Aletho News


Iran to leave Vienna by end of month if Biden doesn’t lift all sanctions

By Elijah J Magnier | Press TV | May 4, 2021

Iranian and Western delegations returned to their capitals after the third Vienna round, with optimism emanating from the statements of the gathered officials. Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi issued positive information about the US lifting sanctions on energy, economic sectors, shipping, freedom of transportation, banks, and on many Iranian personalities. The negotiations have reached a stage where the elaboration of complex texts is on the table. Also, there were talks about the US releasing more than 90 billion dollars withheld from Iranian funds and another 20 billion frozen in Iraq, South Korea and China from oil revenues. No details have been discussed so far about the interest on these funds held for many years due to US sanctions.

There was also talk of the possibility of exchanging Iranian prisoners held in America, who number 18, including 7 in critical health condition, and others of Iranian–Western double nationality holders (American and British) detained in Iran on charges of espionage. This is an old Iranian demand that Iran insists on ending everything in one single exchange.

However, after lifting sanctions against individuals and accepting all demands, the biggest problem lies in Iran’s request to ensure that the lifting of sanctions will be applied in a specific time frame. According to a particular pre-agreed timetable, Iran wants to ensure that all frozen funds will return to the Central Bank. Countries around the world will be allowed to deal with Iran in all sectors without intimidation.

Iran has never requested the return of diplomatic relations with the US, but rather the lifting of the sanctions that were imposed on it since 2015 and that President Barack Obama agreed to cancel. Moreover, Iran wants to lift all additional sanctions added by Donald Trump when the nuclear deal was torn apart in 2018.

Negotiations have reached a reasonable level, although Iran still refuses to communicate with the US directly because the US is no longer a partner in the JCPOA and that talks could blow up any time. The US flag was removed from the negotiating room at the request of Iran. The Iranian delegation stressed the need for the US delegates not to be present at the same hotel where the negotiations are taking place until the White House announces the end of all sanctions. This is when the US will become a JCPOA partner again.

An Iranian decision-maker in Iran said that “the Leader of the [Islamic] Revolution, [Ayatollah] Seyyed Ali Khamenei, will not give an unlimited time-space to negotiate in Vienna. This is the last month before the announcement of the clinical death of the JCPOA agreement if all Iranian conditions are not met.” The source asserts that “Iran will not accept the American evasiveness that called for easing the sanctions by lifting those related to the nuclear file and placing other sanctions related to Iran’s missile capability, the Revolutionary Guards (Islamic Revolution Guards Corps) and other sectors until a future negotiation to be established later. Either all sanctions are lifted, or no deal is reached because mid-solutions are not accepted.”

Many indications lead to the US intention to conclude the deal with Iran and honor its previous commitment signed in 2015. Israel is prepared for this move following Mossad director Yossi Cohen, National security advisor Meir Ben-Shabbat and other military and security high-ranking officers meeting with US officials. The Israelis failed to persuade the US to abandon the agreement with Iran.

The Biden administration considers the nuclear deal necessary to protect Israel by preventing Iran from reaching enrichment uranium to 90-percent purity level, which makes possessing an atomic bomb easy. Israel wishes to keep the harsh sanctions on Iran and strike its nuclear reactor.

Iran possesses the ballistic and precision missiles that enable it to strike back with a decisive blow to the US bases deployed in the Middle East in case of war. Furthermore, Iran can count on the strength of its allies deployed in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, who can join the battlefield if needed. Therefore, waging war on Iran is not feasibly possible. That leaves the US with slim options: the best could be to honor its deal, lift the sanctions and make sure that Iran does not obtain military nuclear grade capability. This is Biden’s logic and approach to assure the security of Israel and the interests of the US. Iran has shown that it imposes its conditions on the US and treats it as an equal from strength because it has strong cards to play.

However, Israel cannot go to war with Iran alone and wants to drag in the US. Iran has shown that its strategic patience has been replaced by strategic deterrence. Multiple strikes manifested that, and missile messages exchanged in the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea. There were powerful indications that Iran will not be silent on any Israeli transgression. Furthermore, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented himself as an alternative power to the US in the Middle East and became a superpower, a missile landed close to the Dimona nuclear reactor. Therefore, there is no doubt that Israel can harass Iran in Syria by cyber warfare and assassinations. It is also accurate to say that Iran has the power to direct similar annoyance to Israel.

It is a crucial month to indicate in which direction the ship of negotiations between Iran and America will sail. It is in the interest of both parties to reach an agreement, but all indications indicate that Iran will not budge from its place and will hold its ground firmly before accepting the US back as a partner in the nuclear agreement. The ball is in Biden’s court now, and time is not on his side.

Elijah J Magnier is a veteran war correspondent and a Senior Political Risk Analyst with decades of experience covering the West Asian region.

May 4, 2021 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , | 1 Comment

Iran Meddling In Scottish Election – Think Tank

By Richie Allen | May 4, 2021

A think tank has claimed that Iran is using online specialists to try and influence the outcome of this weeks Scottish election. The Henry Jackson Society produced a report yesterday, that claims Tehran is using fake social media accounts to break up the UK.

The think tank offers no proof mind, but it doesn’t matter. This morning, the nation’s presstitutes are repeating the baseless claims as if they are fact. Nobody is asking for evidence. Heaven forbid someone should actually do their job.

The report states that Iran has “put considerable effort into developing its political relationships with Scottish political elites who advocate independence.” Does it name these elites? Of course not.

It also says that:

“Iran has shown itself to be a country which engages in Russian style disinformation campaigns, repeatedly establishing fake websites and internet accounts in an effort to disrupt the political systems of liberal democracies.

Judged within this context, Iran is almost certainly looking to disrupt our current elections, most likely those under way for the Scottish parliament.”

Once again, the report provides no evidence that Iran (or Russia for that matter), is using fake websites and accounts in an attempt to influence elections here or anywhere else.

This is one of the most pathetic and ridiculous stories that has ever crossed my desk. I had a good laugh at the line about Iran trying to “disrupt the political systems of liberal democracies.”

The UK is a liberal democracy is it? I’ve been listening to government ministers all weekend telling us that soon we’ll have permission to hug our parents and grandparents and meet our friends indoors.

On Sunday, I witnessed the Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab tell the BBC’s Andrew Marr that social distancing and face coverings will be with us for the foreseeable future. His government is about to introduce vaccine passports for work, international travel and for socialising.

His government also plans to vaccinate the nation’s children for an illness that is no danger to them whatsoever.

A liberal democracy? Give me a break.

Iran hasn’t raised so much as a finger against a neighbouring country in centuries. It’s preposterous to claim that Tehran is trying to interfere in the outcome of the Scottish election.

Think tanks and spooks can make any claims they like. It doesn’t matter how ridiculous. The media will just rinse and repeat.

May 4, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | 4 Comments

Why Is Twitter Allowed To Get Away With Interfering In Elections?

By Richie Allen | May 4, 2021

On Thursday, voters go to the polls across the UK. The media has dubbed it “Super Thursday.” Scottish and Welsh voters will elect parliaments. There’s a by-election in Hartlepool and Londoners will elect an assembly and choose their mayor.

Regional mayors will be elected around the country and there are dozens of county and city council elections too. Twitter is currently engaged in perverting the course of all of these elections. The social media giant has banned or deleted the accounts of anti-lockdown candidates all over the country.

These are people who are on the ballot. They paid their deposits and what you, me or anyone else thinks of their chances is irrelevant. They are at a serious disadvantage if they cannot use social media to campaign.

It’s not only Twitter. Facebook is doing it too. They’re also shadow banning people they haven’t booted. That’s sinister. If you tweet or post information about how lockdowns kill more people than any virus, or you blog about vaccine injuries, Twitter’s algorithms will kick in and limit your reach.

It’s not doing that to pro-lockdown/pro-vaccine candidates. Is anyone looking into this? How can elections be deemed open, fair or even transparent, when a massive corporation gets to decide who sees what messages and when?

Piers Corbyn is on The Richie Allen Show this evening. Piers is a physicist and a former Labour Party councillor. He’s anti-lockdown and has expressed scepticism about the safety of the covid jabs. He’s been banned by Twitter. How can that be acceptable?

Shouldn’t the UK’s electoral authorities be looking into this?

Look what Twitter did to Donald Trump. I’ve no time for Trump or any politician of course, but it’s outrageous that Twitter (and Facebook) banned him.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the Digital, Media & Culture secretary Oliver Dowden to do something about it in this country. Twitter and Facebook can do whatever they like it seems.

May 4, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 1 Comment

Continuing the Story of the Hijacked Tanker and Frozen Funds

By Konstantin Asmolov – New Eastern Outlook – 04.05.2021

In early 2021, we wrote about the Iranian seizure of a South Korean tanker and how this precedent actually demonstrates a number of unresolved problems, most notably the problem of Iranian assets in South Korean banks intended to pay for Iranian crude oil imports and frozen because of US sanctions.

Recall:  Iran has repeatedly urged Seoul to address the $7 billion frozen in two South Korean banks as part of US sanctions after the Donald Trump administration pulled out of the landmark nuclear deal with Iran in 2018 and tightened sanctions against the Islamic Republic. On January 4, 2021, the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps seized the South Korean-flagged tanker MT Hankuk Chemi under the pretext of environmental pollution.

On January 10, 2021, a government delegation led by First Deputy Foreign Minister Choi Jong-gon arrived in Tehran. However, the parties were unable to reach any agreements. In fact, Choi called for the release of the tanker and demanded evidence of oil pollution in the waters of the Persian Gulf, which formally caused the tanker to be seized. In response, his interlocutor Abbas Araghchi said that the tanker was in the hands of an Iranian court, and that the development of bilateral relations can make sense only when the issue of frozen funds is resolved.

Araghchi openly stated that “the freezing of Iran’s foreign currency resources in Korea is more due to a lack of political will on the part of the Korean government than to US sanctions,” and called on Choi to work out a mechanism to resolve the issue. However, the Iranian side noted that the crew members were safe and in good shape.

Choi’s talks with Iran’s Central Bank Governor Abdel Nasser Hemmati and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif also proved fruitless. The minister reiterated the thesis that the executive branch does not interfere in matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the judiciary; and the bank recalled that the South Korean government had promised to resolve the issue a year and a half ago, but had done nothing.

Kamal Kharrazi, head of Iran’s Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, was even more blunt: “The two countries had good relations, but now, unfortunately, because the Korean government yielded to US pressure, Iranian assets worth $7 billion have been frozen in Korean banks, and it cannot even withdraw money to buy medicine“.

On January 12, during a briefing, Saeed Khatibzadeh of the Iranian Foreign Ministry expressed dissatisfaction with the measures taken by the ROK to solve the problem: the solution is delayed and Tehran is not satisfied. The Iranian side has indicated its position that the problem of frozen funds should be solved first, and the issue of the arrested tanker will be resolved in accordance with legal procedures.

As a result of Choi’s visit, the parties agreed on nothing but further negotiations, and Choi went to Qatar, where he appealed for assistance in freeing the South Korean tanker and its crew.

In mid-January it emerged that in order to “create a positive mood before negotiations with Iran,” South Korea withdrew its anti-piracy naval unit Cheonghae from the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian Ambassador Saeed Badamchi Shabestari allegedly once expressed displeasure to Seoul over the presence of South Korean troops in the Straits because they were actually part of an international contingent assembled by the United States to contain Iran, even though formally the unit is meant to fight regional piracy. It is a typical trick of South Korean foreign policy when US orders are de facto carried out, but de jure these actions are anything but the direct order. However, the Foreign Ministry of the ROK refused to confirm this movement of troops.

At the same time, there was a rumor that the Iranian party offered to use part of the frozen funds to pay off its outstanding UN membership dues. Although the amount is only $16,200,000, experts decided that the only the first step would be particularly difficult, and on January 19, the head of the Central Bank of Iran, in an interview with Bloomberg agency again noted that this is not the first time the authorities of the Republic of Korea promise to do everything possible, but in fact they continue to follow the US policy and rules.

The Korean party, on the other hand, has made certain hints that a change of power in the US could unblock the problem.

On January 21, Hemmati reported that some of the funds belonging to Iran, which are in foreign banks, have been unfrozen and are being used by the government.

On February 2, 2021, Iran agreed to release the entire crew of the hijacked tanker except for the captain. Seoul welcomed this decision, and “the parties agreed to continue mutual communication”. By this time everyone finally remembered that at the time of the seizure the ship was carrying not petroleum products, but ethyl alcohol, so it is unclear how the fact of pollution that became the reason for the arrest of the ship occurred at that time.

The next day, the ROK media reported that South Korea was finalizing negotiations with the US to use some of the frozen money to pay Iran’s outstanding US dues. Otherwise, South Korean experts believed that the decision was still related to the change of power in the US, because, first, Biden was going to deal with the restoration of alliances in general, and second, the Iranian issue, according to Southerners, will be solved differently than under Trump. Iran has been called upon to return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in order to restore the 2015 nuclear agreement.

In addition, it was reported that South Korea increased the export of medicine to Iran for two months, which also contributed to the release of detainees.

On February 11, the first Korean sailor returned home, but some of the crew remained on the ship to provide management.

On February 23, in a statement issued by South Korean Foreign Ministry in response to the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s statement on reaching an agreement with the South, it was stated that Iranian assets could be unblocked after consultations with the United States. According to a report posted on the Iranian government’s website, the agreement was reached during the February 22 meeting between Hemmati, Governor of the Central Bank of Iran, and Yoo Jong-hyun, the ROK ambassador to Iran. The parties agreed on directions for the transfer of money, and the Central Bank of Iran has informed Seoul of the amount it wants to receive.  Then, according to Bloomberg, Iranian government spokesman Ali Rabiei told a news conference that South Korea would release $1 billion in frozen money as a first step toward resolving the issue, without giving further details on how it would be used.

However, on the same day, Feb. 23, State Department spokesman Ned Price noted that the US and the ROK could discuss the supposed release of Iranian funds, but the money had not yet been transferred. The ROK Foreign Ministry also stressed that American pressure was needed to unfreeze Iranian assets. Thus, Tehran’s claim of an agreement has been refuted.

On February 24, the foreign ministers of the ROK and Islamic Republic of Iran discussed the situation, and Jong Eui-young said that South Korea “is making sincere efforts to release frozen assets,” but recalled that the issue must be resolved in close cooperation with the United States. In response, the Governor of the Central Bank of Iran said that South Korea must pay Iran $1 billion, otherwise Tehran will initiate proceedings in international courts.

On February 25, a US Treasury Department official said that Washington agreed in principle to a partial transfer of Iranian assets to Switzerland, from where they can be sent to Iran under the so-called Swiss Agreement on Humanitarian Trade, the essence of which is that Swiss food, pharmaceutical and medical companies must have a reliable channel of payment to ensure payment for their exports to Iran. Actually, the aforementioned billion was going to be transferred to the purchase of drugs against coronavirus

The conservative media in the ROK accused Iran of diplomatic impoliteness and wishful thinking. However, the commonplace conclusion was that it was all Moon’s fault for failing everything: the government is only engaged in improving relations with the DPRK and cannot conduct skillful diplomacy with other countries.

On March 2, Ned Price said that the US would be willing to discuss with Iran the unblocking of its money in the ROK “to achieve the main goal of Iran’s denuclearization.” He was silent about where, when, and how this issue would be discussed.

On March 10, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken took an even tougher stance: until Iran meets its obligations under the nuclear deal, the US will not ease any sanctions, including the release of Iranian funds in South Korean banks. When asked whether it was true that some of the funds could be transferred, however, Blinken replied that “the report you referred to is simply wrong“. Korean conservative media and experts immediately noted that “Secretary Blinken’s principled approach to frozen Iranian funds is good news for Korean national interests. This allows Seoul to resist extortion, even while making every reasonable effort to cooperate with Tehran. It also sends a signal to North Korea that international sanctions will be strictly enforced, but may be eased if denuclearization agreements are respected.”

On March 16, the ROK and Iran held a video conference that formally focused on expanding bilateral humanitarian trade, and on March 17, Deputy Prime Minister and Treasury Secretary Hong Nam-gi spoke by phone with new US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, where the parties agreed to cooperate closely, including on the Iranian issue.

On April 2, 2021, a diplomatic source reported that the tanker would soon be released, and on April 5, Said Khatibzadeh of the Iranian Foreign Ministry added that the case was ending and the court decision would most likely be in favor of the South Korean side.

According to experts, this was related both to the upcoming visit to Iran of Prime Minister Jong Se-kyung and to the fact that 700,000 doses of AstraZeneca vaccine produced in Kazakhstan were delivered to Iran.

On the morning of April 9, Iran released the tanker and it left the port. On board were the captain and 12 crew members who had been released earlier but remained on the ship for maintenance purposes.

On April 11, Jeong Se-kyung left for Iran on a three-day visit. This visit was the first trip of a South Korean prime minister to Iran in 44 years, but it should be remembered that by this time it was already known that at the end of the visit Chong was resigning due to a set of domestic political problems. Therefore, despite the high status of the visit, its real significance was somewhat less than expected, and the visit did not end with anything serious. The sides agreed to expand humanitarian exchanges, including medical cooperation, and to create a special consultative body responsible for preparing economic cooperation projects after the possible resumption of the nuclear deal. The Iranian side again urged Seoul to unblock the money as soon as possible, which was responded to with further assurances that everything possible was being done and a call to prevent Iran from detaining foreign vessels in the future: “The freedom of navigation must be guaranteed.”

In general, during his stay in Iran, Jeong Se-kyung himself was particularly active trying to please Iran and even talked about the importance and profound spiritual significance of Ramadan. It turns out that he has said before that “this money is Iranian money and should be returned to the rightful owner. We have to find a way to return it quickly.” However, the author’s attempt to search for statements by the South Korean prime minister on this topic was unsuccessful. Jeong met with a number of dignitaries, including the speaker of parliament, but was unable to meet with President Rouhani “for various reasons, including the situation with Covid-19.”

And Iran’s First Vice President Jahangiri openly said, “We call on the Korean government to release Iran’s financial resources as soon as possible and solve the problems of recent years through practical compensatory measures.” The vice president regretted that the $1 billion transfer to Swiss banks for the purchase of a coronavirus vaccine did not materialize despite promises by Korean officials: the Korean banks’ actions severely damaged bilateral relations, as it deprived Iran of major foreign exchange resources to purchase medicines and medical equipment in a pandemic. As a result, the image of the ROK has been seriously damaged. There is hope that the situation will improve after Jeong Se-kyung’s visit.

Nevertheless, on April 12, a US State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, repeated in an interview with the Ryonhap news agency that the US position on sanctions against Iran remains unchanged. Until Iran goes back on the JCPOA, it won’t get its money back.

Thus, on the one hand, the story of the tanker hijack ended well enough, and the notion that the action had not an environmental but a political purpose was safely confirmed. On the other, Iran’s attempt to push for the return of the blocked funds in this way did not end with anything. Iran received some vaccines and other medical resources, but it was more of a handout than a victory. Finally, this situation shows well the level of independence of South Korean foreign policy on certain issues. Despite the fact that the South Korean leadership did not seem to mind solving the problem, at the first shout from the US in Seoul they stood at attention, not even trying to show displeasure about it. For the author, this is a rather important story that explains both why some countries periodically claim a “lack of sovereignty” in South Korea and the difference in South Korean foreign policy between the populist statements of Moon Jae-in and Co. and Seoul’s actual actions.

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.

May 4, 2021 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Materials Acquisition for Global Industrial Change (MAGIC)

Biden relies on adherence to climate crisis creed and belief in MAGIC to transform USA, world

By Paul Driessen | Watts Up With That? | May 4, 2021

Via executive orders, regulatory edicts and partisan Green New Deal legislation, President Biden intends to slash US carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 50% below their 2005 peak by 2030, and eliminate them (and fossil fuel use) by 2050. But as AOC’s former chief of staff noted, the GND is not just about transforming America’s energy system; it’s about changing the entire economy.

This radical transformation is driven by three fundamental Articles of Faith, none of them based on reality.

1) The crisis of manmade climate cataclysms necessitates this GND. Team Biden believes natural forces no longer play a role; rising temperatures since the Little Ice Age ended two centuries ago are due solely to fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions, as are all extreme weather events over recent decades; and the 12-year absence of Category 3-5 hurricanes making US landfall (from Wilma in 2005 to Harvey in 2017) is irrelevant – as is the significant decline in violent (F3-F5) US tornadoes 1986-2020 compared to 1950-1985, and that for the first time in history not one violent twister hit the United States in 2018.

1) American foreign policy must construct a values-based world order that can tackle humanity’s common problems in an organized, collegial manner. Team Biden believes such problems cannot be solved by national governments acting alone, so world leaders have no choice but to work together. Wall Street Journal global view columnist Walter Russell Means calls this the Biden Doctrine.

However, China, India and many other countries don’t view climate change as an existential threat – much less a problem that justifies sacrificing their energy needs, economic growth, national security and geopolitical aspirations. They may give lip service to the alleged “climate crisis,” “decarbonization” and “green energy.” But they know their futures are inextricably tied to the abundant, reliable, affordable energy that only oil, natural gas and coal (plus hydroelectric and nuclear) can provide. They are not going to “work together” with leaders who expect them to undermine their most vital goals.

The Biden Doctrine’s second inherent failing is that GND policies will inevitably hollow out America’s industrial and military might, destroy jobs, and reduce US leverage in future negotiations. China already controls the raw material supply chains for wind turbines, solar panels, battery modules for electric vehicles and backup power systems, and countless other technologies. Even our advanced military equipment relies on metals and minerals that are mined and/or processed by Chinese companies. GND policies would only worsen the situation.

3) Replacing the 80% of US energy that now comes from fossil fuels can be accomplished quickly, easily, affordably and ecologically – with clean, green, renewable, sustainable, carbon-free wind and solar technologies that will create millions of good jobs, and save our planet from climate devastation.

The foundation for this presumed global transformation is the Biden Administration’s Materials Acquisition for Global Industrial Change program – better known by its acronym: MAGIC.

(This is not an official name. In fact, there is no such program, and no evidence that Team Biden has a clue about what would be required to transform America from fossil to green energy. MAGIC simply provides the most accurate description of how they expect to achieve this transformation.)

The raw material requirements for a GND economy are astronomical, mind-numbing. To cite just one example of hundreds, Team Biden wants to install 30,000 megawatts of wind turbines off America’s Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Pacific coasts. Assuming 10,000 MW per coastline, total Atlantic coast wind capacity would barely meet three-fourths of peak summertime electricity demand for New York City – assuming full output 24/7/365. The entire 30,000 MW wouldn’t meet New York State’s current peak electricity needs.

However, at 3.6 tons per megawattjust this Phase 1 offshore wind scheme would require 108,000 tons of copper. At 0.8% metal in an average ore globally, that would involve mining, crushing and processing some 13,000,000 tons of ore, after removing millions of tons of rock to get to the ore bodies!

14-MW Vesta, GE or Siemens-Gamesa turbines stand 815-850 feet above 30-100 foot deep ocean waters (160 feet higher than the Washington Monument). Each blade is 350 feet long. Every turbine weighs in at 2,000-3,000 tons of metals, plastics and composites, plus massive concrete-and-rebar bases. Phase 1 alone will involve tens of millions of tons of materials, billions of tons of ores and overburden.

Add in materials for subsea electrical cables, onshore transmission lines, onshore wind turbines and solar panels, backup battery systems, electric vehicles, electric heating systems and other GND technologies – to run the entire USA – and we’re looking at tens of billions of tons of metals and minerals, trillions of tons of ores, and mines, processing plants and factories all over the world.

Team Biden claims “renewable” energy is “carbon-free.” It gets away with this deception by looking only at electricity generation after turbines and panels are installed – and ignoring how the raw materials are extracted and processed and how the technologies are manufactured … far from the United States … using fossil fuels every step of the way … under minimal to nonexistent laws for air and water pollution control, habitat and wildlife protection, mined land reclamation, child and slave labor, and workplace safety.

Unencumbered by Paris climate treaty restrictions, emerging economies will gladly sell us “green, renewable” technologies that send electricity costs soaring to several times today’s prices and drive factories and industries out of business, unable to compete with China and India.

The past winter’s Texas blackout will become commonplace. Wind electricity generation plummeted 93% – but natural gas generation rocketed 450% to make up the difference, even though pipelines could not supply enough fuel, because legislators and regulators had decreed that pipeline compressors run off the compromised grid, instead of on gas from the pipelines. Under the GND, though, there won’t be any gas generation backup – just freezing jobless in the dark.

Climate czar and private jetsetter John Kerry says unemployed oil and factory workers will get “good jobs” making solar panels. In reality, those jobs will be overseas. Americans workers will only assemble, install, maintain, repair, remove, recycle and landfill imported green tech. American families and businesses will be forced to rip out trillions of dollars of perfectly good gas furnaces, ovens, stoves, water heaters, vehicles and industrial systems – and spend more trillions replacing them with expensive new GND-approved equipment, backup batteries and upgraded electrical systems to handle the extra loads.

And this entire, vastly expanded all-electric world will be expected to function with unreliable, weather-dependent wind and solar power. (All this in a USA where opinion surveys have found the average citizen is willing to pay a minuscule $2-50 per year to reduce US dependence on fossil fuels and (supposedly) keep global average temperatures from rising any higher.)

President Biden’s inability to comprehend these realities may be due to his diminished mental capacity. But it could also be the result of rarely having to exercise his mind – in a political arena where woke, hard-green, climate-obsessed, cancel-culture ideologues permit no discussion, questions or dissent; where advisors, cabinet members, regulators and legislators are of the same mindset, or too timid to speak up; and where schools, news and social media, Big Tech, government agencies, corporate chiefs and even book publishers likewise silence, ignore, punish and banish anyone who offers differing views.

We can only hope enough citizens pound enough sense into our ruling classes to eliminate their belief in MAGIC, climate monsters and other countries crazy enough to follow Mr. Biden into economic suicide.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of books, reports and articles on energy, environmental, climate and human rights issues.

May 4, 2021 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

CDC Officially Recommends COVID Jab for Pregnant Women

By Dr. Mercola | May 3, 2021

The beyond conflicted U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has struck again: Pregnant women are now urged to get the COVID-19 gene manipulation jab, based on preliminary findings.

The postmarketing surveillance data, published in The New England Journal of Medicine,1 found “no obvious safety signals” among the 35,691 pregnant women who got either the Moderna or Pfizer shots between December 14, 2020, and February 28, 2021. The women ranged in age from 16 to 54 years old. CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky issued a statement saying:2

“No safety concerns were observed for people vaccinated in the third trimester or safety concerns for their babies. As such, CDC recommends pregnant people receive COVID-19 vaccines.”

Can Self-Reported Data Be Trusted?

There is more than one reason to be suspicious of this green-lighting for pregnant women. First of all, as noted by Jeremy Hammond in a recent Tweet:3

“This was NOT a randomized placebo-controlled trial. There is no data from clinical trials showing that it is safe for pregnant women to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Postmarketing surveillance is NOT a sufficient substitute for proper safety studies.”

The authors themselves state that data on mRNA “vaccines” in pregnancy are limited, and that without longitudinal follow-up of large numbers of women, it’s not possible to determine “maternal, pregnancy and infant outcomes.”4

Secondly, all postmarketing surveillance data are preliminary, so it seems incredibly foolhardy to make a blanket recommendation for all pregnant women at this early stage. Thirdly, this data is solely based on voluntary self-reporting to one of two sources:

  • The Vaccine Safe (V-Safe) After Vaccination Health Checker program,5 a vaccine safety registry set up specifically for the monitoring of COVID-19 “vaccine” side effects
  • The U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)

By using voluntary self-reporting, we have no way of knowing how many side effects have gone unreported and cannot confirm that the data present an accurate picture. Historically, we know that voluntary reporting of vaccine side effects range from less than 1%6,7 to a maximum of 10%,8 so it’s likely we’re not getting the full story.

A hint that an enormous amount of data concerning pregnancy outcomes are being overlooked or hidden can be discerned by the fact that the paper only looked at 11% of the total number of pregnancies reported to V-Safe. While they state that a total of 35,691 pregnant women were included in the analysis, they actually only looked at 3,958 of them. Here’s how the paper reads:9

“A total of 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age identified as pregnant … Among 3,958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester).”

If there were 35,691 pregnant V-Safe participants, why are they looking at just 11% of them?

Experimentation of the Worst Kind

Giving pregnant women unlicensed COVID-19 gene therapies is reprehensibly irresponsible experimental medicine, and to suggest that safety data are “piling up” is pure propaganda. Everything is still in the experimental stage and all data are preliminary. It’ll take years to get a clearer picture of how these injections are affecting young women and their babies.

Pregnancy is a time during which experimentation is extremely hazardous, as you’re not only dealing with potential repercussions for the mother but also for the child. Any number of things can go wrong when you introduce drugs, chemicals or foreign substances during fetal development.

The CDC has absolutely no way of gauging safety for pregnant women and babies as of yet, so to do so is reprehensible beyond words, in my opinion — especially seeing how women of childbearing age have virtually no risk of dying from COVID-19, their fatality risk being a mere 0.01%.10

Contrast this to the potential benefits of the vaccine. You can still contract the virus if immunized and you can still spread it to others.11,12,13,14 All it is designed to do is lessen your symptoms if or when you get infected. Pregnant women simply do not need this vaccine, and therefore any risk is likely excessive. I have little doubt we’ll end up with a second Nuremberg Trial over this at some point in the future.

Are These Miscarriage Ratios ‘Normal’?

Getting back to the NEJM study, the authors report the following findings, based on data collected from VAERS and V-Safe:15

“Among 3,958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester). Adverse neonatal outcomes included preterm birth (in 9.4%) and small size for gestational age (in 3.2%); no neonatal deaths were reported.

Although not directly comparable, calculated proportions of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in persons vaccinated against COVID-19 who had a completed pregnancy were similar to incidences reported in studies involving pregnant women that were conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among 221 pregnancy-related adverse events reported to the VAERS, the most frequently reported event was spontaneous abortion (46 cases).”

So, in VAERS, the miscarriage rate was 20.8% (46 of 221 reports), and in V-Safe (looking at just 11% of pregnant participants), the miscarriage rate was 13.9% (115 of 827). Again, these data were reported between December 14, 2020, and February 28, 2021.

The combined miscarriage and preterm birth rate, per V-Safe, was 23.3% (13.9% + 9.4%). As of April 1, 2021, 379 VAERS reports16 had been filed by pregnant women, 110 of which involved miscarriage or premature birth, giving us an updated rate of 29%. In other words, it appears the rate of miscarriage and premature births is rising as more reports come in.

According to the authors of the NEJM report, these ratios are comparable to the miscarriage rate normally seen among unvaccinated women, while admitting that the data is “not directly comparable.”

I find that dubious, seeing how sources17 reviewing statistical data stress that the risk of miscarriage drops from an overall, average risk rate of 21.3% for the duration of the pregnancy as a whole, to just 5% between Weeks 6 and 7, all the way down to 1% between Weeks 14 and 20.

And, while the NEJM study18 report that 92.3% of spontaneous abortions occurred before 13 weeks of gestation, it specifies that very little is as yet known about the effects of the injections when given to women during the periconception period and the first and second trimesters, as “limited follow-up calls had been made at the time of this analysis.”

Now, if the miscarriage rate is normally 5% and declining after Week 6, then miscarriage rates of 13.9%, 20.87% or 29% before Week 13 is clearly excessive. As for the preterm birth rate, 9.4% does appear relatively “normal” based on historical data, which in 2019 ranged from 7.28% to 18.8% depending on the region, with an average right around 10%.19

Time will tell whether that percentage will remain within the norms as the outcomes of pregnant women are entered into databases. If preterm birth rates do rise above the norm, then that too is a significant public health issue, as the impact of premature birth on society is enormous, averaging at $26.2 billion annually, as is.20

Toxicology Expert Calls for End to mRNA Experiment

The featured video at the top of this article is the recording of a public comment by Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., director of toxicology and molecular biology for Toxicology Support Services LLC, given to the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), April 23, 2021.

Lindsay’s expertise is analysis of pharmacological dose-responses, mechanistic biology and complex toxicity dynamics. In her comment, Lindsay describes how she aided the development of a vaccine that caused unintended autoimmune destruction and sterility in animals which, despite careful pre-analysis, had not been predicted.

She calls for an immediate halt to COVID-19 mRNA and DNA vaccines due to safety concerns on multiple fronts. She notes there is credible concern that they will cross-react with syncytin (a retroviral envelope protein) and reproductive genes in sperm, ova and placenta in ways that may “impair fertility and reproductive outcomes.”

I’ve touched on this in previous articles, including “How COVID-19 Is Changing the Future of Vaccines” and “Pfizer Bullies Nations to Put Up Collateral for Lawsuits.” Not a single study has disproven this hypothesis, Lindsey notes.

Another theory of how these injections might impair fertility can be found in a 2006 study,21 which showed sperm can take up foreign mRNA, convert it into DNA, and release it as little pellets (plasmids) in the medium around the fertilized egg. The embryo then takes up these plasmids and carries them (sustains and clones them into many of the daughter cells) throughout its life, even passing them on to future generations.

It is possible that the pseudo-exosomes that are the mRNA contents would be perfect for supplying the sperm with mRNA for the spike protein. So, potentially, a vaccinated woman who gets pregnant with an embryo that can (via the sperms’ plasmids) synthesize the spike protein according to the instructions in the vaccine, would have an immune capacity to attack that embryo because of the “foreign” protein it displays on its cells. This then would cause a miscarriage.

“We could potentially be sterilizing an entire generation,” Lindsey warns. The fact that there have been live births following COVID-19 vaccination is not proof that these injections do not have a reproductive effect, she says.

Lindsay also points out that reports of menstrual irregularities and vaginal hemorrhaging in women who have received the injections number in the thousands,22,23,24 and this too hints at reproductive effects.

I agree with her conclusion that we simply cannot inject children and women of childbearing age with these experimental technologies until more rigorous studies have been done and we have a better understanding of their mechanisms.

Rare Blood Clotting Disorders Being Reported

Lindsay also points out there have been hundreds of reports of rare blood clotting disorders following all COVID-19 “vaccines” among people with no underlying risk factors, including immune thrombocytopenia25,26,27,28 (ITP), a rare autoimmune disease that causes your immune system to destroy your platelets (cells that help blood clot), resulting in hemorrhaging. Serious blood clots are also occurring at the same time.

Here, she points out the obvious: COVID-19 has been found to cause blood clotting disorders due to the virus’ unique spike protein. The COVID-19 “vaccines” instruct your body to make that very spike protein. Why would one assume that this spike protein cannot have similar effects when produced by your own cells?

One hypothesis that has been presented is that platelet-antagonistic antibodies are being formed against the spike antigen.29 Another novel hypothesis30 is that the lipid-coated nanoparticles, which transport the mRNA, may be carrying that mRNA into the megakaryocytes in your bone marrow.

Megakaryocytes are cells that produce platelets. According to this hypothesis, once the mRNA enters your bone marrow, the megakaryocytes would then begin to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which would tag them for destruction by cytotoxic T-cells. As your platelets are destroyed, thrombocytopenia sets in.

Avoid This Risky Milk-Sharing Practice

Women who have received the COVID-19 jab are also making what I believe is a huge mistake by sharing breast milk in a misguided effort to inoculate unvaccinated mothers’ babies. As reported by The New York Times :31

“Multiple studies32,33 show that there are antibodies in a vaccinated mother’s milk. This has led some women to try to restart breastfeeding and others to share milk with friends’ children.”

Again, there’s scarcely any data on what these gene therapies might do to infants, which is reason alone not to experiment. So far, only one suspected case34 of an infant dying has been attributed to breastfeeding. A 5-month-old infant died with a diagnosis of thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura within days of his mother receiving her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.35,36

But while fact checkers roundly dismiss the idea that the child could have developed thrombocytopenia from mRNA-contaminated breast milk,37 it’s important to realize they have no evidence for that. It’s pure opinion.

As of right now, we have no idea how or why the infant developed this rare blood disorder, but it would be premature and irresponsible to say that nursing children cannot be affected and that there is no risk at all. In addition to that lethal case, there are at least 20 other cases where children have had an adverse reaction to breast milk from a vaccinated mother.38

At present, all we can confidently say is that short-term harmful effects of COVID-19 vaccines are being reported at a staggering rate, and that the long-term effects are completely unknown.

In addition to the more immediate effects already discussed, there are mechanisms by which COVID-19 “vaccines” may actually worsen disease upon exposure to the wild virus, as detailed in “How COVID-19 Vaccine Can Destroy Your Immune System,” “Will Vaccinated People Be More Vulnerable to Variants?” and several other articles.

As noted in a February 4, 2021, New England Journal of Medicine paper39 reporting on the safety and effectiveness of the mRNA-1273 vaccine developed by Moderna, “Whether mRNA-1273 vaccination results in enhanced disease on exposure to the virus in the long term is unknown.”

Report All COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects

On the whole, injecting pregnant women with novel gene therapy technology that can trigger systemic inflammation, cardiac effects and bleeding disorders (among other things), violates both the Hippocratic Oath that admonishes doctors to “First, do no harm,” and the precautionary principle that, historically, has governed health care for pregnant women.

In my view, this mass experiment is a humanitarian crime. That said, if you or someone you love — pregnant or not — has received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, be sure to report it, preferably to all three of these locations.40 As we move forward, it’s absolutely crucial that people report their experiences with these vaccines, so that we can start getting a clearer idea of what their effects are.

  1. If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
  2. Report the injury on, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
  3. Report the injury on the Children’s Health Defense website

Sources and References

May 4, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Injecting a child with an experimental Covid-19 vaccine would be madness, they don’t need it


The UK Government and Health Officials are planning to give school children aged 12 and over the experimental Pfizer Covid vaccine at the start of the 21/22 school year. But they won’t stop there. Not long after they will attempt to roll this out to children as young as 6-months-old. This is madness.

It is madness because children do not need an experimental Covid vaccine because they are virtually at zero risk of contracting Covid-19, and even if they do, their chances of developing serious disease and dying is so low that the number is negligible.

According to official NHS data from March 2020 through to the 31st March 2021 just 40 Covid-19 deaths were recorded in those aged 0 – 19. But 32 of those were in children / teenagers who had serious underlying conditions. Just 8 allegedly died of Covid-19 alone in twelve months. But we cannot even be sure the number is that high due to the fact deaths are recorded as Covid just because the person has received a positive test for Covid-19 within 28 days of their death. They could have died due to a head injury and be recorded as a Covid death if they had received a positive test within the 28 days prior.

Yet for some sinister and unexplained reason the authorities are desperate to get the Covid jab into the arms of children. It’s sinister because none of the Covid jabs are licensed. They are currently under emergency authorisation.

In October the government made changes to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 to allow the MHRA to grant temporary authorisation of a Covid-19 vaccine without needing to wait for the EMA.

A temporary use authorisation is valid for one year only and requires the pharmaceutical companies to complete specific obligations, such as ongoing or new studies. Once comprehensive data on the product have been obtained, standard marketing authorisation can be granted. This means that the manufacturer of the vaccine cannot be held liable for any injury or death that occurs due to their vaccine, unless it was due to a quality control issue.

Why are they only under emergency use authorisation? Because none of the Covid jabs have concluded phase three trials.

The Pfizer phase three trial is not due to complete until April 6th 2023.

Whilst the AstraZeneca phase three trial is due to complete slightly earlier on February 14th 2023.

But what does this mean? Well 2023 at the time of writing is up to two years away. This means that the current worldwide Covid vaccine roll-out can be described as the largest human experiment ever conducted in history. Anybody who takes this vaccine, which is only temporarily authorised for emergency use is essentially a guinea pig, or a lab rat taking part in a trial.

There’s also the fact that all the Covid vaccines being used in the UK are types of vaccine that have never been authorised for use in humans before.

The Pfizer and Moderna jabs allegedly work by delivering mRNA, which Pfizer and Moderna tell us is the genetic code for the spike protein found on the surface of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus, to a human cell inside a lipid membrane. Once the mRNA is inside the cell, the same machinery that is used to make our own proteins can make the spike protein. This then causes the immune system to act and initiate an immune response.

Many people are under the illusion that the AstraZeneca vaccine is a traditional vaccine – “It’s no different to the flu jab”, we hear them say time and time again. They couldn’t be more wrong. The AstraZeneca vaccine is a viral vector vaccine, and like the mRNA vaccines they have never been authorised for human use on a mass scale before.

The genetic information inside a viral vectored vaccine like AstraZeneca’s is DNA rather than RNA. This DNA is a short linear piece of double stranded DNA which contains the viral genes along with the gene for the spike protein. The viral vector first infects the cell and then delivers this DNA to the cell nucleus. The cell can then transcribes the viral genes (DNA) into mRNA using the same RNA polymerase it uses for our own genes. After transcription, the mRNA gets tagged so it can leave the nucleus and be made into spike protein by the cell machinery.

Considering the fact that children are at virtually zero risk of contracting Covid it would be madness to give them an unlicensed, emergency approved, experimental vaccine of which not one single person on this planet has any idea of what the long term consequences of having it are. Because there is no data to tell us.

But there is data on the short term consequences in the form of the MHRA Yellow Card scheme in which people who have suffered an adverse reaction to the Covid vaccine can report it to the MHRA. The 13th update which includes data inputted up to the 21st April 2021 shows that the reported adverse reactions to both the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccine include –

  • 7,699 cardiac disorders,
  • 10,633 eye disorders including blindness,
  • A terrifying 152,273 nervous system disorders including brain damage, seizure, paralysis & stroke
  • and 1,047 unnecessary deaths

That is just a snapshot as there had in fact been 722,732 reported adverse reactions to the Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs as of the 21st April 2021. The scary thing is the MHRA say that only 1-10% of adverse reactions are actually reported. So the true number could be anywhere from 7 million to 70 million adverse reactions to the Covid-19 jabs.

Do you honestly think these numbers justify giving the jabs to children?

Well unfortunately the authorities seem to think so as health officials are drawing up plans to offer the Pfizer vaccine to secondary school pupils from September. ‘Core planning scenario’ documents compiled by NHS officials include the offer of a single dose to children aged 12 and over when the new school year starts.

And apparently education leaders would be willing to help facilitate a vaccine roll-out at schools around the country, according to Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), the largest union for secondary school heads.

He explained that vaccinating children at school could result in higher take-up because pupils would not want to feel socially isolated by refusing to have the jab.

“The peer pressure of seeing that your friends are lining up to do it is likely to make the overall numbers taking up the vaccine higher,”.

Somebody should maybe tell Geoff Barton that what he just described is known as coercion.

The choice is yours whether or not you will allow your child to receive a dose of an experimental vaccine which neither prevents the recipient from catching Covid-19 or spread Covid-19. The only thing that these vaccines allegedly do is reduce the risk of hospitalisation and / or death. Which is why it makes no sense for any single child to have the jab, as they are already virtually at zero risk of hospitalisation and / or death according to official NHS data.

‘First they came for the elderly, and I did not speak out because I was not old.
Then they came for the disabled, and I did not speak out because I was not disabled.
Then they came for pregnant women, and I did not speak out because I was not pregnant.
But then they came for my children because I did not speak out for those before them.‘

May 4, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

Is the genetic COVID vaccine creating a hurricane inside cells of the body?

By Jon Rappoport | No More Fake News | May 4, 2021

Picture this: Contrary to medical claims, the genetic injection called “COVID vaccination” forces cells of the body to produce not one, but hundreds of DIFFERENT proteins. Some of these proteins launch severe and fatal allergic reactions. Other foreign proteins stimulate the body to produce a powerful and continuing immune response that goes on too long; the person becomes severely ill or dies. Still other proteins, which are inherently needed by the body, are now viewed as evil intruders which must be neutralized…

I’ve written articles criticizing the COVID vaccine, from a number of perspectives. “Criticizing” is too mild a word. [1]

In this article, I want to examine a narrow claim about the COVID RNA vaccine: It instructs cells of the body to manufacture ONE AND ONLY ONE specific protein. [2] [3]

In fact, this is touted as THE major action of the genetic vaccine. Supposedly, that protein is similar to a protein in the purported SARS-CoV-2, and it “prepares and rehearses the body for the real thing.”

However, what guarantee do we have that the cells of the body are manufacturing only the one desired protein during the rehearsal?

How do we know the cells are always making the same protein?

Where is the proof? Where is the large confirmatory study that has examined thousands and thousands of human cells, from thousands of people who have been vaccinated?

I haven’t been able to find such a study.

If it exists, where are the large follow-up studies, carried out by different teams of researchers—verifying or rejecting the original research?

Well, in the analogous area of GMO plants, which are injected with genetic material, long-time researcher and author, Jeffrey Smith, writes about—guess what?—the runaway production of unintended proteins: [4]

“For example, long after Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn had been consumed by hundreds of millions of people, a team led by Dr. Antoniou found more than 200 significant changes in its proteins and metabolites, compared to non-GMO corn of the same variety. Two of the compounds that increased are aptly named putrescine and cadaverine, because they produce the horrific smell of rotting dead bodies. More worrisome; they are also linked to higher risks of allergies and cancer. Another Monsanto GM corn has a new allergen and their cooked soy has up to seven times the level of a known soy allergen, compared to cooked non-GMO soy.”

There is more. Injected genetic material—as in the COVID vaccine—can cause ripple effects. Jeffrey Smith writes: “…back in 1999, a study showed widespread changes in the DNA due to gene insertion; but many GMO companies conveniently ignored the findings and continue to do so.”

“In that study, scientists studying cystic fibrosis inserted a gene into human cells. Using a microarray, they discovered that the insertion ‘significantly affect[ed] up to 5% of the total genes in the array.’ This means that the presence of a single foreign gene might change the expression of hundreds, possibly thousands of genes. In the case of the human cell being studied, the scientists were at a loss to determine the impact. ‘In the absence of more biological information,’ they wrote, ‘we cannot discern which directions [genetic changes] are better or worse, since any of these may have positive or negative effects’.”

Getting the picture?

The simplistic portrait of the genetic insertion called “COVID vaccine” is ready-made propaganda for a gullible audience.

And as HUGE numbers of serious adverse effects and deaths pile up from the vaccine, the medical establishment has twisted explanations on board:

“If a person experiences ‘severe discomfort’ after vaccination, this is a good sign; the vaccine is working.”

“If a person becomes seriously ill, he was attacked by SARS-CoV-2, or a ‘co-morbidity,’ not the vaccine.”

“If a person dies, that, too, was the virus, or an underlying genetic disorder.”

I refuse to accept—among other lies—that the COVID vaccine forces cells of the body to produce exactly and only the same single protein every time, in every case—unless I see convincing proof.

And I’m NOT talking about a study that takes test samples from a small number of patients. I’m talking about thousands of samples from thousands of patients—which is called SCIENCE, in case anyone has forgotten.

“So, Dr. Mengele, are you sure the COVID vaccine inserts RNA into the correct place in the human cell every time? Are you sure the cells produce only the intended protein?”

“Of course. We’ve shown that in the lab.”

“I’m not talking about the lab, Dr. Mengele. I’m talking about thousands of samples taken from humans after they’ve been vaccinated.”

“Oh no, that would be a very laborious process. We don’t have time for that.”

“In other words, the people of Earth are all vulnerable guinea pigs in your vast vaccine campaign.”

“Of course. I thought this was well understood. We have a captive audience, we have new technology, so we run an experiment. This is what life IS.”






May 4, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | 1 Comment

India’s “COVID outbreak” & the need for scientific integrity – not sensationalism

Reality versus hysteria in latest fear fest

By Colin Todhunter | OffGuardian | May 4, 2021

Western media outlets are currently paying a great deal of attention to India and the apparent impact of COVID-19. The narrative is that the coronavirus is ripping through the country – people are dying, cases are spiralling out of control and hospitals are unable to cope.

There does indeed seem to be a major problem in parts of the country. However, we need to differentiate between the effects of COVID-19 and the impacts of other factors. We must also be very wary of sensationalist media reporting which misrepresents the situation.

For instance, in late April, the New York Post ran a story about the COVID ‘surge’ in India with the headline saying, “footage shows people dead in the streets”. Next to it was an image of a woman lying dead. But the image was actually of a woman lying on the floor from a May 2020 story about a gas leak in Andhra Pradesh.

To try to shed some light on the situation and move beyond panic and media sensationalism, I recently spoke with Yohan Tengra, a political analyst and healthcare specialist based in Mumbai.

Tengra has carried out a good deal of research into COVID-19 and the global response to it. He is the co-author of a new report: ‘How the Unscientific Interpretation of RT-PCR & Rapid Antigen Test Results is Causing Misleading Spikes in Cases & Deaths’.

For India, he says:

We will never know statistically if the infections have really increased. To be certain, we would need data of symptomatic people who have tested positive with either a virus culture test or PCR that uses 24 cycles or less, ideally under 20.”

He adds that India is experiencing mainly asymptomatic cases:

For example, in Mumbai, they declared two days back that of total cases in the city, 85 per cent were asymptomatic. In Bangalore, over 95 per cent of cases were asymptomatic!”

In his report, Tengra offers scientific evidence that strongly indicates asymptomatic transmission is not significant. He asserts that as these cases comprise most of India’s case numbers, we should be questioning the data as well as the PCR tests and the cycles being used to detect the virus instead of accepting the figures at face value.

As in many countries across the globe, Tengra says people in India have been made to fear the virus endlessly. Moreover, they are generally under the impression that they need to intervene early in order to pass through the infection successfully.

He notes:

The medical system itself works to boost the number of positive cases. Even with a negative PCR test, they are using CAT scans and diagnosing people with COVID. These scans are not specific to SARS-CoV-2 at all. I personally know of people who have been asked to be hospitalised by their doctors just based on a positive test (doctors can get a cut of the total bill made when they refer a patient to a hospital). This also happened to a Bollywood celebrity, who was asked to be admitted by his doctors with no symptoms and just a positive PCR.”

Faulty PCR testing and misdiagnosis, says Tengra, combined with people who want to intervene early with the mildest symptoms, have been filling up the beds, preventing access to those who really need them.

Addressing the much-publicised shortage of oxygen, Tengra implies this too is a result of inept policies, with exports of oxygen having increased in recent times, resulting in inadequate back-up supplies when faced with a surge in demand.

According to Tengra, the case fatality rate for COVID-19 in India was over three per cent last year but has now dropped to below 1.5 per cent. The infection fatality rate is even lower, with serosurvey results showing them to be between 0.05 per cent to 0.1 per cent.

The directors of the All India Institute of Medical Science and the India Council of Medical Research have both come out and said that there is not much difference between the first and second wave and that there are many more asymptomatic cases this time than in the so-called ‘first wave’.

Tengra argues that the principle is the same for all infectious agents: they infect people, most can fight it off without even developing symptoms, some develop mild symptoms, a smaller number develop serious symptoms and an even smaller number die.

Although lives can be saved with the right prevention plus treatment strategies, Tengra notes that most of the doctors in India are using ineffective and unsafe drugs. As a result, he claims that mortality rates could increase due to inappropriate treatments.

As has occurred in many other countries, Tengra notes the way that death certificate guidelines are structured in India makes it easy for someone to be labelled as a COVID death just based on a positive PCR test or general symptoms. It is therefore often difficult to say who has died from the virus and who has been misdiagnosed.

And the issue of misdiagnosis should not be brushed aside lightly. In a recent article by long-term resident of India Jo Nash, ‘India’s Current ‘COVID Crisis’ in Context’, it is noted that the focus of the media’s messaging and the source of many of the horrifying scenes of suffering – Delhi – is among the most toxic cities in the world which often leads to the city having to close down due to the widespread effects on respiratory health.

Nash also argues that respiratory diseases like TB and respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis leading to pneumonia are always among the top ten killers in India. These conditions are severely aggravated by air pollution and often require oxygen which can be in short supply during air pollution crises as happens at this time of the year.

As a result, it is reasonable to state that all is not what it might seem to be with regard to media reporting on the current situation.

It is interesting that this ‘second wave’ has correlated with the vaccine rollout (Nash provides official sources to support this claim). Tengra feels this might not be coincidental. He says that the ‘aefi’ (adverse events following immunisation) data vastly underestimates how many vaccine adverse reactions are taking place in the country.

Tengra says that, based on ground surveys and data collected by himself, there is a tremendous number of people who have fallen ill post vaccination, many of them then testing positive for COVID and becoming hospitalised.

The financial incentive for doctors to diagnose people with COVID could also mean many of the people who are ill with other conditions are being placed as COVID patients, while beds are under occupied for people for non-COVID health issues.

Two months ago, there was a lot of vaccine hesitancy in India and many people were not taking the jabs. Tengra notes that the government has had to up the ante in order to get people scared.

He argues:

We are at a crossroads right now in terms of deciding the fate of our country and it will be interesting to see how this plays out.”

Tengra is working with lawyers and other concerned citizens to file legal cases to challenge the idea of asymptomatic transmission and the testing of healthy people. The aim is to also improve the testing in line with evidence-based protocols.

But that is not all:

We will also be challenging the current vaccine rollout, highlighting the issues with trials that have been conducted, adverse events, deaths, vaccine passports and other issues surrounding the subject.”

Tengra is not alone in challenging the mainstream narrative.

A recent article in India’s National Herald newspaper by clinical epidemiologist Professor Dr Amitav Banerjee argues that the current situation in India is not due to the lethality of the virus but by the numbers who are ending up in hospital, which are exposing cracks in India’s public health infrastructure and the inequitable distribution of health services. Even at the best of times, he argues, there is a mismatch of supply and demand. Little wonder, therefore, that we now see an emergency – not squarely due to COVID.

Like Yohan Tengra, Banerjee questions the scientific integrity of the responses to COVID and this includes the rollout of vaccines and the problems which this in itself could bring:

Going all out for mass vaccination with uncertain input on effectiveness is a big gambit. We have a vaccine against tuberculosis for decades which has zero effectiveness in preventing tuberculosis in the Indian population. Moreover, there are concerns that haphazard and incomplete vaccination of the population can trigger mutant strains.”

Referring to an editorial in the British Medical Journal by K. Abbasi (‘Covid-19, Politicisation, Corruption, and Suppression of Science’), Banerjee raises concerns about the suppression of science by politicians and governments and the conflicts of interest of academics, researchers and commercial lobbies.

He says:

In a global disaster, world leaders, their scientific advisers, including career scientists, are under tremendous pressure. They have to give the impression of being in control and may resort to authoritarian ways to camouflage their uncertainties. Such tactics deviate from the scientific approach. The present pandemic is full of such uncertainties and therefore a vicious cycle of repression has set in when the authorities and their advisers are faced with rising case numbers.”

None of what has been presented here is meant to deny the existence or impact of COVID-19. People in India are dying – some from the virus, others ‘with’ the virus but most likely mainly due to their pre-existing underlying conditions, and there are others who are being misdiagnosed.

Although excess mortality figures are currently unavailable, Yohan Tengra notes the average age of those who died in the first wave was 50. This time it is 49.

Professor Banerjee says that there is opacity and obfuscation instead of transparency. He calls for moral courage among scientists in advisory positions to the Indian government: scientific integrity is the need of the hour.

In finishing, let us place COVID and the global media reporting of the situation in India in context by returning to Jo Nash.

Even as the alleged COVID deaths reach their peak, more people die of diarrhoea every day in India and have done for years, mostly due to a lack of clean water and sanitation creating a terrain ripe for the flourishing of communicable disease.”

Readers can access the report How the Unscientific Interpretation of RT-PCR & Rapid Antigen Test Results is Causing Misleading Spikes in Cases & Deaths by Yohan Tengra and Ambar Koiri here.

May 4, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Lockdowns are No Substitute for Focused Protection

By Paul E. Alexander | AIER | May 3, 2021

The most vulnerable groups in the US, which have been least able to afford the lockdowns and school closures, have been devastated by unscientific ineffective policies and have been hardest hit by Covid-19. The health of a nation is directly tied to the socioeconomic health of the nation, and the socioeconomic drivers that played a role in Covid-19’s severity cannot be ignored, particularly for the future burden of disease outcomes. Focused protection would have performed far better than lockdowns, which have not only been a distraction but actually enhanced the unequal impacts of severe outcomes of the virus.

In May 2020 the prevailing winds presciently suggested that there was a significant care-burden on the families in the future. The socioeconomic status of a person can negatively impact their lifestyle choices that are often unhealthy in nature, and this is complicated by the reality that often, this is not by choice, and rather based on ‘need.’ Often there is no other option but maladaptive ones.

The ineptness of the government leaders, public health officials and some television medical experts who have shown gross academic sloppiness and a depth of cognitive dissonance to all views not aligned with their failed ones, in retrospect is available to all for review. The evidence of the segments of the populace at greater risk emerged several months ago, included risk factors such as being elderly, being obese, and having comorbid conditions and has remained firm as a precursor of acquiring the ravages of the SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The failure to adopt appropriate public health measures to prevent the catastrophic disaster on the vulnerable and those at risk is laid at the feet of those officials and experts who were involved in the policy making process. The responsibility of the “Task Force” was protection and the safeguarding of all the citizens and they failed in their efforts. Not only did these experts resort to using political import as their guidance on decision-making, they have now resorted to groupthink and we have entered the age of Lysenkoism science where contrarians, dissenters, skeptics, and people who question their motives and underlying evidence for their ineffective policies, are attacked, slandered, and smeared.

All politicization aside, Covid-19 exploits our risk factors and age is the principle risk factor among them. This is understandable given that as we all age, our immune systems become less durable and there is a gradual deterioration of the immune system, called immune senescence. A focus on the other risk factors that Covid-19 exploits will help us prepare for future coronaviruses and other pathogens that also will exploit such risk factors. Covid-19 is a condition of disparity given its unequal force of mortality on lower SES populations. Minority populations in the US have been hit harder by Covid-19 in terms of severe outcomes due to a multiplicity of factors. The worldwide data suggests that this harm has occurred elsewhere and is not unique to the US. As an example, we are willing to discuss the elevated risk due to excessive body weight (obesity, morbid obesity) and this is a very serious issue that must be debated as a society. We argue that for many impoverished persons with depressed SES status, obesity is tied to economics. We have seen that Covid-19 gives away age to obesity in younger persons. Recent British research in near 7 million persons has shown that a body-mass-index (BMI) of greater than “23 kg/m2 was associated with a linear increase in risk of severe Covid-19 leading to admission to hospital and death, and a linear increase in admission to an ICU across the whole BMI range, which is not attributable to excess risks of related diseases. The relative risk due to increasing BMI is particularly notable in people younger than 40 years and of Black ethnicity.”

In confronting this pandemic in March 2020 and certainly by the summer of 2020, we had in our arsenal (yet failed to capitalize upon) a combination of i) strongly protecting (double- and triple-down protection) the elderly high-risk persons in nursing homes and similar congregated settings ii) use of effective public service announcements on who is at risk and how to mitigate the risk iii) allowing the low-risk portion of the population to live daily lives with sensible reasonable precautions, allowing them to get infected naturally and harmlessly given their low risk of severe illness or death and iv) use of early outpatient drug treatment (sequenced antivirals, corticosteroids, and anti-clotting drugs) in high risk populations, younger persons with comorbid conditions, and obese persons.

Unfortunately, we chose to ignore the signals from the pandemic. The fact remains that age and excess body weight/obesity, have accounted for almost 80% of the hospitalizations, intubations/ventilation, severe sequelae and deaths in Covid-19. A large number of persons who have died in nations such as the US have been overweight with some level of obesity.

The importance of educating the public on the risk factors and the need for such protective efforts can be enhanced by the people themselves. Had public health leaders used their platforms optimally, the geared messaging would have helped reduce the damage significantly. We could have cut deaths significantly had the options described above been used, especially early outpatient treatment.

As an example, the various US health agencies and their leaders have failed the minority and higher-risk African-American communities by neglecting to message the need for vitamin D supplements in persons with darker skin color. Evidence suggests that Vitamin D has an important immune function role and is a means to mitigate acute respiratory distress due to Covid-19, with patients revealing improved clinical recovery (shorter lengths of stay), lower oxygen requirements, and a reduction in inflammatory marker status.

So why have the public health agencies not messaged this to the high-risk minority groups, especially African-American and Asian-Americans? Why have the public health agencies or the Surgeon General not focused on public service messaging on the risk of excess body weight in Covid-19, as the right messaging could have saved tens of thousands of lives? We could have saved tens of thousands of lives had public health not been so politicized and done its rightful job.

We are responding to these failures by calling for a ‘social determinants of health’ approach to Covid-19 (a strong focus on the social aspects) and we find it is unacceptable that the public health agencies and television medical experts continued to use the platform to create fear rather than use their daily podium to address the potentially correctable catastrophic linkages.

US public health agencies such as the CDC appear to be 9 months to one year behind the science, routinely. The messaging, even at this late stage, continues to confuse the public as it waffles regarding masking, social distancing and vaccination, thus squandering the opportunity to help mitigate the impact of Covid-19 in their public health roles.

If the approach is mainly a therapeutic biomedical one to deal with Covid-19 (only to treat the disease or mitigate the epidemic/transmission), then this will end in failure each and every time. We must consider the socioeconomic ‘upstream’ fundaments of Covid-19 (and similar illnesses) and in an integrated manner. There is a certain level of personal responsibility in the decision-making on the part of the individual, as part of this discussion that must not be overlooked, but we would be ignorant to not recognize the direct association between poverty and health and the seemingly strong role that Covid-19 has in exploiting this link. Failure to understand this link between the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the SES of an individual thus fails to address an addressable and treatable issue.

In other words, had the US been a healthier population with a lower burden of noncommunicable chronic type diseases (diabetes, renal disease, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, respiratory illnesses etc.) and had the population been composed of less overweight and obese persons, then the force of severe morbidity and mortality would have been far lower from Covid-19.

If Covid-19 entered a population of 10,000 persons as an example, with a mean age of 40 (eldest being 60) and where all 10,000 persons were healthy, no underlying conditions, and a respectable health care system that could respond if there is need, then Covid-19 will likely (more certainly) severely impact no one and kill no one. At least the impact will be minimal. A strong argument could be made here and this is the approach we are taking. We make this clarion call not only for ‘Western’ richer nations plagued by these chronic conditions and risk factors, but also for poorer developing nations also struggling with these chronic conditions. Covid-19 has shown us that as a society, we must urgently heighten our resolve to combat hypertension, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular, renal, and respiratory diseases, as well as cancer.

In addition, ‘stopping Covid at all costs’ (zero-Covid) has been a critically flawed approach that has proven to be harmful. The mindset of lockdowns continues unabated although the data suggests otherwise and some epidemiologists are voicing contrary opinions. This was indeed understandable in the first month (March/April 2020), but this may come back to haunt us as we have prolonged the fixation on Covid-19 at the loss of other equally and even more dangerous illnesses.

We already see warning signs of dramatic declines in vaccine-preventable disease vaccinations for children (declines in pediatric vaccine ordering and doses administered), and as such, anticipate a surge in such illnesses we usually control with vaccine programs. Yet we continue to fixate on Covid-19, ignoring other pressing conditions, when we know who the at-risk group is, and we know much better how to treat. Covid-19 in April/May 2021 is not Covid-19 in February and March 2020. Covid-19 is not a death sentence for we can manage and treat it and we do have early outpatient treatment that has proven effective, once given early in the sequelae when the patient has not yet worsened.

We continue to caution against the exploits of the politicians and their strong and deliberate inroads into the scientific community. This egregious intrusion is causing a grave harm on science itself. This includes the medical research community and the academic journal publishing and editors (peer-review process) whose roles have been politicized, and have contributed to the current failures. Covid-19 has revealed the political and corrupted underbelly of academic and medical scientific research and journal manuscript publishing with its steep conflicts of interest that will require many years if not decades to recover its reputation (if at all).

Understanding Covid-19 must therefore not involve the traditional unidimensional, dogmatic orthodoxy whereby we simply wish to control the spread of the pathogen or eradicate it. It remains an impossibility to eradicate a viral pathogen, especially if it is highly mutable like the flu virus. We as humanity have learned to live with such viruses. There is a greater severity and adverse sequelae in lower SES populations (socioeconomically disadvantaged populations), so we have to look at this and consider what is happening and focus here with a more nuanced finessed approach to pathology, as we address targeting the pathogen. This approach will help us now as well as in the future, as we deal with existing, emerging, and reemerging pathogens.

Importantly, (and a potential reason for the excessive burden of death in obese persons we have found this to be the case in African-American, minorities etc.), is the heightened expression of the ACE2 receptor in adipose tissue fat cells in obese persons (expression is higher in visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissue than that in lung tissue). A poor diet dominated by high-sugar, high-starch foods (predominantly rice, potatoes etc.) driven by affordability and the drive for satiety, contributes to obesity and the associated health conditions such as diabetes. The seeds of this are often planted in childhood. Is one at-risk group more differentially impacted and can obesity explain a substantial proportion of the severe sequelae? Do these social and economic factors (socioeconomic inequality) affect the severity sequelae differentially based on type of background condition e.g. will a socially disadvantaged person fare worse with diabetes or kidney disease versus cardiovascular illness?

The answers to some of these questions have been answered by the science community. The CDC posits a similar opinion that health disparities among minorities are real and related to the Covid illness. We applaud the CDC for this position. Yet even with a plethora of information available our policy makers still continue to punt on the issues that remain unaddressed and continue to harm people unnecessarily.

To end, we are arguing that the SES status with the social factors work to drive, perpetuate, prolong, and potentially worsen the emergence and clustering of pathogens and diseases. The above-mentioned comorbidities that exist in the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2 severe illness outcomes and death with Covid-19 especially among the poorer minority communities seem to drive Covid-19 and dramatically compromise a person’s ability to ward off the disease and escalate an infected individual’s susceptibility and vulnerability to harm or worsen their health outcomes. We need to study and understand this if we are to effectively shape prognosis and treatments. Good public health policy must reflect this interwoven relationship between pathogen, pathology, and social and economic equality, not merely impose the blunt and devastating “nonpharmaceutical interventions” indiscriminately on the whole of the population.

Contributing Authors

  • Paul E Alexander MSc PhD, McMaster University and GUIDE Research Methods Group, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  • Howard C. Tenenbaum DDS, Dip. Perio., PhD, FRCD(C) Centre for Advanced Dental Research and Care, Mount Sinai Hospital, and Faculties of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
  • Dr. Parvez Dara, MD, MBA,

May 4, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

DC Mayor Bans Dancing & Standing At Weddings!

By Richie Allen | May 4, 2021

Washington DC Mayor Muriel Bowser has banned dancing at weddings. On Friday, Bowser said that weddings could go ahead but only at 25 per cent of a venues capacity. But she banned dancing and standing at receptions.

A spokesperson for the mayor’s office told FOX News on Friday that the measures were necessary to stop the spread of covid-19. The mayor said that people’s behaviour changes when they dance or stand around.

Meanwhile, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis lifted all local coronavirus emergency orders in his state yesterday. He also signed a bill that effectively bans the use of vaccine passports in Florida.

In New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo has announced that most restrictions will be removed from May 19th. However, Cuomo wants to retain social distancing and mask-wearing.

Will couples really ask wedding guests to remain seated at all times? Will they fence off the dance floor too?

Why is Muriel Bowser not being laughed out of town? Who are these people? Who are they taking advice from? Where do they get the balls to tell people who they can invite to weddings and how they must behave on the day?

You know this all goes away when people turn their backs on idiots like Bowser. Just ignore them. It really is that simple. Ignore them and carry on regardless. The only power they have is the power you give them. It’s time to take it back.

May 4, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 1 Comment

Dr. Theresa Tam recommends wearing masks while jogging outdoors

The Post Millenial | May 2, 2021

Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, has issued advice on the wearing of masks outdoors.

“You asked: Should I wear a mask when I’m jogging or walking outdoors?” her Tweet begins. “#MaskOn when you’re active outdoors in areas where #PhysicalDistancing is hard to maintain. Tip: Choose routes that make it easy to keep your distance from others.”

The CDC recently said it OK for Americans to not wear masks outdoors provided they are vaccinated and not in a large crowd.

President Biden, who is vaccinated, has continued to wear his mask outdoors, calling it a “patriotic responsibility” to do so.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Theresa Tam had initially advised against the use of masks but has since advocated for their widespread use, including wearing them during sex.

May 4, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 3 Comments