SKY News is pressuring booksellers to stop selling books written by medical experts. In a segment running hourly today, SKY claims that Waterstones, Amazon and Foyles are selling books which contain anti-vaccine medical misinformation.
The report references a book written by Dr. Vernon Coleman entitled; Anyone Who Tells You Vaccines Are Safe And Effective Is Lying.
The book has received hundreds of 5-star reviews on Amazon’s website. Dr. Vernon Coleman is a medical expert.
His books have topped best-seller lists around the world and he was a national newspaper columnist for many years. SKY asked the booksellers to explain why they were not “providing annotations” to suggest that Vernon’s book contains disputed claims.
SKY’s report doesn’t provide a single example of a “disputed claim” in Dr. Vernon Coleman’s book.
Labour’s shadow health minister Alex Norris appears in the segment. He says that “getting the population vaccinated is a massive priority” and that he hopes “retailers would act responsibly and have a look at whether they want to be associated with such products.”
The reporter doesn’t ask Norris if he even read Vernon Coleman’s book, even though he is calling for a so-called “health warning” to be slapped on it.
This is propaganda, not news. SKY doesn’t report the news anymore, it manufactures it. It’s important to understand this. SKY is not following up concerns by parents, teachers or other doctors. SKY created this story.
A reporter at SKY News, took screenshots of the covers of books written by Dr. Vernon Coleman and Dr Joseph Mercola. He/she then forwarded the screenshots to Alex Norris in an email and asked him to respond. Norris has not read any of the books, but that doesn’t matter. He says that something must be done about them and the reporter has a story.
Look at how it appears on the SKY News website. The opening paragraph reads:
Anti-vaccination books are being sold on Amazon and the websites of Waterstones and Foyles – amid calls for warnings on items to combat the spread of misinformation.
That’s disingenuous in the extreme. The “calls for warnings” were manufactured by SKY’s reporter. It’s wretched and it’s anti-journalism, but sadly it’s all too common.
Every claim made by Dr. Vernon Coleman in his book Anyone Who Tells You Vaccines Are Safe And Effective Is Lying is backed up by hard evidence. I can say that because I’ve actually read it. I can’t speak for Mercola’s book or the others mentioned in SKY’s hit-piece because I haven’t read them.
A national news channel is promoting book burning and dressing it up as news. It’s seeking to discredit medical experts by throwing around terms like misinformation and disputed claims, without referencing a single paragraph from the books in question.
SKY is banking on it’s viewers being too lazy to ask for the evidence or to know the difference between news reporting and news manufacturing.
For more on Dr. Vernon Coleman visit http://www.vernoncoleman.com
March 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Book Review, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Amazon |
1 Comment
In this interview, which was initially banned by YouTube before it was even published (but now reversed), Spiro is joined by Attorney Ana Garner of New Mexico. Garner represents her client Isaac Legaretta, an officer at the Doña Ana County Detention Center and a military veteran, who is suing the county over its new policy for first responders to receive the COVID-19 vaccinations or face termination.
Attorney Garner explains the significance of this case and what is at stake, as it is the first of its kind and may set a new standard for legal precedent regarding mandatory vaccination. Garner says she is prepared to take this case to the Supreme Court if necessary.
Spiro and Ana Garner also discuss another case of hers that is ongoing currently. A case that challenges not only the Governor of New Mexico, but the emergency itself.
You can see this important interview on the free speech platform BitChute below:
NM Stands Up!
https://nmstandsup.org
First case against mandatory vaccination filed in New Mexico: report
https://thehill.com/regulation/labor/541173-first-case-against-mandatory-vaccination-filed-in-new-mexico-dention-center?rl=1
Federal judge denies Doña Ana County employee’s request, for now, in mandatory vaccine lawsuit
https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/2021/03/04/federal-judge-rules-restraining-order-dona-ana-county-new-mexico-mandatory-vaccine-lawsuit/4586480001/
EEOC Says Employers May Mandate COVID-19 Vaccinations – Subject to Limitations
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/eeoc-says-employers-may-mandate-covid-19-vaccinations-subject-to-limitations
Image credit: torstensimon
Follow Spiro on BitChute, Parler and Gab.
March 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States |
1 Comment
The flaws of vaccine trials in general are really highlighted by current COVID-19 vaccine studies, one of the most egregious ones being the fact that vaccine makers rarely use inert placebos (such as a saline shot), which is the gold standard for drug trials.
As noted in a January 25, 2021, article in The Defender,1 vaccine developers typically assess the safety of a new vaccine against another vaccine, and by so doing, they effectively hide side effects as most vaccines have side effects and risks.
As just one example, the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is being tested against a meningitis vaccine,2 which just so happens to share many of the side effects reported from COVID-19 vaccines. As reported by the National Vaccine Information Center:3
“According to the CDC, at least 50% of individuals receiving meningococcal vaccines targeting meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y, and W-135 (Menactra or Menveo) experience mild side effects …
Adverse events reported by Sanofi Pasteur in the Menactra vaccine product insert include … headache; fatigue … joint pain; chills; anaphylaxis; wheezing; upper airway swelling; difficulty breathing; hypotension … lymph node swelling; Guillain-Barre syndrome; convulsions; dizziness; facial palsy; vasovagal syncope; paresthesia; transverse myelitis; acute disseminated encephalomyelitis …
Adverse events reported by Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics (GlaxoSmithKline) in the pre-licensing clinical trials of Menveo vaccine include … headache; joint and muscle pain; malaise; nausea; chills … acute disseminated encephalomyelitis … pneumonia … suicidal depression and suicide attempts.”
Long-Term Safety Analysis Tossed By The Wayside
Now, Pfizer and Moderna have started offering placebo recipients in their trials the real mRNA gene therapy, which means it will be even more difficult to tease out which side effects are actually caused by the shot and which ones aren’t, over the long term. As reported by NPR, February 17, 2021:4
“Tens of thousands of people who volunteered to participate in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine studies are still participating in follow-up research, though that’s somewhat hampered because many people who had been given a placebo shot opted to take the vaccine instead.”
In fact, according to Dr. Carlos Fierro, who runs the clinical trial for the Moderna vaccine in Lenexa, Kansas, virtually all of the 650 volunteers who initially received the placebo have now opted to get the real vaccine, which means he had “essentially no comparison group left for the ongoing study,” which was slated to run for two full years.
As Dr. Steven Goodman at Stanford University told NPR,5 getting rid of the initial control groups makes it far more difficult to assess the safety and effectiveness of the COVID vaccines since they won’t have anything to compare the vaccine recipients against.
Justification For Elimination Of Controls Is Flimsy At Best
Ironically, both the use of an active placebo and the elimination of control groups are being justified on “moral grounds” by pro-vaccine advocates who say it’s unethical to not provide volunteers with something of value, such as another vaccine in the case of active placebos, or a vaccine they know is effective in the case of giving placebo recipients the real McCoy.
Both of these arguments are beyond questionable. As mentioned, no vaccine is 100% safe, so getting an active vaccine placebo comes with risk, not merely benefit, and when it comes to the novel mRNA technology used in COVID-19 vaccines, historical data are troubling to say the least, and the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is rapidly filling up with COVID-19 vaccine-related injury reports and deaths.
As reported in “COVID-19 Vaccine To Be Tested on 6-Year-Olds,” as of February 4, 2021, VAERS had received 12,697 injury reports and 653 deaths following COVID-19 vaccination.6 Even more telling, between January 2020 and January 2021, COVID-19 vaccines accounted for 70% of the annual vaccine deaths, even though these vaccines had only been available for less than two months!
What’s more, previous research7 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are ever reported to VAERS, so in reality, we may be looking at more than 1 million COVID-19 vaccine injuries within the first two months of their release.
In my view, the data are far from assuring overall, which makes the elimination of long-term control groups — flawed as they may be due to active placebo use — all the more troubling.
All Previous Coronavirus Vaccines Failed Upon Challenge
Historically, previous attempts to create a coronavirus vaccine have all failed miserably, as they ended up creating devastating immune enhancement. This is why any and all short-cuts taken in the COVID-19 vaccine development is so troubling.
In my May 2020 interview above with Robert Kennedy Jr., he summarized the history of coronavirus vaccine development, which began in 2002, following three consecutive SARS outbreaks. By 2012, Chinese, American and European scientists were working on SARS vaccine development, and had about 30 promising candidates.
Of those, the four best vaccine candidates were then given to ferrets, which are the closest analogue to human lung infections. In the video above, which is a select outtake from my full interview, Kennedy explains what happened next.
While the ferrets displayed robust antibody response, which is the metric used for vaccine licensing, once they were challenged with the wild virus, they were overtaken by a cytokine storm response, known as paradoxical immune enhancement, became severely ill and died.
The same thing happened when they tried to develop a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine in the 1960s. RSV is an upper respiratory illness that is very similar to that caused by coronaviruses.
At that time, they had decided to skip animal trials and go directly to human trials. The RSV vaccine was tested on about 35 children, with identical results. Initially, they developed a robust antibody response, but when challenged with the wild virus, all became ill and two died. The vaccine was abandoned.
Yes, We Really Do Need Placebo Arms
Despite such dire failures, some still argue that placebo arms aren’t needed in COVID-19 vaccine trials. In an opinion piece in STAT News,8 Kent Peacock, a professor of philosophy, and John Vokey, a professor of psychology, both from the University of Lethbridge, compare the use of placebo control groups with giving out dummy parachutes during wartime.
“Giving the real treatment to 100% of the volunteers removes one of the major ethical barriers to challenge trials: the high probability of harmful side effects or death to members of a control group,” they say, completely ignoring the fact that volunteers in the vaccine arm may be put at grave unknown risks, not just in the short term but in the long term as well.
This entire argument hinges on the idea that the vaccine being tested is KNOWN to be safe, which it absolutely is not at this point, and won’t be for many years. They even argue that “not using a placebo … would be less ethically questionable to test the vaccine on older participants.”
Well, they published that article in early September 2020, and now we can more or less conclusively state that they are wrong on this point, as older vaccine recipients have been dropping like flies.
‘We’re Dealing With Homicide,’ German Attorney Says
As reported by Brian Shilhavy, editor of Health Impact News, February 19, 2021:9
“Earlier this week we published10 the English translation of a video in German that attorney Reiner Fuellmich published with a whistleblower who works in a nursing home where several residents were injected with the experimental COVID mRNA shots against their will, and where many of them died a short time later.
Since that interview was published, other whistleblowers in Germany who work in nursing homes have also stepped forward, some with video footage showing residents being held down and vaccinated against their wish …
Fuellmich … stated: ‘We are getting more and more calls from other whistleblowers form other nursing homes in this country, plus we’re getting information from other countries, Sweden for example, Norway … Gibraltar … here are also incidents in England and in the United States that match these descriptions …
It means that people are dying because of the vaccines. What we are seeing in this video clip is worse than anything we ever expected. If this is representative for what’s going on in other nursing homes, and in other countries, then we have a very serious problem.
And so do the people who make the vaccines, so do the people who administer the vaccines. It looks more and more as though we’re dealing with homicide, and maybe even murder.’”
Novel MRNA Gene Therapy Is Not Harmless
It’s important to realize what mRNA and DNA COVID-19 vaccine actually are. They are not traditional vaccines made with live or attenuated viruses. They’re actually gene therapies. They don’t even meet the medical or legal definition of a vaccine, as detailed in “COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines.” This novel, never before used therapy has a long list of potential problems, including the following:
- The messenger RNA (mRNA) used in many COVID-19 vaccines are synthetic. Your body sees these synthetic particles as non-self, which can cause autoantibodies to attack your own tissues. Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., explained this in her interview, featured in “How COVID-19 Vaccines May Destroy the Lives of Millions.”
- Your body also views free mRNA as a warning signal to your immune system, as they drive inflammatory diseases. This is why making synthetic mRNA thermostable, meaning it doesn’t break down as easily as it normally would by encasing the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles is likely to be problematic.
- COVID-19 vaccines use PEGylated lipid nanoparticles, and PEG is known to cause anaphylaxis.11
- Previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic.12
- The synthetic RNA influences, in part, the gene syncytin. According to Mikovits, when syncytin is aberrantly expressed in the brain, you can develop multiple sclerosis. Expression of the syncytin gene also inflames and dysregulates communication between the brain microglia, which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens in the brain. It also dysregulates your immune system and your endocannabinoid system, which is the dimmer switch on inflammation.
- The synthetic mRNA also has an HIV envelope expressed in it, which can cause immune dysregulation.
Symptoms Of COVID-19 Vaccine Damage
Commonly reported side effects among recipients of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines include… continue reading
March 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
Increasingly, there are serious questions being asked about the factual basis for declaring a pandemic and the growing number of mitigation policies being implemented by governments and corporations. When is a COVID-19 “case” really a case? Moreover, do the case numbers and death numbers that have been touted over the last 12 months by governments in UK, EU, USA, and numerous governments around the world, accurately reflect actual COVID cases and COVID deaths?
In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) itself has admitted that the entire basis for collating “case” numbers since the beginning of this ‘global pandemic’ is effectively null and void. In its directive published in late January, the organization stated that medical professionals should not be using PCR Testing with high Cycle Threshold (CT) levels due to the high likelihood of generating false positives in people, and also that the PCR Test should not be used as the sole metric for diagnosing and should be accompanied by a professional clinical diagnosis. In other words: the PCR Test cannot rightly be used as a medical diagnostic tool, and yet, it has been widely used as such for the last 12 months. This admission should have grave implications for every public health official, politician and media editor on the planet, but the silence is deafening – as most are simply ignoring this fact.
The following directive was issued on January 20, 2021 by the WHO:
Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.
Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.
WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.
WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.
In addition, from the beginning of the ‘pandemic,’ arbitrary and broad guidelines for symptom diagnosis for COVID were being encouraged, and not surprisingly this corresponded with a complete disappearance of season influenza.
Former Minnesota state legislator, Dr Scott Jensen MD, explains why this is absolutely crucial and how we’ve all been played over the last 12 months. Watch:
Video Credit: Coronavirus Plushie
March 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Covid-19 |
1 Comment
Within the below transcript the bolded text is Hilda Labrada Gore and the regular text is Dr. David Martin.
There is much frustration and confusion surrounding everything that’s happened related to COVID-19. Lockdowns, shuttered businesses, curfews and more have left a lot of us scratching our heads and asking important questions. This is Episode 294 and our guest is Dr. David Martin. He is the Founder and Chairman of M·CAM Inc, an international leader in innovation, finance trade and asset finance. He is an author, a public speaker and a man who has done a lot of research on current events.
In this episode, David offers key facts that help us understand our state of emergency from a very different perspective. He reveals how the CDC filed a patent application on SARS-CoV in the early 2000s. He explains why this is important. He discusses the evidence that indicates that SARS-CoV-2 has been manipulated to limit freedom and compromise our health. He unpacks the legal and health contradictions of new COVID treatments like masks and vaccines, and he offers insights on what each of us can do to fight for health freedom.
Welcome to the show, David.
Thank you so much. It’s great to be here
You’re not a health guy, you’re a legal guy, right?
No, my training was in medicine. I was on the faculty of the University of Virginia Medical School, Radiology Orthopedic Surgery. I ran the FDA clinical trials program for the medical devices for UVA for a decade. I have a lot of backgrounds but I have a legal background as well, but my professor position was in the medical school at the University of Virginia.
What’s your take on what’s happening with the virus right now?
Let’s start with I don’t think something’s happening with the virus right now. I think this is a very significant criminal operation, which is an act of terrorism. I think that’s what this is. The reason why I think that is because I’ve been monitoring since 1999. In 1999, we noticed that for the first time, the United States officially started funding work to what effectively was amplified biological toxins. They used the Coronavirus model as a way to do that. From 1999 to 2002, there was an explicit program to figure out how to get the coronavirus, which historically has been a nuisance to humans but not a big problem. It’s been a big problem to animals.
In fact, the fundamental research for a decade before the ‘90s was in cardiac myopathy in rabbits, not in people. The guy who was leading this program under the funding of NIAID with Anthony Fauci had gotten money to amplify the pathogenicity of a part of Coronavirus. He made it more toxic. Not surprisingly, the places where he was researching and the places where he was collaborating are where the Coronavirus outbreak allegedly started with the SARS outbreak in 2002 going into 2003. I have always said, I find it interesting that the official story we’re supposed to believe is that somehow or another, this mysteriously came out of the blue and it happened to come out of the blue where biological weapons labs were also happening.
It’s amazing how nature backed into the, “There’s a weapons lab. Why don’t we go ahead and have an outbreak there?” The fact of the matter is we, as humans, manipulated Coronavirus and then we had SARS. Here’s the funny thing. After 2003, the problem was Coronavirus resolved itself. It went through the population, had an effect and it resolved itself. Rather than celebrating, “We survived this thing,” some people got sick, some people died, that’s a tragedy but it was not the pandemic everybody thought it was going to be.
We survived it without a vaccine.
No vaccine, no intervention at all and they seriously publicly lamented the fact that it wasn’t virulent enough. Starting in 2005, there was an active program with the DARPA and with NIAID to begin work on figuring out ways to amplify the pathogenicity of this biological substance. They specifically focused on two pieces. One was the S1 spike protein and one was the ACE2 receptor. The ACE2 receptor is important because it’s the thing that makes lung tissue sensitive to this. That was the mysterious piece because it didn’t used to be a lung problem. It used to be a vascular problem but they amplified the ACE2 receptor component and they amplified the S1 spike protein, which is a very toxic component.
Those two amplifications started being amplified and funded through NIAID in 2005. In 2012 going into 2013, when we had the MERS outbreak in the Middle East, the National Science Foundation, National Academy of Science, NIAID and others started going, “Maybe we’re doing something we shouldn’t be doing.” There was a question of the ethics and the morals of doing this Gain-of-Function research leading to the 2013, 2014 decision to stop Gain-of-Function research is what the public was told. What the public wasn’t told was the people who were involved in the BSL-4 defense labs were allowed to keep amplifying this viral pathogen.
Let me interrupt you to ask a question. What was the justification they were giving for amplifying this virus?
The cover story is this. Biological weapons could be developed by some rogue nation or by some bad actors. If that happened, we should be prepared to develop vaccines. That’s what we were told. As early as March of 2005, I wrote in a public briefing to law enforcement intelligence agencies that this was not a just in case problem. It was, in fact, a program that included the dispersion of explosive biological material, such that you could put toxins into rocket-propelled grenades. I don’t know about you, but when I hear that, it doesn’t sound like a public health program to me. I published this book in March of 2005.
It doesn’t sound defensive. It sounds offensive.
When people tell me, “It’s all in the interest of public health. It was all about making sure we were safe from potentially rogue actor states.” I’m sitting there going, “That smells like BS,” because it is. We have the evidence that in fact these programs were dual-use programs. These were programs that in fact did have a public health vaccine development treatment program. That’s true but they also had an offensive military application as well. We’re tracking all this stuff and we’ve been tracking it since 1999. Lo and behold, we started looking at the fact that coming into the spring of 2019.
This is nine months before they’re supposed to be a thing, we start seeing a lot of documents start showing up with the language about an accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen. If that came out in one document and we go, “Somebody was concerned about that,” when it starts showing up in a bunch of documents, it shows up in March 2019, it shows up again in May 2019, it shows up again in September 2019 in the World Health Organization Global Preparedness Monitoring Board Program, you start going, “Hold on a minute, we’re being told something’s happening.”
It’s like they were hinting somehow.
Except they are not very much hinting. They are going, “You keep saying an accidental or intentional release of respiratory pathogen.” We were not surprised when we expected to see something happen in Wuhan or in Italy or in North Carolina or in any of the places where we know the BSL labs were manipulating the Coronavirus. For me, the whole idea that this was somehow an accidental thing fails on its face because you can’t get an accident with premeditated planning and then have nature come along and go, “By the way, humans are talking about doing something. Why don’t I fly a bat over a wet food market in Wuhan and somehow make this mysteriously happen?” The amount of improbabilities to land an accident of nature in a place where you also have a biological weapons lab is zero.
What are the implications of something being done deliberately?
This is an act of war is what it is. It’s war in the new way we’re doing war because the new way we’re doing more is with financial, biologic, health and living standards and everything else. War in the old lineup the muskets and shoot people, it’s not how we’re doing war anymore. We’re doing war by depriving people of their liberty, of their livelihoods, of their access to medicine, the access to health, to life and to whatever they’re doing. That’s the new war.
Who is coming to war against us?
This is a massive transition between what used to be what I refer to as the Westphalian Nation-State Model, where it used to be you took the map and you drew lines on the map and you said, “That’s France. That’s Britain.” That era has come to an end quite a long time ago, probably around the time that Nixon took us off the gold standard. What’s happened is slowly corporations and corporate interests and financial interests have moved in as the thing that makes the difference. This is a war against the Westphalian Nation-State Model. It’s a coup of that model where corporations and financial interests have said, “We’re the ones that call the shots.”
Now we know that there are hosts of individuals who manipulate elections, who buy politicians and who buy everybody. We know that those organizations don’t officially have nation-states standing. When you know that a person like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos or Anthony Fauci, never elected, never appointed, never anything that has a legal democratic process around it. When you have those people who show up on every head of state stage, whispering in the ear of every head of state and saying, “This is how you’re going to act,” that’s not they’re advising and giving their best input. They’re running the show.
What we’re experiencing right now is the most insidious form of what is effectively a civil war where the democratic nation-states are being erased by corporate interests and financial interests who have decided they are going to be taking the position that they’ve already paid for. They bought Congress and legislatures. They bought Governor’s offices all over the country. They’ve bought heads of state around the world and now they’re moving in and taking what they bought.
It’s not the sickness that’s the element of war as much as also the collapse of the economy and fear that is running rampant. I see these as tools as well.
This is more a financial crisis than a health crisis. Now we could both agree that our definition of health has been corrupted a long time ago. Health as a construct probably was hijacked somewhere around the 1770s when we started manipulating and this is Thomas Jefferson and others started manipulating pathogens to try to figure out how to control the epidemic-type and plague-type experiences. Whether it’s the poxes that came over from Europe, whether it’s the animal to human transfers that were a concern at the end of the 18th century, what happened was we decided that somehow or another chemistry was the basis of health. We stopped looking at the vitality like we’re standing out in the cold.
Our bodies have adapted for the cold. What has happened? Our blood supply is out of our faces. It’s going into our core because that’s how bodies were designed to deal with cold. That’s not a bad thing. That’s health. In fact, we would be unhealthy if that didn’t happen but that’s not a chemistry thing. That’s neurologic. That’s physiologic. That’s all kinds of systems engaged. The problem is you can’t meter those systems. You can’t dose those systems, which means you can’t monetize them. What happened was we started saying health was about things you could monetize because if I can dose you something, then I can charge you something. If your body is working, my body’s working, then nobody can make any money off it.
I’ve thought of that before. The hospitals only make money if they’re full of sick people.
By the way, all the nonsense about wellness and all this stuff that you hear about, that is a cover story. It’s a fraction of a fraction of a percent of what’s spent in what we call healthcare. Healthcare is about end-of-life extension. It’s not about living, it’s not about health. It’s about disease management. It’s not about living in health. I am 53 years old, almost 54 in 2021. I have the vitality that I had when I was in my twenties. Why? It’s because I care about my health and my vitality. How often do I go to a doctor? With the exception of trauma surgeries that I’ve had a couple of times where I’m very grateful that there were doctors, I just don’t go. Why? It’s because I’m not consuming a dependency on chemistry or consuming a dependency on a metered version of what health is.
I’m actually living health, which means I’m walking and I’m cycling and I’m doing yoga. I’m doing exercise. I’m eating well. I’m doing all the things I’m doing because that’s health. The problem is you can’t meter people like me. You can’t put a tax on me because I’m not getting a syringe every day for my diabetes. I’m not taking a pill every day for my other chronic disease and because of that, I’m not controllable. What we’re doing now in the guise of health is we’re saying, “If you don’t have something that needs metering, you’re not healthy and you’re going to have to get something that needs metering.”
This helps me understand the asymptomatic carrier BS, if you will. I’m like, “How can someone who has no symptoms be sick?” It’s like a mental game they’re playing on us.
If you think of women who get pap smears and they get an abnormal cell. For a long time, you just had a hyperplastic cell or you might have atypical cell, but now what do you call it? It’s precancerous. It’s not cancer. It’s not pre-something. It’s not the thing. What’s to happen, just like an asymptomatic carrier. What’s an asymptomatic carrier? What a crazy notion. I don’t not have a thing. I don’t not have cancer. I don’t not have a thing and I’m an asymptomatic, soon-to-be something patient. I’m a healthy person. My immune system is working and my body was working.
This whole idea of asymptomatic pathogen vector that is now what each one of us is supposedly is so nonsensical but it’s there so that we have to now be a consumer of face masks, social distancing, hand sanitizer or whatever else. Even if we’re perfectly healthy, we still have to buy something, which is the metered definition of health. That’s the big breakthrough and we need to call it what it is. This is the manipulation of health for metering commerce around an illusion built on chemistry.
Now that we’re aware of it or at least starting to become aware of it, the fact that we’re in a war right now, how do we fight against it, David?
What I’m doing here in DC, what we’re doing all over the world right now is we’re exposing all of the evidence that’s required for people to take legal action from both criminal and civil statutes. The majority of even legal experts fail to understand the complexity of these laws simply because the average person has no experience with anti-trust, terrorism, terrorism finance and with all of the kinds of laws that are germane to what’s going on here. A huge amount of our efforts right now is to educate people on what the law is to help them support their cases that they are filing. Gradually, what we’re doing is we’re getting the legal side of this conversation along the lines of where it needs to go. The other thing is we have to ask people to start talking about health the right way.
We’re not doing that. We’re still in this politically correct era where it’s unfashionable to be well. We supposedly are supposed to be, “We can’t say obese anymore. We can’t say a lifestyle disorder because that’s being insensitive.” That’s nonsense. We need to model what health is. We need to live what health is. We need to experience what health is and we then have to go forward with a lived experience of what good health and vitality is all about. There’s an individual role each one of us plays and there’s the community role that we’re trying to lead right now which is to say, people who’ve violated the laws need to be held accountable for what they’ve done to hijack your and my experience of living.
In The Weston Price Foundation, we are always talking about health and how to take our health back into our own hands. As you’re saying, living empowered, healthy lives that are vibrant, not just disease-free but living optimally. Speak to us a little bit about this legal bit because our folks don’t know what the legal implications are of what’s happening right now.
There’s a bunch of things. First of all, the Center for Disease Control in 2003 violated the law. They patented the Coronavirus isolated from humans. A lot of people have had issues with me saying that but here’s the problem. The problem is under Section 101 of US Code 35, you are not allowed to patent nature. That’s a statement. That’s a fact. You can’t alter that fact. One of two things occurred, either SARS Coronavirus was made in a lab, in which case it violated biological and chemical weapons laws, or it was natural and CDC should never have filed a patent on it. The actual sequence ID in which the patent includes not only the whole genome but also all nucleic acid sequences associated with SARS.
This is a thing where one of two things happened and both of them are illegal. You either patented the genome, and if you did that, that’s a violation of law or you made it, in which case you’ve also violated laws. Neither way is acceptable. Why would the CDC want a patent on the genome of the virus? It turns out that if you control the genome, you control the ability to test for it. You control the ability to trade it. You control the ability to develop vaccines for it. All of which they, in collusion with NIAID, controlled for eighteen years. For eighteen years, they have manipulated and controlled 100% of this entire campaign, which means that we get to 2020, we’re told how we are going to measure Coronavirus. It turns out, the only thing we could do is use CDC’s patented RT-PCR technology because they controlled the technology and they could never get it approved without Emergency Use Authorization.
When Alexander Azar in January of 2020 declared a national emergency, what happened in the first week of February is that all of a sudden the FDA comes along and says, “What never was legal to use RT-PCR as a diagnostic, because of the emergency, it now has become legal.” This is the most egregious violation of the law you could hope for. The fact of the matter is that’s what happened. If we wanted to end this epidemic, by the way right now, lift the state of emergency because the minute you lift the state of emergency, you can’t use the RT-PCR test. You can’t use the vaccine. You can’t use any of these things because they’re only legally used if the state of emergency is in place. If anybody wanted to change this right now, like literally now, lift the state of emergency and now it’s illegal to use RT-PCR. It’s illegal to use what is being called vaccines that aren’t vaccines that are genetically-modified toxins that are going into your cells. It’s illegal to do it. It’s solvable and no one is solving it.
I feel like the medical professionals and government officials have been persuaded that this is a legitimate virus. They may be doing the lockdown and all of these restrictions in the state of emergency because they think they’re protecting the public that way.
I don’t believe any of that. I can accept maybe a few people here and there might accidentally be doing the wrong thing because they’re trying to do the best thing. I think this is a criminal collusion and I’ve got all the evidence that says that it is. Let’s start with the Federal Trade Commission. The Federal Trade Commission makes it illegal to say that you can treat or diagnose a disease with the medical technologies unproven. Face masks have never been proven to stop a single viral transmission ever. That has never happened. Every governor is telling you that your face mask is somehow going to stop a viral transmission. It turns out that’s empirically false and it violates the Federal Trade Commission Act, which says you’re not allowed to say something has a treatment that does not in fact have medical, empirical proof that says it’s a treatment.
I feel like I’m living in an upside-down world right now.
You are and we are. The cool thing is we’re going to turn it on the right side.
You said you have all this evidence. I have to ask, are you pursuing any lawsuits to rectify things?
We are involved in several lawsuits and we’re working right now to build out a case, which is in fact, the Federal criminal case, which is going to be the Federal criminal case against Anthony Fauci, Robert Redfield, Alexander Azar, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We’re building that case right now.
Who is that ‘we’ that you keep referring to?
Me and the team of lawyers that are doing it. I’m leading it.
We will look for that. Is there anything else, David, that you can tell the ordinary citizen right now who’s like, “How can I fight for my freedoms and my right to live healthily right now?”
Two things. One is stop talking about vaccines that aren’t vaccines. The thing that’s being sold by Pfizer and Moderna is not a vaccine. It’s a pathogen that is injected into your cell to elicit the creation of a toxin. That’s what it is. Vaccines are legally defined as a thing that interrupts the immune process in your system and prevents transmission. Neither one of those things is what’s happening. What they’re calling a vaccine isn’t and we need to stop calling it a vaccine. That’s number one. Number two, about your own life, what you need to be is you need to take the legal documents, including things that I’ve posted on Inverted Alchemy, which is a place where I posted a legal action.
Every single person in America can download and use that which says you cannot violate the Federal Trade Commission Act by saying that my mask works, my social distancing works, any of these things work because it violates the law. 21 Code of Federal Regulations, 18 US Code, 8 US Code, tons of US codes, 15 US codes, all being violated and all of those are itemized. If anybody wants to take action, take action. Go make the effort. Inverted Alchemy’s not hard to type into the browser. It’s all there. People can do stuff. They need to be doing it, not wait for somebody else.
I want to wrap up by asking the question I always ask my guests. If the reader could do one thing to improve their health, and you talked about meditation and the things that you do, what would you recommend they do?
There’s no question. Take your shoes off and put your feet back on the ground. Find a place where you can put your feet on the ground. Remember what it’s like to be human. Feel the Earth, feel your ecosystem. Once you do, let yourself breathe into that because the minute you do, you realize you’re a wonderful human being. You’re on a beautiful planet and you can make the best of it.
Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.
You’re most welcome. Thanks very much.
March 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19 |
Leave a comment
On Sunday, the Wall Street Journal cited an unnamed State Department Global Engagement Center official, saying Russian intelligence is trying to undermine confidence in US mass-jabbing for covid.
No evidence was cited like virtually always when Russia and other invented US enemies are accused of things they had nothing to do with.
Russia aside, there’s nothing remotely safe and effective about rushed to market, inadequately tested, experimental Pfizer and Moderna mRNA technology.
The same goes for J & J covid vaccine and AstraZeneca’s entry in Europe.
They’re all unapproved, granted emergency use authorization when no emergency exists.
Less than two months after mass-jabbing began, countless thousands suffered serious adverse events including deaths.
No one should be a mass-jabbing guinea pig for Pharma.
No one should risk their health and well-being so Pfizer, Moderna, and now Johnson & Johnson can cash in big on a bonanza of profits at the expense of individuals duped to believe they’ll be protected from what’s too hazardous to touch.
According to State Department disinformation, New Eastern Outlook, Oriental Review, News Front, and Rebel Inside truth-telling about mass-jabbing hazards is Russian propaganda.
According to the unnamed US official, “Russian intelligence services bear direct responsibility for using these four platforms to spread propaganda and lies (sic),” adding:
“We can say these outlets are directly linked to Russian intelligence services (sic).”
“They’re all foreign-owned, based outside of the United States.”
“They vary a lot in their reach, their tone, their audience, but they’re all part of the Russian propaganda and disinformation ecosystem (sic).”
According to the neocon/Russophobic Alliance for Securing Democracy that’s militantly hostile to the notion everywhere:
“The emphasis on denigrating Pfizer is likely due to its status as the first vaccine besides Sputnik V to see mass use, resulting in a greater potential threat to Sputnik’s market dominance.”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov debunked the above fake news, saying:
“It’s nonsense. Russian special services have nothing to do with any criticism against vaccines.
“If we treat every negative publication against the Sputnik V vaccine as a result of efforts by American special services, then we will go crazy because we see it every day, every hour and in every Anglo-Saxon media.”
The Journal explained that the unnamed US official “didn’t provide specific evidence linking the publications to Russian intelligence” — because none exists like time and again earlier when phony accusations are made.
Unlike US rushed to market experimental drugs for mass-jabbing, introduction of Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine last summer followed over 20 years of vaccine research, according to Sechenov University’s Institute for Translational Medicine and Biotechnology director Vadim Tarasov.
Technology used to develop Sputnik V is based upon adenovirus, the common cold.
Tarasov explained that the vaccine may not entirely stop covid from spreading. It’ll make symptoms milder, he said, adding:
“We can really talk about a breakthrough as our country has shown itself to be one of the leaders in the global pharmaceutical industry due to the fact that it has retained and developed new competencies in drug development.”
There’s no ambiguity about the health hazards of experimental US drugs for mass-jabbing.
Using them as directed risks serious self-inflicted harm or death — why it’s crucial to avoid them.
March 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | Sputnik V |
1 Comment
Lately, we have been inundated by requests from worried parents for our help over US state authorities making demands for the vaccination of their children before return to schools after ‘lockdown.’ In that regard, we provide the template letter below, for those who are concerned over the dangers from unproven COVID19 vaccines.
Please feel free to add and amend the following to fit your personal circumstances. However, please be aware the following is not a substitute for legal advice from a qualified attorney, which will vary due to differing state laws and factual circumstances.*
Dear ________
This letter is NOT a refusal of vaccination. In this matter I am what is legally defined as ‘vaccine hesitant.’ This is my formal request to you to honor my right as a parent to have informed consent before agreeing to proceed to the next step in permitting my child to be vaccinated.
My consent must be obtained before starting any treatment or physical investigation and this includes the administration of all vaccines.
My giving of any consent is viewed as a process, not a one-off event. Consent obtained before the occasion upon which a child is brought for immunization is only an agreement for the child to be included in the immunization program and does not mean that consent is in place for each future immunization.
Consent should still be sought on the occasion of each immunization visit.
If my child is being excluded from their place of formal education dependent on their submission to your vaccination policy I understand this may be unlawful. If so, I reserve the right to take legal action against any authority or person who so engages in such action.
There are THREE key legal points to be made:
- Vaccination against COVID19 is NOT a legal requirement, merely a recommendation among various authorities;
- No vaccine for COVID19 has passed any rigorous official safety tests, including approved FDA laboratory testing with guinea pigs;
- No vaccination program may be mandated IF ALTERNATIVE EFFECTIVE TREATMENTS ARE AVAILABLE.
All parents and patients should be fully informed about the known or suspected risks and benefits of preventive and therapeutic procedures, including vaccination. In the case of vaccination, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) strongly recommends – and federal law mandates – that this discussion include the provision of the Vaccine Information Statements (VISs).
Best Practice Requirements
All parents (or guardians) shall have the opportunity to ask questions about their concerns regarding recommended childhood immunizations, and maintaining a supportive relationship with the family are all part of a good risk management strategy.
KNOWLEDGE OF ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES & DISEASE PREVENTION
I have validated the following scientific information to my satisfaction from qualified professional (shown below) and challenge you to refute them before gaining my consent:
Merck Scraps Vaccine, Says Better To Catch COVID Virus & Recover:
https://principia-scientific.com/merck-scraps-vaccine-says-better-to-catch-covid-virus-recover/
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons endorses the use of a combination of HCQ, zinc + Z-pac as treatment and prophylactic for COVID19, thus obviating any need to be vaccinated:
https://aapsonline.org/judicial/aaps-v-fda-hcq-6-2-2020.pdf
The BMJ: COVID19 Is Murder By Misinformation. The highly respected British medical science journal speaks out against harsh government measures that are based on false science and insists “knowledgeable and conscientious researchers” have had their dissenting findings “disregarded, censored or vilified.”
https://principia-scientific.com/the-bmj-covid19-is-murder-by-misinformation/
US Senate Hearing Testimony Backs HCQ+Zinc To Treat COVID-19
https://principia-scientific.com/us-senate-hearing-testimony-backs-hcqzinc-to-treat-covid-19/
Ivermectin – Miracle Drug Against COVID-19
https://principia-scientific.com/ivermectin-miracle-drug-against-covid-19/
Lysine therapy interrupts the replication of viruses, including COVID-19 coronavirus:
A natural cure for COVID-19 is widely available and affordable and confirmed by a team of virologists who have spent a lifetime studying the underlying causes of viral infections.
Writing in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases another research team based in New York and Texas reports that arginine depletion is a strategy to quell both coronaviruses and other herpes family viruses.
In 2016 researchers documented that lysine impairs the growth of coronaviruses in a lab dish.
The Bio-Virus Research team are not loners nor out on a scientific limb. A report, published in the Journal of Antivirals & Antiretrovirals, is what prompted to the current discovery that was put into clinical practice in the Dominican Republic.
The above-cited evidence is merely a snapshot of the growing body of verifiable scientific proofs to show that my child (nor any child) not only does not need any ‘vaccine’ to be safe from COVID19 harm, but proves there are safer, proven and more acceptable measures I can take to be a responsible parent and protect my child during this ‘pandemic.’
I know that I may readdress this issue with my child’s doctor or nurse at any time and that I may change my mind and accept/reuse vaccination for my child in the future.
On this issue, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) tells us:
“Whether parents place their children at substantial risk of serious harm by refusing immunization will depend on several factors, including the probability of contracting the disease if unimmunized and the morbidity and mortality associated with infection. The results of such an analysis will also vary depending on the prevalence of disease in the community in which the child resides or the areas in which the child is likely to travel. The balance between the risks and benefits to a given individual favors immunization most strongly when rates of immunization in the community are low and disease prevalence is high.” [1]
Upon your satisfactory reply to the above, you may be provided with my consent, given voluntarily and freely.
But consent will only be given after you have provided me ALL relevant information held by government authorities including my state and federal agencies, such as the CDC.
In the event you evade answering, or negligently fail to fully clarify any reply with scientific literature, you may be liable to legal remedy for a breach of statutory of duty of care to our family.
AAP Policy**
The current AAP Clinical Report, Countering Vaccine Hesitancy, provides information about addressing parental concerns about vaccination.
AAP GUIDANCE TO HEALTH PROFESSIONALS
Health care professionals and parents are bound by the duty to seek medical benefit for and minimize harm to children in their care. When faced with the decision to immunize a child, the welfare of the child should be the primary focus.
If you are a licensed medical professional then you must address three important and distinct issues around COVID19 vaccine hesistancy/refusal.
First, you must reasonably determine whether my choice to provide my child with an alternative, non-vaccination therapy (such as HCQ, Remdisver) risks harming them sufficiently to constitute actionable neglect and be reported to state child protective services agencies;
Second, you should assess all reasonable situations in which a parental decision to withhold immunization from a child puts other individuals at risk of harm sufficient to justify public health intervention;
Third, you have a duty of care to make a full, open and honest response to a parent who refuses or ‘hesitates’ over immunizations for his or her child. [2]
I hereby formally request you to provide me with a written reply with an agreement to a discussion with me, as the parent, before signing any forms concerning the consent to vaccination of my child.
In this matter, the AAP tells us:
“In those situations, physicians may need to tolerate decisions they disagree with if those decisions are not likely to be harmful to the child. “ [3]
In view of the above, unless and until my vaccine hesitancy is fully and properly addressed by a qualified medical authorities I WITHHOLD MY CONSENT ON VACCINATING MY CHILD.
Sincerely,
Note to parents intending to use this template:
*This template not a substitute for legal advice from a qualified attorney, which will vary due to differing state laws and factual circumstances, which will impact the outcome.
** This template was drafted based on current AAP Policy, Responding to Parental Refusals of Immunization of Children.
While this template may be modified to reflect the particular circumstances of a patient, family, or medical practice, users may wish to obtain advice from a qualified attorney.
[1] https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/115/5/1428.full
[2] https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/115/5/1428.full
[3] Buchanan AE, Brock DW. Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1990 Google Scholar
About John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.
March 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism | COVID-19 Vaccine |
1 Comment
Russia has called on the global chemical weapons watchdog, OPCW, to conduct an impartial and reliable investigation into an alleged chemical attack in the Syrian city of Douma near the capital Damascus on April 7, 2018.
Russia’s Permanent Representative to the OPCW, Alexander Shulgin underlined the need for launching a transparent technical inquiry aimed at clarifying the actual course of events in Douma in 2018, Syria’s official news agency SANA reported on Sunday.
“Successful work at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will be impossible until trustworthy circumstances behind the incident in the Syrian town of Douma in April 2018 are established,” the Russian official said.
Shulgin added that this sad page could be over and an international dialogue could be built at the OPCW only after receiving reliable conclusions on the issue.
Moscow has for months cited dissent by two former OPCW employees who leaked a document and an email as evidence that the OPCW doctored the conclusions of a report which found that a toxic chemical containing chlorine was used in a 2018 attack near Damascus.
According to the Russian official, the results which the two inspectors have reached and the violations they have uncovered have undermined the Western allegations.
In late 2019, whistleblowing website WikiLeaks published several batches of documents suggesting that the OPCW may have intentionally doctored its findings, notably avoiding revelations which may point to terrorists having been behind the alleged chemical attack.
One of the published documents showed Sebastien Braha, chief of cabinet at the OPCW, had ordered in an email that “all traces” of a report from Henderson be erased from the body’s registries.
Ian Henderson had found out that the gas cylinders at the site of the Douma incident had been placed there manually most likely by militants given that the area was not controlled by Damascus at the time.
Following the suspected chemical attack, Western countries were quick to blame it on the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
On April 14, 2018, the US, Britain and France launched a coordinated missile attack against sites and research facilities near Damascus and Homs with the purported goal of paralyzing the Syrian government’s capability to produce chemicals.
Damascus, however, said that no chemical attack had happened and that the incident had been staged by foreign intelligence agencies to pressure the government in the face of army advances against militants back then.
The OPCW concluded that chlorine had most likely been used in the attack. However, Syria and Russia both rejected the findings, saying they believed the incident had been staged by the White Helmets, a group which claims to be a humanitarian NGO but has long been accused of working with anti-Damascus militants and staging false-flag gas attacks.
The Syrian government also surrendered its stockpiles of chemical weapons in 2014 to a joint mission led by the UN and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which oversaw the destruction of the weaponry. However, Western governments and their allies have never stopped pointing the finger at Damascus whenever an apparent chemical attack has taken place.
Syria has been gripped by foreign-backed militancy since March 2011. The Syrian government says the Israeli regime and its Western and regional allies are aiding Takfiri terrorist groups that are wreaking havoc in the country.
Syrian government forces have taken back many areas once controlled by the terrorist groups.
Russia on Wednesday also called for not politicizing and exploiting the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Syria.
The IAEA in recent years has been investigating US claims that Syria allegedly tried to build a secret nuclear reactor at a remote desert site in Dayr al-Zawr in 2007, which no longer exists.
Syria and some other regional countries have time and again denounced the US and its Western allies for helping Israel develop its nuclear facilities and adopting double-standards on the issue of non-proliferation policies when it comes to Israel.
March 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | OPCW, Russia, Syria |
Leave a comment
This week, from the disturbing CIA operations file, comes the case of Matthew John Heath, an American and former Marine accused of sabotage, terrorism, trafficking illegal weapons and conspiracy.
You could be forgiven for thinking that an ex-Marine going on trial for terrorism charges in Venezuela might meet with the sort of US media coverage that the Amanda Knox story attained, but the start of Heath’s trial has warranted barely a whisper.
Heath was arrested last September alongside six Venezuelans, including some military personnel. The gang were apparently planning attacks on oil refineries, a major bridge and possibly military installations, and were caught at a roadblock with bricks of American currency, high explosives, a satellite phone and a grenade launcher.
Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro has accused Heath of being a spy and terrorist working for the US government, while his family maintains his innocence. One of several letters smuggled out of prison and sent to Heath’s relatives reads, “Don’t WORRY! Han Solo always wins!” His family have opined that he was either simply an American in the wrong place at the wrong time, or that the evidence was planted in order to frame him.
Seeking leverage or deafening silence?
So, what are we to make of this? Sean McFate of Georgetown University suggested that “A soldier like Heath, whether or not he’s guilty, is very attractive to authoritarian leaders like Maduro seeking leverage with the US.”
But the US government has had little or no contact with Heath, hasn’t moved to negotiate his release, and there is no sign of Maduro using ‘Han Solo’ as leverage, either with the Trump administration or with the new Biden White House.
Instead, the deafening silence of US officials and major media in response to Heath going on trial suggests that they want to keep a lid on the situation. This is likely due to the implication that this self-styled pilot of the Millennium Falcon was working as part of an ongoing disruption campaign being waged against Venezuela by the CIA.
Investigative journalist Alan Macleod pursued this angle in a recent expose, noting Heath’s widely reported background working not just for Marine Corps intelligence but also for the CIA, before he joined MVM – an intelligence services firm who contract almost exclusively for the US government.
Macleod’s article highlights, “Although MVM is technically a private company, it was founded by three former Secret Service agents and continues to work closely with Washington… The only clients listed on its website are American government agencies. “Need a secret agent?” begins its description of the company.”
The Bay of Piglets: Recycling the Cuba playbook
In May 2020, two former Green Berets led an amphibious assault on Venezuela with the aim of storming the presidential palace and installing Juan Guaido – the US’s preferred puppet leader of the country – as the new president. As Macleod points out, this event was quickly dubbed the ‘Bay of Piglets’ – a reference to the CIA botched coup attempt against the Castro government in Cuba in 1961.
In an interview with RT, he added, “That this could occur without at least the knowledge of the State Department seems unlikely, at best.”
Following the Bay of Pigs, the CIA embarked on an extensive program of black operations designed to destabilise the Castro government. One memo, titled ‘Possible Actions to Provoke, Harass or Disrupt Cuba’, details a string of ideas including industrial and military sabotage, economic warfare, and spreading misinformation and disinformation.
Operations were carried out to “create unrest and dissension among the Cuban people” and to encourage the view that Castro’s “value to the revolutionary cause has diminished to the point that plans are being made for his removal.” Plans were even made, under the codename Operation Dirty Trick, so that if the first manned spaceflight were to fail, they would manufacture evidence to “provide irrevocable proof… that the fault lies with the Communists.”
Fast forward to today, and it appears that the CIA have simply recycled their 60s playbook and used it as a manual for targeting the Venezuelan government and people. In between regular failed coup attempts, the US government is deploying regular economic warfare, sabotage and disinformation tactics to try to erode domestic support for Maduro and ‘soften’ the country’s resistance to the corporate empire.
Macleod summarised, “For two decades now, there has not been a day that has gone by that the US government was not working in some way to overthrow the government of Venezuela. They have tried organizing coups and protest movements as well as longer term strategies like funding political and social organizations, as well as levying sanctions on the country. There have also been many mysterious incidents in Venezuela that the government alleges were the work of unknown saboteurs.”
A blank space in a book
If Heath, a.k.a. ‘Han Solo’, was indeed working as part of a CIA black operation, which seems likely given the evidence compiled by MacLeod and the general pattern of events in Venezuela in recent years, then he is probably a NOC – a non-official cover operative.
As outlined by Al Pacino’s character in the film ‘The Recruit’ – which was originally written by the CIA’s Hollywood liaison – most CIA officers working out of embassies around the world enjoy official cover and diplomatic immunity, but some become NOCs.
Pacino’s character says: “The NOC is the truest practitioner of espionage – always out there, always alone, unprotected. If you are caught, you will most likely be tortured, shot, and/or hanged. And here’s the best part – no one will ever hear about it. You will become a star on a wall, a blank space in a book.”
Macleod commented on the increased contracting out of NOC activities, saying, “Much of Washington’s actual dirty work has been outsourced to third parties, however, through organizations like USAID (United States Agency for International Development) and the NED (National Endowment for Democracy).”
Back in the bad old days in Cuba, NOCs and other disposable assets came in the form of Cuban exiles and mafia lieutenants, but today, proxy war has been corporatised and NOCs work for three letter abbreviations like MVM, blowing up bridges and firing grenades at oil refiners. Or at least, trying to.
The world’s weirdest holiday?
The CIA has remained predictably silent about Heath, while the State Department’s only comment on the case came in the form of a tweet by a spokesman asking for a fair trial.
Neither the Trump nor Biden White Houses have had anything to say about Heath, suggesting that there is an official policy of not commenting on this politically controversial case.
If Heath is, as he claims, an innocent civilian with a military record and a penchant for ‘Star Wars’, who went to Venezuela during a global pandemic to gain“more boating experience,” then the State Department would be advocating for him. If this were the travesty of justice that Heath will no doubt make out it is when the trial moves to the defence phase, then the US media should be screaming blue murder.
Instead, the American government and major media response to this innocent man on the world’s weirdest holiday has been to politely ignore him, as though getting caught with high explosives, surveillance photos and machine guns is regular behaviour for Americans on nautical vacations.
Han Solo: A Matthew Heath story
As Joshua Goodman, an American journalist, observed, “Heath’s reputation for discretion, background in signals intelligence for the Marines and past work as a US government contractor in Iraq and Afghanistan seemed straight out of a Tom Clancy novel.”
The Clancy parallels are apt, especially given the latest adaptation of his work – Amazon’s ‘Jack Ryan’ – focused its entire second season on glamourising an off-the-books CIA coup against the Venezuelan government, including storming the presidential palace. The show, which is supported by both the CIA and the Pentagon, went to great efforts to project Venezuela back into the public consciousness as a desperate threat to US national security and in need of extreme prejudice.
Macleod commented, “Unfortunately, many of the plot lines of shows like Jack Ryan have a tendency to come true. This is because the writers are in close contact with government agents who help them craft realistic scenarios for their plots based on actual events or plans.”
Despite this, I wouldn’t expect ‘Han Solo: A Matthew Heath Story’ to be coming to a theatre near you anytime soon.
Tom Secker is a British-based investigative journalist, author and podcaster. You can follow his work via his Spy Culture site and his podcast ClandesTime.
March 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | CIA, United States, Venezuela |
Leave a comment
Loose Tweets Sink Reputations
While on the one hand Twitter flexed its muscles when it permanently de-platformed a sitting US president and deactivated tens of thousands of other accounts, with Facebook closely following suit against accounts the two social media giants claimed were “disinformation” concerning the 2020 election results, in practice it was a pyrrhic victory at best. The real power of Facebook, Twitter, other social media lay in their reputation as essentially neutral, impartial platforms where free speech was triumphant and the invisible hand of the marketplace of ideas dictated which accounts would get millions of followers and which would languish in obscurity.
That, of course, was never really true. Twitter and Facebook were no strangers to muting, banning, or at least stealth-banning accounts that promoted ideas inconsistent with whatever dogma, social or political, prevailed in Washington D.C. at the moment. However, this tended to be done in dribs and drabs, not in avalanches which moreover explicitly targeted specific political candidates or parties. Twitter’s knee-jerk panic-induced purge of Trump and Trump-supporting accounts that followed the events of January 6, 2020 on the flimsy pretense that there was a “risk of violence” created by the mere existence of these accounts, showed that @Jack and indeed the entire @TwitterSupport team are not impartial at all, for all the world to see. Naturally, as Twitter and Biden apologists were quick to point out, the First Amendment does not extend to private entities, which means that, legally, US social media giants were in the clear. Unironically defending a mega-corporation’s inherent right to censor speech in a way that US government institutions are prohibited from doing was not exactly a very good position to be in. That is a blow to the foundations of Twitter’s free-speech reputation from which it can never recover. That toothpaste can never be put back in the tube again. Banning accounts, rather than suspending until “offending” material is deleted, is a form of “prior restraint” of free speech that is explicitly prohibited by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Even such Donald Trump non-fans as Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron found themselves decrying Twitter’s decision to muzzle the US president, on the basis of it being a corporate abuse of power that should be reserved only to national governments.
Twitter’s epic self-own became evident within days, in the context of elections in Uganda in which Twitter, no doubt at the behest of US intelligence community failure and/or other political and economic interests, attempted to meddle by locking accounts favoring candidates the US government clearly didn’t favor. Uganda’s retaliation in the form of shutting down Twitter in all of the country led to a predictable Twitter boilerplate reaction concerning the sanctity of free speech that was equally predictably jeered by US Trump supporters who by now were less than impressed with Twitter’s commitment to open political discourse. It seems rather inevitable that other countries will follow suit whenever Twitter-based political meddling becomes too much to tolerate, without exposing themselves to the usual tut-tutting by pearl-clutching Western liberals who praised Twitter’s shut-down of Trump. US social media networks rapidly won reputation as US propaganda and influence instruments will facilitate effective action against them in the future by countries interested in defending their sovereignty and integrity of political institutions.
Ne Parler Pas
Twitter’s and Facebook’s blowing of own cover, as it were, was quickly followed by the saga of the Parler social media network which revealed a far deeper behind-the-scenes collusion among information technology firms in support of Biden and the Democrats. Parler was a low-budget, low-quality operation set up to cash in on Twitter’s banning and shadow-banning policies. Its sole advantage was the absence of literally any restrictions on political expression, which meant that it quickly became a network with a pronounced GOP lean. The low-budget aspect of the company meant that instead of setting up its own “server farm”, with mirroring and denial of service protections against the inevitable hacking attempts that incidentally also cost real money, it opted to have its operations hosted on servers owned by none other than Amazon, which has extensive dealings with and contracts from many US intelligence agencies, including secret services. A rumor that Donald Trump might react to the Twitter ban by holding court on Parler was enough for Amazon to peremptorily kick Parler off its servers. Other Parler vendors, down to law firms, similarly refused services, all of it happening to a company against which no government investigation or other action has even been initiated. Another piece of evidence, as if one were needed, of the existence of a “deep state” in the US operating outside the official legal framework.
It turns out, however, that Parler is run not only by cheapskates but experts at trolling because in their search for an alternative hosting platform they settled on a provider with servers based in… Russia, where their operations evidently do not break any laws, written or unwritten, and therefore can proceed unimpeded, in stark contrast with the United States. That revelation prompted a furious response from Congressional Democrats who are now demanding an FBI investigation into Parler’s Russia ties and Russia’s involvement in the events of January 6. Again, a panicky knee-jerk reaction that will set a precedent not only for the United States but also for the rest of the world, that social media networks on servers outside one’s country are automatically to be viewed as foreign agents.
War of Words
One way or the other, things will never be the same for social media, in the United States or elsewhere. The idea of a global free speech commons conveniently hosted by US social media networks in cozy collaboration with US intelligence services has been revealed to be a pernicious myth and is now irretrievably dead. Going forward, no self-respecting country will allow its political discourse space to be in the hands of unknown, shadowy, and unaccountable US actors. In practical terms it means demands for transparency and regulation of social media, even in the United States where the Republicans will eventually return to power and settle scores with @Jack and @Zuck. Elsewhere in the world, we are likely to see the creation of social media alternatives, as well as the growth in popularity of existing ones such as Telegram or even VKontakte. Russia’s newly adopted legal framework for hefty fines to be leveled against social media firms for allowing disinformation and other socially undesirable activities will become the norm all over the world.
This may lead to a situation in which the world’s polarization into hostile economic and military blocs is mirrored by the fragmentation of the Internet, including of social media, into national or regional networks, to the detriment of the currently existing global one. China’s early banning of US social media networks from its country, a decision whose wisdom is now plainly evident, may become the global norm. The deepening US political crisis that has not ended with Biden’s inauguration means that the United States is liable to lead the world in restricting the activities of foreign social media firms on its territory, under the guise of “combating domestic terrorism” that is Biden’s actual top priority, thus providing further ammunition for advocates of doing the same in their own countries. Twitter’s continued suppression of speech, such as suspension of a Chinese official government account for supposedly “dehumanizing” the Uyghurs, again ostensibly on the basis of the company’s terms of service rather than US official guidance, will only accelerate process.
Whether matters will deteriorate to such an extent remains to be seen. If US continues to escalate its aggression against countries unwilling to become its client states, social media will not remain unaffected by it. However, Twitter’s and Facebook’s panicky reaction to the January 6 “insurrection” had greatly weakened one of crucial tools of US “hybrid warfare”.
March 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Facebook, Twitter, United States |
Leave a comment
On February 25, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered North Korea to pay 2.3 billion USD in compensation for damages to the crew of the USS Pueblo, which was hijacked in 1968. The American side claims that a marine research vessel was seized that was in international waters at the time of the incident. One of the 83 crew members was killed, and the rest were released after 11 months while “incessantly subjected to mental and physical abuse during their captivity”.
This process became possible after the US Congress passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act in 2016, which allows lawsuits in these kinds of high-profile cases to be heard in federal courts. For the lawsuit to be accepted, the country must be on the appropriate list, and the DPRK wound up there after Pyongyang was accused of murdering Kim Jong-nam, and the story with Otto Warmbier occurred.
Back in 2018, 49 crew members that are currently alive, and the families of the rest, demanded compensation for damages related to how they were held hostage. According to the opinion delivered by the court, “this case arises from the kidnapping, imprisonment, and torture of United States servicemen aboard the USS Pueblo by agents of the government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”. “In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment on liability, the Court concluded that North Korea was liable to the plaintiffs under this provision and its incorporated theories of assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, solatium, and wrongful death”.
Each of the living crew members was awarded compensation in an amount ranging from 22 to 48 million dollars, and the family members of the crew member that was killed, and those that were deceased, received compensation in smaller amounts. In total, the court ruling obliges North Korea to pay out about 2.3 billion dollars: 1.15 billion dollars is the amount of compensation, and about that same amount represents a “fine”.
The South Korean media compared this decision to a 2019 verdict, when that same district court ordered North Korea to pay 500 million USD in damages to the parents of American student Otto Warmbier. It is worth reiterating that he died in 2017, six days after he returned home from being released from captivity in North Korea. In both cases there was allegedly unlawful imprisonment involved, effectively meaning hostage taking, torture, etc., although the author is once again forced reiterate that American doctors and coroners could not find any traces of torture or ill treatment on the student’s body.
Mark Bravin, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told USNI News today that the damages awarded are among the largest ever awarded in a state-sponsored terrorism case.
Chief Cryptologic Technician Don Peppard, a surviving crew member and president of the USS Pueblo Veterans’ Association, said in a press release, “even though we didn’t expect anything, it is a relief to be recognized for what we went through. Maybe now it is finally settled, and we can move forward.”
The ruling, however, will remain symbolic, since Pyongyang does not respond to verdicts delivered by foreign courts. Therefore, compensation will be paid out, but in 2022, and from a special U.S. Victims of State-Sponsored Terrorism Fund created by the US Congress. The money for the fund comes from the fines and penalties imposed on individuals and corporations in these countries.
In this light, the American sailors look like unfortunate victims – almost like deceased students, only in uniform. But just like in the Warmbier case, there is the official version put forth by the United States, and then there is reality.
The USS Pueblo “was converted into an environmental research ship”, and in late 1967 set out on its maiden voyage to gather intelligence in Asian waters. As photographs show, it was chock full of the most cutting-edge intelligence-gathering equipment for that time, with both encryption and data collection devices.
The story of the capture of the USS Pueblo on January 23, 1968, and the subsequent crisis, is described well in the article by V.P. Tkachenko (Lessons from the Korean Crisis of 1968. // Problems of the Far East – 2008. – No 1. – pp. 82-102.), And, if you believe the North Korean version, the USS Pueblo invaded the territorial waters of the DPRK 17 times, and that one time it plunged deeper that 7.5 miles in them. The vessel tried to escape into neutral waters and shoot back, but North Korean patrol boats caught up and surrounded it. The battle could have lasted for a very long time (later on, dozens of small arms, anti-aircraft machine guns, tens of thousands of cartridges and grenades, etc. were seized on the vessel), but one of the first hits by a North Korean heavy machine gun struck the ammunition depot, and killed one of the crew members. A chain of explosions began. The Americans decided that the ship was seriously damaged, and Captain Lloyd Bucher decided to surrender.
On January 26, 1968, at a press conference in Pyongyang, the captain of the USS Pueblo admitted that the ship’s crew was engaged in espionage in North Korean waters, although American propaganda asserts that the ship’s captain made the confession under torture – and threats to execute the entire crew in front of him. However, the outcome of an investigation revealed that the ship belonged to the US Pacific Fleet, and its crew was doing work according to plans from the Central Intelligence Agency, conducting reconnaissance on the military facilities and coastal waters along the Soviet Union’s Far East, the coastline of North Korea, and China. As can be seen from published maps, extracts from the ship’s log, and secret documents that they did not manage to destroy after the vessel was detained, the USS Pueblo repeatedly violated the territorial waters around not only the DPRK, but also the USSR.
The incident resulted in one dead and nine injured American crew members and, in response to such a “direct attack on the United States”, on January 24, 1968, the American representative to the Military Armistice Commission in Korea demanded the immediate return of the ship and its crew, as well as an apology for interning them in neutral waters. In response, the North Korean side demanded an apology from the United States, and it turned out that none of the conflicting parties considered their actions to be unlawful. The Americans insisted that the seizure of the ship took place outside the accepted 12-mile border demarcating territorial waters, and therefore it was an arbitrary act. The North Korean side justified its actions by the fact that this case had nothing to do with the issue of the width taken up by territorial waters, since the vessel entered the country’s bay, which is considered domestic waters according to international law. In addition, it cited its own government decree dated March 5, 1955, in which (along with establishing the width of its territorial waters) a significant part of the East Korea Bay, where the USS Pueblo was detained, was declared to be DPRK domestic waters. On top of that, at the time the vessel was seized the North did not think to accurately fix the point where the process ended for detaining a vessel that was heading out to open sea – leaving the issue open-ended – unlike the fact established that the ship was captured on its way out of the North’s territorial waters, and the fact that an incursion had taken place.
On January 25, 1968, President L. Johnson announced the urgent mobilization of a total of 14,600 personnel in the US air force and naval reserves. American and South Korean troops were put on extreme alert. Responding to this, the DPRK declared that they were ready for war, and the situation began to rapidly escalate.
On January 30, 1968, the DPRK officially petitioned Moscow with a proposal to immediately provide the DPRK with military and other assistance, using all the means at the disposal of the USSR, if Korea were to go to war. And although Soviet diplomats found the opportunity to explain that the USSR would not automatically be included in the conflict, tensions remained high throughout the crisis.
Actually, because of this, the seizure of the Pueblo is sometimes interpreted as a cunning plan on the part of North Korea to enter into direct negotiations with the Americans, bringing them up to the government level – and this would have meant de facto recognition of the DPRK. According to proponents of this version, the threat to destroy prisoners in the event of an armed invasion was supposed to further push the United States to negotiations. However, there is no direct evidence that such a plan existed.
And the fate of the ship and its crew was decided during negotiations within the framework of the Military Armistice Commission in Korea. On February 15, 1968, the Americans promised to think about making an apology if the returning sailors corroborated the fact that the ship had been detained in the North’s territorial waters, and a day later the United States would order its ships to adhere to a 12-mile zone off the coast of the DPRK. In response, on February 20 the Korean side announced its intention to put the American sailors on trial, but did not do this, taking into account their active repentance.
On May 8, 1968, a DPRK representative proposed his own version of the final document, which read: “The government of the United States of America, confirming the validity of the confessions made by the crew of the American vessel USS Pueblo, and of the documentary evidence presented by a representative of the government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea regarding the fact that the ship, which was hijacked in self-defense measures taken by the warships of the Korean People’s Army in territorial waters of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on January 23, 1968, repeatedly invaded the territorial waters of the DPRK, and was engaged in reconnaissance work on important DPRK military and state secrets, takes full responsibility for this, and formally apologizes for the fact that the American ship invaded the territorial waters of the DPRK, and committed significant intelligence-gathering activities against the DPRK, and gives an unwavering guarantee that American ships will no longer invade the territorial waters of the DPRK. However, the US government, taking into account the fact that the members of the former crew for the American ship USS Pueblo, detained by the DPRK side, openly confessed to their crimes, and made appeals to the DPRK government, urges the DPRK government to show leniency towards the crew members”.
An American representative had to sign the specified document on behalf of the US government, which was done on December 23, 1968, exactly eleven months after the crew was interred. After this formality, the American general gave a spoken statement that the United States did not recognize this document, but the 82 crew members, and the body of the one killed sailor, were returned home. North Korea added that there was information in the American media that either the entire crew, or all the officers, had been executed. After that, on the one hand, the crew itself decided that they were being sold out, and on the other hand the North Koreans published an open letter on behalf of the crew, and began to threaten a public trial at which evidence of their espionage activities would be presented to the whole world. As a result, the incident with the USS Pueblo is positioned as the only case when the United States not only admitted to spying, but also officially apologized.
They do not report how after the ship was released Captain Bucher went on trial – he and some of the officers were accused of a) surrendering the most valuable ship with little or no resistance, and b) giving up information that forced Washington to apologize after it was divulged. It was also asserted that one of the prosecution’s arguments was the absence of any obvious signs of torture.
The ship itself was docked for a long time in the port of Wŏnsan, and attracted tourists, and in 2002 North Korea was even going to give it to the US government as a gesture of goodwill, but right then the second round of the nuclear crisis happened. After that, the ship was transported to Pyongyang and made into the main exhibit at the North Korean Museum of Victory in the “Patriotic War”. There is a legend that, since it was impossible to ship it by railway transport, it was sent in a roundabout way by water, disguised as a fishing trawler, and the person who organized this received the title of Hero of the Republic. Some also say that the Americans wanted to intercept this ship, but could not.
So the verdict delivered by the American court is actually not a triumph of justice, but a very unpleasant memory – at least for anyone who bothers to study the issue in a little more depth.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, is a leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of the Far East at the Russian Academy of Sciences.
March 7, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Illegal Occupation, Timeless or most popular | Korea, United States |
1 Comment
Aletho News
Aletho News 