Aletho News


Stop Blaming Russia, China for US Disarmament Failures

By Thomas L. Knapp | The Garrison Center | June 24, 2020

On June 22 and 23, Russian and American diplomats met in Vienna to discuss New START, a nuclear arms reduction treaty which expires next year. The treaty provides for an optional five-year extension. Alternatively, the parties could negotiate a new agreement as has happened several times in the past.

A third possibility involves one or both parties playing silly games like insisting that China be brought into the negotiations despite Beijing’s complete lack of interest in participating. Which is exactly what happened. US negotiator Marshall Billingslea tweeted a photo of empty seats with People’s Republic flag placeholders in Vienna, calling China a “no-show” and accusing it of a “crash nuclear build-up.”

It would take quite a build-up indeed for the Chinese nuclear arsenal to get competitive with that of the US or Russia. The latter two regimes boast thousands of bombs and warheads. Most estimates of China’s collection are in the hundreds.

And, given the US government’s record of treaty violations, why would Beijing’s diplomats be inclined to trust their Washington counterparts anyway?

Negotiations with other nuclear powers — not to mention its attempt to both withdraw from, AND remain recognized as party to, the  “Iran Nuclear Deal” —  aside, the US government continues to flout its obligation under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to “pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of” its arsenal.

Instead of decommissioning and destroying nuclear weapons as should be happening, the Obama and Trump regimes have committed to spending a whopping $1.7 trillion over 30 years (a number anyone familiar with government spending knows will mysteriously multiply) on “modernizing” them.

The purpose of arms control talks is to reduce the likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used. The purpose of “modernizing” those weapons is to make those weapons easier to use. The US government needs to commit to the former goal and renounce the latter possibility.

Even accepting the exceedingly weak case for continuing to possess nuclear weapons as a deterrent to first strikes, the numbers needed for that use would be a fraction of, not a multiple of, China’s or Russia’s arsenals.

A serious approach to arms control would consist of the US government announcing a unilateral and verifiable reduction to an arsenal of, say, no more than 100 nuclear weapons, challenging the Russian and Chinese governments to match that reduction, and committing to complete elimination if, and as, other nuclear powers agree. Anything less is just potentially deadly politicking.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (

June 24, 2020 Posted by | Aletho News | | 1 Comment

So it wasn’t ‘by the book’? Strzok notes reveal Obama & Biden were involved in FBI going after General Flynn

RT | June 24, 2020

New evidence shows that the decision to send the FBI after General Michael Flynn, president-elect Donald Trump’s top adviser, came from President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden and wasn’t “by the book” at all.

Biden was the one to raise the Logan Act, while Obama instructed FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates to have “the right people” on the case during a White House meeting, according to a handwritten note from FBI Agent Peter Strzok.

The note was provided by the DOJ earlier this week to Flynn’s attorneys, who submitted it to the court as evidence on Wednesday.

While Strzok’s hard-to-read note does not mention names, it refers to people by letters – P for president, VP for vice-president, DAG for Yates, D for Director Comey, etc. – according to the court filing.

The Logan Act is an old law that bans private citizens from conducting foreign policy, but it did not apply to Flynn, since he was an incoming national security adviser to the president-elect. Even Comey admitted that his telephone conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak “appear legit[imate],” but was nonetheless told to pursue a case, according to Strzok’s note.

This directly contradicts the narrative about the meeting put forth by Obama’s security adviser Susan Rice, who wrote a strange memo to herself on the eve of Trump’s inauguration repeatedly saying that Obama wanted the investigation to be “by the book.”

Strzok’s note is undated, but the filing says it appears to be referring to a meeting on January 4, 2017 – the same date Strzok intervened to keep the FBI background case against Flynn open, though it had been scheduled to close due to lack of evidence of any wrongdoing. Strzok would later be one of the agents to interview Flynn, and admitted in texts to heavily editing the memorandum of that interview – which has not been made available as evidence.

Earlier in the day, the Washington, DC Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the federal judge in charge of Flynn’s case to immediately agree to the government motion to drop the charges. Last month, Judge Emmet Sullivan responded to the DOJ motion to dismiss charges – in light of evidence revealing the prosecution of Flynn was improperly predicated – by appointing a hostile ex-judge to evaluate the motion and hiring a private attorney to represent himself, at taxpayers’ expense. Flynn’s team reacted by seeking a writ of mandamus from the appeals court.

Flynn was the first casualty of the ‘Russiagate’ probe targeting Trump for alleged “collusion” with Russia in the 2016 election. The adviser was forced to resign after less than two weeks on the job, after the Washington Post accused him of lying to the FBI based on yet-unidentified leaks. He was charged by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in late 2017, and pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI under pressure, but has been fighting the charges after getting a new legal counsel in 2018.

President Trump reacted to the news by wondering if Comey and the FBI, or Mueller and his prosecutors, or Obama and Biden, will apologize to Flynn and others caught up in the probe.

Mueller’s investigation ended in May 2019 finding no evidence of any collusion anywhere, forcing Democrats to claim Trump had abused power by withholding aid from Ukraine as a pretext to impeach him.

June 24, 2020 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , , , , | 2 Comments

Bolton’s Memoir Undercuts Hype as Impeachment’s Would-Be Star Witness

By Aaron Maté | Real Clear Investigations | June 23, 2020

In late January, John Bolton became the latest – and unlikeliest – official to enjoy a moment of Resistance glory. A New York Times report about Bolton’s forthcoming memoir fueled round-the-clock expectations that the former national security adviser would substantiate the core allegation at the heart of President Trump’s then-ongoing Senate impeachment trial – that the president tried to coerce Ukraine into opening an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden in a quid pro quo for military aid. Compelling his testimony was cast as a matter of national urgency. Bolton was never given the chance as Senate Republicans voted to block witnesses and acquit Trump on both impeachment counts.

In the publicity blitz for his new memoir, “The Room Where It Happened,” Bolton has tried to keep the initial narrative alive. Speaking to ABC News, he claimed that Trump, at a meeting in August 2019, said he “wanted a probe of Joe Biden in exchange for delivering the security assistance.” That conversation, Bolton added, “was the crispest indication of the linkage. … The specificity of the linkage, I think, was unmistakable.”

His memoir, however, fails to substantiate that allegation.

In fact, Bolton offers new evidence that undermines it.

What he told Martha Raddatz is not what he writes in his book. Instead of a sharp demand of a quid pro quo, Bolton writes, Trump “said he wasn’t in favor of sending [Ukraine] anything until all the Russia-investigation materials related to [Hillary] Clinton and Biden had been turned over.”

Bolton does not explain what he means by “materials” – and no interviewer has asked him to so far. RealClearInvestigations’ request to Bolton for comment, sent through a representative, was not immediately answered.

No Word on Burisma

Regardless, those were not at the heart of Trump’s impeachment. Trump was not impeached for trying to coerce Ukraine into handing over “Russia-investigation materials” to the U.S., but for allegedly trying to force Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to open a wholly separate investigation of the Bidens and Burisma, the gas company where Hunter was given a lucrative board seat while his father was running U.S. policy in Ukraine.

Yet Burisma is not even mentioned in Bolton’s book – and Hunter only in passing. This includes an acknowledgement that Bolton does not even remember if the younger Biden was actually discussed. At a May 8 meeting where Trump and his legal adviser Rudy Giuliani discuss the latter’s “desire to meet with President-Elect Zelensky,” Bolton cannot recall if the purpose is “to discuss [Ukraine’s] investigation of either Hillary Clinton’s efforts to influence the 2016 campaign or something having to do with Hunter Biden and the 2020 election, or maybe both.”

Son gets job on energy company board after father backs violent coup

Bolton says his recollections are not precise because the Ukraine-related theories floating around the Trump administration “always seemed intermingled and confused, one reason I did not pay them much heed. Even after they became public, I could barely separate the strands of the multiple conspiracy theories at work.”

Bolton’s words are also ambiguous. The fact that Trump allegedly “said he wasn’t in favor of sending [Ukraine] anything” is not an explicit linkage to military aid. And as for the “Russian-investigation materials,” Bolton does not specify what Trump was referring to. It seems likely Trump may have been referencing his reported theory that the Democratic National Committee server was somehow hacked with Ukrainian involvement.

Trump may also have been seeking information on the Ukrainians who openly admitted to interfering in the 2016 campaign with the aim of thwarting his candidacy, most notably by leaking allegations of illegal payments to Paul Manafort. It is highly plausible that these were Trump’s priorities. In his July 25 phone call with Zelensky, which sparked the whistleblower complaint behind Ukrainegate, Trump’s top issue – and the object of the “favor” he requested – was not the Bidens, but securing Zelensky’s assistance with the Justice Department’s ongoing review of how the Russia investigation began in 2016.

Whatever the case, for Bolton to write that Trump drew a link between these issues and the security aid – and not a link to a demand that Ukraine open an investigation of the Bidens and Burisma – contradicts the impeachment case that many expected him to validate.

Bolton, perhaps inadvertently, also lends credence to the Trump administration’s public defense of its freeze on security assistance to Ukraine, which Democrats cast as the linchpin of a politically motivated quid pro quo. In his July 25 call with Zelensky and subsequent public statements, Trump has said that he wanted NATO allies to spend more on Ukrainian military funding. Bolton recounts that on Aug. 30 – just days after an article in Politico made the aid freeze public, including to the Ukrainian government – Trump repeated his complaints about the U.S. burden, and proposed that NATO provide Ukraine with the security assistance instead of Washington:

Trump said, “I don’t give a shit about NATO. I am ready to say, ‘If you don’t pay, we won’t defend them.’ I want the three hundred million dollars [he meant two hundred fifty million dollars, one piece of the assistance earmarked for Ukraine] to be paid through NATO.” … He then said to Pence, “Call [NATO Secretary General Jens] Stoltenberg and have him have NATO pay. Say ‘The President is for you, but the money should come from NATO,’” which still didn’t make any sense.

If Trump is freezing the military aid for the sole purpose of coercing a Ukrainian investigation, it would be incongruous for him to propose an outcome that delivers the money without the investigation he is supposedly trying to compel.

As a part of their impeachment case, Democrats argued that Trump released the aid to Ukraine only after getting caught through publicity surrounding the whistleblower complaint. Yet Bolton writes that after Ukraine conducted a successful prisoner swap with Russia on Sept. 7, “Trump had seemingly indicated” that the swap “might be enough to get him to release the security assistance.” The money was released four days later, on Sept. 11.

Says He Wanted Nothing to do With Ukraine

Bolton confirms national security aide Fiona Hill’s testimony that he told her he did not want to be “part of whatever drug deal Sondland and [White House Chief of Staff Mick] Mulvaney are cooking up.” But he offers context that makes that line far less explosive than it was initially received. Bolton was not referring to leveraging any military aid, but to Sondland’s attempt to push for a hasty meeting between Trump and Zelensky at the White House, where the “Giuliani issues” could be discussed before Ukraine’s parliamentary elections in July.

Bolton says he nixed the idea of a meeting because Trump had recently told him that “he didn’t want to have anything to do with Ukrainians of any stripe,” due to Ukrainian meddling against him in the 2016 campaign. Sondland, in Bolton’s view, was “freelancing.” According to Bolton, Trump had also “resolved the visit issue just before leaving for the United Kingdom in June,” by saying he would meet with Zelensky “not until the fall, the right outcome in my view.”

It is easy to forget why Bolton was initially cast as a savior figure in January by those hoping to remove Trump by impeachment. When news of his memoir emerged, 10 days after the Senate trial began, Democrats had failed to prove their case. Not a single witness in the House impeachment hearings had provided direct evidence of a quid pro quo. The only witness who even spoke to Trump about the Ukraine aid was the then-European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland. He  reiterated multiple times that “nobody told me directly that the aid was tied to anything,” and that such a linkage was only his “presumption” and “personal, you know, guess.”

Sondland’s testimony was even more damaging to the impeachment case because, according to the impeachment narrative, he was the Trump official who purportedly relayed the alleged quid pro quo to the Ukrainian side. But Sondland revealed that he had only told Zelensky aide Andriy Yermak, in “a very, very brief pull-aside conversation,” that “I didn’t know exactly why” the aid has been frozen, but that a demand to open investigations “could be a reason.”

For his part, Yermak has said he does not even remember discussing the frozen aid with Sondland. That highlighted another problem with the Democrats’ quid pro quo allegation: Not a single Ukrainian official substantiates it. In addition to Yermak, President Zelensky and Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko also said that they saw no tie between the frozen military funding and pressure to open investigations. Even Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, a staunch impeachment advocate, corroborates them: When they met in early September, Murphy recalled, Zelensky “did not make any connection between the aid that had been cut off and the requests that he was getting from Giuliani.”

The Ukrainians’ claims make sense in light of the fact that they only learned of the aid freeze, along with the rest of the world, with the Politico article published August 28. That would have meant that the supposed quid pro quo demand was made to them only after the issue became a matter of public controversy. That scenario was always implausible on its face. And now Bolton’s memoir has failed to change the picture. Bolton seems to grasp this fact. “I think the House Democrats built a cliff, they threw themselves off of it,” he told Raddatz of ABC News. “And halfway down, they looked up and saw me, and said, ‘Hey, why don’t you come along?”

June 24, 2020 Posted by | Book Review, Corruption, Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

UK Foot and Mouth Disease

By Larry Romanoff | Moon of Shanghai | June 24, 2020

In 2001, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease ravaged the British farming industry. Exports from the UK of live animals, meat and dairy products were banned by other nations, as was the movement of animals from the infected area, and the government ordered a mass slaughter of millions of animals. The losses to British farmers were nearly incalculable, with a great many farmers going bankrupt or otherwise put out of business, and some farmers committing suicide in anguish over their losses. Within six months, almost 4 million animals had been slaughtered and their carcasses burned. Oddly, in the face of this enormous disaster, the government refused to hold a public inquiry into the outbreak, announcing instead three small separate investigations, the results of which would not be made public.

The UK government initially blamed the disease outbreak on “animal activists“, but not everyone believed the official story. At the time, the Sunday Express reported that the outbreak had been attributed to some vials containing foot and mouth virus, which had gone mysteriously missing from the laboratories at Porton Down, which location is a top-secret government bioweapons research facility housing such agents as TB, anthrax, smallpox, Ebola and the foot-and-mouth viruses. The report stated that “Authorities tried to play down the report by suggesting that “animal rights activists” had stolen and released the samples from the maximum-security government laboratory, though the same authorities failed to explain how animal rights activists would believe they were promoting animal rights by releasing a biological agent that would result in the destruction of millions of animals, or how they were able to penetrate the multiple layers of defenses in the heavily-secured laboratory.

No ragtag collection of anybody from anywhere would ever have access to such a facility, much less know how to deal with it. Neither terrorists nor animal-rights activists are renowned Ph.Ds with high-level security clearances and access to the top-secret and impossibly-secured facilities that contain these pathogens. And even if they did obtain access, the chances of any of them knowing what to search for, what to take, and what to do with it – and exiting alive – are somewhat less than zero. Given all of this, what do we make of the UK government’s claims that “activists” entered such a P-4 facility, stole many vials of foot and mouth virus, then apparently walked out of the facility unchallenged and proceeded to inoculate cattle and other farm animals by the hundreds of thousands? The accomplishment of such a feat might require more animal activists than exist in England, possibly by orders of magnitude.

As well, one media report in 2001 stated that “An eminent scientist with thirty years experience of infectious diseases challenged [UK Prime Minister] Blair in a prominent Sunday newspaper to “come clean and tell the truth about the foot-and-mouth epidemic“. The scientist testified that the virus which devastated Britain’s livestock “was not active in any other part of the world and could only have come from a UK laboratory.” And indeed the UK government bio-warfare labs at both Pirbright and Porton Down have been confirmed by the UK Minister of Health as containing more than 5,000 different strains of this particular virus, and in the end it did indeed appear the virus had originated in the UK government’s bio-warfare labs at Porton Down.

Then, the Sunday Express reported that a routine audit of Porton Down’s bio-warfare labs revealed that a container of several vials of foot-and-mouth virus had gone missing two months before the first outbreak of the disease, stating that “There are very persistent rumors over missing phials from Porton Down linked to animal rights activists”. The government of course desperately denied such a possibility, stating that “… only the Institute of Animal Health Laboratory and the Merial Biological Laboratory at Pirbright are licensed to hold FMD virus”, and that tales of the virus being stolen from Porton Down were inaccurate and impossible. But then, a senior military source at Porton Down stated publicly that vials “appear to have gone missing from one of the labs [at Porton Down] following a routine audit last year.”

The government then admitted that such a thing did happen after all and, right on cue, the government blamed the usual “animal rights activists” for the theft and release of the deadly pathogen, the media dutifully reporting that “Ministry officials were informed immediately and an investigation was launched initially by Special Branch and then by MI5, who are interested in the activities of animal rights protesters.” Unfortunately, those animal activists and protestors were somehow never found.

This scenario was repeated in 2007 with another outbreak in the UK, the source of which was determined to have been another UK government bio-weapons lab, this time at Pirbright. At the time, the Guardian published an article stating that, according to the authorities, “A leaky drain allowed the disease to escape”. The Guardian reported that, according to government sources, there had been a “probable” new leak of foot and mouth disease virus from the Merial Animal Health facility at Pirbright, the virus believed to have escaped through a leaking valve, “allowing an unintended probable release of live FMD virus into the drainage system“. The government claimed in a written statement to have received Merial’s assurances that “the live virus had not been released to the environment”, though in fact it had been. A spokesman for Merial apparently told the Guardian that he was “surprised by the fuss”. Both the government Health Service and Merial shared the source of this outbreak, the “broken drainage system” which served both sets of laboratories, though apparently “investigators were strangely unable to determine which lab was actually responsible for the leakage and outbreak”.

What do we make of the claim that perhaps thousands of liters of foot and mouth virus escaped through “a leaky drain” at Pirbright? I have had some experience with things that leak from drains or similar, and in all cases the leaks simply pool on the ground, filling the depressions while waiting to evaporate. But then this is England and maybe things are different there, which would account for the leaked pathogens winding their way through English hill and dale, visiting and somehow infecting millions of animals, for hundreds of kilometers in all directions from the biolab. In my world, viruses are not renowned for their motive ability to travel a countryside, nor for the necessary tracking radar to hunt down thousands of animal herds, nor for the aggressive disposition that would lead them to attack and infect every animal they found. That would almost require an intelligence – and a vehicle.

In June of 2008, soon after the second major outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the UK media ran a series of articles stating that “Security at British laboratories working with some of the world’s deadliest pathogens (that included anthrax, hemorrhagic fever and smallpox viruses), was undermined by a lack of investment and poor maintenance“. The media articles were in response to a report produced by some government MPs which claimed that the labs were “so dilapidated” and “run down” it was “not acceptable” that scientists were asked to work there. These facilities, the MPs claimed, had “outlived their usefulness”, and were in such ruinous condition they were “quite likely to experience” yet another leakage of deadly pathogens such as those of the foot and mouth virus that necessitated the slaughter of millions of animals. The committee of MPs especially singled out the labs at Pirbright and the secretive bio-warfare lab installations at Porton Down which, the media reported, were “Britain’s frontline defense against infectious diseases”.

It needs to be noted here that neither Pirbright nor Porton Down, but especially Porton Down, are a ‘frontline defense’ against anything and are in fact bio-weapons labs with a well-deserved evil reputation and a long and malicious history. This may have been the CIA’s version of a joke, but when anthrax spores were mailed to some US government and media representatives in 2001, CIA officials publicly speculated that Porton Down may have been their origin. In the end, the origin was determined to be (quite possibly courtesy of the same CIA) the US military’s bio-weapons labs at Fort Detrick, so perhaps a small false flag. Porton Down and the CIA have been close friends for many decades.It was to Porton Down that the CIA outsourced many of its “terminal interrogations”, i.e. questioning people until they died from the questioning methods. It was here that CIA biochemist Frank Olson witnessed firsthand the results of his ‘biochemistry’, began to suffer unbearable pangs of conscience, then suddenly met his death in most unusual circumstances, the result of an apparent suicide – as they almost always are. It was eventually revealed that Olson had been ordered killed by CIA Director Allen Dulles, that his death was neither an accident nor a suicide, but a deliberate murder to prevent the man from disclosing to the media the secret crimes of the CIA and Porton Down. Then-US President Johnson apologised to the family and paid $750,000 in compensation. So let’s not pretend Porton Down provides defense against infectious diseases.

According to an “independent” report, the buildings housing the lab facilities that contained the foot and mouth viruses were apparently “visibly substandard”, were suffering from a “creeping degradation of standards”, and were “poorly managed and regulated”. As Dr. Iain Anderson, who led a similar inquiry into the larger similar outbreak in 2001, was quoted as saying, “This virus should never have got out. [No argument there] Everything was wrong around Pirbright; the regulatory system was poor, the risk management was poor“. He further stated, “… the facilities … fall well short of internationally recognised standards, and the governance and funding arrangements are muddled and ineffective”. As well, his report described the laboratories as “shabby and dilapidated”, thus leading to the deadly virus “probably leaking from faulty pipes”. One British MP was quoted as saying, “When you think about how important biosecurity is, [… this] is staggering”. No kidding. I would have to agree.

At the time of the release of these so-called independent reports, the media were uniformly frightening us with claims that “Many scientists believe” that “climate change and terrorism” would now “bring many new diseases” and cause many pathogens such as anthrax to be “deliberately released in public places”, though it wasn’t immediately clear how climate change might deliberately release anthrax in a public park. The only scientists who believe that are the same people planning the next release. Those reports were not meant as either an apology or explanation for past disease outbreaks, but to create fear because a fearful public is malleable and will easily surrender civil rights to a fascist government in exchange for protection – most often from that same government. It was also a political statement to justify to the public the planned expense of a new, and quite massive, bio-warfare pathogen facility in the UK, one that would of course be “necessary to combat whatever our enemies throw at us”. Or to produce whatever we might want to throw at ourselves.

Aside from the implausibility inherent in the official narratives of these disease outbreaks, there are three other curious items I would bring to your attention.

  1. The UK Government appeared to have prepared precisely for the epidemic of 2001. From an article by Dr. Mae-Wan Hoin an Institute of Science in Society Report dated September 24, 2001, entitled “Foot & Mouth Outbreak, GM Vaccine and Bio-warfare”:

“Investigations by the ‘Evening Chronicle‘ uncovered that the United States, Canada and Mexico began preparing for ‘a simulated outbreak of foot and mouth disease’ last October. According to papers leaked from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the exercise – which took place between November 6 and 9 – was ‘for the purpose of emergency planning.’ The papers reportedly state: ‘This exercise is the first of its kind and provides all three countries with a unique opportunity to apply their emergency response plans in the event of a real disease outbreak.’ At the same time, the UK Government was reported to be preparing its own ‘contingency plans’ for a foot and mouth outbreak. The Evening Chronicle reported that officials from the Agriculture Ministry began telephoning timber merchants as early as December asking if they could supply wood for pyres, should foot and mouth strike.”

  1. UK farms appeared to have been targeted in advance, each marked with yellow tapes, for a visitation from unannounced and unidentified “government animal inspectors”, those farms being unfortunate enough to earn an “inspection” apparently coinciding with those suffering an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, with all livestock being destroyed.

According to one report that appeared credible, and there were others, a local resident named Martin Grant, who lived in Hatherleigh, Devon, described events he observed while cycling through the countryside in the Spring and Summer of 2001. Grant claims to have seen yellow tapes tied to fences, hedges, and trees on the roadside at the entrances to farms in the area. He, and others, later noted that these same locations were those “inspected” by staff claiming to be government agricultural workers. Though Grant was not conducting a scientific survey, he later stated that these locations appeared to coincide not only with the so-called inspections but also with the specific appearances of foot and mouth disease. He said it all occurred “generally just about the same time … this seemed to coincide that anyone that got a tape got foot-and-mouth. As if somebody had deliberately done something.” He was asked if his impression was that the yellow tapes were, “In other words, to ear-mark the farm for possible infection?” His response was to say, “Yes. That was the impression that I got… yes.” He added further that at the time, fragments of the yellow tapes were still hanging on many of the fences.

Another report was from a family named Bratton who lived in the area in question. Mrs. Bratton reported that she “encountered two men in white overalls outside the cattle shed” while walking to the buildings on her farm. She had no idea who they were or why they were on her property and, upon inquiring, was told they were UK Ministry of Agriculture officials “who had every right to inspect agricultural premises”, and ordered her to go inside her house because she was not permitted to witness their “inspections”. Mrs. Bratton said she called the local police several times, was assured they would investigate and contact her. She claimed she received no response, and was later informed the police had no record of her prior calls. Shortly thereafter, all her farm’s livestock was discovered to be infected and were subsequently destroyed. I have not seen much of the documentation, but there were many apparently many similar reports of animal inspections from farms suffering the same fate.

  1. Perhaps the most curious of all was the well-documented activity by staff from the office of the UK Minister of Agriculture inquiring about the supply of lumber (for burning infected livestock) and the requisitioning of it, prior to any apparent need. There were at least several published accounts of various government officials or their representatives inquiring about “combustible materials”, as well as stockpiling them, and of the issuing of contracts to trucking companies and machinery operators for ground excavation and for the hauling of dead livestock, several months prior to the disease outbreak in February of 2001.

One headline stated, “Timber merchants around Britain say that in early February they were approached by the ministry for wood supplies to burn animals with foot-and-mouth. Timber merchants say they were approached by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in early February, before the outbreak was confirmed, to supply wood for the pyres which are used to burn the diseased animals that have been killed.” UK Agriculture minister Nick Brown insisted this was part of a “regular contingency planning exercise”, and added, “There are a number of urban legends doing the rounds that the ministry knew about this disease before. That is not true.”

Mr. Brown was pointedly questioned about the contacts made by his office with suppliers – many months prior to the disease outbreak – “to establish the availability of timber, suitable for use in pyres for burning dead livestock.” The Minister’s reply was to say that “Information on all the timber stockists contacted by the Ministry over the last year is not held centrally and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.” If that isn’t clear, the Minister effectively stated that his staff created no accessible records of their approaches to lumber dealers, purchases made and contracts signed, that any records that did exist were widely dispersed and couldn’t be collated. That might be true if 50,000 lumber dealers were approached by several thousand different staff members in a wholly uncoordinated fashion but, if the number of dealers were only in the tens, which is likely, the Minister’s statements beg some questions.

There is one final matter I would bring to your attention, one on which I have no commentary. There were many rumors, some articles, and several letters to the Editor at the time, dealing with what was called a “planned rationalisation” of UK animal farms, ‘rationalisation’ in this sense referring to the elimination of small farmers and the concentration of livestock production in the hands of Big Agra. This would have included, according to these people, increased and prohibitively costly new regulations which small operators would find onerous or impossible to implement, preparing the way for small agra to be eventually absorbed by the multi-national food processing corporations“. Writers claimed this was one of the ambitions of then Prime Minister Blair. I do not know if this was the intent, but it certainly was the result. According to my information, many thousands of small farmers have disappeared from the UK, driven out by unrecoverable losses, poor compensation and new regulations. And Big Agra has apparently indeed proliferated in the aftermath.

I do not know the totality of truths for these outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, nor specifically how the virus was removed from the secure P-4 facilities and spread around the entire country. It certainly was not the result of either accidents or activists, and had to be done deliberately. I think we can be forgiven for suspicions that the deep state that controls so many Western governments is the most vicious criminal enterprise in the world today.

Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He can be contacted at:

Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Moon of Shanghai, 2020

June 24, 2020 Posted by | Deception, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , | 2 Comments

If black lives matter, then why are African leaders with a different take on Covid-19 being taunted?

Tanzanian President John Pombe Magufuli  ©  AFP / Michele Spatari
By Neil Clark | RT | June 24, 2020

The criticism of Tanzania’s and Madagascar’s presidents, John Magufuli and Andry Rajoelina, for challenging the Covid ‘consensus’ shows that, for some, Black Lives Matter counts only if black voices are saying the ‘right’ things.

YouTube has ‘Black Lives Matter’ as its Twitter bio. Pretty worthy, eh? But that didn’t stop the internet platform removing a video made by a Canadian activist who calls herself ‘Amazing Polly’ that featured claims made about Covid-19 and its treatment by the leaders of Tanzania and Madagascar. It has subsequently restored it, but the fact it took it down in the first place, alongside the sneering, hostile reaction from others to what the African leaders said, speaks volumes about the double standards currently on display.

Magufuli’s great crime was that he decided to test the testers. He instructed his country’s security services to send to Covid-19 testing labs samples taken from a pawpaw, a goat, some engine oil and a type of bird called a kware, among other non-human sources, but to assign them human names and ages. The pawpaw sample was given the name ‘Elizabeth Ane, 26 years, female.’ And guess what? The sample came back positive for Covid-19. As did those from the kware and the goat.

The testing kits had been imported from abroad. Clearly, as Magufuli – a PhD in chemistry – stated, something wasn’t quite right. “When you notice something like this, you must know there’s a dirty game played in those tests,” he said.

He advised his people, in relation to his government’s Covid-19 strategy, “Let us put God first. We must not be afraid of each other” – in stark contrast to the ‘Social distancing is here to stay’ Project Fear approach adopted elsewhere.

Magufuli also assured his people he would be sending a plane to collect an herbal cure for Covid-19 that was being promoted by Madagascar’s President Andry Rajoelina.

In her video, Amazing Polly not only includes extracts of speeches by the leaders of Magufuli and Rajoelina, but also focuses on the criticism they received from the global health establishment.

The subtext: How dare these uppity Africans challenge what we say! How dare they promote their own traditional medicines (instead of Big Pharma’s) or claim coronavirus tests are returning false positives!

“Caution must be taken about misinformation, especially on social media, about the effectiveness of certain remedies,” declared the World Health Organization (WHO). But should we really be so quick to dismiss Magufuli and Rajoelina, and what they have to say? The point is not whether we agree or disagree with the Tanzanian and Madagascan approaches, but rather that, at the very least, there should be some proper, grown-up debate.

At the time of writing, Madagascar has reported 15 deaths due to Covid-19, while Magufuli declared Tanzania coronavirus-free in early June, after a total of 21 deaths. Now, you might want to challenge those figures, which is your prerogative, but you can’t automatically presume they are not accurate.

“I’m certain many Tanzanians believe that the corona disease has been eliminated by God,” Magufuli said. Now there is nothing more likely to trigger a virtue-signaling ‘anti-racist’ Western global public health ‘consensus’ follower than a black African leader defying the ‘party line’ on Covid and citing the Lord. Just look at Western press coverage of Magufuli’s stance: ‘”Africa’s ‘bulldozer’ runs into Covid and claims God is on his side” was the headline of one very hostile piece on

Another journalist declared that Magufuli was “a strong contender for the most asinine coronavirus global leader.”

The oft-repeated claim in reports on Tanzania is that there’s been a cover-up. Right on cue, the US Embassy to Tanzania weighed in on May 13, claiming the risk of contracting Covid-19 in Dar es-Salaam was “extremely high.” The intimation was that the Tanzanian leader couldn’t possibly be telling the truth about Covid. But wasn’t that assumption, just a tiny bit, er, racist?

Another African leader who challenged the ‘consensus’ on Covid-19 was Burundi’s Pierre Nkurunziza. Burundi, which didn’t impose a lockdown, actually expelled the WHO’s team from the country in May, accusing it of “unacceptable interference.” On June 8, Nkurunziza died suddenly, aged 55. Yet again, this didn’t get too much coverage, save for some articles in the West claiming he had died of coronavirus, even though the official cause was given as a heart attack. African leaders can be lauded, but only if they toe the politically correct line set by self-proclaimed ‘anti-racist’ men in suits in the West, it seems.

And this colonial mindset permeates even the ‘anti-imperialist’ movement. A friend of mine told me he went on a demonstration against NATO’s attack on Libya in 2011. Some Libyans present had banners of their country’s president, Muammar Gaddafi. They were told to take them down by the non-Libyan organisers. That’s right: Africans weren’t allowed to display banners of their country’s leader at a march opposing the bombing of their country.

Rajoelina hit the nail on the head when he said the only reason the rest of the world has refused to treat what he believes is his country’s cure for the coronavirus with the urgency and respect it deserves is that the remedy comes from Africa.

Isn’t it ironic that, at a time when Western establishment figures are trying to show us every day how wonderfully ‘anti-racist’ they are, black voices outside the US and Britain are being ignored, even laughed at?

Only last week, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson expressed his disapproval that Britain gave 10 times as much aid to Tanzania as “we do to the six countries of the Western Balkans, who are acutely vulnerable to Russian meddling.” How interesting that aid money sent to Tanzania gets questioned only now, after the country didn’t follow the script on Covid-19.

One wonders how many of the celebrities, politicians and pundits publicly expressing support for Black Lives Matters today have actually read the work of inspirational black African leaders such as Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah and Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere, or, in fact, have even heard of them? I imagine the answer would be very few, if any.

The arrogant dismissal of voices from Africa that dare to defy Western-elite orthodoxy, and the failure to even consider the possibility that African leaders have got it right and their Western counterparts might have got it wrong, is in itself a form of neo-colonialism. And, lest we forget, Nkrumah described that as “the worst form of imperialism.”

If Black Lives Matter,  then ‘politically incorrect’ black opinions ought to be listened to with respect, and not with a smug, superior facial expression before being loftily dismissed in the way a teacher might deal with a naughty child. But in this dumbed-down era in which many unthinkingly follow the dominant globalist narrative, it’s simpler for some to ‘take a knee’ and post a photo of themselves on social media doing so than it is to take a moment to see the bigger picture.

Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. His award winning blog can be found at He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66

June 24, 2020 Posted by | Deception, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Mysterious Individual ‘Blocking Release of Docs That May Expose Epstein’s Rich & Powerful Friends’

Sputnik – 24.06.2020

Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged sex slave Virginia Roberts, now Giuffre, was previously embroiled in a prolonged legal battle with the financier’s close associate Ghislaine Maxwell that ended in 2017. However, a cache of documents in the case listing the names of the financier’s closest associates remains sealed.

An anonymous person dubbed “John Doe” is trying to prevent the release of documents related to the Roberts Giuffre-Maxwell defamation case, requested by attorney and former Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, the Daily Mail reported.

The protective order over the documents in the case was signed by now deceased New York Judge Robert Sweet, preventing the public release of the names of people closely associated with Jeffrey Epstein and potentially involved in his sex trafficking scandal.

Dershowitz, who was a friend of the convicted sexual offender, is now fighting a separate defamation case against Epstein’s alleged victim Virginia Giuffre launched in November 2019. He is calling for the protective order to be removed, arguing that the documents contain materials that could be crucial for his own defamation lawsuit.

On Tuesday, a number of attorneys involved in the case held a teleconference to debate whether the protective order can be loosened upon Dershowitz’s request. According to the Daily Mail, legal teams representing Giuffre, Maxwell, and a mysterious “John Doe” have strongly opposed the move.

The person’s attorneys, Nicholas Lewin and Paul Krieger, said in a letter to the court, that the protocol over the release of Giuffre-Maxwell case materials, which are expected to be unveiled on a “rolling basis”, should not be derailed.

“This marks Dershowitz’s second – or, by some measures, third – attempt to make an end-run around this Court’s carefully constructed unsealing protocol. Just as the Court denied Dershowitz’s prior attempts, it should deny this one”, the attorneys argued, a position that was shared by Maxwell’s and Giuffre’s legal teams.

The defamation lawsuit against Epstein’s alleged “madame” Ghislaine Maxwell was brought by Giuffre in September 2015 and eventually settled under seal two years later.

The media is now speculating that the anonymous individual involved in the case could be a public figure who is not willing to be associated with the Epstein scandal. The disgraced financier died in his prison cell in August 2019, while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges following accusations by several women, including Virginia Roberts Giuffre. Throughout his business career, Epstein was associated with a number of powerful figures, including Hillary and Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Donald Trump, and many others. Roberts Giuffre claims that she was sex-trafficked to some of them, including British Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz, accusations both men have strongly denied.

June 24, 2020 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | 2 Comments

‘Russiagate’ case against ex-Trump adviser Michael Flynn effectively OVER, as DC appeals court orders to close it

RT | June 24, 2020

An appeals court in Washington, DC, ruled that the case against President Trump’s one-time national security adviser, Michael Flynn, must end. The Justice Department had dropped charges against Flynn, but his case remained open.

In a ruling issued on Wednesday, the Washington DC Circuit Court of Appeals effectively ended the case against Flynn, ordering federal judge Emmet Sullivan to heed the Justice Department’s advice and close the case. Sullivan had attempted to keep the case active, even though the Justice Department dropped its charges against Flynn last month.

The appeals battle was a last-ditch showdown between Flynn and the Justice Department on one side, and Sullivan on the other. Though reporters as recently as last week reckoned the appeals court would side with Sullivan, they were proven wrong on Wednesday morning.

Of course, Sullivan may appeal again, but with the government and prosecution in agreement, his chances of breathing life into the Flynn case – ongoing for more than two years – is slim.

Appointed national security advisor following Trump’s election win in 2016, Flynn quickly became the first and most prominent White House official caught up in the FBI’s ‘Russiagate’ investigation. He was fired in early 2017 and later pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

However, the case was dropped last month, after it emerged that the charges against him were baseless.

Before he was interviewed by FBI agents in January 2017, FBI brass knew they had “no derogatory information” on the retired General, yet then-FBI Director James Comey ordered the interview to proceed regardless, breaching agency protocol. Disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok urged his superiors to keep the case against Flynn open, and plotted with other agents to “get him to lie” during the interview. Furthermore, Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page edited the transcript of the interview to incriminate Flynn.

All of this information was revealed last month, when acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell declassified a trove of ‘Russiagate’ documents. According to the document dump, a host of Obama administration officials dug into Flynn’s intelligence records as the FBI were attempting to entrap him in the interview.

President Trump, who has long accused the FBI and Obama administration of orchestrating a plot to take down his presidency, retweeted a call from his son last week for Flynn to “sue the FBI and it’s corrupt actors for all they’re worth.”

June 24, 2020 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

NATO 2030: How to Make a Bad Idea Worse

By Matthew Ehret | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 23, 2020

Just when you thought the leaders of NATO could not push the limits of insanity any further, something like NATO 2030 is announced.

After helping blow up the Middle East and North Africa, dividing the Balkans into zones of war and tension, turning Ukraine upside down using armadas of neo Nazis, and encircling Russia with a ballistic missile shield, the leaders of this Cold War relic have decided that the best way to deal with instability of the world is… more NATO.

In a June 8th online event co-sponsored by the Atlantic Council, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced the launch of a planning project to reform NATO called NATO 2030. Stoltenberg told his audience that in order to deal with Russia and China’s strategic partnership which is transforming the global balance of power, “we must resist the temptation of national solutions and we must live up to our values: freedom, democracy and the rule of law. To do this, we must stay strong militarily, be more united politically and take a broader approach globally.”

In the mind of Stoltenberg, this means expanding NATO’s membership into the Pacific with a high priority on the absorption of Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea into NATO’s dysfunctional family. It also means extending NATO’s jurisdiction beyond a military alliance to include a wider political and environmental dimension (the war on climate change is apparently just as serious as the war on terrorism and should thus be incorporated into NATO’s operating system).

Analyzing China’s intentions through the most Hobbesian dark age lens on the market, Stoltenberg stated “they are investing heavily in modern military capabilities, including missiles that can reach all NATO allied countries. They are coming closer to us in cyberspace. We see them in the Arctic, in Africa… and they are working more and more together with Russia.”

In spite of NATO’s Cold War thinking, Russia and China have continuously presented olive branches to the west over the years- offering to cooperate on such matters as counter-terrorism, space exploration, asteroid defense, and global infrastructure projects in the Arctic and broader Belt and Road Initiative. In all instances, these offers have been met with a nearly unanimous cold shoulder by the western military industrial complex ruling NATO and the Atlantic alliance.

The Engine of War Heats Up

As Stoltenberg spoke these words, the 49th Baltic Operations running from June 1-16th were underway as the largest NATO exercise in the Baltic Sea featuring “30 ships and submarines, and 30 aircraft, conducting air defence, anti-submarine warfare, maritime interdiction and mine countermeasure operations.” In response Moscow reinforced its armored forces facing Europe.

Meanwhile in China’s backyard, three aircraft carriers all arrived in the Pacific (the USS Theodore Roosevelt, USS Ronald Reagan and USS Nimitz) with a senate Armed Services Committee approval of $6 billion in funds for the Pacific Defense Initiative which Defense News stated will “send a strong signal to the Chinese Communist Party that America is deeply committed to defending our interests in the Indo-Pacific”. The committee also approved a U.S. Airforce operating location in the Indo-Pacific for F-35A jets in order to “prioritize the protection of the air bases that might be under attack from current or emerging cruise missiles and advanced hypersonic missiles, specifically from China.”

Another inflammatory precursor for confrontation came from a House Republican Study Committee report co-authored by Secretary of State Pompeo calling for sanctioning China’s leadership, listing Russia as a state sponsor of terror and authorizing the use of military force against anyone on a Foreign Terrorist Organization list. When one holds in mind that large sections of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard happen to be on this list, it is not hard to see how quickly nations doing business with Iran can be considered “state sponsors of terror”, justifying a use of military force from America.

With this level of explicit antagonism and duplicity, it is no wonder that China’s foreign ministry announced on June 10th that it would not participate in joint three-way arms talks between the USA and Russia. If America demonstrated a coherent intention to shift its foreign policy doctrine towards a genuine pro-cooperation perspective, then it is undoubtably the case that China would enthusiastically embrace such proposals. But until then, China is obviously unwilling to lose any part of its already small nuclear deterrent of 300 warheads (compared to Russia and the USA, who each own 6000).

The Resistance to the Warhawks

I have said it many times before, but there is currently not one but two opposing American military doctrines at war with each other and no assessment of American foreign policy is complete without a sensitivity to that fact.

On the one hand, there is the sociopathic doctrine which I outlined summarily above, but on the other hand, there exists a genuine intention to stop the “forever wars”, pull out of the Middle East, disengage with NATO and realign with a multipolar system of sovereign nation states.

This more positive America expressed itself in Trump’s June 7th counter-attack on former Secretary of Defense Gen. James Mattis who had fueled the American Maidan now unfolding by stating his belief that solutions can happen without the President. Trump had fired Mattis earlier over the Cold Warrior’s commitment to endless military enmeshment in Syria, Turkey, Afghanistan and Iraq. In this Oval Office interview, the President called out the Military industrial complex which Mattis represents saying “The military-industrial complex is unbelievably powerful… You have no idea. Some legit, and some non-legit.”

Another aspect of Trump’s resistance to the neo-cons running the Pentagon and CIA is reflected in the June 11 joint U.S.-Iraq statement after the Strategic Dialogues summit of American and Iraqi delegates which committed to a continued reduction of troops in Iraq stating:

“Over the coming months, the U.S. would continue reducing forces from Iraq and discuss with the government of Iraq the status of remaining forces as both countries turn their focus towards developing a bilateral security relationship based on strong mutual interests”.

This statement coincides with Trump’s May 2020 call to accelerate U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan which has seen a fall from 12000 troops in February to under 9,000 as of this writing.

Most enraging to the NATO-philes of London, Brussels and Washington was Trump’s surprising call to pull 9,500 American troops out of Germany hours before Stoltenberg gave his loony NATO 2030 speech with Johann Wadephul (Deputy head of the CDU) saying “these plans demonstrate once again that the Trump administration neglects a central element of leadership: the involvement of alliance partners in the decision-making process”. In his next breath, Wadephul made his anti-Eurasian delusion transparent saying “Europe gains from the Alliance being unified. Only Russia and China gain from strife.”

Just a few months earlier, the President showed his disdain for the NATO bureaucracy by unilaterally pulling 3,000 American military personnel out of the Trident Juncture exercise held annually every March.

In Defense of President Trump

In spite of all of his problems, Trump’s resistance to the dark age/neocon faction which has been running a virtually independent military-industrial-intelligence complex since FDR’s death in 1945 demonstrates a high degree of courage unseen in American presidents for many decades.

Most importantly, this flawed President represents a type of America which is genuinely compatible with the pro-nation state paradigm now being led by Russia and China.

Trump’s recent attempt to reform the G7 into a G11 (incorporating Russia, India, South Korea and Australia) is a nice step in that direction but his exclusion of China has made it an unworkable idea.

To solve this problem, American University in Moscow President Edward Lozansky stated in his recent Washington Times column that adding China to the list making it a G12 would be a saving grace to the idea and one of the best flanking maneuvers possible during this moment of crisis. Lozansky’s concept is so important that I wish to end with a larger citation from his article:

“Both Russia and China got the message a long time ago that they need to stay together to withstand the efforts to destroy them in sequence… The G-7 indeed is an obsolete group and it definitely needs a fresh blood. Therefore, a G-12 meeting in New York in late September during the annual meeting of the U.N. General Assembly would be a perfect place and timing since Mr. Trump had already announced that he is willing to hold a G-5 summit with the leaders of Russia, China, Britain and France — the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — to discuss nuclear security issues. China so far is reluctant to join these talks, arguing that its smaller nuclear force is defensive and poses no threat. However, for the discussion in the G-12 format Mr. Putin might be able to convince his pal Xi to accept Mr. Trump’s invitation. This would be a huge achievement for the world’s peace and at the same time allow Mr. Trump to score lots of political points not only from his electoral base but from undecided and even from his opponents who want to save their families from nuclear holocaust.”

Unless world citizens who genuinely wish to avoid the danger of a nuclear holocaust learn how to embrace the idea of a G-12, and let the NATO/Cold War paradigm rot in the obsolete trash bin of history where it rightfully belongs, then I think it is safe to say that the future will not be something to look forward to.

For the next installment, we will take a look at the British Imperial origins of NATO and the American deep state in order to help shed greater light on the nature of the “two Americas” which I noted above, have been at war with each other since 1776.

June 24, 2020 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , | 2 Comments

Let’s fact-check Reuters: they say DNA vaccines don’t change your genetic makeup—true or false?

By Jon Rappoport | June 23, 2020

As my readers know, I’ve been reporting on new types of technology that could be used in a coming COVID-19 vaccine—and warning about the consequences.

One such technology is: DNA vaccines. They would alter recipients’ genetic makeup permanently.

But Reuters has seen fit to claim: “A future COVID-19 [DNA] vaccine will not genetically modify humans.” This comes from their “fact-check team” — May 18, 2020: “False claim: A COVID-19 vaccine will genetically modify humans.”

To reach this conclusion, Reuters cites two people: “Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at Cornell University’s Alliance for Science group”, and “Dr. Paul McCray, Professor of Pediatrics, Microbiology, and Internal Medicine at the University of Iowa.”

I have cited the New York Times, March 10, 2015, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” Here are quotes from the Times article:

“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”

“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”

“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.” [That was five years ago.]

“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”

[Here is the punch line] “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”

The Times article taps Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:

“Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”

So it’s a battle of the experts. The two men Reuters cited, versus the Times’ David Baltimore.

I don’t hold up the scientific work of any of these men for great acclaim. I’m only interested in which man knows whether a DNA vaccine would permanently alter the genetic makeup of every recipient’s DNA.

David Baltimore is a Nobel Laureate (1975, in Physiology/Medicine), and the past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1997-2006). He’s one of the most famous scientists in the world.

I’m betting Reuters would happily trade their unknown experts for Baltimore, if he would side with their claim. Perhaps they’ll now approach him, and perhaps he’ll change his mind. But the NY Times has him on the record, in 2015, admitting that DNA vaccines do alter genetic makeup.

World famous mainstream experts don’t readily admit this sort of thing out in the open, unless they’re stating the obvious.

The verdict on the Reuters fact-check team? Fact-checkers checked the wrong box.

Final point for the moment: Researchers are fond of saying their genetic technologies are quite safe. This a bald-faced lie. Claiming, for example, that a DNA COVID vaccine would alter humans’ genetic makeup in entirely predictable and harmless ways is like saying a car without brakes, doing a hundred miles an hour, set loose on a highway during rush hour, would create no damage whatsoever.


June 24, 2020 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

Iran ready for coop with IAEA as long as it retains independence: Rouhani

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani
Press TV – June 24, 2020

President Hassan Rouhani says Iran is prepared, as before, to continue its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as long as the UN nuclear watchdog does not deviate from the legal frameworks and does not fall under Israeli and American influence.

“Iran is prepared to take the agency’s legal inspections and engage in close cooperation with it within the framework of the [standing] regulations,” Rouhani said, addressing a cabinet session in Tehran on Wednesday.

“For us, cooperation with the agency has always formed the basis,” he said, adding, “We will maintain this [principle] today too.”

He said the Islamic Republic has invariably enjoyed a “friendly” relationship with the watchdog, whose inspectors have examined the country’s nuclear facilities regularly and confirmed its non-diversion from a 2015 nuclear agreement between Tehran and world countries in more than a dozen reports.

The president, however, cautioned that “the agency too should pay attention not to deviate from its legal path.”

On Friday, the IAEA’s Board of Governors adopted a resolution — drawn up by the UK, France, and Germany — that called on Iran to allow access to two sites that Israeli intelligence services claim are related to Tehran’s nuclear program. Tehran has condemned the resolution, rebuffed the allegations, and reminded the agency that it cannot request inspections based on accusations made up by intelligence agencies.

“I fear these charlatans may tarnish the agency,” Rouhani said, referring to the Israeli regime and the United States that changelessly backs the regime’s stances and allegations. “They dupe the agency and push it away from its course.”

“The agency’s task consists of reporting on the manner of application of nuclear materials. That is what the agency is supposed to do,” the president said.

He, accordingly, urged the IAEA to act justly in its assessments and retain its independence.

Rouhani, meanwhile, berated the European trio for their falling under Tel Aviv and Washington’s pressure in devising of the anti-Iranian resolution, while praising Russia and China for their decisive stance against the resolution.

On US offer of talks

Separately, the chief executive referred to the United States’ new offer of talks with Iran.

The Islamic Republic is always prepared for negotiations as soon as the US renews commitment to the international regulations, he said, adding that it was Washington that left the negotiation table in the first place by reneging on its commitments.

Washington left the nuclear deal in 2018, although the accord has been endorsed by the UN Security Council as a resolution.

“They were the ones, who created trouble, broke the negotiation table, and tyrannized the Iranian nation,” Rouhani said.

He also urged that the US apologize to the Iranian people for the economic damage that it has tried to afflict on them through the sanctions that it reinstated after leaving the deal, and compensate the nation.

June 24, 2020 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | 1 Comment

Iran has ‘no problem’ talking to US if it apologizes & offers refund over nuclear deal – President Rouhani

RT – June 24, 2020

Nothing is preventing Tehran from engaging in talks with Washington, provided that it comes up with apologies – and reimbursement – for losses in the 2015 nuclear pact America walked out on, President Hassan Rouhani has said.

“We have no problem with talking to the US,” Rouhani declared, in a nationally-broadcast speech on Wednesday. The only condition is that “Washington meets its obligations under the nuclear deal, apologizes and compensates Tehran for its withdrawal from the 2015 pact,” the president said, as quoted by Reuters.

Rouhani made it clear, however, that “these calls for talks with Tehran are just words and lies.” US President Donald Trump has previously offered to negotiate with Iran without any preconditions and to meet with Rouhani in person.

Washington repeated the offer of “serious talks” this January – but the timing of this couldn’t have been more questionable, as it came on the heels of the death of Qassem Soleimani, a renowned Iranian military leader, in an American missile strike.

Tehran, for its part, has consistently ruled out dealing with Washington under pressure, or trading vital national interests.

Last year, however, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif announced that he pitched a suggestion to the US, under which Iran would permanently accept international inspections of its nuclear program, in return for the lifting of US sanctions.

Following his pattern of being suspicious towards Iran, Trump green-lighted the pullout from the hard-earned nuclear pact in 2018. Shortly after the US formally ceased to be a member, it slapped Iran’s oil trade, finances, investment activities, and other crucial sectors with sweeping penalties under the so-called “maximum policy pressure.”

This week, Washington will try to secure a UN backing for an indefinite extension of an embargo that bans countries from selling or transferring arms to Iran unless approved by the Security Council. In order to pass, their draft resolution requires nine votes in favor and no vetoes from China, Russia, Britain or France – a quartet of countries still adhering to the 2015 nuclear deal.

June 24, 2020 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | 2 Comments

Dr. Andrew Kaufman Responds To Reuters Fact Check on COVID-19 Vaccine Genetic Modification

Spiro Skouras | June 20, 2020

In this interview, Dr. Andrew Kaufman joins Spiro for a second time. The first time Dr. Kaufman joined Spiro, they talked about topics that apparently, nobody is allowed to talk about, if you dare question the official story that is.

In the first interview the two discussed the coronavirus, they covered testing and they covered the vaccine. The video was quickly approaching 100k views but YouTube removed the video after only a couple days. This video will likely be taken down as well, because it does not conform to the establishment’s narrative.

Not only did YouTube remove the previous video, Reuters, which is a massive international news publication that news sites from all over the world obtain their talking points from, published a fact checking report attempting to debunk Dr. Kaufman’s claims that the new COVID-19 DNA vaccine would genetically modify humans. In this must see report, Dr Kaufman responds to the Reuters ‘fact checking’ report.

Dr. Andrew Kaufman: They Want To Genetically Modify Us With The COVID-19 Vaccine (Updated)…

Doctor Andrew Kaufman Website

False claim: A COVID-19 vaccine will genetically modify humans…

DNA, RNA and protein – the Central Dogma…

The Emerging Role of DNA Vaccines…

Advancing Novel Experimental Gene-based COVID-19 Vaccine, AAVCOVID…

Adenovirus DNA Replication…

CRISPR-Cas9: Gene Drives…

Antisperm Contraceptive Vaccines: Where we are and where we are going?…

The HSD-hCG Vaccine Prevents Pregnancy in Women: Feasibility Study of a Reversible Safe Contraceptive Vaccine

Development of antifertility vaccine using sperm specific proteins…

State Bar Group Calls for ‘Mandatory’ COVID-19 Vaccinations, Regardless of Objections…

AstraZeneca CEO Soriot says fast-tracked COVID-19 shot will protect for just one year…

New COVID-19 restrictions will be needed for anti-vaxxers…

Colorado Bill Would Require “Re-Education” Classes for Parents Who Refuse Coronavirus Vaccine…

MLAs vote to drop notwithstanding clause from mandatory vaccination bill…

Among Americans who say they wouldn’t get vaccinated, 7 in 10 worry about safety…

There appears to be a coronavirus vaccine on the horizon—but it’s a GMO and the FDA would need to approve testing…

GMO tomato as edible COVID vaccine? Mexican scientists work to make it a reality https://allianceforscience.cornell.ed…

June 24, 2020 Posted by | Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment