Global Research

For a long time I warned that our economic bubble would burst and that we would plunge into a nightmarish economic collapse.  Now it has happened, and it turns out that fear of COVID-19 was the “black swan event” that triggered the collapse.  The ironic thing is that COVID-19 is not even close to the worst thing that is going to happen to us.  But it was more than enough to topple our incredibly fragile economic system, and now tens of millions of Americans are deeply suffering.  On Friday, the April jobs report was released, and it was the worst jobs report in U.S. history by a very, very wide margin.  According to the official numbers, 20.5 million Americans lost their jobs during the month, and the unemployment rate shot up to 14.7 percent.  During the last recession, the unemployment rate peaked at about 10 percent, and we have already left that number in the dust.  The figures that we are seeing now are truly, truly horrifying, and what is even more frightening is that they aren’t even that accurate.

But don’t take my word for it.

On Friday, the U.S. Labor Department publicly admitted that the true unemployment rate in April was closer to 20 percent…

Millions of U.S. residents were counted as employed in April despite having no job, suggesting April’s true unemployment rate was closer to 20%, much higher than the official 14.7% reported, the Labor Department said Friday.

The jobless rate should have included people on temporary unpaid leave, furloughed because of the coronavirus pandemic, the government said.

I applaud the Labor Department for trying to be honest.  In the report, they openly admitted that an “additional 7.5 million workers” should have been classified as unemployed…

But responses to the survey by which the data was collected show 11.5 million people were categorized as employed but absent from work because of vacation, parental leave or other reasons, but including 8.1 million absent for “unspecified” reasons, a group that usually numbers about 620,000.

“One assumption might be that these additional 7.5 million workers …should have been classified as unemployed on temporary layoff,” a note attached to the government’s jobs report Friday said.

If those workers had been correctly classified, the official unemployment rate would have been about 19.5 percent, and that would have put us solidly in Great Depression territory.

But others have looked at the numbers and calculated that the true rate of unemployment should be even higher than that.

For example, Standard Chartered has calculated that the true rate of unemployment could be as high as 27.5 percent…

While it is true that what the BLS reported that the April unemployment rate (UR) was less than expected (14.7% versus consensus of 16.0%) and the drop in payroll employment of 20.5 million was also less than the 22.0 million expected, Standard Chartered bank has calculated that adjustments to the headline unemployment rate push the effective number of unemployed to 42 million and the effective UR rate to 25.5%, higher even than the U-6 underemployment rate of 22.8%. Worse, if one treats underemployed in line with the U-6 methodology, the true April unemployment number would rise to an mindblowing 27.5%.

So how did Standard Chartered arrive at those numbers?  The following is how Zero Hedge explained it…

How does one get these numbers? As the bank’s chief FX strategist Steve Englander explains, start with the 23.1 million unemployed as published by BLS. To this add 8.1mn people who have dropped out of the labor force since February (previously the labor force had been growing steadily, so these are likely unemployed).

Add back 7.5MM workers classified as ‘employed but not at work for other reasons’ – BLS states that these workers are likely misclassified as employed, when they are in fact unemployed. Involuntary part-time work for economic reasons has gone up by 6.6MM and we treat these as half-unemployed (i.e., a contribution of 3.3MM).

This totals almost 42 Million effectively unemployed.

And Standard Chartered is not the only one that has come up with such a high figure.

In fact, John Williams of shadowstats.com says that if honest numbers were being used that the U.S. unemployment rate would now be an eye-popping 35.4 percent.

Wow.

Of course everyone admits that things are really, really bad and that the numbers for next month are likely to be even worse.

If you can believe it, even White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett is admitting that the official unemployment rate is likely to surge above 20 percent in “May or June”…

White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett believes the unemployment rate could rise above 20% and the worst job losses would come in “May or June” because of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

When asked Sunday what the “bottom” of the country’s unemployment pain would be, Hassett, who advises the Trump administration on economic policy and is the former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, told CBS’s “Face the Nation,” “to get unemployment rates like the ones that we’re about to see … which I think will climb up toward 20% by next month, you have to really go back to the Great Depression to see that.”

And even once this pandemic fades, many of those jobs won’t be coming back.

Initially, many employers had anticipated that they would be bringing all of their employees back following a short, severe crisis.  But at this point reality is beginning to set in for many of them.

For example, a restaurant owner in Kentucky named Britney Ruby Miller has had to lower her expectations as this pandemic has dragged on…

In late March, Britney Ruby Miller, co-owner of a small chain of steakhouse restaurants, confidently proclaimed that once the viral outbreak had subsided, her company planned to recall all its laid-off workers.

Now? Miller would be thrilled to restore, by year’s end, three-quarters of the roughly 600 workers her company had to let go.

Yes, the state of Kentucky is starting to “reopen for business”, but for now her restaurants will “be limited to 33% of capacity” and there will be all sorts of other new expenses that Miller will be forced to deal with…

Yet business won’t be returning to what it was before. In Kentucky, the restaurants will be limited to 33% of capacity. They are putting six feet between tables in all their restaurants, thereby limiting seating. Miller estimates that the company’s revenue will plunge by half to three-quarters this year.

And expenses are rising because the company must buy face masks and other equipment for the workers it does recall and restock its food, drink, and equipment supplies.

There are very, very few restaurants that can be profitable under such circumstances.

Unless the state of Kentucky lifts those ridiculous restrictions, Miller may soon lose all of her restaurants and all of her employees may soon be permanently out of jobs.

Of course more layoff announcements just keep rolling in from all over America with each passing day.  The following examples come from the Wall Street Journal…

This past week, General Electric Co., Uber Technologies Inc. UBER 6.01% and Airbnb Inc. said they would lay off thousands of workers. MGM Resorts International MGM 4.42% warned that some of the 63,000 employees it has furloughed may be let go permanently starting in August. Aerospace supplier Raytheon Technologies Corp., RTX 2.91%  job-listings site Glassdoor and United Airlines Holdings Inc. UAL 11.74% also said in the past week that they had reduced jobs or planned to do so.

This is what an economic depression looks like, and it is going to be so incredibly painful.

And it is critical to understand that what we have experienced so far is just a warm-up act for the next chapters.

If you remember how bitter the last recession was, that should motivate you to take action to prepare for what is ahead, because this economic downturn is already even worse.

Yes, the months in front of us will be exceptionally challenging, but you can get through this.  Things may look really bleak, but for now you just need to keep hanging in there.

There will be life on the other side, but your future may end up looking far different than you originally anticipated.

*

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.

Michael Snyder is the publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, whose articles are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. He has written four books that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The End, Get Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters.

Not only are the coronavirus models being used by WHO and the most national health agencies based on highly dubious methodologies, and not only are the tests being used of wildly different quality, that only indirectly confirm antibodies of a possible COVID-19 illness. Now the actual designations of deaths related to coronavirus are being revealed to be equally problematic for a variety of reasons. It gives alarming food for thought as to the wisdom of deliberately putting most of the world’s people–and with it the world economy–into Gulag-style lockdown on the argument it is necessary to contain deaths and prevent overloading of hospital emergency services.

When we take a closer look at the definitions used in various countries for “death related to COVID-19” we get a far different picture of what is claimed to be the deadliest plague to threaten mankind since the 1918 “Spanish Flu.”

The USA and CDC definitions

Right now the USA is said to be the nation with far the largest number of COVID-19 deaths, as of this writing, with media reporting some 68,000 “Covid-19” deaths. Here is where it gets very dodgy. The Government agency responsible for making the cause of death tally for the country, the CDC, is making huge changes in how they count so-called novel coronavirus deaths.

As of May 5, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, the central agency recording cause of death nationwide, reported 39,910 COVID-19 deaths. A footnote defines this as “Deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19.” How a doctor makes the “presumed” judgment leaves huge latitude to the hospital and health professionals. Although the coronavirus tests are known to be subject to false results, CDC states that even where no tests have been made a doctor can “presume” COVID-19. Useful to note for perspective is the number of USA deaths recorded from all causes in the same period of February 1 through May 2, that was 751,953.

Now it gets more murky. The CDC posted this notice: “As of April 14, 2020, CDC case counts and death counts include both confirmed and probable cases and deaths.” From that time the number of so-called COVID-19 deaths in USA has exploded in an alarming manner it would appear. On that day, April 14, New York City’s coronavirus death toll was revised with a major 3,700 fatalities added, with the provision that the count now included “people who had never tested positive for the virus but were presumed to have it.” The CDC now defines confirmed as “confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19,” which as we noted elsewhere included tests of dubious precision, but at least tests. Then they define “probable” as “with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19.” Just a guess of the doctor in charge.

Now leaving aside the major discrepancy between the CDC headline COVID-19 deaths as of May 5 of 68,279 and their detailed total of 39,910 deaths for the same period, we find another problem. Hospitals and doctors are being told to list COVID-19 as cause of death even if, say, a patient age 83 with pre-existing diabetes or cardiac issues or pneumonia dies with or without COVID-19 tests. The CDC advises, “In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID cannot be made but is suspected or likely (e.g. the circumstances are compelling with a reasonable degree of certainty) it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as ‘probable’ or ‘presumed.’” This opens the door ridiculously wide for abuse of coronavirus death numbers in the United States.

A Big Money Incentive

A provision in the March 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, known as the CARES Act, gives a major incentive for hospitals in the US, most all of them private for-profit concerns, to deem newly-admitted patients as “presumed COVID-19.” By this simple method the hospital then qualifies for a substantially larger payment from the government Medicare insurance, the national insurance for those over 65. The word “presumed” is not scientific, not at all precise but very tempting for hospitals concerned about their income in this crisis.

Dr Summer McGhee, Dean of the School of Health Sciences at the University of New Haven, notes that,

“The CARES Act authorized a temporary 20 percent increase in reimbursements from Medicare for COVID-19 patients…” He added that, as a result, “hospitals that get a lot of COVID-19 patients also get extra money from the government.”

Then, according to a Minnesota medical doctor, Scott Jensen, also a State Senator, if that COVID-19 designated patient is put on a ventilator, even if only presumed to have COVID-19, the hospital can get reimbursed three times the sum from the Medicare. Dr Jensen told a national TV interviewer,

“Right now Medicare is determining that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you get $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator you get $39,000, three times as much.”

Little wonder that states such as Massachusetts suddenly began backdating cause of death totals back to March 30, significantly inflating COVID death numbers, or that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo began demanding 30,000 ventilators and emergency equipment around the same early April time, equipment that was not needed.

In short, the COVID-19 death statistics in the USA are highly dubious for a variety of reasons, not least huge financial incentives to hospital administrators who had been told to cancel all other operations to make extra room for a predicted flood of coronavirus ill. That rising death toll said to be “COVID-19 or presumed” impacts the decisions to lock down the economy and in effect create an economic pandemic of unparalleled dimension.

Italy COVID deaths?

Not only are USA COVID-19 death numbers open to serious question. If we look closely most major countries have equally dubious data. Until recently one of the highest COVID-19 death rates in the EU was Italy where outbreaks have been concentrated in the Lombardy and adjacent regions of the industrial north. Here again the definition of cause of death has been fuzzy. A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association by a group of Italian doctors who analyzed the alarming high covid-19 figures pointed out that when state medical authorities made detailed case examination of a sample of 355 covid-19 “presumed” deaths, they found that the mean age was 79.5 years. “In this sample, 117 patients (30%) had ischemic heart disease, 126 (35.5%) had diabetes, 72 (20.3%) had active cancer, 87 (24.5%) had atrial fibrillation, 24 (6.8%) had dementia, and 34 (9.6%) had a history of stroke. The mean number of preexisting diseases was 2.7. Overall, only 3 patients (0.8%) had no diseases.” That means that of the sample 99.2% had other serious illnesses.

In Italy, the persons who tested positive for COVID-19, regardless of preexisting serious illness, were listed as COVID-19 fatalities. Italy has the EU’S oldest population on average and the worst air pollution in the EU, especially in the Lombardy region. From the first case in early February until 6 May Italy has declared 29,315 COVID-19 deaths. This is more than the total of deaths in 2017 attributed to influenza and/or pneumonia which was reported 25,000.

The reason for the apparent spike should be seriously investigated, but reports of panic among hospital workers over the shutdown declaration by the Conte government, with thousands reportedly fleeing Italy for their home countries in Poland or elsewhere, might have also played a role. On March 31 a report from northern Italy stated, “In recent weeks, most of the Eastern European nurses who worked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week supporting people in need of care in Italy have left the country in a hurry. This is not least because of the panic-mongering and the curfews and border closures threatened by the ‘emergency governments.’“

In many countries the picture is one of a predominately mild influenza-like infection with comparable death rates. The lack of uniformly agreed tests and the inaccuracies of many tests used, as well as the extremely doubtful criteria for declaring a cause of death as being “from” COVID-19 suggest that it is well past time to reexamine the unprecedented lockdown measures, social distancing, possible mandatory vaccines of unproven effect, all of which are creating what is becoming the worst economic depression since the 1930’s.

*

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

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

Featured image is from NEO

---

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2

Year: 2007

Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

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

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

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

Social Security and Medicare are insurance programs, not welfare — funded by equal worker-employer payroll tax deductions.

Self-employed workers pay what’s called the Self Employment Contributions Act (SECA) tax.

Both programs are federally established contractual obligations to eligible recipients, the most essential of all US social justice programs, along with Medicaid for disadvantaged Americans unable to receive medical care when needed any other way.

Established on August 14, 1935, the landmark Social Security Act became law during the depths of the Great Depression.

Known as the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program (OASDI), it provides retirement, disability, survivorship, and death benefits to seniors and other eligible recipients.

Despite phony claims otherwise, it’s not going bankrupt. When properly administered, it’s sound and secure, needing only modest adjustments at times to assure it.

On July 30, 1965, Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Social Security (Medicare) Act, enrolling Harry and Bess Truman as its first recipients.

Medicare is the nation’s largest health insurance program, covering 68 million Americans — about one-fifth of the US population, others on their own for increasingly unaffordable coverage.

It’s why tens of millions are uninsured, most others way underinsured in the world’s richest country, the only developed one without some form of universal coverage, a fundamental human right ignored by both right wings of the one-party state.

The program is for US seniors and individuals of all ages with end-stage renal disease (permanent kidney failure treated with dialysis or a transplant).

Trump regime hardliners and likeminded congressional members want both programs eliminated by starving them of funding.

Claiming it’s needed to reduce the growing national debt ignores countless trillions of dollars poured down a black hole of waste, fraud and abuse for militarism, the Pentagon’s empire of bases, endless wars, and lavish handouts to Wall Street and other corporate favorites.

On May 4, Social Security Works.org denounced the Trump regime’s diabolical aim to kill Social Security by underfunding it.

The same goes for killing Medicare — Medicaid to follow if GOP and undemocratic Dem hardliners get their way.

They want maximum federal funds going for smashing nations, homeland police state control, and more greatly enriching US billionaires, millionaires, and corporate America — at the expense of world peace, equity, social justice, and the rule of law, notions they abhor.

A press release by Social Security Works president Nancy Altman responded to Trump, saying:

“We’re not doing anything (for ordinary Americans in need) without a payroll tax cut” that’s all about wanting a stake plunged through the heart of Social Security and Medicare as a step toward killing both programs — Altman explaining the following:

“More than 30 million Americans are newly unemployed due to the coronavirus pandemic.”

“Their paychecks are gone, but their rent, utility, grocery bills and other expenses still must be paid.”

“Seniors in nursing homes are dying at alarming rates.”

“Hospitals are desperate, as are state and local governments.”

“Americans everywhere need immediate assistance, but Donald Trump has now vowed that they won’t get any — unless Congress bows to his demand to cut” payroll taxes.

In March, Trump said if reelected “(w)e’ll be cutting” worker/employer funded Social Security and Medicare insurance programs he falsely called entitlements.

Badly needed help for growing millions of unemployed Americans is held hostage by Trump’s unacceptable demand to cut payroll taxes.

Altman: “Trump’s actions are a war on seniors. He wants to open up the economy, even though COVID-19 is disproportionately costing seniors their lives.”

“Now he is insisting on threatening Social Security (and Medicare) which most seniors rely for their food, medicine, and other basic necessities.”

During the 1930s Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt and Congress created Social Security.

In the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson and congressional members established Medicare.

As a recipient of both programs, I and other seniors like myself understand their importance.

What FDR, LBJ, and Congress created long ago, Trump and other hardliners infesting Washington want destroyed.

These programs and other social ones need strengthening, not elimination.

Reelecting Trump and a GOP-dominated Congress may be their demise.

By no means am I endorsing undemocratic Dems, far from it.

The nation I grew up in long ago no longer exists, just a distant memory of a time when a youth like myself with nothing special going for me had opportunities unavailable to most young people today.

With things more likely to worsen for ordinary people in the US ahead, not improve, an appropriate epitaph for the nation might read:

Here lies the American dream, dead, buried and gone, replaced by a society unsafe and unfit to live in for the vast majority of its people.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

A University of Pennsylvania Wharton School model isn’t encouraging.

Its analysis is world’s apart from what the Trump regime suggests.

Wharton warned that if US lockdowns are lifted nationwide, businesses reopen, and pre-COVID-19 activities resume, eight million cases and 350,000 deaths could occur by end of June — what it called a worst-case scenario.

If partial reopenings occur, the Wharton model estimates around 3.2 million cases by June 30, 2.2 million if lockdowns and social distancing continue.

Through Saturday, the US had 1,334,000 reported COVID-19 cases and over 79,000 deaths nationwide.

Economically, Wharton estimates an 11.6% decline in US GDP through June if lockdowns continue, a 10.7 drop if they’re partially lifted, a 10.1% decline if full reopenings occur nationwide.

Because of Trump regime indifference toward public health, little aid provided to states, inadequate testing, and reports of false diagnoses, it’s unclear how widespread COVID-19 outbreaks and deaths are at this time.

They may be much higher or lower than official numbers, making it hard to assess the true severity of the problem, let alone to what extent it may be long-lasting.

Wharton Professor Kent Smetters warned that if states fully reopen, a worst-case scenario would be likely, “using currently available models.”

The Wharton model predicts around 160,000 US deaths through June if partial reopenings and social distancing continue.

Its best case scenario estimates around 115,000 US deaths by June 30.

It’s clear that the SARS CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome) virus that produces COVID-19 disease is highly contagious.

It disproportionately affects the elderly, obese, and individuals with weakened immune systems.

The Mayo Clinic believes continued social distancing may “become inevitable” — at least during cold weather months because “many respiratory viruses circulat(e)” in winter, notably seasonal flu/influenza.

Contact tracing is more complex, near-impossible if lockdowns end and people resume normal public activities.

According to findings of a study just published in Infection, Genetics and Evolution, scientists discovered around 200 SARS-CoV-2 mutations — meaning a combination of drug therapies may be needed to treat infected patients.

Co-study author Professor Francois Balloux said the following:

“So far we cannot say whether SARS-CoV-2 is becoming more or less lethal and contagious” because of its numerous mutations.

“A major challenge to defeat viruses is that (treatments developed) might no longer be effective if the virus has mutated.”

“If we focus our efforts on parts of the virus that are less likely to mutate, we have a better chance of developing drugs that will be effective in the long run.”

Economic collapse is far more devastating to the vast majority of Americans and others abroad than spreading COVID-19 infections.

The effects of the former will be long-lasting. Hundreds of thousands of shut down small business may never reopen, millions of jobs permanently lost.

Many states and cities furloughed large numbers of public employees because of lost income and sales tax revenues that won’t be recouped for some time, maybe years.

Around half of US household members are either unemployed or working fewer hours for poverty wages and few or no benefits.

World’s richest America is a nation of countless millions of food insecure people nationwide, tens of millions without health insurance.

Current dire economic conditions way exceed the worst of Great Depression years for most ordinary Americans at a time when the nation’s ruling authorities and majority of lawmakers are indifferent toward public health and welfare.

The America I grew up in long ago no longer exists.

It’s the wrong time to be young and/or poor and disadvantaged in the United States of I Don’t Care!

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Morning Star

Big Pharma and its minions such as Anthony Fauci and Robert Redfield are determined to use Covid-19 to vaccinate us all at the expense our lives and pocketbooks.  They are using the media, grant-dependent professionals,  medical journals, and the presstitute media to conduct a campaign of disinformation about an inexpensive and successful treatment in order to pave the way for a likely unsuccessful, possibly dangerous, but very profitable vaccine.

The successful treatment is hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin and zinc. Hydroxychlorquine has been used for decades to treat malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis and has a decades long record of safety.  Despite its record of safe useage, Big Pharma and its hired hands have concocted a disinformation story that if you take it you will have a heart attack.  As Trump endorsed hydroxychloroquine, everyone who is against Trump for other reasons has picked up Big Pharma’s line as it is another avenue toward the goal of discrediting Trump.

The fact of the matter is that medical doctors involved with Covid-19 treatment report highly successful results with hydroxychloroquine.  I have posted a number of reports in which doctors and renowned scientists report the effectiveness and general safety of hydroxychloroquine.

See, for example: this and this.

The reported success of vitamin C in the treatment of Covid-19 is also subjected to disinformation by Big Pharma and its minions. 

The obvious disinformation campaign against successful and inexpensive treatments of Covid-19 has led many to the conclusion that the Covid-19 “pandemic was pre-planned from the beginning” (see this for example).

Whether pre-planned or not, Big Pharma and Bill Gates intend to cash in big time with a Covid-19 vaccine.  In effect, Big Pharma and Bill Gates and their associated scum are murderers.  They are killing people with their campaign against effective and affordable treatment.

This might strike some gullible people who trust the system as an excessive accusation, but Big Pharma has long made it clear that profit comes before life.  Dr. Peter C. Gotzsche, professor of clinical research, director of the Nordic Cochrane Center, and chief physician of Rigshospitalet and the University of Copenhagen has documented that Big Pharma’s “medicines” are the third largest killer after heart disease and cancer (see this).

We have been sold on vaccines in the face of evidence of the harm they do to some people and  the fact that they are used despite an imperfect understanding of the human immune system.  Moreover, coronaviruses are not of a class that permits effective vaccines.

But we are going to get one whether or not it is effective and whether or not we want to be vaccinated. Bill Gates is working to make sure vaccination is mandatory for all. Otherwise you cannot leave your home or your FEMA containment center. Money is pouring not into known effective treatment but into vaccine research as companies and countries race for a patent.  Bill Sardi reports that Chicago has “already purchased the syringes and spotted locations for vaccination stations” (see this).

Americans need to come to grips with how money has corrupted everything. So many of the people and institutions we formerly relied on to speak truthfully are now dependent  on grants from corporations, government agencies, and self-interested donors with agendas that truth is the casualty.  Yes, scientists will now lie for money.  Universities will produce “studies” that advance the donor’s agenda. Physicists dependent on Washington’s grants will hold their tongues when presented with obviously false claims such as massively constructed steel buildings built to withstand airliner collision collapsing into dust because of isolated low temperature fires and strikes by flimsy aluminum airplanes.  

There are a number of ways that studies can be designed to produce a conclusion that a specific treatment is or is not effective.  Consider hydroxychloroquine.  A study can get poor results from this treatment by using it as a late stage treatment when Covid-19 has advanced beyond treatment.  This appears to be the case with the New England Journal of Medicine report that “hydroxychloroquine use was not associated with a significantly higher or lower risk of intubation or death” (see this).

Like any disease, successful treatment needs to begin early, not at a late stage.  The many doctors who report success with hydroxychloroquine stress that the treatment should begin early and not be used only as a last resort.  It turns out that the NEJM study was funded by the National Institute of Health, a Big Pharma influenced organization that is hostile to a cure as opposed to a vaccine.  It is also curious that the article, “Observational Study of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19,” was quickly published in a few weeks instead of the usual lengthy time required to clear the peer-reviewed process.  And it is also curious that many were primed to use the study to discredit hydroxychloroquine despite the inconclusive study.

A corrupt establishment and media that can sell us 9/11, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Iranian nukes, Assad’s use of chemical weapons, a Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russiagate and a large number of other lies can also sell us on locking up a successful treatment in the closet while we await a vaccine.

Many decades ago George Stigler at the University of Chicago said that the trouble with regulation is that all regulatory agencies end up captured by the businesses they are tasked with regulating.  Thus we see that the EPA is in the hands of polluters, bank regulation is in the hands of bankers, telecommunication regulations—5G for example—is in the hands of tech companies who stand to profit, and approval of new medicines is in the hands of Big Pharma as is the curriculum in medical schools. Doctors are trained to connect symptoms with tests and when confirmed by a test, the doctor looks up online the specified Big Pharma treatment.

My generation grew up without vaccines and without all of the associated illnesses associated with vaccines among the over-vaccinated youth of today. Today vaccinations begin at birth and increase into high numbers.  Does the natural immune system ever develop?

That is an irrelevant question.  The driving force behind vaccination is profit, not health. If we want a health system instead of a death system, Big Pharma must be nationalized and run by scientists on salaries without patent rights and “performance bonuses.”

*

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

May 8 marks the 75th anniversary of the Allied armies’ victory in Europe, the day when they accepted the formal surrender of Nazi Germany after a bitter, six-year-long struggle that saw tens of millions killed in fighting, famines or exterminated in death camps. While many novel socially-distanced celebrations across the world are going on, some large corporations are laying low in the knowledge that they actively collaborated with and helped Hitler’s war machine.

Standard Oil, a huge monolith now split up into a myriad of smaller ones, including Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, and Marathon, was crucial to both prolonging and intensifying the bloodiest conflict in human history. In the 1930s and 1940s, only the United States and Venezuela produced large quantities of oil. Starved of the substance, Germany was almost completely dependent on imports from the Western hemisphere, which Standard Oil dominated. Even after the United States declared war on Germany, it continued to use a great array of tricks to fuel Germany’s war effort, quietly filling up German tankers in the Spanish Canary Islands who would then transport the crucial liquid to German ports. Indeed, one historian quipped that

“Without the explicit help of Standard Oil, the Nazi air force would never have gotten off the ground in the first place.”

The American business community was deeply impressed by Hitler. Wall Street executive Prescott Bush (the father and grandfather of two presidents) aided Hitler’s rise and even organized a failed coup to overthrow President Roosevelt and install German-style fascism in the United States. Chase Bank performed a number of key duties for the Nazis, including accepting, laundering and converting their money into foreign currency. In 1945, they were placed on trial in a federal court for violation of the Trading with the Enemy Act. And if there is one thing Henry Ford is known for besides his cars, it is his antisemitism. Ford himself received a medal from Hitler in 1938 and profiteered from both sides during the war, manufacturing vehicles for both the Allies and the Nazis. The company is also widely accused of knowingly using slave labor in its German plants. In 2000, Food giant Nestle paid out over $14 million to survivors for the same practice.

German Fanta ads circa the 1940s

Despite being an iconic American brand, Coca-Cola was also intimately intertwined with fascism, conducting years-long publicity campaigns associating itself with Nazism and the Hitler Youth. As a result, between 1933 and 1939, the company’s sales in Germany rocketed 4,400 percent. As Coke syrup shipments dried up during the war, the company created a new drink for the German market that still exists to this day: Fanta.

Perhaps New York-based tech company IBM has the most infamous connection to the Nazis, however. Through their subsidiary, Dehomag, the company supplied Hitler with new technology to identify undesirable classes of people and to facilitate their transport to extermination camps. IBM made huge profits designing and manufacturing a system of punch cards that allowed officials to search through databases to identify individuals for extermination, expanding their business as the Holocaust accelerated.

While many corporations are keen for the day to be over, other groups want the public to remember their particular version of events. The U.K. Foreign Office, for example, released a video where Russia’s role in bringing about the end of the war was barely to be seen. NATO’s Joint Force Commander in Naples, Admiral James Foggo, also described the brave Allied forces engaged in combat in North Africa, Normandy and Italy, but appeared to make a point of not mentioning any of the far larger battles that raged on the Eastern Front, between Soviet and Axis forces. Meanwhile, NATO-linked think tank the Atlantic Council used the occasion to accuse Putin of hijacking V-E Day to push Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union comprised 80 percent of German casualties, with the current Russian government estimating their own total losses at 26.6 million people. In contrast, the U.S. did not enter the European area in any serious numbers until well after the tide had been turned, the Soviets driving Axis forces back hundreds of miles out of Russia and Ukraine by 1944. However, decades of propaganda have got people to forget these inconvenient facts; by 2015, only 11 percent of Americans and 15 percent of Britons answered the U.S.S.R. when asked which country contributed most to the defeat of Hitler.

Lest we forget, remembrance is always political. There are some who would prefer we remember certain particular aspects of events. There are others who would prefer we forgot altogether.

*

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 a 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. He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary.

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook in July 2015.

On February 2nd, 1943, the 6th German Army, under the command of Field Marshall Von Paulus, and elements of the 4th Panzer Army, surrendered to the Red Army at Stalingrad. This stunning victory is considered the turning point in the war in Europe, heralding the defeat of fascist Germany.

That defeat came on May 2ndth 1945, when the German forces in Berlin, the capital of the Third Reich, surrendered to the forces of the Red Army that had captured the city. On May 9th the official act of surrender of the German government and military forces took place in Berlin when the Germans surrendered to the Soviet commander, Marshal Zhukov, a surrender witnessed by representatives of the American, British and French forces. This was the end of the war in Europe.

Surrenders of elements of the German armies in the Italy and Austria on May 2nd and German forces in northern Europe, on May 7th, at first claimed by the western allies to be the official surrender of Germany, were not recognised as such by the Soviet government, since they were in violation of the agreement of the European Advisory Committee of the three Big Powers, that was finalised in March, 1944. That agreement required that the surrender would be one event, would be of the German government itself, not just of army elements in impossible positions, and was to take place at the seat of government from which German aggression had been launched, Berlin.

The western allies had no choice but to agree, and to regard the May 9th ceremony as the official act of surrender of the German government. But it was clear even then that the western allies had tried to arrange a separate peace with the Germans while the Soviets were still fighting and it was made very clear that the Americans and British wanted to steal the show from the Russians. Now 70 years later, the propaganda machine in the west once again claims that the earlier date was the end of the war in Europe.

It is well to remember the significance of this attempt by the Americans and British to conclude a separate peace with the Nazis, while Soviet forces were still engaged in the fierce Battle of Berlin and what a betrayal it was of the promised solidarity between the nations fighting against fascist aggression to which the Soviet forces at Stalingrad had dealt the fatal blow.

During one of his fireside chats on American radio on July 28, 1943, American President Roosevelt said,

“The world has never seen greater devotion, determination and self-sacrifice than have been displayed by the Russian people…under the leadership of Marshal Joseph Stalin. With a nation, that in saving itself, is thereby helping to save all the world from the Nazi menace, this country of ours should always be glad to be a good neighbour and a sincere friend to the world of the future.”

Fine words, and true, but where is the good neighbour now?

Instead of international solidarity between the victors and recognition of the sacrifice of the Russian people that Roosevelt praised, the NATO countries now refuse to attend the Moscow Victory Parade commemorating the defeat of Nazi Germany. But why do they insult the one nation that suffered the most, sacrificed the most, fought the hardest and won the greatest victories against the fascists? Is it really about Ukraine? The answer is simply that they see the defeat of fascist Germany not as a victory over fascism but as a failure of the western attempt to crush Russia.

We must also remember that NATO includes the occupied German state whose forces attacked the Soviet Union on June 22nd 1941, a state that still has no sovereignty and is still occupied by American forces two decades after Russian forces left, and whose leaders, now revealed as permitting American intelligence to spy on German companies for economic advantage, are evidently in the pocket of the American government.

It includes Britain, whose war time leader, Winston Churchill, echoing public calls by American General Patton, proposed an attack on the Soviet forces in Europe to take place in July 1945, using combined American-British-Canadian forces as well as the remaining German armies. The plan even included the use of nuclear weapons. It was called Operation Unthinkable, but it was clearly very thinkable and was a plan to pick up where the Nazis had failed, to subjugate Russia, and was only shelved when analysis proved that Soviet forces were too strong to overcome.

It is clear that the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo and the nuclear attacks on Japan, in which hundreds of thousands of civilians were incinerated by the Americans and British, were meant as demonstrations to the Soviet Union of their power, as an attempt to intimidate and subdue their supposed ally before the war with Germany was even concluded. The threat of a continued world war against Russia was made with the attacks on those defenceless cities. But with Operation Unthinkable put on hold and the formation of the Warsaw Pact as a defense against the NATO threat, the war against Russia was continued using other means and came to be called the Cold War, a political euphemism, since Soviet forces fought against the NATO allies directly in Korea and Vietnam and by proxies in many countries seeking liberation from western colonialism in Asia, Africa and Afghanistan.

We must also remember that in 1939, when Hitler attacked Poland, both Britain and France reneged on their promise to Poland to defend it in the event of an attack by Germany because they wanted German forces to be able to move right up to the borders of the Soviet Union to make it easier for Germany to launch its invasion of Russia just two years later. The so-called phoney war after the fall of Poland until the May, 1940 German attack on France, gave crucial time to Germany to advance its plans to attack Russia.

The entire focus of the NATO alliance, formed immediately after the defeat of Germany, has been on war with Russia and, since the fall of the Soviet Union and the weakening of Russian power, the NATO alliance has steadily advanced its attack position with a series of wars from Yugoslavia to Georgia and Ukraine, from Chechnya to Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan, all designed to eliminate Russian allies and to put NATO forces right up against Russian territory on its southern and western flanks.

In a document known as the Atlantic Charter, drafted on a battleship off the coast of Newfoundland in the middle of 1941, the Americans and British promised that the goals of the world war were not to increase their territories, but to guarantee the self-government of peoples, free trade, global cooperation to secure better economic and social conditions for all, freedom from fear and want, freedom of the seas and abandonment of the use of force as an instrument of policy, and disarmament. The Soviet Union adhered to these principles in the January 1, 1942 Declaration of the United Nations.

But aside from the relentless forcing of “free trade” treaties down workers throats across the world, which really means the freedom to exploit workers everywhere for the profit of a few corporations, the western signatories have violated every one of the clauses in the Atlantic Charter document.

The world was assured that there would be peace but they have given us nothing but 70 years of war. They promised us freedom from want but have relentlessly tried to destroy any government that protects the rights of workers, and poverty has increased dramatically in every western country since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Nations that were promised liberation at the end of the world war, had to fight these same powers to attain that justice. Some like China and Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea, succeeded after long and bitter fighting, while the struggles of many others were crushed or subverted.

In Ukraine now we are witnessing a national army and formations of outright fascist militias, the new SS, firing on, and shelling fellow citizens who protest the lack of legality of the government and the American agenda of using it as a base to attack Russia. The interests of the War Party in the west prevail over the basic demands of their peoples for social and economic justice, and freedom from fear and war.

The whole world owes the peoples of the Soviet Union, of the Russian Federation, a debt that can never be repaid for their defeat of fascism in Europe. They suffered the heaviest losses, the most destruction, the heaviest burden of fighting the Nazi war machine.

The refusal of NATO leaders to attend the Moscow ceremonies on May 9th is an insult to history, to the sacrifices of scores of millions of Russians, and is tantamount to a repudiation of the principles of the Atlantic Charter and the Charter of the United Nations. But it is more than that. It is proof, if ever it was needed, that the main objective of the world war in Europe was the crushing of Russia for the benefit of the three powers, the USA, Britain and Germany. While scrapping among themselves to see who would be top dog on the world street, they were united in their desire to subdue Russia to their will. This objective was long held in check by Soviet power. The fall of the Soviet Union and its replacement by a government initially composed of compradors for the west gave the Americans and their allies the impression that they had succeeded in bringing Russia under their complete domination. But the rise of new leaders in Russia, reinvigorating Russian sovereignty and reviving Russian power and prestige in the world has angered these wolves of war who now circle, and harass, waiting for the opportunity to strike.

*

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

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto, he is a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and he is known for a number of high-profile cases involving human rights and war crimes, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from NEO

In a televised address on Thursday afternoon, Prime Minister Édouard Philippe and five other ministers confirmed that President Emmanuel Macron had given the order for an end to confinement and the reopening of the economy on May 11. The government’s reckless decision, taken in the defence council in line with similar measures underway across Europe and the US, puts countless lives at risk.

In the United States, senior Trump administration officials declare that ending confinement means Americans must get used to 3,000 people in the country dying every day.

While the lockdown that began in France on March 17 is still reducing the number of new cases and deaths, the “first wave” of the pandemic is not over, neither in France nor in Europe. On Wednesday, 3,640 new cases of COVID-19 were announced in France. On the day of Philippe’s speech, there were 28,490 new cases throughout Europe, including more than 17,000 outside Russia. Philippe announced the end to lockdown while admitting that he expected many new cases and did not know what the consequences of the deconfinement would be.

“In three weeks, at the end of May, we will know exactly where we stand,” he said. “We will know whether or not we have managed to contain the epidemic. We will know the rate of contamination and hospital and intensive care unit entries… If these numbers and figures remain low, we will be able to congratulate ourselves and move into the next phase, expanding our freedom in many areas that are particularly important for the coming summer. If not, we will draw the consequences and adapt.”

Philippe’s cynical argument that the government would blindly embark on a deconfinement imposed by fate not only displays indifference to human lives; it is also false. It is precisely in such circumstances that epidemic models are used to inform decisions. Yet multiple studies show that deconfinement will lead to a massive rebound of the epidemic in the best of cases.

A study by the Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) modelled the spread of the virus in a population with the protection envisaged by Macron: masks, screening of patients, and social distancing. While approximately 25,000 deaths from COVID-19 have been recorded in France, the study predicts between 33,500 and 87,100 new deaths in France from May to December 2020.

The study concluded that even in an optimistic scenario in which social distancing measures are effective, the influx of new cases would be so strong that serious cases would overflow the emergency room as early as July. “In this scenario, further containment would be inevitable,” said Nicolas Hoertel, a psychiatrist at AP-HP and a co-author of the study.

Another study by INSERM and the Sorbonne predicts that a resumption of classes by all students would provoke an epidemic wave that would overwhelm the intensive care units, taking up 138 percent of hospital capacity. If only 25 per cent of students resumed classes, this wave could rise to only 72 percent of capacity. It is unclear how workers could return to work if three-quarters of their children stayed home.

One of the authors of the study, Vittoria Colizza, pointed to the risk that “we may have to face a second wave that would be more intense than the first beginning at the end of June, with hospital reanimation resources overwhelmed until August.”

The indifference and contempt of the government for the lives of the workers are obvious. The ruling class is, moreover, aware of its own criminality. That is why the Senate voted a preventive amnesty for any health crime committed during the pandemic.

This indifference is so blatant that it has provoked criticism even within the state apparatus.

“The government announced this Thursday afternoon that it wants to end the lockdown in departments classified as red, where the virus is strongest. This is sheer madness,” said Frédérick Bierry, president of the Bas-Rhin Departmental Council in Alsace, a region hard hit by the disease. He cited an epidemiological study that “shows that the risk is to suffer another health catastrophe with more deaths.”

However, Bierry refused to call for collective opposition to deconfinement, limiting himself to proposing health security measures already proposed by the government: wearing masks, protection of the elderly or people at risk, and personal protective actions such as coughing into one’s elbow.

The only consistent and viable opposition to Macron’s policy comes from the working class. Already widely hated before the pandemic as president of the rich, Macron is imposing a murderous policy on workers who, although subject to a constant barrage of media propaganda supporting the end to the lockdown, are largely suspicious of it.

The government’s assertions that the resumption of classes and the intermixing of students will not propagate the virus, or that social distancing will be possible in crowded public transport, are not credible. According to a YouGov poll, 76 per cent of the French population believe classes should not resume before September. Another 59 per cent say they are “worried” about the May 11 deconfinement deadline.

The endangerment of tens of thousands of lives in France, and millions of lives in America and Europe, is not an economic and social necessity, but a political decision dictated by the selfish concerns of the financial aristocracy. The central banks of the US and eurozone are showering states and large companies with trillions of dollars and euros. However, apart from the small portions of this money being allocated to unemployment payments, almost all this money does not reach workers or small businesses.

Workers and small businesses are being driven to hunger or bankruptcy by the drastic shutdown of the economy, while the banks and the super-rich are lining their pockets and refusing to help workers or provide support to small business.

Speaking before the Senate on Monday, Philippe claimed that deconfinement was dictated by the need to protect France:

“This situation cannot continue. The flagships of our industry are under threat: aeronautics, the automobile industry and electronics. Small business, medium-sized businesses and start-ups are on the verge of suffocation. Everything that contributes to France’s influence—tourism, art, gastronomy—is at a standstill.”

If the economic situation for broad sections of workers is catastrophic, it is because the Macron government, like its counterparts in Europe, has done virtually nothing to improve the conditions for the working class.

As for the statements by other ministers speaking alongside Philippe, they merely underscored the massive contradictions underlying the government’s policy. They proposed the mass use of masks, even though the government had previously maintained—while it had a complete lack of mask stockpiles—that masks served no purpose for the general population. They proposed to limit virus transmission by reducing public transport use to 15 per cent of its normal level, without explaining how workers would go to work or their shops.

Perhaps the greatest cynicism came from the Minister of Labour, Muriel Pénicaud, who praised the collaboration of the state and employers with the trade union movement.

“The health of workers has never been and will never be a negotiable variable,” she said, before adding that “social dialogue [was] essential to implement these measures.”

The conditions for deconfinement and a safe return to work are not in place. Workers have every right to refuse to return to work, to thwart government policy and the ruling class’ blatant disregard for their lives. This requires the organisation of struggles independently of the trade union apparatuses and a perspective for a socialist struggle to transfer political power to the working class in Europe and 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.

More than earlier crises of my lifetime, including the Great Depression, World War II, 9/11, the COVID-19 pandemic illuminates as never before, how precarious and uncertain is the future wellbeing, and possibly survival, of the human species. The concreteness, immediacy, and haunting uncertainties of the pandemic is quite terrifying on its own, but its heuristic pedagogy seems applicable to a range of potentially catastrophic threats of global scope, most obviously climate change, biodiversity, nuclear weaponry.

What we should now be able to realize even while asleep is that when the under-preparedness of governance and political leadership is based on ignoring a scientific consensus is combined with radical uncertainty and myopic nationalism the stage is set for planetary and species disaster, and not only personal grief and national emergency. These signature traits of the 21^st century heighten our fears and feelings of utter helplessness that gives way to a dizzying disorientation of beliefs and expectations, a fertile breeding ground for political extremism, scapegoating, and the darkest flights of fancy.

As much as the horrifying spectacle of hospitals without beds for critically ill patients and too many dead bodies to find room in city morgues or funeral homes is this sense that the lethality of COVID-19 could have been significantly mitigated if political leaders of important countries had heeded two types of advance warnings from reliable sources. There was a foreboding prediction during the past five years by epidemiologists and other health experts that conditions existed around the world that made a viral pandemic a near certainty in coming years. It was just a matter of time. For governments of affluent countries to ignore such warnings from respected experts, and in a few cases even reduce the funding of their national health systems in recent years, as the U.S. and UK are reported to have done, should be regarded as a Crime Against Humanity, malign behavior worse than gross negligence or administrative incompetence.

In addition, there were a series of authoritative disclosures of the actual COVID-19 outbreak weeks before many governments undertook suitable preparations with regard to testing kits, masks, and personal protective equipment (PPE). Instead of rational and prudent preparations, the views of qualified experts either never reached the ears of leaders and their advisors or were thrown by leaders into the nearest waste basket as alarmist rubbish, at best distractions from the only real job of peacetime government—promoting markets and pro-rich growth. Politicians like Trump, Bolsonaro, Modi, Johnson, and others did even worse, actively denying, denigrating, and dismissing concerns until the spread of the disease became undeniable with several national health systems in leading countries reacting in emergency modes on the brink of been overwhelmed. If prudent and rational, this grave peril would never have happened, especially in countries with adequate health infrastructures.

The most elementary lesson from the pandemic so far is that adoption of the Precautionary Principle should become mandatory for organs of government and political officials at every level of social organization from the municipality to the UN, and especially at the level of governments of sovereign states. The wellbeing, security, and defense of national populations is widely assumed to be the prime duty of political leaders in a still state-centric system of world order. Such vigilance by leaders should be treated as more important than living up to the oath of office, and the failure to do so regarded as a flagrant violation of public trust, warranting a punitive removal from office. Basically, the Precautionary Principle decrees that expert warnings about impending public dangers should shape governance policies, even when available evidence does not produce conclusive results as to the extent and imminence of the risk. The precautionary approach insists on paying the costs of anticipatory prudence as over against reliance on reactive crisis management, especially under circumstances that pose substantial risks of severe future harm. The Precautionary Principle, informally long practiced and advocated with respect to health, was first internationally articulated and proposed with respect to expert warning about potentially catastrophic future environmental damage if corrective steps are not taken.  The recent focus of precautionary thought and advocacy has been seeking that proper account be taken  of the dire warnings derived from global warning projections. An influential formulation of the Precautionary Principle is set forth in Principle 15 of the Final Declaration of the Rio Earth Summit of 1992: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

The concreteness of COVID-19 disease, as immediate, life-threatening, personal, planetary, and undeniable contrasts with other threats that are presently less visible, often more distant, and not as vividly or convincingly intruding on the security of everyday life. Yet the pattern is the same: prudent anticipation is cheaper, safer, more effective, and humane than are reactive measures, especially in view of the disproportionate vulnerability of marginalized ethnic minorities, prisons and retirement homes, and impoverished communities and crowded urban settings. In this sense, a difficult part of the post-pandemic challenge is not only to renovate the health system so as to be adequately prepared, but to transfer this elementary knowledge about dealing with global health threats to other policy domains while acknowledging the diversity of risks and distinctive types of likely harm. An existing scientific consensus projects with reasonable assurance the high probability of increasingly more dangerous levels of future global warming and of diminishing biodiversity if the dissemination of greenhouse gasses is not drastically reduced. Society lacks comparable capabilities to make such high confidence predictions with respect to the advent of nuclear war or the danger of a large meteor striking the earth. In other words, fidelity to the Precautionary Principle depends on intelligent calibration to particularities of risk that pertain to each issue of concern, but with a similar resolve to apply prudently the anticipatory knowledge available.

In this fundamental sense, what is true for COVID-19 is also true for climate change and biodiversity, and likely even more so. Current levels of information suggest that even a dysfunctional delayed response will in due course contain the pandemic although with a needlessly large number of fatalities, as well as high degrees of economic and social dislocation. Yet despite the massive scale of disruption, a pandemic is expected to subside, although accompanied by some new risks of recurrence, permitting at least a prudently regulated return to normalcy. In contrast, once global warming crosses unknowable thresholds or biodiversity declines beyond a certain point, there may be no turning back, the ecological balance could become beyond the reach of alteration by human action or could only be achieved by very austere or expensive downward adjustments in standards of living and life style. This would incur much human suffering and political unrest along the way, especially if the adjustment process favors the rich and powerful, and victimizes the poor and vulnerable, which seems inevitable at this point given the way policy is formed and life circumstances structured.

The second obvious ‘teaching moment’ that has emerged during the health crisis is the globality of the challenge as contrasted with the statist fragmentation of the divisive response structures. Imposing geopolitically motivated sanctions on a state that weakens its societal capability to contain the spread and treatment of the virus virtually ensures that contagion will cross borders in greater numbers, and give rise to prolonging the pandemic and increasing the number of infections elsewhere, including quite possibly in the sanctioning countries. The sanctions currently weakening the coping capabilities of such countries such as Iran and Venezuela create a lose/lose series of antagonistic relationships between the targeted states and the rest of the world, and should be also considered as ‘geopolitical crimes’ or Crimes Against Humanity rather than as discretionary aspects of normal diplomacy. As well, maintaining such sanctions during the pandemic works against operationalizing the insight of global solidarity—‘we are all in this together’—rather than thinking of a riven world in neo-fascist terms of ‘friends and enemies.’

The Trump presidency, oblivious to the pragmatic argument of mutuality against maintaining sanctions during the COVID-19 pandemic is even more tone deaf when it comes to humanitarian normative arguments based on law and morality resting on the unacceptability and unlawfulness of international uses of force that have a primary impact on civilian populations. It is helpful to recall the notorious remark of Madeleine Albright, then U.S. Secretary of State, when asked by Leslie Stahl in the course of a ’60 Minutes’ interview whether an estimated 500,000 deaths of children attributed to the punitive sanctions imposed on Iraq after the First Gulf War five years earlier in 1991 were worth such a high human cost of innocent young live. Stahl’s question to Albright, “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” And Albright’s memorable response: “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.” Although Albright later expressed remorse about her own phraseology, suggesting that she should have put the blame on Iraq’s leader Saddam Hussein for withholding food from civilians rather than admitting that the deaths resulted from the sanctions. Actually, her spontaneous response was more truthful than her later attempt to shift blame for their inhumane impacts. Why would sanctions be maintained if not felt to be worthwhile from a geopolitical perspective? Beyond this, evidence shows that the Iraqi government behaved responsibly, establishing a food rationing arrangement that made every effort to protect Iraqi civilians from starvation. Trump, and his lead foreign policy spokesperson, Mike Pompeo seem to go further than Albright’s insensitive remark, by intensifying sanctions during the pandemic, grotesquely seeking to exploit the added vulnerability of these targeted societies while meeting the demands of the health crisis.

Trump defies globality in a further scandalous manner by blaming China for the COVID-19 outbreak, again opting for antagonistic tensions rather than affirming human solidarity and mutually beneficial cooperation. Trump also chose the time of this pandemic to defame and defund the WHO because of its supposed complicity with China’s failure to disclose sooner the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan. There is no reasonable evidence supporting such inflammatory charges against China or the WHO, and even if the allegations were to some extent accurate, it would not justify antagonizing China or weakening the WHO capabilities at a time when it is playing a crucial role in providing information and guidance to the many countries in the global South that do not have sufficient national health capabilities to depend on national or even regional capabilities. It should be beyond argument that a pandemic threat of this magnitude and lethality needs to be addressed by counseling maximum cooperation among states and through bolstering the resources and capabilities of global coordinating mechanisms. Instead of defaming and defunding the WHO at this time, the responsible approach would be to express gratitude for its existence by pledges of greater funding support. To repeat, such a litany that is true for COVID-19 is as true or truer for other serious present and impending problems of global scope and potentially severe magnitude. The so-called retreat from globalization that partly results from some negative structural consequences of neoliberalism, which has given rise to resurgent nationalisms, seems understandable with respect to the relation of states to the world economy. Nevertheless, it is a disaster if this enhanced statism is extended, as seems to be the case, to ecological and ethical contexts that give substance to nationalist standpoints. Interconnectedness and widely diverse material circumstances are manageable under contemporary conditions only if the behavior of sovereign states accord far greater weight than now to policy coordination and collaboration by way of internationalism, as well as exhibit concrete appreciation of the practical and principled benefits of honoring the imperatives of empathy, hospitality, and human solidarity.

Decades ago, the American poet, Robert Frost, put his prophetic gift to work on what has now become a planetary truism for those who ponder the future of the human experience. In a poem, ‘One Step Backward Taken’ these words of Frost shine:

“I felt my standpoint shaken

In the universal crisis.”

Although I was conscious of the degree to which modern history featured a series of surprises that eluded experts, I was nevertheless surprised by the ferocity and rapid planetization of the Coronavirus assault on human health, and lifechanging, and likely permanent, ramifications for economic and social normalcy. It was not only a revelation of the precariousness of our individual and collective existence, but a stark reminder of the relevance of a sphere of life not previously given the societal and global attention and resources that were warranted. One question that will not be answered for some years is whether the aftermath of the pandemic will generate ‘a new world order,’ and if so, will it be an improvement on what existed before COVID-19. From past experiences, there is little reason to be hopeful unless a revolutionary movement below unexpectedly, effectively, and creatively challenges the established order.

The rhetoric of new world order was initially fashionable as a call for global reform at the dawn of the post-colonial age with its calls in the 1970s for ‘a new international economic order’ and ‘a new international information order,’ emanating from expectations that fairness was attainable if sufficient pressure from what was then known as ‘the Third World’ was mounted. These hopes were crushed by the political and economic forces aligned with capitalist geopolitics in the North dominating the existing world order at the time.

Almost twenty years later came George H. W. Bush’s mobilization of a response to Iraq’s conquest, occupation, and annexation of Kuwait in 1990 by suggesting that ‘a new world order’ was in the making by which he meant that the UN could function to prevent ‘aggression’ in the post-Cold War atmosphere as was originally intended when the UN was established in 1945. After Kuwaiti sovereignty was restored in the First Gulf War, the U.S. Government rushed to shrink expectations about a UN-centric world security system, fearing the responsibilities of being designated as the global peacekeeper. In the words of a leading Washington official at the time this idea of a new world order reliant on the UN ‘was put back on the shelf,’ that is, it was an idea that had served its purpose with respect to Kuwait but should not be counted upon to provide guidance for the future, especially tying American foreign policy and geopolitical discretion to a prior UN authorizations. In an unpublicized talk at Princeton James Baker, the influential U.S. Secretary of State at the time, gave a different spin. In essence Baker said, “Bush was wrong to associate the new world order with the centrality of the UN with regard to peace and security. He should have identified the new world order with the triumph of the American way of life in the Cold War, accompanied by glowing references to market economies and constitutionalism, which provided the contours of what became known during the 1990s as ‘the Washington consensus’ or ‘neoliberal globalization.’

We now can ask whether today’s politicians will think differently about the prospects for a new world order after the pandemic comes under control, and the crisis mood dissipates even if doesn’t fully disappear? It seems more likely that two clashing tendencies will dominate the pandemic aftermath. The first tendency will seek to restore the pre-pandemic dynamic of economic and political order, with modifications limited to augmenting the health sector, and taking advantage of the earlier dislocations to replace workers with machines. The second worrisome tendency is for political leaders to take advantage of the emergency prerogatives of government during the pandemic to institutionalize technologies of surveillance and control, while hardening their borders against immigrants and asylum seekers.

If actualized, neither of these two tendencies will give greater weight to global cooperation, human solidarity, UN authority, empathy, hospitality, and adherence to the Precautionary Principles in dealing with menacing threats clearly visible on the horizon of near future expectations. This further intensification of an already overly politically fragmented world order may be dramatic enough to lead critics to call attention to its defects by again applying the label of ‘new world order.’

If a benign new order built on the principles of stability and justice mentioned above, it will depend on pressures from a transnational movement rooted in civil society, and probably first arising in the Asian context, where several regional government displayed their superior problem-solving skills in the course of containing the COVID-19 challenge. Such a scenario could be endorsed, and even led, by China, the country more than any other with the stature and political imagination to take over global leadership from the United States, which has by its own will and dysfunctional behavior forfeited its prior role, at least temporarily. Of course, it is possible that a post-Trump America will heed Kissinger’s plea for a resumption of U.S. global leadership in ways that take inspiration from its successful restoration of a generally peaceful phase of world order after World War II. Or alternatively, possibly join with China in establishing a collaborative geopolitical framework to address more holistically and cooperatively the currently unsatisfactory responses to ecological, social, and economic global challenges. If this scenario emerges in either form, the label of new world order may yet come to be regarded as a sign of progress and hope, yet its realization will not happen without transnational activism of unprecedented depth and perseverance.

Only then can we recover a standpoint that upholds expectations for a humane and functional response to the universal crisis, which then would allow us to speak hopefully and responsibly about a new world order.

*

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 CODEPINK

When it comes to the politics of medicine and disease, the United States has always attempted to steal the limelight, while adding the now faded colouring of universal human welfare.  In 1965, Washington pledged financial and technical support to the international effort to eradicate smallpox, though the initiative had initially been spurred by the Soviet Union at the behest of virologist and deputy health minister Victor Zhdanov in 1958.  At that point in time, the World Health Organisation was not so much a punch bag as vehicle for US foreign policy, to be cultivated rather than rebuked.

As with the eradication of smallpox, a forced language of solidarity is coming into being with efforts to find a vaccine for the novel coronavirus.  But behind it, there is backbiting and hostility, suspicion and paranoia.  Like putting the first person on the moon, the matter is one of divided political endeavours. 

One such effort of solidarity, and a not very convincing one at that, was made at this month’s Coronavirus Global Response Pledging Conference.  The European Commission gave it a deceptively united title: “Joining forces to accelerate the development, production and equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines, diagnostics and therapeutics – on-line pledging event.” Representatives from 43 countries, a range of non-profit entities and scientific groups also added to the number. 

Like fund drives that are common in the United States for public broadcasting, the efforts were billed as magisterial when they were, for the most part, modest.  7.4 million euros seems rather small fare when compared to the weighty global loss in life, limb and economy, though it looks a dream to coalface researchers.  There was also a certain niggling anomaly in the event that took away some of its lustre.  EU officials had permitted the pledging of money already spent on COVID-19 relief since January 30, making the raised amount more generous than it otherwise would have been.  The United Kingdom was a case in point, having pledged £388 million toward a total as part of a prior pledge for £744 million.  The EU bureaucrats for their part, have not been forthcoming how much in terms of new funding was pledged, making it difficult to spot the double-counters. 

The language from the donors, however, was high sounding in hope. President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen was flashily presuming in her rhetoric. 

“Today we can truly say the world is united against the coronavirus, and the world will win.”  The world, she claimed grandly, had “showed extraordinary unity for the common good … With such commitment, we are on track for developing, producing and deploying a vaccine for all.”

The British Prime Minister and COVID-19 survivor Boris Johnson was also unduly optimistic in his assessment of such a worldly effort. 

“The race to discover the vaccine to defeat this virus is not a competition between countries but the most urgent shared endeavour of our lifetimes.”

To ensure that this does take place will take more than pooled pledges with vague lines of distribution.  The entire effort to find a vaccine would need to be decentralised.  An aide to French President Emmanuel Macron described the problem to Politico as ensuring “that the production of the vaccine does not end up taking place only in the US or in a specific place, because the companies that produce vaccines are from a certain nationality”. 

But a full-blooded competition this is, spiked with considerations of self-interest.  Former commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration Scott Gottlieb saw it in terms of a sporting race with a lucrative prize at the end.  There is nothing of the cooperative or sharing spirit here, with Gottlieb seeing countries inoculating their own citizens first before sharing any supply with generous heart.  “The first country to the finish line will be the first to restore its economy and global influence.  America risks being second.”  Given that Gottlieb is himself a board member of Pfizer and the biotech company Ilumina, a bit of hearty pandemic capitalism is bound to figure in his assessments. 

The Trump administration had already signalled its intention to avoid any show of unity in the vaccine effort, which may suggest an unintentional expression of blunt honesty.  It has frozen funding to the WHO and refused to send any representatives to a meeting organised by the organisation at a meeting, conducted virtually, last month.  A spokesman for the US mission in Geneva told Reuters at the time that Washington “looked forward to learning more about this initiative in support of international cooperation to develop a vaccine for COVID-19 as soon as possible” but would not be participating in any official way.  The response was much the same to the European Commission’s pledging conference. 

For the Trump administration, finding a COVID-19 vaccine will, contrary to Johnson’s belief, be a predatory exercise in self-interest because other countries will, given the chance, treat it the same way.  A neat, if vulgar example of this was given in March, when Die Welt reported that “large sums of money” had been offered by the administration for the German biopharmaceutical company CureVac, though former CEO Dan Menichella seemed to suggest that no definite offer was made in a meeting he had with the US president.  Within that same month, Menichella had been replaced by the same man he replaced: founder Ingmar Hoerr. 

In the messy rumble, billionaire Dietmar Hopp, who has an 80 percent shareholding in CureVac via his biotech company Dievini has dismissed such ideas of exclusivity.  No German company would entrust themselves with the task of creating such a vaccine that would be merely for exclusive US use.  German health minister Jens Spahn was of like mind: any such vaccine would “not be for individual countries” but “for the whole world”. 

This is stern and admirable stuff but not particularly convincing.  The global patent system is marked by vicious rivalries rather than tea-ceremony tranquillity.  The behaviour of its participants, according to the University of Hong Kong’s Bryan Mercurio, tends towards a winner takes all approach. “The rest of the efforts will go unrewarded.”

The fractious scramble for appropriate vaccines and viral drugs, as with other scrambles of history, serves to highlight the crude, even cruel reality of power politics, which proves stubborn even in the face of the existential and costly.  This is pure Donald Trump, unilateral, instinctive and unromantic, with a reaction in keeping with previous thinking when it comes to international efforts of solidarity.  Look more closely at them and see the sham; it’s every state for itself.

*

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]

Dostoevsky said former seminarians (which included many Russian radicals then) were “too complete, too hostile, too sharp and therefore too limited.” That is, they were limited precisely by being too complete, by fitting all the pieces together, in a tight-fitting puzzle, with no rough edges.

Einstein supposedly learned more from Dostoevsky than from any scientist.  Dostoevsky’s characters often struggle with “importunate” thoughts.  The thoughts are sensations, felt but not expressed. There is anguish. The characters must wait, even submit, to know “something new”.

It’s about development of ideas, and it’s a point made by Lenin. He said unless people are trained to feel abuses against others, no matter their class, they won’t have political consciousness. Obsession with immediate “palpable results” – with utility, completeness – is ultimately conservative.[i]

It leaves old ideas in place. In Dostoevsky’s The Idiot, Prince Myshkin says about religion that “there’s something else here that’s not that, and it will eternally be not that; … and they will eternally be talking not about that.“ He’s not saying there is something that can’t be said. It’s more interesting. The prince is saying that something is talked about, but in such a way that something else is never talked about.

You talk about something in order not to talk about something else. Importunate thoughts can be eternally not talked about.

I found an importunate thought in a comical, deeply thoughtful, new book on bee keeping.[ii] It inadvertently shows the importance of Lenin, also, of course, eternally not talked about.

Bees are “cute and fuzzy” but opening a hive is ”like a volcano – a pulsating, buzzing, confusing, bloodthirsty, single organism that, quite frankly, is a bit gross and definitely scary.” The author gets bitten, spends a lot of money, and ends up without honey. Still, he persists.

The importunate idea is motivation. His compelling reasons are not moral or material, not honey or saving the planet.  In fact, neither material nor moral reasons motivate sacrifice. This is known. It is an importunate idea because it goes against the popular (liberal) myth of the “self-made man”.

The author persists because he discovers a “195-pound man who now feels genuine compassion and sympathy toward an insect that weighs only about one tenth of a gram.” That is, he continues because bees show him what he can be, as a person. He learns to respond to bees and learns about humanness.

It is easy to miss such an opportunity when the objective is results. Bees respond to each other. The waggle dance is how one bee tells the others where the sweet nectar is. One bee knows and the others absorb her energy as she “dances”. Bees get direction from response. And they get results.

Philosophers are enthralled by instrumental rationality, or the idea that reasons are defined by ends. If I have ends, I have reasons. If I have purpose, I’m a person. Social utility.

But how do I know human ends?

It’s not talked about. And there’s a reason. Raúl Roa, brilliant Cuban philosopher and politician, explained in 1953. It’s an idea of human beings invented by philosophers who didn’t care about human ends.[iii] They didn’t need to. They defined them. Simón Bolívar, who admired European philosophers, knew they missed a crucial point. The colonized, he pointed out, are “even lower than servitude, lost or worse absent from the universe”. The “human” part of “human rights” didn’t include them.

Ho Chi Minh saw this. A new book, Hemingway and Ho Chi Minh in Paris, [iv] describes Ho as well-read, lover of arts, intelligent, open-minded, shy and compassionate.  Like Bolívar, he admired European philosophers. He admired the US constitution, citing it as prime minister. Ho read Marx and found him uninformed about colonized people. But he was elated when he read Lenin.

We’re not told why.

The subtitle of the book is “the art of resistance”. Hemingway and Ho Chi Minh were in Paris after the First World War. Hemingway was there to learn writing technique, Ho for anti-colonial resistance. By 1922, they were among the best journalists in the city. Both wanted revolution.

But Ho had found a friend in Lenin while Hemingway discussed surrealism over “boozy lunches”. This difference is not explored. Juan Marinello, Cuban intellectual of early twentieth century, warned Latin American artists of precisely the trends attracting Hemingway.[v] Abstractionist art, with its anarchistic tendencies, makes sense to those whose humanity is taken for granted. It made sense to Hemingway but not to Ho, ultimately, according to the author. But this is not explained.

Lenin said all aspects of life must be studied along with ideas explaining them. How the world is observed and experienced can’t be taken for granted because it depends on ideas, including “human”. Philosophy must start from there, with concrete details explaining deep yearning by the oppressed for real dignity. It’s messy, incomplete, not the tight-fitting jigsaw puzzles philosophy mostly offers.

Lenin’s philosophy did start there, with response to what was happening. It’s about motivation, and the energy and insight derived from such response, through feeling, to the real world, understood through careful and continuous scientific study, with sensitivity developed through art, for one thing.

Marinello wrote about culture. He was a Leninist, like Roa. Lenin said revolution must be about ideas. It can’t be just politics and economics. Otherwise, old ideas dominate, disallowing human liberation in a dehumanizing world. In Cuba, this commitment has always been there. It can’t be missed, and yet it is missed. Sympathetic books about Cuba’s startling achievements make no reference at all to Roa, Marinello, Lenin. They are eternally not talked about.

If you keep talking  as if individuals just know what it means to be human, so that all that matters is what we want, need and do, there’s no need to talk about ideas determining such wants, needs and actions. Writers comment on the “battle for ideas” in Cuba, but leave out the ideas.[vi] Or they notice the significance of the arts in Cuba, Mexico and Nicaragua, during periods of political transformation, and omit the (philosophical) explanation.[vii]

Precisely this omission was foreseen by Roa. Keep talking about results, success, action, ends, and you can eternally not talk about ideas explaining those results. It’s as if there are no such ideas.

Just utility. Some even ask about the social utility of art. They should keep bees and read Lenin.

*

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.

Susan Babbitt is author of Humanism and Embodiment (Bloomsbury 2014). She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[i] E.g. “What is to be done?”

[ii] Dave Doroghy, Show me the Honey: Adventures of an accidental Apiarist (Touchwood, 2020). See review:https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/show-me-honey-adventures-accidental-apiarist

[iii] “Grandeza y servidumbre del humanismo”,Viento Sur (Havana, 2015) 44-62.

[iv] By David Crowe (Fortress Books, 2020). Review here:https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/hemingway-and-ho-chi-minh

[v] « La exposición antibiennal de la Habana », Cuba Cultura (Letras cubana 1989) 18-25

[vi] E.g.  https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/we-are-cuba

[vii] E.g.  https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/i-never-left-home

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

“Bolsonaro is not only turning a blind eye as land grabbers, illegal loggers, and miners continue to plunder Indigenous territories during the pandemic, he plans to make things easier for them.”

***

Greenpeace on Friday warned of far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro‘s attacks on environmental law in his country as new data showed that deforestation has “skyrocketed” in the Amazon rainforest this year, particularly in Indigenous territories.

A Greenpeace Brazil analysis found that deforestation on Indigenous lands within the Amazon from January to April 2020 rose by 59% compared with that same four-month period last year. Based on data from the Brazilian Space Research Institute’s DETER monitoring system, the environmental advocacy group accounted for deforestation alerts across nearly 3,259 acres of Indigenous territories so far this year.

From Jan-April, deforestation in Indigenous lands increased by 59% in Brazil. Illegal loggers, miners and land-grabbers don’t work from home, and are taking advantage of the current crisis to invade Indigenous lands, threatening to expose #covid19 to Indigenous People. pic.twitter.com/wwalZ8zKxR

— Greenpeace (@Greenpeace) May 8, 2020

Preliminary data released Friday by the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research (INPE) also revealed a surge in deforestation throughout the country’s portion of the world’s largest rainforest. The 2.7 million square mile Amazon spans nine nations, but the majority of it is in Brazil.

“Destruction in Brazil’s portion of the Amazon increased 64% in April, compared with the same month a year ago,” Reuters reported Friday, citing INPE data. “In the first four months of the year, Amazon deforestation was up 55% from a year ago to 1,202 square kilometers (464 square miles).”

Bolsonaro took office in January 2019 and immediately got to work on his agenda targeting the environment and Indigenous Brazilians. As international scientists have warned over the past year that “human activities are drying out the Amazon,” the Brazilian president has faced global condemnation for rising deforestation and his attempts to open up the Amazon to more agribusiness and mining.

According to Reuters:

The new coronavirus outbreak has complicated efforts to combat deforestation, with environmental enforcement agency IBAMA sending fewer agents into the field due to health risks. The agency has said it will scale back field agents in other areas but not the Amazon.

As deforestation soars, Bolsonaro on Thursday authorized the deployment of armed forces to combat deforestation and forest fires in the region. Environmental advocates say the measure may help in the short term but is not a lasting solution.

Last week, as reporters and activists anticipated the announcement that eventually came Thursday, Marcio Astrini of the Brazilian advocacy group Climate Observatory said that “sending the military to the Amazon is like medicating a disease of the government’s own creation.”

“It’s a medication that has a short-term effect, it will resolve the problem now,” Astrini said. “It won’t cure the disease. The disease that exists in the Amazon today is Bolsonaro.”

Greenpeace pointed out Friday that “Bolsonaro is urging the Brazilian Congress to vote on a law designed to hand illegally deforested land over to land grabbers.”

As the coronavirus pandemic eats its way into the Amazon, raising fears of a genocide of its vulnerable indigenous tribes, the government of Jair Bolsonaro and its supporters are dismantling rules shielding protected reserves. Mine for @guardian https://t.co/DgwchAgpXS

— Dom Phillips (@domphillips) May 6, 2020

Greenpeace also noted that while Indigenous groups have called for greater efforts to protect their territories from land invaders and the pandemic, the Brazilian government has taken take steps backward.

“Bolsonaro is not only turning a blind eye as land grabbers, illegal loggers, and miners continue to plunder Indigenous territories during the pandemic, he plans to make things easier for them,” said Carolina Marçal, a forest campaigner at Greenpeace Brazil.

“Whole groups and communities with no means of combating the virus are at risk of being wiped out if intruders carry Covid-19 into their territories,” Marçal added. “Bolsonaro’s actions are criminal and must be stopped. Those who best protect the forests must be protected.”

Indigenous People in Brazil are facing “an extreme threat to their very survival” with illegal loggers, miners, and other invaders potentially bringing the COVID-19 pandemic to their communities. https://t.co/3Rze6Sd9Q2

— Greenpeace (@Greenpeace) May 4, 2020

While Bolsonaro has provoked international outrage for both his attacks on environmental protections and his handling of the pandemic, Greenpeace USA forest campaigns director Daniel Brindis explained that the Brazilian president isn’t alone in shouldering the blame for the destruction of the Amazon.

“The international market is also complicit in this destruction—and profiting off this crisis,” said Brindis. “As international banks invest in high risk infrastructure in the Amazon, corporations import products like timber, minerals, and cattle products that drive deforestation.”

Those investments from large financial institutions have continued despite warnings from scientists and activists that—as Mercy for Animals managing director Sandra Lopes said last year—”the Amazon rainforest is a fundamental ecosystem for the planet and the climate.” The forest helps limit global heating by serving as a massive carbon sink.

“The alarm has been sounded about the crisis in the Brazilian Amazon for years,” Brindis said, “yet corporations purposefully ignore the fact that their profits are violating human rights and perpetuating climate disaster.”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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

The COVID-19 pandemic appears to be peaking in the mostly Western countries worst affected so far, though it will continue to scythe down thousands for weeks to come. The virus could also return for a far worse second wave, and may yet break out on a large scale in more populous countries in the Third World, with unimaginable consequences.

Certainly, the lockdowns the pandemic has necessitated are unlikely to be lifted in their entirety anytime soon and, if they are, social and economic activity may still fail to return to the production and consumption levels and patterns of the recent neoliberal capitalist past. Though fatalities remain a fraction of the Spanish flu total, the public health emergency and the response to it have become profound political and economic crises of the neoliberal order, the only order of capitalism possible today, and thus a profound political crisis of capitalism itself, both domestic and international.

The Failure of Neoliberalism

There are two sure signs of this. Objectively, none of the handful of countries—China, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela and New Zealand—whose governments have been able to deal decisively and effectively with COVID-19 are what we might call ‘neoliberal’. They are either Communist or left governments that have distanced themselves from the social democratic neoliberalism that emerged in the 1990s under the likes of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. These countries’ exceptional performance throws the deadly incompetence of neoliberal Western governments, led by the United States and the United Kingdom, into harsh relief.

In the Western core neoliberal countries, the severity of the pandemic and associated crises cannot be overstated. These governments, particularly those of its Anglo-American heartland, are caught in a scissor crisis: there is a widening gap between the mounting challenge and limited capacities—public health, governmental and political—whittled down by four decades of neoliberalism. This scissor has required nation-wide lockdowns of indeterminate length as the only way of limiting infections and fatalities. In turn, this has accelerated a long-overdue reckoning with the neoliberal order.

Though neoliberalism was billed as the sure-fire recipe for reviving growth when the West led the world in taking this route out of the crisis of the 1970s, it never did so. Rather than addressing it, Western states exacerbated the underlying demand problem while deregulation only benefitted finance. The resulting financialization of Western economies diverted resources towards speculation and away from productive investment.

These problems were already coming to a head, with acute observers predicting that an economic, rather than merely financial, crisis was looming, when the pandemic hit. There is, therefore, no pre-pandemic normal to return to. Neoliberal capitalism is certain to emerge from the present crisis transformed. There is, however, the question of how and by whom: by left forces in a progressive direction or by those of capital and the right in an even more miserly, punitive, Kafkaesque and authoritarian direction? That is what is politically at stake in the present moment. That is what this manifesto is about.

While the enhanced legitimacy of the non-neoliberal winners of the battle against COVID-19 will not last unless they keep new outbreaks limited, if not at bay, doing so requires them to repeat their recent feats on a smaller scale. It is true that they do face an increasingly uncooperative, indeed outright obstructive, international environment in which to do so. As with the US ceasing funding to the World Health Organization or the US and India blocking the issuance of new Special Drawing Rights, essentially international money, to aid the developing world, powerful rogue states are reducing, rather than increasing, their commitment to international institutions and efforts and even stooping to hijackingshipments of critical medical supplies on the high seas. However, such antics will likely accelerate the trend, evidenced most notably by Italy, to break neoliberal ranks in accepting help from China and even Russia and Cuba, and resisting the unrelenting attacks on China that emanate particularly from the bastions of neoliberalism, the US and the UK.

There Is an Alternative, There Always Was

Those attacks are the second unmistakable sign of the political crisis of neoliberal capitalism. It is clear to its masters that the demonstration effect of China’s successful response to COVID-19 poses a great threat to their own legitimacy, not least because it is only the latest of such demonstration effects. Others include raising more millions out of poverty than any government in history, responding effectively to the 2008 crisis, whose effects still linger in the neoliberal West, and taking international financial and investment initiatives that are making or enabling much-needed productive investment in the Third World, to take just three of the more prominent examples.

All of them cast unflattering light on the neoliberal West. When former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher proclaimed that ‘There is no alternative’ to ‘free market’ and ‘free trade’ neoliberalism, she was dispatching the statist arrangements of the Western post-war Keynesian welfare state to the proverbial dustbin of history. However, after the Soviet Union disintegrated, the slogan acquired an even greater resonance. With the USSR gone, and China appearing to turn towards markets, neoliberal capitalism had, it appeared, won the day and vanquished its mortal enemy, Communism. However, the actually existing Communisms that had begun emerging in the twentieth century, starting with the Russian Revolution, were not some bolt from the blue. Their rise was deeply connected to the effect of capitalist development in some countries on others.

As the powerful capitalist countries subordinated or threatened to subordinate, other countries, many succumbed. Others, however, were not only willing but able to resist subordination and seek alternative paths, and even goals, of development. There was never any guarantee that such attempts would succeed, nor that their elites would not, as the Soviet elite did, throw in the towel after astonishing achievements, including the Soviet Union’s indispensable contribution to Allied victory in the Second World War and its ability to transform backward economies and societies into materially prosperous and culturally sophisticated rivals of the West. The only guarantee is that the nature and contradictions of capitalism, which impel it toward imperialism, ensure that its geopolitical economy will never be free of such attempts. There is a reason why the Russian Revolution was followed by a long line of such resistance to imperialist capitalism.

Moreover, like capitalism, actually existing communism also has its own history and political leaders capable of learning from it. Certainly the leadership of the Communist Party of China learned much from the fate of Russia and of the countries of Eastern Europe after the end of Communism there. ‘Shock therapy’ imposed by Western powers and their associates on the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc destroyed productive capacities and social and political institutions wholesale and even led to steep declines in life expectancy, something not witnessed in peacetime. By the time its work was done, the former Communist world, which had hitherto afforded its citizens a high standard of living, were reduced to a periphery or labour reserve for Western Europe’s industrial core if they had joined the European Union or, in the case of Russia, Ukraine and others, became the semi-periphery or periphery of the world economy.

Any reasonably competent leadership would seek to avoid that fate and, so far, at least, the leadership of the Chinese party-state has demonstrated such wisdom. Though considerable market reforms have been undertaken, China remains a planned economy and one in which its capitalists, though very rich and numerous, do not (yet?) hold the reins of state power. Though it acceded to the World Trade Organization, China has not ‘converged’ with the West as it hoped for the simple reason that such convergence would have brought subordination of the sort suffered by the former Communist countries of Europe and the post-Soviet space. Instead, China traded and exchanged financial flows with the world on its own terms and planned its way to its present relative prosperity, thereby picking up the torch of demonstrating that there is an alternative from where the former USSR had so fatefully dropped it.

Communism therefore lives, and threatens capitalism. It does not threaten with its guns. Like the former Soviet Union and even Russia today, China’s security posture is defensive, while that of the capitalist world, aggressive and offensive. The threat lies in its demonstrably superior economic performance. This was already becoming clear in the new century, when Jim O’Neill, a Goldman Sachs economist, made the prediction that the world’s economic centre of gravity was shifting away from the West. It became all the more so after 2008, when the BRICs (the acronym referred to the four major emerging national economies O’Neill focused on) avoided the slowdown in growth that plagued the neoliberal West and continued their growth, with Communist China far in the van because its policies were farthest from neoliberalism. That is not the least reason why there is a New Cold Waragainst Russia that refuses complete subordination to the West and against China. Of course, it also extends to the renewed and intensified hostility towards Cuba and towards Venezuela, which has committed the added crime of sitting on vast mineral wealth that Western capitalists slaver over.

Thus the increasingly sharp attacks on China, questioning its achievements by any means at hand, attributing the success of its coronavirus response to its ‘authoritarianism’ (while overlooking the real authoritarianism of the fascist Indian government’s response, and even praising it). Vicious as they are, such attacks may not be having their intended effect. Despite them, and the long-standing legacy of anti-communism in the US and the West, substantial minorities among Western publics languishing under over a decade of austerity, have favourable views of China.

China’s response to the novel coronavirus has the potential to further burnish its reputation in the West. In addition, the shift of the world economy’s centre of gravity away from the West, something that is feared by neoliberal leaders, but welcomed by others, has accelerated. The neoliberal West’s offensives, rhetorical and military, are at once desperate and dangerous.

The Grounds for Political Hope

These developments have given rise to unprecedented political hope for progressive change, particularly in the West where the pandemic presently centres. There are several grounds for it. Certainly, awareness of long-simmering issues in nearly all spheres of society is coming to a boil. The problems of our health systems—uneven access, inadequacy of services hollowed out by contracting out to private providers, low pay and short staffing, rising expenses of services, drugs and medical—have moved from the agendas of small campaigns to the centre of political debate, as has the scandal of elder care.

The disproportionate COVID-19 fatalities among the poor and the non-white is exposing the structural racism of our societies. The fragility of the productive systems of the world’s richest countries are revealed when, with supply lines splayed precariously around the globe by the drive to squeeze the last cent of profit, they prove unable to supply critically needed products. The complete irrationality of rising income inequality stands exposed when it turns out that the most essential of workers are also the most marginalised and low paid women and minorities. While the well-to-do seek to self-isolate in luxurious conviviality, and the middle classes discuss the joys of a slower rhythm of life with yoga and baking, homelessness and crowded homes have made nonsense of ‘self-isolation’, while domestic abuse, itself in good part a structural feature of the pressures created by steep neoliberal hierarchies, has brought out its often macabre character. While middle class parents discuss the techniques of home schooling and report on the bandwidth wars at home, their children pull farther ahead of poor children without internet access or devices. Such exposées are minting more radicals.

The pandemic has also made us all better informed. Readership of the news is at an all time high. Intellectuals across nearly the entire political spectrum appear to be outdoing one another in proposing to rectify this or that ill, sure in the knowledge that concerned publics, worn down by decades of neoliberal damage—suddenly acutely aware of it—will only lap it all up. Modern Monetary Theory, which argues that, contrary to former British Prime Minister Theresa May’s claim that ‘there is no magic money tree’, there is and that public authorities have harvested its fruit and leaves to bail out banks and can do so to finance government expenditure for popular purposes, is making the rounds. Universal Basic Income is an idea whose time has come.

Most on the left feel vindicated as the pandemic and the economic crisis force dyed-in-the-wool neoliberal governments to make previously unimaginable policy U-turns—aggressive fiscal activism, effective monetization of government debt, income support, requisitioning and even nationalising of private property, requiring private enterprises to cooperate in the production of essential medical equipment and drugs, the list is long. It is an indication of the severity of these measures, and the extent of the departure from neoliberal rules that neoliberal observers and politicians have taken to comparing the present emergency to the Second World War. Their motive, other than posing as Churchillian war leaders, is to indicate, wishfully as we shall see, that these measures are exceptional and should not be expected to continue after the public health emergency is over.

However, if that is what they wish, they are clearly playing with fire. The analogy is easily charged with the opposite political valence. Extensive and intensive government control of economies during the Second World War was as critical to victory externally as to ensuring ‘fair shares and equal sacrifices’ at home. The latter was so effective that the well-being and even life expectancy of ordinary citizens actually rose during wartime. After the war, a broad agreement emerged that if government intervention and planning could win wars, it should now be put to work curing social ills and guarding against any relapse into depression conditions. There could be “no excuse anymore for unemployment, slums and underfeeding.”

While the UK was the paradigmatic example of this development, government intervention created more equal, more fully employed and more productive economies around the world. Then, as now, actually existing communism provided the model. As one of the foremost historians of the modern world, Eric Hobsbawm, pointed out in his history of The Short Twentieth Century,

…the politicians, officials and even many of the businessmen of the post-war West [were convinced that]… a return to laissez-faire and the unreconstructed free market were out of the question. Certain policy objectives—full employment, the containment of communism, the modernization of lagging or declining or ruined economies—had absolute priority and justified the strongest government presence. Even regimes dedicated to economic and political liberalism now could, and had to, run their economies in ways which would once have been rejected as ‘socialist’.

The increased government activism amid the present crisis can surely only repeat this experience, we think wistfully. We also remember that while our politicians may invoke the Second World War to indulge in Churchillian grand-standing, he and his Conservative Party were, in fact, defeated by the ‘modest’ and ‘mouse-like’ Clement Atlee and his Labour Party in the historic 1945 General Election.

These possibilities are, moreover, being reinforced by new realizations and solidarities. The decades of environmental activism is bearing fruit in driving home the message that the pandemic is not some exogenous shock, but the result of decades of rapacious exploitation of the land narrowing wildlife habitats combined with cruel factory farming of animals. The cleaner air, bolder wildlife and louder birdsong are making people aware that if the economy can be slowed down to rescue us from a virus, surely it can also slow down to rescue us from the still-looming climate crisis. The lockdowns, more and less severe, that are breaking habits of decades seem set to reverse the consumerism, individualism and egotism heightened by neoliberalism.

‘We are all in this together’ feelings are widely shared and awaken long-neglected solidarities. Many are joining new struggles: over incomes, rent, debt or any of the myriad issues that are opening up fissures across society. Many more are realising that neglecting the health and well-being of a section of society, or of the world, is not without consequences for the rest of them and that redressing that neglect will involve action on not only the medical front but also the economic. Moreover, the relative simplicity enforced on the well-to-do by the lockdowns are leading them to discover new joys in it. They are rethinking what life is about: Ever more mindless consumption of unnecessary things that rely on keeping vast swaths of the world’s workforce in poverty? Or advancing civilization and developing human capacities at home and abroad in meaningful ways now that a modicum of prosperity has become technologically feasible for all? New priorities are surely emerging.

The Path to Realising the Political Hope

Left and progressive forces seeking to realise this new political hope face obstacles and dangers of being led astray, however. On the one hand, there are the left’s own longstanding limitations, intensified in the neoliberal era. Objectively, the strength of labour and other popular forces is diminished. Subjectively, too, the left has ebbed, reacting to the neoliberal assault with de-radicalization rather than radicalization. In particular, its understanding of actually existing communism and the historical record of revolutions against capitalist imperialism so far weakened during the neoliberal period. This also worked to the detriment, as we shall see, of its ability think about how to organise production (as opposed to redistribution) in socialist economies. This subjective weakening also clouds many left minds on contemporary China and thus on what a viable internationalism must consist of today.

On the other hand, progressive forces face a metropolitan capitalist class and a political right which may be facing its most profound crisis ever, but is not without recourse, including state, military, intelligence, media and public relations apparatuses, not to mention a long and so far successful history of ‘permanent counterrevolution’. As we shall see, it is working in the present crisis to put the Humpty Dumpty of neoliberalism back together by managing a transition to yet another phase of neoliberal capitalism (there have been at least four so far, as we shall see), what I call pseudo-philanthropic neoliberalism.

If the analysis presented here holds, the forces of capital and the right are unlikely to succeed. However, they will certainly complicate and endanger any pursuit of left objectives and hopes. It could hang on to power by authoritarian means, supplemented, as they must inevitably be in advanced capitalist societies, by vigilante forces of order, returning us to the point of choice between fascism and socialism that Karl Polanyi long ago posed and is yet to be overcome. Or it could lead to a frightening level of social, economic and political breakdown and chaos, what Karl Marx called the common ruin of the contending classes. Rosa Luxemburg called it ‘barbarism’. A sober consideration of this situation reveals that we need to think less in terms of opportunities for the left and more in terms of its responsibilities in leading humanity away from these frightening prospects and towards socialism.

This manifesto seeks to orient left and progressive forces on this complex terrain of the current crisis conjuncture. The forces it addresses are defined broadly with the understanding that their ranks are being swelled as the crisis reorients thinking and practices and that many old divisions can be overcome among those assuming our urgent responsibility.

This manifesto seeks to map the domestic and the international terrain on which the left must advance today. Since there are few unified left forces anywhere, it seeks to enable left parties, movements and groups to reinforce each other’s efforts and effectiveness by proposing a framework into which their diverse and discrete struggles can fit and which can give them a wider understanding of our purposes and struggles. It also maps the terrain on which the forces of capital and the right are organising and fighting and the strategies they are using.

The battle lines must be drawn around the false choice they offer us between lives and livelihoods, where the latter is equated with preserving the neoliberal order. This choice must be refused. To do so, any left strategy must clearly distinguish between what must be done to preserve both lives and livelihoods in the emergency and in the reconstructed economy beyond.

*

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 is the first in a seven-part, multi-week series of commentary on the COVID-19 crisis entitled WHAT IS TO BE DONE? A MANIFESTO FOR POLITICS AMID THE PANDEMIC AND BEYOND by Radhika Desai,

Radhika Desai is a professor in the Department of Political Studies at the University of Manitoba and currently serves as the director of the Geopolitical Economy Research Group.

Featured image is U.S. Air Force Graphic by Rosario “Charo” Gutierrez

United States Strategic Command, the branch of the US military responsible for the nation’s nuclear weapons, recently released an imperially misleading infographic on Twitter. The graphic is confused—not only about when to use bold typeface, but also about the facts.

.

.

“The threats we face today and in the future are real, and have not changed during the pandemic. While we continue to seek and provide for a safe and secure world, others continue to act provocatively and irresponsibly.” – ADM Richard pic.twitter.com/8RJXS10ZE9

— US Strategic Command (@US_Stratcom) May 3, 2020

The Bulletin’s editorial team has annotated the graphic as a service to readers.

The first section purports to show how China, Russia, and the United States will be upgrading their respective nuclear forces over the coming years. The graphic is hard to decipher, not least because it contains many acronyms, mixes strategic and tactical systems, and commingles NATO’s naming system with indigenous ones.

Click the image to read the annotations.

The overall impression, though, is that Russia and China will be rolling out many more new systems than the United States over the coming years, and so the danger to “America and allies” is growing.

But that’s wrong for several reasons. First, the chart is not making an apples-to-apples comparison. Although it purports to show “future capabilities,” it includes many Russian and Chinese weapons that are already partially or mostly deployed, while conveniently omitting deployed US weapons.

Second, more systems does not equate to more capabilities. Many of the systems shown, such as Russia’s Sarmat, the United States’ GBSD (Ground Based Strategic Deterrent), and China’s DF-41, are slated to replace older systems that have broadly similar capabilities. Moreover, in at least one place the chart duplicates two versions of the same system. The Pentagon has described China’s DF-31AG as simply “an enhanced version of the DF-31A,” but they appear as separate systems on the chart. Even where systems are entirely new, they will hardly alter the overall strategic balance.

Third, the chart gets the size of the pies wrong—it doesn’t say anything about how many of each system will be built. For example, it shows two icons for Chinese submarines and only one icon for US submarines. But China will likely build at most six of each type. The United States, meanwhile, plans to build 12 Columbia-class submarines.

Similarly, the United States plans to build more than 400 land-based missiles through its GBSD program, so that single icon in the pie chart will represent far more intercontinental ballistic missiles than China will have in its entire arsenal.

Overall, while all three countries are in the midst of expansive (and expensive) nuclear modernization programs, the United States has a nuclear arsenal that is more than adequate, and it will remain so over the coming decades.

Click the image to read the annotations.

The second section of the infographic juxtaposes a decrease in the US nuclear stockpile on the left with an increased threat level on the right. This section, too, is full of inaccuracies.

For instance, the assertion that the US stockpile has decreased by 85 percent in the last 30 years is slightly off. According to the authoritative Nuclear Notebook, the United States has reduced its stockpile from around 21,400 warheads in 1990 to around 3,800 in 2020, an 82 percent decrease.

More important, there’s no mention of Russia’s dramatic reductions, which have outpaced those of the United States. Since 1990, the Russian stockpile has declined from roughly 37,000 warheads to 4,310—an 88 percent decrease. So it is not as though US reductions were unilateral—quite the opposite. (China, with perhaps 300 warheads, is not likely to make any reductions until Russia and the United States reduce their own stockpiles further.)

It is true that the United States has reduced its stockpile through “deliberate choices” over the decades. Scholars and policymakers have long understood that arms racing makes all sides less safe, while arms control can make war less likely. The fact that mutual nuclear arms reductions have enjoyed bipartisan support in the United States for longer than 30 years should be a strong signal that this is sound policy.

Click the image to read the annotations.

The final section paints a picture of a law-abiding United States victimized by rogue countries that are “taking advantage of the situation.”

It suggests that China and Russia are developing new weapons that will “bypass treaty obligations.” This may be true for some of the more fanciful Russian systems under development. However, others, such as the Avangard and the Sarmat, can be incorporated into New START—the relevant existing treaty—quite smoothly. For China, none of the new systems listed above will violate or bypass any treaty, because no such agreement exists.

Meanwhile, the graphic makes no mention of agreements from which the United States has withdrawn, in some cases against the counsel of its allies. The Trump administration withdrew from the INF treaty in August 2019 and quickly began working on a weapon that the treaty would have banned. So although the Russians may have been guilty of breaking the law, the United States did one better by eliminating the law itself.

And although the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and major world powers was a political agreement rather than a legally binding treaty, it was the United States that withdrew and reimposed sweeping sanctions on Iran. So there would be little basis for claiming that Iran is “using aggressive behaviors” to “intimidate” the United States—rather, the opposite may be true.

There’s truth to the assertion that China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia have all tested weapons over the last several months, even as the entire world grapples with the COVID-19 outbreak. But so has the United States: It tested an intercontinental ballistic missile in February and a hypersonic missile glide body in March.

The final paragraph states that these countries “have shown no regard for nuclear reductions,” although by all accounts Russia, the United States’ main competitor in terms of nuclear arsenals, has abided by nuclear reduction agreements. In fact, it is the Trump administration that stands in the way of extending the only remaining agreement that would keep such reductions in place—New START. The Russians are ready to extend the treaty for five years without imposing or even discussing new conditions.

*

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.

John Krzyzaniak is the DC-based associate editor at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Before joining the Bulletin, he was an associate editor at the journal Ethics & International Affairs, based at the Carnegie Council.

Thomas Gaulkin is multimedia editor of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Prior to joining the Bulletin in 2018, he spent the previous decade working in communications at the University of Chicago, first with the centers for International Studies and International Social Science Research, and later as director of News and Online Content for the Division of the Social Sciences.

---

“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   

Being fat obese can double someone’s risk of going to the hospital for severe COVID-19 symptoms, a new report published by the University of Glasgow concluded this week. With that being said, a leaked document from the UK government obtained by The Sun outlines how obese people could be forced by their employer to work at home for the next year as lockdown restrictions are relaxed. 

The proposed measures, currently in draft form with the UK government, are aimed at preventing workplace transmission of the virus by protecting the most vulnerable of society. Along with overweight people, the elderly, women who are pregnant, and people with heart disease and diabetes have been profiled by the government with weak immune systems.

In a post-corona world, as restrictions are lifted, the measures will serve as a guideline for businesses to reopen their offices, as they must comply with government orders. It calls for shields around each desk to limit the virus spread. Companies will have to ban sitting back-to-back, hot-desking, and sharing of equipment. There will also be marks on the ground to instruct where people can or cannot stand. When people return to their desks, pre/post corona workspaces might be unrecognizable.

The measures also include handwashing and sanitizing stations around the office. This will allow employees to clean their hands and workstations regularly.

The proposed measures will likely limit face-to-face meetings and only allow if necessary. Employees will be forbidden from sharing pens, computers, and or any other devices. The strict rules will likely force employers to drive more staff to work at home.

The Sun was told after 6-12 months of the new measures, a review period would be seen to see if the workspace rules will stay in place.

An industry source said: “If it [COVID-19] survives the winter, these measures will have to be in place longer.”

Several company bosses told The Sun that new social distancing measures could also help to mitigate the traditional flu.

“The one positive is traditional flu cases will go down because you’re socially distancing,” the source said. 

The proposed measures, still in draft form, are not just guidelines to prepare offices for a post-corona world, the measures cover many other parts of society, as described by The Sun:

• Offices: Staggered shift times, less sharing of equipment and continued maximisation of home working are among a number of ideas listed as part of a draft government strategy to help businesses prepare for a return to work. Increased hygiene procedures and the installation of protective screens are also included in the plan. Efforts to avoid employees working face-to-face will see them working side by side or facing away from each other, according to the plans leaked to Buzzfeed News.
• Shops: There will be limits on the number of people in stores so Brits will be asked to shop alone to enable shops to be allowed to open and kick-start the economy. The advice for reopening non-essential shops such as clothes stores will be similar to the supermarket rules. Tape setting out two metre distances will have to be put on shop floors, and Brits will need to queue outside. Many shops will go cashless to stop the spread of the virus through money.
• Public Transport: In cities like London, maintaining the two-metre rule would make it impossible for workplaces to operate anywhere near full capacity. The most used Tube line for commuters is the Central Line, but in order to operate social distancing rules its usage would have to be cut by a staggering 85 per cent. Hand sanitiser will be installed on trains to protect commuters. Platforms and bus stops will contain two metre markers to maintain social distancing and one-way systems will be in place.
• Schools: A complex blueprint for schools to open in waves of different age groups is being planned. Reopening primary schools is a priority for the government in order to minimise the threat to early years development and help parents return to work. But Year 6 pupils will be first back if they are forced to stagger the reopening dates as they are at the most crucial stage of their learning. PM Boris Johnson wants the first schools to reopen on June 1. Year 10 and 12 pupils are expected to be the first wave of secondary schools to open. No firm date has been set for reopening workplaces but The Sun revealed last week that May 26 has been pencilled in as a target date as long as the government’s five tests for lifting the lockdown measures are met by then.

As to everyone who is overweight and wants to return to an office setting because their 550 sq. ft. flat in London is a jail cell — well, now might be the time to hop on a Peloton or an exercise bike. What’s baffling to us, is at what weight will the government determine if someone is too fat to work in an office? 

*

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: China sends an expert team and a large shipment of medical equipment to the United Kingdom on Saturday to help in the fight against COVID-19. [Photo provided to chinadaily.com.cn]

Yesterday, the US Labor Department released its April unemployment report, revealing a level of joblessness that is without historical precedent. On the same day, the stock market rose sharply, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average finishing up more than 450 points, or nearly two percent. Wall Street continues not only to feast on death, as the toll from the coronavirus continues to grow, but to profit from the mass social misery that the pandemic has produced.

The Labor Department report recorded a drop of employment of 20.5 million people. Not only is this the largest monthly collapse in history, it exceeds the previous record more than 10 times over. The official unemployment rate increased from under 4 percent to 14.7 percent, far above anything seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

As bad as these numbers are, they significantly underestimate the scale of the social dislocation. The April report is based on estimates calculated during the middle of last month, so they do not take into account the millions of people who have lost their jobs over the last three weeks. Some 33.5 million have filed for unemployment claims since the beginning of state and federal lockdowns seven weeks ago.

According to the report, moreover, 6.4 million additional workers have left the labor force entirely and are not counted as unemployed, bringing the labor force participation rate to its lowest level since 1973. Another 11 million workers reported that they were working part time because they could not find full-time work, an increase of 7 million people since before the pandemic.

When all factors are taken into account, something in the area of one third of the work force is out of work.

Mass joblessness is impacting nearly every sector of the working class. Employment in the leisure and hospitality sector was the most extreme, falling by nearly 50 percent, or 7.7 million people. There were 2.1 million job losses in business and professional services, 2.1 million in retail, 1.3 million in manufacturing and 1 million in construction.

Stunningly, amidst an expanding pandemic, there were 1.4 million job cuts in health care. And under conditions of an enormous social crisis, there were 650,000 job cuts in the social assistance sector.

The report notes, moreover, that mass unemployment has impacted workers of all races and genders. The unemployment rate among adult men soared to 13.0 percent, adult women to 15.5 percent, and teenagers to 31.9 percent. The rate was 14.2 percent for whites, 16.7 percent for blacks, 14.5 percent for Asians and 18.9 percent for Hispanics.

While a large number of the job cuts are categorized as “temporary,” a growing proportion are permanent, as corporations begin to implement mass layoffs. Indeed, there were two million permanent job losses in April. This, taken by itself, would be the largest increase in unemployment in post-World War II American history.

Tens of millions of workers live paycheck to paycheck and rely on credit cards and other forms of debt to make up for the difference between their income and their expenses. Household debt rose by 1.1 percent in the quarter ending March 31, to $14.3 trillion, a new record. This does not take into account the piling on of debt by tens of millions of people as the economic crisis intensified in April and into May.

With no savings and no government assistance, workers are turning in record numbers to food banks, which are running out of basic goods. A report by the Hamilton Project earlier this week found that 41 percent of families with children under the age of 12 are experiencing food insecurity—that is, they are unable to afford enough to eat.

The ruling class has no policy to deal with the social catastrophe. On Friday, the Trump administration declared that the jobs that have been destroyed “will be back and they’ll be back soon.” He added that “we’re in no rush” to pass a bill that would provide some assistance. The administration’s top economic advisor, Larry Kudlow, said that talks over further “stimulus” measures are “in a lull right now.”

As for the Democrats, while mouthing phrases about additional aid, they are haggling over minor measures that they know will never be passed by Congress. Both parties display a combination of indifference, bewilderment and reaction in the face of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Their proposals in response to this crisis make the US in the era of Herbert Hoover appear almost philanthropic.

Mass social immiseration is, in fact, a deliberate policy, supported by the entire political establishment. It is aimed at creating conditions in which: 1) the ruling class can force a return to work even as the pandemic continues to spread throughout the United States; and 2) workers will be compelled to accept sharp reductions in wages and benefits and an increase in exploitation to pay for the massive handout to the super-rich.

To pressure workers to endanger their lives by returning to work, the majority of the population is being systematically starved of resources. Six weeks after the passage of the CARES Act—the massive boondoggle to the corporations adopted unanimously by the Democrats and the Republicans—the majority of Americans have not received their $1,200 “stimulus” check.

States are going bankrupt and beginning to implement brutal austerity measures. A report from the Economic Policy Institute earlier this month found that 50 percent more people are unemployed than have even been able to file for unemployment benefits—the result of overburdened application systems and onerous restrictions. Millions who have filed for benefits have not received anything.

The approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States are excluded from receiving any benefits. Millions of workers in the “gig economy,” while supposedly able to qualify for federal assistance, face impossible barriers to obtaining it. In the state of Illinois, for example, these workers will be able to start applying only on May 11, and they will not have any possibility of getting assistance for several weeks thereafter.

At the same time, the ruling class has utilized the pandemic to organize a transfer of trillions of dollars to the financial markets through the Federal Reserve. The total assets on the balance sheet of the US central bank rose this week to more than $6.7 trillion, up from less than $4 trillion before the pandemic hit. Every day, the Fed is spending $80 billion to buy up assets from banks and corporations to fuel the market rise.

The enrichment of the oligarchy through rising share values is premised on mass impoverishment and an intensification of the exploitation of the working class. The profits and wealth of the corporate-financial elite have been saved at the expense of society.

Two agendas stand opposed to each other. One is the defense of the financial oligarchy, which means both an expansion of the pandemic, with all the horrific consequences this will bring, and a further immiseration of the population. The other agenda is that of the working class, which wants to fight the pandemic, save lives and defend the interests of the vast majority of the population.

The fight against the pandemic is not just a medical question. It is a political struggle to mobilize the working class against the Trump administration, the entire political establishment and the capitalist system it defends.

This is the political basis upon which the Socialist Equality Party is conducting our work and waging our election campaign. We call on all those who agree with this perspective to join and build the SEP today.

*

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.

Joseph Kishore is SEP candidate for US president.

On GlobalResearch.ca, the view points we put forth are not selected in the interest of pushing a specific narrative, but rather in breaking down divisions and building a dialogue. We publish pieces by a wide variety of specialists including journalists and scholars, political analysts and historians, ex-military and intelligence personnel, scientists and environmental experts, to name but a few.

To ensure the longevity of Global Research, we need your help! Our content will always be free, but your donations and membership subscriptions are essential to the functioning of our website. Free content involves some very real costs. We cannot meet these costs without your support. Please click below to make a donation or become a member now.

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

---

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

Click to view our membership plans

Why are the world’s top vaccine promoters, like Paul Offit and Peter Hotez, frantically warning us about the unique and frightening dangers inherent in developing a coronavirus vaccine?

Scientists first attempted to develop coronavirus vaccines after China’s 2002 SARS-CoV outbreak. Teams of US & foreign scientists vaccinated animals with the four most promising vaccines.

At first, the experiment seemed successful as all the animals developed a robust antibody response to coronavirus. However, when the scientists exposed the vaccinated animals to the wild virus, the results were horrifying.

Vaccinated animals suffered hyper-immune responses including inflammation throughout their bodies terminating with fatal lung infections. Researchers had seen this same “enhanced immune response” during human testing of the failed RSV vaccine tests in the 1960s. Two children died.

Offit, Hotez and even Anthony Fauci (in an unguarded moment), have warned that any new coronavirus vaccine could trigger lethal immune reactions when vaccinated people come in contact with the wild virus. Instead of proceeding with caution, Fauci has made the reckless choice to fast track vaccines, partially funded by Gates, without animal studies (that could provide early warning of runaway immune response).

Gates is so worried about the danger that he says he won’t distribute his vaccines until governments agree to indemnify him against lawsuits.

On Feb 4th 2020, when there were only 11 active CV cases in the USA, the U.S. quietly pushed through Federal regulations giving coronavirus vaccine makers full immunity from liability. Are you willing to take the risk?

*

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

The US is the only developed nation without some form of universal healthcare coverage.

The world’s richest country is indifferent toward the rights, needs, and welfare of its ordinary people in more normal times.

It’s much the same at times like now. Economic collapse combined with spreading coronavirus outbreaks finds tens of millions of Americans with health insurance because they’re out of work and it’s unaffordable for low and many middle-income households.

US healthcare costs double or more the amount in other developed countries — because profits are prioritized over human health and welfare, combined lack of some form of universal coverage.

In 2018, official US data showed around 28 million Americans were uninsured.

The number of underinsured is off the charts because coverage the way it should be is unaffordable for most US households so they settle for what’s inadequate or go uninsured.

Since taking office, the Trump regime took steps to undermine Obamacare marketplaces and Medicaid, including efforts to keep immigrants off its rolls.

America’s poor and low-income are most vulnerable to lack coverage or enough of it to cover major expenses if arise, Blacks and Latinos most affected.

All of the above was pre-economic collapse/spreading COVID-19 outbreaks — things much worse now than over the past decade.

Since March, applications for unemployment benefits were processed for over 26 million laid off or furloughed US workers, millions more coming, their applications for help backlogged.

By late May or June, around 47 million Americans may be laid off, many losing healthcare coverage along with income.

Shadowstats economist John Williams believes US unemployment could surge to 43% because “secondary furloughs are on the rise.”

Dr. Margaret Flowers is a  Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) national board adviser, a staunch advocate of Medicare for all.

At times like now when public duress is at a fever pitch because of rising unemployment, causing loss of income, coupled with loss of healthcare coverage for millions, the need is greater for universal coverage than any time since the 1930s Great Depression.

The world’s richest country and Wall Street owned Fed handed trillions of dollars in free money to bankers and other politically-connected corporate interests.

Ordinary Americans got peanuts, notably no help to deal with healthcare issues at a time of economic collapse with growing millions out of work and largely on their own to get by.

Flowers noted that even before the current dual crises emerged, the US “had the highest number of preventable deaths compared to other wealthy nations and a declining life expectancy.”

The leading cause of personal bankruptcies in the US is over inability to pay exorbitant healthcare costs that are rising much faster annually than average personal income.

By June, Flowers estimates the number of Americans without healthcare insurance will increase by over 13 million.

In early April, an analysis by PNHP co-founders Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein highlighted a growing lack of healthcare coverage in the US nationwide because of a surge in unemployment.

US legislation enacted into law covers COVID-19 testing, not treatment for any illnesses, “no new healthcare insurance subsidies or coverage.”

Growing numbers of uninsured individuals exclude affected family members, raising official numbers much higher with them inclouded.

Residents of states that rejected Medicaid expansion are most likely to lack coverage at a time when it’s most needed.

When employed, most Americans live from paycheck to paycheck with scant savings or none at all.

They’re unprepared to deal with what’s happening in real time. For lack of income and health insurance, they’re most likely to skip doctor visits and medications, greatly endangering themselves if illness becomes more serious.

At times like now, the urgency for universal coverage is self-evident — government sponsored, not connected to employment that in the best of times is way inadequate for most people.

At times like now, it’s gone for growing millions of unemployed and too expensive for many others.

Food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare are fundamental human rights.

Woolhandler and Himmelstein quoted economist and health research policy expert Victor Fuchs a decade ago saying:

“National health insurance will probably come to the United States after a major change in the political climate—the kind of change that often accompanies a war, a depression, or large-scale civil unrest.”

The time is now in the form economic duress that may be more severe for countless millions of Americans than any time since the 1930s.

Back then, vital social programs were established to get people back to work and help the unemployed.

Today, government under both right wings of the one-party state serves privileged interests exclusively at the expense of most others — a let ‘em eat cake agenda.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The power of endlessly repeated propaganda gets most people to believe almost anything — especially when pounded into the public consciousness by press agent establishment media.

In the US, they’re mouthpieces for monied interests and the imperial state. Following government pronouncements and their reports assures unawareness of reality.

China is in the eye of the storm. Over the weekend, Pompeo was at it again, diverting attention from Trump regime indifference toward public health and welfare by falsely blaming Beijing for spreading COVID-19 outbreaks and deaths.

“We have got an economy now that is really struggling and it is all a direct result of the Chinese Communist Party covering up, hiding information, having doctors who wanted to tell the story about where this began, how patient zero was formed and how it emanated from that person, and yet we cannot get those answers,” Pompeo roared, adding:

“Even now, 120-plus days on from the Chinese Communist Party knowing about this virus, they continue to hide and obfuscate the data from the American people and from the world’s best scientists.”

Reality is vastly different from Pompeo’s reinvented history, discussed in a same-day article.

Trump regime Iran bashing continues without letup. On Saturday, Pompeo ignored its breach of international and US constitutional law by abandoning the landmark Security Council adopted JCPOA by reinventing history again, saying:

Trump’s “bold decision…protect(ed) the world from Iran’s violence and…nuclear threats…”

Reality is polar opposite. If the world community followed Iran’s geopolitical example, global peace, stability and security would triumph over endless wars of aggression — the US, NATO and Israel the main offenders.

The same goes for state terrorism, the US its main backer and proliferator.

On the 75th anniversary of victory over the scourge of Nazism, the Trump regime ignored the indispensable contribution of Soviet Russia without which the war’s outcome might have been vastly different.

Pompeo’s joint statement with foreign minister counterparts from former Soviet Russian bloc states was a thumb in the eye to heroic Red Army efforts in defeating Nazi Germany.

Instead of praising its lead role in achieving victory in Europe, Pompeo slammed what he called Soviet Russia’s “iron grip over (Eastern European) captive nations (by) overwhelming military force, repression, and ideological control,” adding:

“For many decades, numerous Europeans from the central and eastern part of the continent sacrificed their lives striving for freedom, as millions were deprived of their rights and fundamental freedoms, subjected to torture and forced displacement.”

“Societies behind the Iron Curtain desperately sought a path to democracy and independence.”

“Today, we are working together toward a strong and free Europe, where human rights, democracy and the rule of law prevail.”

Fact: Democracy, human rights, and the rule of law are abhorrent notions in the US dominated West.

Fact: Pompeo’s hostile remarks ignored the Red Army’s lead role in defeating Nazi Germany, ignored 27 million lost Russian lives, ignored the immense suffering of its entire population and devastation to its cities and towns.

He willfully pretended that victory in Europe was US-led West achievement.

Occupied France was out of the war. The US and Britain were junior partners to Soviet Russia’s war effort that enabled the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry responded strongly to Pompeo’s reinvented WW II history, a statement saying the following:

“Attempts to distort the results of the defeat of Nazism and the decisive contribution of our country, which do not stop in Washington even on the solemn days of the general celebration of the 75th anniversary of Victory, are extremely outrageous.”

“In this regard, we cannot pass by the comment posted on the pages of the White House in social networks, where the victory over Hitler’s Germany is attributed exclusively to America and Great Britain.”

“On the eve of the holy holiday, American officials did not have the courage and desire to pay at least a half-word tribute to the undeniable role and enormous disproportionate sacrifices that the Red Army and the Soviet people suffered then for the sake of all humanity.”

“US officials have also been extremely stingy in this regard.”

“Unfortunately, this attitude clearly dissonates with the statement adopted on April 25 by Presidents Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Trump on the anniversary of the historic meeting of Soviet and American soldiers on the Elbe in 1945.”

“The document highlights the joint efforts of our countries in the fight against the common enemy.”

“(T)he real facts of history cannot be ignored – regardless of the sympathies or antipathies that arise both in relation to the Soviet Union, which liberated the world from the brown plague in those years, and in relation to our country today.”

“This is evidenced by the numerous well-founded responses to Belodomov’s tweets not only from Russians, but also from Americans who know American history, as well as people from all corners of the world.”

“It is noteworthy that their correct and based on historical facts comments are systematically removed.”

“And this is done (by a nation) which tirelessly declares its ‘commitment to freedom of speech!’ ”

“The theme of the sacred exploit of the older generation in war should not become yet another problem in bilateral relations, which are already going through difficult times.”

“Russia and the United States, despite their differences, can, on the basis of trust, mutual respect and consideration of each other’s interests, jointly respond to the increasing challenges of modern times.”

“We intend to have a serious conversation on this issue with (Trump regime) officials.”

On Saturday, Russia’s US envoy Anatoly Antonov slammed the Trump regime’s reinvented history of WW II.

Calling its belittling unacceptable, he said the following:

“The unleashed misinformation campaign in a number of countries and, unfortunately, in the United States, when they try to belittle the role of the Soviet Union or even, moreover, to say that the Soviet Union has started World War II, is simply unacceptable.”

“I can’t even imagine how people can speak such blasphemous words today, knowing that the Soviets lost 27 million people.”

“(W)e should not stay silent. We should talk about it, but speak calmly, reasonably, try to convey to ordinary Americans, to ordinary people in Europe and all over the world, that it was Soviet soldiers who liberated Europe” — not the Americans, British or anyone else

The Red Army “defended the independence of Europe and the Soviet Union, and no one will ever make us forget those times, and no one will ever be able to shake our confidence that the most important thing is to be together in the fight against new challenges and threats. Today it is more important than ever.”

Moscow is justifiably furious over the Trump regime’s reinvented WW II history, including the White House tweeting:

“On May 8, 1945, America and Great Britain had victory over the Nazis!”

“America’s spirit will always win. In the end, that’s what happens.”

Moscow urged the Trump regime to commemorate the Soviet Union’s indispensable contribution to defeating the scourge of Nazism – and not rewrite history.

The request that should have been respected and honored fell on deaf ears.

Note: In cahoots with US dark forces, Facebook banned from its platform a colorized iconic photo of Red Army soldier Yevgeny Khaldei’s raising Soviet Russia’s flag over the Reichstag in Berlin on May 2, 1945 — because it marked Moscow’s defeat of Nazi Germany in living color.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image: CIA reference photograph of Soviet medium-range ballistic missile (SS-4 in U.S. documents, R-12 in Soviet documents) in Red Square, Moscow. (Source: Public Domain)

The recent political crisis that exploded between Iran and Afghanistan after the former’s security forces were accused of forcing over 50 of the latter’s illegal immigrants into a river on their shared border (where the majority of them are thought to have perished) further threatens the viability of India’s Chabahar Corridor, which might put the final nail in the coffin of this already seemingly doomed trans-regional connectivity project.

Why is the UK government refusing to release details of its ‘unprecedented’ data transfer to US tech giants? If we don’t get answers, we may seek them in the courts.

***

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,¹ son of Sen. and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, both of whom were tragically murdered, has continued in the footsteps of these famously courageous men by standing up for the truth.

He co-founded Waterkeeper Alliance — the world’s largest clean water advocacy group — and provides legal counsel for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which help protect organic producers. He has also fought legal battles on behalf of the Informed Consent Action Network, founded by Del Bigtree, and chairs the board of directors of the Children’s Health Defense.²

Kennedy wrote a brilliant foreword to Judy Mikovits’ book “Plague of Corruption,” in which he quotes his father saying, “Moral courage is the rarest species of bravery … rarer than the physical courage of soldiers in battle or great intelligence.” His father believed “moral courage was one of the most vital qualities required to change the world,” Kennedy says.

While Kennedy was referring to Mikovits’ moral courage, the same can be said for Kennedy himself, whose career as an environmental attorney and activist is built on defending those who cannot defend themselves.

This includes children who are being harmed by vaccines that have yet to be tested for safety, especially when given in combination with other vaccines. In September 2018, Kennedy proved the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) violated its mandate for safer childhood vaccines as stipulated in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act.³

What Happened to Trump’s Vaccine Safety Commission?

When President Trump was elected, he contacted Kennedy and asked him to run his Vaccine Safety Commission. Unfortunately, the Safety Commission never got off the ground:

“I agreed to do it, but immediately after that, Pfizer wrote a $1 million check to his inauguration committee. He then appointed a Pfizer lobbyist, Alex Azar, to run the HHS, and he handpicked a Pfizer insider, Scott Gottlieb, to run the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. As soon as they got in there, they shut down the Vaccine Safety Commission and any other questioning of vaccines,” Kennedy says.

“I think a lot of people were telling him, ‘You shouldn’t be doing this,’ and [Bill] Gates was one of them. But I think once he took the money from Pfizer and put in their guys, [the commission] was dead in the water.”

Coronavirus Vaccine Development Has Failed for Decades

Kennedy goes on to share some of his insights and take on what Judy discusses in her book, the potential relationship between the flu vaccine and COVID-19, and his views on the COVID-19 vaccines currently being fast-tracked. With regard to the COVID-19 vaccine, he says:

“We’re all waiting for a vaccine, and if they come up with a vaccine and they’ve actually done real safety testing on it, and the vaccine works, I would be happy to have the vaccine. But the problem is they’re not [safety] testing it at this point …

People have tried for many years — for three decades — to create a coronavirus vaccine. The coronavirus can be super virulent, super deadly and super transmissible, or it can be mild, like a cold. The Chinese have been trying to [develop a vaccine] … and when you try to create a vaccine, what you do is you accelerate evolution.”

How to Accelerate the Evolution of a Virus

As explained by Kennedy, the way they accelerate evolution is by taking the coronavirus from the anus of the bat and replicate it in animal tissue such as pangolin kidney tissue. Next, the grown viruses are placed on feral monkey kidney cells, followed by mouse brain tissue.

Each time you transfer the virus to another animal tissue, you increase the risk of zoonotic animal virus contamination in addition to mutations. According to Kennedy, six years of evolution can be accomplished in a matter of days using this accelerated evolution process. Through this process, extremely viral forms of the virus can be rapidly created. Typically, milder forms are used to create a vaccine. As explained by Kennedy:

“You can take a mild form and give a person that mild form, and they don’t really get sick. They develop the antibodies, and that’s the theory [behind vaccination]. But there are reasons that they like to create those super viral forms. One is, most of the labs where they do it, like Fort Detrick in [the U.S.] and Wuhan lab in China, are not only vaccine labs but they’re also military labs.

“So, they want to mess around and look at these viruses that they may be able to weaponize. Not only that, the people who are creating vaccines like to create super viral forms. They give them to mice who have been genetically engineered to have a human immune system, essentially. Then they try to cure them.

“Those experiments were going on in the United States until 2014. They were Dr. Anthony Fauci’s projects. President Obama ordered that to stop because they had a lot of lab escape problems in 2014 from three different labs …

“Instead of stopping as he was ordered, Fauci moved those operations to the Wuhan lab in China and continued to do those experiments right up until the time that the coronavirus [pandemic occurred]. In fact, [infectious disease expert] Ian Lipkin was doing those experiments over there when [COVID-19] exploded. And I’ll tell you exactly what happened because it’s very suspicious.”

Was SARS-CoV-2 Released to Safeguard Continued Research?

Kennedy continues telling the story of how the COVID-19 epidemic may have been generated — by releasing the virus — to ensure that dangerous coronavirus research would continue and receive fresh funding:

“When President Trump came in, Obama had an office in the White House for pandemic defense, for pandemic security. They were involved in funding [coronavirus research projects in Wuhan] through Fauci. President Trump ended all funding for that office September 20, 2019. So that was the last paycheck any of those scientists got.

“On September 30 [2019], a whole lot of scientists were laid off in Wuhan. October 1 is when the first case of [COVID-19 was reported]. So, it’s suspicious because it looks like there’s a possibility — and I’m speculating here; I want to make that clear — but there’s a possibility that somebody who lost their job in that lab … could have released the virus.

“Because, immediately, it created an instantaneous market for people with that particular skillset, which is to study how to make a coronavirus vaccine. So, you could go from unemployed to highly employed almost overnight if you released one of those microorganisms they were creating in that lab. I don’t know if that happened, but that’s something that needs to be [investigated].”

Most Journalists Now Act as Pharmaceutical Reps

An even broader agenda appears to be the introduction of a far more authoritarian regime, along with the transfer of wealth from average people to the richest through a planned economic collapse.

“Of course, that’s speculation,” Kennedy says, “and it’s stuff that if we were living in a true democracy where there was a free press that was actually permitted to ask those questions and speculate on that, then we would be doing an investigation of those questions. We have a right to know and we all ought to know the answer.

“Unfortunately, journalists today are no longer journalists, they’re pharmaceutical reps … You’re a huge threat to them because you are not part of the pharmaceutical [establishment].

“You’re telling people the truth, which is that there are problems with germ theory, and that the [first line of defense] we have against illness of all kinds, including infectious disease, is a really strong immune system. And that our immune system functions in an evolution-intended [way], which is to fend off billions, hundreds of billions of infectious viruses every single day.”

Coronavirus Vaccine May Be a Disaster Waiting to Happen

Kennedy goes on to summarize the history of coronavirus vaccine development, which began after three SARS epidemics had broken out, starting in early 2002.

“The first one was a natural epidemic that had moved from bats to human beings. The second two were lab-created organisms where people were experimenting with the coronavirus … That’s noncontroversial. Everybody accepts that.

“The Chinese, the Americans, the Europeans all got together and said, ‘We need to develop a vaccine against coronavirus.’ Around 2012, they had about 30 vaccines that looked promising. They took the four best of those and … manufactured the vaccines. They gave those vaccines to ferrets, which are the closest analogy when you’re looking at lung infections in human beings.

“The ferrets had an extraordinarily good antibody response, and that is the metric by which FDA licenses vaccines. Vaccines, as you know, are never tested in the field. They never give 5,000 people the vaccine, 5,000 people a placebo vaccine, and then tell them to go out and live life and watch what happens to those people. That never happens.

“The way that vaccines get licensed is that FDA gives people a vaccine or the industry gives them the vaccines, and then they do a serological response [test to] see ‘Did you develop in your blood antibodies to that target virus?’ The ferrets developed very strong antibodies, so they thought, ‘We hit the jackpot.’ All four of these vaccines … worked like a charm.

“Then something terrible happened. Those ferrets were then exposed to the wild virus, and they all died. [They developed] inflammation in all their organs, their lungs stopped functioning and they died.

“Then those scientists remembered that the same thing had happened in the 1960s when they tried to develop an RSV vaccine, which is an upper respiratory illness very similar to coronavirus.

“At the time, they did not test it on animals. They went right to human testing. They tested it on I think about 35 children, and the same thing happened. The children developed a champion antibody response, robust, durable. It looked perfect, and then the children were exposed to the wild virus and they all became sick. Two of them died. They abandoned the vaccine. It was a big embarrassment to FDA and NIH …

“Those scientists in 2012 remembered that, and they said, ‘This is the same thing that happened [back then].’ So, they look closer and they realize that there are two kinds of antibodies that were being produced by the coronavirus. There are neutralizing antibodies, which are the kind you want, which fight the disease, and then there are binding antibodies.

The binding antibodies actually create a pathway for the disease in your body, and they trigger something called … a paradoxical immune response or paradoxical immune enhancement. What that means is that it looks good until you get the disease, and then it makes the disease much, much worse …

“Coronavirus vaccines can be very dangerous, and that’s why even our enemies, people who hate you and me — Peter Hotez, Paul Offit, Ian Lipkin — are all saying, ‘You got to be really, really careful with this vaccine.’”

Dengue Vaccine Led to Criminal Prosecution

According to Kennedy, the same thing happened in 2014 with the dengue vaccine DENVax, which Fauci owns the patent on. “They knew from the clinical trials that there was a problem with paradoxical immune response,” Kennedy says, but they gave it to several hundred thousand Filipino kids anyway.

They got a great immune response from the vaccine, but those exposed to wild dengue got horribly sick and 600 of the children died. “Today, the Philippine government is prosecuting criminally a bunch of the people locally who were involved in that decision,” Kennedy says.

Coronavirus Mutates Rapidly

Another problem with coronavirus vaccines is that coronaviruses mutate very rapidly. Kennedy cites a recent Chinese study⁴ — “Patent-Derived Mutations Impact Pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2” — which was also reported in the New York Post⁵ April 21, 2020, in which they looked at the coronavirus strains found in hundreds of patients. They identified more than 30 different strains, 19 of which had previously not been seen. According to the authors:⁶

“Current genomic survey data suggest that single nucleotide variants (SNVs) are abundant … Here we report functional characterizations of 11 patient-derived viral isolates, all of which have at least one mutation. Importantly, these viral isolates show significant variation in cytopathic effects and viral load, up to 270-fold differences, when infecting Vero-E6 cells.

“We observed intrapersonal variation and 6 different mutations in the spike glycoprotein (S protein), including 2 different SNVs that led to the same missense mutation. Therefore, we provide direct evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 has acquired mutations capable of substantially changing its pathogenicity.”

As noted by Kennedy, the question is, if you vaccinate against one of those strains, will it protect against the rest? Or might the coronavirus act more like the influenza virus, where the vaccine will only give you a narrow band of immune response and/or might actually enhance injury from other strains?

“The World Health Organization and the British Medical Services are now saying there is no evidence that even getting an infection from the coronavirus equips you with antibodies that will protect you in the future.

“They’re seeing a lot of reinfection of people who got COVID-19, got better, and then got [sick from] coronavirus again. If that’s true, then it’s unlikely that any vaccine will work because natural infection always [gives you] a wider band immune response than a vaccine.”

Flu Vaccination Increases Risk of Coronavirus Infection

Mikovits has strong beliefs on this issue, as she doesn’t believe COVID-19 is due to SARS-CoV-2 alone but, rather, that the virus may serve to activate latent XMRV retroviral infection. She points out that retroviruses, not coronaviruses, are what cause the characteristic cytokine storm signature observed in COVID-19. Mikovits suspects that in people who do not have retroviral infections, SARS-CoV-2 causes no or only mild symptoms.

Like Mikovits, Kennedy cites a Pentagon study⁷ published in the January 10, 2020, issue of the Vaccine journal, which found you’re 36% more likely to get coronavirus infection if you got the influenza vaccine in 2017 or 2018. As noted in this study, titled “Influenza Vaccination and Respiratory Virus Interference Among Department of Defense Personnel During the 2017-2018 Influenza Season”:

“Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as virus interference. Test-negative study designs are often utilized to calculate influenza vaccine effectiveness.

“The virus interference phenomenon goes against the basic assumption of the test-negative vaccine effectiveness study that vaccination does not change the risk of infection with other respiratory illness, thus potentially biasing vaccine effectiveness results in the positive direction.

“This study aimed to investigate virus interference by comparing respiratory virus status among Department of Defense personnel based on their influenza vaccination status. Furthermore, individual respiratory viruses and their association with influenza vaccination were examined.”

Results were mixed. Interestingly enough, while seasonal influenza vaccination did not raise the risk of all respiratory infections, it was in fact “significantly associated with unspecified coronavirus (meaning it did not specifically mention SARS-CoV-2) and human metapneumovirus” (hMPV).

Those who had received a seasonal flu shot were 36% more likely to contract coronavirus infection and 51% more likely to contract hMPV infection than unvaccinated individuals.⁸

Looking at the symptoms list for hMPV⁹ is also telling, as the main symptoms include fever, sore throat and cough. The elderly and immunocompromised are at heightened risk for severe hMPV illness, the symptoms of which include difficulty breathing and pneumonia. All of these symptoms also apply for COVID-19. Again, while this study did not look at SARS-CoV-2 specifically, it did look at coronaviruses, so “It’s a red flag,” Kennedy says, adding:

“That study is not alone. We’ve found — and I’ve posted these on my Instagram — at least 10 other studies that say, ‘If you get the flu vaccine, you’re much more likely to get a non-flu respiratory viral infection.’ The risk goes up, in some of those studies, about 600%. In some other of those studies, less than that — 200%, 300%, 400%.

“But virtually all of these studies show that the flu vaccine actually makes you more susceptible to coronavirus, and there may be reasons for that. It’s been speculated that there may be coronavirus contamination in the flu vaccines … [or] it could be the XMRV.

“You’re getting that paradoxical immune response because you’ve been inadvertently inoculated with the coronavirus when you get the flu vaccine. So, we don’t know, but the observed effect is very well documented …

“In Northern Italy, right before the outbreak of [COVID-19], there was a mass vaccination [using] a very powerful flu vaccine … But it’s anecdotal. There’s no proof of [a correlation].”

Mikovits believes one of the reasons older Italians got hit so hard in northern Italy is because the vaccine given there was grown in dog kidney cells, which she claims are contaminated with coronaviruses.

Can Flu Vaccination Trigger a Positive SARS-CoV-2 Test?

What’s more, Mikovits claims that anyone who has received a flu vaccine is likely to register as positive for SARS-Co-V-2 using a PCR test, for the fact that most flu vaccines in the U.S. are made in chicken cells or dog kidney cells, which her research shows are contaminated with coronaviruses. In our interview, she explained:

“[The vaccines] are grown in animal cells and … have some of the same host viral proteins and lock and keys. As they’re floating through the laboratory where they’re growing large stocks of these cells, aerosolizing them, it contaminates and cross contaminates through the air …

“This is what we found in 2011. The big ‘Oh my God,’ was, we can’t afford to retrofit our laboratories and manufacturing facilities toward biosafety level 3 and 4 to protect the lab workers who are spreading these viruses and getting infected. And now the [retroviruses] are aerosolized … All the cell lines are contaminated …”

Mikovits’ research showed that the contamination occurred during the original creation of the cultured cell lines used to then grow the vaccine in. In other words, the cells in which many vaccines are grown are already infected. That’s how the retroviruses get into the vaccine, and is then spread via injection. She doesn’t believe the contamination of vaccines with retroviruses was an intentional act. But the cover-up certainly is.

“The message of ‘Plague of Corruption’ is that we cannot mix animal and human tissues. Not just coronaviruses, but the infectious retroviruses [are spread this way]. We are injecting lots of animal tissue, fetal tissue, into humans, and we’re creating novel viruses all the time, even within the individual or family,” she says.

Could Type 1 Interferon Be Used Against SARS-CoV-2?

According to Mikovits, the existence and function of XMRVs is highly relevant as it pertains to COVID-19. There are many coronaviruses in the natural world, but according to Mikovits, they’re not highly pathogenic because they don’t cause this inflammatory signature of disease that suggests the immune system is out of control and causing massive cytokine storms.

“This was our work for the last four decades … We were led down a path where we learned in 1991 that you could have HIV and never get AIDS.

“If you employ the right treatment at the right time, then you stop the replication of the virus, you stop the reservoirs, you stop the immune destruction, and that could easily have been done in the case of SARS-CoV-2 with simple Type 1 interferon at a very low dose, which has 40 years of research [behind it].

“I was part of the team that first used the immune therapy, a purified Type 1 interferon alpha, as a curative therapy for a leukemia. That research has proceeded for decades, [yet] the Food and Drug Administration said, ‘You can’t use that in preventing coronaviruses from jumping from animals [to humans].’

“[Type 1 interferon] is a simple food. It’s a simple spray. We have it on the shelf now, made by Merck, [yet] Merck discontinued its use. Why would you do that if that was the frontline … prevention? Interferon alpha is your body’s own best antiviral against coronaviruses and retroviruses.”

Understanding Interferons

One of Mikovits’ primary treatment recommendations is interferon 1 alpha, sold under brand names such as Alferon and Roferon, to shut down the replication of RNA viruses, including retroviruses and coronaviruses. She believes it might be beneficial to take twice a day for the duration of known exposure. Although a bottle costs around $600, one only needs small amounts and a bottle can treat 1,000 people for a week.

Interferon alpha Type 1^10,11 is a type of beneficial cytokine released by your body as one of its first line of defense against viral infections. In a nutshell, it interferes with viral replication. It’s also been shown to suppress certain types of tumors. As part of your immune system, it stimulates the infected cells and those nearby to produce proteins that prevent the virus from replicating within them.

Interferon alpha and beta also help regulate your immune response. As noted in a 2018 paper¹² on the dual nature of Type 1 and Type 2 interferons, “both antiviral and immunomodulatory functions are critical during virus infection to not only limit virus replication and initiate an appropriate antiviral immune response, but to also negatively regulate this response to minimize tissue damage.”

Like Mikovits, Dominic Chan, a Doctor of Pharmacy who recently updated an article on interferon on Medicinenet.com., proposes using interferons against COVID-19. The earlier article, written by Eni Williams, Pharm.D. and Ph.D., before she died in 2017,¹³ says:¹⁴

“Interferons modulate the response of the immune system to viruses, bacteria, cancer, and other foreign substances that invade the body. Interferons do not directly kill viral or cancerous cells; they boost the immune system response and reduce the growth of cancer cells by regulating the action of several genes that control the secretion of numerous cellular proteins that affect growth …”

She goes on to list a number of interferons that are commercially available, including Intron-A (interferon alfa-2b), Betaseron (interferon beta-1b) and many more. In April 2020, Chan added:

“Interferon beta-1a, currently in use to treat multiple sclerosis, and interferon alfa-2b are both under investigation as potential treatments for people with COVID-19 coronavirus disease …

“Interferon Beta 1a, specifically, activates macrophages that engulf antigens and natural killer cells (NK cells), a type of immune T-Cell … The theory is, interferon may be able to make the immune system stronger by turning on dormant parts and directing them toward the defense against SARS-CoV-2’s assault.”

It’s worth noting the warnings, however. According to Chan, if you already have flu-like symptoms and take interferons, the symptoms are likely to get worse before they get better, as your immune system ramps up. “If someone is already on a ventilator and symptoms are about to overwhelm them, giving them an interferon-based medicine could be catastrophic,” he says.

How to Make a Safe Vaccine

Mikovits also proposes a novel vaccine for weaponized viruses like this that involves the alpha interferon, small amounts of the virus and peptide T, which will block the interaction of the virus and keep your T cells from getting infected.

Unlike conventional vaccines, which are mostly injected, this would be oral and would only stimulate antibody humoral responses. Her version would also cause innate cellular immunity from the T cells.

To learn more about Mikovits’ research and conclusions, see “Could Retroviruses Play a Role in COVID-19?” You’ll find the full interview with her at the bottom of that article. To summarize some of the key take-home messages Mikovits delivers in that interview:

• She believes COVID-19 — the disease — is not caused by SARS-CoV-2 alone, but rather that it’s the result of a combination of SARS-CoV-2 (which appears to have been manipulated to include components of HIV that destroys immune function). Previous XMRV (human gammaretroviruses) infection may facilitate SARS-CoV-2 to express the COVID-19 illness.

Put another way, COVID-19 may be initiated by SARS-CoV-2, but dependent upon a preexisting infection with and awakening of other viruses such as XMRV, gamma retroviruses, possibly Lyme and other coinfections, including parasites, and this is why antiparasitic medications like hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin help.

• Blood products and vaccines are contaminated with XMRVs that can damage your immune system and cause CFS, cancer and other chronic diseases. The viruses spread within laboratories as they have adapted to become aerosolized and contaminate cell lines used in vaccine production and other viral research, including research on coronaviruses.
• Flu vaccines have spread a host of dangerous viruses around the world, which can then interact with SARS COV-2.
• It is possible to develop safer oral vaccines, and interferon alpha could be a valuable treatment alternative against COVID-19. Aside from interferons, other treatment strategies discussed in our interview include hyperbaric oxygen therapy, cannabinoids (CBD), peptide T and antioxidant support.
• SARS-CoV-2 is more dangerous and virulent than typical coronaviruses because it includes sequences of HIV, SARS and another virus, which enable it to infect more than just your respiratory epithelium. It can also infect blood cells and hematopoeitic organs such as the spleen.

*

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

There are certain basic freedoms to which all people are entitled. Foundational to all of them is self-determination. Once that principle is enshrined in any nation, such freedoms as speech, press, movement, etc. follow. People who live under any system in which the concept of self-determination is at least minimally respected enjoy these benefits to a greater or lesser degree.

I first became interested in Kashmir because of my work on freedom for the Palestinians. The oppression of both nations is strikingly similar. Both peoples suffer due to United Nations decisions dating back over seventy years, and both have suffered for that length of time. Both are victimized brutally by powerful nations, Palestinians by Israel and Kashmiris by India. The Kashmiri suffering, like the suffering and oppression of the Palestinians, has mainly been ignored by the international community. India’s own actions in August of last year caused that to change, although not to the degree necessary, by suspending Kashmir’s constitutional autonomy, closing Kashmir’s borders and sealing that nation off even from social media contacts.

Palestinians and Kashmiris, under the occupying governments, are considered second-class citizens at best, and less than human at worst. Israel has declared itself the nation-state of the Jewish people and only the Jewish people, thus completely discounting the 20% of Israeli residents who are Arab, most of whom are Muslim. India’s revocation of Article 370 of its constitution opened the doors to additional repression of the Kashmiri people.

Opportunities that we all take for granted – the ability to find and hold gainful employment, keep our families safe, and live relatively free from government-sponsored terrorism – are completely lacking for Kashmiris and Palestinians.

There can be no doubt about India’s intentions in Kashmir: the Indian government simply seeks to render it non-existent. In mid-November of last year, three months after Article 370 was revoked, Sandeep Chakravorty, India‘s consul general in New York, made this clear. In the quotation I’m going to read, the refugees he refers to were Kashmiri Hindus who fled in 1989 after a rebellion: “I believe the security situation will improve, it will allow the refugees to go back, and in your lifetime, you will be able to go back … and you will be able to find security, because we already have a model in the world.” He further said, “I don’t know why we don’t follow it. It has happened in the Middle East. If the Israeli people can do it, we can also do it.” He then said that the Indian government is determined to do so. He was referring, of course, to colonization.

One might reasonably wonder why the global community doesn’t act. It seems that many nations, often at the behest of the United States, are forever rushing into various countries for ‘humanitarian assistance’. Why not Kashmir? Why not Palestine?

As with most of its foreign policy, the U.S. is more concerned with profits than with people. The U.S is now India’s largest trading partner, and while it could use this as leverage to obtain significant concessions from India, including, perhaps, even a complete end to the occupation of Kashmir, it is simply easier to maintain the status quo, and count profits rather than Kashmiri victims. This may appear to be a harsh view, but again, the parallels between the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the Indian treatment of Kashmir are clear. The U.S. gives $4 billion annually to Israel in foreign aid; it would be interesting to see how quickly Israeli policies would change if that funding were to be withheld. Similarly, how long would India continue its colonization of Kashmir, if U.S. trade dollars were not flowing so freely?

In February of this year, U.S. President Donald Trump met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and received a very warm reception, mainly because he didn’t bother to bring up the subject of Kashmir. There is much that the U.S. president could have done, as I mentioned earlier, but Trump has shown an affinity for what he calls ‘strong’ leaders, expressing admiration for Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, each of whom runs a nation with dismal human rights records. And since Modi is cut from the same mold, as demonstrated by his actions toward Kashmir, he has no reason to fear censure from the U.S. president.

Following the 9/11 attacks on the United States in 2001, the U.S. launched the so-called ‘war on terror’, mainly by unleashing horrific terror against other nations. It referred to Iraqi freedom fighters as ‘insurgents’, and India is now taking a page out of the U.S. terrorism handbook. Resistance against the occupation of Kashmir is ‘terrorism’, we are told, and the Indian government has no choice but to repress it. We should remember that resistance to occupation is a right under international law. Here we see another parallel with Palestine. Any acts of resistance to that occupation are considered by Israel to be acts of terrorism, leaving that apartheid nation with ‘no choice’ but to bomb Palestine and arrest and kill its citizens, all in the name of ‘national security’.

In 2012, then U.S. Secretary of State (and later Democratic presidential candidate) Hillary Clinton said this “We reject any equivalence between premeditated murders by a government’s military machine and the actions of civilians under siege driven to self-defence”. Is it not unrealistic to consider a brutally occupied nation to be ‘under siege’? Would not such a people, as Clinton expressed, be ‘driven to self-defence’? One might think so.

The reason we have gathered today is because of our shared concern about the people of Kashmir, their brutal repression and the unspeakable suffering they are experiencing. But our goal is not simply to learn, but to be part of the solution. We know about the suffering, and because of that, we are obligated to help resolve it. What can we do? I have a few suggestions:

1. Don’t allow the Kashmiri oppression and suffering to be ignored. Use whatever platform you have to publicize it. Repost articles you see on your social media accounts, including LinkedIn. For a long time that was almost exclusively used for employment networking, but every avenue available must be used to inform the world about Kashmir.
2. Contact your elected officials. I hesitate to refer to them as ‘representatives’, because so few of them truly represent me. Meet with them when you can, politely and cordially, but clearly let them know your stand on the issue. For those of us in Canada, we must let our elected officials know our expectation that Canada will stand for human rights around the world. They can do this by working with member states of the United Nations Security Council to keep Kashmir on its agenda. Remind those officials that Canada seeks a temporary seat on the Security Council, and has vowed to “stand up for things that matter”. Let them know that Kashmir matters.

When you cannot meet with them, write to them. All officials have emails. In most cases, you will receive a form letter in response. Those that I have receive generally thank me for my email, and say that the official is ‘carefully monitoring the situation’, or some such meaningless tripe. Don’t be discouraged! It only takes a minute to send an email, so keep on sending them. Eventually, the people you send them to will begin to understand the importance of this issue to you, and to their re-election chances.  Email addresses of all officials are available online.

3. Keep informed. Through forums like this one, or contact with people in Kashmir, when that is available, or through any means possible, keep updated on the situation in the country. Know the stories of deprivation, cruelty and suffering. This will make your publicizing of the issue, and your contacts with elected officials, more effective.
4. Finally, do not despair. There is a quotation attributed to the late anthropologist Margaret Mead that you have probably heard, and that I like very much: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, organized citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” We may, at present, be a small group, but we are growing, and we are committed and increasingly well-organized. We don’t need to change the entire world right now: just India’s oppression of Kashmir. It’s a tall order, but we must be up to the challenge; too many suffering people are relying on us for us not to do everything in our power to assist them.

*

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.

While small and independent businesses are struggling to survive, the Bank of England is creating billions in new money to bail out Britain’s biggest companies – in secret. As public money, we deserve to know where this is being spent, and which companies are receiving it.

As part of their activities to combat the economic fallout of Covid-19, the Bank of England has created a new scheme called the Covid Corporate Financing Facility (CCFF), to specifically support the UK’s biggest companies impacted by the crisis.

The Bank of England specifically said companies receiving or eligible for funds “will not be made public” and businesses are being made to sign confidentiality agreements. Campaign Group Positive Money reports that –

“By the first week of April they had handed out more than £11 billion in bailouts with another £30 billion agreed – almost all of it hidden from public view. We’ve only learnt about a handful of company bailouts (such as EasyJet, Greggs, Redrow Homes and First Group) backhandedly through the press. And, to access the scheme, companies must be deemed to make a material contribution to the UK economy and have an investment-grade or sound long-term rating from a big credit rating agency – making the CCFF a highly exclusive facility.”

If a company meets these requirements, the Bank then purchases an amount of short-term debt from the company with brand new money it creates entirely for this purpose. This is public money pure and simple. To be clear, we are not publishing this because the CCFF is somehow wrong – only that the general public should know exactly what taxpayers are on the hook for and to whom.

During this time of crisis, the Bank of England must lift its veil of secrecy and make all it’s business bailouts public now. It is only right and proper that any company that has used sophisticated and ‘creative’ accountancy methods and devices to offshore profits be excluded from any bailout, no matter what the consequence.

Source: Bank of England

As at last week, the Bank of England have issued £51billion drawing capacity to 105 businesses. Of this 52 have received taxpayer support and 53 are soon to get their bailout. A further 104 businesses have applied in addition and one could assume from that, that well over £100bn would have been given the businesses for bailouts – all in total secrecy by the end of May.

Should we be suspicious? Yes. It is another scandal but also a shameful fact that almost three-quarters of companies who have been given major government contracts have operations based via tax havens. So big are these operations they account for something like 20 per cent of total government procurement spending and as they are secretive operations by the nature of their tax haven status, one wonders who exactly is profiting from them.

In the meantime, as I’m sure many readers are aware, Tesco has paid out £900 million in dividends to investors despite securing a £585 million tax break from the Government. Irrespective of the arguments here, Tesco, who by their own admission, has a strong balance sheet, has taken nearly £600m from the taxpayer in a desperate moment to the benefit of its shareholders. Tesco biggest shareholders are the American giant Blackrock with Norges Bank and Schroders Bank close behind.

*

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.

Over the past three years, Facebook has been removing accounts for participating in what they call “coordinated inauthentic behavior” (CIB). According to Facebook’s head of cybersecurity policy, the Orwellian term refers to when “groups of pages or people work together to mislead others about who they are or what they’re doing.” Facebook takes down accounts for CIB due to “deceptive behavior” not for sharing false information. In the latest purge, Facebook removed accounts from two news outlets, SouthFront and News Front.

The two outlets have no affiliation; the only thing they share besides the word “Front” in their names is content that does not toe the Western mainstream media line. In its effort to remove CIB and limit “disinformation,” Facebook partners with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Research Lab (DFRLab). The Atlantic Council is a Washington-based think-tank that receives funding from Western and Gulf State governments, defense contractors, and social media outlets. Some of its top contributors for the 2018 fiscal year include the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Embassy of the UAE to the US, the US State Department, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon.

Facebook started releasing monthly CIB reports in March that detail the networks and accounts they take down. On May 5^th, Facebook released its CIB report for April 2020. The report says Facebook removed eight networks of accounts, pages, and groups engaging in CIB. SouthFront and News Front are included in the first network covered in the report. “We removed 46 Pages, 91 Facebook accounts, 2 Groups, and 1 Instagram account for violating our policy against foreign interference which is coordinated inauthentic behavior on behalf of a foreign entity,” the report reads.

Facebook claims they linked this activity to “individuals in Russia and Donbass, and two media organizations in Crimea – NewsFront and SouthFront.” In a response to the report, SouthFront says the claim that they are based in Crimea is a “blatant lie” that they are willing to “defend in court.” SouthFront says the organization is made up of “an international team of independent authors and experts,” some of whom are from Russia and post-USSR states. News Front, on the other hand, is based in Crimea, but the organization does not try to hide its pro-Russia bias.

In a press release, the Atlantic Council’s DFRLab announced Facebook’s removal of the two organizations. The DFRLab refers to News Front and SouthFront as “two Crimea-based media organizations with ties to the FSB.” The FSB is a Russian security and intelligence agency, a successor to the Soviet Union’s KGB. In its independent analysis of the two outlets, the DFRLab offers little evidence to back up the claim of FSB ties. The analysis only uses a 2017 story from the German outlet Zeit, where a former News Front staffer claims the organization receives funding from the FSB. The DFRLab offers no evidence to link the FSB with SouthFront.

The DFRLab does not make a strong case for Facebook’s removal of the news outlets. The press release says, “While the DFRLab could not corroborate Facebook’s finding of CIB, it also found no evidence to contradict it.”

But using Facebook’s definition of CIB, the DFRLab’s analysis of the two outlets does seem to contradict Facebook’s findings. The pages and users analyzed do not seem to be misleading others or hiding who they are. “Most of the assets that DFRLab had access to did not hide their connection to South Front or News Front. Many of the pages wore their connections on their sleeves, naming themselves as different language versions of the websites,” the analysis reads. News Front is an international news organization with websites in English, Russian, German, Spanish, French, and Georgian and had Facebook pages to reflect that.

The analysis finds what they call “suspicious links” between News Front and ANNA News, another pro-Russia news outlet. But those “suspicious links” are just two former ANNA News anchors who now work for News Front. Facebook removed pages dedicated to the two anchors.

The analysis goes on to address the only connection between SouthFront and News Front, and probably, the real reason why they were removed from Facebook. Both outlets share stories that go against the Western narrative. The example the analysis seems to take the greatest issue with is stories that take into account Russia’s denial in the role in the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in eastern Ukraine in 2014. The analysis also points out that News Front accounts shared news stories from Russian-state funded media outlets like RT and Sputnik.

Ultimately, the DFRLab does not provide any information linking SouthFront or News Front’s social media activity to the Russian government and does not give examples of the accounts intentionally hiding their identity. The best they can do is mention some connections to the Russian government the founders of News Front have, but it is nothing they are trying to hide.

The Covid-19 pandemic has caused an increase in internet censorship. YouTube’s CEO recently said they would remove any videos that go against the World Health Organization’s guidelines for the virus. On top of the Facebook ban, SouthFront’s YouTube channel has also been removed without any explanation. Although most of SouthFront’s content is military analysis, some stories they published on Covid-19 were flagged as “disinformation” by a ministry of the European Union. SouthFront published a detailed response to those accusations, pointing out that only three of the 3,000 stories they published this year were found to be “disinformation” by what they call “pro-NATO propagandists.”

SouthFront posted a video asking their readers for support in the wake of the social media bans. For independent news outlets, reach on social media is vital for their survival. SouthFront’s Facebook page had around 100,000 subscribers, and the YouTube channel had about 170,000. SouthFrontpublishes multiple news stories each day, mostly following updates on wars in the Middle East. One of the website’s best resources is its frequently updated maps.

Other networks removed by Facebook in April include accounts in Iran, Georgia, Mauritania, the US, and Myanmar. Facebook claims they took down a network of accounts connected to Iran’s state broadcasting company, although they provide no evidence to support the claim. Content credited to this network includes a post promoting former presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul from 2012. Another example from 2014 is just a news story about Israeli forces preventing Palestinians from praying in al-Aqsa Mosque.

Facebook and its Western government-backed partners will continue to remove accounts each month for engaging in CIB. It will be hard to know if the connections they make to the accounts are genuine. But if the sloppy work they did on SouthFront and News Front is any indication, claims from Facebook and the Atlantic Council’s DFRLab should always be met with skepticism.

*

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 assistant editor at Antiwar.com and a freelance journalist based in Brooklyn NY, focusing on US foreign policy and wars. He is on Twitter at @decampdave.

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook

Recently, some US politicians and media outlets have been fabricating preposterous allegations and lies of one kind or another in order to shift the blame to China for their inadequate response to COVID-19.

However, as Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time”.

Lies evaporate in the light of truth. It is time to let facts speak for themselves.

In future, we will continue to reveal the truth to the world whenever new lies appear.

1. Allegation: COVID-19 is “Chinese virus” or “Wuhan virus”.

Reality Check: WHO has made it clear that the naming of a disease should not be associated with a particular country or place.

• Drawing on the lessons about naming infectious diseases in the past, especially the huge negative impacts caused by the naming of the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in 2012, WHO, in collaboration with the World Organization for Animal Health and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, identified the Best Practices for the Naming of New Human Infectious Diseases on 8 May 2015. According to these guidelines, the naming of a disease should avoid geographic locations, people’s names, class of animal or food, cultural, population, industry or occupational references (for example legionnaires) and terms that incite undue fear. See this
• On 11 February 2020, WHO, on the basis of the 2015 Best Practices for the Naming of New Human Infectious Diseases as well as international public health practices, officially named the pneumonia caused by novel coronavirus the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). See this
• Last April, the British science journal Nature, published three editorials, apologizing for connecting COVID-19 with Wuhan and China. It called for an immediate stop to coronavirus stigma and the irresponsible act of associating a virus with a specific place. See this
• The New York Times, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and other mainstream media in the West all reported that the wrongful connection of Asian communities with COVID-19 stoked serious xenophobia, and frequent occurrences of racist discrimination and harassment against these communities in the US. 

2. Allegation: Wuhan is the origin of the virus.

Reality Check: Being the first to report the virus does not mean that Wuhan is its origin. In fact, the origin is still not identified. Source tracing is a serious scientific matter, which should be based on science and should be studied by scientists and medical experts.

• Historically, the place that first reported a virus were often not its origin. For example, HIV infection was first reported by the US, yet it might also be possible that the virus did not originally come from the US. And more and more evidence proves that the Spanish Flu did not originate from Spain.
• Source tracing is a scientific matter. Its main purpose is to prevent similar epidemics from happening again and causing damage to the human society. At the moment, scientists around the world are searching for the source of the virus, and have presented many academic views on it. Chinese scientists are also earnestly conducting studies in order to provide the scientific basis for identifying the origin at an early date and dealing with the virus with targeted measures.
• On 24 January, The Lancet, an authoritative British medical journal, published an article co-authored by Cao Bin, Director of the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Department of the China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Huang Chaolin, Vice President and Chief Physician of Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital, Professor Li Xingwang, an expert with the Clinical and Research Center of Infectious Diseases of Beijing Ditan Hospital, Professor Ren Lili, an expert at the Institute of Pathogen Biology of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Zhao Jianping, Director of Department of Respiratory Medicine of Wuhan Tongji Hospital, etc.

The article reviews and analyzes the first 41 confirmed cases of COVID-19 admitted to hospital in Wuhan between 16 December 2019 and 2 January 2020. It has found that 27 of the 41 patients had been exposed to Huanan seafood market, while the rest 14 had not. The symptom onset date of the first patient identified was 1 December 2019. None of his family members developed fever or any respiratory symptoms. This patient had no exposure to Huanan seafood market. No epidemiological link was found between him and later cases.

• Viruses are the common enemy of mankind, which may appear at any time and in any place. Epidemics are natural in origin, not man-made. The origin of a virus or epidemic is a victim, not a culprit. It is unfair and unacceptable to blame it or hold it accountable.
• On 1 May, Dr. Michael Ryan, Executive Director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, said that science needs to be at the center of the exploration of the source of the virus, and they would like to see scientists at the center. He also stated that the WHO had not received any data or specific evidence from the US Government relating to the purported origin of the virus. See this
• Michael Melham, Mayor of Belleville of New Jersey, said that he has tested positive for coronavirus antibodies, and thinks he may have been sick with the virus back in November 2019. That is over two months before the first reported case in the US on 20 January 2020. See this
• On 6 May, USA Today reported that 171 people in Florida showed symptoms of COVID-19 as early as in January 2020, and none reported traveling to China. That was several months before officials announced it had come to Florida. See this

On 3 May, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents published an article entitled “SARS-COV-2 was already spreading in France in late December 2019”. According to the article, researchers reviewed the medical record of 14 selected ICU patients admitted for influenza-like illness between December 2, 2019 and January 16, 2020, and retrospectively performed COVID-19 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on them between April 6 and 9, 2020. It was found that one sample was positive taken from a 42-year-old man. The absence of a link with China and the lack of recent travel abroad suggest that the disease was already spreading among the French population at the end of December 2019. See this

3. Allegation: The virus was constructed by the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Reality Check: All available evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is natural in origin, not man-made.

• On 30 January, the prestigious UK medical journal, The Lancet, published an article on COVID-19 by research teams including China CDC, which considered the virus a new human-infecting coronavirus, based on the phylogenetic analysis of the ten 2019-nCoV genome sequences from nine confirmed patients from Wuhan. The article pointed out that compared with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, 2019-nCoV was more closely related to two bat-derived severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-like coronaviruses. The analysis suggests that bats might be the original host of this virus. See this
• On 19 February, The Lancet published a joint statement by 27 leading medical experts from eight countries, indicating that scientists from multiple countries have published and analyzed genomes of SARS-CoV-2, and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife, as have so many other emerging pathogens. See this
• On 17 March, five prominent scholars from the US, the UK and Australia pointed out on Nature Medicine that the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus. See this
• In his blog article posted on 26 March, Francis Collins, Director of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), pointed out that this novel coronavirus arose naturally. Researchers discovered that the virus could not have been man-made for it does not have the backbones of known coronaviruses. Instead, it probably evolved from a bat coronavirus and a novel virus found in pangolins. It is not the product of purposeful manipulation in a lab. See this
• On 21 April, WHO spokesperson Fadela Chaib said at a news briefing that all available evidence suggests the virus has an animal origin and is not manipulated or constructed in a lab or somewhere else. It most likely has its ecological reservoir in bats but how the virus came from bats to humans is still to be seen and discovered. See this
• On 30 April, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence of the US issued a statement on its official website making clear that the Intelligence Community concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not man-made or genetically modified. See this
• Executive Director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme Michael Ryan said on 1 May that numerous scientists have looked at the genome sequence of this virus and we are assured that this virus is natural in origin. See this
• WHO Representative in China Dr. Gauden Galea said on 5 May that all available evidence to date suggests that the virus has a natural animal origin and is not a manipulated or constructed virus. Many researchers have been able to look at the genomic features of the virus and have found that evidence does not support that it is a laboratory construct. See this
• The French news weekly, Valeur Actuelle, cited information from the country’s intelligence authorities to state that it is absolutely certain that the novel coronavirus is not a leak from a P4 lab in Wuhan.

4. Allegation: COVID-19 was caused by an accidental leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

Reality Check: The Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory (Wuhan P4 Laboratory) in the WIV is a government cooperation program between China and France. The Institute does not have the capability to design or synthesize a new coronavirus, and there is no evidence of pathogen leaks or staff infections in the Institute.

• The Wuhan P4 Laboratory is a government cooperation program between China and France, with its design, construction and management all following international standards, and operations protected by special facilities and strict protocols. All lab staff must pass relevant tests to obtain qualification, and the first group had received training in other P4 labs in France and America. The Lab must have its facilities and equipment examined on an annual basis by a government-accredited third-party agency, and can continue to operate only after it passes such annual inspections.
• The WIV is committed to timely and open sharing of research information through sharing data, publishing papers, attending seminars and conferences, and promoting science among the general public. Over the past year, the Institute has received visits by over 70 researchers and scholars from other parts of the world. As one of the dozens of P4 labs in the world, the Institute pursues a global vision of development, upholds the principles of being open and transparent to all, and promotes exchange and cooperation with all countries in an active and pragmatic way. The “2019 Novel Coronavirus Resource (2019nCoVR)”, an information sharing platform of the WIV, has so far registered over 600,000 visits and 21 million downloads.
• Operations of the Wuhan P4 Laboratory have all along been safe and stable. There had been no SARS-CoV-2 in the lab until 30 December 2019 when the first COVID-19 patient specimens were delivered there for testing three days after the local government received first reports of the virus. No one in the WIV has so far been infected by COVID-19.
• An official at French President’s office said in mid-April that “there is to this day no factual evidence … linking the origins of COVID-19 and the work of the P4 laboratory of Wuhan, China.” See this
• According to a recent article posted by NPR on its website, many US leading virus researchers have concluded based on their studies that there is virtually no chance that the new coronavirus was released as result of a laboratory accident in China or anywhere else. Rather, they believe that this new coronavirus reached humans in the same way that other coronaviruses have. See this
• Peter Daszak, President of the US EcoHealth Alliance and a virus expert who has been working with the WIV for the past 15 years, said during his interview with CNN on 26 April that the Wuhan P4 Laboratory didn’t have the virus that led to COVID-19, and what has been found now are close relatives, not the same virus. So it’s not a possibility that the virus could have come from that lab. See this
• Anthony Fauci, director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in an interview with National Geographic published on 4 May that the best evidence shows the virus was not made in a lab in China. If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats and what’s out there now, the virus could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated. This virus evolved in nature and then jumped species. Based on the scientific evidence, he doesn’t entertain the theory that someone found the coronavirus in the wild, brought it to a lab, and then it accidentally escaped. See this
• According to The Independent, British Health Secretary Matt Hancock said in an interview with Sky News on 6 May that the British government has not seen any evidence to suggest that the novel coronavirus was man-made. He added that “we haven’t seen any evidence of a link (between the virus and laboratories researching virus in Wuhan).” See this
• The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced on 24 April that it would terminate a joint study on bat-to-human virus transmission between the non-profit agency EcoHealth Alliance and the WIV, and withdraw all future funding. The NIH made this decision only seven days after President Trump demanded an end to a grant to the WIV during his 17 April press conference, based on allegations that “the virus escaped the lab”. This decision has been widely questioned and criticized by US science community. Gerald Keusch, deputy head of the National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratory at Boston University, called it “a horrible precedent” and “the worst kind of thing that political interference can cause”, while Dennis Carroll, chair of the Global Virome Project, described it as an attempt by the Trump Administration to “attack really critical science for cheap political gain”.

5. Allegation: China could have contained the virus within Wuhan in the first place. However, it allowed many of its nationals to fly to Milan, New York and other places, spreading the virus to the rest of the world.

Reality Check: China took the most stringent measures within the shortest possible time, which has largely kept the virus within Wuhan. Statistics show that very few cases were exported from China.

• The Chinese government took the most comprehensive, rigorous and thorough measures in a timely fashion, and effectively broke the chain of transmission. According to a Science report, thanks to these measures, the number of infections in China was reduced by more than 700,000.
• China put Wuhan under a temporary lockdown as of 23 January, meaning that there were no outbound commercial flights or train services from 24 January through 8 April. So it was impossible for Wuhan residents to travel overseas during this period of time.
• When Wuhan was shut down on 23 January, only one case was publicly confirmed in the US. When the US closed its borders on 2 February to all Chinese citizens and foreigners who had been to China within the previous 14 days, there were only eight confirmed cases in the US according to its official data. When the US declared a national emergency on 13 March, the number of its confirmed cases was 1,896. When China lifted the lockdown on Wuhan on 8 April, the number of confirmed cases in the US rose to 400,000. At present, confirmed cases in the US have exceeded 1.2 million, with as many as over 70,000 deaths so far. Looking back, it took less than 100 days for the number of confirmed cases to surge from one to one million in the United States.
• New York Governor Andrew Cuomo pointed to a research by the Northeastern University showing that strains of the novel coronavirus entered his state were not from China. The New York Times cited US research that most New York coronavirus cases did not come from Asia.
• Data from Canada’s major provinces show that the virus was brought into the country by US visitors. The French research institute Institut Pasteur found that the virus strain circulating locally in France is of unknown origin. None of the imported cases in Russia was from China. The Australian Department of Health noted that only a very small portion of imported cases came from Northeast Asia. In Singapore, cases imported from China were less than one-tenth of those from other countries. The Japanese National Institute of Infectious Diseases believed that the strain confirmed in Japan since early March was not from China.

6. Allegation: The Chinese contracted the novel coronavirus while eating bats.

Reality Check: Bats are never part of the Chinese diet.  

• The Internet video clip in which a Chinese female tour guide drinks bat soup was part of a travel promotion show filmed by her team on a small Pacific island in 2016 and was posted online that year. Bat soup was a local specialty.
• Bats are never part of the Chinese dishes. Wuhan Huanan seafood market, where cluster cases were identified in the early days of the epidemic, does not sell bats.

7. Allegation: China is reopening wildlife markets. It should immediately close all “wet markets”.

Reality Check: There are no so-called “wildlife wet markets” in China. China has passed legislation banning all illegal hunting and trade of wild animals.

• On 24 February 2020, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China adopted a decision on thoroughly banning illegal wildlife trade and eliminating consumption of wild animals to safeguard people’s lives and health. This has further established the regime of complete prohibition of hunting, trading and transportation of terrestrial wild animals for the purpose of consumption. The legislative decision was welcomed by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). See this
• Selling wild animals is illegal in China. Such an act will be immediately stopped once discovered, and will be punished in accordance with law.
• There are no so-called “wildlife wet markets” in China. And in fact, China does not even have the concept of “wet markets”. What we have in China are farmers’ markets and live poultry and seafood markets. They sell fresh fish, meat, vegetables, seafood and other farm produce. A few of them sell live poultry. Basically, they are no different from the fish markets or fruit and vegetables markets in Western countries. Such markets exist not only in China, but also in many other countries. They are an important part of local life. No international law restricts the opening or operation of such markets. What were reopened in Wuhan are these traditional farmers’ markets.
• Research has shown extremely low homology between COVID-19 and the known coronaviruses in livestock and poultry. Based on such scientific understanding and taking into account people’s need for live poultry and seafood products, China has allowed the reopening of such markets in places where sound containment measures are in place as a prerequisite. China attaches high importance to epidemic prevention. As safeguards, competent authorities and sub-national governments have taken a host of stringent measures to strengthen the management of such markets. Sub-national governments, market operators and vendors are required to earnestly fulfill their respective responsibilities and ensure that strict anti-epidemic protocols are duly enforced in these markets.

Relevant authorities will also, in accordance with China’s law on animal epidemic prevention, perform quarantine and checkup on live poultry and seafood products, and rigorously implement all prevention and control measures against animal epidemics.

Given the current situation in Wuhan, Hubei, the Huanan seafood market remains closed.

8. Allegation: China’s initial cover-up and delayed release of information resulted in the spread of the virus.

Reality Check: What has happened is an unexpected attack by an unknown virus against human beings. It takes time to study and understand it. China has provided timely information to the world in an open, transparent and responsible manner. 

• On 27 December 2019, Dr. Zhang Jixian, director of the respiratory and critical care medicine department of Hubei Provincial Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine, reported three cases of pneumonia of unknown cause immediately after receiving the patients. This was the first reporting of suspected cases of a new disease by local authorities of China. On the same day, the Wuhan CDC conducted epidemiological investigation and testing on the patients concerned.
• On 30 December 2019, the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission issued two emergency notices on the reporting and treatment of pneumonia of unknown cause.
• On 31 December 2019, the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission released a situation report on pneumonia of unknown cause in Wuhan. On the same day, China informed the WHO China Country Office of cases of pneumonia of unknown cause detected in Wuhan.
• On 3 January 2020, China began sending regular, timely updates about the novel coronavirus to WHO, other countries including the United States, and China’s Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan regions. Between 3 January and 3 February, China updated the US 30 times on the epidemic situation and its response measures.
• Following the first public reporting of the pneumonia by the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission on 31 December 2019, China completed the identification and sequencing of the virus as early as on 7 January 2020, and shared the genome sequence information with WHO and other countries on 11 January. On 10 January, the Wuhan Institute of Virology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and other professional institutions developed preliminary testing kits, and stepped up research on vaccines and effective medication. On 20 January, the National Health Commission designated the new coronavirus pneumonia as a statutory infectious disease. On 24 January, COVID-19 cases began to be directly reported online.
• In contrast to China’s response measures, the US government had not declared a national emergency until 13 March, 70 days after it was notified by China of the new virus on 3 January 2020, 40 days after it closed its borders on 2 February to all Chinese citizens and foreign nationals who had traveled in China within 14 days.
• On 1 May, the US CDC posted on its website a report drafted by its Principal Deputy Director Dr. Anne Schuchat and COVID-19 Response Team.

According to the report, after “the first confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case in the United States was reported on January 21, 2020”, the “outbreak appeared contained through February, and then accelerated rapidly.” It notes that “various factors contributed to accelerated spread during February — March 2020, including continued travel-associated importations, large gatherings, introductions into high-risk workplaces and densely populated areas, and cryptic transmission resulting from limited testing and asymptomatic and presymptomatic spread.”

9. Allegation: China arrested Dr. Li Wenliang, a whistle-blower, to cover up the spread of the virus.

Reality Check: Dr. Li Wenliang was not a whistle-blower, and he was not arrested.

• All countries have strict rules on the confirmation of infectious diseases. This is a common practice.
• China’s Law on Prevention and Treatment of Infectious Diseases has established strict approval procedures and rules for the reporting, verification and information release of an infectious disease.
• Dr. Zhang Jixian, a respiratory doctor, was the first to report COVID-19 cases, and was awarded for this contribution.
• On the afternoon of 30 December 2019 (three days after Dr. Zhang Jixian reported cases of unknown infection and one day before Wuhan released the relevant information), Dr. Li Wenliang, an ophthalmologist, sent a message to his alumni WeChat group. He claimed that there were “seven confirmed SARS cases”, and asked the group not to spread the information. However, leaked screenshots of the conversation spread quickly on the Internet and caused panic.

On 3 January 2020, Wuhan’s local police authorities asked Dr. Li to a police station for inquiry, and urged him to stop spreading unconfirmed information by issuing him a letter of reprimand.

In mid-January, Dr. Li started to show symptoms of infection. And on 31 January, he was confirmed to be infected by COVID-19.

On 7 February, Dr. Li passed away after all rescue measures were exhausted. On the same day, the National Health Commission publicly expressed condolences over his death. The National Supervisory Commission decided to send an inspection group to Wuhan to investigate issues related to Dr. Li.

On 19 March, the inspection group released its findings and held a press briefing. Wuhan’s Public Security Bureau announced the decision on the matter, pointing to the misapplication of relevant legal provisions in Dr. Li’s case, and revoked the reprimand letter.

• Dr. Li Wenliang was a good doctor. He was a member of the Communist Party of China, not a so-called “anti-establishment figure”. On 5 March, he was named a “national model healthcare worker in fighting COVID-19”. On 2 April, he was honored as a martyr.

Labeling Dr. Li Wenliang as an “anti-establishment hero” or “awakener” is very disrespectful to Dr. Li and his family. It is purely political manipulation with no sense of decency. On 28 April, the Central Committee of the Communist Youth League of China and the All-China Youth Federation jointly issued the 24th “May Fourth Medals” to honor outstanding representatives and role models of Chinese youths, and Dr. Li Wenliang was among the honorees. The Independent Media Institute conducted a thorough investigation on how the media made unjust reporting about Dr. Li, and concluded that the attempt of Western media to describe what happened to Dr. Li as evidence of the Chinese government’s suppression of information about the virus is simply not logical. See this

10. Allegation: China was too late in disclosing information about human-to-human transmission. As a result, the US and the rest of the world had not gained enough knowledge about how contagious and deadly the virus was and therefore failed to respond quickly enough.

Reality Check: The messages from China and the World Health Organization have been timely and strong. The US knows about the danger of the virus all along.

• It takes a rigorous scientific process to determine whether a new virus can be transmitted from person to person.

On 9 January, a Chinese expert group had already confirmed on the media that the pathogen was preliminarily determined as a novel coronavirus.

On 20 January, the high-level expert group of the National Health Commission informed the media that the novel coronavirus could be transmitted from person to person. On that day, the US reported no confirmed case.

On 23 January, China sent a powerful warning to the world by putting Wuhan, a city of 12 million people, under lockdown. On that day, the US reported only one case.

• On 22 January, WHO issued a warning about the potential risk of human-to-human transmission on its website.

On 27 January, WHO raised the level of risk posed by COVID-19 at a global level from moderate to high, noting the risk to be very high in China and high at a regional level.

On 30 January, the WHO International Health Regulations Emergency Committee held a meeting and declared the outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).

• The US was the first country to pull out personnel from its consulate-general in Wuhan and the first to announce entry restrictions on all Chinese citizens:

As early as on 25 January, the US announced the decision to close its consulate-general in Wuhan and pull out its staff;

On 2 February, the US announced the decision to close borders to all Chinese citizens and foreign nationals who had been to China within the prior 14 days, while it only had eight reported cases on that day.

• It was not until early March that the US government seriously acknowledged the danger and severity of the spread of the virus in the country.
• In an opinion article, Jeffrey Sachs, a renowned US economist and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, criticized the US government for making reckless charges against China, calling them illogical and dangerous. He said that the US government’s claim that China is the cause of America’s problems is a big lie and recalls the end of McCarthy era. See this
• The Taiwan authorities claimed that its CDC had warned WHO of the existence of human-to-human transmission of COVID-19 in an email at the end of December 2019, but WHO withheld this information from the world. In response to this allegation, Dr. Michael Ryan, Executive Director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, clarified on 4 May that the email sent from Taiwan on 31 December 2019 was not a warning, but a request for more information on cases of atypical pneumonia reported by news sources. See this

11. Allegation: China is not transparent in data releasing. Its official numbers of confirmed cases and fatalities are too low to be true, and the real figures are at least 50 times more.

Reality Check: China has been fully open and transparent about its COVID-19 data. The figures can well stand the test of history.

• As of 21 January, China’s National Health Commission (NHC) started to update the public on a daily basis on the COVID-19 situation of the previous day on its official website and through its social media accounts. Starting from 27 January, the State Council inter-agency task force on COVID-19 has been holding daily press briefings to release key information and respond to questions from domestic and foreign media. More than 3,000 press conferences have been held at national and sub-national levels. Government officials, medical workers, experts and recovered patients engaged the media face-to-face without dodging any questions. See this
• These COVID-19 data are an important basis for China’s decision to pursue all-round reopening of the economy with necessary containment measures in place and to restore the normal economic and social order. One case in point is the lifting of the 76-day lockdown of Wuhan after a continuous drop in infections.
• China’s relatively low number of confirmed cases and fatalities was attributable to the most comprehensive, rigorous and thorough measures taken promptly by the Chinese government, such as completely shutting down the transportation out of Wuhan. The Science magazine estimated in one of its reports that these measures helped prevent at least 700,000 infections in China.
• The Chinese government always puts people first. In its fight against COVID-19, saving lives is the government’s number-one priority. China has expanded hospital admission and treatment to cover all those in need to cure and save as many patients as possible. All suspected cases and close contacts have been placed under quarantine at designated places to cut off the chain of transmission and stem the further spread of the virus. That is why China’s nationwide infection rate has stayed relatively low. In Hubei Province alone, over 3,600 patients aged 80 and above have been cured, including seven centenarians.
• On the evening of 22 January, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted in Geneva that China’s “cooperation and transparency is very, very commendable”. In an interview with US media in March, Dr. Bruce Aylward, Team Leader of the WHO-China Joint Mission on COVID-19, responded to questions about China’s official data by saying that he “didn’t see anything that suggested manipulation of numbers”.
• On 3 March, Dr. Bruce Aylward, a senior advisor to the WHO Director-General, noted in an interview with US media VOX that China is not hiding anything. And the data he collected through talks with physicians from various hospitals and other stakeholders could help corroborate China’s data. See this
• On 28 April, Christoffer Koch and Ken Okamura, two economists from the US and the UK, jointly published a paper based on studies of the data from China, Italy and the US. They found that the confirmed infections in China match the distribution expected in Benford’s Law and are similar to those in the US and Italy. They thus concluded that there is no possibility of manipulation of figures.
• On 29 April, Yale Professor Nicholas A Christakis, co-author of the Nature magazine paper entitled Population Flow Drives Spatio-temporal Distribution of COVID-19 in China, tweeted that “Incidentally, this result sheds light on accuracy of Chinese COVID-19 reporting, because a totally different source of info (telco mobility) obtained from different source predicts case counts so well, in keeping with epidemiological expectations.” See this
• On 5 May, Dr. Gauden Galea, WHO representative in China, said that “The WHO has been in constant technical communication with China since January 3 on the severity, transmission dynamics and the possibility of sustained human-to-human transmission, the clinical course, and effectiveness of treatments, and the WHO has provided detailed information to the international community under the framework of the International Health Regulations (IHR).” See this

12. Allegation: Wuhan’s revision of the numbers of confirmed cases and fatalities shows again that China covered up a large number of cases in the early days of COVID-19.

Reality Check: The data revision by Wuhan is a common international practice. As a matter of fact, it proves that China is open, transparent and responsible.

• On 17 April, in accordance with the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Prevention and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, the Regulations on Preparedness for and Response to Emergent Public Health Hazards, the Regulations on the Implementation of the Statistics Law of the People’s Republic of China, and the Rules on the Administration of Death Information Registration (for Trial Implementation), Wuhan issued a notification, revising up confirmed cases by 325 to a total of 50,333, and fatal cases by 1,290 to a total of 3,869.
• It was out of a high sense of responsibility to history, to the people and to the lives lost to the coronavirus that Wuhan took the initiative to revise the numbers to reflect the facts it had gathered. The reason that caused the gap between the figures was four-fold:

First, when the city was first hit by the virus, hospitals were swamped due to the surge of patients. Some patients were thus unable to be hospitalized and passed away at home.

Second, during the peak of COVID-19, hospitals were running overloaded, and medical workers were preoccupied with providing treatment, which resulted in delayed, inadequate or inaccurate reporting of relevant cases.

Third, due to a subsequent rapid increase in medical institutions designated to treat COVID-19 patients, including both hospitals under the central, provincial, municipal and district governments, as well as hospitals run by companies, private hospitals and mobile hospitals, a small number of these institutions did not register with or report cases timely to the established information network.

Fourth, the information of some fatal cases was incomplete. Some of them were reported repeatedly or inaccurately.

• To ensure the accuracy of the revised numbers, Wuhan set up a task force to look into the big data and epidemiology of the epidemic. Through on-line means, it carefully compared the number of confirmed and fatal cases to de-duplicate and complete the information by making full use of the city’s epidemic big data system, funeral service information system, medical administration information system, and nucleic acid testing system for COVID-19. Through off-line means, it collected the full data from all places related to the disease without missing anyone, including fever clinics, hospitals, mobile hospitals, quarantine stations, communities having confirmed cases, as well as prisons, detention facilities, nursing homes and other special sites administered by government agencies of public security, judiciary and civil affairs. The information of every case was collected, and it was cross-checked with medical institutions, communities, community-level police stations, and patients’ employers and families to ensure that the information of every individual case is accurate.
• Revising statistical standards is a common international practice. For example, on 29 April, the UK government began to count fatal cases outside hospitals, and revised their figures accordingly. On 17 April, the Spanish government published an order for its autonomous regions to harmonize how they collect data and stated that the published numbers would be revised.

13. Allegation: China has been spreading disinformation about COVID-19.

Reality Check: China has all along been open and transparent in information release. On the contrary, some US politicians, scholars and media outlets that are hostile to China have kept slandering and attacking China. China is a victim of disinformation.

• The Chinese government, in an open, transparent and responsible manner, has shared with the world updates on the disease and its response experience, and has pursued international cooperation. What China has done is highly commended by the international community.

As of 8 May, President Xi Jinping has attended the Extraordinary G20 Leaders’ Summit on COVID-19 and has had 49 phone calls with 39 heads of state and government and leaders of international organizations; Premier Li Keqiang has had 13 phone calls with 11 foreign leaders and heads of international organizations, and attended the Special ASEAN Plus Three Summit on COVID-19; State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi has spoken with 48 foreign ministers and heads of international organizations through 80 phone calls.

China’s openness in sharing its response experience and its important contribution to the international cooperation against COVID-19 have been applauded and fully recognized internationally.

• On 27 April, Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the medical journal The Lancet, said in an online interview with CNN that when China got the information of the coronavirus, it immediately informed the World Health Organization on 31 December 2019. Mr. Horton also added that, “we should be grateful to the authorities in China and we should be grateful to the World Health Organization, because they did all they could to alert the world as to the seriousness of this pandemic.”
• Tijjani Muhammad-Bande, President of the 74th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, when attending the 33rd African Union Summit in Ethiopia, told the press that China’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations had provided a well-covered briefing to the UN on COVID-19. President Bande went further to point out that the timely and transparent COVID-19 information release by the Chinese government has helped the world be informed about the situation in China and facilitated multilateral cooperation against the virus.
• On 20 April, The Grayzone, an independent news website based in the US, disclosed how the conservative journalists were collaborating with the US administration in a disinformation campaign against China: The Washington Post journalist Josh Rogin, who has made a career out of making fake news, fabricated a dubious article on 14 April. In the article, he cherry-picked a cable from the US embassy in Beijing and deceptively identified an anti-China element as “research scientist”. On the evening of 15 April, Republican Senator Tom Cotton floated the conspiracy theory, and claimed that the Chinese government must be made to pay the price for all the losses caused by COVID-19. On 17 April, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took the baseless theory to the global stage, demanding access to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for investigation. See this

14. Allegation: The Chinese political system is the root cause of the problem.

Reality Check: Virus does not distinguish between ideology or social system. The Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Chinese government have played a decisive and critical role in leading the Chinese people in the successful fight against COVID-19. China’s political system, which has effectively united and mobilized 1.4 billion people on a vast land of 9.6 million square kilometers, provided a strong political guarantee for China to overcome the difficulties faced by a developing country and pool all available strengths and resources in winning the battle against the virus. What has happened shows that the social system and development path chosen by the Chinese people suit China’s national conditions and that the CPC enjoys firm and broad support of the Chinese people. And China has no intention to export its political system.

• On 23 January, Wuhan municipal command on COVID-19 response announced the temporary suspension of outbound travel from the city of Wuhan. Two days later, 30 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities of China activated the highest-level disease response. Starting from 24 January, 42,000 medical workers from across China, rallying in over 330 medical teams, set out to the front line in Hubei Province. On the eve of 25 January, three medical teams from the People’s Liberation Army flew to Wuhan from Shanghai, Chongqing and Xi’an. Nineteen provinces were paired up with 16 Hubei cities and prefectures except Wuhan in the battle against the virus. From across the country, key medical supplies and daily necessities were delivered to Hubei steadily.
• China pooled massive human and material resources to build the 1,000-bed Huoshenshan Hospital in 10 days and the 1,600-bed Leishenshan Hospital in 15 days. At an average speed of building one hospital at one day and a half, a total of 16 mobile hospitals were put in place to accommodate over 13,000 patients.
• Right from the early stage of its COVID-19 response, China has managed to ensure early detection, reporting, quarantine and treatment for COVID-19 cases. The best human and material resources were concentrated on treating patients with severe conditions. Blanket case screening was implemented at each and every residential communities, and grid-based management was adopted to ensure that all in need had access to testing, quarantine, and hospital treatment.
• In COVID-19 response in Wuhan, over 44,500 primary-level Party officials were sent to 13,800 residential communities, building up a strong line of defense against the virus. Social distancing measures have been supported and strictly observed nationwide, effectively curbing the spread of the virus.
• China’s COVID-19 response efforts have been highly commended by the international community. When meeting with President Xi Jinping on 28 January, WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros noted that the high speed and massive scale of China’s response have been rarely seen in the world, demonstrating China’s speed, scale and efficiency. China’s experience is worth learning for other countries. During the press conference at the AU headquarters on 8 February, UN Secretary-General António Guterres also commended China for its “remarkable” efforts to contain the virus.
• At the press conference of WHO-China Joint Mission on COVID-19 on 24 February, Dr. Bruce Aylward, Senior Advisor to WHO Director-General, said that China has rolled out probably the most ambitious, agile and aggressive disease containment effort in history. China’s bold approach has changed the course of the disease and is the only successful measures we know so far to contain COVID-19.
• On 6 May, a Singapore-based insights agency, Blackbox Research, released a joint online survey it conducted together with the market research agency Toluna on 12,500 people across 23 economies. The respondents were asked to rate their governments’ coronavirus containment measures on four key indicators: political leadership, corporate leadership, community and media. The Chinese mainland ranked the highest in the survey with a score of 85 out of 100. Eighty-five percent of respondents in the Chinese mainland expressed confidence that China will emerge stronger from the crisis. See this

15. Allegation: China expelled US journalists to hide the truth about COVID-19.

Reality Check: China’s measure was a response to the US long-term oppression of Chinese media in the US, especially the recent expulsion of 60 Chinese journalists. China has released information in an open, transparent, responsible and timely manner.  

• The US has been escalating its political bashing against Chinese media outlets in the US. In December 2018, the US Department of Justice required CGTN America to register as a “foreign agent”. On 18 February 2020, the US State Department designated five Chinese media entities in the US, including Xinhua News Agency, as “foreign missions”.
• The US has adopted a discriminatory visa policy toward Chinese journalists. For example, it gives only single-entry visas to Chinese journalists based in the US. Since 2018, the visa applications of over 30 Chinese journalists have been indefinitely delayed or even denied by the US.
• On 2 March 2020, the US State Department instituted a personnel cap on the five Chinese media organizations designated as “foreign missions”, intending to slash the number of Chinese staff by about 40 percent by 13 March. This amounts to the de facto expulsion of 60 Chinese journalists.
• Since COVID-19 began, China has been updating relevant data online on a daily basis in an open, transparent and responsible manner. Every workday, foreign journalists based in China can attend press conferences held by the State Council inter-agency task force, the State Council Information Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where they can raise any virus-related questions of their interest. They have had interviews with officials from both central and local governments as well as experts and scholars. Many foreign journalists went to Wuhan to gather first-hand information and have published many reports. All these facts show that the world has unimpeded access to information about the situation in China.
• China always welcomes interviews and reporting conducted by foreign media and journalists in the country in accordance with laws and regulations. We will continue to provide them with facilitation and assistance. What we oppose is ideological bias against China, fake news fabricated under the pretext of freedom of press, and acts that violate the ethics of journalism.

16. Allegation: China controls and bribes WHO.

Reality Check: China firmly supports multilateralism. We have all along been in good communication and cooperation with WHO. But we have never attempted to manipulate the organization. The suspension of funding by the US, the largest contributor to WHO, has been widely opposed by the international community.

• WHO is a specialized UN agency responsible for public health security. It has 194 member states. Eleven members on its 21-strong headquarters leadership team are from the US, the EU, Canada and Australia, and only one is from China. They are all trained or practicing doctors, epidemiologists, rescue workers and public health experts. See this
• In 2018 and 2019, China was the third biggest donor to WHO’s assessed contributions, after the US and Japan. According to WHO, assessed contributions only account for less than a quarter of its total funding, with the rest being voluntary contributions. With both sources of funding counted, China is the ninth biggest contributor. And if donations from businesses and NGOs are also factored in, China’s ranking would be even lower.

17. Allegation: Taiwan gave warning to WHO about human-to-human transmission of COVID-19 as early as 31 December 2019, but it was not taken seriously.

Reality Check: The Taiwan region of China did not send any warning to WHO. What it did was asking for more information from the organization after the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission reported the disease.  

• After Wuhan reported cases of pneumonia of unknown cause on 31 December 2019, the local health department in Taiwan sent a letter to the National Health Commission (NHC) inquiring about the information released by the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission. The NHC promptly made a written reply through the designated contact points specified in the Cross-Strait Cooperation Agreement on Medicine and Public Health Affairs. On the same day, the health department in Taiwan sent the so-called “warning email” to WHO. The email made no reference to human-to-human transmission. It was primarily an inquiry about information from WHO. The facts are clear. It was the mainland of China who first released the information, and the health department in Taiwan merely relayed the message. There is no such thing as “Taiwan reported to WHO first”.

• WHO has made it clear time and again that the Taiwan region of China did not give it “warning”, but was purely requesting relevant information. WHO had already received multiple inquiry emails from other sides before Taiwan sent the email. On 20 April, WHO again clarified the matter at its press briefing, noting that it was not until 21 January that the first COVID-19 case was confirmed in China’s Taiwan region. Prior to that, Taiwan did not have any first-hand information on clinical cases, let alone the ability to determine whether there was human-to-human transmission.

18. Allegation: China has blocked Taiwan’s bid to join WHO, putting the health of the people in Taiwan at risk.

Reality Check: Taiwan, being part of China, has no right to join WHO, whose membership requires sovereign statehood. The technical cooperation channel between China’s Taiwan and WHO is unimpeded. 

• Only UN Member States are eligible to join WHO, a specialized UN agency composed of sovereign states. Taiwan, being part of China, has no right to apply for WHO membership.
• Upon its accession to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR), China stated that the IHR applies to the entire territory of the People’s Republic of China, including the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Macao Special Administrative Region and the Taiwan Province.
• As agreed upon by the Chinese government and WHO, a WHO IHR Contact Point has been set up in China’s Taiwan and the region has an account to access the WHO Event Information Site for the timely updates on global public health emergencies released by WHO. There is no barrier to technical cooperation between China’s Taiwan and WHO. Between early 2019 and early May 2020, 24 person times from 16 expert groups of Taiwan attended the technical conferences held by WHO.
• Since the start of COVID-19, China’s National Health Commission has provided timely information to the Taiwan region. As of 6 May, China’s mainland had updated Taiwan on the situation 148 times. In mid-January, the mainland arranged a field visit to Wuhan for experts from Taiwan to help them learn more about the diagnosis and treatment of confirmed cases and COVID-19 response measures.

19. Allegation: China is responsible for the global spread of COVID-19. There must be investigations and lawsuits against China to hold it accountable and make it pay for COVID-19.

Reality Check: There is zero legal basis for holding China accountable and making it pay for COVID-19. Essentially, some US politicians are trying to shift the blame out of domestic political agenda.

• COVID-19 is a natural, not man-made, disaster. China, like other countries, is a victim, not a culprit.
• A pandemic is a global public health emergency. There is no such a thing as “state responsibility” of the first country to report cases. HIV/AIDS was first detected in the US in the 1980s and has since spread to the whole world, but the international community has never demanded that the US take responsibility or pay reparations.
• The US has no legal ground to demand that China be held accountable and pay for COVID-19. According to international law, state responsibility occurs when acts of the responsible state constitute a breach of international law and there is a causal link between such acts and losses suffered by the injured state. China’s COVID-19 response does not breach any international law, nor does it have any causal relationship with any losses the US may suffer due to the massive outbreak of the virus. The US attempt at the so-called investigations into China’s response is based on the presumption of guilt.
• There is no bilateral treaty or agreement between China and the US on public health and emergency events. As such, there can be no breach of any bilateral obligation. Although the International Health Regulations (IHR) only requires the state party to notify WHO of a public health event, China still provided the US with timely and continuous updates on the virus. The US was among the first countries to be informed about the virus in China and has since received continuous updates. In the face of COVID-19, China has all along acted with openness, transparency and a sense of responsibility. It has promptly released information and notified WHO of the virus, taken the most comprehensive, rigorous and thorough measures, and faithfully fulfilled its duties and obligations under the IHR.
• The so-called lawsuits in the US are ill-intended and groundless. They are also against general principles of law. According to the principle of sovereign equality under international law, sovereign acts by governments at all levels in China in response to COVID-19 are not subject to the jurisdiction of US courts. Those unwarranted lawsuits not only undermine the US response to the disease, but also run counter to international cooperation on fighting COVID-19.
• On 4 May, one of the world’s top magazines, Nature, published a study by experts from China, the US, and the UK, according to whose modeling framework that the three major groups of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) (inter-city travel restrictions, early identification and isolation of cases, and contact restrictions and social distancing) taken by China not only contained the spread of COVID-19 in China, but also bought precious time for the world. The study points out that without the combined NPIs, the COVID-19 cases in China would likely have shown a 67-fold increase to over 7 million.

20. Allegation: China has been hoarding medical supplies and profiteering from COVID-19. It has increased screening of medical exports and restricted export of supplies, especially ventilators, causing a shortage of supplies in the US.

Reality Check: Despite a still formidable task of combating COVID-19 at home, China has been providing medical supplies to other countries to the best of its ability.

• The Chinese government and people have provided many shipments of much-needed medical supplies to over 150 countries and international organizations, and these efforts are still ongoing. China has also leveraged its strong production capacity and promptly opened up its medical supplies market and export channels.
• According to the Ministry of Commerce of China, between 1 March and 6 May, China has met export orders for anti-epidemic supplies from 194 countries and regions. Among them, 77 countries and regions as well as six international organizations have signed commercial procurement agreements with China through official channels for 216 shipments of medical supplies. Discussions are under way between Chinese companies and 71 countries and regions as well as eight international organizations to procure 128 shipments of supplies.
• According to statistics from the General Administration of Customs, from 1 March to 30 April, China exported 71.2 billion yuan worth of anti-epidemic supplies, including 27.8 billion masks, 130 million protective suits, 73.41 million nucleic acid testing kits, 12.57 million infrared thermometers, 49,100 ventilators, 124,000 patient monitors, 43.63 million goggles and 854 million surgical gloves.
• Statistics from China’s General Administration of Customs show that between 1 March and 5 May, China exported to the US 6.6 billion masks, 344 million pairs of surgical gloves, 44.09 million protective suits, 6.75 million goggles, and nearly 7,500 ventilators.
• Preliminary statistics indicate that by 6 May, Chinese provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities, institutions and companies donated, to 30 US states and 55 cities, more than 9.6 million masks, 500,000 testing kits, 305,900 pairs of medical and other gloves, and 133,500 goggles.
• China has no restrictions on the export of medical supplies. Policy measures such as the announcement on further strengthening quality control of anti-epidemic supplies are introduced not to limit export, but to further strengthen quality control of medical supplies and ensure orderly and well-regulated export.
• China’s capacity to produce invasive ventilators is not unlimited, and some parts have to be imported and are under-supplied. That said, companies are still in discussion with importers in a market-based manner, and the Chinese government has never restricted the export of these ventilators.

21. Allegation: China’s anti-epidemic assistance to other countries is to serve its political and propaganda purposes.

Reality Check: China’s assistance to other countries is a return of their kindness in helping China with COVID-19 response. It is also a concrete step to put into action the vision of building a community with a shared future for mankind. 

• China has been sharing its control experience extensively, providing medical and protective supplies and sending medical teams to other countries. As of mid-May, China has launched an online knowledge center, published seven editions of diagnostic and therapeutic protocols and six editions of containment plans, and set up a two-billion-yuan fund for COVID-19 cooperation. Chinese medical experts have had over 120 video conferences with their counterparts from more than 160 countries and international organizations. China has sent medical supplies to over 150 countries and international organizations and 21 medical teams to 19 countries. It has established a joint expert team with the EU and a joint response and cooperation mechanism with the Republic of Korea. China has donated US$50 million in cash to WHO. And in response to the debt service suspension initiative for the poorest countries adopted at a recent G20 meeting, China has agreed to suspend principal and interest repayment for 77 developing countries’ debts due between 1 May and the end of 2020. These actions of support and assistance have been widely recognized by the international community, as they displayed China’s spirit of solidarity and mutual help in difficult times and highlighted the importance of building a community with a shared future for mankind.

22. Allegation: China is interfering in the US election and is trying every means to stop Trump from being re-elected.

Reality Check: China follows the principle of not interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. If anything, it is some US politicians that capitalize on China-bashing as their election tactics.

• China pursues an independent foreign policy of peace, and adheres to the principle of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs. The US election is its internal matter. China has never meddled in it, and has no interest in doing so.
• The Politico disclosed that the National Republican Senatorial Committee has sent campaigns a 57-page memo, advising GOP candidates to address the coronavirus crisis by aggressively attacking China. The memo stresses three main lines of assault: that China caused the virus “by covering it up”, that Democrats are “soft on China”, and that Republicans will “push for sanctions on China for its role in spreading this pandemic”. Republicans have indicated in the memo that they plan to make China a centerpiece of the 2020 campaign. All these show that framing and attacking China has become a “whole-of-government approach” of the Republican campaign. See this

23. Allegation: By requiring exporters of masks, testing kits and ventilators to submit a statement upon customs declaration, China is in effect banning export of supplies for COVID-19.

Reality Check: The purpose of this requirement is for better quality control.

• Strict quality control is of vital importance in the production and supply of anti-epidemic items, as the lives of people in affected countries and regions are at stake.
• The Chinese government attaches great importance to the quality and safety of medical supplies. The relevant authorities have stepped up joint actions to tighten quality control over medical exports and ensure proper export procedures. By cracking down on sub-standard goods and bad faith and illicit behaviors, China has ensured the quality of medical exports to better support the global response to the virus.
• These measures have produced good results and received positive comments from the international community. China does not impose restriction on its exports, and has no intention to do so. While ensuring the quality of these exports, China’s customs authorities have taken steps to speed up customs clearance and further improve facilitation.

24. Allegation: China’s Guangdong Province took discriminatory measures against Africans there.

Reality Check: China’s COVID-19 response measures apply to both Chinese and foreigners without discrimination. China follows a zero-tolerance policy on discriminatory words and actions.

• Despite its own difficulties, China has given care and protection to all Africans in China, especially African students. The more than 3,000 African students in Hubei Province including Wuhan are all safe and sound, except for one student who contracted the virus but was quickly cured.
• As of 13 April, Guangzhou had reported a total of 26 imported cases among foreign nationals, including 19 Africans. The enhanced testing and control measures taken by China are for both Chinese citizens and all foreign nationals in China. They are not targeted at any nationality or race. Their purpose is to protect public health and people’s wellbeing. A few isolated incidents that occurred in this process due to miscommunications or misunderstanding have been timely and properly handled through close communication between the relevant Chinese authorities and government officials of the African countries concerned. On 18 April, the dean of the African Consulate Corps in Guangzhou confirmed that Guangdong Province and Guangzhou City have taken multiple steps to protect the rights and interests of African expatriates there.
• On 13 April, Chairperson of the AU Commission Moussa Faki Mahamat said that Africa and China are friends and, more importantly, comrades-in-arms whose destinies are closely linked. He believes that China is not a country that would take discriminatory actions. Some African envoys in China have noted that the profound friendship between Africa and China has stood the test of vicissitudes and that no external force can stop it from growing further.
• According to a BBC report on 17 April, a video widely shared on social media showing a Kenyan couple being attacked in the streets of Wuhan as a result of COVID-19 stigma was actually taken in New York.

*

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: Chaoyang District in Beijing has been classified as a high-risk area for the COVID-19 pandemic as a novel coronavirus cluster occurred there within the last 14 days, Pang Xinghuo, deputy director of the Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control, said on Monday at a news conference held by the Beijing municipal government.Photo:Xinhua

A future without independent media leaves us with an upside down reality where according to the corporate media “NATO deserves a Nobel Peace Prize”, and where “nuclear weapons and wars make us safer”

 

If, like us, this is a future you wish to avoid, please help sustain Global Research’s activities by making a donation or taking out a membership now!

Click to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research.

*     *     *

Three Cardinals Join Global Appeal Decrying Crackdown on Basic Freedoms Over Coronavirus

By Paul Smeaton, May 11, 2020

Catholic clergy led by former papal nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Cardinals Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, Joseph Zen, and Janis Pujats have joined an appeal “for the Church and the world” that warns that the COVID-19 pandemic is being used as a “pretext” by world leaders to “control” people, strip them of their fundamental rights, while providing a “disturbing prelude to the realization of a world government beyond all control”.

Federal Appeals Court Allows US Military Base Construction in Okinawa Despite Environmental Concerns

By Rebecca Salamacha, May 11, 2020

Under the NHPA, the government entity must take into account the affects of its construction. Contrary to the court’s decision, environmental activists claimed that the US Department of Defense failed to adequately consult local entities required and rationally base its determination on available evidence.

China Forges Ahead Through Chaos and US Threats

By Pepe Escobar, May 10, 2020

Amid the deepest economic contraction in nearly a century, President Xi Jinping had already made it very clear, last month, that China should be ready for unprecedented, relentless foreign challenges.

He was not referring only to the possible decoupling of global supply chains and the non-stop demonization of every project related to the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative.

Trump Regime Blocks UN Security Council Resolution for “Global Ceasefire” During COVID-19 Epidemic

By Stephen Lendman, May 10, 2020

Run by warlord members from both right wings of the one-party state, the US geopolitical agenda prioritizes permanent wars against invented enemies to enforce their will on humanity by brute force and other hostile actions.

At a time when containing COVID-19 outbreaks and combatting the severest economic collapse in modern memory matter most, the Trump regime blocked a proposed global ceasefire Security Council  resolution to assure no interference in its imperial wars on humanity.

The Fed’s Historic Gamble: Pre-Bailing Out the Banking System

By Dr. Jack Rasmus, May 10, 2020

The Fed has introduced at least $9T in liquidity (money) injections into the system in the goal of heading off a massive wave of potential and forthcoming debt defaults, deflation, and bankruptcies via various measures: new QE, trillions of $ to Repo markets, funneling trillions more via recent bailout funds for large, medium and small businesses through the private banks, ending financial regulations on the banks, liabilities for corporations, guaranteed loans, and so on. It’s all about fattening bank and non-bank balance sheets to weather the loss of revenues required to keep paying interest and principal on the tens of trillions of excess business and household debt (latter held by investors). The continuing payments on that debt is necessary to prevent a massive historic wave of debt defaults that will eventually sink bank balance sheets, creating a credit crash and a further and deeper collapse of the real economy–i.e. a depression.

Can We Trust the World Health Organization (WHO)?

By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null, May 10, 2020

Most people assume the WHO acts independently from private commercial and national government interests for the welfare of the world’s population. However, at best this is an assumption. Moreover, the very legitimacy of the WHO as a gold standard of health is questionable. The organization has been accused of conflicts of interests with private pharmaceutical companies and mega-philanthropic organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as being riddled with political alliances, ideologies, and profiteering motives.

Mass Joblessness Deepens in US as Corporations Move to Implement Permanent Layoffs. 40.6 Million Unemployed

By Shannon Jones, May 08, 2020

US government figures to be released today are expected to show mass unemployment in April unlike anything seen since the Great Depression. In numbers released Wednesday, ADP Research said that US payrolls in April fell by an astounding 20,236,000, a number far larger than anything ever previously recorded.

Looked at another way, the number of jobs lost so far is equal to the total combined workforce of 25 US states. It is 41 times worse than the 533,000 jobs lost in November 2008 at the time of the last economic crash.

*

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.

Who was Winston Churchill? He was an aristocrat whose overwhelming commitment was to the maintenance of empire. He was a bitter opponent of the workers’ movement in Britain, whether in Tonypandy and Llanelli in 1910 and 1911, where troops were used against strikers, or in the General Strike of 1926. Although he accepted the construction of a welfare state after World War Two, this was under duress: promises of a profoundly transformed post-war social settlement were central to the popular morale and the whole war effort.

Domination

Many saw Churchill as a warmonger in the 1930s, and with good reason. He was part of the war party in the Liberal government in 1914, and raced ahead of cabinet decisions to put the navy on a provocative war footing. In this, he did his best to ensure that Britain would enter the war, well before the German invasion of Belgium was an issue. He was consistent in seeing Germany as the key enemy of the British Empire, so his opposition to Hitler in the 1930s was not out of any particular opposition to Nazi brutality, racism and dictatorship, but in an understanding that German domination of Europe threatened British imperial survival. Many British people were willing to fight Germany under Churchill’s leadership because much of the rest of the ruling class would have much preferred to make a deal with Hitler, which would have posed a grave threat to a host of British people; left-wingers, Jews and many others.

Contemptuous

Even so, Churchill’s imperialism was steeped in a racism that led to suffering and death on a gigantic scale. Anyone who thinks that the British Empire brought progress and development to India should ponder the tens of millions who died in man-made famines. The building of railways in India brought not economic progress, but the capitalist market, which enabled the easier transport of food out of areas of need to markets where more profit could be made. Those who died as a result did not perish because there was not enough food, but because profits were more important to the imperial authorities. Churchill was fully a part of the callous and contemptuous racist thinking that allowed such catastrophes to occur, and he was directly responsible for the decisions that led to at least three million avoidable deaths in Bengal during the famine of 1943.

Determined

The racism that allows mass starvation leads to other atrocities too. Another major war crime committed under his orders was the bombing of villages, and gas attacks, during an uprising against the post-war British occupation of Iraq in 1920. These actions led to thousands of civilian deaths. In relation to the use of chemical weapons, it is documented that Churchill wrote in a secret government memorandum that ‘I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.’

It is well known that Hitler admired the British Empire, and saw British rule over India in particular as a model for a future German empire in eastern Europe. Churchill may have been determined to fight against Nazi Germany, but he was doing it for an indefensible cause, and not for the sake of humanity or social justice.

*

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.

Dominic Alexander is a member of Counterfire, for which he is the book review editor. He has been a Stop the War and anti-austerity activist in north London for some time. He is a published historian whose work includes the book Saints and Animals in the Middle Ages, a social history of medieval wonder tales

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the US military can construct a base in Okinawa, Japan, despite environmental activists’ concerns over the base’s construction threatening the local dugong population. The activists filed suit under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

A panel of federal judges heard the case. The panel concluded that the base’s construction would not ultimately threaten the dugong population:

The panel held that the Department’s finding that its proposed action would have no adverse effect on the dugong was not arbitrary or capricious under Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act. … Specifically, the panel held that substantial evidence supported the Department’s conclusion that the presence of the dugong in the area on the new base was sporadic, even if it did not possess more robust baseline population data; and the Department reasonably concluded that there would be no adverse effects on the dugong as a result of the new base. The panel further held that the Department was not unreasonable when it failed to consider population fragmentation, disruption of travel routes, and loss of habitat required to sustain the population, in evaluating the impacts of the new base on the dugong. The panel also held that the Department rationally concluded that the construction and operation of the new base would not adversely impact the dugong population, and would have no adverse effect on the dugong’s cultural significance.

Under the NHPA, the government entity must take into account the affects of its construction. Contrary to the court’s decision, environmental activists claimed that the US Department of Defense failed to adequately consult local entities required and rationally base its determination on available evidence.

Specifically, the activists wanted the Department of Defense to consult their organizations for information. The court found that the Department of Defense’s consultation of the Japanese local government, review of studies, and conducting of new anthropological studies sufficed for consultation and rational determination requirements.

*

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

Featured image is from Pixabay

As a result of the stagnation of the Peace Process in the Middle East between the Israelis and Palestinians, an array of plans for Israel to unilaterally annex West Bank land, backed mainly by right-wing factions, raises serious and catastrophic questions about the feasibility of any peaceful agreement to end the decades’ long conflict, one that continues to cost many innocent lives as part of a vicious cycle of human tragedy and injustice.

The Council of Patriarchs and Heads of the Holy Land Churches views such unilateral annexation plans with the utmost concern and calls upon the State of Israel to refrain from such unilateral moves, which would bring about the loss of any remaining hope for the success of the peace process.

The Council also calls upon the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the European Union, and the United Nations to respond to these unilateral annexation plans with a time-delimited and phased Peace Initiative in line with International Law and United Nations resolutions on the matter, in order to guarantee a comprehensive, just, and long-lasting peace in this part of the world that is considered Holy by the three Abrahamic Faiths.

We also call upon the Palestinian Liberation Organization, as the sole legitimate Representative of the Palestinian people, to resolve its internal disputes—as well as any conflicts with other factions that are not under its umbrella—in order to present a unified front dedicated to achieving peace and the building of a viable State that is founded upon pluralism and democratic values.

+Patriarch Theophilos III, Greek Orthodox Patriarchate

+Patriarch Nourhan Manougian, Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Patriarchate

+Archbishop Pierbattista Pizzaballa, Apostolic Administrator, Latin Patriarchate

+Fr. Francesco Patton, ofm, Custos of the Holy Land

+Archbishop Anba Antonious, Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, Jerusalem

+Vicar General Father Gabriel Daho, Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate

+Archbishop Aba Embakob, Ethiopian Orthodox Patriarchate

+Archbishop Yaser AL-Ayash, Greek-Melkite-Catholic Patriarchate

+Archbishop Mosa El-Hage, Maronite Patriarchal Exarchate

+Archbishop Suheil Dawani, Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East

+Bishop Ibrahim Sani Azar, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land

+Father Ephram Samaan, Syrian Catholic Patriarchal Exarchate

+Rt Rev. Joseph Nersès Zabarian, Armenian Catholic Patriarchal Exarchate

*

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 LPJ

According to the Washington Post, the document was provided by Venezuelan opposition officials on the condition that one of the attachments be redacted. Nonetheless, the text showcases the extent of the intervention financed by Juan Guaido and his supporters.

Some of the highlights in the contract teleSUR found:

Cancellation to the contractor of a non-refundable advance for $ 1,500,000.00, which had to be paid during the first five days from the signing of the contract.

The initial 45-day phase of the operation with a value of at least $ 50,000,000.00, which includes operational costs, both for the Group of Allies and Silvercorp personnel, vehicles, transportation, and fuel.

The total estimated cost of the project: $ 212,900,000.00 for 495 days because the occupation force would remain in the country.

Monthly payment to the contractor after the completion of the project of a minimum of $ 10,860,000.00, an average of $ 14,820,000.00, and a maximum of $ 16,456,000.00.

Assistance from Silvercorp advisers to the group of allies in the planning and execution of a capture/arrest/elimination operation of President Nicolás Maduro, the overthrow of the current regime and installation of the recognized Venezuelan President Juan Guaidó.

Continuation of services for the agreed time, despite President Nicolás Maduro resigning from office, being removed by another group or government, or handing over power to another individual, before the operation was carried out by Silvercorp.

Silvercorp would continue advising against terrorism, drug trafficking, and recovery of Venezuelan assets after the completion of the terrorist operation.

Compensation, billing, and payments.

Securing of a bridge loan from private investors to finance the project by Silvercorp.

Guarantee that investors have a preferential status as suppliers with the new government of Venezuela.

Silvercorp did not require the full loan to begin providing its services.Guaidó was due to start paying the loan with interest to the contractor one month after the completion of the project at a rate of 55% per year.

Upon completion of the government change, the administration would have one year to pay the remaining balance of the bridge loan.

In case of the payment of the entire loan in advance, the interest will not be prorated and will be applied to the total amount of the loan.

Interest would be added to the total amount. For example, if the loan amount given to the contractor by investors is $ 40 million and the loan is repaid by management in one year, and the interest rate is 55%, the interest will be $ 26 million. Management should pay Silvercorp $ 66 million.

Payment by Guaidó of a bond of $ 10,000,000.00 to Silvercorp, disbursement would depend on the success of the operation.

Payment of an initial advance of $ 1,500,000.00 within five days after signing the agreement.

An investor should initially deliver $ 26,395,810, and monthly payments of $ 10,860,000 to continue Silvercorp services.

Occupation Force would become a National Assets Unit that will act under the direction of the administration to counter threats to government stability, terrorism and will work with GIC, FAES, and DGCIM.

Silvercorp will serve this new unit in mission advisory, recruitment, selection and evaluation, physical training, medicine, communications, demolitions, undercover work methods, surveillance, and target recognition.

Disabling and interruption of infrastructures, lines of communication, and business objects.

Declared as hostile specific military forces (former regime, security forces, conventional and unconventional naval, air, and land forces) by the Occupation Force, for which it is established that these groups and/or individuals must be neutralized. This category includes hostile weapons, ammunition, and equipment.

Declared as illegitimate Venezuelan forces supportive of President Nicolás Maduro, his lieutenants, key allies, any armed support, as well as Diosdado Cabello, his lieutenants, and key allies.

Authorization to deal with non-military elements of command and control of the previous regime.

Authorization to approve hits to the following targets in areas of high collateral damage: military leaders of the previous regime, non-military elements of command and control of the previous regime, terrorists and Groups / Cells/buildings associated with terrorism, any crewless aerial vehicle.

Authorization for all types of conventional weapons.

Authorization to use lethal force to eliminate individuals who pose a threat to Silvercorp by committing or attempting a hostile act.

Authorization for the occupying force to stop, detain, and search for civilians when there is reasonable suspicion that it interferes with the mission.

Authorization to use necessary force, up to lethal force to protect properties designated as vital to the mission.

Guaidó’s authorization to Silvercorp of all privileges, exemptions, and immunities equivalent to those enjoyed by a Venezuelan security force.

Authorization for Silvercorp personnel to enter and leave Venezuela without identification and in groups or individually.

It further provides that authorities of either party may request the authorities of the other party to waive their primary right of jurisdiction in a specific case.

Insurance for all North American participants, a guarantee of the payment of the medical expenses of the members of the occupation group during the duration of the project, as well as the subsequent recovery of any injury that might occur.

Guarantee of payment of $ 450,000.00 to the closest relative of any member of the occupation group discharged in action.

Silvercorp USA, Inc would not be responsible for any act of violence or destruction committed by groups of third parties or individuals during the execution of the contract.

In the face of a civil, federal, or state lawsuit in Venezuela or the United States against Silvercorp USA, Inc, the Venezuelan administration must finance the full cost of the legal defense. It must assume financial responsibility if Silvercorp is found not guilty.

Silvercorp would be authorized to designate the Military High Command, to violate the Constitution and thereby dissolve the Republic.

The chain of command for this operation: Commander-in-Chief: President Juan Guaidó; General supervisor of the project: Sergio Vergara; Chief Strategist: Juan José Rendón; Commander on site: To be determined.

The full redacted document can be found here.

*

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

Featured image: Photo showing identification for two Americans arrested in Venezuela for a frustrated maritime attack. | Photo: Miraflores Palace

On Thursday May 7, 2020, amid the ongoing COVID-19 crisis, the White House issued a controversial Executive Order to streamline permitting for industrial marine finfish farms and gut other protective regulatory processes for managing ocean wildlife and habitat. The move threatens wild ecosystems, local fishing communities and coastal economies, and paints the fish farming industry as a whole in a bad light.

The Executive Order on Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth mandates federal agencies to craft a program for rapid authorization of factory fish farm facilities, which use giant floating cages to cultivate finfish, causing a wider range of ecological and economic problems. The E.O. follows Rep. Collin Peterson’s introduction of the similarly-intended AQUAA Act (H.R. 6191) in the House.

Marianne Cufone, Executive Director of the Recirculating Farms Coalition said, “It’s just stunning that our Administration is behaving this way amid a global crisis. Rather than focusing on supporting local food suppliers, like fishing and farming families, the White House is trying to short-cut proper lawmaking processes to push through outdated and unnecessary methods of industrial fish farming.”

The Recirculating Farms Coalition promotes appropriately-scaled, local, sustainable fish farming that works with, not undermines, fishing communities.

Commercial and recreational fishing groups, conservation organizations, chefs and food justice groups all have pushed back over many years, against the development of marine finfish aquaculture in the U.S. Yet, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the very federal agency tasked with protecting and managing ocean resources, has repeatedly wasted hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in promoting this outdated and unnecessary industry. The agency has tried every mechanism possible to fast-track permitting for finfish farms and failed repeatedly. This Executive Order is a final, desperate, attempt to do an end-run around Congressional authority and public opposition.

Globally, offshore aquaculture has been associated with a litany of problems – from fish escapes and pollution to habitat damage. So much so, many countries, like Canada and Denmark, once fish farming proponents, are moving away from the industry to more sustainable practices. Given the current state of the world, with people struggling to stay healthy and unemployment rising significantly, introducing a new industry that could further devastate the food supplies and put more people out of work by destroying fisheries makes no sense.

Not so coincidentally, the Administration made another announcement today – that it is providing $300 million in a stimulus package to U.S. fisheries. The funds will be controlled by NOAA too – meaning if fishermen complain about the new EO, that could harm their businesses, there could be serious repercussion limiting access to the new stimulus funds.

All of this smacks of executive overreach, and unabashedly attempting to push through unpopular decisions while the world is busy dealing with a major crisis. None of this is flattering to our government, and rightfully will certainly be the topic of legal and political challenges soon.

*

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 author

China repudiates the United States’ attempt of a naval invasion of Venezuela and all interventionist maneuvers against the sovereignty of any country.

Through a statement, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Hua Chunying, stressed again this Wednesday her rejection of the United States’ aggression against Venezuela and has emphasized that Beijing will not accept any US invasion plan in the South American country.

“We reject the violation of the sovereignty of Venezuela by any means or excuse, in addition, we call to prioritize the welfare of the people, work together to safeguard national stability and promote the peaceful resolution of the situation in the Caribbean country,” stressed the spokeswoman of the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

China, reads the note, has always been in favor of respecting the Charter of the United Nations (UN) and the basic rules that govern international relations against the policies of hostility of the United States towards the Maduro government.

The government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has denounced the recent incursion of mercenary forces for being organized from Colombia and supported by the United States with the aim of creating chaos to provoke a coup against Maduro, the legitimate and constitutionally elected president.

The new adventure of the USA and Colombia against Venezuela on Sunday May 3rd, takes place almost a year after the coup attempt, led by opposition deputy Juan Guaidó – self-proclaimed interim president of Venezuela – with full backing from Washington, against the Chavista government.

On the other hand, the Chinese diplomat, referring to the rifle attack against the Cuban embassy in the United States, has claimed that “her government firmly opposes any violent action perpetrated against official diplomatic offices.”

Likewise, she has urged Washington to take the necessary measures to guarantee due protection to the headquarters and diplomatic personnel present in its territory from any damage, as provided by the Vienna Convention of 1961.

*

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: Spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hua Chunying / Photo; File

Democratic Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer announced Thursday that manufacturing will be officially allowed to reopen in the state on Monday, May 11. The announcement stands in contrast to Whitmer’s same-day extension of the state’s stay-at-home order until May 28.

“Manufacturing is an important part of our economy—there is no question,” Whitmer stated during a Thursday press conference announcing the plan. “As we continue to phase in sectors of our economy, I will keep working around the clock to ensure our businesses adopt best practices to protect workers from the spread of COVID-19.”

This lip service to health and safety is belied by what the state will actually require manufacturers to do. They must have daily entry screenings for everyone entering a facility with temperature checks using no-touch thermometers, and require workers to fill out questionnaires about symptoms and exposure to people with possible COVID-19. Such measures are worthless for preventing the virus, since studies have shown in many cases that the virus can be transmitted by asymptomatic carriers.

In the beginning of March when the coronavirus pandemic began to spread in Michigan, Whitmer had declared that the auto industry was “essential” and that workers would be required to remain on the job with or without adequate protection. It was not until rank-and-file workers themselves refused to work and organized wildcat actions in the US and Canada against the corporations and the United Auto Workers and Unifor unions that auto production in the state was shut down.

The reckless decision to reopen manufacturing comes as the number of new cases in Michigan is on a slow decline, but the state still has the fourth highest number of deaths in the US, and the Detroit metro area still among the areas hardest hit by the pandemic.

The May 11 restart date comes as a result of pressure from the corporate ruling class to push ahead with production and the generation of profit. The plan primarily caters to the demands of the Big Three US auto corporations—Fiat-Chrysler (FCA), Ford and General Motors—to begin phasing in production in the state as planned on May 18, by allowing auto parts suppliers to begin operating at least one week ahead of time.

The capitalist Democratic Party and their counterparts in the Republican Party voted unanimously in Congress to pass the stimulus bills that gave trillions of dollars to Wall Street and the banks and corporations, and left the working class with a pittance in the face of mass unemployment.

In spite of the financial burden borne by millions of workers unemployed and furloughed without benefits in the US due to the ruling class’s utter negligence and failure to prepare for a global pandemic, the vast majority are opposed to returning to workplaces under conditions where the virus continues to spread at a substantial pace.

Revealing the two diametrically opposed class forces in the plants, in contrast to the opposition of the working class to the homicidal directives of the state and corporations, the United Auto Workers has applauded Whitmer’s announcement, to which top officials have given their full endorsement.

UAW President Rory Gamble heaped praise on Whitmer after the announcement, saying,

“Throughout this worldwide crisis, Governor Whitmer has been a leading voice to make sure that scientific data and the health and safety of all Michiganders was the priority in managing pandemic decisions. … Governor Whitmer has at all times been inclusive and focused on building consensus to do what is right for the health and safety of UAW members and all of Michigan’s working men and women.”

In fact, Whitmer’s decision to open manufacturing on Monday flies in the face of the warnings of medical authorities and evidence from within the US and around the world that relaxing social distancing measures too soon without the needed public health measures in place (such as contact tracing and widespread testing, which exist nowhere in the US) leads to new waves of transmission of the infection.

The UAW has been complicit with the premature reopening of the plants, exposing the class nature of the corrupt organization which has worked with the corporations to draw up inadequate “safety plans” that will do little to nothing to protect workers from the new virus about whose behavior scientists still have many questions.

UAW Local 7 President Gary Hill issued a notice to workers at FCA’s Jefferson North Assembly Plant in Detroit outlining the inadequate conditions under which the union and company would force them to work, alleviating FCA of responsibility for workers’ health and lives and leaving it up to chance.

“May 11th IS IN STONE FOR TEAM LEADERS AND SKILLED TRADES. OUR WORKPLACE IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT. …When you get to work … Be patient. …We all must answer Covid-19 questions daily. There are thermal imaging cameras being installed as I write this. Social Distancing is mandatory. When 6 feet isn’t possible then extra protection will be provided. Like a face shield, curtain, or plexiglass. Washing our hands for 20 seconds as often as possible is helpful. We ALL MUST DO OUR PART TO PROTECT OURSELVES AND EACH OTHER.”

Across North America, 51 autoworkers have died, including at least 26 employed by FCA, Ford and GM. Workplaces have been cited as major centers which fuel infection transmission, especially among the examples of meatpacking plants, grocery stores and shipping and logistics facilities worldwide where workers must work in close contact with one another as they do in the auto plants.

Autoworkers know better than to trust the misinformation campaign of the state and UAW meant to force them back into the plants under unsafe conditions to pump out surplus value for the corporations and their shareholders, who inhabit a world far removed from the dangers the workers face on a daily basis.

A GM worker from Detroit spoke to the WSWS Autoworker Newsletter to voice the concerns of autoworkers toward Whitmer’s announcement,

“I have a friend who works for Mercedes in Alabama. They went to work last week, and five people were tested positive with the virus.

“I knew Whitmer was going to reopen the plants because she’s been being pressured by the auto companies. It’s about the economy—profits—nothing to do with saving lives. They don’t care about saving lives, and it’s obvious they don’t care. It doesn’t matter to them how many people will die … all they care about is their profits and their million-dollar salaries.

“They say things are getting better, but that couldn’t possibly be true. We’re not even past the first part of this, and there’s a second part coming. I agree that it is only the working class that can change this situation.”

A worker from one of the Flex-N-Gate Michigan facilities voiced her concern about reopening auto production on May 18. Flex-N-Gate is a global auto parts supplier for the Big Three, as well as Toyota, Honda and Suburu with locations in the North and South America and in Europe.

“The vehicles should be the last things produced,” she said. “Our health should be number one. If I can’t go to a doctor because the doctor’s offices are closed, then what makes them think I’m healthy enough to go to work?

“We produce the bumpers for the Dodge Ram. I was all for the shutdown. We heard about COVID cases at Sterling Heights Assembly Plant. Before our shutdown we were given one Clorox square to wipe down 30 torque guns on the front line and 20 torque guns on the rear line. One wipe for 50 guns! And, no masks or gloves.”

Sterling Heights Assembly (SHAP) workers walked off the job in mid-March in opposition to the decision of the company and the UAW to continue production during the coronavirus pandemic.

The worker continued,

“I was glad the SHAP workers took action. Too much is still unknown about the virus and the implications. We work on the assembly lines shoulder to shoulder. We have two people per station all the way down our lines. Eighteen or more people on one line, and at least 30 people on the other line, all criss-crossing torch guns, stepping into other work stations to cover the part being built.

“It’s not just autoworkers. Look at what is happening to the meatpacking workers. So many have died. Is this what they want to happen to us?

“Workers need a voice, and we need a voice other than the union. We voted down the union in our plant. We attended meetings to talk about a contract, but we never saw it. They wanted us to sign a membership card before we could vote on a contract we hadn’t seen. Many of us signed the card, voted, and turned around and quit. They didn’t want to hear from us and didn’t want to answer our questions.”

Autoworkers must prepare now to oppose the reopening of the auto plants and take the struggle for safe working conditions into their own hands by organizing rank-and-file safety committees, politically independent of the Democratic Party and their allies in the trade unions, to oppose any return to work under unsafe conditions.

These rank-and-file committees must fight to demand full pay and benefits for all workers while the plants are closed and for workers’ control over the operations of the plants in North America, linking up with workers in Mexico, Canada, Italy, Brazil and many other countries around the world to oppose the global back-to-work orders and coordinate the fight for a scientifically planned, socialist solution to the pandemic and the internationalization of the auto industry against the anarchy of the capitalist system which places profits over workers lives.

*

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 Flickr

In early April, China’s official People’s Daily broadsheet slammed the Trump regime’s unacceptable restrictions imposed on the country’s journalists in the US.

It called hostile US actions a “clumsy performance (that) further exposed the hypocrisy of the self-styled advocate of press freedom.”

The State Department imposed onerous visa restrictions on Chinese journalists, denying entry or expelling some for political reasons.

In 2018, 29 Chinese journalists were denied US visas without explanation. Nine others had their visas revoked.

Chinese journalists in the US are harassed, denied press passes to Congress and various Capitol Hill events, some interrogated like criminal suspects — their legitimate rights denied.

In December 2018, the Trump regime’s Justice Department designed Chinese media in the US as “foreign agents,” — requiring them to provide information about their finances and activities on a regular basis.

In mid-February, the State Department designed five Chinese media in the US as “foreign missions,” imposing onerous burdens on them — including the requirement to get approval for renting or buying housing accommodations for their staff.

In March, the State Department ordered designated Chinese media in the US to reduce their staff to 100 from 160 — expelling 60 journalists from the country.

On Friday, the Trump regime’s Homeland Security Department issued new visa guidelines for Chinese journalists, restricting them to 90 days, in lieu of open-ended entry, with an option to extend them for another 90 days.

The new policy applies as well to Chinese journalists working for non-Chinese media. It’s effective on May 11.

According to an unnamed DHS official cited by Reuters, the new policy aims to limit the number of Chinese journalists in the US.

Unacceptably treating them like fifth column threats virtually assures retaliation by Beijing.

An unnamed Chinese journalist who used to work in the US called the Trump regime’s new move an “expulsion” policy, adding:

Up to now, it’s been “difficult to renew a visa every three months” because of US hostility toward Beijing.

China Institute of International Studies research fellow Zhang Tengjun slammed how Washington operates, saying:

“The US has long labeled itself as valuing ‘freedom of the press,’ but its actions were full of hypocrisy.”

“The new policy speaks of the double standard being practiced by US politicians.”

“They continuously stress on Chinese journalists’ official background to find an excuse for cracking down on Chinese reporters’ normal reporting activities in the US.”

Trump’s China bashing policy aims to boost his troubled reelection campaign.

Most polls conducted in early May showed his approval below 45%, disapproval over 50%.

His indifference toward public health, mishandling of COVID-19 outbreaks, and economic collapse that left tens of millions of Americans without work may be his undoing in November.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from South China Morning Post

WW II had nothing to do with defeating the scourge of fascism, far from it. 

Its belligerent face in the US, West, Israel, and their imperial allies resembles earlier versions in Germany, Japan and Italy with nationality and cultural differences.

Like their ruling regimes, the business of US-dominated NATO, Israel, and their partners in high crimes is war — smashing and pillaging one nation after another on the phony pretext of democracy building, a notion abhorred by ruling authorities in the West and their complicit allies.

Modern-day fascism features one-party rule, state terror, controlling the message, weapons of war, and the economy to serve the interests of ruling authorities, their cronies and corporates favorites.

US and Western fantasy democracy is all about amassing maximum wealth and power for the privileged few by exploiting most others at home and abroad.

In the US, duopoly rule with two right wings runs things, served by technocrats and apparatchiks, independent alternative choices virtually shut out.

Anyone posing a perceived threat to the dirty system is eliminated — notably JFK, RFK, MLK, and other notable figures in the US and elsewhere.

Elections when held are farcical, outcomes predetermined. Dirty business as usual always wins.

If elections in the US, West, and Israel improved the lives of ordinary people, they’d be banned.

9/11 was planned by US dark forces to escalate global wars and harden police state rule.

The ongoing public health crisis and economic collapse picks up where 9/11 left off, a second state-sponsored war on humanity for greater wealth and power, hardening the scourge of fascism.

Falsely blaming what’s happening on China by the Trump regime is all about trying to undermining its growing political, economic, industrial, and technological development.

9/11 was made in the USA, the same likely true about what’s going on now, a diabolical plot against humanity — how the scourge of fascism operates.

Trump is America’s latest in a long line of belligerent presidents, following in the footsteps of his predecessors, exceeding the worst of their policies, the stakes today far higher than long ago.

Survival of humanity along with a world safe and fit to live in is threatened.

From Bush/Cheney to Obama to Trump, US national security strategy reserves the right to smash any invented enemies of choice, along with eliminating homeland social justice and ruling with an iron fist for unchallenged control.

Like earlier fascist states, the US disdains human and civil rights that impede it power-grabbing priorities.

It needs enemies at home and abroad to pursue its diabolical agenda. Since they don’t exist, they’re invented.

A disproportionate share of national wealth goes for militarism, warmaking, and corporate handouts — at the expense of the public welfare.

US policymakers advance their hostile agenda with help from press agent media, supporting what demands denunciation.

May 9 marks the 75th anniversary of what Russia calls the Great Patriotic War.

The unparalleled sacrifices of its people contributed most to defeating the scourge of Nazism — at the cost of around 27 million civilian and military lives, a loss of about 16% of its population, 25% with the wounded included, plus immense human suffering that touched the vast majority beyond any way to measure it.

The West played a supportive role alone in liberating Europe from Nazism.

Without Russia’s contribution to the war effort, the outcome might have been vastly different.

Yet revisionist history in the West to this day ignores Franklin Roosevelt’s tribute to the Soviet effort.

In July 1943, nearly two years before his April 1945 death, weeks before Nazism’s defeat, he honored the efforts of Soviet soldiers and civilians in remarks I never recall hearing from another US leader to this day about their war effort, saying:

“The world has never seen greater devotion, determination, and self-sacrifice than have been displayed by the Russian people and their armies.”

“With a nation which in saving itself is thereby helping to save all the world from the Nazi menace, this country of ours should always be glad to be a good neighbor and a sincere friend in the world of the future.”

Things didn’t turn out this way. The West’s invaluable WW II ally became its adversary almost straightaway when war ended.

Russia under Vladimir Putin is the world’s leading proponent of world peace, stability, and cooperative relations with other nations among major powers — threatening none.

The US under both wings of its war party is the main enemy to all of the above.

Will it take another world war to settle things? Will nuclear weapons be used if another is waged?

Are we all doomed because of US rage to dominate other countries no matter the human cost.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” George Santayana warned.

Einstein reportedly defined insanity as doing the same thing time and again, expecting different results.

The US hasn’t won a war since WW II ended. Yet it keeps waging them with no prospect for peace in our time.

Will humanity’s epitaph one day by aliens if they exist one day say planet earth’s inhabitants waged endless wars until they extinguished themselves and all other life forms?

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Recently, Chuao, a town on the coast of Aragua State, Venezuela, was put on the geopolitical world map, given the incursion of some mercenaries from the Venezuelan radical opposition and some green berets from the Donald Trump government, who were captured by maroon-militiamen, members of the Juan Ramón Lugo Afro-revolutionary Movement.

Once again our coherent anti-colonial and anti-imperialist convictions of our Afro-descendant peoples are shown. We have said in innumerable meetings both, in the Vice-presidency of the Republic, and in some ministries, (unfortunately without being listened to carefully), that our Afro peoples are located in military geopolitical zones such as the Barlovento region, where a suspicious ship, on La Tortuga island located 60 Km from Higuerote, was detected by our Navy.

On May 3, other mercenaries were detected, and there was a confrontation in Macuto (La Guaira State), an area that we have called militarily geo-strategic, as is the entire coast of that geographic radius.

Now, on May 4, it was Chuao Beach where the mercenaries arrived, fleeing from the Vargas coast to the Aragua coast, where our maroons were alert and proceeded to capture these mercenaries paid by the United States and the impostor. self-proclaimed president Juan Guaido, who had signed a contract with the highly specialized mercenaries who had participated in the war with Iraq. They are part of the network that General Oliver Alcalá had created in Barranquilla with the Colombian government under the command of President Ivan Duque.

Again, the Afro-Revolutionary Movement reaffirms its anti-imperialist vocation and at the same time we call on the Venezuelan State to provide the highest protection and security to our maroons who participated in this fight against imperialism. At the same time, we take the opportunity to tell the President and his team that public services in our communities are in an advanced process of deterioration, with electricity and communications being strategic, which are almost non-existent, as well as health services, and economic sustainability.

The Juan Ramón Lugo Afro-Revolutionary Movement in an upcoming statement will present to the national government the critical situation we are going through, however we are clear on who is the main enemy. Our sovereignty and anti-imperialism is not disputed.

This is how we began the month of Afro-Venezuelanism decreed on May 10 by the National Assembly chaired in May 2005, by the current legitimate president of the Bolivarian Republic, Nicolas Maduro Moros on the occasion of the uprising on May 10, 1795, of the Maroon Jose Leonardo Chrino in the Sierra de Falcon. Worth noting is that we began the month of Afro-Venezuela with the anti-imperialist feat of the Maroons of Chuao.

*

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 translated from Spanish to English by Marcos Polo Hernández C.

Jesús Chucho García is former Venezuelan Ambassador to Angola, a writer, researcher, musician, General Coordinator of the Afroamerica.

All images in this article are from Massoud Nayeri

UN Charter Article 2(4) states the following: 

“All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

Since US grand theft of half of Mexican territory in the mid 19th century, long before the UN Charter’s existence, the US time and again waged wars by hot and other means against nations threatening no one, including countless coups — seeking to control them and their resources.

Since establishment of Bolivarian Venezuela’s model social democracy in 1999 under Hugo Chavez, US regimes from the Clintons to Trump unsuccessfully tried to return the country to client state status — notably to eliminate its democratic governance and gain control over its vast oil resources, the world’s largest.

Was the Trump regime behind the latest in a long line of failed diabolical US anti-Venezuela plots?

Pompeo claimed that Washington was not “directly involved (sic)” — admitting his knowledge of who bankrolled the failed coup plot, saying he’ll reveal more about it “at an appropriate time.”

Knowledge without involvement? Hardly likely.

On Friday, Pompeo claimed last weekend’s plot “was not an American effort…Maduro’s trying to spin it that way (sic),” adding:

“It won’t surprise me (to) learn that (he) knew about this for a significant amount of time and has used this opportunity to create disinformation and an opportunity (sic).”

Along with permanent preemptive wars against invented enemies, state terrorism, and other hostile actions, Coups “R” Us describes Washington’s geopolitical agenda worldwide.

Author, historian, US policy critic William Blum documented Washington’s imperial agenda since WW II.

He explained how the US toppled dozens of sovereign governments, assassinated legitimate leaders, removed others by coup d’etats, and reigned terror on every continent.

Its agenda today is more ruthless than ever, including virtually every conceivable form of lawlessness and abuse of power.

In response to last weekend’s keystone cops-like botched mini-Bay of Pigs Venezuela invasion attempt by a few dozen militants, 23 captured, eight others killed, President Nicolas Maduro said following:

The Trump regime was “fully and completely involved in this defeated raid.” It was a “covert operation ordered by Donald Trump,” supported by Colombia’s fascist leader Ivan Duque.

It was financed by US puppet Guaido, using stolen Venezuelan revenues given him by the Trump regime for coup-plotting activities.

The mission was outsourced to US-based security firm Silvercorp USA, established by former green beret Jordan Goundreau.

Last October, he was paid millions of dollars by Guaido to train and direct about 300 Venezuelan army deserters in Colombia — their mission to, abduct or otherwise remove Maduro from power.

The notion of no US involvement in the plot is pure fantasy. Trump regime hardliners have been actively plotting regime change in Venezuela since early 2017.

Convicted felon Elliott Abrams was named point man for anti-Venezuela operations — violence, chaos, and other horrific human rights abuses his specialties.

Two Americans were among captured mercenaries, Luke Denman and Airan Berry, both former green berets connected to Silvercorp.

Pompeo threatened Venezuela, saying the Trump regime will “use every tool” at its disposal to return Denman and Berry to the US.

According to the CIA-connected Washington Post, Guaido advisor JJ Rendon said he signed a Silvercorp services contract in October 2019 for $213 million — its mission to abduct and remove Maduro from power.

Interrogation of Denman and Berry revealed that the foiled plot aimed to take control of Caracas’ Miraflores Palace, Venezuelan intelligence headquarters, an airbase near the capital, and another airport.

The latest US coup plot was foiled like numerous earlier ones.

They included an aborted two-day April 2002 attempt to oust Hugo Chavez. Failure to get high-level Venezuelan military support and popular resistance foiled it.

The 2002 – 03 general strike and oil management lockout that caused severe economic disruption didn’t work.

Nor did an August 2004 national recall referendum, Chavez winning overwhelmingly with a 59% majority.

Years of US sanctions wars, asset freezes, and other financial terrorism by Bush/Cheney, Obama and Trump for regime change failed.

So did falsely accusing Venezuelan officials of drugs trafficking and offering a $15 million bounty for information leading to Maduro’s arrest by the US or its proxies.

Obama didn’t kill Osama but his regime managed to kill Chavez by poisoning or infecting him with deadly cancer-causing substances — a coup by other means that left Chavismo resilient.

Obama’s 2015 executive order that falsely declared Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States” failed to achieve its objective.

Nor did intermittent street violence that was orchestrated and financed by US dark forces.

An August 2017 CIA-orchestrated terrorist attack on Fort Paramacay in Carabobo state was another foiled coup attempt.

So was the August 2018 attack on Maduro by drones armed with C-4 explosives, attempting to kill him.

In early 2019, large numbers of assault weapons flown into Venezuela were discovered and seized.

In February last year, a Trump regime false flag along the Venezuelan/Colombian border was foiled.

Guaido’s failed April 30, 2019 coup plot, orchestrated by his Trump regime handlers, was Washington’s last unsuccessful attempt to replace Bolivarian social democracy with US controlled fascist tyranny — until last weekend’s failed coup attempt.

Virtually everything US regimes threw at Venezuela to eliminate its model social democracy failed.

It surely won’t deter further attempts. The US is hellbent to transform all sovereign independent nations into client states.

It’s just a matter of time before the next US anti-Bolivarian regime change attempt occurs.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The mortality statistics for COVID 19 have been incessantly hammered into our heads by the mainstream media (MSM). Every day they report these hardest of facts to justify the lockdown (house arrest) and to prove to us that living in abject fear of the COVID 19 syndrome is the only sensible reaction.

Apparently, only the most lucrative vaccine ever devised can possibly save us.

The COVID 19 mortality statistics are the reason millions will undoubtedly download contact tracing (State surveillance) apps. This will help the vaccinated to secure their very own immunity passports (identity papers) and enable them to prove they are allowed to exist in the post-COVID 19 society, whenever the State demands to see their authorisation.

But how reliable are these statistics? What do they really tell us about what is happening outside the confines of our incarceration? Do they reveal the harsh reality of an unprecedented deadly virus sweeping the nation or does the story of how they have been manipulated, inflated, fudged and exploited tell us something else?

The once reliable office of national statistics

In order to register a death in England and Wales, under normal circumstances, a qualified doctor needs to record the cause of death on the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death (MCCD).

They must then notify the Medical Examiner for a corroborating opinion. Providing the doctor is clear on the cause of death and no irregularities or suspicions are noted, if the Medical Examiner concurs, there is no need to refer the death to a coroner.

The second opinion of the Medical Examiner (another qualified doctor) was introduced in 2016 following a series of high profile systemic abuses. The mass murderer Dr Harold Shipman, and doctors at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and Southern Health NHS Trust, covered up crimes and widespread malpractice by improperly completing MCCDs.

Today, once the Medical Examiner agrees, they then discuss the death with a qualified informant. This is usually someone who knows the deceased. It is an opportunity, more often than not, for a family member or friend to discuss any concerns about the suggested cause of death. If no further issues are raised, the death certificate can be issued to the informant, the Local Registrar notified and the death recorded.

Registered deaths have been recorded in England and Wales since 1837. From 1911 onward the cause of death has been coded in accordance with the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Maintaining registration records was the responsibility of the General Register Office until 1970 when it became a department of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS). In 1996 the OPCS merged with the Central Statistical Office (CSO) to form the Office of National Statistics (ONS).

There have been some tweaks and legislative changes to the system over the years.

Technology has sped things up a bit, but essentially the simple process of recording registered deaths has changed little over the last century. The ONS have been accurately recording registered deaths in England and Wales for more than 23 years.

From a statistical perspective this consistent, verifiable system has allowed meaningful analysis to inform public health practice and policy for decades. The inbuilt safeguards, maintained and improved over the years, means the ONS provide some of the most reliable mortality statistics in the world.

They record all registered deaths no matter where they occurred in England and Wales. Whether the deceased died in hospital, a care home or in the community, once registration is complete the ONS add it to their statistics.

For weekly statistics the ONS week runs from Saturday to Friday and the statistics are released 11 days after the week ending date. There may be an additional lag for a small number of more complex cases. However, all are eventually resolved and the ONS record the registration of the death in the week it was notified. The ONS also release mortality statistics on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis for comparison.

This does not suit a hungry MSM eager to sensationalise reported COVID 19 deaths. Nor does it serve the immediate interests of State officials who want the public to accept their own house arrest.

Consequently the MSM have reported COVID 19 mortality statistics from a variety of sources. Some from the NHS, some from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and eventually the ONS.

Now the Care Quality Commission have also been thrown into the mix.

Ultimately, all of these deaths will be registered. The ONS will record them and it will be possible to know how many died, the causes of death and the trends identified.

Except in the case of COVID 19.

The vague case of a COVID-19 death

The Coronavirus Act 2020 received Royal assent on March 25th. This had significant implications for the registration of deaths and the accuracy of ONS data in relation to COVID 19.

Not only did the act indemnify all NHS doctors against any claims of negligence during the lockdown, it also removed the need for a jury led inquest. Effectively, only in the case of death from the notifiable disease of COVID 19. Worrying as these elements of the legislation are, they are just part of a raft of changes singling out registered COVID 19 deaths as unusually imprecise.

The NHS issued guidance to assist doctors to comply with the new legislation. Any doctor can sign the MCCD. There is no need for the scrutiny of a second Medical Examiner. The Medical Examiner, or any other doctor, can sign the MCCD alone. The safeguards introduced in 2016 were removed, but only in the case of COVID 19.

Doctors do not necessarily need to have examined the deceased prior to signing the MCCD. If it is considered impractical for the doctor who last saw the deceased to complete the MCCD, providing they report that the deceased probably had COVID 19, any other qualified doctor can sign the death certificate as a COVID 19 death.

There is no requirement for any signing doctor to have even seen the deceased prior to issuing the MCCD. A video link consultation within the 4 week period leading up to the patient’s death, is deemed sufficient for them to pronounce death from COVID 19.

If that were not tenuous enough, as long as the signing doctor believes the death was from COVID 19, potentially absent any examination at all, perhaps simply by reviewing the patient’s case notes, if a coroner agrees, a COVID 19 death can still be registered.

The coroner’s agreement is practically a fait accomplis. On the 26th March the UK State released guidance from the Chief Coroner. This was intended as advice to all coroners in cases of COVID 19 referral.

There were some notable changes to normal coronal procedures. Paragraph 5 strongly reminded coroners of their obligation to maintain judicial conduct. It stated:

The Chief Coroner cannot envisage a situation in the current pandemic where a coroner should be engaging in interviews with the media or making any public statements to the press.”

This thinly veiled threat to coroners made it clear that speaking out about any concerns would be considered a breech of judicial conduct. A career-ending act it would seem.

The NHS guidance advised that if no signing doctor has seen the deceased prior to registration of death, a referral to the coroner must be made. This is a procedural recommendation, not a legal requirement. A legal requirement is only applicable in cases of unknown or suspicious causes of death. In turn, the Chief Coroner’s guidance states:

“COVID-19 is a naturally occurring disease and therefore is capable of being a natural cause of death […] the aim of the system should be that every death from COVID-19 which does not in law require referral to the coroner should be dealt with via the MCCD process.”

The Coronavirus Act 2020 also meant that a qualified informant, who agrees with the cause of death on the MCCD, no longer needed to be anyone acquainted with the deceased. A hospital official, someone who is ‘in charge of a body’ or a funeral director can perform this vital function. The Chief Coroner advised:

“For registration: where next of kin/informant are following self-isolation procedures, the arrangement for relatives (etc) should be for an alternative informant who has not been in contact with the patient to collect the MCCD and deliver to the registrar for registration purposes. The provisions in the Coronavirus Act will enable this to be done electronically as directed by the Registrar General.”

Most relatives, or someone acquainted with the deceased, will be following self-isolation procedures. They will almost certainly be terrified of contracting COVID19 because they have just been told their loved one or friend died from it. Furthermore, the Coronavirus Act has effectively placed them under house arrest.

In other words, if the MCCD signing doctor hasn’t seen the patient, while they were alive, no further inquiry is necessary. The qualified informant can be someone who has neither met the deceased nor knows anything about the circumstances surrounding their death.

In this situation, but only for COVID19 deaths, it is fine to assume the death was from the disease. If you, the coroner, don’t like the idea, don’t make a fuss. Just sign the damn thing or else.

Impacting the COVID-19 statistics

This quite bizarre death registration process compelled the ONS to issue guidance to doctors signing MCCDs. Not only is there no need for an examination to pronounce death from COVID19, nor is there any necessity for a positive test or even an indicative CT scan.

In their guidance the ONS advised doctors on what constitutes an acceptable underlying cause of death. When mortality statistics are used for research it is usually the most relevant factor. The vast majority of COVID19 deaths reported by the State and the MSM also reflect its identification as the underlying cause.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) define this as:

“The disease or injury which initiated the train of morbid events leading directly to death.”

For COVID19, this determination can be based upon the clinical judgement of a doctor who has never met the deceased. Quite possibly following nothing more than a video link consultation or a case note review of symptoms.

The problem is the symptoms of COVID19 are largely indistinguishable from a range of other respiratory illnesses. A study from the University of Toronto found:

“The symptoms can vary, with some patients remaining asymptomatic, while others present with fever, cough, fatigue, and a host of other symptoms. The symptoms may be similar to patients with influenza or the common cold.”

Nor is there any requirement for a post mortem to confirm the presence of COVID19. Guidance from the Royal College of Pathologists states:

“If a death is believed to be due to confirmed COVID-19 infection, there is unlikely to be any need for a post-mortem examination to be conducted and the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death should be issued.”

Clear causation between the underlying cause and the direct cause is imperative to establish the fact. Just because someone tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 (SC2) virus it doesn’t mean they developed the associated syndrome of COVID19.

The Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine found that anything between 5% – 80% of people who tested positive for SC2 did not have any symptoms of COVID19. Asymptomatic people do not have a disease which impacts their health in the short term. Even for those who did test positive for SC2, claims that this was the underlying cause of death are dubious in an unknown number of cases.

Following the Coronavirus Act, in keeping with advice from the NHS, the ONS advised doctors:

“If before death the patient had symptoms typical of COVID-19 infection, but the test result has not been received, it would be satisfactory to give ‘COVID-19’ as the cause of death….In the circumstances of there being no swab, it is satisfactory to apply clinical judgement.”

This isn’t unique to COVID19. Doctors are required to complete MCCDs “to the best of their knowledge and belief” even when test results may not yet be available. The difference in the case of COVID19 is that all the normal requirements for qualified confirmatory opinions and every opportunity to question the cause of death have been removed.

In addition, the need to complete Cremation form 5, requiring a second medical opinion, has been suspended for all COVID19 deaths. Given that post mortem confirmation is also extremely unlikely and agreement from a coroner is all but assured, this means possible COVID19 decedents can be cremated without any clear evidence they ever had the disease.

In light of all the other registration oddities for determining COVID19 mortality, the direct causation, proving COVID19 was the underlying cause of death, appears extremely doubtful. We just don’t know how many people have died from COVID19. We are told many people have, but we cannot state with any certainty what the numbers are. Neither can the ONS.

Obviously concerned about the implications, the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) have called for a systemic post outbreak review. The Health Service Journal reports that the RCPath expects a detailed investigation into causes of death due to the degree of uncertainty.

Statistically it gets worse

The overwhelming majority of medical and care staff, coroners, pathologists, ONS statisticians and funeral directors have no desire to mislead anyone. However, in the case of COVID19 deaths, the State has created a registration system so ambiguous it is virtually useless. The statistical product recorded by the ONS, despite their best efforts, is correspondingly vacuous.

This hasn’t stopped the State and the MSM from reporting every death as proof of the deadliness of COVID19. Claims of COVID19 as the underlying cause of death should be treated with considerable scepticism.

Initially the daily reports were based upon the figures of COVID19 deaths released by the NHS via the DHSC. These were the numbers with positive test results. The ONS also recorded positive test registrations from the NHS, care settings and the community.

As discussed, a positive test for SC2 doesn’t necessarily mean you suffered any health impact from COVID19. In addition, the test itself has proved to have a varying degree of reliability.

Nonetheless, the ONS figures from all settings, were higher than those reported by the MSM and the State in their daily briefings. However, the reliance upon positive tests changed on March 29th.

The State instructed the ONS not only to record all registered COVID19 deaths, where positive tests results were known, but also where COVID19 was merely suspected. In combination with the possibly spurious attribution from hospitals, this ‘mention’ of COVID19, further distanced the statistics from clear, confirmed causes of death.

This prompted a significant increase in the COVID19 fatalities reported by the ONS. Not because more people were dying from it, but because the categorisation of COVID19 deaths had changed. Any mention of COVID19 anywhere on the death certificate, regardless of other comorbidities, such as heart failure or cancer, were now recorded as registered COVID19 deaths by the ONS.

This addition of claimed COVID19 deaths has punctuated the ONS data throughout the outbreak. While we are told by the MSM that these new figures better reflect the reality of COVID19 mortality, in truth we are moving further away from any meaningful record.

The evidence suggests the methodology has been altered at opportune moments to inflate and maintain the mortality statistics. Just after the virus peak of infection and the start of the lockdown, the State instructed the ONS to include suspected “mentions” of COVID19. Again, as the recorded numbers of deaths were dropping, the State started releasing more figures from the care sector. From April 29th they have introduced additional figures provided by the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

If the figures from the NHS are at best questionable, the figures from the CQC run the risk of moving us into fantasy land. All the same problems of decedents not being seen, video consultations, lack of corroborative medical opinion and so forth remain. However, in care settings the onus for signing MCCDs shifts from hospital doctors to General Practitioners (GP’s).

The CQC is the independent regulator of health and social care in England. During the COVID19 outbreak it has not required care homes or community care providers to notify them of suspected cases. It has also suspended all inspections.

From the 29th April the CQC will provide statistics to the ONS where a “care home provider has stated COVID-19 as a suspected or confirmed cause of death.” This notification is made online via the CQC’s Provider Portal. Provisional figures will be included in the ONS daily updates.

The CQC is tasked with making sure decedents from care homes who died in hospital are removed from the reports before submitting them to the ONS. Otherwise massive duplication will occur. We can only hope statisticians will be extremely diligent.

The ONS has reported what these statistics from the CQC will be based upon. Frankly, it makes jaw dropping reading. The ONS state:

“The inclusion of a death in the published figures as being the result of COVID-19 is based on the statement of the care home provider, which may or may not correspond to a medical diagnosis or test result, or be reflected in the death certification.”

Most care home providers are not medically trained. Their judgement regarding whether or not the decedent had COVID19 may well be the result of a once weekly phone call with a GP. Guidance to GP’s from NHS England states that Possible COVID19 patients should be identified primarily by weekly check-ins online.

This is in keeping with the NHS Key Principles of General Practice, in relation to COVID19, which states:

Remote consultations should be used when possible. Consider the use of video consultations when appropriate.”

The ONS add:

There is no validation built into the quality of data on collection. Fields may be left blank or may contain information that is contradictory, and this may not be resolved at the point of publication. Most pertinent to this release are place of death and whether the death was as a result of confirmed or suspected coronavirus.

This is the system the CQC will use to collect the data for the ONS reports. Once someone, either in a care home or cared for in the community, is assumed to have died of COVID19, based upon the best guess of the care provider following a chat with a local GP, in keeping with the process we have already discussed, their MCCD will be signed off as a COVID19 death.

The ONS will add their death to the COVID19 statistics and the State and the MSM will report them to the public as confirmed COVID19 mortality.

How anyone can consider the statistics from care providers an accurate and reliable record of COVID19 deaths is difficult to envisage. Nonetheless, that is what we are asked to believe.

The state and MSM COVID-19 fudge

All we are able to identify with any certainty are the total number of of all deaths, called all cause mortality, reported by the ONS. We cannot be confident about what caused those deaths during the COVID19 outbreak.

The State has presided over a truly remarkable bastardisation of the ONS data for COVID19. This has not only rendered records of COVID19 deaths a statistical black hole but, during the claimed pandemic, has also made the ONS data for other causes of excess mortality practically unknowable.

Especially for the ONS, any chance of accurately separating COVID19 deaths from other causes of mortality has been completely obliterated by State diktat. For the first time in their history the ONS are reporting a relatively large number of highly dubious registered causes of death. However, they remain our best hope of knowing how many people have passed away.

In the meantime, while we wait for the ONS data to emerge, the MSM are reporting every COVID19 death from any source they can find. Some are vaguely confirmed and some not. They are also reporting suspected COVID19 deaths from care homes, provisional figures from the NHS , the CQC and then the same figures again from the DHSC and later the ONS.

The narrative they are presenting, on the back of this hodgepodge of statistical irrelevance, is designed to convince the public of the severity of the outbreak in the UK. There is clearly high excess mortality at the moment. Thanks to the lockdown, this is happening while the NHS is essentially closed to everyone other than suspected COVID19 patients.

Early studies have already predicted a significant health impact from the lack of essential health care caused by the lockdown. People requiring treatment for a range of other potentially fatal conditions aren’t getting it. This was acknowledged by the UK’s Chief Medical Officer Chris Witty in the daily briefing on April 30th:

“…You have the direct deaths from coronavirus but also indirect deaths. Part of which is caused by the NHS and public health services not being able to do what they normally can to look after people with other conditions….It is therefore important…..to do the other important things like urgent cancer care, elective surgery and all the other thing like screening….which we need to do to keep people healthy.”

How many people have died of other causes, due to the lockdown, only to be registered as COVID19 deaths? We just don’t know and the ONS have no way of finding out.

However we do know, thanks to the ONS, the total all cause mortality as a percentage of population in England and Wales over recent decades. This analysis shows us, while excess mortality this year is high, it is by no means unprecedented. In fact, as a percentage of population, it is notably lower to the comparable years of 1995, 1996, 1998 and 1999. Yet none of these years necessitated the shut down of the economy nor the dire health consequences of closing the NHS to all but a few patients.

Between 27th March and 17th April (ONS weeks 14,15 & 16) the ONS registered 25,932 additional deaths above the statistical recent 5 year norm. Of these 11,427 recorded COVID19 as the sole mentioned underlying cause.

We have just explored the considerable doubt about this attribution. However, if we accept this figure, it means the remaining 14,505 people died with other registered underlying causes. That means approximately 56% of additional excess mortality is attributable to something else, either in addition to or entirely separate from suggested COVID19.

Given this inexplicable Spring mortality, it seems highly likely these are at least some of the indirect deaths the UK’s Chief Medical Officer spoke of. To claim all these excess deaths are the result of COVID19, as the State and MSM persistently do, is without any justification whatsoever.

It is not possible to identify how many people have died as a direct result of COVID19 either from the registration of deaths or the resultant statistics. This is not the fault of medical practitioners or statisticians. It is caused by a State response to a claimed pandemic which has rendered the most crucial processes, and the data gleaned from them, a statistical nonsense.

*

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 images in this article are from OffGuardian unless otherwise stated

Amid the deepest economic contraction in nearly a century, President Xi Jinping had already made it very clear, last month, that China should be ready for unprecedented, relentless foreign challenges.

He was not referring only to the possible decoupling of global supply chains and the non-stop demonization of every project related to the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative.

An allegedly leaked internal document, secret and invisible inside China, but nonetheless obtained by some obscure Western-connected source, even stated, essentially, that the blame game against China over the virus is like the backlash over Tiananmen all over again.

According to the secret, invisible document, China would have to “prepare for armed confrontation between the two global powers” – a reference to the US. It’s as if this was an aggressive strategy deployed by the Chinese state in the first place, and not in response to the massive escalation of hybrid warfare 2.0 by the United States government.

For all practical purposes, the hysterical demonization of China across the Beltway has now overtaken the previous hysterics, the demonization of Russia.

What Beijing used to define as a “period of strategic opportunity” is over. There were rumblings in intel circles that the CCP leadership believed this strategic window of opportunity would last unimpeded until the key date, 2049 – when “national rejuvenation” should have been fully accomplished.

Forget it. Now the whole game is about hybrid warfare 2.0 deployed by the US to contain the emerging superpower, whatever it takes. And that implies that a plethora of Chinese plans are now being turbo-charged.

The first order of business is to restore the productivity of the Made in China machine. During his recent visit to Shaanxi province, historically crucial for the CCP, President Xi insisted on it, coupled with an anti-poverty offensive. He had promised to eliminate poverty this year.

Significantly, and contrary to all Western forecasts, China’s exports grew 3.5% in April, compared with a fall of 6.6% in March. This totally shatters the decoupling rationale. The Japanese government, for instance, is accelerating the relocation of factories from China, in haste. Not a very clever strategy.

These factories are leaving a nation that has all but eradicated Covid-19. And if they move to Vietnam, well, that’s also a socialist economy (with Vietnamese characteristics).

China’s GDP growth fell by 6.8% in the first quarter of 2020. Recovery is already on. Officially, unemployment was at 5.9% in late March – not taking into account migrant workers who went back to the big cities after spending the apex of Covid-19 in the countryside. There were projections of unemployment at 20% – later retracted.

Recovery will be a mix of economic stimulus to companies, big and small; investments in infrastructure; and vouchers to a great many of the working masses. The hukou system – linking social rights to place of residence – will also be reformed. The key date to watch will be May 22, during the postponed session of the National People’s Congress.

Belt & Road on track

Geopolitically, the analysis by the French think tank CAPS, a subsidiary of the Ministry of Foreign Relations in Paris, has become practically a mantra across the West.

CAPS is alarmed that China has become indispensable, while questioning its “values” and “hidden agenda.” With the EU totally paralyzed and graphically proving its irrelevance on myriad levels, especially in terms of agreeing upon an effective rescue package for all its members, the – declining – West, almost in block, is terrified that China is in the irreversible process of becoming the top global power.

Even after suffering the massive Covid-19 blow, Beijing seems to be in control of all base variables in its economic policy (financial institutions, large corporations). The CCP will double down on developing the whole production machine side by side with widespread application of AI techniques.

What seems to be established by now is that China will first secure its own national interests – in terms of global supply chains and exports. Short and medium term, there will be concentrated focus on selected New Silk Roads overland and maritime connectivity corridors – Health Silk Road included.

Even with Covid-19, China’s trade with Belt and Road nations grew 3.2% in the first quarter, not shabby even when compared with the 10.8% for the whole of 2019.

According to the Ministry of Commerce, Beijing’s trade with 56 Belt and Road nations scattered across Asia, Africa, Europe and South America represents a very important 30% of total annual trade. Now compare it to the 13% to 32% contraction in global trade forecast by the World Trade Organization for 2020.

So even if a trade drop in the first quarter of 2020 was more than predictable, it’s bound to pick up quickly especially in relation to Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe and the Arab world.

Belt and Road is predictably facing myriad short and middle term challenges – all linked to broken connectivity: supply chain breakdowns, widespread travel and visa restrictions, severe border controls, project delays because of increased costs.

Examples include the $6 billion, 150 km-long Jakarta-Bandung high-speed rail in Indonesia, with technical experts from China only slowly trickling back in after being absent because of government restrictions. Along the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, mandatory quarantine for Chinese technicians has frozen progress for at least two months. The same applies to projects in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

According to an Economist Intelligence Unit report, Covid-19 will derail Belt and Road in 2020. That may have been the case only for the first four months of the year. Even under Covid-19, Beijing has signed deals for new Belt and Road projects in Myanmar, Turkey and Nigeria.

The 414-km long China-Laos high-speed rail – connecting Yunnan, via Vientiane, to Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore – remains on track, with completion scheduled for the end of 2021. ASEAN, significantly, is now China’s number one trade partner, ahead of the drowning-in-crises EU.

Watch digital yuan 

The key takeaway from all this is that the CCP’s complex macro-strategy will be undisturbed. That implies that China will remain the top engine of the global economy, with or without decoupling, and with Belt and Road at the very core of China’s macro-foreign policy strategy, coupled with a solid drive towards multilateralism.

As much as vast swathes of the world economy, especially across the Global South, show no intention of decoupling from China, Beijing will have to be ready to counterpunch full-spectrum hybrid war by Washington on every front – geo-economic, cybernetic, biological, psychological.

As Kishore Mahbubani detailed in his latest book, that does not mean that China will have the intention – and the capacity – to become a new gendarme of the world. It will certainly turbo-charge its economic and financial power, as in the careful implementation of the possibly gold-backed digital yuan.

And then there’s the relentlessly evolving game-changer responsible for the US establishment’s sleepless nights: the Russia-China strategic partnership.

Two weeks ago, an immensely important geopolitical development was virtually buried by corona-hysteria.

Moscow is very much aware that Washington is deploying missile defense systems very close to Russia’s borders – carrying the potential to deliver a nuclear first strike. Beijing is following this development with alarm.

Moscow being aware of it is just part of the story: the key point is that Russia is confident sophisticated weapons such as the Sarmat and the Avangard will take care of it.

More complex is the issue of Pentagon bioweapon labs in the former USSR – an issue also closely followed by Beijing. Moscow has identified a lab near Tblisi in Georgia, and 11 of them in Ukraine. And way back in 2014, when Crimea was reunited with Russia, scientists also found a lab in Simferopol.

All this information – nuclear and bioweapons – as intel sources confirmed to me, is exchanged at the highest level of the Russia-China strategic partnership.

The next big move in the geopolitical chessboard points to the partnership negotiating their bilateral relations with the US as a team.

Nothing could be more rational, considering they are regarded as the top two “threats” to the US, according to the National Security Strategy.

Talk about a major paradigm shift.

*

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 Asia Times.

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Hoaxes are easy to detect. When accusations lack credible supportive evidence, they baseless.

Not a shred of evidence about alleged Russian US election meddling was ever presented by Washington’s intelligence community, the House, Senate, or farcical Robert Mueller probe.

Russiagate was and remains all about delegitimizing Trump’s triumph over media darling Hillary, bashing Russia, falsely claiming an improper or illegal Trump team connection to Moscow, along with the Big Lie that may never die accusation of Kremlin US election meddling no evidence suggests occurred because none exists.

Chinagate is the new Russiagate, a Big Lie in new form. The power of repetition gets most people to believe almost anything pounded into the public consciousness, no matter how implausible.

Lack of evidence is no obstacle to manipulating the public mind effectively.

Fear-mongering is a longstanding tactic used to create and get most people to believe nonexistent threats to the US by nonthreatening nations transformed into adversaries by the power of state-sponsored propaganda.

Because of their growing preeminence on the world stage, in contrast to the US in decline, China and Russia are demonized by state-sponsored managed news misinformation, disinformation, fake news and Big Lies.

It’s part of the landscape to remain longterm, no end of it in prospect — notably because of complicit establishment media.

They operate as virtual press agents for wealth, power, and the national security state, cheerleading its wars by hot and other means against invented enemies.

The colossal Russiagate hoax was and remains one of the most shameful political chapters in US history, exceeding the worst of McCarthyism.

In 2018, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz slammed what he called “a biased state of mind (and) a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects,” adding:

The Russiagate probe “potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.”

At the time, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said “(t)he IG report has destroyed the credibility of the Department of Justice and the FBI.”

Exposure of their wrongdoing should have ended the Russiagate witch-hunt probe straightaway.

Instead false charges persist to this day — despite no evidence ever suggesting that Russia or any other foreign nation interfered in the US electoral process.

In contrast throughout the post-WW II period, the US interfered in scores of foreign elections worldwide, aiming to install leadership of its choice, figures subservient to its interest.

Notably in 2018, former US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (2010 – 2017) said the following in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee:

“I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting (or) conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election,” adding:

“That’s not to say that there weren’t concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence.”

“But I do not recall any instance when I had direct evidence of the content of” alleged Trump team-Russia collusion.

Clapper was asked “(a)t what time is collusion collusion, and at what time is it just people that may have an affiliation with the campaign meeting or talking with…the Russian ambassador or somebody that’s of Russian origin, and when should that be taken as something that rises to the level of an intelligence community concern?”

He responded: “I really can’t answer it other than (a) sort of visceral reaction…”

A US presidential candidate, members of his team, and anyone else in the US can legally meet with officials of other countries. When occurring, it doesn’t suggest it’s with wrongdoing or other mischief in mind.

Transcripts of Russiagate interviews kept secret until now were published by House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff.

Information in them destroys the Russiagate Big Lie. No evidence of Trump team-Russia collusion existed at any time.

Transcripts of interviews with Obama regime officials Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power, along with former attorneys general Loretta Lynch, Jeff Sessions and Sally Yates, among others appearing before the House committee revealed no evidence of illegal or improper Trump team-Russia actions, nothing remotely suggesting collusion.

The phony Russiagate witch hunt was and remains a diabolical scheme cooked up by Obama regime CIA director John Brennan to aid Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Years of promoting the Big Lie persist despite no evidence suggesting Russian US election meddling.

Congressional and Mueller probes were exercises in mass deception, their results downplayed by establishment media reports to continue Russia bashing.

Despite revelations from House Intelligence Committee transcripts debunking the Russian meddling Big Lie, most likely it’ll never die to maintain a steady drumbeat of US hostility toward the country.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from American Herald Tribune

Run by warlord members from both right wings of the one-party state, the US geopolitical agenda prioritizes permanent wars against invented enemies to enforce their will on humanity by brute force and other hostile actions.

At a time when containing COVID-19 outbreaks and combatting the severest economic collapse in modern memory matter most, the Trump regime blocked a proposed global ceasefire Security Council  resolution to assure no interference in its imperial wars on humanity.

Russia strongly supports what Trump regime hardliners oppose, Kremlin UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia saying the following:

“In view of the worldwide spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus epidemic, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation is urging all parties to regional armed conflicts to immediately stop hostilities, secure a ceasefire, and introduce a humanitarian pause,” adding:

Failure to implement it “could lead to a global humanitarian disaster, given that most people  in the current hot spots lack access to medicines and skilled medical assistance.”

Endless conflicts in “Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya…Syria,” and Occupied Palestine (notably Gaza) are of “special concern,” along with African hot spots, and refugee camps with large numbers of people living in close quarters.

Russia called for belligerents like the US to halt illegal “use military force outside of their national borders.”

Failure to halt armed conflicts could lead to increased COVID-19 outbreaks in war theaters that spread cross-border.

“The Russian Federation will continue its work at the UN Security Council to facilitate the political and diplomatic settlement of regional conflicts based on the UN Charter and the universal norms of international law, and is ready for pro-active cooperation in this area with all parties concerned,” Nebenzia stress.

Washington’s agenda is polar opposite, prioritizing endless wars, abhorring peace, stability, social justice, and the rule of law.

On Friday, a proposed Security Council global ceasefire resolution never got out of the starting gate for a vote.

Allegedly it was because of Trump regime opposition to its language that included support for WHO efforts to combat COVID-19 outbreaks.

More likely it was because of Washington’s permanent war agenda.

Its war party rejects anything that slows or halts its momentum — its key strategy for pursuing global dominance, along other hostile actions that include state-sponsored terrorism, illegal sanctions, and propaganda war.

The latter includes falsely blaming China for spreading COVID-19 outbreaks to divert attention from Trump’s mishandling of the public health crisis that continues without correction.

The US leads the world in coronavirus outbreaks and deaths that keep rising daily — US states left largely on their own in containing them in lieu of all-out federal help not forthcoming.

Last month, Russia slammed the US and key imperial allies for blocking two draft UN General Assembly resolutions (one Kremlin sponsored) that called for lifting illegal sanctions on nations with large numbers of COVID-19 outbreaks and deaths to ensure their unrestrained “access to food and medications.”

The Trump regime is exploiting a global public health crisis and economic collapse to serve its own imperial interests.

US policymakers never let efforts to mitigate human pain and suffering interfere with their diabolical aims at home and abroad.

*

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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Al-Masdar News

There’s a historic experiment underway among US capitalists and policy makers. That experiment may or may not succeed. It’s the Federal Reserve PRE-BAILOUT of not only the US financial system but the entire business economy as well.

The Fed has introduced at least $9T in liquidity (money) injections into the system in the goal of heading off a massive wave of potential and forthcoming debt defaults, deflation, and bankruptcies via various measures: new QE, trillions of $ to Repo markets, funneling trillions more via recent bailout funds for large, medium and small businesses through the private banks, ending financial regulations on the banks, liabilities for corporations, guaranteed loans, and so on. It’s all about fattening bank and non-bank balance sheets to weather the loss of revenues required to keep paying interest and principal on the tens of trillions of excess business and household debt (latter held by investors). The continuing payments on that debt is necessary to prevent a massive historic wave of debt defaults that will eventually sink bank balance sheets, creating a credit crash and a further and deeper collapse of the real economy–i.e. a depression.

The Fed succeeded in 2008-09 in preventing a second banking crash by injecting $5-$6T into the banking system. The cost of that was to set off massive financial asset market speculation and bubbles, enriching investors as never before. The cost was also chronic low interest rates for 8 yrs that resulted in corporate binging on new business debt accumulation.

Now the consequences are coming home once again. The Fed’s bailout of 2008-09 created a fragile system highly susceptible to another crash. The Fed’s solution in 2008-09 has become the Fed’s nightmare of a repeat, even greater, in 2020. So the Fed is throwing even more money at the system to prevent another crash. History will tell (soon) if it will be successful in staving off another financial crash, that will all but ensure a collapse into a bona fide depression.

The US economy is today unstably between a ‘great recession 2.0’ in the real economy and a bona fide great depression a la 1929-34. Whether the future trajectory is more like 2008-2017 or whether it slips into a 1929-34 scenario depends on whether the Fed’s $9T (and rising) money injections can prevent a financial crash in 2020-21, as defaults and bankruptcies rise and expand throughout the US economy in 2020-21.

 

According to the latest data of the Italian National Health Institute ISS, the average age of the positively-tested deceased in Italy is currently about 81 years. 10% of the deceased are over 90 years old. 90% of the deceased are over 70 years old.

80% of the deceased had suffered from two or more chronic diseases. 50% of the deceased had suffered from three or more chronic diseases. The chronic diseases include in particular cardiovascular problems, diabetes, respiratory problems and cancer.

Less than 1% of the deceased were healthy persons, i.e. persons without pre-existing chronic diseases. Only about 30% of the deceased are women.

The Italian Institute of Health moreover distinguishes between those who died from the coronavirus and those who died with the coronavirus. In many cases it is not yet clear whether the persons died from the virus or from their pre-existing chronic diseases or from a combination of both.

The two Italians deceased under 40 years of age (both 39 years old) were a cancer patient and a diabetes patient with additional complications. In these cases, too, the exact cause of death was not yet clear (i.e. if from the virus or from their pre-existing diseases).

The partial overloading of the hospitals is due to the general rush of patients and the increased number of patients requiring special or intensive care. In particular, the aim is to stabilize respiratory function and, in severe cases, to provide anti-viral therapies.

(Update: The Italian National Institute of Health published a statistical report on test-positive patients and deceased, confirming the above data.)

The doctor also points out the following aspects:

Northern Italy has one of the oldest populations and the worst air quality in Europe, which has already led to an increased number of respiratory diseases and deaths in the past and is likely an additional risk factor in the current epidemic.

South Korea, for instance, has experienced a much milder course than Italy and has already passed the peak of the epidemic. In South Korea, only about 70 deaths with a positive test result have been reported so far. As in Italy, those affected were mostly high-risk patients.

The few dozen test-positive Swiss deaths so far were also high-risk patients with chronic diseases, an average age of more than 80 years and a maximum age of 97 years, whose exact cause of death, i.e. from the virus or from their pre-existing diseases, is not yet known.

Furthermore, according to a first Chinese study, the internationally used virus test kits may give a false positive result in some cases. In these cases, the persons may not have contracted the new coronavirus, but presumably one of the many existing human coronaviruses that are part of the annual (and currently ongoing) common cold and flu epidemics. (1)

Thus the most important indicator for judging the danger of the disease is not the frequently reported number of positively-tested persons and deaths, but the number of persons actually and unexpectedly developing or dying from pneumonia (so-called excess mortality).

According to all current data, for the healthy general population of school and working age, a mild to moderate course of the Covid-19 disease can be expected. Senior citizens and persons with existing chronic diseases should be protected. The medical capacities should be optimally prepared.

Medical literature

(1) Zhuang et al., Potential false-positive rate among the ‚asymptomatic infected individuals‘ in close contacts of COVID-19 patients, Chinese Medical Association Publishing House, March 2020.

(2) Grasselli et al., Critical Care Utilization for the COVID-19 Outbreak in Lombardy, JAMA, March 2020.

(3) WHO, Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019, February 2020.

Reference values

Important reference values include the number of annual flu deaths, which is up to 8,000 in Italy and up to 60,000 in the US; normal overall mortality, which in Italy is up to 2,000 deaths per day; and the average number of pneumonia cases per year, which in Italy is over 120,000.

Current all-cause mortality in Europe and in Italy is still normal or even below-average. Any excess mortality due to Covid-19 should become visible in the European monitoring charts.

Winter smog (NO2) in Northern Italy in February 2020 (ESA)

Our “Swiss doctor” team provided the following information on the current situation in order to enable our readers to make a realistic risk assessment. (Below you will find regular, but not daily, updates on medical and political developments.)

***

According to the latest data of the Italian National Health Institute ISS, the average age of the positively-tested deceased in Italy is currently about 81 years. 10% of the deceased are over 90 years old. 90% of the deceased are over 70 years old.

80% of the deceased had suffered from two or more chronic diseases. 50% of the deceased had suffered from three or more chronic diseases. The chronic diseases include in particular cardiovascular problems, diabetes, respiratory problems and cancer.

Less than 1% of the deceased were healthy persons, i.e. persons without pre-existing chronic diseases. Only about 30% of the deceased are women.

The Italian Institute of Health moreover distinguishes between those who died from the coronavirus and those who died with the coronavirus. In many cases it is not yet clear whether the persons died from the virus or from their pre-existing chronic diseases or from a combination of both.

The two Italians deceased under 40 years of age (both 39 years old) were a cancer patient and a diabetes patient with additional complications. In these cases, too, the exact cause of death was not yet clear (i.e. if from the virus or from their pre-existing diseases).

The partial overloading of the hospitals is due to the general rush of patients and the increased number of patients requiring special or intensive care. In particular, the aim is to stabilize respiratory function and, in severe cases, to provide anti-viral therapies.

(Update: The Italian National Institute of Health published a statistical report on test-positive patients and deceased, confirming the above data.)

The doctor also points out the following aspects:

Northern Italy has one of the oldest populations and the worst air quality in Europe, which has already led to an increased number of respiratory diseases and deaths in the past and is likely an additional risk factor in the current epidemic.

South Korea, for instance, has experienced a much milder course than Italy and has already passed the peak of the epidemic. In South Korea, only about 70 deaths with a positive test result have been reported so far. As in Italy, those affected were mostly high-risk patients.

The few dozen test-positive Swiss deaths so far were also high-risk patients with chronic diseases, an average age of more than 80 years and a maximum age of 97 years, whose exact cause of death, i.e. from the virus or from their pre-existing diseases, is not yet known.

Furthermore, according to a first Chinese study, the internationally used virus test kits may give a false positive result in some cases. In these cases, the persons may not have contracted the new coronavirus, but presumably one of the many existing human coronaviruses that are part of the annual (and currently ongoing) common cold and flu epidemics. (1)

Thus the most important indicator for judging the danger of the disease is not the frequently reported number of positively-tested persons and deaths, but the number of persons actually and unexpectedly developing or dying from pneumonia (so-called excess mortality).

According to all current data, for the healthy general population of school and working age, a mild to moderate course of the Covid-19 disease can be expected. Senior citizens and persons with existing chronic diseases should be protected. The medical capacities should be optimally prepared.

Medical literature

(1) Zhuang et al., Potential false-positive rate among the ‚asymptomatic infected individuals‘ in close contacts of COVID-19 patients, Chinese Medical Association Publishing House, March 2020.

(2) Grasselli et al., Critical Care Utilization for the COVID-19 Outbreak in Lombardy, JAMA, March 2020.

(3) WHO, Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019, February 2020.

Reference values

Important reference values include the number of annual flu deaths, which is up to 8,000 in Italy and up to 60,000 in the US; normal overall mortality, which in Italy is up to 2,000 deaths per day; and the average number of pneumonia cases per year, which in Italy is over 120,000.

Current all-cause mortality in Europe and in Italy is still normal or even below-average. Any excess mortality due to Covid-19 should become visible in the European monitoring charts.

Winter smog (NO2) in Northern Italy in February 2020 (ESA)

Updates

March 17, 2020 (I)

• The mortality profile remains puzzling from a virological point of view because, in contrast to influenza viruses, children are spared and men are affected about twice as often as women. On the other hand, this profile corresponds to natural mortality, which is close to zero for children and almost twice as high for 75-year-old men as for women of the same age.
• The younger test-positive deceased almost always had severe pre-existing conditions. For example, a 21-year-old Spanish soccer coach had died test-positive, making international headlines. However, the doctors diagnosed an unrecognized leukemia, whose typical complications include severe pneumonia.
• The decisive factor in assessing the danger of the disease is therefore not the number of test-positive persons and deceased, which is often mentioned in the media, but the number of people actually and unexpectedly developing or dying from pneumonia (so-called excess mortality). So far, this value remains very low in most countries.
• In Switzerland, some emergency units are already overloaded simply because of the large number of people who want to be tested. This points to an additional psychological and logistical component of the current situation.

March 17, 2020 (II)

• Italian immunology professor Sergio Romagnani from the University of Florence comes to the conclusion in a study on 3000 people that 50 to 75% of the test-positive people of all ages remain completely symptom-free – significantly more than previously assumed.
• The occupancy rate of the North Italian ICUs in the winter months is typically already 85 to 90%. Some or many of these existing patients could also be test-positive by now. However, the number of additional unexpected pneumonia cases is not yet known.
• A hospital doctor in the Spanish city of Malaga writes on Twitter that people are currently more likely to die from panic and systemic collapse than from the virus. The hospital is being overrun by people with colds, flu and possibly Covid19 and doctors have lost control.

March 18, 2020

• A new epidemiological study (preprint) concludes that the fatality of Covid19 even in the Chinese city of Wuhan was only 0.04% to 0.12% and thus rather lower than that of seasonal flu, which has a mortality rate of about 0.1%. As a reason for the overestimated fatality of Covid19, the researchers suspect that initially only a small number of cases were recorded in Wuhan, as the disease was probably asymptomatic or mild in many people.
• Chinese researchers argue that extreme winter smog in the city of Wuhan may have played a causal role in the outbreak of pneumonia. In the summer of 2019, public protests were already taking place in Wuhan because of the poor air quality.
• New satellite images show how Northern Italy has the highest levels of air pollution in Europe, and how this air pollution has been greatly reduced by the quarantine.
• A manufacturer of the Covid19 test kit states that it should only be used for research purposes and not for diagnostic applications, as it has not yet been clinically validated.

Datasheet of Covid19 virus test kit

March 19, 2020 (I)

The Italian National Health Institute ISS has published a new report on test-positive deaths:

• The median age is 80.5 years (79.5 for men, 83.7 for women).
• 10% of the deceased was over 90 years old; 90% of the deceased was over 70 years old.
• At most 0.8% of the deceased had no pre-existing chronic illnesses.
• Approximately 75% of the deceased had two or more pre-existing conditions, 50% had three more pre-existing conditions, in particular heart disease, diabetes and cancer.
• Five of the deceased were between 31 and 39 years old, all of them with serious pre-existing health conditions (e.g. cancer or heart disease).
• The National Health Institute hasn’t yet determined what the patients examined ultimately died of and refers to them in general terms as Covid19-positive deaths.

March 19, 2020 (II)

• A report in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera points out that Italian intensive care units already collapsed under the marked flu wave in 2017/2018. They had to postpone operations, call nurses back from holiday and ran out of blood donations.
• German virologist Hendrik Streeck argues that Covid19 is unlikely to increase total mortality in Germany, which normally is around 2500 people per day. Streeck mentions the case of a 78-year-old man with preconditions who died of heart failure, subsequently tested positive for Covid19 and thus was included in the statistics of Covid19 deaths.
• According to Stanford Professor John Ioannidis, the new coronavirus may be no more dangerous than some of the common coronaviruses, even in older people. Ioannidis argues that there is no reliable medical data backing the measures currently decided upon.

March 20, 2020

• According to the latest European monitoring report, overall mortality in all countries (including Italy) and in all age groups remains within or even below the normal range so far.
• According to the latest German statistics, the median age of test-positive deaths is about 83 years, most with pre-existing health conditions that might be a possible cause of death.
• A 2006 Canadian study referred to by Stanford Professor John Ioannidis found that common cold coronaviruses may also cause death rates of up to 6% in risk groups such as residents of a care facility, and that virus test kits initially falsely indicated an infection with SARS coronaviruses.

March 21, 2020 (I)

• Spain reports only three test-positive deaths under the age of 65 (out of a total of about 1000). Their pre-existing health conditions and actual cause of death are not yet known.
• On March 20, Italy reported 627 nationwide test-positive deaths in one day. By comparison, normal overall mortality in Italy is about 1800 deaths per day. Since February 21, Italy has reported about 4000 test-positive deaths. Normal overall mortality during this time frame is up to 50,000 deaths. It is not yet known to what extent normal overall mortality has increased, or to what extent it has simply turned test-positive. Moreover, Italy and Europe have had a very mild flu season in 2019/2020 that has spared many otherwise vulnerable people.
• According to Italian news reports, 90% of test-positive deceased in the Lombardy region have died outside of intensive care units, mostly at home or in general care sections. Their cause of death and the possible role of quarantine measures in their deaths remain unclear. Only 260 out of 2168 test-positive persons have died in ICUs.
• Bloomberg highlights that „99% of Those Who Died From Virus Had Other Illness, Italy Says“

Italy test-positive deaths by prior illnesses (ISS / Bloomberg)

March 21, 2020 (II)

• The Japan Times asks: Japan was expecting a coronavirus explosion. Where is it? Despite being one of the first countries getting positive test results and having imposed no lockdown, Japan is one of the least-affected nations. Quote: „Even if Japan may not be counting all those infected, hospitals aren’t being stretched thin and there has been no spike in pneumonia cases.“
• Italian researchers argue that the extreme smog in Northern Italy, the worst in Europe, may be playing a causative role in the current pneumonia outbreak there, as in Wuhan before.
• In a new interview, Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, a world renowned expert in medical microbiology, says blaming the new coronavirus alone for deaths is „wrong“ and „dangerously misleading“, as there are other more important factors at play, notably pre-existing health conditions and poor air quality in Chinese and Northern Italian cities. Professor Bhakdi describes the currently discussed or imposed measures as „grotesque“, „useless“, „self-destructive“ and a „collective suicide“ that will shorten the lifespan of the elderly and should not be accepted by society.

March 22, 2020 (I)

Regarding the situation in Italy: Most major media falsely report that Italy has up to 800 deaths per day from the coronavirus. In reality, the president of the Italian Civil Protection Service stresses that these are deaths „with the coronavirus and not from the coronavirus“ (minute 03:30 of the press conference). In other words, these persons died while also testing positive.

As Professors Ioannidis and Bhakdi have shown, countries like South Korea and Japan that introduced no lockdown measures have experienced near-zero excess mortality in connection with Covid-19, while the Diamond Princess cruise ship experienced an extra polated mortality figure in the per mille range, i.e. at or below the level of the seasonal flu.

Current test-positive death figures in Italy are still less than 50% of normal daily overall mortality in Italy, which is around 1800 deaths per day. Thus it is possible, perhaps even likely, that a large part of normal daily mortality now simply counts as „Covid19“ deaths (as they test positive). This is the point stressed by the President of the Italian Civil Protection Service.

However, by now it is clear that certain regions in Northern Italy, i.e. those facing the toughest lockdown measures, are experiencing markedly increased daily mortality figures. It is also known that in the Lombardy region, 90% of test-positive deaths occur not in intensive care units, but instead mostly at home. And more than 99% have serious pre-existing health conditions.

Professor Sucharit Bhakdi has called lockdown measures „useless“, „self-destructive“ and a „collective suicide“. Thus the extremely troubling question arises as to what extent the increased mortality of these elderly, isolated, highly stressed people with multiple pre-existing health conditions may in fact be caused by the weeks-long lockdown measures still in force.

If so, it may be one of those cases where the treatment is worse than the disease. (See update below: only 12% of death certificates show the coronavirus as a cause.)

Angelo Borrelli, head of the Italian Civil Protection Service, emphasizing the difference between deaths with and from coronaviruses.

March 22, 2020 (II)

• In Switzerland, there are currently 56 test-positive deaths, all of whom were „high risk patients“ due to their advanced age and/or pre-existing health conditions. Their actual cause of death, i.e. from or simply with the virus, has not been communicated.
• The Swiss government claimed that the situation in southern Switzerland (next to Italy) is „dramatic“, yet local doctors denied this and said everything is normal.
• According to press reports, oxygen bottles may become scarce. The reason, however, is not a currently higher usage, but rather hoarding due to fear of future shortages.
• In many countries, there is already an increasing shortage of doctors and nurses. This is primarily because healthcare workers testing positive have to self-quarantine, even though in many cases they will remain fully or largely symptom-free.

March 22, 2020 (III)

• A model from Imperial College London predicted between 250,000 and 500,000 deaths in the UK „from“ Covid-19, but the authors of the study have now conceded that many of these deaths would not be in addition to, but rather part of the normal annual mortality rate, which in the UK is about 600,000 people per year. In other words, excess mortality would remain low.
• Dr. David Katz, founding director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, asks in the New York Times: „Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease? There may be more targeted ways to beat the pandemic.“
• According to Italian Professor Walter Ricciardi, „only 12% of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus“, whereas in public reports „all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus“. This means that Italian death figures reported by the media have to be reduced by at least a factor of 8 to obtain actual deaths caused by the virus. Thus one ends up with at most a few dozen deaths per day, compared to an overall daily mortality of 1800 deaths and up to 20,000 flu deaths per year.

March 23, 2020 (I)

• A new French study in the Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, titled SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data, concludes that  „the problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably overestimated“, since „the mortality rate for SARS-CoV-2 is not significantly different from that for common coronaviruses identified at the study hospital in France“.
• An Italian study of August 2019 found that flu deaths in Italy were between 7,000 and 25,000 in recent years. This value is higher than in most other European countries due to the large elderly population in Italy, and much higher than anything attributed to Covid-19 so far.
• In a new fact sheet, the World Health Organization WHO reports that Covid-19 is in fact spreading slower, not faster, than influenza by a factor of about 50%. Moreover, pre-symptomatic transmission appears to be much lower with Covid-19 than with influenza.
• A leading Italian doctor reports that „strange cases of pneumonia“ were seen in the Lombardy region already in November 2019, raising again the question if they were caused by the new virus (which officially only appeared in Italy in February 2020), or by other factors, such as the dangerously high smog levels in Northern Italy.
• Danish researcher Peter Gøtzsche, founder of the renowned Cochrane Medical Collaboration, writes that Corona is „an epidemic of mass panic“ and „logic was one of the first victims.“

March 23, 2020 (II)

• Former Israeli Health Minister, Professor Yoram Lass, says that the new coronavirus is „less dangerous than the flu“ and lockdown measures „will kill more people than the virus“. He adds that „the numbers do not match the panic“ and „psychology is prevailing over science“. He also notes that „Italy is known for its enormous morbidity in respiratory problems, more than three times any other European country.“
• Pietro Vernazza, a Swiss infectious disease specialist, argues that many of the imposed measures are not based on science and should be reversed. According to Vernazza, mass testing makes no sense because 90% of the population will see no symptoms, and lockdowns and closing schools are even „counterproductive“. He recommends protecting only risk groups while keeping the economy and society at large undisturbed.
• The President of the World Doctors Federation, Frank Ulrich Montgomery, argues thatlockdown measures as in Italy are „unreasonable“ and „counterproductive“ and should be reversed.
• Switzerland: Despite media panic, excess mortality still at or near zero: the latest testpositive „victims“ were a 96yo in palliative care and a 97yo with pre-existing conditions.
• The latest statistical report of the Italian National Health Institute is now available in English.

March 24, 2020

• The UK has removed Covid19 from the official list of High Consquence Infectious Diseases (HCID), stating that mortality rates are „low overall“.
• The director of the German National Health Institute (RKI) admitted that they count all test-positive deaths, irrespective of the actual cause of death, as „coronavirus deaths“. The average age of the deceased is 82 years, most with serious preconditions. As in most other countries, excess mortality due Covid19 is likely to be near zero in Germany.
• Beds in Swiss intensive care units reserved for Covid19 patients are still „mostly empty“.
• German Professor Karin Moelling, former Chair of Medical Virology at the University of Zurich, stated in an interview that Covid19 is „no killer virus“ and that „panic must end“.
• In Italy, overall national mortality of the 65+ age group until March 7 remained below the level of earlier years, especially due to the rather mild winter (see red line in chart below).

Italy: Overall mortality of 65+ age group (red) compared to earlier years (March 7, 2020 / MdS)

March 25, 2020

• German immunologist and toxicologist, Professor Stefan Hockertz, explains in a radio interview that Covid19 is no more dangerous than influenza (the flu), but that it is simply observed much more closely. More dangerous than the virus is the fear and panic created by the media and the „authoritarian reaction“ of many governments. Professor Hockertz also notes that most so-called „corona deaths“ have in fact died of other causes while also testing positive for coronaviruses. Hockertz believes that up to ten times more people than reported already had Covid19 but noticed nothing or very little.
• The Argentinean virologist and biochemist Pablo Goldschmidt explains that Covid19 is no more dangerous than a bad cold or the flu. It is even possible that the Covid19 virus circulated already in earlier years, but wasn’t discovered because no one was looking for it. Dr. Goldschmidt speaks of a „global terror“ created by the media and politics. Every year, he says, three million newborns worldwide and 50,000 adults in the US alone die of pneumonia.
• Professor Martin Exner, head of the Institute for Hygiene at the University of Bonn, explains in an interview why health personnel are currently under pressure, even though there has hardly been any increase in the number of patients in Germany so far: On the one hand, doctors and nurses who have tested positive have to be quarantined and are often hard to replace. On the other hand, nurses from neighbouring countries, who provide an important part of the care, are currently unable to enter the country due to closed borders.
• Professor Julian Nida-Ruemelin, former German Minister of State for Culture and Professor of Ethics, points out that Covid19 poses no risk to the healthy general population and that extreme measures such as curfews are therefore not justified.
• Using data from the cruise ship Diamond Princess, Stanford Professor John Ioannidis showed that the age-corrected lethality of Covid19 is between 0.025% and 0.625%, i.e. in the range of a strong cold or the flu. Moreover, a Japanese study showed that of all the test-positive passengers, and despite the high average age, 48% remained completely symptom-free; even among the 80-89 year olds 48% remained symptom-free, while among the 70 to 79 year olds it was an astounding 60% that developed no symptoms at all. This again raises the question whether the pre-existing diseases are not perhaps a more important factor than the virus itself. The Italian example has shown that 99% of test-positive deaths had one or more pre-existing conditions, and even among these, only 12% of the death certificates mentioned Covid19 as a causal factor.

March 26, 2020 (I)

• USA: The latest US data of March 25 shows a decreasing number of flu-like illnesses throughout the country, the frequency of which is now well below the multi-year average. The government measures can be ruled out as a reason for this, as they have been in effect for less than a week.

USA: Decreasing flu-like illnesses (March 25, 2020, KINSA)

• Germany: The latest influenza report of the German Robert Koch Institute of March 24 documents a „nationwide decrease in activity of acute respiratory diseases“: The number of influenza-like illnesses and the number of hospital stays caused by them is below the level of previous years and is currently continuing to decline. The RKI continues: „The increase in the number of visits to the doctor () in adults cannot currently be explained either by influenza viruses circulating in the population or by SARS-CoV-2.“

Germany: Decreasing flu-like illnesses (20 March 2020, RKI)

• Italy: The renowned Italian virologist Giulio Tarro argues that the mortality rate of Covid19 is below 1% even in Italy and is therefore comparable to influenza. The higher values only arise because no distinction is made between deaths with and by Covid19 and because the number of (symptom-free) infected persons is greatly underestimated.
• UK: The authors of the British Imperial College study, who predicted up to 500,000 deaths, are again reducing their forecasts. After already admitting that a large proportion of test-positive deaths are part of normal mortality, they now state that the peak of the disease may be reached in two to three weeks already.
• UK: The British Guardian reported in February 2019 that already in the otherwise weak flu season 2018/2019 there were more than 2180 flu-related admissions to intensive care units in the UK.
• Switzerland: In Switzerland, the excess mortality due to Covid19 is apparently still zero. The latest „fatal victim“ presented by the media is a 100-year-old woman. Nevertheless, the Swiss government continues to tighten restrictive measures.

March 26, 2020 (II)

• Sweden: Sweden has so far pursued the most liberal strategy in dealing with Covid19, which is based on two principles: Risk groups are protected and people with flu symptoms stay at home. „If you follow these two rules, there is no need for further measures, the effect of which is only marginal anyway,“ said chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell. Social and economic life will continue normally. The big rush to hospitals has so far failed to materialize, Tegnell said.
• German criminal and constitutional law expert Dr. Jessica Hamed argues that measures such as general curfews and contact bans are a massive and disproportionate encroachment on fundamental rights of freedom and are therefore presumably „all illegal“.
• The latest European monitoring report on overall mortality continues to show normal or below-average values in all countries and all age groups, but now with one exception: in the 65+ age group in Italy a currently increased overall mortality is predicted (so-called delay-adjusted z-score), which is, however, still below the values of the influenza waves of 2017 and 2018.

March 27, 2020 (I)

Italy: According to the latest data published by the Italian Ministry of Health, overall mortality is now significantly higher in all age groups over 65 years of age, after having been below average due to the mild winter. Until March 14, overall mortality was still below the flu season of 2016/2017, but may have already exceeded it in the meantime. Most of this excess mortality currently comes from northern Italy. However, the exact role of Covid19, compared to other factors such as panic, healthcare collapse and the lockdown itself, is not yet clear.

Italy: Total mortality 65+ years (red line) (MdS / 14 March 2020)

France: According to the latest data from France, overall mortality at the national level remains within the normal range after a mild influenza season. However, in some regions, particularly in the north-east of France, overall mortality in the over-65 age group has already risen sharply in connection with Covid19 (see figure below).

France: Total mortality at national level (above) and in the severely affected Haut-Rhin department (SPF / 15 March 2020)

France also provides detailed information on the age distribution and pre-existing conditions of test-positive intensive care patients and deceased patients (see figure below):

• The average age of the deceased is 81.2 years.
• 78% of the deceased were over 75 years old; 93% were over 65 years old.
• 2.4% of the deceased were under 65 years of age and had no (known) previous illness
• The average age of intensive care patients is 65 years.
• 26% of intensive care patients are over 75 years old; 67% have previous illnesses.
• 17% of intensive care patients are under 65 years of age and have no previous illnesses.

The French authorities add that „the share of the (Covid-19) epidemic in overall mortality remains to be determined.“

Age distribution of hospitalized patients (top left), intensive care patients (top right), patients at home (bottom left), and the deceased (bottom right). Source: SPF / 24 March 2020

USA: Researcher Stephen McIntyre has evaluated the official data on deaths from pneumonia in the US. There are usually between 3000 and 5500 deaths per week and thus significantly more than the current figures for Covid19. The total number of deaths in the US is between 50,000 and 60,000 per week. (Note: In the graph below, the latest figures for March 2020 have not yet been fully updated, so the curve is slumping).

USA: Deaths from pneumonia per week (CDC/McIntyre)

Great Britain:

• Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London now assumes that the UK has sufficient capacity in intensive care units to treat Covid19 patients.
• John Lee, Professor Emeritus of Pathology, argues that the particular way in which Covid-19 cases are registered leads to an overestimation of the risk posed by Covid19 compared to normal flu and cold cases.

Other topics:

• A preliminary study by researchers at Stanford University showed that 20 to 25% of Covid19-positive patients tested additionally positive for other influenza or cold viruses.
• The number of applications for unemployment insurance in the US skyrocketed to a record of over three million. In this context, a sharp increase in suicides is also expected.
• The first test-positive patient in Germany has now recovered. According to his own statement, the 33-year-old man had experienced the illness „not as bad as the flu“.
• Spanish media report that the antibody rapid tests for Covid19 only have a sensitivity of 30%, although it should be at least 80%.
• A study from China in 2003 concluded that the probability of dying from SARS is 84% higher in people exposed to moderate air pollution than in patients from regions with clean air. The risk is even 200% higher among people from areas with heavily polluted air.
• The German Network for Evidence-Based Medicine (EbM) criticises the media reporting on Covid19: „The media coverage does not in any way take into account the criteria of evidence-based risk communication that we have demanded. () The presentation of raw data without reference to other causes of death leads to an overestimation of the risk“.

March 27, 2020 (II)

• German researcher Dr. Richard Capek argues in a quantitative analysis that the „Corona epidemic“ is in fact an „epidemic of tests“. Capek shows that while the number of tests has increased exponentially, the proportion of infections has remained stable and mortality has decreased, which speaks against an exponential spread of the virus itself  (see below).
• German Virology professor Dr. Carsten Scheller from the University of Würzburg explains in a podcast that Covid19 is definitely comparable with influenza and has so far even led to fewer deaths. Professor Scheller suspects that the exponential curves often presented in the media have more to do with the increasing number of tests than with an unusual spread of the virus itself. For countries like Germany, Italy is less of a role model than Japan and South Korea. Despite millions of Chinese tourists and only minimal social restrictions, these countries have not yet experienced a Covid19 crisis. One reason for this could be the wearing of mouth masks: This would hardly protect against infection, but would limit the spread of the virus by infected people.
• The latest figures from Bergamo (city) show that total mortality in March 2020 increased from typically 150 people per month to around 450 people. It is still unclear what proportion of this was due to Covid19 and what proportion was due to other factors such as mass panic, systemic collapse and the lockdown itself. Apparently the city hospital was overrun by people from the whole region and collapsed.
• The two Stanford professors of medicine, Dr. Eran Bendavid and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, explain in an article that the lethality of Covid19 is overestimated by several orders of magnitude and is probably even in Italy only at 0.01% to 0.06% and thus below that of influenza. The reason for this overestimation is the greatly underestimated number of people already infected (without symptoms). As an example, the fully tested Italian community of Vo is mentioned, which showed 50 to 75% symptom-free test-positivepersons.
• Dr. Gerald Gaß, President of the German Hospital Association, explained in an interview with the Handelsblatt that „the extreme situation in Italy is mainly due to the very low intensive care capacities“.
• Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, one of the early and vocal critics of a „Covid19 panic“, was provisionally excluded by the board of Transparency International Germany, where he headed the health working group. Wodarg had already been severely attacked by the media for his criticism.
• NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden warns that governments are using the current situation to expand the surveillance state and restrict fundamental rights. The control measures currently put in place would not be dismantled after the crisis.

Number of tests and test-positives (proportional)

Test-positives per number of tests (constant)

The increasing number of tests is finding a proportional number of infections, the ratio stays constant, speaking against an ongoing viral epidemic (Dr. Richard Capek, US data)

March 28, 2020

• A new study by the University of Oxford concludes that Covid19 may already have existed in the UK since January 2020 and that half of the population may already be immunised, with most people experiencing no or only mild symptoms. This would mean that only one in a thousand people would need to be hospitalised for Covid19. (Study)
• British media reported on a 21 year old woman „who died of Covid19 without any previous illnesses“. However, it has since become known that the woman did not test positive for Covid19 and died of a heart failure. The Covid19 rumor had arisen „because she had a slight cough“.
• The German media scientist Professor Otfried Jarren criticized that many media provide uncritical journalism that emphasizes threats and executive power. According to Professor Jarren, there is hardly any differentiation and real debate between experts.

March 29, 2020

• Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology in Mainz, Germany, wrote an Open Letter to German Chancellor Dr Angela Merkel, calling for an urgent reassessment of the response to Covid19 and asking the Chancellor five crucial questions.
• The latest data from the German Robert Koch Institute show that the increase in test-positive persons is proportional to the increase in the number of tests, i.e. in percentage terms it remains roughly the same. This may indicate that the increase in the number of cases is mainly due to an increase in the number of tests, and not due to an ongoing epidemic.
• The Milan microbiologist Maria Rita Gismondo calls on the Italian government to stop communicating the daily number of „corona positives“ as these figures are „fake“ and put the population in unnecessary panic. The number of test-positives depends very much on the type and number of tests and says nothing about the state of health.
• Dr. John Ioannidis, Stanford Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology, gave an in-depth one-hour interview on the lack of data for Covid19 measures.
• The Argentinean virologist Pablo Goldschmidt, who lives in France, considers the political reaction to Covid19 as „completely exaggerated“ and warns against „totalitarian measures“. In parts of France, the movement of people is already monitored by drones.
• Italian author Fulvio Grimaldi, born in 1934, explains that the state measures currently implemented in Italy are „worse than under fascism“. Parliament and society have been completely disempowered.

March 30, 2020 (I)

• In Germany, some clinics can no longer accept patients – not because there are too many patients or too few beds, but because the nursing staff have tested positive, although in most cases they hardly show any symptoms. This case illustrates again how and why health care systems are getting paralysed.
• In a German retirement and nursing home for people with advanced dementia, 15 test-positive people have died. However, „surprisingly many people have died without showing symptoms of corona.“ A German medical specialist informs us: „From my medical point of view, there is some evidence that some of these people may have died as a result of the measures taken. People with dementia get into high stress when major changes are made to their everyday lives: isolation, no physical contact, possibly hooded staff.“ Nevertheless, the deceased are counted as „corona deaths“ in German and international statistics. In connection with the „corona crisis“, it is now also possible to die of an illness without even having its symptoms.
• According to a Swiss pharmacologist, the Swiss Inselspital in Bern has forced staff to take leave, stopped therapies and postponed operations due to the fear of Covid19.
• Professor Gérard Krause, head of the Department of Epidemiology at the German Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, warns on German public television ZDF that the anti-corona measures „could lead to more deaths than the virus itself„.
• Various media reported that more than 50 doctors in Italy have already died „during the corona crisis“, like soldiers in a battle. A glance at the corresponding list, however, shows that most of the deceased are retired doctors of various kinds, including 90-year-old psychiatrists and pediatricians, many of whom may have died of natural causes.
• An extensive survey in Iceland found that 50% of all test-positive persons showed „no symptoms“ at all, while the other 50% mostly showed „very moderate cold-like symptoms“. According to the Icelandic data, the mortality rate of Covid19 is in the per mille range, i.e. in the flu range or below. Of the two test-positive deaths, one was „a tourist with unusual symptoms“. (More Icelandic data)
• The British journalist Peter Hitchens writes, „There’s powerful evidence this great panic is foolish. Yet our freedom is still broken and our economy crippled.“ Hitchens points out that in parts of the UK, police drones monitor and report „non-essential“ walks in nature. In some cases, police drones are calling on people via loudspeaker to go home in order to „save lives“. (Note: Not even George Orwell had thought that far ahead.)
• The Italian secret service warns of social unrest and uprisings. Supermarkets are already being looted and pharmacies raided.
• Professor Sucharit Bhakdi has meanwhile published a video (German/English) in which he explains his Open Letter to German Chancellor Dr. Angela Merkel.

March 30, 2020 (II)

In several countries, there is increasing evidence in relation to Covid19 that „the treatment could be worse than the disease“.

On the one hand, there is the risk of so-called nosocomial infections, i.e. infections that the patient, who may only be mildly ill, acquires in hospital. It is estimated that there are approximately 2.5 million nosocomial infections and 50,000 deaths per year in Europe. Even in German intensive care units, about 15% of patients acquire a nosocomial infection, including pneumonia on artificial respiration. There is also the problem of increasingly antibiotic-resistant germs in hospitals.

Another aspect is the certainly well-intentioned but sometimes very aggressive treatment methods that are increasingly used in Covid19 patients. These include, in particular, the administration of steroids, antibiotics and anti-viral drugs (or a combination thereof). Already in the treatment of SARS-1 patients, it has been shown that the outcome with such treatment was often worse and more fatal than without such treatment.

March 31, 2020 (I)

Dr. Richard Capek and other researchers have already shown that the number of test-positive individuals in relation to the number of tests performed remains constant in all countries studied so far, which speaks against an exponential spread („epidemic“) of the virus and merely indicates an exponential increase in the number of tests.

Depending on the country, the proportion of test-positive individuals is between 5 and 15%, which corresponds to the usual spread of corona viruses. Interestingly, these constant numerical values are not actively communicated (or even removed) by authorities and the media. Instead, exponential but irrelevant and misleading curves are shown without context.

Such behavior, of course, does not correspond to professional medical standards, as a look at the traditional influenza report of the German Robert Koch Institute makes clear (p. 30, see chart below). Here, in addition to the number of detections (right), the number of samples (left, grey bars) and the positive rate (left, blue curve) are shown.

This immediately shows that during a flu season the positive rate rises from 0 to 10% to up to 80% of the samples and drops back to the normal value after a few weeks. In comparison, Covid19 tests show a constant positive rate in the normal range (see below).

Left: Number of samples and positive rate; right: number of detections (RKI, 2017)

Constant Covid19-positive rate using US data (Dr. Richard Capek). This applies analogously to all other countries for which data on the number of samples is currently available.

Covid19 positive rate (Dr. Richard Capek, US data)

March 31, 2020 (II)

• A graphical analysis of the European monitoring data impressively shows that, irrespective of the measures taken, overall mortality throughout Europe remained in the normal range or below by March 25, and often significantly below the levels of previous years. Only in Italy (65+) was the overall mortality rate somewhat increased (probably for several reasons), but it was still below previous flu seasons.
• The president of the German Robert Koch Institute confirmed again that pre-existing conditions and actual cause of death do not play a role in the definition of so-called „corona deaths“. From a medical point of view, such a definition is clearly misleading. It has the obvious and generally known effect of putting politics and society in fear.
• In Italy the situation is now beginning to calm down. As far as is known, the temporarily increased mortality rates (65+) were rather local effects, often accompanied by mass panic and a breakdown in health care. A politician from northern Italy asks, for example, „how is it possible that Covid patients from Brescia are transported to Germany, while in the nearby Verona two thirds of intensive care beds are empty?“
• In an article published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation, Stanford professor of medicine John C. Ioannidis criticizes the „harms of exaggerated information and non-evidence-based measures“. Even journals had published dubious claims at the beginning.
• A Chinese study published in the Chinese Journal of Epidemiology in early March, which indicated the unreliability of the Covid19 virus tests (approx. 50% false-positive results in asymptomatic patients), has since been withdrawn. The lead author of the study, the dean of a medical school, did not want to give the reason for the withdrawal and spoke of a „sensitive matter„, which could indicate political pressure, as an NPR journalist noted. Independent of this study, however, the unreliability of so-called PCR virus tests has long been known: In 2003, for example, a mass infection in a Canadian nursing home with SARS corona viruses was „found“, which later turned out to be common cold corona viruses (which can also be fatal for risk groups).
• Authors of the German Risk Management Network RiskNET speak in a Covid19 analysis of a „blind flight“ as well as „insufficient data competence and data ethics“. Instead of more and more tests and measures a representative sample is necessary. The „sense and ratio“ of the measures must be critically questioned.
• The Spanish interview with the internationally renowned Argentinian-French virologist Pablo Goldschmidt was translated into German. Goldschmidt considers the measures imposed to be medically counterproductive and notes that one must now „read Hannah Arendt“ to understand the „origins of totalitarianism“.
• Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, like other prime ministers and presidents before him, has largely disempowered the Hungarian parliament under an „emergency law“ and can now govern essentially by decree.

April 1, 2020

On the situation in Italy

Italian doctors reported that they had already observed severe cases of pneumonia in northern Italy at the end of last year. However, genetic analyses now show that the Covid19 virus only appeared in Italy in January of this year. „The severe pneumonia diagnosed in Italy in November and December must therefore be due to a different pathogen,“ a virologist noted. This once again raises the question what role the Covid19 virus, or other factors, actually play in the Italian situation.

On March 30, we mentioned the list of Italian doctors who died „during the Corona crisis“, many of whom were up to 90 years old and didn’t actively participate in the crisis at all. Today, all years of birth on the list have been removed (see however the last archive version). A strange procedure.

We have also received the following message from an observer in Italy, who gives further details about the dramatic situation there, which is obviously due to far more than a virus:

„In recent weeks, most of the Eastern European nurses who worked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week supporting people in need of care in Italy have left the country in a hurry. This is not least because of the panic-mongering and the curfews and border closures threatened by the „emergency governments“. As a result, old people in need of care and disabled people, some without relatives, were left helpless by their carers.

Many of these abandoned people then ended up after a few days in the hospitals, which had been permanently overloaded for years, because they were dehydrated, among other things. Unfortunately, the hospitals lacked the personnel who had to look after the children locked up in their apartments because schools and kindergartens had been closed. This then led to the complete collapse of the care for the disabled and the elderly, especially in those areas where even harder „measures“ were ordered, and to chaotic conditions.

The nursing emergency, which was caused by the panic, temporarily led to many deaths among those in need of care and increasingly among younger patients in the hospitals. These fatalities then served to cause even more panic among those in charge and the media, who reported, for example, „another 475 fatalities“, „The dead are being removed from hospitals by the army“, accompanied by pictures of coffins and army trucks lined up.

However, this was the result of the funeral directors‘ fear of the „killer virus“, who therefore refused their services. Moreover, on the one hand there were too many deaths at once and on the other hand the government passed a law that the corpses carrying the coronavirus had to be cremated. In Catholic Italy, few cremations had been carried out in the past. Therefore there were only a few small crematoria, which very quickly reached their limits. Therefore the deceased had to be laid out in different churches.

In principle, this development is the same in all countries. However, the quality of the health system has a considerable influence on the effects. Therefore, there are fewer problems in Germany, Austria or Switzerland than in Italy, Spain or the USA. However, as can be seen in the official figures, there is no significant increase in the mortality rate. Just a small mountain that came from this tragedy.“

Hospital situation in the US, Germany and Switzerland

• The US television station CBS was caught using footage from an Italian intensive care unit in a piece on the current situation in New York. In fact, dozens of recordings by citizen journalists show that it is currently very quiet in the hospitals on the US East and West Coast, described as „war zones“ by the media. Even the „corpse refrigerator trucks“ prominently shown in the media are unused and empty.
• Contrary to media reports, the register of German intensive care units also shows no increased occupancy. An employee of a Munich clinic explained that they had been „waiting for weeks for the wave to hit“, but that there was „no increase in patient numbers“. He said that the politicians‘ statements did not correspond with their own experience, and that the „myth of the killer virus“ could „not be confirmed“.
• Also in Swiss clinics, no increased occupancy has been observed so far. A visitor to the cantonal hospital in Lucerne reports that there is „less activity than in normal times“. Entire floors have been closed for Covid19, but staff „are still waiting for patients“. The hospitals in Bern, Basel, Zug and Zurich have also been „cleaned out“. Even in Ticino, the intensive care units are not working to capacity, but patients are now being transferred to the German-Swiss departments. From a purely medical point of view, this makes little sense.

Other medical notes

• The director of the University Medical Center Hamburg, Dr. Ansgar Lohse, demands a quick end to curfews and contact bans. He argues that more people should be infected with corona. Kitas and schools should be reopened as soon as possible so that children and their parents can become immune through infection with the corona virus. The continuation of the strict measures would lead to an economic crisis, which would also cost lives, said the physician.
• In Spain, 15% of test-positives are doctors and nurses. Although many of them show no symptoms, they have to go into quarantine, causing the Spanish healthcare system to collapse.
• Dr. John Lee, professor emeritus of pathology, is writing about the highly misleading definition and communication of „corona deaths“ in the British Spectator.
• The latest data from Norway, evaluated by a PhD in environmental toxicology, again show that the rate of test-positives does not increase – as would be expected in the case of an epidemic – but fluctuates in the normal range for coronaviruses between 2 and 10%. The average age of the test-positive deceased is 84 years, the causes of death are not publicly reported, and there is no excess mortality.
• Sweden, which has so far managed without radical measures and has not reported increased mortality (similar to Asian countries such as Japan or South Korea), is remarkably put under pressure from the international media to change its strategy.
• Data from New York State show that the hospitalization rate of test-positive individuals could be more than twenty times lower than originally assumed.
• An article on the specialist portal DocCheck deals with the problem of ventilating test-positive patients. In test-positive patients, simple ventilation through a mask is officially advised against, among other things to prevent the coronavirus from spreading through aerosols. Therefore, test positive intensive care patients are often intubated directly. However, intubation has poor chances of success and often leads to additional damage to the lungs (so-called ventilator-induced lung damage). As with medication, the question arises as to whether a more gentle treatment of patients would not be medically more sensible.

Reports on political developments

• A German state minister has called on the population to „be vigilant and report violations of the rules for containing the corona epidemic to the police“. „Eagerly reported“ are, for example, „prohibited group formation, children in playgrounds, parties“ and hikers.
• German constitutional law experts are raising the alarm for „serious encroachments on fundamental rights“. Constitutional law expert Hans Michael Heinig warns that the „democratic constitutional state could turn into a fascist-hysterical hygiene state in no time“. Professor Christoph Möllers of Berlin’s Humboldt University explains that the infection protection law „cannot serve as a basis for such far-reaching restrictions of citizens‘ rights of freedom“. According to the former president of the German Federal Constitutional Court, Hans Jürgen Papier, „emergency measures do not justify the suspension of civil liberties in favour of an authoritarian and surveillance state“.
• Online petitions have been launched in several countries to end curfews and other encroachments on basic rights. At the same time, critical video contributions, even by doctors, are increasingly being deleted. In Berlin, a registered event on fundamental rights, at which the German constitution was distributed, was terminated by the police.

April 2, 2020 (I)

USA

A Swiss biophysicist has visualized the fact that in the US (as in the rest of the world), it is not the number of „infected“ people that is increasing exponentially, but the number of tests. The number of test-positive people in relation to the number of tests remains constant or increases slowly, which appears to speak against an exponential viral epidemic.

Number of positive and negative tests (left) and percantage of positive tests (right) (Scholkmann, US data)

Germany

According to the latest influenza report of the German Robert Koch Institute, the number of acute respiratory diseases has „fallen sharply nationwide“. The values have „dropped in all age groups“.

By March 20, the total number of inpatient cases with acute respiratory diseases had also fallen significantly. In the age group from 80 years and older, the number of cases had almost halved compared to the previous week.

In the 73 hospitals examined, 7% of all cases with respiratory diseases were diagnosed with COVID-19. In the age groups 35-59 years it was 16% and in the age group 60-79 years it was 13% who received a COVID-19 diagnosis.

These figures correspond to those from other countries as well as to the typical prevalence of coronaviruses (5 to 15%).

Grippeähnliche Erkrankungen (RKI, KW13)

Akute Atemwegserkrankungen in Krankenhäusern

Flu-like diseases in general (left) and acute respiratory diseases in hospitals (right) (Robert-Koch-Institut, weeks 13 and 12)

An article in DIE ZEIT discusses the issue of intensive care patients in Germany:

„At present politicians, experts and many citizens observe with concern the exponentially increasing number of people who are newly infected every day. However, this is not the decisive indicator for assessing how badly the corona crisis is and will hit Germany. For it is distorted above all by the number of tests, which have been increasing for weeks.

In order to measure the burden on the health system, the number of those who are so seriously ill that they need to be ventilated is particularly important. As long as there are enough ventilation places for them, a great many of them can be saved. Only when these beds become scarce does a situation like the one in Italy threaten.

The DIVI register now shows that the situation in the German intensive care units has been relaxed so far. „We are still in a comfortable area,“ says Grabenhenrich. The number of seriously ill patients is not rising as steeply as the number of infected patients and even if it did, it would still be possible to provide a large number of intensive care beds with very good equipment.

Switzerland

The Swiss Federal Office of Public Health reports that approximately 139,330 Covid19 tests have been carried out so far, of which the result was positive in 15% of cases. This number also corresponds to the typical corona virus value known from other countries and, as far as can be seen, does not seem to be increasing in Switzerland either.

Only the number of tests often mentioned in the media is increasing exponentially, but not the number of „infected“, sick or even dead.

On March 31, however, a new weekly mortality statistic was published which for the first time forecasts an increase in overall mortality in the 65+ age group in Switzerland for the 12th calendar week (until 22 March) (see chart below). Specifically, total mortality is expected to increase by around 200 deaths per week.

According to the Federal Office, this increase is „an expression of the current pandemic“. The following problem arises here: up to 22 March there were a total of 106 test-positive deaths in Switzerland. An increase of 200 deaths per week would mean that a large part of the additional mortality is not caused by the virus but by the „countermeasures“.

Another explanation would be that the approximately 200 test-positive deaths of the following week (week 13) have already been included. This would mean that all test-positive deaths are assumed to be additional deaths. However, in view of the age and disease profile as well as international experience, this would be a very doubtful assumption.

In fact, the report adds the following disclaimer: „These initial estimates are still very uncertain, so that no exact figures can be published“.

If it turns out that a large proportion of test-positive deaths (median age: 83 years) are not additional deaths, either the overall mortality would not be increased, or it would be increased mainly because of the drastic measures, as some experts fear.

Weekly mortality until 22 March 2020 (BFS, data status 31 March 2020)

A Swiss newspaper has presented the current total mortality in comparison with previous years (see graph below). This illustrates that, even if actually increased, the current mortality rate is still below the stronger flu winters of recent years.

Weekly mortality during the year. End date is March 22, not March 31 (TA)

Further information

• Virus test kits destined for Great Britain had to be recalled because they already contained corona virus components.
• The British Imperial College study, which predicted hundreds of thousands of additional deaths but was never published in a journal or reviewed, was based on largely unrealistic assumptions, as has now been shown.
• The BBC asks, „Is coronavirus causing the deaths?„, and replies, „It could be the major cause, a contributory factor or simply present when they are dying of something else.“ For example, an 18-year-old man was reported as the „youngest Corona victim“ after a positive test the day before his death. However, the hospital later reported that the young man had died of a serious pre-existing condition.
• The European health authority ECDC has published very strict guidelines for handling test-positive or „presumed test-positive“ corpses. In view of the very low mortality rates to date, such guidelines appear questionable from a medical point of view; however, they significantly increase the burden on the health and funeral services, and at the same time have a high media impact.
• A German state media outlet has published a critical commentary on Professor Sucharit Bhakdi’s Open Letter to Chancellor Merkel.
• The ARTE documentary „Profiteers of Fear“ from 2009 shows how the mainly privately financed WHO „upgraded“ a mild wave of influenza (the so-called „swine flu“) to a global pandemic so that vaccines worth several billion dollars could be sold to governments around the world. Some of the protagonists of that time are again prominently representedin the current situation.
• The former judge at the British Supreme Court, Jonathan Sumption, declared in a BBC interview on the British measures: „This is what a police state is like“.

April 2, 2020 (II)

• Already in 2018, the Guardian wrote that „Pollution and flu bring steep rise in lung-related illnesses„: Shortage of specialists adds to worries that surge in respiratory diseases is putting pressure on A&Es.
• Professor Martin Haditsch, specialist in microbiology, virology and infection epidemiology, sharply criticises the Covid19 measures. These are „completely unfounded“ and would „trample on sound judgment and ethical principles“.
• Even representatives of German nursing homes are now complaining about the restrictive measures and inappropriate media coverage of Covid19: „Even before the coronavirus in the winter months, it often happened that many guests died in a relatively short time, but the television crew did not stand behind the door and did not show people in protective suits heroically exposing themselves to the risk of infection.“
  
• Figures from the northern Italian city of Treviso (near Venice) show that, despite 108 test-positive deaths by the end of March, overall mortality in municipal hospitals remained roughly the same as in previous years. This is a further indication that the temporarily increased mortality in some places is more likely to be due to external factors such as panic and collapse than due to the coronavirus alone.
• Professor John Oxford of Queen Mary University London, one of the world’s leading virologists and influenza specialists, comes to the following conclusion regarding Covid19: „Personally, I would say the best advice is to spend less time watching TV news which is sensational and not very good. Personally, I view this Covid outbreak as akin to a bad winter influenza epidemic. In this case we have had 8000 deaths this last year in the ‘at risk’ groups viz over 65% people with heart disease etc. I do not feel this current Covid will exceed this number. We are suffering from a media epidemic!“

April 3, 2020

USA: More videos by citizen journalists show that in hospitals described by US media as „war zones“, it is in fact still very quiet.

Austria: In Austria, too, „corona deaths“ are apparently defined „very liberally“, as the media report: „Do you also count as a corona death if you are infected with the virus but die of something else? Yes, say Rudi Anschober and Bernhard Benka, members of the Corona Task Force in the Ministry of Health. „There is a clear rule at present: Died with the corona virus or died from the corona virus both count for the statistics.“ No difference is made as to what the patient actually died of. In other words, a 90-year-old man who dies with a fracture of the femoral neck and becomes infected with corona in the hours prior to his death is also counted as corona death. To name but one example.“

Germany: The German Robert Koch Institute now advises against autopsies of test-positive deceased persons because the risk of droplet infection by aerosols is allegedly too high. In many cases, this means that the real cause of death can no longer be determined.

A specialist in pathology comments on this as follows: „Who might think evil of it! Up to now, it has been a matter of course for pathologists to carry out autopsies with appropriate safety precautions even in the case of infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, tuberculosis, PRION diseases, etc. It is quite remarkable that in a disease that is killing thousands of patients all over the world and bringing the economy of entire countries to a virtual standstill, only very few autopsy findings are available (six patients from China). From the point of view of both the epidemic police and the scientific community, there should be a particularly high level of public interest in autopsy findings. However, the opposite is the case. Are you afraid of finding out the true causes of death of the positively tested deceased? Could it be that the numbers of corona deaths would then melt away like snow in the spring sun?“

Italy: Russian experts have noticed „strange deaths“ in nursing homes in Lombardy: „According to newspaper reports, several cases have been registered in the town of Gromo in which alleged corona virus-infected persons simply fell asleep and never woke up again. No real symptoms of the disease had been observed in the deceased until then. () As the director of the nursing home later clarified in an interview with RIA Novosti, it is unclear whether the deceased were actually infected with the coronavirus, because nobody in the home had been tested for it. () In the homes, where medical and nursing teams from Russia are working, corridors, bed rooms and dining rooms are disinfected.“

Similar cases have already been reported from Germany: Nursing patients without symptoms of illness die suddenly in the current exceptional situation and are then considered „corona deaths“. Here again the serious question arises: Who dies from the virus and who dies from the sometimes extreme measures?

Nursing staff: The Süddeutsche Zeitung reports: „Throughout Europe, the pandemic is endangering the care of elderly people at home because nursing staff can no longer visit them – or have left the respective country in a hurry to return home.“

Lastly: Stanford professor of medicine Dr. Jay Bhattacharya gave a half-hour interview in which he questions the „conventional wisdom“ regarding Covid19. The existing measures had been decided on the basis of very uncertain and partly questionable data.

April 5, 2020

• In a 40-minute interview, the internationally renowned epidemiology professor Knut Wittkowski from New York explains that the measures taken on Covid19 are all counterproductive. Instead of „social distancing“, school closures, „lock down“, mouth masks, mass tests and vaccinations, life must continue as undisturbed as possible and immunity must be built up in the population as quickly as possible. According to all findings to date, Covid-19 is no more dangerous than previous influenza epidemics. Isolation now would only cause a „second wave“ later.
• The British Medical Journal (BMJ) reports that, according to the latest data from China, 78% of new test-positive individuals show no symptoms. An Oxford epidemiologist said that these findings are „very, very important.“ He added that if the results are representative, „then we have to ask, ‘What the hell are we locking down for?’“
• Dr. Andreas Sönnichsen, head of the Department of General and Family Medicine at the Medical University of Vienna and chairman of the Network for Evidence-Based Medicine, considers the measures imposed so far to be „insane“. The whole state is being paralysed just to „protect the few it could affect“.
• In a world first, the Swedish government has announced that it is going to officially distinguish between deaths „by“ and deaths „with“ the coronavirus, which should lead to a reduction in reported deaths. Meanwhile, for some reason, international pressure on Sweden to abandon its liberal strategy is steadily increasing.
• The Hamburg health authority now has test-positive deaths examined by forensic medicine in order to count only „real“ corona deaths. As a result, the number of deaths has already been reduced by up to 50% compared to the official figures of the Robert Koch Institute.
• As early as 2018, the German Doctors Journal reported a „multitude of pneumonia cases“in northern Italy, which worried the authorities. At the time, contaminated drinking water was suspected to be one of the causes.
• The German Pharmaceutical Newspaper points out that in the current situation, patients often „fall seriously ill, even die, without having developed respiratory symptoms beforehand“. Neurologists suspect in this regard that the corona viruses could also damage nerve cells. Another explanation, however, would be that these patients, who are often in need of care, die due to the very high stress.
• According to the latest figures from Switzerland, the most common symptoms of test-positive patients in hospitals are fever, cough and breathing difficulties, while 43% or about 900 people have pneumonia. Even in these cases, however, it is not a priori clear whether it was caused by the coronavirus or by other pathogens. The median age of the test positive deceased is 83 years, the range reaches up to 101 years.
• The British project „In Proportion“ tracks mortality „with“ Covid19 in comparison to influenza mortality and all-cause mortality, which in Great Britain is still in the normal range or below and is currently decreasing.
• In the US state of Indiana, calls to the mental health and suicide hotline have increased by over 2000% from 1000 to 25,000 calls per day due to the lockdown and its economic impact.
• The medical specialist portal Rxisk points out that various drugs can increase the risk of infection with corona viruses by up to 200% in some cases.

Further notes

• The British journalist Peter Hitchens describes in an article entitled „We love Big Brother“how even previously critical people were „infected by fear“ despite the lack of medical evidence. In an interview, he explains that criticism is „a moral duty“ as fundamental rights are under threat
• The German historian René Schlott writes about the „Rendezvous with the police state„: „Buying a book, sitting on a park bench, meeting up with friends – that is now forbidden, is controlled and denounced. The democratic safeguards seem to be blown. Where and how will it end?“
• Several German law firms are preparing lawsuits against the measures and regulations that have been issued. A specialist in medical law writes in a press release: „The measures taken by the federal and state governments are blatantly unconstitutional and violate a multitude of basic rights of citizens in Germany to an unprecedented extent. This applies to all corona regulations of the 16 federal states. In particular, these measures are not justified by the Infection Protection Act, which was revised in no time at all just a few days ago. () Because the available figures and statistics show that corona infection is harmless in more than 95% of the population and therefore does not represent a serious danger to the general public.“
• The Open Letter from Professor Sucharit Bhakdi to Chancellor Angela Merkel is now available in German, English, French, Spanish, Russian, Turkish, Dutch and Estonian, other languages will follow.
• In a new interview, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden warns that Covid19 is dangerous but temporary, while the destruction of fundamental rights is deadly and permanent.

April 7, 2020

• The latest figures from a special report by the German Robert Koch Institute show that the so-called positive rate (i.e. the number of test positives per number of tests) is increasing much more slowly than the exponential curves shown by the media and was only around 10% at the end of March, a value that is rather typical for corona viruses. According to the magazine Multipolar, there can therefore be „no question of a dangerously rapid spread of the virus“.
• Professor Klaus Püschel, head of forensic medicine in Hamburg, explains about Covid19: „This virus influences our lives in a completely excessive way. This is disproportionate to the danger posed by the virus. And the astronomical economic damage now being caused is not commensurate with the danger posed by the virus. I am convinced that the Corona mortality rate will not even show up as a peak in annual mortality.“ In Hamburg, for example, „not a single person who was not previously ill“ had died of the virus: „All those we have examined so far had cancer, a chronic lung disease, were heavy smokers or severely obese, suffered from diabetes or had a cardiovascular disease. The virus was the last straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak. „Covid-19 is a fatal disease only in exceptional cases, but in most cases it is a predominantly harmless viral infection.“
  In addition, Dr. Püschel explains: „In quite a few cases, we have also found that the current corona infection has nothing whatsoever to do with the fatal outcome because other causes of death are present, for example a brain haemorrhage or a heart attack. Corona in itself is a „not particularly dangerous viral disease“, says the forensic scientist. He pleads for statistics based on concrete examination results. „All speculations about individual deaths that have not been expertly examined only fuel anxiety.“ Contrary to the guidelines of the Robert Koch Institute, Hamburg had recently started to differentiate between deaths „with the“ and „by the“ coronavirus, which led to a decrease in Covid19 deaths.
• The German virologist Hendrik Streeck is currently conducting a pilot study to determine the distribution and transmission routes of the Covid19 pathogen. In an interview he explains: „I took a closer look at the cases of 31 of the 40 people who died in the Heinsberg district – and was not very surprised that these people died. One of the deceased was older than 100 years, so even a common cold could have led to death.“ Contrary to original assumptions, Streeck has not been able to prove transmission via door handles and the like (i.e. so-called smear infections).
• The first Swiss hospitals have to announce short-time work due to the very low capacity utilization: „The staff in all departments has too little to do and has reduced overtime in a first step. Now short-time work is also being registered. The financial consequences are severe.“ As a reminder, a study by ETH Zurich based on largely unrealistic assumptions predicted the first bottlenecks in Swiss clinics by April 2. So far this has not happened anywhere.
• In Switzerland, there was a pronounced wave of influenza at the beginning of 2017. At that time, there were almost 1500 additional deaths in the over 65-year-old population in the first six weeks of the year. Normally, around 1300 people die in Switzerland every year as a result of pneumonia, 95% of whom are over 65 years old. By comparison, a total of 762 deaths with (not caused by) Covid19 are currently reported in Switzerland.
• The managing director of a German environmental laboratory suspects that the inhabitants of the northern Italian region of Lombardy are particularly susceptible to viral infections such as Covid19 due to a notoriously high legionella contamination: „If the lungs are weakened by a viral infection, as in the current situation, bacteria have an easy job, can negatively influence the course of the disease and cause complications.“ In Lombardy, regional pneumonia outbreaks had already occurred in the past due to evaporation cooling systems contaminated with legionella.
• On the basis of information from China, medical protocols have been defined worldwide that rapidly provide invasive artificial respiration by intubation for test-positive intensive care patients. On the one hand, the protocols assume that a more gentle non-invasive ventilation through a mask is too weak, on the other hand there is the fear that the „dangerous virus“ could otherwise spread through aerosols. As early as March, however, German physicians pointed out that intubation can lead to additional lung damage and has an overall poor chance of success. In the meantime, US physicians have also come forward who describe intubation as „more harm than good“ for patients. Patients often do not suffer from acute lung failure, but rather from a kind of altitude sickness, which is made worse by artificial respiration with increased pressure. In February, South Korean physicians reported that critical Covid19 patients respond well to oxygen therapy without a ventilator. The US physician mentioned above warns that the use of ventilators must be urgently reconsidered in order not to cause additional damage.
• The official US Covid19 projections so far have overestimated hospitalisations by a factor of 8, ICU beds needed by a factor of 6.4, and ventilators needed by a factor of 40.5.
• Renowned US statistician Nate Silver explains why „coronavirus case counts are meaningless„, unless you know more about the number and way of testing.

Further notes

• The website of Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, one of the earliest and internationally best known critics of the Covid19 panic, was deleted for a few hours today by the German provider Jimdo and only went online again after strong protests. It is not known whether the temporary deletion was due to general complaints or a political instruction.
• The university email address of emeritus professor Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, who wrote an Open Letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel, was deactivated earlier, but was also reactivated after protests.
• On April 2, the Danish Parliament adopted a new law that allows the authorities to block „fraudulent“ websites on Covid19 without an initial court order and to impose a higher penalty on the operators. It is still unclear what this means for generally critical websites about Covid19 and government policy in this regard.
• The German author and journalist Harald Wiesendanger writes in an article that his profession is completely failing in the current crisis: „How a profession that is supposed to control the powerful as an independent, critical, impartial Fourth Estate can succumb as quickly as lightning to the same collective hysteria as its audience, almost unanimously, and give itself over to court reporting, government propaganda and expert deification: It’s incomprehensible to me, it disgusts me, I’ve had enough of it, I dissociate myself from this unworthy performance with complete shame.
• Currently, more than one third of humanity is in a „lockdown“, which is more people than lived during the Second World War.
• In the US, applications for unemployment benefits have skyrocketed to over six million (see chart), a figure unparalleled since the Great Depression of 1929.
• More than one hundred human rights and civil liberties organizations warn that the world is currently sleepwalking into a surveillance state. On Twitter, the hashtag #covid19 has been partially replaced by the hashtag #covid1984.
• US geostrategist Henry Kissinger writes in the Wall Street Journal, „The coronavirus pandemic will forever alter the world order.“ The U.S. must „protect“ its citizens from disease while starting „the urgent work of planning for a new epoch“.

April 12, 2020

New studies

• Stanford professor of medicine John Ioannidis concludes in a new study that the risk of death from Covid19 for people under 65 years of age, even in global „hotspots“, is equivalent to the risk of a fatal car accident for daily commuters driving between 9 and 400 miles.
• In a serological pilot study, the German virologist Hendrick Streeck comes to the interim result that the lethality of Covid19 is at 0.37% and the mortality (based on the total population) at 0.06%. These values are about ten times lower than those of the WHO and about five times lower than those of Johns Hopkins University.
• A Danish study with 1500 blood donors found that the lethality of Covid19 is only 1.6 per thousand, i.e. more than 20 times lower than originally assumed by the WHO and thus in the range of a strong (pandemic) influenza. At the same time Denmark has decided to reopen schools and kindergartens next week.
• A serological study in the US state of Colorado comes to the preliminary conclusion that the lethality of Covid19 has been overestimated by a factor of 5 to a factor of 20 and is likely to be in the range between normal and pandemic influenza.
• A study conducted by the Medical University of Vienna concluded that the age and risk profile of Covid19 deaths is similar to normal mortality.
• A study in the Journal of Medical Virology concludes that the internationally used coronavirus test is unreliable: In addition to the already known problem of false positive results, there is also a „potentially high“ rate of false negative results, i.e. the test does not respond even in symptomatic individuals, while in other patients it does respond once  and then again not. This makes it more difficult to exclude other flu-like illnesses.
• A Swiss biophysicist has for the first time evaluated and graphically displayed the rate of positive tests in the US, Germany and Switzerland. The result shows that the positive rate in these countries is increasing only slightly and not exponentially.
• Dr. Daniel Jeanmonod, emeritus Swiss professor of physiology and neurosurgery, recommends in an analysis: „Think deep, do good science, and do not panic!„
• US researchers conclude that local air pollution greatly increases the risk of death from Covid19. This confirms earlier studies from Italy and China.
• The WHO concluded at the end of March that, contrary to earlier assumptions, Covid19 is not transmitted by aerosols („through the air“). Transmission mainly takes place through direct contact or by droplet infection (coughing, sneezing).
• The German-American epidemiology professor Knut Wittkowski argues in a new interview that the Covid19 epidemic is already declining or even „already over“ in many countries. The curfews had come too late and had been counterproductive, Wittkowski argues.

European Mortality Monitoring

European mortality monitoring now shows a clear projected excess mortality in the over-65 age group in several European countries. In some countries, however, including Germany and Austria, mortality in this age group is still in the normal range (or even below).

The question remains open as to whether the partially increased mortality is due to the coronavirus alone or also due to the sometimes drastic measures taken (e.g. isolation, stress, cancelled operations, etc.), and whether mortality will still be increased in the annual view.

Switzerland

• According to the latest report of the Federal Office of Public Health, the median age of test-positive deceased is now 84 years.
• A study by ETH Zurich found that the infection rate in Switzerland fell to a stable value of 1 several days before the „lockdown“, presumably due to general hygiene and everyday measures. If this result is correct, it would fundamentally question the sense of a „lockdown“. (About the study)
• The Swiss magazine Infosperber criticizes the information policy of authorities and media: „Instead of informing, authorities conduct a PR campaign„. Misleading figures and graphics are used to spread at least partly unjustified fear.
• The Swiss consumer protection magazine Ktipp also criticises the information policy and media reporting: „Authorities provide misleading information„.
• A Swiss researcher has analysed the latest Covid19 report of the Federal Office of Public Health and comes to a very critical conclusion: the report is „scientifically unbalanced, patronising and misleading“. In consideration of the facts, the measures taken by authorities are „irresponsible and spreading fear“.
• In an open letter to the Swiss Minister of Health, Swiss doctors speak of a „discrepancy between the threat scenario, which has been fuelled above all by the media, and our reality. The Covid19 cases observed in the general population were few and mostly mild, but „anxiety disorders and panic attacks“ are on the increase in the population and many patients no longer dare to come to important examination appointments. „And this in connection with a virus whose dangerous ness, according to our perception, exists in Switzerland only in the media and in our heads.“
• Due to the very low patient workload, several clinics in Switzerland and Germany have now had to announce short-time work. The decrease in patients is up to 80%.
• The Swiss physician Dr. Paul Robert Vogt has written a highly shared article on Covid19. He criticizes a „sensationalistic press“, but also warns that this is not an „ordinary flu“. However, the physician is wrong in some points: lethality rate and median age are very much key variables, differentiation between with/by coronavirus is essential, respiratory masks and respirators are unsuitable in many cases (see below), and curfews are a questionable and possibly counterproductive measure.

Germany and Austria

• In a paper, German health experts criticise the crisis policy of the Federal Government. They speak of long-term damage to the population caused by the partial shutdown. The figures published by the RKI were „only of limited significance“.
• In a statement, the Federal Association of German Pathologists demands that there must be autopsies of „corona deaths“ (in order to determine the true cause of death) and thus explicitly contradicts „the recommendation of the Robert Koch Institute“, which spoke out against autopsies, allegedly because they were too dangerous.
• Dr. Martin Sprenger resigned his position in the Corona Expert Council of the Austrian Ministry of Health in order to „regain his civil and scientific freedom of opinion“. Dr. Sprenger previously criticized, among other things, that the government did not sufficiently differentiate the risk of the virus for different population groups and took too sweeping measures: „We must be careful that the loss of healthy life years due to inadequate care for other acute and chronic diseases is not a factor of 10 times higher than the loss of healthy life years caused by COVID-19“.
• In a German nursing home, an 84-year-old man tested positive for Covid19, after which the entire home was quarantined and mass tests were conducted. The initial test result later turned out to be false, however.

Scandinavia

• The Norwegian Medical Association writes in an open letter to the Minister of Health that they are concerned that the measures taken could be more dangerous than the virus, as normal patients are no longer being examined and treated.
• A Swedish author explains in the British Spectator: „It is not Sweden that is conducting a mass experiment. It is all other countries that are doing it.“
• Professor Ansgar Lohse, Director at the Hamburg University Hospital, explains in an interview: „In my opinion, the Swedish measures are the most rational in the world. Of course, the question arises whether this can be kept up psychologically. Initially, the Swedes have to reckon with significantly more deaths, but in the medium to long term these will then be significantly reduced. The bill will be paid in a year – if the Swedes can hold out. Unfortunately, the fear of the virus often forces politicians to take actions that are not necessarily reasonable. Politics is driven also by the images in the media.“
• According to Swedish chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, Stockholm may now have  reached a „plateau“ with regard to Covid infections. (More news about Sweden)

US and Asia

• In the US, the authorities now also recommend that all test-positive deaths and even suspect cases without a positive test result be registered as „Covid deaths“. An American physician and state senator from Minnesota declared that this was tantamount to manipulation. Furthermore, there would be financial incentives for hospitals to declare patients as Covid19 patients. (Some humour on this topic).
• A Covid19 field hospital near Seattle in Washington State was closed after only three days without admitting any patients. This is reminiscent of the hospitals built at short notice near Wuhan, which were also mostly under-utilized or even remained empty and were then dismantled after a short time.
• Numerous media reported on alleged „corona mass graves“ on Hart Island near New York. These reports are misleading in two respects: firstly, Hart Island has long been one of the best-known „cemeteries of the poor“ in the US, and secondly the mayor of New York declared that no mass graves are planned, but that „unclaimed“ deceased (i.e. without relatives) are to be buried on Hart Island.
• One of the leading Indian epidemiologists declared, „We cannot run away to the moon“ and recommended the rapid development of a natural immunity in the population.

Northern Italy

It is true that two major vaccination campaigns against influenza and meningococcus were carried out in Lombardy in the months immediately preceding the outbreak of Covid19, notably in the later hotspots of Bergamo and Brescia. Although it is theoretically possible that such vaccinations could interact with coronavirus infections, such a possibility has not been established at present.

It is also true that a high asbestos exposure was present in northern Italy in the past, which increases the risk of cancerous lung disease. But here again, there is no direct connection with Covid19.

Nevertheless, in general it is true that the lung health of the population in northern Italy has been affected for a long time by high levels of air pollution and other detrimental factors, making it particularly susceptible to respiratory diseases.

Winter smog (NO2) in Northern Italy in February 2020 (ESA)

Chief physician Pietro Vernazza

The Swiss chief physician of Infectiology, Professor Pietro Vernazza, has published four new articles on studies concerning Covid19.

• The first article is about the fact that there has never been medical evidence for the efficacy of school closures, as children in general do not develop the Covid disease nor are they among the vectors of the virus (unlike with influenza).
• The second article is about the fact that respiratory masks generally have no detectable effect, with one exception: sick people with symptoms (notably coughing) can reduce the spread of the virus. Otherwise the masks are rather symbolic or a „media hype“.
• The third article deals with the Covid19 risk groups. According to current knowledge, these include people with high blood pressure – it is suspected that the Covid19 virus uses cell receptors that are also responsible for regulating blood pressure. However, surprisingly, people with immunodeficiency and pregnant women (who naturally have a reduced immune system) are not at risk. On the contrary, the risk of Covid19 is often an overreaction of the immune system.
• The fourth article deals with the question of mass testing. The conclusion of Professor Vernazza: „Anyone who has symptoms of a respiratory disease stays at home. The same applies to the flu. There is no added value in testing.“

Intensive vs. palliative care

A German palliative physician explains in an interview that Covid19 is „not an intensive care disease“, as the severely affected people are typically people of old age who have multiple pre-existing conditions. When these people get pneumonia, they „have always been given palliative care (i.e. accompanying death)“. With a Covid19 diagnosis, however, this would now become an intensive care case, but „of course the patients still cannot be saved“.

The expert describes the current actions of many decision-makers as „panic mode“. At present, intensive care beds in Germany are still relatively empty. Respirators are free. For financial reasons, hospital managers may soon come up with the idea of admitting elderly people. „In 14 days, the wards will be full of unsalvageable, multimorbid old people. And once they are on the machines, the question arises as to who will switch them off again, as that would be a homicide.“ An „ethical catastrophe“ from greed may ensue, warns the physician.

Ventilation with Covid19

There has been and still is a worldwide rush for ventilators for Covid19 patients. This site was one of the first in the world to draw attention to the fact that invasive ventilation (intubation) may be counterproductive in many cases and may cause additional harm to patients.

Invasive ventilation was originally recommended because low oxygen levels led to the false conclusion of acute respiratory (lung) failure, and there was a fear that with more gentle, non-invasive techniques the virus could spread through aerosols.

In the meantime, several leading pulmonologists and intensive care physicians from the US and Europe have spoken out against invasive ventilation and recommend more gentle methods or indeed oxygen therapy, as already successfully used by South Korea.

• Why Some Doctors Are Now Moving Away From Ventilator Treatments (TIME)
• Ventilators aren’t a panacea for a pandemic like coronavirus (Dr. Matt Strauss)
• With ventilators running out, doctors say the machines are overused for Covid-19
• Covid-19 Does Not Lead to a “Typical” Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ATSJ)
• Do COVID-19 Ventilator Protocols Need a Second Look? (Medscape)
• German: „Too often intubation and invasive ventilation is used“ (Dr. Thomas Voshaar)
• German: COVID-19: Ventilation – and then what? (DocCheck)

Political developments

• NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden warns in a new interview that governments are using the coronavirus to build an „architecture of oppression„.
• Apple and Google have announced that they will work with national authorities to incorporate a so-called „contact tracing“ into their mobile operating systems, which will allow authorities to monitor contacts within the population.
• German constitutional law expert Uwe Volkmann said on ARD that he knows „nobody“ among his colleagues who considers the Corona measures to be in conformity with the constitution.
• The Italian government has set up a „task force“ to „eliminate“ false reports about Covid on the Internet. However, freedom of expression remains „untouched“, it was said.
• France has extended, due to Covid, the permitted pre-trial detention and suspended the examination by a judge. Complaints by lawyers‘ associations were rejected.
• Denmark introduced „unprecedentedly tough emergency laws“ at the beginning of April: „The health authorities can now order compulsory tests, compulsory vaccinations and compulsory treatment, and use the military and private security services in addition to the police to enforce their orders.“
• The police in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia are testing drones in „corona missions“, specifically to search for prohibited groups of people.
• The German state of Saxony wants to put quarantine objectors in psychiatric hospitals.
• A Swiss doctor has been arrested and sent to psychiatry for criticizing the corona measures and allegedly making threats against authorities.
• In Germany, an attorney in medical law has filed a constitutional complaint against the Corona measures and published an open letter on the subject, in which she warns against slipping into a police state and called for demonstrations. The public prosecutor’s office and the police then started investigations against the lawyer for „calling for a criminal offence“, and the lawyer’s website was temporarily shut down. The constitutional complaint has since been rejected.
• In Austria, too, several lawyers have now lodged complaints against the Corona measures with the Constitutional Court. The lawyers argue that fundamental rights and separation of powers have been violated by the measures.
• The mayor of Los Angeles promised a reward for „snitches“ who report their neighbours to the authorities if they violate the curfews.
• In the US, more than 16 million people are already unemployed due to the lockdown, which is about 10% of the working population. According to the International Labor Organization, 80% of the world’s 3.3 billion workers are currently affected by the measures, and 1.25 billion workers could be affected by „drastic or catastrophic“ consequences.

Weekly new unemployment claims in the US.

April 15, 2020

Medical updates

• In the British Telegraph, Professor Alexander Kekulé, one of Germany’s leading microbiologists and epidemiologists, calls for an end to the lockdown as it causes more damage than the virus itself. In people under 50 years of age, severe disease or death are „very, very unlikely“. The general population should develop rapid immunity, while risk groups should be protected. One cannot wait for a vaccine, which will take at least six to twelve months, but must find a way to live with the virus, Professor Kekulé said.
• The German Network for Evidence-Based Medicine reports that the lethality of a severe seasonal influenza (flu) such as 2017/2018 is estimated by the German Robert Koch Institute to be 0.4% to 0.5%, and not only 0.1% as previously assumed. This would mean that the lethality of Covid19 could even be lower than that of a strong seasonal influenza, even though it may spread faster.
• The Luxembourger Tageblatt reports that Sweden’s „relaxed strategy on Covid19 seems to work“. Despite minimal measures, the situation seems to be „clearly calming down at the moment“. A huge field hospital that was set up near Stockholm remains closed due to lack of demand. The number of patients in intensive care units remains constant at a low level or is even slightly declining. „There are many vacancies in intensive care units in all Stockholm hospitals. We are approaching the flattening of the illness curve,“ explained a senior physician at the Karolinska Klinik. So far there have been about 900 deaths with Covid19 in Sweden.
• A direct comparison between the UK (with lockdown) and Sweden (without lockdown) shows that the two countries are almost identical in terms of case numbers and deaths per population.
• A letter to the New England Journal of Medicine reports that in a study of pregnant women, 88% of test-positive women showed no symptoms – a very high figure, but one that is consistent with earlier reports from China and Iceland.
• Professor Dan Yamin, director of the Epidemiology Research Laboratory at Tel Aviv University, explains in an interview that the new corona virus is „hardly dangerous“ for a large part of the population and that rapid natural immunity must be the goal. The money is better spent on extending a clinic than on paying for damages due to the lockdown, he said.
• The president of the Israeli National Research Council, Professor Isaac Ben-Israel, argues that according to current findings, the corona epidemic is over in most countries after about 8 weeks, regardless of the measures taken. He therefore recommends to lift the „lockdown“ immediately.
• The British statistics professor David Spiegelhalter shows that the risk of death from Covid19 corresponds roughly to normal mortality and is visibly increased only for the age group between approx. 70 and 80 years (see the graph at the end of the linked article).
• Professor Karin Moelling, emeritus director of the Institute of Virology at the University of Zurich and an early critic of excessive measures, stresses in a new interview the role of local special factors such as air pollution and population density.
• The British Guardian pointed out in 2015 that extreme air pollution in Chinese cities kills 4000 people per day. This is more than China has so far reported in total Covid19 deaths.
• The German virologist Hendrik Streeck has defended himself against criticism of his pilot study. Streeck found a lethality (based on cases) of 0.37% and a mortality (based on population) of 0.06%, which corresponds to a strong seasonal flu.
• Austrian internal medicine specialists warn of „collateral damage“: Due to the coronavirus, control and operation dates are postponed and fewer patients with heart attack symptoms come to the hospitals.
• A Swiss biophysicist has for the first time graphically depicted the rate of positive Covid19 tests in Switzerland since early March. The result shows that the positive rate oscillates between about 10% and 25% and that the „lockdown“ has had no significant influence (see graph below). Interestingly, Swiss authorities and media have never shown this graph.
• A Swiss researcher has analysed the latest Covid19 report of the Federal Office of Public Health and again comes to a critical assessment: „The situation report is unsuitable for politicians and competent decision making, is highly unspecific, incomplete and lacking in informative value“.
• In a new article, the Swiss chief physician for infectiology, Dr. Pietro Vernazza, explains that the alleged lack of immunity formation in Covid19 is a matter of „rare individual cases or even just clues“, which „on closer inspection do not pose a problem“, but which are „exaggerated and hastily dished up as shocking news“ by some media.
• In France, there are more and more reports of suicides out of fear of the coronavirus or out of fear of having infected someone with the coronavirus.
• The new French site Covid Infos critically examines Covid19 and media reporting.

Swiss positive test rate before and during lockdown (FS)

US and UK

• On the US warship Theodore Roosevelt, 600 sailors tested positive for Covid19, and a first sailor has since died from or with Covid19. The warship will be a very important „case study“ for the impact on the healthy general population below 65.
• The emeritus British professor of pathology, Dr John Lee, argues that a robust and evidence-based debate is needed to avoid „big mistakes“. Many of the figures used by governments and the media have not been reliable, he says.
• In the UK, 40% of hospital beds are currently unoccupied, four times more than usual. The reason for this is the sharp decline in general patient admissions. Intensive care beds, whose capacity has been increased, are on average 78% occupied. In addition, 10% of nurses are in quarantine.
• The temporary corona hospitals of the US military near New York are „largely empty“ so far. The hospitalization rate in New York was overestimated by a factor of seven.
• A US study comes to the conclusion that the new corona virus has already spread much further than originally assumed, but causes no or only mild symptoms in most people, so that the lethality rate could be as low as 0.1%, which is roughly equivalent to seasonal flu. However, due to the fact that the disease is more easily transmitted, the cases of the disease in New York, for example, occurred in a shorter time than usual.
• In a new document on the treatment of Covid19 patients, the chief of pneumology and intensive care at Eastern Virginia Medical School states: „It is important to recognize that COVID-19 does not cause your “typical ARDS” (lung failure) … this disease must be treated differently and it is likely we are exacerbating this situation by causing ventilator induced lung injury.“
• In the US, a governor claimed an infant died „of Covid“ as the world’s youngest victim. Family acquaintances, however, stated that the infant had suffocated in a tragic accident at home and subsequently tested positive in hospital. The responsible coroner did not declare a Covid death.
• A doctor from the US state of Montana explained in a speech how death certificates for suspected Covid19 cases are being manipulated due to new guidelines.

Nursing homes

• An analysis of data from five European countries shows that residents of nursing homes have so far accounted for between 42% and 57% of all „Covid19 deaths“. At the same time, three US studies show that up to 50% of all test positive nursing home residents did not (yet) show symptoms at the time of testing. Two conclusions can be drawn from this: On the one hand, the danger of the new coronavirus – as already suspected – seems to be concentrated on a small, very vulnerable population group that needs even better protection. On the other hand, it is conceivable that some of these people may not die, or not only die from the coronavirus, but also from the extreme stress associated with the current situation. Recent reports from Germany and Italy have already mentioned nursing home residents who died suddenly without symptoms.
• A German palliative physician argues in a recent interview that in the treatment of Covid19 patients „very wrong priorities were set and all ethical principles were violated“. There is a „very one-sided orientation towards intensive care“, although „the balance between benefit and harm“ is often not good. A new diagnosis (i.e. Covid19) would turn elderly patients who in the past had mostly been treated palliatively into intensive care patients and subject them to a painful but often hopeless treatment (i.e. artificial respiration). The treatment should always be based on the actual will of the patient, the specialist argued.

Covid19 deaths in nursing homes (LTC Covid)

Political developments

• In Germany, a medical lawyer who filed a complaint against the corona measures with the Federal Constitutional Court and called for demonstrations, was arrested and sent to a prison psychiatric ward for two days. The public prosecutor is investigating for „public provocation to commit crimes“. Another lawyer asks in an open letter to the German Federal Chamber of Lawyers: „Lawyers sent to psychiatric hospital for protest? Is it that time again in Germany?“
• In Switzerland, a „corona critical“ doctor was arrested by a special police unit for alleged „threats against relatives and authorities“ and sent to a psychiatric clinic. The family has since declared that there were no threats against relatives. The doctor also stated that he was not accused of „threats against authorities“ during the interrogation. The police justified the deployment of the special unit by assuming that the doctor was in possession of a weapon – but this was the usual Swiss medical army pistol without ammunition. The transfer of the doctor to a psychiatric clinic was justified on the grounds of an alleged „incapacity to serve in prison“ (as is the case of nursing patients) – this, too, may be seen as a pretext. Based on the current state of knowledge, it is therefore possible that the measure was indeed politically motivated. Former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has already drawn attention to the Swiss case.
• Italy is now using European satellite data to monitor the population during lockdown.
• The British police smashed in a resident’s door looking for „social gatherings“.
• German constitutional law expert Professor Oliver Lepsius: „On the decline of fundamental rights in the corona pandemic“.

April 16, 2020

• The London Times reports that 50% of current British excess mortality might not be caused by the coronavirus, but by the effects of the lockdown, general panic and partial social breakdown. This amounts to 3000 deaths per week. In fact, this figure could be even higher, as the British corona definition also includes deaths with (rather than from) coronaviruses as well as „suspected cases“. In addition, around 50% of „corona deaths“ involve nursing homes, who are not protected any better by a general lockdown.
• In Denmark, the lockdown is now regretted: „We should never have pressed the stop button. The Danish health care system had the situation under control. The total lockdown was a step too far,“ argues Professor Jens Otto Lunde Jørgensen of Aarhus University Hospital. Denmark is currently ramping up school operations again.
• Yale professor David Katz, who warned early on of the negative consequences of a lockdown, gave a detailed one-hour interview on the current situation.
• German virologist Hendrik Streeck explains that no „smear infections“ in supermarkets, restaurants or hairdressing salons have been detected so far.
• New antibody data from the Italian community of Robbio in Lombardy shows that about ten times more people had the corona virus than originally thought, as they developed no or only mild symptoms. The actual immunization rate is 22%.
• New data from the Swiss Canton of Zurich shows that about 50% of all Covid19-related deaths occurred in retirement or nursing homes. Nevertheless, even there about 40% of all test-positive people showed no symptoms. The median age of test-positive deaths in Switzerland is currently about 84 years.
• Pietro Vernazza, the Swiss chief physician for infectiology, comments on the „live with the virus“ strategy and recommends, among other things, individually optimised protection of persons at risk. The immunity of the general population is also a protection for people at risk, he says.
• The new British website Lockdown Skeptics reports critically on Covid19, the measures taken and the general media coverage.
• The Austrian civil society „Initiative for evidence-based corona information“ provides an overview of studies and analyses on the new corona virus
• Documentary: „The WHO – In the grip of the lobbyists“ (ARTE, 2017, German)

April 18, 2020

Medical updates

• A new serological study by Stanford University found antibodies in 50 to 85 times more people than previously thought in Santa Clara County, California, resulting in a Covid-19 lethality of 0.12% to 0.2% or even lower (i.e. in the range of severe influenza). Professor John Ioannidis explains the study in a new video.
• In a new analysis, the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) at the University of Oxford argues that the lethality of covid19 (IFR) is between 0.1% and 0.36% (i.e. in the range of a severe influenza). In people over 70 years of age with no serious preconditions, the mortality rate is expected to be less than 1%. For people over 80 years of age, the mortality rate is between 3% and 15%, depending on whether deaths so far were mainly with or from by the disease. In contrast to influenza, child mortality is close to zero. With regard to the high mortality rate in Northern Italy, the research group points out that Italy has the highest antibiotic resistance in Europe. In fact, data from the Italian authorities show that around 80% of the deceased were treated with antibiotics, indicating bacterial superinfections.
• The Finnish epidemiology professor Mikko Paunio from the University of Helsinki has evaluated several international studies in a working paper and comes to a Covid19 lethality (IFR) of 0.1% or less (i.e. in the area of seasonal influenza). According to Paunio, the impression of a higher lethality was created because the virus spread very quickly, especially in multi-generation households in Italy and Spain, but also in cities like New York. The „lockdown“ measures had come too late and had not been effective.
• UK: London’s temporary Nightingale hospital has remained largely empty, with just 19 patients being treated at the facility over the Easter weekend. London’s established hospitals have doubled their ICU capacity, and are so far coping with surge.
• In Canada, 31 people died in a nursing home after „almost all nursing staff had left the facility in a hurry for fear of the corona virus spreading. Health authorities found the people in the home in Dorval near Montreal only days later – many of the survivors were dehydrated, malnourished and apathetic.“ Similar tragedies were already reported from northern Italy, where Eastern European nurses left the country in a hurry when panic broke out and lockdown measures were announced.
• A Scottish doctor who also looks after nursing homes writes: „What was the government strategy for nursing homes? The actions taken so far have made the situation much, much worse.“
• In Switzerland, despite Covid19, total mortality in the first quarter of 2020 (until 5th April) was in the medium normal range. One reason for this could be the mild flu season due to the mild winter, which has now been partially „offset“ by Covid19.
• According to a report from April 14, Swiss hospitals and even intensive care units continue to be very under-utilized. This again raises the question of where and how exactly the test-positive deaths (average age 84) in Switzerland actually occur.
• The President of the German Hospital Association has sounded the alarm: more than 50 percent of all planned operations throughout Germany have been cancelled, and the „operations backlog“ is running into thousands. In addition, 30 to 40% fewer patients with heart attacks and strokes are treated because they no longer dare to go to the hospitals for fear of corona. There were 150,000 free hospital beds and 10,000 free intensive care beds nationwide. In Berlin, only 68 intensive care beds are occupied by corona patients, the emergency clinic with 1000 beds is currently not in use.
• New data of German authorities show that in Germany, too, the reproduction rate of Covid19 had already fallen below the critical value of 1 before the lockdown. General hygiene measures were therefore sufficient to prevent the exponential spread. This had already been shown by the ETH Zurich for Switzerland as well.
• On a French aircraft carrier 1081 soldiers tested positive. So far, almost 50% of them remained symptom-free and about 50% showed mild symptoms. 24 soldiers were hospitalized, one of them is in intensive care (previous illnesses unknown).
• Leading German virologist Christian Drosten thinks it is possible that some people have already built up an effective so-called background immunity against the new corona virus through contact with normal common cold corona viruses.
• Klaus Püschsel, a forensic doctor from Hamburg who has already examined numerous test positive deceased, explains in a new article: „The numbers do not justify the fear of corona“. His findings: „Corona is a relatively harmless viral disease. We have to deal with the fact that Corona is a normal infection and we have to learn to live with it without quarantine“. The fatalities he examined would all have had such serious pre-existing conditions that, „even if that sounds harsh, they would all have died in the course of this year. Püschel adds: „The time of the virologists is over. We should now ask others what is the right thing to do in the corona crisis, for example the intensive care doctors.“
• A review on Medscape shows that common cold infections caused by coronaviruses typically decline at the end of April – with or without a lockdown.
• Swiss magazine Infosperber writes: „Fewer corona cases? Just test less!“ The daily number of „new cases“ reported says little about the state of the epidemic. It was reckless to trigger fear with the curve of cumulative test-positive deaths, they argue.
• OffGuardian: Eight more experts questioning the coronavirus panic.
• Video: Why lockdowns are the wrong policy – Swedish expert Prof. Johan Giesecke Swedish epidemiology professor Johan Giesecke speaks of a „tsunami of a mild disease“ and considers lockdowns to be counterproductive. The most important thing, he says, is to provide efficient protection for risk groups, especially nursing homes.

Reproduction number in Germany. Lockdown since March 22. Ban on events with more than 1000 people since March 9 (RKI).

Political updates

• Video: Police violence and monitoring during corona lockdowns around the world.
• In several US states there have been protests and rallies against the lockdown measures.
• German economist Norbert Haering explains in several articles how the „corona crisis“ is being used to introduce worldwide monitoring instruments that have been planned for some time in the areas of travel, payments, contact tracing and biometrics.
• Giorgio Agamben, Italian philosopher, on the Corona measures: „A country, indeed a culture is imploding right now, and nobody seems to care. What is going on before our eyes in countries that claim to be civilized?“
• Italian lawyers lodged a complaint against corona measures of the government.
• The German professor of economics Stefan Homburg in DIE WELT: „Why Germany’s lockdown is wrong – and Sweden is doing much better“: „In summary, countries like Sweden, South Korea or Taiwan have acted wisely by not using lockdowns. The virologists there guided the population and politicians through the crisis with a steady hand, instead of unsettling them by constantly changing course. The coronavirus was successfully contained without harming fundamental rights and jobs. Germany should take this policy as a model for itself.“
• A Swiss citizen has sent an urgent application to the Federal Administrative Court and the Federal Council to have the lockdown lifted immediately.
• Video: „Swiss doctors were muzzled, the Federal Council is divided.“ An interview with Dr. med. Stephan Rietiker, the founder of InsideCorona.ch
• Video: „The Swiss government belongs in prison. A polemic.“

April 21, 2020

Medical updates

• Stanford professor of medicine John Ioannidis explains in a new one-hour interview the results of several new studies on Covid19. According to Professor Ioannidis, the lethality of Covid19 is „in the range of seasonal flu“. For people under 65 years of age, the mortality risk even in the global „hotspots“ is comparable to the daily car ride to work, while for healthy people under 65 years of age, the mortality risk is „completely negligible“. Only in New York City was the mortality risk for persons under 65 years of age comparable to a long-distance truck driver.
• Professor Carl Heneghan, Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University, warns in a new article that the damage caused by the lockdown could be greater than that caused by the virus. The peak of the epidemic had already been reached in most countries before the lockdown, Professor Heneghan argues.
• A new serological study in Los Angeles County found that 28 to 55 times more people had Covid19 than previously assumed (without showing significant symptoms), which reduces the danger of the disease accordingly.
• In the city of Chelsea near Boston, about one third of 200 blood donors had antibodies against the Covid19 pathogen. Half of them reported having experienced a cold symptom in the last month. In a homeless shelter near Boston, just over a third of the people tested positive, but nobody showed any symptoms.
• Scotland reports that half of the (stocked up) intensive care beds have remained empty. According to officials, the admission of new patients is „levelling off“.
• The emergency room in Bergamo’s municipal hospital was completely empty at the beginning of this week for the first time in 45 days. In the meantime, more people with other diseases than „Covid19 patients“ are being treated again.
• A report in the medical magazine Lancet comes to the conclusion that school closures to contain corona viruses have no or only a minimal effect.
• A nine-year-old French child with corona infection had contact with 172 people, but none of them were infected. This confirms earlier results that corona infection (unlike influenza) is not or hardly ever transmitted by children.
• The German emeritus microbiology professor Sucharit Bhakdi gave a new one-hour interview on Covid-19. Professor Bhakdi argues that most media have acted „completely irresponsibly“ during the Covid-19 epidemic.
• The German Initiative for Care Ethics criticises blanket bans on visits and painful intensive care treatment of nursing patients: „Even before Corona, around 900 old people in need of care died every day in German homes without being taken to hospital. In fact, palliative treatment, if at all, would be more appropriate for these patients. () According to all we know about Corona so far, there is not a single plausible reason to continue to value infection protection higher than the basic rights of citizens. Lift the inhuman visiting bans!“
• The oldest woman in the Swiss canton of St. Gallen died last week at the age of 109. She survived the „Spanish flu“ of 1918, was not corona-infected and „for her age she was doing very well“. The „corona isolation“, however, had „very much affected her“: „She faded without the daily visits of her family members.“
• The Swiss cardiologist Dr. Nils Kucher reports that in Switzerland currently about 75% of all additional deaths occur not in hospital but at home. This certainly explains the largely emptySwiss hospitals and intensive care units. It is also already known that about 50% of all additional deaths occur in nursing homes. Dr. Kucher suspects that some of these people die of sudden pulmonary embolism. This is conceivable. Nevertheless, the question arises as to what role the „lockdown“ plays in these additional deaths.
• The Italian health authority ISS warns that Covid19 patients from the Mediterranean region, who often have a genetic metabolic peculiarity called favism, should not be treated with antimalarial drugs such as chloroquine, as this can lead to death. This is a further indication that the wrong or overly aggressive medication can make the disease even worse.
• Rubicon: 120 expert opinions on Corona. Worldwide, high-ranking scientists, doctors, lawyers and other experts criticize the handling of the corona virus. (German)

Classification of the pandemic

In 2007, the US health authorities defined a five-tier classification for pandemic influenza and counter-measures. The five categories are based on the observed lethality (CFR) of the pandemic, from category 1 (<0.1%) to category 5 (>2%). According to this key, the current corona pandemic would probably be classified in category 2 (0.1% to 0.5%). For this category, only the „voluntary isolation of sick persons“ was envisaged as the main measure at the time.

In 2009, however, the WHO deleted serverity from its pandemic definition. Since then, in principle, every global wave of influenza can be declared a pandemic, as happened with the very mild „swine flu“ of 2009/2010, for which vaccines worth around 18 billion dollars were sold.

The documentary TrustWHO („Trust who?“), which deals with the dubious role of the WHO in the context of „swine flu“, was recently deleted by VIMEO.

Swiss chief physician Pietro Vernazza: Simple measures are sufficient

In his latest contribution, the Swiss chief physician of infectiology, Pietro Vernazza, uses the results of the German Robert Koch Institute and ETH Zurich to show that the Covid19 epidemic was already under control before the „lockdown“ was even introduced:

„These results are explosive: Both studies show that simple measures such as the renunciation of major events and the introduction of hygiene measures are highly effective. The population is able to implement these recommendations well and the measures can almost bring the epidemic to a halt. In any case, the measures are sufficient to protect our health system in such a way that the hospitals are not overburdened“.

Reproduction rate in Switzerland (ETH/Vernazza)

Switzerland: Cumulative total mortality in the normal range

In Switzerland, cumulative total mortality in the first quarter (until April 5) was at the mean expected value and more than 1500 deaths below the upper expected value. Moreover, by the middle of April the total mortality rate was still more than 2000 deaths below the comparative value from the severe flu season of 2015 (see figure below).

Cumulative mortality compared to medium expected value 2010 to 2020 (BFS)

Sweden: Epidemic ending even without lockdown

The latest figures on patients and deaths show that the epidemic is coming to an end in Sweden. In Sweden, as in most other countries, excess mortality occurred mainly in nursing homes that were not protected well enough, the chief epidemiologist explained.

Compared to other countries, the Swedish population may now benefit from higher immunity to the Covid19 virus, which could better protect them from a possible „second wave“ next winter.

It can be assumed that by the end of 2020, Covid19 will not be visible in the Swedish overall mortality. The Swedish example shows that „lockdowns“ were medically unnecessary or even counterproductive as well as socially and economically devastating.

Video: Why lockdowns are the wrong policy – Swedish expert Professor Johan Giesecke

Test-positive deaths in Sweden (FOHM/Wikipedia; values may still change somewhat)

Anecdotes vs. evidence

In the face of a lack of scientific evidence, some media increasingly rely on gruesome anecdotes in order to maintain fear in the population. A typical example are „healthy children“ who allegedly died of Covid19, but who later often turn out not to have died of Covid19, or who were seriously ill.

Austrian media recently reported about some divers who, six weeks after a Covid19 disease with lung involvement, still showed reduced performance and conspicuous imaging. One section speaks of „irreversible damage“, the next explains that this is „unclear and speculative“. It is not mentioned that divers should generally take a 6 to 12 month break after serious pneumonia.

Neurological effects such as the temporary loss of the sense of smell or taste are also often mentioned. Here too, it is usually not explained that this is a well-known effect of cold and flu viruses, and Covid19 is rather mild in this respect.

In other reports, possible effects on various organs such as kidneys, liver or brain are highlighted, without mentioning that many of the patients affected were already very old and had severe chronic pre-existing conditions.

Political updates

• WOZ: When fear rules. „With drones, apps and demo bans: In the wake of the Corona crisis, fundamental freedoms are being eroded. If we don’t watch out, they will remain so even after the lockdown – but the extreme situation also offers reason for hope.“ (German)
• Multipolar: What is the agenda? „The government praises itself, spreads slogans of perseverance and at the same time slows down the collection of basic data that would allow the reliable measurement of the spread and danger of the virus. In contrast, the authorities are acting quickly and decisively in expanding questionable instruments, such as new „corona apps“ for collective pulse measurement and contact tracing“. (German)
• Professor Christian Piska, expert for public law and legal tech in Vienna: „Austria has changed. Very much so, even if most people seem to just accept it. Step by step, whether the economy is booming or not, we are suddenly living with police-state conditions and severe restrictions on our basic and human rights, which would be a perfect match for dictatorial regimes. () This is Pandora’s box, which once opened, may never be closed again.“ (German)
• More than 300 scientists from 26 countries warn of „unprecedented surveillance of society“ by corona apps violating data protection. Several scientists and universities have already withdrawn from the European contact tracing project PEPP-PT due to a lack of transparency. Recently it became known that the Swiss company AGT is involved in the project, which had previously set up mass surveillance systems for Arab states.
• In Israel, about 5000 people (with a distance of 2m each) demonstrated against the measures of the Netanyahu government: „They talk about an exponential increase of  corona cases, but the only thing that increases exponentially are the people who stand up to protect our country and our democracy“.
• Madrid-based Irish journalist Jason O’Toole describes the situation in Spain: „With the military visible on the streets of Spain it’s hard not to describe the situation as martial law in all but name. George Orwell’s Big Brother is alive and well here, with the Spanish police monitoring everybody using CCTV or by flying drones overhead. A staggering 650,000 people were fined and 5,568 arrested during the first four weeks alone. () I was shocked when I watched one video clip of a cop using heavy force to arrest a mentally ill young man who was apparently just walking home with bread.“
• OffGuardian: The disturbing developments in UK policing.
• In a new article, US investigative journalist Whitney Webb writes on „How The US National Security State Is Using Coronavirus To Fulfill An Orwellian Vision“: „Last year, a government commission called for the US to adopt an AI-driven mass surveillance system far beyond that used in any other country in order to ensure American hegemony in artificial intelligence. Now, many of the “obstacles” they had cited as preventing its implementation are rapidly being removed under the guise of combating the coronavirus crisis.“
• In a previous article, Whitney Webb already dealt with the central role of the „Center for Health Security“ at Johns Hopkins University in the current pandemic management as well as its role in previous pandemic and bioweapons simulations and its close links to the US security apparatus.
• The idea of using a pandemic to expand global surveillance and control instruments is not new. As early as 2010, the American Rockefeller Foundation described a „lock step scenario“ in a working paper on future technological and social developments, in which current developments are anticipated with impressive accuracy (pages 18ff).
• „The truth about Fauci“: In a new interview, US virologist Dr. Judy Mikovits talks about her experiences with Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is currently playing a major role in shaping the US government’s Covid19 measures.
• Aid organisations warn that „far more people“ will die from the economic consequences of the measures than from Covid-19 itself. Forecasts now predict that 35 to 65 million people will fall into absolute poverty, and many of them are threatened with starvation.
• In Germany, 2.35 million people are predicted to be on short-time working in 2020, more than twice as many as after the financial crisis of 2008/2009.

People on short-time working in Germany (BfA)

April 25, 2020

Medical updates

• Professor Detlef Krüger, the direct predecessor of the well-known German virologist Christian Drosten at the Charité Clinic in Berlin, explains in a recent interview that Covid19 is „in many respects comparable to the flu“ and „no more dangerous than certain variants of the flu virus“. Professor Krüger considers the „mouth and nose protection discovered by politicians“ to be „actionism“ and a potential „germ-slinger“. At the same time he warns of „massive collateral damage“ caused by the measures taken.
• The former Swedish and European chief epidemiologist Professor Johan Giesecke gave the Austrian magazine Addendum a candid interview. Professor Giesecke says that 75 to 90% of the epidemic is „invisible“ because that many people develop no or hardly any symptoms. A lockdown would therefore be „pointless“ and harm society. The basis of the Swedish strategy was that „people are not stupid“. Giesecke expects a death rate between 0.1 and 0.2%, similar to that of influenza. Italy and New York had been very poorly prepared for the virus and had not protected their risk groups, Professor Giesecke argues.
• The latest figures from Italy show (pp. 12/13) that 60 of almost 17,000 doctors and nurses who tested positive died. This results in a Covid19 lethality rate of less than 0.1% for those under 50, 0.27% for those aged 50 to 60, 1.4% for those aged 60 to 70, and 12.6% for those aged 70 to 80. Even these figures are likely too high, as these are deaths with and not necessarily from corona viruses, and as up to 80% of people remain asymptomatic and some may not have been tested. Overall, however, the values are in line with those from e.g. South Korea and give a lethality rate for the general population in the range of influenza.
• The head of the Italian Civil Defence declared in mid-April that more than 1800 people died in nursing homes in Lombardy, and that in many cases the cause of death was not yet clear. It was already known beforehand that the care of the elderly and nursing homes and, as a result, the entire health care system in parts of Lombardy had collapsed, in part due to fear of the virus and the lockdown.
• The latest figures from Belgium show that there too, just over 50% of all additional deaths occur in nursing homes, which do not benefit from a general lockdown. In 6% of these deaths Covid19 was „confirmed“, in 94% of the deaths it was „suspected“. About 70% of the test-positive persons (employees and residents) showed no symptoms.
• The British Guardian cites new studies according to which air pollution could be a „key factor“ in Covid19 deaths. For example, 80% of deaths in four countries were in the most polluted regions (including Lombardy and Madrid).
• The Californian physician Dr. Dan Erickson described his observations regarding Covid19 in a much-noticed press briefing. Hospitals and intensive care units in California and other states have remained largely empty so far. Dr. Erickson reports that doctors from several US states have been „pressured“ to issue death certificates mentioning Covid19, even though they themselves did not agree. Dr. Erickson recommends quarantining only the sick and not the healthy or the whole society, as this could have negative effects on health and psyche. A significant increase in „secondary effects“ such as alcoholism, depression, suicide and abuse of children and spouses has already been observed. Based on figures from various countries, Dr. Erickson estimates the lethality of Covid-19 to be about 0.1% or similar to influenza. According to Dr Erickson, a face mask only makes sense in acute situations such as in hospital, but not in everyday life.
• The German newspaper DIE ZEIT focuses on the high vacancy rates in German hospitals, which in some departments are as high as 70%. Even cancer examinations and organ transplants that were not acutely necessary for survival had been cancelled to make room for Covid19 patients, but these have so far been largely absent.
• A new analysis from the UK concludes that there are currently about 2000 people per week dying at home without Covid19 because they cannot or do not want to use the health care system. These are mainly emergency patients with heart attacks and strokes as well as chronically ill people.
• Researchers in Austria concluded that more people died there in March from untreated heart attacks than from Covid19.
• In Germany, a mask requirement was introduced in public transport and in retail outlets. The president of the World Medical Association, Frank Montgomery, has criticized this as „wrong“ and the intended use of scarves and drapes as „ridiculous“. In fact, studies show that the use of masks in everyday life does not bring measurable benefits to healthy and asymptomatic people, which is why the Swiss infectiologist Dr. Vernazza spoke of a „media hype“. Other critics speak of a symbol of „forced, publicly visible obedience“.
• In 2019, a WHO study found „little to no scientific evidence“ for the effectiveness of measures such as „social distancing“, travel restrictions and lockdowns. (Original study)
• A German laboratory stated in early April that according to WHO recommendations, Covid19 virus tests are now considered positive even if the specific target sequence of the Covid19 virus is negative and only the more general corona virus target sequence is positive. However, this can lead to other corona viruses (cold viruses) also trigger a false positive test result. The laboratory also explained that Covid19 antibodies are often only detectable two to three weeks after the onset of symptoms. This must be taken into account so that the actual number of people already immune to Covid19 is not underestimated.
• In both Switzerland and Germany, some politicians have called for „compulsory vaccination against corona“. However, the vaccination against the so-called „swine flu“ of 2009/2010, for example, led to sometimes severe neurological damage, especially in children, and to claims for damages in the millions.
• Professor Christopher Kuhbandner: About the lack of scientific justification for the corona measures: „The reported figures on new infections very dramatically overestimate the true spread of the corona virus. The observed rapid increase in new infections is almost exclusively due to the fact that the number of tests has increased rapidly over time (see figure below). So, at least according to the reported figures, there was in reality never an exponential spread of the coronavirus. The reported figures on new infections hide the fact that the number of new infections has been decreasing since about early or mid-March.“

Green: Real increase of infected people; red: increase due to more tests.

Sweden: The media versus reality

Some readers were surprised by the decrease in deaths in Sweden, as most media show a steeply rising curve. What is the reason for this? Most media show cumulative figures by date of reporting, while the Swedish authorities publish the much more meaningful daily figures by date of death.

The Swedish authorities always stress that not all newly reported cases have died within the last 24 hours, but many media ignore this (see graph below). Although the latest Swedish figures may still increase somewhat, as in all countries, this does not change the generally declining trend.

In addition, these figures represent deaths with and not necessarily from coronavirus. The average age of death in Sweden is also over 80 years, about 50% of deaths occurred in vulnerable nursing homes, while the effect on the general population has remained minimal, even though Sweden has one of the lowest intensive care capacities in Europe.

However, the Swedish government has also been given new emergency powers due to „corona“ and could still participate in later contact tracing programmes.

Cumulative deaths by date of reporting vs. daily deaths by date of death. (OWD / FOHM)

The situation in Great Britain

Deaths in the UK have risen sharply in recent weeks, but are still in the range of the strongest flu seasons of the last fifty years (see chart below). In the UK, too, up to 50% of additional deaths occur in nursing homes, which do not benefit from a general lockdown.

Moreover, up to 50% of the additional deaths are said to be non-Covid19 deaths and up to 25% of the additional deaths occur at home. It is therefore not at all clear whether the general lockdown is beneficial or in fact detrimental to society at large.

The editor of the British Spectator has claimed that government agencies expect the lockdown to result in up to 150,000 additional deaths in the longer term, significantly more than what Covid19 is expected to cause. Most recently, the case of a 17-year-old student and singer who took her own life because of the lockdown became known.

It is striking that England, in contrast to most other countries (including Sweden), has a significantly elevated mortality rate even among 15 to 64-year-olds. This could be due to the frequent cardiovascular preconditions, or it might be caused by the effects of the lockdown.

The InProportion project has published numerous new graphs that put current UK mortality in relation to previous flu outbreaks and other causes of death. Other websites that critically review the British situation and measures are Lockdown Skeptics and UK Column.

UK: Weekly all-cause mortality (InProportion)

Switzerland: Excess mortality well below strong flu waves

• A first serological study by the University of Geneva concluded that at least six times more people in the canton of Geneva had contact with Covid19 than previously thought. This means that the lethality of Covid19 in Switzerland also falls well below one percent, while official sources still speak of up to 5%.
• Even in the most severely affected canton of Ticino, almost half of the additional deaths occurred in nursing homes that do not benefit from the general lockdown.
• In Switzerland, 1.85 million people or over a third of all employees have already been registered for short-time work. The economic costs are estimated at 32 billion for the period from March to June.
• Infosperber: Corona: The parroting of the media. „Major media outlets are hiding the fact that they rely on opaque data for Covid-19 numbers.“
• Ktipp: Swiss authorities: Almost all numbers ‚without guarantee‘. „This year fewer under-65s died in the first 14 weeks than in the last five years. Among the over-65s, the number was also relatively low.“

The following graph shows that overall mortality in Switzerland in the first quarter of 2020 was in the normal range and that by mid-April it was still around 2000 people below the flu wave of 2015. 50% of deaths occurred in nursing homes that do not benefit from a lockdown.

Overall, around 75% of the additional deaths occurred at home, while hospitals and intensive care units remain heavily underutilized and numerous operations have been cancelled. In Switzerland, too, the very serious question thus arises as to whether the „lockdown“ may have cost more lives than it saved.

Cumulated deaths compared to expected value, 2010 to 2020 (BFS)

Political updates

• Video: In the Australian state of Queensland, a police helicopter with night-vision equipment tracked down three young men who were drinking a beer on the roof of a house at night, thus violating „Corona regulations“. The men were informed via a megaphone that the building is „surrounded by police“ and that they must proceed to the exit. The men were fined about $1000 each.
• In Israel, the domestic and anti-terrorism intelligence agency Shin Bet, in cooperation with the police, has been tasked to monitor the population’s mobile phones since mid-March in order to track contacts and order house arrest in the context of Covid19. These measures were initially ordered without the consent of Parliament and are due to remain in place until at least the end of April.
• OffGuardian: The Seven Step Path from Pandemic to Totalitarianism
• UK Column: Who controls the British Government response to Covid-19?
• The corona-critical Swiss doctor, who was arrested by a special unit of the Swiss police and sent to a psychiatric clinic (see update of April 15), has meanwhile been released. A report by the magazine Weltwoche revealed that the doctor was arrested on false grounds: there had been no threat to relatives or authorities and there had been no possession of a loaded weapon. Thus, a politically motivated operation seems likely.
• A Munich local radio station, which interviewed doctors critical of corona in March, was informedby the responsible media supervisory authority after complaints that „such problematic broadcasts must be stopped in the future“.
• The website kollateral.news of a German specialist lawyer is collecting reports on „suffering due to the lockdown“ and on the actual situation in German hospitals.
• German general practitioners have published an appeal to politics and science in which they call for „a more responsible handling of the corona crisis“.
• Both in Austria and in Hungary, doctors who have criticised the corona measures are threatened with a ban from their profession.
• In Nigeria, according to official figures, more people have so far been killed by the police enforcing corona curfews than by the corona virus itself.

May 6, 2020

Expert interviews

• Stanford professor John Ioannidis explains in an interview with CNN that Covid19 is a „widespread and mild disease“ comparable to influenza (flu) for the general population, while patients in nursing homes and hospitals should receive extra protection.
• Stanford professor Scott Atlas explains in an interview with CNN that „the idea of having to stop Covid19 has created a catastrophic health care situation“. Professor Atlas says that the disease is „generally mild“ and that irrational fears had been created. He adds that there is „absolutely no reason“ for extensive testing in the general population, which is only necessary in hospitals and nursing homes. Professor Atlas wrote an article at the end of April entitled „The data are in – Stop the panic and end total isolation“ that received over 15,000 comments.
• Epidemiologist Dr Knut Wittkowski explains in a new interview that the danger of Covid19 is comparable to an influenza and that the peak was already passed in most countries before the lockdown. The lockdown of entire societies was a „catastrophic decision“ without benefits but causing enormous damage. The most important measure is the protection of nursing homes. According to Dr. Wittkowski, Bill Gates‘ statements on Covid19 are „absurd“ and „have nothing to do with reality“. Dr. Wittkowski considers a vaccination against Covid19 „not necessary“ and the influential Covid19 model of British epidemiologist Neil Ferguson a „complete failure“.
• German virologist Hendrik Streeck explains the final results of his pioneering antibody study. Professor Streeck found a Covid19 lethality of 0.36%, but explains that this is an upper limit and the lethality is probably in the range of 0.24 to 0.26% or even below. The average age of test-positive deceased was approximately 81 years.
• Biology professor and Nobel Prize winner Michael Levitt, who has been analyzing the spread of Covid19 since February, describes the general lockdown as a „huge mistake“ and calls for more targeted measures, especially to protect risk groups.
• The emeritus microbiology professor Sucharit Bhakdi explains in a new German interview that politics and the media have been conducting an „intolerable fear-mongering“ and an „irres pon sible disinformation campaign“. According to professor Bhakdi, face masks for the general population are not needed and may in fact be harmful „germ catchers“. The current crisis was brought about by the politicians themselves and has little to do with the virus, he argues, while a vaccine against coronavirus is „unnecessary and dangerous“, as was already the case with swine flu. The WHO has „never taken responsibility for its many wrong decisions over the years“, professor Bhakdi adds. (Note: The video was temporarily deleted by YouTube).
• The Swiss chief physician for infectiology, Dr. Pietro Vernazza, explains in a new interview that the Covid19 disease is „mild for the vast majority of people“. The „counting of infected people and the call for more tests“ would not help much. In addition, most of the people listed in the corona statistics did not die solely from Covid-19. According to Dr. Vernazza, there is no evidence for the benefit of face masks in people who do not show symptoms themselves (archive).

Medical studies

• A new overview of existing PCR and antibody studies shows that the median value of Covid19 lethality (IFR) is about 0.2% and thus in the range of a strong influenza.
• A new antibody study with Danish blood donors showed a very low Covid19 lethality (IFR) of 0.08% for persons under 70 years of age.
• A new antibody study from Iran, one of the earliest and most affected countries by Covid19, also showed a very low lethality of 0.08% to 0.12%.
• A new antibody study from Japan comes to the conclusion that about 400 to 800 times more people there had contact with the new coronavirus than previously thought, but showed no or hardly any symptoms. Japan had done rather few tests so far.
• A new study from Germany, with the participation of leading virologist Christian Drosten, shows that about one third of the population already has some cellular immunity to the Covid19 corona virus, presumably through contact with earlier corona viruses (cold viruses). This cellular immunity by so-called T-cells is significantly higher than PCR and antibody tests suggested and may partly explain why many people develop no symptoms with the new coronavirus.
• In a prison in the US state of Tennessee, only two out of 1349 test-positive people showed any symptoms at all.
• On the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, none of 1046 test-positive sailors have died so far. On the US aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, one of 969 test-positive sailors has died so far (preconditions and exact cause of death are not known). This yields a lethality rate of 0 to 0.1% for this population group.
• Numerous media reported about alleged „re-infections“ of already recovered persons in South Korea. However, researchers have now come to the conclusion that all of the 290 suspected cases were false-positive test results caused by „non-infectious virus fragments“. The result again highlights the well-known unreliability of PCR virus tests.

Other medical updates

• Numerous media reported that in connection with Covid19, more and more children would fall ill with so-called Kawasaki disease (a vascular inflammation). However, the UK’s Kawasaki Disease Foundation issued a press release stating that fewer, not more, Kawasaki cases are currently being reported than usual and that of the few cases reported, only about half had tested positive for corona virus.
• In an open letter to the French Ministry of Health, a French doctor speaks of Covid19 as „the biggest health scam of the 21st century“. The danger of the virus for the general population is in the range of influenza and the consequences of the lockdown are more dangerous than the virus itself, the French doctor argues.
• In France, it became known during a subsequent investigation that the first Covid19-positive patient had already been treated at the end of December 2019, one month earlier than previously assumed. The man was being treated for what appeared to be flu-related pneumonia. This case shows that the new corona virus either arrived in Europe earlier than assumed, or that it is not as new as assumed, or that the test result was a false-positive. In addition, it is not clear whether the man, who has long since recovered, was actually suffering from flu or corona virus or both.
• The Executive Director of the WHO recently praised Sweden as a successful model for handling Covid19. Sweden had implemented its health policy successfully and „in partnership with the population“, he said. Previously, Sweden had been heavily criticized for weeks by foreign media and politicians for its relaxed approach to Covid19.
• Belarus, which took the least action against Covid19 of all European countries and did not even cancel major events like soccer matches, is counting only 103 test-positive or suspected Covid19 deaths after more than two months. The Belarusian long-term president Lukashenko called Corona a „psychosis“. Critics argue he is not disclosing the real number of deaths.
• An extensive literature review by a Canadian researcher found that face masks do not provide measurable protection against colds and influenza.
• A Swiss chief psychiatrist expects a sharp increase in psychological problems and more than 10,000 additional suicides worldwide due to the global lockdown and unemployment.
• The so-called reproduction number, which indicates the proliferation of Covid, is increasingly becoming a political issue. However, this does not change the facts: the peak of the spread was already reached in most countries before the lockdown and the reproduction ratio fell to or below the stable value of one due to simple everyday and hygiene measures. The lockdown was therefore epidemiologically unnecessary.
• The clinical picture and risk groups of Covid19 corona viruses are probably related to the use of the so-called ACE2 cell receptor, which is found in the bronchi and lungs, but also in blood vessels, the intestines and kidneys. However, other coronaviruses, in particular the common cold virus NL63, also use the ACE2 cell receptor. Some researchers therefore expect that the Covid19 coronavirus, too, will be seen as a typical cold virus in the medium term.
• The exact origin of the new corona virus is still unclear. The easiest explanation remains natural transmission or mutation, which happens quite often. It is true, however, that the virological laboratory in Wuhan, as part of a research programme co-financed by the US, studied corona viruses from bats and also examined their transmissibility to other mammals, something that has been criticised for years by some researchers as too risky. The direcotr of the laboratory, however, explained that the new virus did not correspond to the corona viruses investigated in the laboratory. At any rate, earlier rumours about „bioweapons“ or „HIV sequences“ turned out to be disinformation given the relative harmlessness of the corona virus.

Nursing Homes

Nursing homes play an absolutely key role in the current corona situation. In most Western countries, 30% to 70% of all deaths „related to Covid“ occurred in nursing homes (in some regions even up to 90%). It is also known from northern Italy that the crisis there began with a panic-induced collapse of nursing care for the elderly.

Nursing homes require targeted protection and do not benefit from a general lockdown of society. If one looks only at the deaths in the general population, in most countries these are in the range of a normal or even mild wave of influenza.

Moreover, in many cases it is not clear what people in nursing homes really died of, i.e. whether it was Covid19 or stress, fear and loneliness. From Belgium, for example, it is known that about 94% of all deaths in nursing homes are untested „presumed cases“.

A new analysis of French statistics moreover shows the following: as soon as there is a „suspected case“ in a nursing home (e.g. due to coughing), all deaths are considered „suspected Covid19 deaths“, and as soon as there is a „confirmed case“ in a nursing home (even if symptomless), all deaths are considered „confirmed Covid19 deaths“.

A report from Germany vividly describes the extreme conditions under which hundreds of thousands of patients in care and nursing homes have had to live in recent weeks, often against their will. Many of the patients were barely allowed to leave their rooms, were no longer allowed to go out into the fresh air or receive visits from their relatives.

In several nursing homes, the error-prone PCR virus test moreover led to serious false alarms and panic. In one Canadian nursing home, employees fled in fear of the corona virus, resulting in the tragic death of 31 patients due to lack of care.

The former New York Times journalist and Corona critic Alex Berenson writes on Twitter: „Let’s be clear: the fact the nursing home deaths are not front and center every day in elite media coverage of COVID tells you everything you need to know about the media’s priority – which is instilling panic (and punishing Trump), not driving good health policy.“

Full analysis: Mortality associated with COVID-19 outbreaks in care homes: early international evidence (LTC Covid, May 2020)

Deaths in nursing homes, absolute and percentage figures (LTC Covid)

Great Britain

• Cumulative all-cause mortality in the UK remains in the range of the five strongest flu waves in the last 25 years. The peak in daily hospital deaths was already reached on April 8 (s. chart below).
• New statistical data show that in mid-April, out of about 12,000 additional deaths, about 9,000 were „related to Covid“ (including „suspected cases“), but about 3,000 were „not related to Covid“. Moreover, of the total of about 7300 deaths in nursing homes, only about 2000 were „related to Covid“. In both the „Covid19 deaths“ and the non-covid19 deaths, it is often unclearwhat these people actually died of. The Association of British Pathologists has therefore called for a „systematic review of the true causes of death“.
• The temporary „Nightingale“ hospitals in the UK have so far remained largely empty. A similar situation was already seen in China, the US and many other countries.
• At the end of April it became known that the lockdown was apparently not, as officially stated, recommended by a scientific commission alone, but that a high government advisor had „pushed“ the scientists to support the lockdown.
• Peter Hitchens: We’re destroying the nation’s wealth – and the health of millions. „If you don’t defend your most basic freedom, the one to go lawfully where you wish when you wish, then you will lose it for ever. And that is not all you will lose. Look at the censorship of the internet, spreading like a great dark blot, the death of Parliament, the conversion of the police into a state militia.“

England: Test-positive deaths in hosptials (NHS)

United States

• The latest report from the US CDC shows that the Covid19 hospitalization rate among the over-65s is in the range of strong flu waves. It is slightly higher among 18 to 64-year-olds and significantly lower among those under 18.
• Video: A nurse from New York City stated in a dramatic video that New York does „murder“ Covid19 patients by putting them on invasive ventilators and destroying their lungs. The use of the invasive ventilators (instead of oxygen masks) is done „for fear of spreading the virus“. It is „a horror movie“, „not because of the disease, but because of the way it is dealt with“, the nurse explained. Experts have been warning since March against intubation of Covid19 patients.
• Dr. Daniel Murphy, the head of emergency medicine at a heavily affected hospital in New York City, recommends a quick end to the lockdown. According to Dr Murphy, the Covid19 wave had already reached its peak on April 7th. Covid19 is a serious matter, but the fear of it is exaggerated, as the vast majority of the population gets at most mildly ill. His biggest concern now is the sharp decline in the care of emergency patients and children due to the lockdown and the widespread fear in the population.
• Video: The conservative Project Veritas whistleblower platform spoke with New York funeral home directors who stated that currently Covid is written „on all death certificates“ (of suspected cases), whether there was a test or not. Many people are currently dying at home, and often the exact cause of death is no longer checked. The Covid19 statistics are inflated for political or financial reasons, the directors stated.
• The director of the Illinois Department of Health confirmed that even terminally ill people who clearly die of another cause but who test positive for Covid19 virus before or after death are recorded as Covid19 deaths.
• Due to the lockdown, 30 million people in the US have already applied for unemployment benefits by the end of April – that is significantly more than the International Labour Office ILO originally assumed for the entire world.
• Tesla boss Elon Musk called the California curfews „fascist“. The „forced imprisonment“ of people in their homes violates all their constitutional rights, Musk explained in a telephone conference.
• Video: A Wisconsin mother was confronted by police at her home because her children played illegally with neighbor children.
• Video: In late April, some photographers were caught in a partial staging of a protest by care workers against anti-lockdown demonstrators. (Read more).

Switzerland

• Cumulative deaths since the beginning of the year in Switzerland remain within the range of a normal flu epidemic and far below the strong flu epidemic of 2015 (see graph below). Around 50% of deaths occurred in care and nursing homes.
• The Swiss government plans to transform the current corona emergency decrees into a permanent urgent federal law. Most Swiss media have not reported on this far-reaching announcement, or have done so only marginally.
• The Swiss Armed Forces began testing an app for contact tracing that is to be introduced on 11 May in collaboration with Google and Apple. Meanwhile, a Swiss „data protection office“ declared: „If the contact tracing app is suitable and necessary, it does not need to be voluntary“.
• Various vigils were held on the Swiss Bundesplatz in Berne with around 400 participants who spoke out against restrictions on constitutional rights. The rallies were cleared by the police.
• In the context of Covid19 , it was not the long-established Swiss Pandemic Commission that was used, but a newly founded „Covid-19 Task Force“, some of whose members have conflicts of interest in the pharmaceutical sector.
• Video: „Does the Swiss government belong in prison?“ Swiss journalist Reto Brennwald interviewed the entrepreneur Daniel Stricker, who temporarily fled Switzerland to Sweden in mid-March and strongly criticizes the corona policy of the Swiss government.
• A Swiss nurse has written a highly shared article on the current situation. She explains that Swiss hospitals have remained largely empty and in some cases had to furlough staff. She also says it is very unusual to transfer people over 80 years of age to intensive care units because of flu or pneumonia, where they then have to die alone instead of with their families. If this were done, the intensive care units would be overloaded almost every winter. The nurse criticises that most of the media have not sufficiently addressed the recent scientific findings on the rather low overall risk of Covid19.

Cumulative deaths compared to expected deaths, 2010 to 2020 (KW17, BFS/Stotz)

Germany and Austria

• According to a leaked protocol of the Austrian Corona Task Force, Chancellor Kurz is said to have demanded in March that the population should be „more afraid“ of infection or death of parents or grandparents. A strategy paper of the German Federal Ministry of the Interior had already become known earlier, which also called for a psychological fear campaign that was indeed implemented by politicians and the media. In retrospect, the question arises as to how many people died as a result of this largely unfounded fear.
• An open letter with already about 5000 signatures from people over 64 years of age demands: „Corona: Don’t protect us older people at this price! Let us decide for ourselves!“ For the protection of risk groups, the basic rights of the entire society should not be overridden, the authors argue.
• In Austria (and possibly also in other countries) kissing among people in love but not living together is still forbidden. This applies both in public and in one’s own flat, explained the Austrian Minister of Health.
• A German lawyer is currently suing in several courts against the government anti-corona measures, as they are „blatantly unconstitutional“.
• Videos: In Germany there have recently been several cases of serious police overreach. A young woman was brutally arrested by several police officers while shopping, as she had apparently „got 20cm too close“ to a policewoman. Another woman was instructed by the police at a rally not to hold the German constitution in front of her chest, as this was an „illegal political message“. The organizer of a peaceful rally in Berlin was also arrested in a rather brutal fashion. Even older women were arrested in a disproportionate manner. (Caution: disturbing footage of police violence).

Other updates

• The CEO of Youtube announced in an interview at the end of April that video contributions on coronavirus that contradict the guidelines of the WHO or national health authorities will be removed. For example, the video of the two skeptic Californian emergency doctors, which had over five million views, was deleted. Likewise, the interview with Professor Sucharit Bhakdi linked above was at least temporarily removed by Youtube.
• In the US magazine The Atlantic, two law professors wrote an article entitled: „Internet Speech Will Never Go Back to Normal. In the debate over freedom versus control of the global network, China was largely correct, and the U.S. was wrong.“
• Mathias Döpfner, CEO of Axel Springer and one of the most influential media managers in Germany, calls for a „decoupling from China“ and a strengthening of the transatlantic alliance with the USA in the wake of the Corona crisis.
• Washington Post: „The last time the government sought a ‚warp speed‘ vaccine, it was a fiasco“. The 1976 swine flu express vaccination led to paralysis and deaths.
• Looking back: Woodstock Occurred in the Middle of a Pandemic. On the rather relaxed handling of the global flu pandemic of 1968 (read more).

Covid-19 and the media

A lot of people are shocked by the dubious and often fear-mongering Covid19 reporting of many media outlets. Obviously, this is not „ordinary reporting“, but classical and massive propaganda, as it is typically employed in connection with wars of aggression or alleged terrorism.

SPR has depicted the media networks responsible for the dissemination of such propaganda in earlier infographics for the USA, for Germany and for Switzerland. Even the supposedly „open“ Internet lexicon Wikipedia is an integral part of this geopolitical media structure.

The political stance and relationship to power of different media outlets have been analyzed and compared as part of the SPR Media Navigator. The Media Navigator may also be helpful in evaluating the current Covid19 reporting by different media outlets.

If, for example, pictures of soldiers in protective suits disinfecting entire streets are seen on television, this does not prove the danger of the corona virus, but rather – as Professor Giesecke put it benevolently – proves useless „political activism“. Or as others would put it: propaganda.

Covid-19 and mass surveillance

By far the most significant and, from a civil society perspective, the most dangerous development in response to the coronavirus is the apparent political attempt to massively expand mass surveillance and control of society. In this context, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden warned of the emergence of an „architecture of oppression“.

The flu-like coronavirus may serve as a rationale or pretext for the introduction of strategic measuresto expand monitoring and control of an increasingly uneasy society. The most important instruments currently under discussion by several governments include:

1. The introduction of applications for „tracing“ contacts across society
2. The establishment of units to enforce the tracing and isolation of citizens
3. The introduction of digital biometric ID cards to control and regulate participation in social and professional activities.
4. The extended control of travel and payment transactions (including the abolition of cash).
5. The creation of a legal basis for access to and intervention in citizens‘ biological systems by governments or corporations (based on so-called „compulsory vaccinations“).

In the US, former President Bill Clinton discussed the introduction of a national network of „contact tracers“ with governors of various states in April. The governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, then announced that together with billionaire and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, he would create a „contact tracing army“ with up to 17,000 contact tracers for New York.

Meanwhile, in the UK and many other countries, governments are calling for the introduction of biometric „immunity passports“ and presenting them as the allegedly „only way out“ of the primarily politically motivated lockdown. The British Tony Blair Institute called for the „expansion of technological surveillance“ to „combat the corona virus“.

In the US, the Silicon Valley data analysis company Palantir is to play a key role in setting up the data platform for monitoring the (already declining) spread of the corona virus. Palantir is known for its IT projects with intelligence agencies and the military and was founded by US billionaire and Trump supporter Peter Thiel.

In Israel, contact monitoring of the civilian population is carried out by the domestic intelligence service Shin Bet, using programs from the notorious NSO Group, known for its spy software used to monitor civil and human rights activists around the world.

Countries like Russia and China also want to massively expand the surveillance of the population in the wake of the alleged „corona crisis“, but will most likely do so independently of the US.

The idea that a pandemic can be used to expand control of the population is not new: as early as 2010, the American Rockefeller Foundation described a „lock step scenario“ in a report on future technological and social developments, in which current events were anticipated with impressive accuracy (pages 18ff). At the time, the scenario was conceived as a kind of authoritarian „worst case“.

Meanwhile, more than 500 scientists have warned in an open letter against „unprecedented surveillance of society“ through contact tracking apps.

The so-called Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins University, which is at the heart of the Covid19 pandemic management and which has contributed greatly to the global escalation through its misleading charts, is also very closely linked to the US security apparatus and has been involved in some of its earlier simulations and operations.

In general, cooperation with private actors to achieve geostrategic goals is not a new or unusual phenomenon in US foreign and security policy.

For instance, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, the most important private sponsor of the WHO, the vaccine industry and biometric ID projects, financed a Global Health Program of the US Council on Foreign Relations as early as 2003, which is concerned with the question of how health policy influences geopolitics and, conversely, how health policy can be used to achieve geostrategic goals.

*

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 first appeared on GR on June 2016.

The double standard in the media’s treatment of U.S. plans and actions (“us”) and those of  our allies, on the one hand, and enemy/target plans and actions (“them”), on the other hand, applies at many levels. The United States has been intervening and fighting wars abroad almost continuously since World War II. 

This has involved frequent aggressions, using standard definitions of the word, with many of them extremely destructive, and with effects often not consistent with claimed objectives and very costly to U.S. taxpayers. But these cannot be designated “aggression” in our well-honed propaganda system. That word is reserved for dastardly actions such as the Russian takeover of Crimea.

A useful introduction to the lexicon of aggression apologetics can be read from a piece on “Our New Isolationism” by Bill Keller, published in the New York Times on September 9, 2013, and aimed at justifying an enlarged U.S. participation in the war on Syria. Keller, the Executive Editor at the Times for some eight years (2003-2011), was the sponsor of reporter Judith Miller’s notorious war propaganda, and he himself led the Times to support the invasion-occupation-destruction of Iraq from 2003. It is amusing to read Keller in 2013 saying that ”To be sure, nothing has done more to discredit an activist  foreign policy than the blind missionary arrogance of the Bush administration [in Iraq and Afghanistan].”  But if Keller could swallow the fairly obvious lies of Bush war propaganda ten years earlier, and ignore throughout the Iraq war and occupation the gross violations of international law, why should anybody trust his judgment as he tries to rationalize the next war? What does it tell us about the paper that he could survive there as a leader for eight years (and many more as a reporter, Managing Editor and columnist) and still be able to use it for more war propaganda a decade later?

We may note that in 2013 Keller didn’t use the word “aggression” to describe the invasion-occupation of Iraq, nor is Bush described in negative terms beyond “arrogant” even after having destroyed a country and bearing prime responsibility for the killing of possibly a million people. Bush pursued an “activist” foreign policy, and in this article Keller calls for more “activism,” though not with “missionary arrogance,” but only with imperialist-apologetic arrogance. The new target, Assad, is a “merciless dictator,” whereas Bush is not merciless but only arrogant. Keller has other euphemisms for pre-approved military interventions abroad: there is “foreign engagement,” “a more assertive foreign policy,” and “calibrated interventions to shift the balance.” And no question is raised as to the motives behind any new distant military intervention by us.

Keller clears the decks of any possible non-benign or less-than-benevolent aims: he dismisses the idea that the Israelis might be “duping us into fighting their wars,” but he doesn’t mention AIPAC or any neocon influence on policy, and, of course, he never mentions the military-industrial complex and its possible influence on policy. He is just sure that our “vital interests” are at stake in Syria and he hopes that Congress can elicit from the President a recognition of those interests and a “strategy that looks beyond the moment.” Only rival states and those competing with us or our allies have expansionary internal dynamics and dubious aims.

Leaving this comic book-worthy analysis and getting back to the omnipresent double standard, a conspicuous manifestation is in the media’s use of  “purr” and “snarl” words and comparable phrases. The United States and its allies and their leaders are never “merciless dictators” and “butchers” that commit “horrors,” but Assad can be so described (“Syria’s Horrors,” ed., NYT , February 25, 2012; ”Assad the Butcher,” ed., NYT, June 9, 2012; Keller, above). Only leaders of enemy/target states have “tantrums.” (“North Korea’s Latest Tantrum,” ed., NYT, July 14, 2010), resort to “cash and charm” to create divisions among target states (“With Cash and Charm, Putin Sows E.U. Divide,” NYT, April 7, 2016 [the NYT almost never mentions Putin without denigrating adjectives, in a kind of lengthy childish tantrum of its own]); make “brazen nuclear moves (“North Korea’s Brazen Nuclear Moves,” ed, NYT, May 2.  2016); or need to be “reined in.” (“The Best Chance to Rein in Iran,” ed., NYT, July 15, 2015). Surely Israel and the United States don’t have to be reined in; Israel’s steady dispossessions and periodic major assaults are only  retaliating and protecting its national security in the face  of  inexplicable Palestinian terror. The United States was busy “containing” the Soviet Union as the US built its world-wide system of military bases from 1945 to 1990, and it has recently been compelled to contain Russia as the Soviet successor regime threatens all of its neighbors, who cower in fear while the United States seeks to reassure them with denunciations of Russia, arms, bases, training exercises and efforts to get the major EU countries to increase military spending.

Poor NATO has been driven by this resurgent Russian imperialism into defensive responses (Eric Schmitt and Steven Lee Myers, “NATO Refocuses On the Kremlin, Its Original Foe,” NYT, June 24, 2015). We only respond as Russia provokes and tests us (Steven Castle, “Russia Tests Distant Water, Resurfacing Cold War Fears,” NYT, May 11, 2015). It is not permissible in the mainstream to suggest that the Kremlin is the one engaging in defensive moves against an expanding NATO; that the U.S.-NATO sponsorship of an anti-Russian coup in Kiev in February 2014, which threatened the major Russian naval base in Crimea, virtually forced a Russian military response. This is avoided in the Times and its confreres by ignoring the coup and its U.S.-NATO link and blacking out the fact that NATO has been steadily expanding and encircling Russia since 1996, perhaps regarding this process as anticipatory self-defense.

The ability to get indignant over the casualty-free Russian takeover of Crimea, by the government that invaded Iraq in a not-casualty-free war of choice only a little more than a decade back, is startling.  It is testimony to the power of the double standard and the ability of  politicians at home and in the EU, media and public to block out inconvenient facts. On the same topic it must be considered an Orwellian classic of forgetfulness that Kerry could have stated in 2015 that “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on a completely trumped-up pretext” (Face the Nation, CBS News, March 2, 2015). This was not only a perfect case of purposeful forgetfulness, it was a double lie, as the Russians had a real national security case for their action, whereas the true “trumped up case” was the one concocted for the Iraq invasion. But no U.S. mainstream publication chortled at Kerry’s Orwellian performance.

An equally interesting case of rewriting history was the claim by Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk during an interview on the German TV channel ARD in January 2015,  that “Russian aggression in Ukraine is an attack on world order and order in Europe. All of us still clearly remember the Soviet invasion of Ukraine and Germany. [Emphasis added.] That has to be avoided. And nobody has the right to rewrite the results of the Second World War. And that is exactly what Russia’s President Putin is trying to do.” Interestingly, the interviewer on this program made no comment and asked no questions about this claim of a Soviet invasion of Ukraine and Germany in World War II. (See Lena Sokoll, “Ukraine Premier’s Pro-Nazi version of World War II: USSR invade Ukraine, Germany,” WSWs.org, January 19, 2015.)  And you may be sure that neither the New York Times nor any other mainstream English language publication reported this nugget. It should be recalled that Yatsenyuk is the “Yats” who U.S. official Victoria Nuland suggested before the February 22, 2014 coup in Kiev would be an appropriate choice to head the new regime, and who did, in fact, soon become Prime Minister.

Just as the “lie that wasn’t shot down” about Korean airliner 007 served the Cold War militarization plans of the Reagan administration, so the media’s handling of the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner MH-17 flying over Ukraine on July 17, 2014, has served the Obama administration in its anti-Russian campaign. U.S. officials, led by John Kerry, immediately claimed that they  had tracked the killer missile, knew exactly where it came from and that it was the Russian-backed rebels who did it. But the U.S. intelligence report that soon followed indicated that there was uncertainty as to the perpetrators, and there was no evidence that the rebels possessed Buk missiles that could have reached the necessary 33,000  feet. The Kiev government forces did have such missiles and capability.

However, in another telling manifestation of the ability of the powerful to use disinformation to convert a tragedy into a propaganda coup, Kerry’s evidence-free and dubious accusations immediately became a Western truth that was used to smear the Russians and underpin a new sanctions regime against them. A very sluggish investigation into the shootdown was organized by the West, with the NATO-member Dutch in charge, the Russians excluded and the Kiev government a participant with a veto power over the findings.  The report which followed, after  over a year lag, concluded  that the plane had been shot down by a Russian-made Buk missile, but it came to no firm conclusion on the directly responsible parties. The United States has still not produced its evidence showing rebel-Russian guilt, but the DSB failed to mention, let alone criticize, this U.S. silence, and its focus on the Russian-made Buk as the instrument of destruction made it possible for the Western media to continue the initially established guilt claims against Western targets (Russia and the “Russian-backed rebels”).

The New York Times, as in the previous case of the “lie that was not shot down,” could continue to play dumb, refuse to investigate, and fail to call for the United States to disclose publicly its evidence of  “Russian-supported rebel” guilt. It also added its touch of continuing bias in supposed news reports. For example, the “news” reports repeatedly mention that the missile that struck MH-17 was “Russian made,” but they never feature or even mention that the Kiev government had such missiles whereas the rebels did not—which allows them to tie the killing to Russia, without a hint that it was not Russia that used it in the present case. (“Nicola Clark and Andrew E. Kramer, “Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Most Likely Hit by Russian-Made Missile, Inquiry Says,” NYT, October 13, 2014.

Neither in their news reports nor in their editorial on the case does the Times ever ask the question of who benefits from the shootdown? The Russians and rebels had neither military nor political reasons for the act. On the other hand, the Kiev government and the United States would gain if the shootdown could be blamed on the Russians and rebels, a benefit that was, in fact realized. I don’t claim that this proves who did it. But it does raise questions that are worth thinking about. The Times and Western media in general ignore the issue. In its editorial on the subject, the Times makes the Russians guilty because, while the DSB didn’t find them guilty, their detailed findings are “consistent with theories advanced by the United States and Ukraine,” so we can take Russian guilt as proven! (“Russia’s Fictions on Malaysia Flight 17,” NYT, ed., October 15, 2015) This idiotic non-sequitur is also supported by Russia’s “doing its best to thwart investigations,” a lie in light of thwarted Russian efforts to participate in the investigation. It is notable here that the Times doesn’t raise a question about the U.S. failure to supply the DSB with any data that would support Kerry’s initial claim of possession of crucial evidence. That is really thwarting a meaningful investigation. (Robert Parry, “MH-17: The Dog Still Not Barking,” Consortiumnews, October 15, 2015. “The Dog Not Barking in the Dutch report…is the silence regarding U.S. intelligence information that supposedly had pinned down key details just after the crash but has been kept secret.”)

In short, there are no holds barred in this government-media propaganda barrage. Lie after lie can be brought forward and refuted only in a marginalized media, with dire implications for democratic rule. We may recall James Madison’s 1822 statement that “a popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both.”

• First published at Z Magazine, June 2016

Edward S. Herman is an economist and media analyst with a specialty in corporate and regulatory issues as well as political economy and the media.Read other articles by Edward.

Another nurse who has traveled to New York City to help with treating COVID-19 patients has gone public, describing the horrors she is seeing in how patients are being treated.

Nicole Sirotek is reported to be from Nevada, and she expressed her frustrations in a Facebook Live broadcast, apparently Sunday, May 3rd. Her video and Facebook Page appear to have been removed by Facebook Monday morning, although the video has surfaced elsewhere.

While trying to hold back her tears, she claims:

“Nobody is listening. They don’t care what is happening to these people. They don’t. I’m literally coming here every day and watching them kill them.”

She explains that everyone coming into her hospital, which she claims is “in the hood,” is labeled as a COVID patient, but that they are not dying from COVID, but from poor medical care.

She claims that every time she tries to advocate for her patients because they are receiving poor medical care, that they reassign the patient to someone else.

Because her patients are minorities, Latinos at the first hospital she was at, and Blacks at her current assignment, she has even tried to reach out to advocacy groups who specialize in advocating for these minority groups, but no one seems to want to listen to her.

100% of her patients have died, and she makes it clear that although she is not a doctor, she is sure that these patients are not getting the proper treatment they deserve.

She claims that she has even been assigned to care for patients that are already dead, because medical personnel are not even using disposable stethoscopes to verify that they are still alive.

This is going to be kind of an extreme example, but this is really the only thing I can come up with. It’s like if we were in Nazi Germany and they were like, taking the Jews to go put them in a gas chamber.

I’m the one there saying like, “Hey, this is not good, this is bad, this is wrong, we should not be doing this.”

Then everyone tells me “hang in there, you’re doing a great job, you can’t save everybody. You’re amazing, you’re a great nurse.”

Watch her entire testimony. (BEWARE: GRAPHIC LANGUAGE!)

It is obvious that Nicole is very upset and passionate about what she is speaking about, being on the front lines like this.

Some may question the accuracy of her description of what is actually going on in this NYC hospital. But she is putting her career on the line by going public like this.

In spite of efforts to censor what she is reporting, other medical professionals have come forward to report similar experiences, and question the official narrative that the corporate media is portraying about COVID-19.

One such person reached out to Health Impact News, stating that they had 43 years of clinical diagnostics experience, including 25 years of that 43 working for medical device manufactures as a biomedical field service engineer and technical consultant.

This person reported to us:

I installed, repaired, trouble shot and validated laboratory instrumentation. My territory was NYC and the 5 boroughs; Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan and Staten Island. The reason I found so many opportunities is because no one else wanted the NYC territory.

The situation Nurse Sirotek described is not new. It’s the entire NYC Health Care System, not isolated to “the hood” as Nurse Sirotek describes.

While the consequences of inadequate care are much more critical in the patient care setting; ICU, Operating rooms, the situation in the hospital laboratories are equally as bad.

Compounding the problem are the members of the bureaucracy that head up the regulatory agencies responsible for ensuring hospitals are compliant with Federal, State and Local regulations.

I’ve worked in NY hospital labs that didn’t even have soap and hot water. It is so bad that when friends, co-workers and I discuss what we would do if we needed to be hospitalized for COVID 19, we all agree we would have a better chance of surviving if we self quarantined at home.

As an FSE you are required to contact the company’s dispatcher when you arrive and leave a hospital account. Most often, a dispatcher would be one of the few people that would know where you are.

More often than not, I would call in to dispatch and say “I’m headed to account XYZ. If I’m involved in an accident, tell EMS to leave me on site to die!”

Here are a few others that have reported similar experiences that we have already published, and which have gone viral and are therefore difficult to censor now.

How many others are there out there that have tried to come forward and have been censored, or are just simply too afraid to speak out?

A Nurse (Sara) Speaking out for a Friend Who is a Nurse that Went to NYC and Reports Similar Experiences to What Nicole Reports

A Respiratory Therapist Blowing the Whistle About the Improper Use of Ventilators that is Harming People

A NYC ICU and ER Doctor Also Talking About the Wrong Use of Ventilators

*

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.

Neste domingo, em cima da caçamba de uma caminhonete, diante do quartel-general do Exército e se dirigindo a uma aglomeração de apoiadores pró-intervenção militar no Brasil, Bolsonaro afirmou neste domingo que “acabou a época da patifaria” e gritou palavras de ordem como “agora é o povo no poder” e “não queremos negociar nada”.

“Nós não queremos negociar nada. Nós queremos ação pelo Brasil”, declarou o presidente, que participou pelo segundo dia seguido de manifestação em Brasília, provocando aglomerações em meio à pandemia do coronavírus. “Chega da velha política. Agora é Brasil acima de tudo e Deus acima de todos.”

Já nesta segunda-feira, o presidente procurou mudar o tom. “Peguem o meu discurso. Não falei nada contra qualquer outro Poder. Muito pelo contrário. Queremos voltar ao trabalho, o povo quer isso. Estavam lá saudando o Exército brasileiro. É isso, mais nada. Fora isso é invencionice, tentativa de incendiar a nação que ainda está dentro da normalidade”, disse Bolsonaro nesta manhã.

[ x ]

Além de defender o governo e clamar por intervenção militar e um novo AI-5 —o mais radical ato institucional da ditadura militar (1964-1985), que abriu caminho para o recrudescimento da repressão— os manifestantes aglomerados em frente ao quartel-general do Exército defenderam o fechamento do STF e miraram em Maia.

Segundo o presidente, a pauta do ato que teve sua participação era apenas “povo na rua, dia do Exército e volta ao trabalho”. Confrontado com o fato de que os manifestantes também pediam a volta do AI-5, afirmou que “pedem desde 1968”.

“Todo e qualquer movimento tem infiltrados, tem gente que tem a sua liberdade de expressão. Respeitem a liberdade de expressão”, afirmou.

O presidente chegou a dar um pito em um apoiador que pediu que ele fechasse o Supremo. “Esquece esta conversa de fechar. Aqui não tem fechar nada, dá licença aí. Aqui é democracia. Aqui é respeito à Constituição brasileira. E aqui é a minha casa e a tua casa, então peço que, por favor, não se fale isso aqui”, afirmou. “Supremo aberto, transparente. Congresso aberto, transparente”, completou.

Apesar do discurso pró-democracia, o presidente voltou a atacar a imprensa e governadores que tomaram medidas de restrição de circulação das pessoas para evitar a disseminação do coronavírus.

Logo após falar com apoiadores, Bolsonaro dirigiu-se aos jornalistas dizendo que não responderia perguntas. “Quem vai falar sou eu. Quem não quiser me ouvir está dispensado.” Depois, por mais de uma vez, criticou a Folha e o Estado de S. Paulo que, ao reportarem o mesmo ato de domingo, tiveram manchetes semelhantes.

“Estado de S. Paulo e Folha de S.Paulo, a mesma manchete. Combinados. ‘Não queremos negociar’, vírgula, e depois não fala nada do que eu falei? Tentando levar a opinião pública para o lado de que eu quero o retrocesso? O pessoal geralmente conspira para chegar ao poder. Eu já estou no poder. Eu já sou o presidente da República”, disse Bolsonaro, que, em outro momento, afirmou: “Eu sou, realmente, a Constituição”.

“Estou conspirando contra quem, meu Deus do céu? Falta um pouco de inteligência para aqueles que me acusam de ser ditatorial. O que tomei de providência contra a imprensa? Contra a liberdade de expressão? Eu inclusive sou contra as prisões administrativas que estão ocorrendo pelo Brasil”, disse o presidente.

Bolsonaro também reagiu rispidamente quando questionado por um repórter do jornal O Globo sobre qual era o propósito do evento.

“Você é da Folha, não quero responder para a Folha“, respondeu Bolsonaro. Ao ser informado que o jornalista era de outro veículo, quis saber qual era a empresa de comunicação e, mais uma vez, se recusou a responder. “Qual o teu jornal? Não quero papo com O Globo também. A Globo nem devia estar aqui”, disse.

O presidente também criticou “alguns governadores” por causa das medidas de distanciamento social. “Espero que esta seja a última semana desta quarentena, desta maneira de combater o vírus com todo mundo em casa”, afirmou.

Bolsonaro também afirmou, sem dar nomes, que foi abordado por um de seus ministros para que editasse norma a favor do isolamento, mas recusou. “Há algum tempo atrás, algum ministro meu queria que eu colaborasse num decreto ou numa portaria para multar quem está na rua. Falei não. Não. Quem vai na rua está atrás de emprego, um ganha pão”, disse.

Declarando que não estava ameaçando ninguém, afirmou que demitiria qualquer ministro que fosse contrário às suas promessas durante a eleição.

“O meu time não trabalha de madrugada, trabalha à luz do dia. Todas pessoas escolhidas com critérios. Alguns que, por ventura, desviam dos critérios, a caneta vai funcionar. Para isso que sou presidente, para decidir. Se tiver que demitir qualquer ministro, demito. Não estou ameaçando. Longe de ameaça. Não tem ameaça da minha parte. Agora, se desviar daquilo que prometi durante a pré-campanha, lamentavelmente está no governo errado, vá para o outro barco, vá tentar em 2022. »

A fala de Bolsonaro e sua participação no ato de domingo em Brasília, no Dia do Exército, provocou outras fortes reações no mundo jurídico e político.

O presidente da Câmara, Rodrigo Maia (DEM-RJ), repudiou neste domingo (19) a manifestação em apoio a uma intervenção militar no Brasil com a participação do presidente Jair Bolsonaro (sem partido).

Por meio de uma rede social, o deputado disse ser uma “crueldade imperdoável” pregar uma ruptura democrática em meio às mortes da pandemia da covid-19.

“O mundo inteiro está unido contra o coronavírus. No Brasil, temos de lutar contra o corona e o vírus do autoritarismo. É mais trabalhoso, mas venceremos”, escreveu Maia. “Em nome da Câmara dos Deputados, repudio todo e qualquer ato que defenda a ditadura, atentando contra a Constituição.”

O governador de São Paulo, João Doria (PSDB), disse ser “lamentável” que o presidente “apoie um ato antidemocrático, que afronta a democracia e exalta o AI-5”. O ex-presidente Fernando Henrique Cardoso (PSDB) também chamou de “lamentável” a participação de Bolsonaro. “É hora de união ao redor da Constituição contra toda ameaça à democracia.”

O governador do Rio de Janeiro, Wilson Witzel (PSC), afirmou que “democracia não é o que presidente Bolsonaro pratica”.

O ministro Luís Roberto Barroso, do Supremo, disse à coluna Mônica Bergamo, da Folha que “só pode desejar intervenção militar quem perdeu a fé no futuro e sonha com um passado que nunca houve”. Gilmar Mendes, também do STF, disse que “invocar o AI-5 e a volta da ditadura é rasgar o compromisso com a Constituição e com a ordem democrática”.

O presidente Nacional da OAB (Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil), Felipe Santa Cruz, disse que “a sorte da democracia brasileira está lançada” e que está é a “hora dos democratas se unirem, superando dificuldades e divergências, em nome do bem maior chamado liberdade”.

Daniel Carvaho

 

The 2007 book Virus Mania by Torsten Engelbrecht and Claus Köhnlein presents a tragic message that will, hopefully, contribute to the re-insertion of ethical values in the conduct of virus research, public health policies, media communications, and activities of the pharmaceutical companies. Obviously, elementary ethical rules have been, to a very dangerous extent, neglected in many of these fields for an alarming number of years.

When American journalist Celia Farber courageously published, in Harper’s Magazine (March 2006) the article “Out of control—AIDS and the corruption of medical science,” some readers probably attempted to reassure themselves that this “corruption” was an isolated case. This is very far from the truth as documented so well in this book by Engelbrecht and Köhnlein. It is only the tip of the iceberg.

Corruption of research is a widespread phenomenon currently found in many major, supposedly contagious health problems, ranging from AIDS to Hepatitis C, Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”), SARS, Avian flu and current vaccination practices (human papillomavirus or HPV vaccination).

In research on all of these six distinct public health concerns scientific research on viruses (or prions in the case of BSE) slipped onto the wrong track following basically the same systematic pathway. This pathway always includes several key steps: inventing the risk of a disastrous epidemic, incriminating an elusive pathogen, ignoring alternative toxic causes, manipulating epidemiology with non-verifiable numbers to maximize the false perception of an imminent catastrophe, and promising salvation with vaccines.

This guarantees large financial returns. But how is it possible to achieve all of this? Simply by relying on the most powerful activator of human decision making process, i.e. FEAR!

click title above to access amazon page 

We are not witnessing viral epidemics; we are witnessing epidemics of fear.

And both the media and the pharmaceutical industry carry most of the responsibility for amplifying fears, fears that happen, incidentally, to always ignite fantastically profitable business. Research hypotheses covering these areas of virus research are practically never scientifically verified with appropriate controls. Instead, they are established by “consensus.” This is then rapidly reshaped into a dogma, efficiently perpetuated in a quasi-religious manner by the media, including ensuring that research funding is restricted to projects supporting the dogma, excluding research into alternative hypotheses.

An important tool to keep dissenting voices out of the debate is censorship at various levels ranging from the popular media to scientific publications.

We haven’t learnt well from past experiences. There are still many unanswered questions on the causes of the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic, and on the role of viruses in post-WWII polio (DDT neurotoxicity?). These modern epidemics should have opened our minds to more critical analyses. Pasteur and Koch had solidly constructed an understanding of infection applicable to many bacterial, contagious diseases. But this was before the first viruses were actually discovered. Transposing the principles of bacterial infections to viruses was, of course, very tempting but should not have been done without giving parallel attention to the innumerable risk factors in our toxic environment; to the toxicity of many drugs, and to some nutritional deficiencies.

Cancer research had similar problems. The hypothesis that cancer might be caused by viruses was formulated in 1903, more than one century ago. Even today it has never been convincingly demonstrated. Most of the experimental laboratory studies by virus-hunters have been based on the use of inbred mice, inbred implying a totally unnatural genetic background. Were these mice appropriate models for the study of human cancer? (we are far from being inbred!) True, these mice made possible the isolation and purification of “RNA tumor viruses,” later renamed “retroviruses” and well characterized by electron microscopy.

But are these viral particles simply associated with the murine tumors, or are they truly the culprit of malignant transformation? Are these particles real exogenous infective particles, or endogenous defective viruses hidden in our chromosomes? The question is still debatable.

What is certain is that viral particles similar to those readily recognized in cancerous and leukemic mice have never been seen nor isolated in human cancers. Of mice and men…

However, by the time this became clear, in the late 1960s, viral oncology had achieved a dogmatic, quasi-religious status. If viral particles cannot be seen by electron microscopy in human cancers, the problem was with electron microscopy, not with the dogma of viral oncology! This was the time molecular biology was taking a totally dominant posture in viral research.

“Molecular markers” for retroviruses were therefore invented (reverse transcriptase for example) and substituted most conveniently for the absent viral particles, hopefully salvaging the central dogma of viral oncology. This permitted the viral hypothesis to survive for another ten years, until the late 1970s, with the help of increasingly generous support from funding agencies and from pharmaceutical companies. However by 1980 the failure of this line of research was becoming embarrassingly evident, and the closing of some viraloncology laboratories would have been inevitable, except that…

Except what? Virus cancer research would have crashed to a halt except that, in 1981, five cases of severe immune deficiencies were described by a Los Angeles physician, all among homosexual men who were also all sniffing amyl nitrite, were all abusing other drugs, abusing antibiotics, and probably suffering from malnutrition and STDs (sexually transmitted diseases). It would have been logical to hypothesize that these severe cases of immune deficiency had multiple toxic origins. This would have amounted to incrimination of these patients’ life-style…

Unfortunately, such discrimination was, politically, totally unacceptable. Therefore, another hypothesis had to be found—these patients were suffering from a contagious disease caused by a new…retrovirus! Scientific data in support of this hypothesis was and, amazingly enough, still is totally missing. That did not matter, and instantaneous and passionate interest of cancer virus researchers and institutions erupted immediately. This was salvation for the viral laboratories where AIDS now became, almost overnight, the main focus of research. It generated huge financial support from Big Pharma, more budget for the CDC and NIH, and nobody had to worry about the life style of the patients who became at once the innocent victims of this horrible virus, soon labeled as HIV.

Twenty-five years later, the HIV/AIDS hypothesis has totally failed to achieve three major goals in spite of the huge research funding exclusively directed to projects based on it. No AIDS cure has ever been found; no verifiable epidemiological predictions have ever been made; and no HIV vaccine has ever been successfully prepared. Instead, highly toxic (but not curative) drugs have been most irresponsibly used, with frequent, lethal side effects. Yet not a single HIV particle has ever been observed by electron microscopy in the blood of patients supposedly having a high viral load! So what? All the most important newspapers and magazine have displayed attractive computerized, colorful images of HIV that all originate from laboratory cell cultures, but never from even a single AIDS patient. Despite this stunning omission the HIV/AIDS dogma is still solidly entrenched. Tens of thousands of researchers, and hundreds of major pharmaceutical companies continue to make huge profits based on the HIV hypothesis. And not one single AIDS patient has ever been cured…

Yes, HIV/AIDS is emblematic of the corruption of virus research that is remarkably and tragically documented in this book.

Research programs on Hepatitis C, BSE, SARS, Avian flu and current vaccination policies all developed along the same logic, that of maximizing financial profits. Whenever we try to understand how some highly questionable therapeutic policies have been recommended at the highest levels of public health authorities (WHO, CDC, RKI etc.), we frequently discover either embarrassing conflicts of interests, or the lack of essential control experiments, and always the strict rejection of any open debate with authoritative scientists presenting dissident views of the pathological processes. Manipulations of statistics, falsifications of clinical trials, dodging of drug toxicity tests have all been repeatedly documented. All have been swiftly covered up, and none have been able to, so far, disturb the cynical logic of today’s virus research business. The cover-up of the neurotoxicity of the mercury containing preservative thimerosal as a highly probable cause of autism among vaccinated children apparently reached the highest levels of the US governement… (see article “DeadlyImmunity” from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in chapter 8)

Virus Mania is a social disease of our highly developed society. To cure it will require conquering fear, fear being the most deadly contagious virus, most efficiently transmitted by the media.

Errare humanum est sed diabolicum preservare… (to err is human, but to preserve an error is diabolic).

*

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.

Etienne de Harven, MD, Professor Emeritus of Pathology at the University of Toronto and Member of the Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, New York (1956 – 1981), Member of Thabo Mbeki’s IDS Advisory Panel of South Africa, President of Rethinking AIDS (www.rethinkaids.net)

It’s exhausting following this government. They appear to have less boundaries or rules that they won’t break. And there are some rules for those in office because it is they that are supposed to be the ones with the moral authority to lead – or at least there used to be.

Take Professor Neil Ferguson. He is a British epidemiologist and professor of mathematical biology, who specialises in the patterns of spread of infectious disease in humans and animals. We’ve all heard about him recently as he advises the government on the COVID crisis. He is also the director of the Abdul Latif Jameel Institute for Disease and Emergency Analytics (J-IDEA), head of the Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology in the School of Public Health and Vice-Dean for Academic Development in the Faculty of Medicine, all at Imperial College, London. He was the guy who modelled the 2001 Foot & Mouth outbreak in 2001, Swine Flu in 2009, MERS in 2012 and Ebola in West Africa in 2016. He has an OBE, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences and an International Member of the US National Academy of Medicine. He is the type of person Britain needs right now.

However, he has quit as a senior government adviser on coronavirus after admitting an “error of judgement.” You’d think he was quitting because his model was way out and people had died. No, he had his girlfriend round and shock-horror – broke social distancing rules. The mainstream media also homed in on the fact that said girlfriend was ahem … married.

Boris Johnson concluded three months ago that Ferguson was just another one of those upstart ‘experts’ who was over-reacting and relegated that information behind more the important matters of taking an undeclared holiday in Mauritius from a Tory donor.  Leaving aside the fact that the PM had left his wife, announced it while she was having cancer treatment, that he was off with someone else who was now pregnant, more importantly, a few weeks later Britain suffers the Worst COVID performance in Europe.

And with a philandering PM tangled up in an election involving the police, National Crime Agency and Electoral Commission and accusations of misuse of funds in public office and an undisclosed Russia Report swirling around the media – it’s hardly surprising that the team around him think that there are no boundaries either.

Not satisfied with what many would describe as an immoral entry into politics, let alone Downing Street – it appears that this habit of rule-breaking now goes as far as pumping millions of desperately needed taxpayer cash into the mainstream media to push their brand of propaganda upon newly deceived electors.  The excellent Byline Times reports that –

“the whole affair could hardly be more sleazy and murky, but the truth is now clear: the Government is giving tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to the corporate press, including the Daily Mail and the Sun.”

In essence, the story is about a secretly-negotiated subsidy provided exclusively to members of the News Media Association (NMA), the umbrella body for the corporations that own most of the national and regional press. Here, we have exposed the fact that millions of pounds of taxpayers money is going to newspaper groups owned by billionaires of questionable tax standing to support the government in return.

Byline Times quite rightly points out that in a real democracy, “no single political party – in government or otherwise – would ever be allowed to dish out money to news organisations that are supposed to scrutinise its activities on behalf of the public.”

It is not as if Boris Johnson’s government haven’t been blowing public cash before like this as they got caught red-handed prior to the December election. They were openly – “accused of going on a spending spree using taxpayers’ money to woo voters in swing seats in the run-up to the general election.” Many of the ads went out without disclaimers saying who was paying for them and were not recorded by Facebook as even being political in nature. This is against electoral commission rules that exist to protect our democracy. “It is an example of how the government is merging political activity with the arms of government in its own political interest,” said opposition MP Ian Lewis.

Then we have this centralised COVID-19 tracking App that the government has decided to go alone on while the rest of the world uses the highly scrutinised Apple/Google system. This App has failed all of the basic safety tests required including cybersecurity, performance and clinical safety. Leaving aside huge privacy issues, it just happens to be that once you’ve downloaded the App, you cannot request your data to be released to you or deleted, is against GDPR regulations and said data can be used by anyone the government deems fit to use it. So bad is it that the government could now be taken to court for its breaches of privacy. 

Needless to say, it turns out that Dominic Cummings (at the centre of very many of these scandals) has hired ex Cambridge Analytica employees (all ex because CA went bust after that scandal broke), who created its own data and artificial intelligence team and are now sitting in the same offices as our government. It is also reported these people have won at least seven government contracts in short order – and another reports that they got them without proper due process. Conflict of interest almost seems to be a prerequisite characteristic to walking the corridors of Westminster these days.

As if all that lot isn’t bad enough, it appears that SAGE, the group of experts advising the government on the correct actions to take to navigate the COVID-19 crisis are in fact politically interfered with by none other than… Dominic Cummings.

Sir David King, who worked under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in a similar role, has set up a fully transparent ‘shadow’ advisory group and intends for it to look at ways out of the coronavirus lockdown. Sir David said of government advisors being on SAGE – “So there are two voices from the scientific advisory group and I think that’s very dangerous because only one of the two understands the science.”

A lengthy analysis of government corruption was undertaken by Democratic Audit in late 2018 which concluded that transparency and openness was already threatened and “despite British politicians’ evident conviction that the UK’s experience holds lessons for the world, some serious gaps in anti-corruption policies remain.”

It is sad to have to agree with Byline Times who conclude that the “stench of corruption could hardly be stronger.”

*

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.

Feature image is from TP

Silently, political power in India has now become concentrated with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the ever present Prime Minister’s Office. This has happened in the name of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic and so, there has not been much comment on this. It means undermining the rights and responsibilities of not only other central ministries but, more importantly, those of state governments and lower levels of administration. This has compromised the fight against the pandemic by imposing a one-size-fits-all strategy on this diverse country. Districts with no or a few cases of COVID-19 infection were under as stringent a lockdown as those with hundreds of cases. Procurement of essential personal protective equipment (PPEs) and other equipment was hamstrung. And, worst of all, an ambiguous and ill-thought out ‘strategy’ became the standard operating procedure for the whole country’s bureaucracy.

The legal sanction: Initial fumbling

In the initial weeks after the first case was found at the end of January, some states invoked the British era Epidemic Diseases Act (1897) to deal with the looming crisis, along with usual provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code for imposing restrictions on assembly, etc. The Modi governmentitself advised this invocation. This Act, described by some experts as one of the most draconian laws passed by a colonial administration, has only four sections, and if you read them you will understand why; it gives sweeping, over-riding powers to state governments to deal with epidemics. These include unfettered powers to arrest people, isolate them, use force at will, destroy property, etc. Regulations framed under this Act by states were issued and they went several steps ahead in specifying what is permitted and what is not.

However, this initial period of state level responses was a period of groping in the darkness. The Modi government had invoked the Disaster Management Act (2005) but its potential as a power concentrating magic wand was perhaps still dawning on them. It was revealed as the true brahmastra (ultimate weapon) only when Modi announced the countrywide lockdown in his typical muscular and dramatic style (remember demonetisation and surgical strikes?) on March 24 March. Giving a four hour notice to the country’s 1.5 billion people, India became a prison, with only essential services allowed, and social distancing became the new law of the land.

Disaster Management Act

This act, though invoked by the Modi government earlier, came to the forefront after March 24, with the central government issuing orders to all state governments and local bodies that they were bound by this law to follow the directions of lockdown. In one fell swoop, all the powers to deal with the pandemic were swept up and concentrated into the one body that deals with national disasters – the Ministry of Home Affairs.

The very origins of this Act are rooted in a grey zone. The Constitution has no entry for ‘disaster management’. But after the 2004 Asian Tsunami, the then UPA 1 governmentpassed the law as a central legislation by rather bizarrely arguing that it came under the Concurrent List entry (#23) of “social security and social insurance”. Such was the ambiguity about this that in 2006, the second Administrative Reforms Commission had to point out that to give this Act legal sanctity, an entry on disaster management must be made in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Needless to say that nobody paid any attention to this and the Act continues. With the COVID-19 pandemic, it has been put to use with alacrity and vigour by the Modi government.

Here are some of the key provisions of the DMA. It provided for setting up a National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) headed by the Prime Minister. This body thus becomes the supreme body for implementing various policies under the Act. Extensive power is given to the Central Government and NDMA. Sections 35, 62 and 72 provide that irrespective of any law in force (including any over-riding powers), the central government can issue any directions to any authority anywhere in India to facilitate or assist in disaster management. Various other sections (18, 24, 36, 38, 39) provide that any such directions issued by the central government and NDMA must necessarily be followed by all the Union ministries, state governments and state disaster management authorities.

Remember, the whole edifice is under the Home Ministry because they have administrative control over all ‘disaster management’. And, it is also provided [Sec 6(3)] that the prime minister can exercise all powers of NDMA. So, PM Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, are now legally authorised to run the whole country – and woe on anybody who questions that.

One step forward… One step back

Lockdown 1.0 was imposed as per Order dated 24-03-2020 of NDMA ‘to take measures for ensuring social distancing so as to prevent the spread of COVID 19’. Detailed guidelines were then issued by the Home Ministry the same day.

Since then, about 80 orders have been issued by the Home Ministry. These range from various humdrum advisories to over a dozen clarifications, mostly in the nature of exemptions from the lockdown. For instance on March 27, the clarification exempted agricultural operations from the lockdown. This had to be done because the valuable and crucial rabi harvest (wheat, mustard, etc.) was standing ready and ripe in the fields. Similarly, other exemptions were issued for fisherfolk, etc. All this is worth noting because it is following a typical pattern of how an overcentralised strategy stumbles and gropes its way if other stake holders (state government, other ministries, local bodies) are not kept on board. It sounds bizarre but still its true that the bureaucrats framing the orders under Shah and Modi’s guidance were not aware that: rabi crops need to be harvested; that lakhs of migrant workers will be stranded and want to go back home; etc. They locked down everything in a shock and awe style, only to retreat step by step.

States feeling the pressure

The state governments are feeling the pressure of these ham handed policies and erosion of their rights significantly. By banning the production and sale of alcohol in the lockdown, the Modi government effectively cut 30-40% of revenue that states used to get from their excise duties. There was no consultation about this, and recently state governments raised the issue of steeply falling revenues from own taxes at a meeting. Reports suggest that states revenue has fallen by as much as 80-90%, severely handicapping their efforts to fight the pandemic. They are not being allowed to raise loans, and even the possibility of raising some revenue through oil pricing was snatched away by the central government hurriedly declaring duty hikes, crowding the states out.

There have been cases – notably Kerala – where the central government has shot off letters asking why the state government is not following the lockdown procedures. This, with the only state in the country that has successfully tamed the pandemic!

But the biggest attack on states’ rights has been the withholding of the GST cess compensation that was supposed to be given to state governments. This has been continuously delayed by the Modi government in an attempt to hold on to their war chest, facing as they do a resource crunch of their own making. In fact, the Centre hasspent peanuts on fighting the pandemic, with most of the so called Rs. 1.7 lakh crore relief package consisting of previous commitments. Yet, they have misused the power of money by being tight–fisted with states, who are already facing a gigantic fiscal crisis. This is a prime example of how over-centralised functioning can make beggars out of equals.

All these developments bode ill for India’s federal and democratic principles, which in turn means that they will damage and destroy many rights of the people in general, and also cause economic misery. But, in the present times, its biggest harm will be in compromising the fight against the pandemic which is far from over in the country.

*

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 narendramodi.in

It has been repeatedly stated that the management of the coronavirus pandemic will be a barometer of how capable leaders are handling unprecedented crisis. Think how U.S. President Donald Trump has been lambasted all over the globe for letting coronavirus get out of control with over 75,000 deaths, or how little and impoverished Greece is being used as an example of great handling and responses to the pandemic. Depending on the decisions they made, some leaders will be rewarded and some will be punished, either by fluctuations in their popularity or at the ballot box when the time comes.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has every reason to be happy. Although she has been in power for fourteen years, a total of four terms, she still remains the most popular politician in her country. This is admirable if one considers that just a few months ago it was uncertain whether she would complete this term.

Without having presented a particularly reformist project and without being a communicative leader, Merkel has proved to be the chancellor to handle difficult times. From the financial crisis to the immigration crisis, she continues to receive a vote of confidence from her compatriots – but for others in Europe, she is the very reason they have had to deal with millions of illegal migrants and a destroyed economy as a result of the Global Financial Crisis. This time things are more complicated, on the one hand because the whole world is affected, and on the other because there are serious health issues. But Merkel’s praise is limited to the domestic because abroad there is a lot of criticism against her, once again.

Germany holds the keys to a smooth economic recovery for the entire European Union, but stubbornly refuses to open the door. Merkel refuses to pursue a different policy, such as easing European debt or creating bonds. This will breathe new life into its European Union partners but has the risk of losing total control of the alliance. Berlin is taking advantage of all the privileges as the dominant force in the European Union and is suffocating the rest with its choices. Things, however, are now marginal, and the decisions Merkel makes may lead to the disintegration or weakening of the European Union project.

As the times are crucial with the coronavirus smashing international economy, Merkel must listen not only to her own constituents, but also to the rest of the European Union. Most countries in the European Union are far more damaged by the pandemic then Germany. She must stand up to the circumstances and realize that without a change of policy, the European Union is doomed as countries will begin questioning whether following Britain’s example of leaving the alliance might be in their best interests. What needs to be done now is to take drastic economic decisions that strengthen solidarity and, above all, growth for all.

So, Germany has some decisions to make.

Germany should give institutional priority to the European Stability Mechanism, which provides financial assistance, in the form of loans, to eurozone countries or as new capital to banks in difficulty. This could be a challenge though as Brussels has strong reservations about a Eurobond, and it could weaken Germany’s domineering position over the European Union.

However, if Merkel does not act in the interest of all European Union countries, she is only opening the door wider for other states to fill the void left. Trump might pursue a path of deepening U.S. economic isolationism, which means China could use this as opening to penetrate deeper into the European Union.

What Germany does not acknowledge is that its domineering position would not exist without the tolerance of the Americans and the generosity of all the victors of World War Two. The post-war fate Germany was judged, literally, in a turn of history. The so-called “Allies”, including major European powers, were the ones who allowed West Germany to stand on its own two feet and later, in favor of the situation from the disintegration of the Eastern bloc, to assimilate Eastern Europe into the so-called “European family.” The current German leadership is behaving as if all this is self-evident, but nothing was predetermined at the end of the Second World War that mercilessly bloodied the European continent and beyond.

If one looks back at the historical records of the time, one will find that the leading figures of the Allies flirted with the idea of ​​getting rid of the “German problem” once and for all. Precisely because some of them, such as Roosevelt and Churchill, firmly believed that the “German problem” was historically recurring and was not due to the “unfortunate parenthesis” of the Nazi period.

As Germany’s refusal to assist other European Union countries in their time of crisis, medical and economic, it has once again exposed that it wants to be the strongest in the European Union and rule as a dominant power. It is attempting through liberal means to conquer Europe via economic suppression and repression of other countries. However, this has the power to backfire and could see Germany itself destroy the European Union.

*

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 InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Israel: A Lab for “The New Vaccine Order”? Towards a Second Lockdown?

By Joshua Tartakovsky, May 08, 2020

As coronavirus broke out, Israel became the first Western country to close itself off to all flights . It then proceeded to enact a total lockdown, preventing its citizens from going beyond 100 meters from their homes. By relying on the General Security Services (Shabak), the Israeli regime using the mobile phone information of the various users, knew the exact location of each and every citizen and could round him up should he leave the confined area. The regime sent its security services, military and police, to arrest people who were walking beyond the confined area for what it deemed an unessential need. Extreme brutality was enacted against ultra-Orthodox Jews, who dared to leave their homes and walk in the streets.

Trudeau Rolls Out His Trumpian COVID-19 Latin America Policy

By Arnold August, May 08, 2020

Firstly, let us look at the COVID-19 issue. Under the auspices of Canada, the countries of Peru, Colombia and Brazil are evaluating the impact of the pandemic on the Americas.  As a corollary, the Trudeau Government claims, the impact on Venezuela must be examined.

Perhaps we can help. This chart, adding Ecuador to the countries referenced by Champagne, is based on the reputable Swiss-based scientific agency CDC. It sheds light on the situation. Ecuador is included along with the Champagne list, as they are all Lima Group member states. This group of countries, of which Trudeau was a key founding member back in 2017 and its current top leader, has set the explicit goal of overthrowing the Maduro government.

Economics and the Pandemic: ‘Where’s the Money Coming From? Where’s the Money Going To?

By Bryant Brown, May 08, 2020

Before looking at the details lets do a little recap. The last major crisis in our economic world was a dozen years ago. Then, what is now called the Great Recession started. It was caused by over a decade of stupid, often illegal mortgage lending in the U. S. that created a financial bubble. And to make matters worse, those valueless mortgages were then bundled together and sold as new ‘securities’ around the world. That new but valueless market grew until the whole thing burst. Stock markets, which up until then had been soaring, plunged. In response the U. S. government passed TARP (the Troubled Asset Relief) bill. “Troubled assets” we were to learn, is Fed Speak for bad loans.

What Future for American High School and University-College Graduates? Grim US “Class of 2020” Job Prospects

By Stephen Lendman, May 08, 2020

Graduating at the onset of a Depression is far worse because of hard to find jobs and few good ones in fields of choice at a time of mass firings and layoffs.

On April 8, UCLA.edu said “roughly four million (Americans) enter(ing) the (2020) job market (face ) dim…prospects (because of) (m)ass layoffs and hiring freezes” at a time of a public health crisis and economic collapse.

Palestine President Abbas Threatens to Tear-up Agreements with Israel, US if West Bank Is Annexed

By The New Arab, May 08, 2020

After unilaterally recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in December 2017 and its annexation of the Golan from Syria in March 2019, Trump in late January 2020 unveiled a peace plan for the Middle East that included many concessions to Israel.

The peace plan says it would let Israel annex a third of the West Bank, inside which are hundreds of illegal settlements along with the Jordan Valley.

Venezuela: A Failed US Invasion in the Midst of a Pandemic

By Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, May 08, 2020

In the midst of a massive global pandemic that has killed tens of thousands of people and wrecked economies all over the world leaving millions jobless, some terrorists and mercenaries allegedly backed by certain governments had on 3^rd May 2020 attempted to invade the independent, sovereign state of Venezuela. Organised and trained in neighbouring Colombia, they had landed on the coast of Macuto close to the Venezuelan capital of Caracas. The invasion was foiled by the Venezuelan military and police with the support of the people. Several of the invaders were killed and a couple captured. The captured, both Americans, confessed on Venezuelan TV, that their aim was not only the overthrow of the legally constituted government but also the assassination of the president, Nicolas Maduro. Though the invasion has been thwarted, the captured Americans made it clear that the ouster of the Maduro government was an on-going operation.

Corona Tyranny – and Death by Famine

By Peter Koenig, May 08, 2020

By the end of 2020 more people will have died from hunger, despair and suicide than from the corona disease. We, the world, is facing a famine-pandemic of biblical proportions. This real pandemic will overtake the “COVID-19 pandemic” by a long shot. The hunger pandemic reminds of the movie the Hunger Games, as it is premised on similar circumstances of a dominant few commanding who can eat and who will die – by competition.

Remembrance of a Miracle at the United Nations:  Father Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, President of the SixtyThird UN General Assembly, 2008-2009

By Carla Stea, May 07, 2020

UN General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto never wavered in his commitment to global economic and social justice, and the imperative need for a transformation of the global economic architecture to prevent perpetuation of the current grotesque injustices.  President D’Escoto was a priest, and the finest representative of the Liberation Theology which affirmed the profoundest commitment of Christianity, equal social and economic justice for all.  The Vatican was not amused.  Many of the G7, G20 and P5 were not amused, indeed they were terrified that President D’Escoto threatened the current global economic architecture which spawned obscene riches for the very few while multitudes starved.

---

Can you help us keep up the work we do? Namely, bring you the important news overlooked or censored by the mainstream media and fight the corporate and government propaganda, the purpose of which is, more than ever, to “fabricate consent” and advocate war for profit.

We thank all the readers who have contributed to our work by making donations or becoming members.

If you have the means to make a small or substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.

The Trump administration reportedly shelved a document from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which would have provided detailed instructions for local authorities on appropriate measures to reopen a variety of businesses and institutions. The document is reportedly undergoing “revisions,” according to White House Coronavirus Task Force member Dr. Deborah Birx, who appeared on CNN Thursday evening.

A leaked version of the report, headlined “Guidance for Implementing the Opening Up America Again Framework,” was given anonymously to the Associated Press by a federal official. A second official, from the CDC, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, informed the AP that the public health organization’s infectious disease specialists were told that the document “would never see the light of day.”

This news has emerged as the pandemic continues to sweep across the globe. There are now 3.9 million cases internationally and more than 270,000 deaths. Even as physical distancing measures have to some extent mitigated the spread of the virus in certain areas of the US, the pandemic has in fact accelerated in rural areas, many of which are ill-equipped to deal with the health crisis.

The spread of the pandemic is being exacerbated as the back-to-work drive becomes increasingly hysterical. Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has demanded that Americans “sacrifice” their lives by going back to work. US President Donald Trump indifferently noted Tuesday that as a result of his policies, “There’ll be more death.”

The CDC report lays out step-by-step instructions for childcare programs, schools, churches, employers with vulnerable workers, restaurants, bars and mass transit agencies. As the agency notes, all of these are “critical” to the lives of large sections of the population as well as places people gather in large numbers.

It includes a variety of flow-charts and lists designed for state and local officials to use to determine whether or not these institutions should open and how they should operate during the pandemic. For example, it notes that sneeze guards should be placed between patrons and employees, and guidelines to ensure that only items and tools that can be easily sanitized are used.

The document also explicitly notes that “vulnerable workers” includes anyone with “chronic lung disease, moderate to severe asthma, hypertension, severe heart conditions, weakened immunity, severe obesity, diabetes, liver disease, and chronic kidney disease that requires dialysis.” Millions of people suffer one or more of these conditions, which makes explicit the dangers of the coronavirus as the pandemic continues to infect more and more people.

The document, however, also provides a variety of caveats that business can use to not provide a safe working environment for their employees. It notes multiple times that CDC recommendations—including providing personal protective equipment and extra sick leave—should only be implemented where “feasible” and that employers should coordinate with local officials on whether or not they should reopen and with what level of safety precautions.

By introducing such flexibility, the CDC ultimately made its own document toothless. What exactly is “feasible” is never defined, which would allow companies to do essentially whatever they want in regard to reopening. Nowhere does it even imply that if companies cannot safely reopen, they simply should not do so in order to preserve workers’ lives.

Yet this report was unacceptable to Trump, even with these gaping loopholes. This is in line with other efforts by the Trump administration to prevent a coordinated, rational and scientific response to the coronavirus crisis. Any guidance released by the CDC is generally acted on at the national level, which conflicts with the president’s assertion in his own guidelines that the response should be dealt with at the state, county and local level.

It also comes in the wake of reports that Anthony Fauci, the government’s top infectious disease specialist and a member of the Coronavirus Task Force, was prevented from testifying before Congress. Fauci has at times expressed opinions differing from that of the administration for dealing with the pandemic, at one point stating on television that a national shutdown was necessary. For the most part, however, he has lent his authority to the Trump administration’s pandemic response.

At the same time, Trump is doing his best to dismantle even the nominal response of the federal government to the pandemic. He suggested on Tuesday that the Coronavirus Task Force would be disbanded, likely at the end of May, before walking this back the next day, claiming that it would “continue on indefinitely.” He made the point, however, that its focus would shift to “opening up our country.”

This is ultimately the primary focus of the United States government. The pandemic has provided an opportunity to funnel $80 billion per day from the treasury to Wall Street and the major corporations, under the guise of providing relief in response to the economic calamity caused by the pandemic.

There are no suggestions that such sums should be spent to provide relief for the tens of millions that have been thrown out of work. Nor is even a fraction of this amount being spent to research the pandemic or develop the necessary testing and contact tracing infrastructure to contain the disease.

Such sentiments are shared by Trump’s co-thinkers internationally. The fascistic Jair Bolsonaro has attempted to downplay the dangers of the coronavirus by referring to it as the “little flu.” He fired the country’s health minister Luiz Henrique Mandetta after a public disagreement over the government’s response to the pandemic. And he has called Brazilians “cowards” for isolating themselves from the disease and demanded they go back to work.

*

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.

In the fight against corona virus, when trying to discern in what direction the Western world is going, it is almost always useful to watch the steps taken by Israel, the Zionist State.[1].

Israel is not only a threat to the people of Iraq [3], Lebanon [4], Syria [5] and Egypt [6], it is also quite possibly a lab of sorts for human experimentation. In recent years, it has focused its experiments on the people of Gaza, testing weapons on the Gazan civilian population subject to siege who dared to rebel and subsequently selling those weapons to the world [7]. But now, Israel may be turning its gaze to its own population, the citizens of Israel itself.

As coronavirus broke out, Israel became the first Western country to close itself off to all flights . It then proceeded to enact a total lockdown, preventing its citizens from going beyond 100 meters from their homes. By relying on the General Security Services (Shabak), the Israeli regime using the mobile phone information of the various users, knew the exact location of each and every citizen and could round him up should he leave the confined area. The regime sent its security services, military and police, to arrest people who were walking beyond the confined area for what it deemed an unessential need. Extreme brutality was enacted against ultra-Orthodox Jews, who dared to leave their homes and walk in the streets [8].

The coronavirus lockdown was a turning point in Israeli history. Israel has also kept the Palestinians of the West Bank under constant siege and curfew [9] to be imposed randomly at will since 1967 until the present [10]. This military regime was new to the people of the West Bank, but not to the Arabs living within Israel proper, who have experienced it since the founding of the state in 1948 until 1966 [11]. Now the Israeli citizens themselves were subject to curfew. They could not leave their homes.

Why did the regime enact such an extreme total lockdown, that was later followed by the rest of the world? One possible cause may be the three corruption charges placed against the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The lockdown resulted in the closure of the Israeli Parliament. When the speaker of the house was ordered by the Supreme Court to open up the parliament, he simply resigned. In this way, Netanyahu avoided being voted against in the parliament.

But can there be other explanations? Is Israel a lab for population control? Israelis tend to disobey orders and most certainly orders to keep them locked at homes. This time, they largely silently obeyed and stayed in their homes for weeks.

Then there are the medical considerations. Some virologists argue people must be kept at home to slow the spread, others argue that staying at home reduces one’s immune system and makes him more vulnerable for disease. Either way, as Michel Foucault argued, using medicine to subjugate humanity has long been the norm. Giorgio Agamben argued how the state uses biological arguments to reduce our existence to bare life and suffocate us in a struggle for survival while relying on fear and on creating a state of exception that does not end.

Will the Zionist Regime conduct experiments against its own population? It did so in the past. The Zionists have experimented on Mizrahi Jews, especially children [12] on numerous occasions.

But in recent days, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that for the sake of safety, chips may be placed or inserted, he did not say, in children. The chip would alert the child every time he comes closer to a person in danger, just as in an alert system placed in a car, Netanyahu suggested. Is Netanyahu testing an idea that may be implemented later? Does he want to see if the people are willing to accept freedom of movement in return for vaccination and a chip?

For now the lockdown has been gradually relaxed. Netanyahu is expected to stand trial on May 24. But the Health Ministry experts are already warning that a second wave may ensue, resulting in a new lockdown. If this is the case, will we see the same trend occurring around the world, with a second lockdown, more stringent than before, unfolding, and not to be released until citizens are vaccinated or given a chip?

On February 6,2020, Haaretz reported that most members of the high commission responsible for approving and supervising human experimentation were expected to resign. This was done due to the decision of Israel’s Health Ministry CEO, Moshe Bar Siman Tov, to promote a policy that would benefit pharmaceutical companies at the expense of the public interest, Haaretz reported. The Chairman, Professor Alice Shalvi, already resigned, Haaretz said [13].

With the committee cleared of conscientious people, will the Zionist regime move on to vaccinate Israeli children next week?

Israel was the first western country to ban all flights and enact an extreme lockdown. It was the first western country where the sitting leader recommended chipping children. It is worth paying attention to what may be the lab for the rest of 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.

Author’s note: Thanks to Haim Yativ for his help with the article.

Joshua Tartakovsky is an independent journalist, a graduate of Brown University and London School of Economics. Currently residing in Minsk, Belarus.

Notes

[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/anti-zionist-rabbi-gives-hezbollah-chief-in-beirut-gift-from-the-jewish-people/

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/20/jewish-majority-israel-villa-in-the-jungle

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/world/middleeast/kerry-reminds-congress-netanyahu-advised-us-to-invade-iraq.html

[4] https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200213-lebanon-army-fires-on-israel-drones-forcing-them-to-retreat-2/

[5] https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israel-just-admitted-arming-anti-assad-syrian-rebels-big-mistake-1.6894850

[6] https://egyptindependent.com/israel-reacts-to-reports-that-its-defense-systems-will-protect-the-gerd/

[7] https://www.haaretz.com/gaza-war-is-arms-industry-cash-cow-1.5258893

https://www.972mag.com/wars-on-gaza-have-become-part-of-israels-system-of-governance-an-interview-with-filmmaker-yotam-feldman/

[8] https://www.facebook.com/bry.gl1/videos/2885883214802366/

[9] https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20161002-israel-places-curfew-on-west-bank-for-jewish-holiday/s

[10] Some Zionists seek to refute this claim by arguing that the West Bank was occupied by Jordan between 1948 to 1967. What they neglect to admit is that while the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was not recognized by most countries, Palestinians occupied roughly half of the seats of the parliament and enjoyed full rights as citizens.

[11] https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/1.5280516

[12] https://english.alaraby.co.uk/english/blog/2017/6/22/israel-conducted-illegal-medical-experiments-on-yemenite-children-testimonies

[13] https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-members-of-israeli-committee-on-human-experiments-quit-over-health-ministry-policy-1.8500440

Featured image is from Desertpeace

US government figures to be released today are expected to show mass unemployment in April unlike anything seen since the Great Depression. In numbers released Wednesday, ADP Research said that US payrolls in April fell by an astounding 20,236,000, a number far larger than anything ever previously recorded.

Looked at another way, the number of jobs lost so far is equal to the total combined workforce of 25 US states. It is 41 times worse than the 533,000 jobs lost in November 2008 at the time of the last economic crash.

The reality is even worse, since the official jobs figures for April are based on the state of the economy in the middle of the month. According to a report in Forbes Thursday,

“The country is now at 40.6 million unemployed, or 24.9% of the work force. That matches the annual worst year of the Great Depression without considering how many have been unable to file.”

The economic catastrophe is being compounded by the continued refusal of the US government to marshal aid for the unemployed. After handing out trillions to the banks, the ruling class, spearheaded by the Trump administration, is seeking to use social distress as a weapon in its campaign to break down public opposition to the reopening of the economy even as the coronavirus pandemic continues.

Many workers, already struggling in the low wage economy and living paycheck to paycheck, have been left essentially penniless as overburdened and antiquated state unemployment systems have failed to pay out timely benefits.

Meanwhile, a shocking report by the Hamilton Project found that 20 percent of households and over 40 percent of US mothers with children under the age of 13 are experiencing food insecurity.

The death toll in the US is set to exceed 75,000 as the pandemic spreads into more rural areas of the country, many beset by poverty, with older populations and lacking adequate health care infrastructure. A number of states set to relax or eliminate social distancing measures are in precisely those areas where new cases are rising fastest, such as Mississippi, Nebraska and Georgia.

Last week there were an additional 3.2 million new applications for unemployment assistance, bringing to 33 million the number of people who have filed since the outbreak of the pandemic.

These numbers are a serious underestimation. The Economic Policy Institute reported that it found that for every 100 workers able to successfully apply for unemployment benefits, there are another 37 that had tried to file but could not get through the system.

The economic meltdown triggered by the pandemic is metastasizing into a prolonged recession or depression as corporations utilize the crisis to implement permanent layoffs and restructuring. Major manufacturers, including Boeing, GE Aircraft and US Steel have already announced mass job cuts.

The outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas released its job cuts report on Thursday showing that US employers announced 671,129 job cuts in April compared to 222,288 in March. The April total is 1,577 percent higher than the 40,024 announced job cuts in April 2019.

The most job cuts in April were announced in New York, at 84,738. Florida had 71,138, Texas 70,318, Minnesota 57,192 and California 55,077.

This week United Airlines said it plans to eliminate 30 percent of its managerial jobs when government restrictions related to the bailout end, probably in October. This will result in the elimination of 3,500 jobs. In addition, the airline will require mangers and administrative workers to take 20 days off without pay between mid-May and the end of September. Earlier this week, United announced plans to lay off more than one third of its pilots, 4,457 positions, by October 1. Other airlines are likely to follow.

On Thursday, department store chain Neiman Marcus filed for bankruptcy. It had temporarily closed all 43 stores in March due to the pandemic. Earlier this week, retailer J. Crew also filed for bankruptcy. Other retail chains such as Lord & Taylor and J.C. Penney are considered vulnerable.

On Tuesday, bed and breakfast network Airbnb said it would lay off a quarter of its 7,500-person global workforce as demand for short-term home rentals plummeted. On Wednesday, ride service Uber announced that it would lay off 3,700 workers worldwide, or 14 percent of its total workforce, mostly customer support and recruiting jobs.

Projections for US auto sales have been lowered from 16 million to just 11 or 12 million, pointing to a likely massive downsizing in the car industry, with a wide-ranging impact on supplier industries.

Small businesses, which account for half of all US employment, are being especially hard hit. Thousands of small businesses, largely shut out of receiving federal stimulus money and already struggling, will likely never reopen.

Companies are also using the pandemic to institute pay cuts. Workers at Stanford Health Care in Palo Alto, California, who treat COVID-19 patents, are protesting an effective pay cut of 24 percent. Employees will be forced to take 12 furlough days over a 10-week period. Many of the workers earn between $55,000 and $65,000 a year.

States and localities continue to stagger due to lost tax revenues. The University of Georgia system voted Thursday to require all faculty and staff to be furloughed or take pay cuts due to budget shortfalls. Employees will be required to take either four or eight uncompensated furlough days depending on their pay grade.

There has been an unprecedented increase in hunger and food insecurity across the United States as tens of millions lose their livelihoods. Food lines are now common. On Wednesday residents in the Corona neighborhood of Queens, New York waited outside a local food pantry in a line extending half a mile.

In the state of Hawaii, cars lined up for more than a mile outside Aloha Stadium to receive 50 pounds of free food. Organizers estimated that 100 tons of food were distributed to 4,000 households.

Most of direct food aid comes from private donations, with state and local governments chipping in pathetically inadequate amounts.

The report released by the Hamilton Project this week found that rates of food insecurity in April 2020 were significantly higher than at any point for which there is data between 2001 to 2018, including the 2008-2009 economic crash.

After a near unanimous vote to enact a multi-trillion-dollar corporate bailout, Congress is bogged down in squabbling over a pathetic 15 percent increase in food stamp aid. The proposed increase, being blocked by Republicans, would provide an average increase of only about $35 a month to the typical household eligible for the program.

Ever tightening restrictions to the program enacted by Republican and Democratic administrations have forced millions out of the program even as need has risen.

The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown a sharp light on the irrationality of the accumulation of private wealth as the motive principle of society. Instead of prioritizing the fight against the pandemic and alleviating human suffering, countless billions are squandered on propping up Wall Street and massive funding of the war machine.

*

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 Flickr

On May 4, Canadian Foreign Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne tweeted:

.

.

.

.

Firstly, let us look at the COVID-19 issue. Under the auspices of Canada, the countries of Peru, Colombia and Brazil are evaluating the impact of the pandemic on the Americas.  As a corollary, the Trudeau Government claims, the impact on Venezuela must be examined.

Perhaps we can help. This chart, adding Ecuador to the countries referenced by Champagne, is based on the reputable Swiss-based scientific agency CDC. It sheds light on the situation. Ecuador is included along with the Champagne list, as they are all Lima Group member states. This group of countries, of which Trudeau was a key founding member back in 2017 and its current top leader, has set the explicit goal of overthrowing the Maduro government.

Translation from CDC:

“Confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million people

Limited evidence and challenges in attributing cause of death means that the number of confirmed deaths may not be an exact count of the actual total number of deaths from COVID-19.

The graph summarizes information from three dates: Jan 31, 2020; March 1 and April 17. The information is linear. It ranges from level 0 to level 20. The ranking shows how Venezuela has the least cases, while Brazil has the most. The other countries taken into account are Chile, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador in an ascending order. See source below:

Source: European CDC – Updating the situation worldwide

Last update

April 17, 11:30 a.m. (London time)

OurWorldlnData.org/coronavirus • CC BY”

The facts show that it is Venezuela that serves as the example in Latin America. Peru, Colombia, Brazil and Ecuador are right-wing dictatorships and thus, by their very nature, incapable or not interested in adopting a humane policy to fight the pandemic.

On the other hand, Venezuela has a Bolivarian Revolutionary government. It is animated by the need to flight COVID-19 and put all its meagre resources, both human and physical, at the service of its population. The resources would be far less meagre if it were not for the crippling sanctions imposed by the US and Canada against Venezuela. Facts, such as the chart show, are stubborn things.

Secondly, it is important to point out that Canada and the other Lima group countries cited in the Canadian governmental tweet (plus Ecuador), have no interest in the well-being of the peoples of Latin America. For these countries and US President Donald Trump, COVID-19 is just a tool. It serves as a weapon, not only to maintain the pre-COVID-19 tempo of the American attempt to recolonize the region with the full collaboration of its allies, but to actually increase this aggressive momentum right in the middle of the pandemic, cynical as that is.

So, what is behind the concern of the Canadian Foreign Minister’s tweet? He mentions the “humanitarian” needs of Venezuelans as the “Venezuela crisis.” The tweet, as we note above, also tags @Jguaido, the so-called Trump/Trudeau interim president.

The Canadian government tweet was dated May 4. During the early morning of May 3, a group of heavily armed mainly Colombian mercenaries, accompanied by armed US marines, attempted a maritime incursion into Venezuela. The avowed goal, as these two 2-minute videos show, was to overthrow the legitimate Maduro government, confirming the Maduro government’s view.

However, the attempted coup failed miserably. The invaders were stopped and arrested or killed by the Venezuelan Civic Military-Union and local fishermen. The Trudeau government surely knew about it as the news appeared on May 4 on Canadian state television. In addition, in my May 4 newsletter, I invited my more than 3,500 subscribers to write to Trudeau and Champagne.

In the tweet below, Orlando Viera-Blanco, the Trump/Trudeau “fake ambassador” to Canada, triumphantly announced what he thought would be the imminent entry into Caracas of Guaidó as the president and  not interim president. Note the telling explanation mark after “soon”!”

There is a precedent to this. On April 29, a week before the attempted invasion, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said:

“In Venezuela, I’m pleased to report that the multilateral effort to restore democracy is continuing to build momentum. I’ve asked my team to update our plans to reopen the U.S. Embassy in Caracas so that we are ready to go. As soon as Maduro steps aside, I am confident that we will raise that flag again in Caracas.”

The Trudeau government, which is in lock step with the US on Latin American policy, surely noted that US foreign policy statement.

However, the coup was foiled even before it got off the ground. The Trudeau government is strangely comfortable with these activities, as can be demonstrated by the intimate ties with the Guaidó representative in Canada.

In any case, it is clear that the Canadian government is fine-tuning its plans against Venezuela to match the same Trump COVID-19 policy.

Just like Trump, Trudeau now has to deal with yet another failed coup attempt. In addition, how does Trudeau explain that the Lima Group, of which he is a key member, is supposedly in favour of “a peaceful solution” in Venezuela, rather than military intervention? And yet, the May 3rd action, was a forceful and illegal military incursion on the soil of a sovereign nation.

This is an ongoing story.

*

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 Orinoco Tribune.

Arnold August is a Canadian journalist and lecturer, the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion and the recently released Cuba–U.S. Relations: Obama and Beyond. As a journalist, he collaborates with many websites in Latin America, Europe, and North America. He is an occasional contributor to Venezuelanalysis. Reach him on his website: www.arnoldaugust.com

Featured image is from Orinoco Tribune

When governments announced the huge amounts of money they were to provide to help with the economic shutdown, a friend asked, ‘where’s the money going to come from?’ The question is a good one, better than he realized because of the corollary question, where is the money going to go?

Before looking at the details lets do a little recap. The last major crisis in our economic world was a dozen years ago. Then, what is now called the Great Recession started. It was caused by over a decade of stupid, often illegal mortgage lending in the U. S. that created a financial bubble. And to make matters worse, those valueless mortgages were then bundled together and sold as new ‘securities’ around the world. That new but valueless market grew until the whole thing burst. Stock markets, which up until then had been soaring, plunged. In response the U. S. government passed TARP (the Troubled Asset Relief) bill. “Troubled assets” we were to learn, is Fed Speak for bad loans.

The bill to buy up these insolvent loans was for $700 billion which reportedly grew to $7.7 trillion. Money was given to the banks who knowingly made the bad loans, not to their customers, many of whom had been duped. Essentially the same bail out happened in other countries. In Canada, the Finance minister said that Canadian banks were so secure they would not need help! Literally days later he announced that the banks needed essentially the same degree of help as the U.S. banks.

In addition to banks and brokerage companies, dozens of companies including giants like General Motors, and Chrysler were bailed out. Some money got paid back and some didn’t.

Those of us my age were raised when the fundamental principle of free markets was competition! It was the gospel of the economy. As Adam Smith had observed, if people are left alone, successful businesses will thrive and the unsuccessful will fail. This, in the long run would and did serve the public well.

But that long-standing assumption died in 2008 with the dubious argument that some businesses were ‘too big to fail!’ With those few words the competitive free market ended! We kept competition for those at the bottom but for large businesses, where it mattered most, competition was gone. Public money went to bail out failed private businesses.

That was then, now fast forward to what is happening as a result of the pandemic.

The consequences of shutting down the economy will be huge and are easy to predict. First, those people who are locked out of work and pay, start becoming poorer. Many will become more indebted by being forced to borrow money to survive and many will be forced into bankruptcy. Personal debt was already at record levels. Many will lose their homes.  The same is true of hundreds and possibly thousands of small businesses… any that were just getting by before will go bankrupt.  Their remains will be purchased by wealthier organizations and wealth will concentrate. And businesses that were allowed to stay open will have reduced sales and layoffs will follow.

In March congress passed what was described as the largest economic stimulus package in history with $2 trillion in coronavirus aid. And this was followed by another bill for $484 billion in late April. Where is that money to come from? Similarly, The Bank of England announced millions of pounds of aid for companies which for some reason will be kept secret, and billions in loan guarantees which is not aid but added debt. And the International Monetary Fund said it would kick in a few bucks.  Kritalina Georgieva, the managing director says on their web site, “The IMF has secured $1 trillion in lending capacity, serving our members.’ Note that is not aid, its lending capacity…. loans!

First, how big are these loans; one trillion dollars is hard to visualize; $1,000,000,000,000!

When I’ve talked about economics, I’ve tried to illustrate how big these numbers are. If you think of them in terms of time, a million seconds is 11.6 days, a billion seconds is 32 years and a trillion seconds is 32,000 years.

And now to my friend’s question; where will these vast amounts of money come from?

The answer: they will appear out of thin air!

At one time when the government needed money, it would print it but that changed in the mid 1970’s.

Now, when a government needs money, it prints bonds and sells them on the market. The buyer, typically banks, buys the bonds by approving the purchase and typing the value of the purchase into their money transfer software and pushing the send button. Bingo, the money is in the governments account, but no real money has been created.

In the United States today there are about $4,300 billion dollars… that’s real dollars, the paper things, which are referred to as M1 money. The country functions with a larger money supply than that with M2 money as well. M2 is money that has been created out of thin air, it is sometimes called fiat money and its four times bigger, $16,103 billion dollars. That number gets bigger every time someone, and that includes the government, takes out a loan and gets smaller every time a loan is repaid. In 2008 when mortgage loans got repaid, or foreclosed because people couldn’t pay, money disappeared. That is how the banks became insolvent.

And. where will these inconceivable amounts of money go?

We don’t have all the details yet, but first if you look at the patterns of the past, global corporations will be first at the trough, they find their way in after hurricanes, tsunamis and now in a pandemic.

The Guardian newspaper reported on one loan that got made too quickly and was repaid, but illustrates how fast businesses get to the public trough; ‘The Los Angeles Lakers have repaid a loan of roughly $4.6m from coronavirus business relief funds after learning the program had been depleted.

The Lakers applied for the loan under the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program, a part of the federal government’s $2.2tn stimulus package.’ (See this)

Both the U.S. and Canada have announced that some money will go directly to the people and that is as it should be. Historically it has been said that providing money directly to the people will cause inflation, but it is certainly not true in this case because the money is not additional money but money going to offset lost wages.

The inescapable outcome of the pandemic will be an increase in national debt and with that increasing profit and power for those who control money. It is not the only way we could have done it.

The result is nothing new; the rich will get richer.

*

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.