces) stationed two other intelligence ships in the Mediterranean, ‘Alster (A 50)’ and ‘Oste (A 52)’, collecting information on Syrian Army positions. The BND president Gerhard Schindler confirmed of Syria that Berlin wanted “a solid insight into the state of the country”. (18)

The German ships’ point of support was Incirlik Air Base, which contains 50 US nuclear bombs and hosts the Anglo-American air forces. The German vessels’ mission was to decipher Syria’s telecommunications signals, intercept messages from the Syrian government and chiefs of staff, and to uncover Assadist troop locations up to a radius of 370 miles off the coast, through satellite images. Germany had a permanent listening post in Adana, southern Turkey, whereby they could intercept all calls made in Syria’s capital Damascus (19). Merkel’s government inevitably denied accusations that the German Navy was spying in the Mediterranean; it is the type of activity that few countries claim responsibility for.

*

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.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1 The Week, “Hillary Clinton: I would have taken on Assad”, 7 April 2012

2 Joby Warrick, “Zawahiri asserts common cause with Syrians”, Washington Post, 27 July 2011

3 Jonathan Steele, “Assad predicts defeat for invasion force”, The Guardian, 28 March 2003

4 Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA (Springer 1st ed., 23 June 2017) p. 283

5 Sarah Burke, “How Syria’s ‘geeky’ president went from doctor to ‘dictator’”, NBC News, 30 October 2015

6 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 246

7 Martina Fuchs, “Al Qaeda leader backs Syrian revolt against Assad”, Reuters, 12 February 2012

8 Wyatt Andrews, “Clinton: Arming Syrian rebels could help Al Qaeda”, CBS News, 27 February 2012

9 Reuters, “Islamist website posts video of Al Qaeda figure”, 13 June 2012

10 Jonathan Steele, “Most Syrians back President Assad, but you’d never know from Western media”, The Guardian, 17 January 2012

11 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 269

12 Matt Brown, “Syrian ministers killed in Damascus bomb attack”, ABC News, 18 July 2012

13 Space Daily, “Assad moving troops from Golan to Damascus: Israel”, 17 July 2012

14 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 264

15 Ibid., p. 265

16 Philip Giraldi, “NATO vs. Syria”, The American Conservative, 19 December 2011

17 Hürriyet Daily News, “There are 50 senior agents in Turkey, ex-spy says”, 16 September 2012

18 Thorsten Jungholt, “The Kiel-Syria connection”, Die Welt, 20 August 2012

19 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 268

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

***

Romaine “Chip” Fitzgerald was a member of the Black Panther Party (BPP) in Los Angeles, California during 1969 when he was arrested and prosecuted under the federal government’s Counter-intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) designed to liquidate the threat of revolutionary organizations in the United States.

Fitzgerald recently died in detention at the age of 71 after serving nearly 52 years in the prison-industrial-complex where he witnessed the phenomenal growth within the inmate population over a period of five decades.

The BPP became a central focus on the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under former Director J. Edgar Hoover who had falsely declared the organization as the gravest threat to the national security of the U.S. Hoover had long been an advocate of racial segregation and anti-communism. He had vigorously spearheaded the investigations of communists and other radicals during the post-World War II period of the Cold War.

Prior to the late 1940s and 1950s, Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer of the Justice Department had been a mentor of Hoover’s. Palmer, the successor to Attorney General Thomas Watt Gregory who had prosecuted opponents of World War I through the Espionage Act of 1917, had after the first imperialist conflagration, led a witch hunt which resulted in the arrests, detentions and deportations of thousands of activists beginning in 1919.

Later Hoover would establish the FBI as a separate entity which sought to collect information, investigate and prosecute those considered enemies of the status-quo. The COINTELPRO project was officially initiated in 1956 directed against the Communist Party and its allied groups. Nonetheless, with the rise of the Civil Rights and Black Power movements after the mid-1950s through the early 1970s, the disproportionate focus of the FBI was aimed at the destruction of the African American liberation struggle.

With specific reference to Fitzgerald, he was accused of involvement in the shooting of a California Highway Patrolman (CHP) in September 1969 after a traffic stop. Fitzgerald and one officer were injured in the incident while he was able to escape. Later in October, Fitzgerald was arrested in a BPP office and was later tried for the wounding of the CHP officer along with the murder of a private security guard outside a department store.

Evidence against Fitzgerald was lacking during the trial. He had others testify in the trial that he was not at the location of the robbing and killing of the security guard. However, largely as a result of the political bias against the BPP, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to the death penalty.

After 1972, when there was a supreme court decision which overturned capital punishment for four years, Fitzgerald was resentenced to two life terms in prison. He was repeatedly denied parole over the years yet in recent months due to his age and medical condition, was eligible for release.

Tragically enough Fitzgerald developed additional medical problems. He had suffered a stroke earlier and in recent months developed serious cardiovascular disease. His death came at a time when the plight of prisoners, particularly political detainees, has gotten considerable attention among social justice movements nationally and internationally.

According to a statement from Fitzgerald:

“The prison administrators and their advocates within the state want to create fear in the minds of the public in an effort to persuade the people to give state authorities carte blanche in the inhumane treatment of convicts and allow the prison administrators to operate without oversight and accountability.” (See this)

In an extended letter from him which reads like a poem, Fitzgerald contemplates his release from decades of imprisonment in the state of California. He says of his hopes in part that:

“I will welcome the warmth and laughter of my grandchildren. I look forward to their hugs and smiles. I will be the Grandpa present to soothe them through occasional scrapes after they show me their somersaults and expert bike riding maneuvers….  I will continue to appreciate the love and challenges of family. I imagine our dialogue will include our sense of community, our country, the world, our contributions and help to our neighborhoods and, of course, sharing my personal sorrows and hope. I will lead by example with spontaneous acts of love, compassion and kindness thereby demonstrating my belief in the transformation of others. I will enjoy volunteering in preschools and/or visiting the elderly in convalescent hospitals.”

Romaine “Chip” Fitzgerald Is Not Alone

There are many other political detainees, prisoners of war and those unjustly incarcerated for purposes of bureaucratic advancement and the enrichment of the capitalist system, who are suffering and dying daily. Mumia Abu-Jamal, falsely charged and convicted during the early 1980s for the shooting death of a white police officer in Philadelphia, is an award-winning journalist and author of several books. Jamal spent more than two decades on death row and was eventually taken off after a global campaign to save his life. Jamal was a youth member of the BPP beginning in 1969 and later became a professional broadcast journalist. He was a supporter of the revolutionary MOVE organization in the city and defended the group against attacks by the corporate media and the police.

Jamal was recently diagnosed with COVID 19. He has suffered from Hepatitis C, diabetes, and skin disorders. His eyesight is failing all the while he has been held in maximum security prison for a crime he did not commit. Although Jamal has been given the right to an appeal, another trial has not taken place. Thousands nationally and internationally are continuing to demand his immediate release.

Other prisoners include Leonard Peltier, a leading member of the American Indian Movement (AIM), was convicted in the shooting death of two FBI agents in 1975. After being illegally extradited from Canada, he was railroaded through the U.S. courts and sentenced to life in imprisonment. Peltier also suffers from chronic ailments after being forced to remain incarcerated for over 40 years.

Image on the right: Assata Shakur in detention in New Jersey prior to her liberation

Assata Shakur, a former member of the BPP in New York and a soldier within the Black Liberation Army (BLA), was framed in the murder of a New Jersey State Trooper in 1973. She was liberated from prison in November 1979 by a taskforce of BLA and Weather Underground members and eventually granted political asylum in Cuba after living underground for a number of years in the U.S.

The National Jericho Movement, founded in the late 1990s, has since this time period sought to bring attention to the fact that there are political prisoners in the U.S. The Movement was organized with the assistance of political prisoners such as Jail Muntaqim, a former BLA soldier who served nearly five decades in prison. He was released during 2020 and is working to bring about the release of other comrades. Muntaqim was threatened with reincarceration under the guise of filling out a voter registration card last year.

Prisons Are Integral to the Capitalist System of Exploitation and National Oppression

In the U.S. there are more than 2.3 million people incarcerated. The number of those within the criminal justice system has grown by 500% since the early 1970s at the time of the Attica Rebellion and other forms of prison resistance.

African Americans, people of Latin American descent and proletarian people in general make up the overwhelming majority of those held behind bars. These inmates are forced to work for slave wages producing goods and services for the capitalist and imperialist system. The exploitation of labor within the criminal justice structures represent another form of modern-day enslavement.

Moreover, the almost nonexistent state of healthcare within the prisons is endangering inmates, those working in the facilities along with their families and friends that visit the institutions. Although there has been the release of some inmates based upon compassion related to health concerns, far too many remain behind bars for nonviolent crimes which pose no threat to society.

The police and prisons grew out of the sordid history of the ruling class within the U.S. The continued existence of both institutions remains a threat to the struggle for total liberation and social emancipation.

*

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: Black Panther Party member Romaine Chip Fitzgerald dies in prison March 2021 (All images in this article are from the author)

All Global Research articles 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 wants war with Russia due to a combination of domestic and international factors, but such a scenario would be disastrous for the Eastern European country and only serve the interests of some members of the political elite and their foreign patrons.

The whole world is watching with bated breath to see whether Ukraine and Russia will go to war over Donbass like many fear might be about to happen due to recent events. I asked earlier this week whether “Vaccines Are The Real Driving Force Behind The Latest Donbass Destabilization”, pointing out the grand strategic interest that the US has in provoking a crisis that would put unprecedented political pressure on the EU to not buy Russia’s Sputnik V like the bloc’s top members are reportedly considering at the moment, but there’s more to it than just that at the comparatively lower strategic levels.

Ukraine wants war with Russia due to a combination of domestic and international factors, including its ruling elite’s desire to distract from a slew of domestic crises. These include its efforts to stamp out the increasingly popular opposition through a series of witch hunts, attract emergency Western financial aid to facilitate their struggling economy’s recovery, and perhaps become important enough to the West that they can finally receive much-needed vaccines for their population that they’ve hitherto been denied for inexplicable reasons. Moreover, the powerful influence of ultra-nationalist (fascist) militias can’t be discounted either.

On the foreign front, the US certainly never tries of causing trouble for Russia however and wherever it can. In the present context, any “continuation war” in Donbass could in theory impose unexpected financial costs on the country, among other potential consequences like serving as a pretext for more sanctions against it. Broadly speaking, the US might also hope that it can manipulate the optics of the conflict that it’s arguably trying to provoke in order to pressure Germany to pull out of its agreement to finish the Nord Stream II pipeline, however far-fetched that outcome might be in reality.

The Ukrainian political elite and their foreign patrons would be the only possible beneficiaries of such a conflict should one be successfully sparked by the US but even they, however, might experience blowback in the event that the Ukrainian Armed Forces and their allied ultra-nationalist (fascist) militias are decisively beaten on the battlefield. Facing that probable scenario, Kiev might urgently request NATO support, though it’s unclear whether any would be forthcoming, and if so, to what extent and whether they’d have a mandate to directly fight Russian-friendly rebels and perhaps even Russia itself should it intervene to protect its border and citizens.

What’s thus far certain at this point is that Ukraine wants war. This is evidenced not only by the previous arguments above, but also by its chief negotiator on Donbass demanding that the venue of the Minsk talks be switched from Belarus to somewhere else like Poland despite the latter indisputably being a partisan player in this larger conflict. This signifies that Kiev isn’t interested in continuing to pursue a peaceful resolution to its off-and-on civil war, which was actually obvious to all objective observers for quite a while already since it was none other than the Ukrainian government itself which refused to fully implement the Minsk Accords.

The Russian-friendly rebels and the neighboring eponymous state that politically (and according to some questionable reports, militarily) supports them have long been calling on Kiev to grant Donbass the special status that the Ukrainian government previously agreed to as a result of the Minsk Accords. The US has consistently pushed its Ukrainian client not to implement the promised political reforms in order to retain the country’s status as a Hybrid War ulcer on Russia’s border that could continue progressively eating away at its legitimate security interests and eventually be externally exacerbated at a strategic moment like the present.

The current timing of Ukraine’s latest US-backed anti-Donbass provocations is linked to the reportedly impending success of Russia’s “vaccine diplomacy” with the EU, Nord Stream II’s near completion, Ukraine’s series of domestic crises, but also Biden’s rise to power. The President and his family reportedly have a history of corrupt dealings with Ukraine, which gives them vested interests to militarily support it beyond whatever any other US leader might have promised in such a situation. This in turn ratchets up the danger to Russia since Biden might do the unthinkable by deploying US combat troops to Eastern Ukraine in the worst-case scenario.

As can be seen, Ukraine wants war for its own self-interested reasons, but it wouldn’t have any realistic chance of provoking such had it not been for the US’ – and specifically, the Biden family’s – support for this. No one else, least of all Russia, wants another conflict to explode in Eastern Ukraine, but Moscow will defend its legitimate security interests related to its international border and the security of its citizens in Donbass should the situation go south really soon. Kiev is thus at risk of opening up a can of worms as a result of its feverish march towards war, and while the US and Russia might not clash, Ukraine might still collapse in the end.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

***

“At the end, what the 4^th Industrial Revolution will lead to is a fusion of our physical, our digital and our biological identities.” – Klaus Schwab, Founder and CEO of the World Economic Forum (WEF)

The SPARS Pandemic – 2025 to 2028 – A Futuristic Scenario for Public Health Risk Communicators – The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

This 89 page-paper has supposedly been written in 2017, preceding by 2 years the by now infamous Event 201 that took place in NYC on 18 October 2019.

Event 201 was also sponsored by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, with cosponsors of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), and the World Economic Forum (WEF). Participants included such prominent UN agencies as the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, the IMF, UNICEF, the UN political body itself – and many more.

Event 201 consisted basically of a computer simulation of the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) virus that hit China from 2002 to 2004, but was more virulent in the simulation. The computer projection produced some 65 million deaths in 18 months, destroyed the world economy and plunged all 193 UN member countries into severe debt and social misery. Hence, the participation of the IMF, World Bank, regional development banks, as well as representatives of the FED. The rescuers.

The 2002 to 2004 SARS outbreak was relatively harmless. First cases of the outbreak were reported in Guangdong, China, on 16 November 2002. The epidemic was reported contained by WHO in May 2003 and concluded in 2004 with 8,096 confirmed cases and 774 deaths Worldwide. The epidemic spread over 29 countries most of them in East Asia with the vast majority in China. Indeed, all infected people outside of China could be traced to Chinese origins. Chinese scientists then strongly suspected that the SARS virus was directed specifically to the Chinese genome. In other words, a bio-war against China.

Just a few weeks after Event 201 on 18 October 2019, the first cases of the so-called SARS-CoV-2 were reported in Wuhan, China. Obviously, China was more than preoccupied, identified a virus very similar to the one of the 2002-2004 outbreak, suspecting again a China-targeted virus – biowarfare.

China took immediate and drastic measures to contain the outbreak, closing down first Wuhan, then the entire Hubei Province of 50 million people, and subsequently locked down other areas where the virus made appearance. Indeed, the Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 virus was directed again against the Chinese DNA. The few cases in the first weeks in January 2020 identified outside of China, were all traceable to people of Chinese origin.

Other countries, Italy, Iran, Spain, Central Europe, were later hit by other corona strains. SARS-COV-2.  Then  the WHO conveniently identified Covid-19 (as the disease triggered by SARS-2). COVID – may stand for Certificate of Vaccination ID, or simply Corona Virus ID.

Covid-19 was a well-orchestrated epidemic, first declared by WHO, a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, or PHEIC (30 January 2020) and a pandemic on 11 March 2020. Once declared a pandemic, no matter whether justified or not – the world, or those who think they call the shots on Mother Earth, had green light to lock down and destroy the world – socially, economically and morally.

Now, there is suddenly a new report, a new scenario emerging: The SPARS Pandemic. Why SPARS? – Because this fantasy story – purely hypothetical as the paper doesn’t fail to repeatedly point out – is based on a SARS-type virus outbreak in St. Paul Minnesota. Thus – Saint Paul Acute Respiratory Syndrome = SPARS. Of course, it doesn’t stay in St. Paul, but opportunely spreads all over the place – first heavily in the US, but then reaches out daringly around the world – as does SARS-CoV-2, alias Covid-19.

Is it a new fear campaign, based on human health, the threat of death, our vulnerability – the inward focus of people – playing on egocentricity – our personal well-being and will to live under all circumstances, and to live in comfort, and at all times wanting to maintain the status quo?

Pointedly, the document makes no reference at all to SARS-CoV-2, or to the “Covid-19 – Great Reset”. The 89-page paper was supposedly written some 2 years before the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The playbook, that’s what it is, originates again from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and pretends to protect people from epidemics and disasters and build resilient communities through innovative scholarship, engagement, and research that strengthens the organizations, systems, policies, and programs essential to preventing and responding to public health crises.

In their own words,

“The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security (JHCHS) works to protect people from epidemics and disasters and build resilient communities through innovative scholarship, engagement, and research that strengthens the organizations, systems, policies, and programs essential to preventing and responding to public health crises. The Center is part of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and is located in Baltimore, MD.”

No mention of Bill Gates, of the Rockefeller Foundation which actually created and funded both, the JHCHS and the Bloomberg School of Public Health.

No mention either of the 2010 Rockefeller Report, outlining in great detail, the various health / disease / fear and tyranny scenarios humanity has to endure during the 2020-2030 period, the most notorious of which is the so-called “lockstep scenario”, in which humanity around the globe is so deeply and desperately entrenched and locked down today.

And of course, no mention of the perfect match between the 2010 Rockefeller Report’s scenarios, the UN Agenda 2030 and – “Covid-19 – the Great Reset”, penned by Klaus Schwab, CEO of the WEF. Their consistent parallelism is all coincidence.

According to Alex Jones, this apparently in October 2017 written Johns Hopkins document, SPARS, details plans for Big Pharma global domination. He says, “this document is the holy grail. The key to defeating the globalist.” Its war-gaming different scenarios, making sure they are “armed” for different dynamically appearing situations. See this.

However, the Big Picture of these scenarios is going much further than the kingdom of the pharma-industry. Looking closer and thinking deeper, isn’t it strange that this paper – written allegedly in October 2017, some 3 years ago – emerges only now, when Covid-19, with its nefarious vaxx-coercion is in full swing, with many of its “scenarios”, depicted in a more or less similar form in the paper that envisions – purely hypothetically, as the introduction doesn’t fail to repeat numerous times – what will (or may) happen – hypothetically – from 2025 to 2028?

Is it possible that this SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028 document was written much later? For example, well into the current SARS-CoV-2, alias covid-19 Plandemic, to detract the people’s attention from the much written and talked about Event 201, the PLAN that was then outlined for pretty precisely what is happening today – and may go on for another – well 10 years – if the goals and objectives of UN Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset, as well as of the 2010 Rockefeller Report are to be completed?

And what are those goals and objectives? They can be summarized into a set of three:

(i) Taking over total control of humanity, as in One World Order (OWO); by electromagnetic manipulation (that’s where 5G, later 6G come in); by digitizing everything, including all money; by converting humans into transhumans; they – Mr. Klaus Schwab, the co-author of the Great Reset, and his cabal, call it the 4^th Industrial Revolution;

(ii) Shifting assets and resources from the middle and the bottom of society to the top few; and

(iii) Drastically reducing world population, via a eugenist depopulation agenda? Eventually, a small globalist elite – all those associated with managing and governing the OWO-tyranny – plus a relatively small world population of serfs – or what Aldous Huxley called the “Epsilon people” (the lowest cast working people) – in today’s world, “transhumans”, would survive. The serfs or Epsilon people, would all be electronically [digitally] controlled and manipulated, so they would not transgress into seeking their erstwhile “freedom” lost.

Could it be that the SPARS paper – which as mentioned above – does not refer to massive vaccination programs imposed on the world population – to deviate the attention from the final intention of the plandemic? Remember Bill Gates: “Only when 7 billion people have been vaccinated, will we go somewhat back to normal”. That’s what the master, or at least co-master, of this ordeal humanity is going through, predicts?

Look how the Preface to this paper introduces the scenes:

POSSIBLE FUTURE IN 2025: THE “ECHO CHAMBER”
UNBRIDLED GLOBAL ACCESS TO INFORMATION COUPLED WITH SOCIAL FRAGMENTATION AND SELF-AFFIRMING WORLDVIEWS

Scenario Purpose: The following narrative comprises a futuristic scenario that illustrates communication dilemmas concerning medical countermeasures (MCMs) that could plausibly emerge in the not-so-distant future. Its purpose is to prompt users [meaning medical and scientific personnel, government officials, and, of course, the media], both individually and in discussion with others, to imagine the dynamic and oftentimes conflicted circumstances in which communication around emergency MCM development, distribution, and uptake takes place.

While engaged with a rigorous simulated health emergency, scenario readers have the opportunity to mentally “rehearse” responses while also weighing the implications of their actions. At the same time, readers have a chance to consider what potential measures implemented in today’s environment might avert comparable communication dilemmas or classes of dilemmas in the future.

Generation Purpose: The timeframe for the scenario (the years 2025-2028) was selected first, and then major socioeconomic, demographic, technological, and environmental trends likely to have emerged by that period were identified. Specifically, two dominant trends likely to influence regulatory and public responses to future public health emergencies were selected: one, varying degrees of access to information technology; and two, varying levels of fragmentation among populations along social, political, religious, ideological, and cultural lines.

A scenario matrix was then constructed, illustrating four possible worlds shaped by these trends, with consideration given to both constant and unpredictable driving forces. Ultimately, a world comprised of isolated and highly fragmented communities with widespread access to information technology—dubbed “the echo-chamber”—was selected as the future in which the prospective scenario would take place.

From this point, scenario-specific storylines were then developed, drawing on subject matter expertise, historical accounts of past medical countermeasure crises, contemporary media reports, and scholarly literature in sociology, emergency preparedness, health education, and risk and crisis communication.

These sources were used to identify communication challenges likely to emerge in future public health emergencies. This prospective scenario is not intended to predict events to come; rather, it is meant to serve as a plausible narrative that illustrates a broad range of serious and frequently encountered challenges in the realm of risk and crisis communication.

Scenario Environment: In the year 2025, the world has become simultaneously more connected, yet more divided. Nearly universal access to wireless internet and new technology—including internet accessing technology (IAT): thin, flexible screens that can be temporarily attached to briefcases, backpacks, or clothing and used to stream content from the internet—has provided the means for readily sharing news and information.

However, many have chosen to self-restrict the sources they turn to for information, often electing to interact only with those with whom they agree. This trend has increasingly isolated cliques from one another, making communication across and between these groups more and more difficult. From a government standpoint, the current administration is led by President Randall Archer, who took office in January 2025. Archer served as Vice President under President Jaclyn Bennett (2020- 2024), [these are fictitious names] who did not seek a second term due to health concerns.

[…]

In regards to MCM communication more specifically, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and other public health agencies, have increasingly adopted a diverse range of social media technologies, including long-existing platforms such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Twitter, as well as emerging platforms like ZapQ, a platform that enables users to aggregate and archive selected media content from other platforms and communicate with cloud-based social groups based on common interests and current events.

Federal and state public health organizations have also developed agency-specific applications and ramped up efforts to maintain and update agency websites. Challenging their technological grip, however, are the diversity of new information and media platforms and the speed with which the social media community evolves. Moreover, while technologically savvy and capable, these agencies still lag in terms of their “multilingual” skills, cultural competence, and ability to be present on all forms of social media. Additionally, these agencies face considerable budget constraints, which further complicate their efforts to expand their presence across the aforementioned platforms, increase social media literacy among their communication workforces, and improve public uptake of key messages.

Scenario Organization & Use: This scenario was designed to illustrate the public health risk communication challenges associated with distribution of emergency medical countermeasures during an infectious disease pandemic. The story is organized chronologically, and each chapter concludes with a treatment of key communication dilemmas and corresponding discussion questions.

Some questions are targeted towards challenges faced by risk communicators representing federal agencies, while others address issues more relevant to state and local risk communicators. As such, users may find it most helpful to run the scenario as a tabletop exercise.

*

This reads like the blueprint for a medical tyranny. The paper is meant for “health providers”, Government officials, and politicians, as well as and especially for the media, who are to keep the public-at-large in-check and brainwashed with the right narrative. The paper doesn’t miss the opportunity to bring elements of “dynamics” into each one of the scenarios. In other words, nothing may happen as planned, what to do then?

This paper is utterly confusing and disturbing. If it’s supposed to be secret and destined for those who are to control us, and has been written for a number of scenarios of a fictitious corona virus disease, SPARS, very similar to the one that has affected China in 2002-2004, and is affecting the world today, since the beginning of 2020, SARS-CoV-2, alias Covid-19 the disease – then why is the paper surfacing now? – In principle for everyone to see. But to see what? – To see that what we are living today is a later version of the SPARS fiction, namely the Event 201 fiction?

According to a satanic ritual – the masters behind such ceremonies must inform the public in advance of what their plans are, in order for them to succeed. Event 201, in theory, supersedes the SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028. Unless, the three key objectives of the pandemic are not on track to be met by mid-decade 2020-2030, and need to be enhanced – by a “better organized” public relation and political manipulation strategy…. which has to be divulged to the public in advance.

In this case, this paper has hardly been written in October 2017, but is rather the “catch-up” work of now, mid-lockstep scenario – made public to introduce the next scenario which the 2010 Rockefeller Report calls “Clever Together” and describes as “A world in which highly coordinated and successful strategies emerge for addressing both urgent and entrenched worldwide issues.”. This may be interpreted as the “smart” scenario – the rolling out of full digitization of everything, from personal records, to brainwave reading and mind control, to money – to merging the biological man with the digital man – the becoming of transhumans. See the 2010 Rockefeller Report here.

Back to the beginning. Klaus Schwab’s and his cronies’ dream – and humanity’s nightmare:

“At the end, what the 4^th Industrial Revolution will lead to is a fusion of our physical, our digital and our biological identities.”

This shall not happen. We can and must stop it NOW. Any complacency is a step closer to doomsday – to a digital and mental Armageddon – which we have the power to avoid, if we wake up and ascend to a consciousness of self-reliance and of integrity with nature and to the spiritual meaning of life in solidarity that flows from her, from Mother Earth.

*

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.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)

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

All Global Research articles 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 survey by Drone Wars has begun the process of mapping the involvement of information technology corporations in military artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics programmes, an area of rapidly increasing focus for the military.  ‘Global Britain in a Competitive Age’, the recently published integrated review of security, defence, development, and foreign policy, highlighted the key roles that new military technologies will play in the government’s vision for the future of the armed forces and aspirations for the UK to become a “science superpower”.

Although the integrated review promised large amounts of public funding and support for research in these areas, co-operation from the technology sector will be essential in delivering ‘ready to use’ equipment and systems to the military.  Senior military figures are aware that ‘Silicon Valley’ is taking the lead in  the development of autonomous systems for both civil and military use’. Speaking at a NATO-organised conference aimed at fostering links between the armed forces and the private sector, General Sir Chris Deverell, the former Commander of Joint Forces Command explained:

“The days of the military leading scientific and technological research and development have gone. The private sector is innovating at a blistering pace and it is important that we can look at developing trends and determine how they can be applied to defence and security”

The Ministry of Defence is actively cultivating technology sector partners to work on its behalf through schemes like the Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA). However, views on co-operation with the military by those within the commercial technology sector are mixed. Over the past couple of  years there are been regular reports of opposition by tech workers to their employer’s military contacts including those at Microsoft and Google. 

A small study conducted recently in the US by the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University suggests that artificial intelligence professionals hold differing views about working on Department of Defense (DOD)-funded AI projects. 39% of those surveyed reported being “neutral” with 38% perceiving it positively and 24% as a negative. Concerns about how DOD will use the technology and concerns about causing harm were the most common reasons not to work on DOD-funded AI projects. Respondents who felt positively about working on DOD-funded AI projects considered the ability to influence DOD’s work in this field to be an important benefit, and were more willing to work on DOD-funded AI projects with humanitarian applications, as opposed to battlefield or back-office applications.

The iWars survey takes an overview of the UK’s information technology and robotics sector, with the aim of identifying companies in the sector on which the government will have to rely if it is to achieve its goal of automating the armed forces.  The results are published in the form of a spreadsheet outlining the specific areas of expertise of each company and an indication of its involvement to date in the development and sale of technology intended for security and military purposes.

The spreadsheet gives summary information for 70 companies in the UK tech sector and the extent of their involvement in the development of military technology.  A further 100 companies based in the US, other NATO or allied countries from which the UK may wish to purchase services or equipment are also covered in the spreadsheet, but in less detail than UK-based companies.  Although not comprehensive, the survey looks at a wide range of companies in the sector – ranging from long established military contractors through to newcomers which have taken clear ethical positions against the use of their products for military purposes. Companies based in nations which the UK military considers to be its rivals, such as China and Russia, have not been included.

The iWars Survey has allowed us to identify a number of trends within the information technology sector.

• Military applications of robotics, autonomous systems, and artificial intelligence are of great interest to both traditional arms and weaponry manufacturing companies and companies in the information technology (IT) sector.  Almost all military equipment contractors are to a certain extent involved in manufacturing automated and / or AI products, or upgrading their product lines to incorporate robotic and AI technology.  In the case of the IT sector there is across-the board involvement ranging from long-established traditional giants in the IT sector such as IBM, the Big Five internet companies (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft), through medium-sized companies and on to small start-ups and specialist niche companies.

• Among the large companies in the IT sector, most are willing to undertake military and national security work and have a number of national security projects in their portfolios, although these may only be a small portion of their overall revenue. For example, among the Big Five internet companies, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are co-contractors in the CIA’s Commercial Cloud Enterprise project.  Google’s software was used in the US DOD’s controversial ‘Project Maven’ algorithmic warfare programme until staff concerns forced the company to withdraw from the programme, and Google is involved in various AI projects led by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).  Microsoft has been awarded the US Department of Defense’s Joint Enterprise Defence Infrastructure cloud computing contract.

• However, a few of the largest players (for example Apple) apparently have little interest in military or national security contracts. On the other hand, some newer but growing AI companies are unambiguous about wanting to use their products exclusively for military purposes – for example Palantir (which has picked up Google’s work on Project Maven) and Anduril in the USA, and Adarga in the UK.

• As well as including businesses active in the artificial intelligence (AI), software development, and robotics sector, the spreadsheet lists businesses working on computer hardware development, military electronics and communications, and sensors.  These are all important in the develop of military autonomous systems and there is often considerable overlap between these various elements in the business portfolio of larger companies.

• Partnerships on military robotic systems and AI are common, both between arms companies and IT companies and within the IT sector.  “We see these smaller companies who don’t have their own computational resources licensing them from those who do, whether it be Anduril with Google or Palantir with Amazon”, said Meredith Whittaker, a former Google AI researcher.

• Many traditional defence companies have established their own AI / information technology subsidiary companies or operating divisions to undertake work in these fields (for example General Dynamics Information Technology, BAE Systems Applied Intelligence).  There is often a ‘blurring’ of disciplines within companies, for example a company such as MBDA which manufactures guided missiles will develop sensors and software for target identification / fire control purposes as part of the overall missile system.

• The military technology sector remains fairly fluid and there has been an ongoing trend of mergers and consolidations over many years among the larger players in the sector.  For example, United Technologies Corporation and Raytheon Corporation announced a merger in 2019 to form Raytheon Technologies and in the same year L3 Technologies and Harris Corporation merged to form L3Harris Technologies.

• A number of the companies listed in the spreadsheet are playing an important enabling role in driving forward investment in this area, as well as shaping political opinion and government policy on artificial intelligence and robotics.  Multinational consultancy companies such as Deloitte (represented on the Advisory Board of the All-Party Parliament Group on Artificial Intelligence) and Accenture (heavily involved in the UK government’s Alan Turing Institute for AI Research) are notable examples.  However, smaller and more specialist companies are also involved, for example Rebellion Defence, which funds the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Technology and National Security.

• Virtually all software development companies have an interest and involvement in cyber security, by virtue of having to safeguard their own products, and many provide cyber security products and services to the government and military sectors, particularly among smaller specialist cyber security companies.

How to use the iWars Survey spreadsheet

• The iWars Survey spreadsheet gives an overview of the military  – and broader –  information technology sector as represented in the UK.  Information is accurate as of February 2021.
• The spreadsheet consists of three pages:

1. Entries for UK technology sector companies.
2. Entries for other ‘Western’ companies (mainly US based) who are important in the sector. This list does not include any Chinese or Russian companies, which are beyond the scope of the study.
3. A list of tags categorising various areas of activity for the various companies in the spreadsheet. Each company listed in pages 1 and 2 of the spreadsheet is categorised by up to three tags to broadly indicating its most important and relevant areas of business.  In the case of larger companies, activities may cover a wider range of areas than is shown.

• The lists in pages 1 and 2 of the spreadsheet are far from comprehensive, but include the main players in the technology sector with an interest to the UK Ministry of Defence and a representative selection across the broader sector.  Companies listed were identified on the basis of reports in daily military sector news briefings and news stories on IT and computing in the broader media.
• The first column on these pages is colour-coded to give a rough indication of the extent of involvement each company has in the military sector:

Red: Established presence representing a substantial element of business.

Amber: The company undertakes work in the sector but only to a limited extent.

Green: No known military involvement.

*

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

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

***

Joe Biden had announced it in his electoral program: “While President Trump has abandoned allies and partners, and abdicated American leadership, as president I will immediately take steps to renew the alliances of the United States, and ensure that America, one more time, lead the world “( il manifesto, 10 November 2020). He kept his promise. The aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower and his battle group, made up of 5 missile launchers, “attacked Islamic State positions in Syria and Iraq from the Eastern Mediterranean” since this “claimed responsibility for an attack on Palma in Mozambique”. The US Navy officially announced this on March 31, without explaining how ISIS, defeated in Syria and elsewhere especially following the Russian intervention, now reappears threateningly with suspicious punctuality.

After launching the attack from the Eastern Mediterranean – an area of the United States European Command naval forces, with its headquarters in Naples-Capodichino – the aircraft carrier Eisenhower crossed the newly reopened Suez Canal on April 2, entering the US Central Command area that includes the Persian Gulf. Here she joined tthe French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle that, at Washington’s request, assumed the command of the US Task Force 50 on March 31. It is not deployed against Isis but in reality, against Iran.

The fact that Washington asked Paris to lead a US naval force with its flagship falls within the policy of the Biden Presidency, which still maintains control of the command chain, as Task Force 50 depends on the US Central Command.

This is confirmed by the Warfighter exercise which, planned by the US Army, is being carried out from April 6 to April 15 2021 by US, French, and British divisions at Fort Hood and Fort Bliss in Texas, at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, and at Grafen-woehr in Germany. In this exercise, French and British brigades will operate within a US division, while US brigades will operate within French and British divisions, but always according to the US plan. The Warfighter integrates the large ongoing exercise Defender-Europe 21, which the US Army in Europe and Africa carries out until June together with European and African allies and partners, to demonstrate “the ability of the United States to be strategic partners in the Balkans and in the Black Sea, in the Caucasus, in Ukraine and Africa ».

The US Army V Corps, just reactivated at Fort Knox (Kentucky) participates in Defender-Europe 21, has established its command headquarters in Poznan (Poland), from where it commands operations against Russia. On March 31, at the request of the United States, Polish general Adam Joks was appointed US Army V Corps Deputy Commander. “It is the first time – reports the US Embassy in Warsaw – that a Polish general has entered the Military Command structure of the United States”. In other words, General Adam Joks continues to be part of the Polish army but, as deputy commander of the US V Corps, is now directly dependent on the command chain headed by the President of the United States.

The new security forces assistance brigades, special US Army units, that “organize, train, equip and advise foreign security forces” fall within the same policy. They are engaged “in support of a legitimate government authority” in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe, currently in the Defender-Europe framework. They are an effective tool for launching de facto military operations under US command with the “assistance” cover. This explains why, after a relative respite, the Ukrainian chief of staff, Ruslan Khomchak, declared on April 1 that the Kiev army “is preparing for the offensive in Eastern Ukraine”, that is, against Donbas Russian population, also using «territorial defense forces» (such as the neo-Nazi Regiment Azov), and in this operation «the participation of NATO allies is envisaged».

*

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 in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

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

***

Ken Moll is girding for battle.

Moll, a Chicago-based personal injury attorney, has dozens of lawsuits pending against the former Monsanto Co., all alleging the company’s Roundup weed killers cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and he is now preparing several of those cases for trial.

Moll’s firm is one of a handful that have refused settlement offers made by Monsanto owner Bayer AG, deciding instead to take the fight over the safety of Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide products back into courtrooms around the country.

Though Bayer has assured investors it is bringing closure to the costly Roundup litigation through settlement deals totaling more than $11 billion, new Roundup cases are still being filed, and notably several are positioned for trial, with the earliest set to start in July.

“We’re going forward,” Moll said. “We’re doing this.”

Moll has lined up many of the same expert witnesses who helped win the three Roundup trials held to date. And he plans to rely heavily on the same internal Monsanto documents that provided shocking revelations of corporate misconduct that led juries to award hefty punitive damages to the plaintiffs in each of those trials.

Trial set for July 19

One case with a trial date looming involves a 70-year-old woman named Donnetta Stephens from Yucaipa, California who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in 2017 and has suffered from numerous health complications amid multiple rounds of chemotherapy. Stephens was recently granted a trial “preference,” meaning her case has been expedited, after her lawyers informed the court that Stephens is “in a perpetual state of pain,” and losing cognition and memory. The case is set for trial July 19 in San Bernardino County Superior Court in California.

Several other cases have either already been granted preference trial dates, or are seeking trial dates, for elderly people and at least one child suffering from NHL the plaintiffs allege was caused by exposure to Roundup products.

“The litigation is not over. It is going to be a continued headache for Bayer and Monsanto,” said Andrew Kirkendall, whose Texas-based firm is helping represent Stephens and other clients seeking speedy trials.

Kirkendall said his firm has lawsuits moving forward to trial in California, Oregon, Missouri, Arkansas and Massachusetts.

“This has the potential to be the next asbestos litigation,” he said, referring to decades of lawsuits brought over asbestos-related health problems.

Bayer rejection

Bayer bought Monsanto in June 2018 just as the first Roundup cancer trial was getting underway. Juries in each of the cases that went to trial found that Monsanto’s herbicides do cause cancer and that Monsanto spent decades hiding the risks. Jury awards totaled well over $2 billion, though the judgments have been ordered reduced in the appeals process.

After coming under intense pressure from investors to find a way to cap liability, Bayer announced in June that it had reached a $10 billion settlement to resolve most of more than 100,000 Roundup cancer claims in the United States. Since that time it has been signing deals with law firms around the country, including the firms that have led the litigation since the first suits were filed in 2015. The company is also trying to get court approval for a separate $2 billion plan to try to keep Roundup cancer cases that could be filed in the future from going to trial.

Bayer has been unable to settle with all of the firms with Roundup cancer clients, however. According to multiple plaintiffs’ attorneys, their firms rejected settlement offers because the amounts generally ranged from $10,000 to $50,000 per plaintiff – compensation the attorneys deemed inadequate.

“We said absolutely no,” Moll said.

Another law firm pushing cases forward for trial is the San Diego, California-based Singleton Law Firm, which has roughly 400 Roundup cases pending in Missouri and about 70 in California.

The firm is seeking an expedited trial now for 76-year-old Joseph Mignone, who was diagnosed with NHL in 2019. Mignone completed chemotherapy more than a year ago but also has endured radiation to treat a tumor on his neck, and continues to suffer debilitation, according to the court filing seeking trial preference.

Stories of suffering

There are many stories of suffering within the files of the plaintiffs who are still hoping to get their day in court against Monsanto.

• Retired FBI agent and college professor John Schafer began using Roundup in 1985 and used the herbicide multiple times during spring, fall and summer months until 2017, according to court records. He did not wear protective clothing until warned by a farmer friend in 2015 to wear gloves. He was diagnosed with NHL in 2018.

• Sixty-three year-old Randall Seidl applied Roundup over 24 years, including regularly spraying the product around his yard in San Antonio, Texas from approximately 2005 to 2010 and then around property in North Carolina until 2014 when he was diagnosed with NHL, according to court records.

• Robert Karman applied Roundup products beginning in 1980, generally using a hand-held sprayer to treat weeds on a weekly basis roughly 40 weeks a year, according to court records. Karman was diagnosed with NHL in July 2015 after his primary care doctor discovered a lump in his groin. Karman died in December of that year at the age of 77.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Gerald Singleton said Bayer’s only path to putting the Roundup litigation behind it is to put a clear warning label on its herbicide products, alerting users to the risk of cancer.

“That is the only way this thing is going to be over and done,” he said. Until then, he said, “we’re not going to stop taking cases.”

*

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: Yann Avril | Credit: Pixavril – stock.adobe.com

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

***

European regulators today said they found a “possible link” between AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine and “very rare” blood clots, but concluded the benefits of the vaccine still outweigh the risks.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) did not recommend restricting use of the vaccine based on age, gender or other risk factors, but did say cases of blood clotting after vaccination “should be” listed as a possible side effect, according to a statement issued today by the agency’s safety committee.

Today’s recommendations followed the agency’s review of 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and 24 cases of splanchnic vein thrombosis reported in the EU drug safety database (EudraVigilance) as of March 22. Eighteen of the cases were fatal.

“A plausible explanation for these rare side events is an immune response to the vaccine similar to one seen in patients treated with heparin,” said EMA’s executive director, Emer Cooke, noting that the condition is called heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

Regulators stressed that the benefits of the vaccine, which was shown to be 76% effective at preventing COVID in a large U.S.-based study, still outweigh its risks.

“This vaccine has proven to be highly effective to prevent severe disease and hospitalization,” said Cooke. “And it is saving lives.”

The EMA has commissioned more research to investigate the link between the vaccine and blood clots. Representatives of the agency’s safety committee said during the press briefing the EMA will impose various requirements on AstraZeneca for future research, including laboratory studies be conducted to better understand the effects of the vaccine on the clotting system.

AstraZeneca also will need to look at existing data from closed clinical trials to see if that gives an indication of blood clot risk factors and will need to conduct epidemiological studies to gather data on thrombosis, the EMA said.

The EMA said it is also looking carefully at the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) vaccine, as three cases of blood clots associated with low platelets, similar to those reported after AstraZeneca vaccines, have occurred and clinical trials noted, though did not confirm, one instance of thrombosis.

Similar to AstraZeneca, J&J uses a modified adenovirus vector as opposed to the mRNA technologyused in the Moderna and Pfizer’s COVID vaccines.

UK regulators also find link, recommend further study

The UK’s vaccine regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), also issued a press release today. The agency concluded the evidence of a link between AstraZeneca’s vaccine and blood clots is strong, but more research is needed.

MHRA is not currently recommending age use restrictions for the vaccine, despite identifying 79 reports of blood clotting cases with low levels of platelets and 19 deaths following the use of the AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine.

Eleven of the 19 deaths reported were in those under age 50 and three were under age 30, the MHRA said. All 79 cases occurred after the first dose of AstraZeneca.

The MHRA will issue updated guidance for healthcare professionals on how to minimize risks, as well as further advice on symptoms for vaccine recipients to look out for after vaccination but reiterated that “vaccines are the best way to protect people from COVID-19 and have already saved thousands of lives. Everyone should continue to get their vaccination when asked to do so unless specifically advised otherwise.”

Two senior sources at the MHRA told Channel 4 News that while data was still unclear, there were growing arguments to justify offering younger people under the age of 30 a different vaccine.

Though the MHRA and EMA did not recommend age restrictions for AstraZeneca’s vaccine, Britain’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization, which advises UK health departments on immunization, said today “where possible” the vaccine should not be given to adults under 30, The Washington Post reported.

“We are not advising a stop to any vaccination for any individual in any age group,” said Wei Shen Lim, who chairs the committee. “We are advising a preference for one vaccine over another vaccine for a particular age group, really out of the utmost caution rather than because we have any serious safety concerns.”

“This is a course correction, there’s no question about that,” Jonathan Van-Tam, England’s deputy chief medical officer, said during a press briefing. “But it is, in a sense, in medicine quite normal for physicians to alter their preferences for how patients are treated over time.”

On Tuesday, Oxford University paused its trial of more than 200 children aged 6 to 17 as a precautionary measure in response to investigations by the MHRA in the UK and EMA, a university spokesperson said.

The Oxford spokesperson added:

“While there are no safety concerns in the paediatric clinical trial, we await additional information from the MHRA on its review of rare cases of thrombosis/thrombocytopenia that have been reported in adults, before giving any further vaccinations in the trial.”

MHRA’s chief executive, Dr. June Raine, told CNN on Tuesday that the agency was “aware of the decision taken by the University of Oxford to pause dosing in the trial … whilst the MHRA safety review is ongoing.”

WHO yet to weigh in, as more deaths reported in Italy

According to UN News, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety is following briefings by the MHRA and EMA and will meet Wednesday to look at the data, with a conclusion expected later in the week.

The WHO currently holds the position that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine outweigh its risks and recommends that vaccinations continue.

As The Defender reported Tuesday, a senior official from the EMA told Italy’s Il Messaggero newspaper there was a “clear” link between the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID vaccine and a rare blood clotting syndrome — but hours later the EMA denied having already established a causal connection between the vaccine and blood clots.

In a statement Tuesday to Agence France-Presse, the EMA said it had “not yet reached a conclusion and the review is currently ongoing.”

On Monday, Italian publication il Giornale reported a 45-year-old lawyer near Messina suffered a brain hemorrhage after receiving the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine. Shortly after receiving his first inoculation, he began to feel sick, suffering from severe headaches, then suddenly deteriorated. He remains in serious condition in ICU.

The news came a day after reports of a 32-year-old teacher in Genoa died from a brain hemorrhage almost immediately following vaccination with AstraZeneca.

South Korea said Wednesday it will temporarily suspend AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine for people under age 60 amid European review, while approving Johnson & Johnson, Reuters reported.

As The Defender reported Tuesday, the Netherlands became the latest country to suspend AstraZeneca, joining Canada, Germany, France, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland who have either suspended or placed use restrictions on AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine.

Although AstraZeneca’s vaccine has been authorized for use in the EU, it has not yet received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the U.S., but plans to apply for EUA soon. If approved, AstraZeneca would become the fourth available vaccine in the U.S., joining Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson.

*

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