Aletho News


Medical school professor explains why we have serious reasons to review vaccine policy

Jeff Hays Films

Terry Wahls, M.D.

I’m often asked the question about vaccines and I can make some observations and raise more questions.

There’s interest, a lot of growing enthusiasm for the Hygiene Hypothesis.

The Hygiene Hypothesis:
A lack of early childhood exposure to infectious agents, symbiotic microorganisms and parasites, increases susceptibility to allergic diseases by suppressing the natural development of the immune system.

Societies where the children are still getting their typical infections, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Chicken Pox. As babies and toddlers, these society’s as adults have much less autoimmunity and the presumption is that there’s some important messaging that happens between these early childhood infections that we get from bacteria, viruses and parasites that speak to our immune cells that may help regulate a healthy immune response so later in life there’s less autoimmunity.

That’s a very important hypothesis. We may be altering the maturation process of our immune cells and increasing the risk of autoimmunity.

We have some other issues that I have concerns about, the vaccines are most effective when we use a live agent but when you use a live agent there will be some individuals whose immune functions are so compromised that that live vaccine could kill them or seriously harm them. So science has in the interest of not creating harm now used a killed infectious agent but our bodies know it’s dead, we don’t really mount much of an immune response.

So again, scientists wanting to help, decided that we have to give something that’s irritating to the immune system to get it to react to this dead infecting agent. These irritating compounds are generally fairly toxic. We usually had to use some mercury components, some aluminum components but whatever components we use will have some toxic effects.

Our vaccines are studied in their clinical trials one at a time or in a small number of vaccines at a time but when their scheduled there are many more vaccines clump together and I don’t know that we’ve had studies that look at these adjuvants that are added to a killed vaccine that had really identified how much adjuvant is safe in a single day or is safe in a lifetime. I think those are un-resolved questions.

Another factor that I worry about; it’s my recollection during medical school that I had read, the government decided that vaccines made such good public health policy that they would indemnify the vaccine makers from liability because of the public health benefits and that we needed to have the vaccines produced so we created more financial incentives to decrease the financial risk for vaccine production.

The unintended consequences of that is the development of vaccines that have less immediate public health benefit in terms of mortality. As we start creating vaccines for diseases that are not fatal but are inconvenient. Most of these vaccine studies are short term, immediate safety, we don’t have any vaccine studies that look over the life span of the human.

So I think there are unknowns, there certainly are public health benefits I will not disagree with but I think there are these public health risks that have not been adequately measured and quantified.

July 17, 2015 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | | 1 Comment

Israel sets limits to negotiations with Palestinians

By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | July 16, 2015

Not content with permanently extending and rupturing negotiations over the two-state compromise, Israel has announced a new twist to the internationally accepted framework. According to Haaretz, a senior Israeli official declared that it would only engage in talks with the EU as long as settlement construction would remain off the agenda. The talks, according to the official, would centre upon “improving the economic situation for Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.”

The EU initiative, which consisted of a request to initiate talks regarding the West Bank and the defunct two-state paradigm, was proposed to Israel in November 2014. Electoral preparations and the formation of the new government hindered a prompt response from Israel, according to the official.

Another condition imposed by Israel is the avoidance of discussing a permanent agreement with the Palestinians. The result would be a diluted semblance of negotiations – one that would limit political commitment while imposing even more conditions upon Palestinians, including permanent acquiescence and dependence.

While seemingly veering away from the usual negotiations, the latest Israeli response to the EU proposal has exacerbated the “waiting” game inflicted upon Palestinians. Discussing the economic situation in the West Bank while avoiding the topic of settlement expansion will ultimately result in additional economic benefits for Israel, as it expropriates more land and utilises Palestinian territory for its own gain – a continuation of the early colonisation policies that paved the way for the inception of the fabricated state.

EU Ambassador to Israel Lars Faaborg Andersen had declared the EU’s intention to preserve the two-state hypothesis, stating that “a series of red lines” would be drawn up, leading to sanctions if Israel crossed them. Meanwhile in recent weeks, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius met with both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and PA President Mahmoud Abbas in a bid to seek reassurances of continued PA subjugation with regard to future negotiations. For every half-hearted initiative conjured up by the EU, individual initiatives seeking to protect Israel from any consequences are consistently applied, in order to reassure Israel of the international community’s perpetual support.

Israel has also been conducting studies with regard to a complete boycott of Israel within the EU – such a move would, according to the Israeli Finance Ministry, cost the settler-colonial state $23.3 billion in losses. The commissioned study departed from a worst case scenario that would shift Israel’s status from Western ally to a state targeted both politically and through NGOs.

Whether discussions incorporate or omit the two-state compromise, the outcome will be ingrained within complicity and impunity. Punitive measures against Israel have been discussed, drawn up as a plan and heralded in the media, yet implementation is always halted by further discussions and concessions. The latest dissociation by Israel is effectively a plan to increase its settlement expansion plans while feigning cooperation with the PA to improve the economic situation. If the EU agrees to this proposal it will constitute further proof of its complicity with Israel’s colonial enterprise.

July 17, 2015 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | 1 Comment

Tory move to peddle further arms to Israel condemned by campaigners

RT | July 17, 2015

Human rights activists have condemned the British government’s decision to lift restrictions on weapons sales to Israel put in place during last summer’s Gaza conflict.

Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) said on Friday the move sends the message that Israel can continue using British arms against Palestinians and the UK government will turn a blind eye.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) defended the move, however, saying a year-long review of arms licenses to Israel had left it satisfied the contracts meet the UK’s export criteria.

The announcement comes after a report published in early July revealed the British government approved £4mn worth of arms to Israel in the immediate months following the start of Israel’s Operation Protective Edge.

Andrew Smith of CAAT expressed disbelief at the government’s decision to lift restrictions on arms exports to Israel.

“This report is extremely weak. It sends the message that Israel can continue using UK arms against the people of Gaza and the government will do nothing to stop it,” he told RT.

“The bombardment last summer killed over 2000 people and created a humanitarian catastrophe. If that wasn’t enough to change the government’s mind then what would it take?”

Business Secretary Sajid Javid said on Thursday his department was satisfied that licenses for military material, including components for radar and tanks, now meet the UK’s export criteria. Under UK regulations, the sale of arms that can be used to commit human rights violations are banned.

“Following the review the Government has concluded that in the present context where the facts are clearer these criteria may now be applied, without any additional measures,” BIS said in a statement.

A review of export licenses for arms sales to Israel was set in motion in August 2014, a month after Israel’s offensive in Gaza began.

Then-Business Secretary Vince Cable said at the time that the government was unable to clarify if the arms licenses has breached UK regulations.

“We welcome the current ceasefire in Gaza and hope that it will lead to a peaceful resolution. However, the UK government has not been able to clarify if the export licenses criteria are being met,” he said.

“In light of that uncertainty we have taken the decision to suspend these existing export licenses in the event of a resumption of significant hostilities.”

“No new licenses of military equipment have been issued for use by the Israeli Defence Forces during the review period, and as a precautionary measure this approach will continue until hostilities cease,” he added.

The government’s decision comes weeks after The Independent revealed Whitehall approved £4mn worth of arms sales to Israel in the immediate months following last summer’s grueling Gaza war.

Among the arms sales Britain presided over, were special components for military helicopters and a range of hi-tech parts for guidance and navigation systems used by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).

In June, a United Nations report accused both Israel and Palestinian armed groups of possible war crimes during the 2014 Gaza conflict.

Conducted by an independent Commission appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, the inquiry found that “serious violations of international humanitarian law” had occurred during the conflict that “may amount to war crimes.”

July 17, 2015 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Canadians say ‘we don’t believe you’ to Harper and Yatsenyuk fear mongering over war in Ukraine

New Cold War | July 16, 2015

While in Ottawa on an official visit on July 14, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk was given several platforms by Canada’s state broadcaster, the CBC, to expound his views on the situation in his country. Yatsenyuk argued that present-day Russia  threatens “global security”, which means that Canada’s security is also threatened. Therefore, goes the logic, Canada should continue to support–nay, boost its support–to Ukraine’s civil war against its population in the east of the country.

To gain some insight into the views of ordinary Canadians on this subject, read the hundreds of comments which readers and listeners of the broadcast network have posted to a CBC News article presenting Yatsenyuk’s views, here. The article is headlined, appropriately enough, ‘Ukraine crisis a threat to Canada’s security, Arseniy Yatsenyuk says’. Here are a few samples of the comments:

  • How is the security of a country over 5000 miles away a risk to Canada? They are just pandering to the few Canadians that believe bill C-51 was necessary!
  • We can’t let an ethnic Russian concert pianist play a concert because she might have an opinion on her countrymen being murdered, but we can give a voice and listen to a war criminal installed as dictator after a violent coup overthrowing a democratically elected government. Get out of Canada and go back to where you came from!
  • I am in Canada and I absolutely do not feel threatened by Russia or by Iran for that matter. The controlled mainstream media has got to stop that propaganda to further the aims of the US and world dominance.
    How many countries has Russia invaded as compared to the US? How many military bases does the US have throughout the world as compared to Russia?
    Yatsenyuk wants arms so they can defend themselves. Against who? The Russians? C’mon. That would be like Canada going to war against the US. He wants arms to escalate the war. A war that will draw in the US. So who is a threat to global security? I think it’s anyone who wants to start a war with Russia.
    The same with Iran. Harper and his minions say that Iran is a threat to global security. In what way? They do not have nuclear weapons. Israel does, and atomic inspectors are not allowed in for a look. But those same inspectors must be allowed into Iran and they do not have those weapons. No double standards?
    Not once have I read or heard Yatsenyuk or Harper say that there must be meetings with the Russian and talk of peace proposals. This whole thing did not start with the Russians. Harper starts his peace efforts with Russia and Iran with rhetoric and sanctions.
  • Yes, yes, the Harper Conservatives have been screaming “the Ruskies are coming” very loudly over the years. And holy cow, am I ever scared – NOT… I’m sorry, but you can tell me that Russia intends to invade Canada all you want. It doesn’t mean I’m going to believe it. I can’t wait until this fear mongering government of ours is ousted in October…
  • Too late, Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Harper tried to feed us that Kool-Aid already and nobody bought it.

July 17, 2015 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | 1 Comment

From Kosovo to Crimea: Obama’s Strange Position on Referendums

By Brian Cloughley | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 16, 2015

After the death of President Tito in 1980 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia slid towards chaos. In the 1990s the plunge accelerated into civil war and one of the regions most affected was Kosovo from which Serbia withdrew after a NATO bomb and rocket offensive from 24 March to 11 June 1999. That blitz involved over 1,000 mainly American aircraft conducting some 38,000 airstrikes on Yugoslavia that killed approximately 500 civilians and destroyed much of the economic and social infrastructure of the region.

The destruction and outcome were not quite as tragic and catastrophic as those from NATO’s fatuously-named Operation Unified Protector against Libya in 2011 when its seven month aerial jamboree of 9,658 air strikes caused collapse of governance and gave rise to the present infestation of Islamic savages and a massive refugee problem, but it was still calamitous, as blitzes go.

NATO said its air bombardment of Serbia was essential to halt repression of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and justified the deaths of hundreds of women and children as being necessary to defeat a “great evil.” The air attacks were not authorized by the United Nations Security Council and there is no article in the North Atlantic Treaty that justifies such a war.  It resulted, however, in Kosovo declaring independence from Serbia in 2008.

As reported by the Washington Post, NATO supported the rebel Kosovo Liberation Army whose members are now, belatedly, being convicted of war crimes.

On March 26, 2014 President Barack Obama said in a speech in Brussels that regarding the 1999 war on Yugoslavia, “NATO only intervened after the people of Kosovo were systematically brutalized and killed for years. And Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized not outside the boundaries of international law, but in careful cooperation with the United Nations and with Kosovo’s neighbours.”

The President of the United States, whose State Department has some 15,000 experts to keep him informed about international affairs, told the world that Kosovo had held an independence referendum “in careful cooperation” with the United Nations Organization. He added that “None of that even came close to happening in Crimea,” which was an intriguing pronouncement.

Because as reported on Fox News, “During his speech in Brussels, President Obama showed a lack of knowledge of the political situation in Kosovo. Kosovo never organized any kind of referendum, but the Assembly of Provisional Institutions of self-government of Kosovo made a unilateral declaration of independence on February 17th 2008.”

Fox News went on to report Doctor James Ker-Lindsay, a Senior Research Fellow on the Politics of South East Europe at the London School of Economics, as saying that “Surely there must have been someone at hand who would have known that there was no UN organised referendum in Kosovo. It really was not that long ago . . .   It will be interesting to see if a retraction or correction is issued by the White House.”

And correction came there none.

Although there was no referendum in Kosovo before its declaration of independence from Serbia it is apparent that the majority of Kosovans desired independence and would have voted for separation from Serbia if they had been given the opportunity to do so.  And according to Mr Obama there was and remains no reason for their wishes to be denied.

After all, in 2010 the UN International Court’s Advisory Opinion concerning Kosovo indicated that “international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence,” a clear-cut endorsement of Kosovo’s actions — and of other such decisions around the world.

No doubt Mr Obama approved of the opportunity given to the people of Scotland to vote in an Independence Referendum a few months after his enthusiastic endorsement of a non-existent plebiscite in Kosovo.  In the Scottish Referendum I wasn’t allowed to vote, in spite of being Scottish-born and educated, because I live outside Scotland (in France, in which place of residence I have a vote in the UK’s general elections — in a Scottish constituency).

In other blatant attempts to influence voting,  the Scottish National Party decided (in the already independent Scottish Parliament which met first in May 1999, coincidentally at the height of the US-NATO blitz on Serbia) to reduce the voting age from 18 to 16 and to forbid Scottish soldiers serving outside Scotland — in Afghanistan, for example — to vote unless they had a residence address in Scotland.

All the attempted manipulation didn’t work, and the majority of Scots voted against independence (much to the vexation of many English people), but justice was seen to be done.

Just as justice was done in the Crimea referendum.

wrote last year that “some 90% of the inhabitants of Crimea are Russian-speaking, Russian-cultured and Russian-educated, and it would be strange if they did not vote for accession to a country that welcomes their kinship, empathy and loyalty” and that there was not “a single case of bloodshed in the run-up to the plebiscite, the free vote as to whether the population wished to accede to Russia or support the “status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine.”  The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) was asked by the government of Crimea to send representatives to monitor the referendum but refused to do so.”

It was not surprising that the OSCE rejected the offer to observe the referendum and provide independent assessments of its conduct, because its findings would have been extremely embarrassing for the West and especially for Washington which had no intention of accepting the result of any referendum in which voters would favour Russia.  Obama’s assertion that the popular accession of Crimea to Russia was “annexation” is on the same level as his imaginative claim about a non-existent referendum by the citizens of Kosovo.

There were energetic attempts in the West to paint the post-accession treatment of Ukrainian military personnel in Crimea as harsh, but some newspapers refrained from deliberate lies. Even the ultra-right-wing British Daily Telegraph reported that “Like many of the Ukrainian servicemen in Crimea, the 600-strong marine battalion in Feodosia has strong local links. Many of the men are either local recruits or have served here so long they have put down roots. Only about 140 of the 600-strong battalion stationed here are expected to return to Ukraine. The remainder, with local family and friends, have opted to remain in Crimea — the land they call home.”

To President Obama it is irrelevant that the vast majority of Crimean citizens want to belong to Russia.  His hatred of Russia and especially of President Putin has tipped any intellectual balance he may have possessed and is now extreme to the point of being malevolently insulting.  He is increasingly intent on confrontation and has stated that the decision of the citizens of Crimea to accede to Russia is illegal.  The White House announced that “We reject the ‘referendum’ that took place today in the Crimean region of Ukraine,” and Obama declared “I again call on Russia to end its occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea.”

But what is Obama going to do about Crimea?  Does he seriously believe that 1.2 million Crimean Russians could accept domination by Ukraine’s Poroshenko?  There would be civil insurrection and mayhem if Ukraine took over the country as suggested by Obama.

Mr Obama’s claim that “Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized not outside the boundaries of international law, but in careful cooperation with the United Nations and with Kosovo’s neighbours,” was bizarrely untruthful — but was clear indication that he approves of UN-supervised independence plebiscites in territories whose citizens indicate that they wish to alter their circumstances of governance.

Given the practicalities of his admirable moral stance it is obvious that in order to clarify matters to his satisfaction he should propose another referendum in Crimea.

July 17, 2015 Posted by | Deception, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

BBC HARDtalk less than hard talking in interview with Saakashvili

New Cold War | July 16, 2015

BBC’s HARDtalk program interviewed the former president of Georgia and fugitive from Georgian justice, Mikheil Saakashvili, on July 15. Saakashvili was appointed last month to the post of “governor” of the region of Odessa by Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko. While some important questions were asked of him–the criminal charges he faces in Georgia, his appointment as a foreigner to govern one of Ukraine’s most important cities and industrial regions–questions on other subjects were avoided. These included questions about the Odessa Massacre of May 2, 2014, the subsequent failure of authorities to properly investigate, the vigilante justice currently prevailing in the streets of Odessa and the plans of the Kyiv government to privatize the remaining state-owned industries and services of Ukraine, many of which are located in Odessa.

BBC also avoided questioning Saakashvili over his role as then-president of Georgia in provoking a war in South Ossetia in 2008, including his decision to intensely shell the capital city of the territory. (The BBC host voiced the Western interpretation that Saakashvili’s unfortunate adventure in 2008 led to “Russian occupation” of former regions of the country, including South Ossetia and Abkhazia.)

July 17, 2015 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

‘US interest in Kyrgyzstan: Strategy of global dominance’

RT | July 17, 2015

Washington has given a human rights award to a Kyrgyz man who was arrested for instigating ethnic strife in his country, in yet another example of the US exerting its strategy of full spectrum global dominance, political analyst Srdja Trifkovic told RT.

The US State Department has decided to hand its Human Rights Defenders Award to Kyrgyz national, Azimzhan Askarov, who, in 2010, played an active role in ethnic riots between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks in his country. Askarov was arrested during the violence and convicted of taking part in the murder of a Kyrgyz police officer.

RT: Askarov was actively supported by US diplomats. Richard Miles even called him ‘the father of the colored revolutions’. What’s the significance of his involvement?

Srdja Trifkovic: When he’s on the scene, you can be sure that there can be destabilization of the regime under the auspices of ‘democratic change.’ The context is quite clear. Only ten days ago, Kyrgyzstan officially became a member of the Eurasian economic union, after passing the accession process by the parliaments of other members: Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Armenia – which, of course, is a red flag to the State Department. A year earlier, the US lease at Manas Air Base had ceased, and effectively, the US was watching one of the putative, important geostrategic assets in Central Asia slipping away. It’s curious that they weren’t so concerned about this particular human rights case – as they call it – while they were still in possession of the Manas Airport. The sentencing came in 2011, several months after the ethnic riots, and secondly, there’s no doubt we’re witnessing an activist for Uzbek separatism being lionized in much the same way as Albanian separatists in Serbia, who were actively involved in the clashes with police and the military in the late 1990s, were being celebrated and feted in Washington as human rights activists and victims of violence.

So this is just more of the same: whenever relations between the US and a certain country deteriorate because the country is no longer keen to be the US strategic asset – like a joker from the sleeve – human rights activists are produced, in this particular case, most likely, guilty of grievous crimes.

RT: Let’s speak more about the significance of Kyrgyzstan. The US had a presence at the country’s Manas Air Base for many years. How important is the country to the Americans?

ST: It’s funny that there is no country in the world that isn’t important to the Americans nowadays. Central Asia is the very heart of what Scottish geographer [Halford] Mackinder would have called the heartland. And it’s obviously an area where ostensibly the US doesn’t have vital interests. It’s a land-locked country, one of many in the former Soviet Central Asia, an area which is logically – if we look at the map – a field where Russia, China, and perhaps to a lesser extent, India, have vital interests – but certainly not the US. The US interest in Kyrgyzstan is purely the reflection of the strategy of full spectrum global dominance. In other words, there isn’t a single square foot in the world where vital US national interests are not involved.

I’m rather glad that Kirgizstan has seen the light and decided to throw in its lot with Eurasian Economic Union, because in practical terms, in terms of its economic development, especially agriculture; and in geopolitical terms that’s where it should look for its future, that’s where the future investment will come from. Depending on an umbilical cord that is 7,000-8,000 miles long, with distant friends on the other side of the Atlantic in this particular case, would not have been a rational strategy for the nation.

READ MORE: US behind undemocratic chaos seen in Ukraine and Venezuela – Adres Izarra, Venezuelan cabinet minister

July 17, 2015 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , | Leave a comment

UK pilots conducted strikes in Syria, Parliament and public kept in the dark

Reprieve | July 17, 2015

British personnel have already conducted air strikes in Syria, despite the Government’s claim that there would be a vote in Parliament before any such action took place, new research by human rights organisation Reprieve has revealed.

A Freedom of Information request submitted by Reprieve to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) found that UK personnel embedded with US and other forces “operating in Syrian airspace” “include pilots flying… Strike missions”.

Previously, UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon had indicated that the House of Commons would have the final say before Britain expanded its programme of air strikes to Syria.

Jennifer Gibson, staff attorney at Reprieve said:

“Documents obtained by Reprieve indicate that UK personnel have already been involved in bombing missions over Syria for some time – making the current debate over whether Britain should carry out such strikes somewhat obsolete. It is alarming that Parliament and the public have been kept in the dark about this for so long.

“Yet more worrying is the fact that the UK seems to have turned over its personnel to the US wholesale, without the slightest idea as to what they are actually doing, and whether it is legal. We need an open and honest debate about UK involvement in Iraq and Syria. We can’t have that, though, until the UK comes clean about what actions its personnel are already undertaking.”

July 17, 2015 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, War Crimes | , , | 1 Comment