FINALLY, an MP has challenged the government on the horrific levels of Covid vaccine damage recorded under the Yellow Card Scheme run by our watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). It currently shows 1,632 deaths and 360,000 injuries since December 1, 2020, far more than any vaccine in the past.
Sir Christopher Chope, Conservative MP for Christchurch, has researched the reporting system set up in 1979 and its accompanying compensation programme and found them woefully inadequate; a fact anyone who has tried to claim for damage by a vaccine is painfully aware of. He has introduced the Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill to deal with the vaccine claims which are currently handled in what is best described as a hostile environment.
Chope told the Commons last Friday that he estimates that more than 10,000 people ‘have suffered real, serious damage as a result of doing the right thing’, and was shocked when the Labour MP for Cambridge, Daniel Zeichner, suggested there were more urgent priorities, asking: ‘I wonder why this issue should get preference over others?’
Chope was clear in his criticism: ‘Families should not be left hanging around for years wondering whether they will be eligible for any compensation. That is totally the wrong message. The government should be sending the message that, “if you do the right thing, you will be looked after by the government if something goes wrong”.’
He recognised that some of the injured had ‘taken one for the team’ and that their sacrifice should be recognised in a similar way to a soldier suffering severe injury. He said: ‘In a sense, that is what we do with the military covenant. People enter the armed forces of our country and, if something goes wrong, they expect the government to look after them, and we do.’
A petition to update the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) circulated in July but received only 17,000 signatures; 100,000 are needed to trigger a full debate in the House of Commons. Still, the government had to respond to signatories, which it did on August 5, but Chope was scathing. He told the House the response said: ‘The government has a robust system to monitor potential side effects of the Covid-19 vaccine and has added the vaccine to the VDPs. We will consider further action as more evidence becomes available.’
Chope was not impressed. He said: ‘We already have a lot of evidence that people have suffered damage, if not death, as a result of these vaccinations. The government are saying they are “looking at how it can improve the operational aspects of the VDPS to better meet the additional demand created by the inclusion of the Covid-19 vaccine and improve the customer experience. Once more is known about the possible links between the vaccine and potential side effects, it will be considered whether a wider review of the VDPS is needed.” My Bill answers that question by saying that we need such a review now.’
He told the House that until June 23, there had been 154 applications for compensation: ‘Obviously, there are many, many more now, but there are only four people in that department dealing with all vaccine damage applications, so no decisions have been made and there is no indication as to when any decisions will be forthcoming.’
Claimants will have a rough experience if history is anything to go by. It took Jackie Fletcher 18 years to win compensation for her son Robert, who was severely damaged by the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine as a toddler. The injured, in a time of great need, are likely to find they are gaslighted, that they must spend thousands on specialist lawyers and that the burden of proof to explain why they are vaccine-damaged will be on them rather than Big Pharma, who manufactured the shots.
Chope set out the scheme’s inadequacies. He said: ‘The Pearson commission [1979 reform of compensation for personal injury, including from vaccination] found that those injured as a result of vaccination should have access to financial support, however, the 1979 Act makes provision of a maximum payment of £120,000 together with a threshold of 60 per cent disablement. As a result, fewer than 2 per cent of applications are successful. My Bill calls for the Government to set up a judge-led inquiry into the issues raised.’
Like all MPs and leaders to date, Shaun Bailey, Conservative MP for West Bromwich West, was more concerned with upholding the integrity of the vaccine programme and protecting Big Pharma than the victims. Missing the point, he said: ‘How do we ensure that we do not create a culture of hesitancy where people do not uptake vaccines or, equally, do not produce vaccines because of the fear that they might cause mass severe side-effects?’
If Big Pharma have not worked out how to avoid mass severe side-effects after hundreds of years of vaccination, and government are approving vaccines with that knowledge, we really are in trouble.
Chope agreed and basically said the government had to take responsibility rather than hide serious vaccine damage as it consistently tries to do. ‘We cannot suppress reports of coroners saying that somebody has died as a result of vaccination. I know from personal experience people who were in really good health and then had their first vaccine. I know one person who had a stroke and then severe heart problems. These are not just anecdotes; these are facts known by people across the country. We need to say to people we will look after them 100 per cent without expecting them to get lawyers engaged which is agonising for families and loved ones.’
The AstraZeneca jab is incurring double the number of adverse event reports of Pfizer. There are rumblings that it will be discontinued under the guise of a mix ’n’ match programme.
MHRA Yellow Card reporting published September 9 2021, figures to September 1
Pfizer – 21.9million people – 40million doses – Yellow Card reporting rate: 1 in 197 people impacted
AstraZeneca – 24.8m people – 48.9m doses – Yellow Card reporting rate: 1 in 107 impacted
Moderna – 1.4m people – 2.3m doses – Yellow Card reporting rate: 1 in 93 impacted
Overall, 1 in 134 people injected experienced a Yellow Card Adverse Event, which may be less than 10 per cent of actual figures, according to MHRA.
Children with nowhere else to go because of the nature of their illness occupy a third of acute-care hospital beds in England. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, these children are suffering from mental health and neurological problems.
Some have violent or self-harming behavior; others have severe neurodevelopment disorders. Still others are there due to an eating disorder. Yet, despite their individual needs, many have no specific psychiatric diagnosis.
And, without a diagnosis, they don’t qualify for a bed in a true psychiatric ward, even when they are so violent that they become a danger not only to themselves, but to everyone around them. What this means is these children end living at a regular hospital, sometimes for months.
What’s even more concerning is that since the pandemic began, the number of children in these beds has increased dramatically.
In the U.S., “children’s hospitals around the country say they have seen a meteoric rise in the number of children who need mental health help,” CNN said. “Several children’s hospitals said the supply of inpatient psychiatric beds has been so short, they’ve had to board kids in their emergency departments — sometimes for weeks.”
The European Union database of suspected drug reaction reports is EudraVigilance, and they are now reporting 24,526 fatalities, and 2,317,495 injuries, following COVID-19 injections.
A Health Impact News subscriber from Europe reminded us that this database maintained at EudraVigilance is only for countries in Europe who are part of the European Union (EU), which comprises 27 countries.
The total number of countries in Europe is much higher, almost twice as many, numbering around 50. (There are some differences of opinion as to which countries are technically part of Europe.)
So as high as these numbers are, they do NOT reflect all of Europe. The actual number in Europe who are reported dead or injured following COVID-19 shots would be much higher than what we are reporting here.
The EudraVigilance database reports that through September 11, 2021 there are 24,526 deaths and 2,317,495 injuries reported following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots:
From the total of injuries recorded, almost half of them (1,126,869) are serious injuries.
“Seriousness provides information on the suspected undesirable effect; it can be classified as ‘serious’ if it corresponds to a medical occurrence that results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalisation, results in another medically important condition, or prolongation of existing hospitalisation, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect.”
A Health Impact News subscriber in Europe ran the reports for each of the four COVID-19 shots we are including here. It is a lot of work to tabulate each reaction with injuries and fatalities, since there is no place on the EudraVigilance system we have found that tabulates all the results.
Since we have started publishing this, others from Europe have also calculated the numbers and confirmed the totals.*
Here is the summary data through September 11, 2021.
Total reactions for the mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2,Comirnaty) from BioNTech/ Pfizer – 11,711 deaths and 980,474 injuries to 11/09/2021
26,634 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 156 deaths
26,940 Cardiac disorders incl. 1,745 deaths
253 Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 21 deaths
Senator Elizabeth Warren is demanding Amazon censor best-selling books because they contain information that challenges the official narrative on coronavirus.
Warren wrote a letter asserting that Amazon was complicit in spreading “COVID-19 misinformation” because it allows people to buy books authored by people like Dr. Joseph Mercola, who has been targeted by the mainstream media as a purveyor of “dangerous” fake news about COVID and vaccines.
“During the week of August 22, 2021, my staff conducted sample searches on Amazon.com of pandemic-related terms such as ‘COVID-19,’ ‘COVID,’ ‘vaccine,’ ‘COVID 19 vaccine,’ and ‘pandemic,’” Sen. Warren wrote in a letter addressed to Amazon’s CEO Andy Jassy. “The top results consistently included highly-ranked and favorably-tagged books based on falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines and cures.”
Of course, the claim that these are “falsehoods” is a completely arbitrary assertion made by Warren and her staff, with no objective standard of proof required.
Mercola was again singled out for condemnation.
“[Dr. Mercola] has posted over 600 articles on Facebook casting doubt on COVID-19 vaccines and been subject to multiple federal investigations (with one false- advertising investigation leading to a $2.95 million consumer settlement). But Amazon’s algorithms promoted ‘The Truth About COVID-19’ as a best seller and top result in response to common pandemic-related search terms,” Warren wrote.
As Cindy Harper highlights, Warren’s efforts to have Amazon ban books follows a similar effort by Rep. Adam Schiff, who claimed that 10 per cent of Amazon search results related to vaccines returned “misinformation” (a description again solely determined by Schiff and his staff).
At what point did we enter an era where the very thing that drove scientific progress for hundreds of years – challenging the official orthodoxy – is now treated as heresy?
Putting people on lists with terrorists and sex traffickers before deplatforming them from social media sites is not enough.
Erasing information published by actual doctors and scientific experts that dares to question the ever-shifting goalposts of what “the science” says is also insufficient.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has reportedly rejected a Republican complaint claiming Twitter gave Democrats an in-kind contribution by blocking a New York Post story about Joe Biden’s son Hunter ahead of the 2020 vote.
The New York Times, which broke the news of the FEC decision on Monday, editorialized by describing the story as “unsubstantiated.” The commission has yet to officially publish the ruling or any explanations.
Twitter executives “credibly explained” that they had commercial reasons for blocking the distribution of an article revealing the existence of Hunter Biden’s laptop and its contents, and had not coordinated with his father’s presidential campaign to do so, according to the Times. The decision “provides further flexibility to social media giants like Twitter, Facebook and Snapchat to control what is shared on their platforms regarding federal elections,” the paper opined.
The Republican National Committee, which had accused Twitter of making a de facto contribution to the Democrats by banning the distribution of the article, said it was “weighing its options for appealing this disappointing decision.”
Editorializing by the Times was met with derision from commenters across the political spectrum, who pointed out that the Biden laptop had been confirmed as authentic. After the election, Hunter himself said it “could have been” his, and admitted to “losing” another.
“[We]’ve all seen the videos from the laptop of him smoking crack with our own eyes,” tweeted Donald Trump Junior. “This is why the corporate media has lost all credibility.”
“The only ‘unsubstantiated article’ that was circulating on Twitter at the time was the one from Politico declaring Hunter Biden’s laptop was ‘Russian disinformation’,” Fox News media reporter Joseph Wulfsohn pointed out.
“We all remember when Twitter blocked every major media outlet from sharing unsubstantiated articles about Trump being a Russian asset/blackmail victim virtually every day for 3+ years,” noted the Grayzone’s Aaron Mate – sarcastically, because that never actually happened.
After the New York Post revealed the existence of a laptop Biden abandoned in a Delaware repair shop, and quoted some emails from it suggesting he was trading on the family name overseas, Twitter first blocked the story from being shared under its newly established “hacked materials” policy, then locked the Post’s account. The lockout lasted for over two weeks and was only lifted a few days before the election.
The Biden campaign responded to the story by calling it “Russian disinformation,” citing a letter by former intelligence officials – the same ones behind the original ‘Russiagate’ assessment – and denying the laptop’s authenticity.
Twitter appears to have used stories about a “hacker” threat, seeded by the FBI, to justify their reaction. According to the Times, the company told the FEC they had “received official warnings throughout 2020 from federal law enforcement that ‘malign state actors’ might hack and release materials associated with political campaigns and that Hunter Biden might be a target of one such operation.”
At least four FEC commissioners had to have voted to reject the RNC complaint. While it is currently chaired by a Democrat, three of the commissioners are Republicans appointed by President Donald Trump, and one is an independent appointed by President George W. Bush.
A technical report was released Monday by a multidisciplinary research team created by the Cuban Academy of Sciences (ACC) on the “unidentified health incidents” reported in Havana in which some U.S. employees complained of various symptoms when they were stationed in Havana. Similar symptoms apparently appeared in some Canadian citizens and, later, in U.S. employees in other countries.
The report debunks a narrative it calls “mystery syndrome,” which assumes that the cause of these incidents are attacks with some unidentified energy weapon. Its authors reveal that the narrative is based on the following – unverified – claims:
1) A novel syndrome with shared core symptoms and signs is present in the affected employees;
2) It is possible to detect in these employees brain damage originating during their stay in Havana;
3) A directed energy source exists that could affect people’s brains from great distances after crossing the physical barriers of homes or hotel rooms;
4) A weapon capable of generating such a physical agent is achievable and identified;
5) Evidence of an attack was discovered;
6): The available evidence rules out alternative medical explanations.
The report critically examines the plausibility of these claims and the evidence on which they are based, concluding that the “mystery syndrome” narrative is not scientifically acceptable in any of its components and has only survived because of a biased use of science.
Although the report lacks some information, it provides plausible interpretations that fit the available facts better than the “mystery syndrome” narrative, based on published reports in the United States and Canada and field studies in Havana.
The text details the arguments for these interpretations, which are that:
Possibly some U.S. employees while stationed in Havana felt ill due to a heterogeneous collection of medical conditions, some pre-existing before going to Cuba and others acquired due to simple or well-known causes.
Many diseases prevalent in the general population can explain most of the symptoms. Thus, there is no novel syndrome (something evident in the official U.S. reports). Only a minority of people have detectable brain dysfunction, most due to experiences prior to their stay in Havana and others due to well-known medical conditions.
No known form of energy can selectively cause brain damage (with spatial precision similar to a laser beam) under the conditions described for the alleged Havana incidents.
The laws of physics governing sound, ultrasound, infrasound or radio frequency waves (including microwaves) do not permit this. These forms of energy could not have damaged brains without being felt or heard by others, without disturbing electronic devices in the case of microwaves, or without producing other injuries (such as ruptured eardrums or skin burns).
The report assures that at no time was anything of the sort reported. Although there are weapons that use sound or microwaves they are large in size and there is no possibility that this type of weapon would not go unnoticed (or leave a trace) if it had been deployed in Havana. Neither the Cuban Police, nor the F.B.I., nor the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, have discovered evidence of “attacks” on diplomats in Havana despite intensive investigations.
Finally, psychogenic and toxic explanations for many symptoms in some cases were rejected by adequate research. Specifically, all the conditions for the psychogenic spread of distress were present in this episode, including probably an inadequate initial medical response, early official U.S. government endorsement of an “attack” theory, and sensationalist media coverage, among others.
The experts stand ready to revise its conclusions if new evidence emerges, inviting efforts to refute its interpretations in a climate of open scientific collaboration. However, it firmly rejects as “established truth” a narrative built on flimsy foundations and flawed scientific practice. An example is the idea that there was an “attack,” which is accepted as “established truth without critical thinking.”
Some scientific articles – and most of the news read – accept as an axiom that there were attacks in Havana, so they take it as an idea on which to build theories. However, after four years, no evidence of attacks has surfaced, making it time to rethink the narrative, the report’s authors hold.
Israelis are concerned about the shameful American withdrawal from Afghanistan and think that their government now needs to reassert its ability to protect its own interests in the region and beyond. The general feeling is that the withdrawal will now give Israel’s enemies more freedom to move, especially Iran, which will not hesitate to strengthen its relations with China, which in turn has clear interests in Afghanistan and the Arab Gulf. Events in Afghanistan have rung alarm bells for Israel and its allies in the region.
At the same time, Israelis believe that the US withdrawal from most of its strongholds in the Middle East and Central-South Asia — Iraq first and now Afghanistan, and perhaps Syria later — may push some regional states to move against Israel. The evaluation of America’s role in the Middle East is that US forces can no longer rely on using Arab countries for emergencies. A comprehensive view of the region puts Israel in a better position in terms of US interests, at least according to an uncertain Israeli assessment.
However, the fear remains that what happened in Afghanistan could be mirrored in the occupied West Bank, not least due to the exposure of American weakness. The strategic patience and steadfastness of the Taliban have created an inspiring narrative for the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas.
In this context, Israelis are asking if events in Afghanistan could be replicated in the Palestinian arena, especially if Israel withdraws from parts of the West Bank in any deal with the Palestinians. Such an exit would almost certainly lead, at least in the short term, to instability, and encourage Hamas to try to expand its influence in the territory.
Although Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories are geographically distant from Afghanistan, the Israeli government claims that it will be required to respond to any development that threatens its security at home and abroad. In this case, it will take into account the current situation in the conflict with the Palestinians, and the de facto reality of a “one-state solution”, with all the negative political and social ramifications that it will have based on successive security warnings.
America’s exit from Afghanistan was embarrassing for Washington, but there were no demonstrations on US streets, either in support of or opposing the withdrawal. Any Israeli withdrawal from even a small part of the occupied West Bank, however, will cause a great stir. A lot of political determination and conviction will be required before such a move could be taken. Indeed, it could be beyond the current government, the survival of which would be threatened.
Israel expects the US withdrawal from Afghanistan to encourage its enemies to attack it. Although the Taliban movement does not pose a direct threat to Israel, it represents a concern for the colonial state, because it shares a border with Iran and the US withdrawal confirms the ongoing reduction of American intervention in the Middle East and beyond. Ideological and political differences aside, Israel knows that successive US presidents have shared a desire to end their involvement in the bloody wars in the Middle East and Central-South Asia. In doing so, believes Israel, America’s ability to challenge Iranian influence may create a domino effect tipping the scales of regional power at the expense of the Zionist state.
Nevertheless, there may be opportunities for Israel to enhance its regional position, because it is not only watching Afghanistan with concern but also, and perhaps more importantly, watching the positions of the Arab regimes that depend on the US for their security, in light of a growing mistrust in its ability to support them. Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region may approach Israel, as a possibly more reliable ally than the US, to fulfil their security needs, even without full normalisation of relations. Security cooperation between Israel and a number of Gulf States is already overt. It is thus likely that such Israeli cooperation with other Arab countries will increase.
Rapprochement and subsequent engagement with Israel may not be limited to “moderate” Arab countries. NATO, for example, could expand its security cooperation with the Zionist state, replacing the US with a willingness to get involved in regional affairs.
All of this is speculation at the moment in the wake of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. Although not actually part of the Middle East, a Taliban-led Afghanistan is going to play a major role in reshaping the region and how changes might affect Israel.
Speaking in the House of Commons this morning, Health Secretary Sajid Javid said that a consultation has been launched over making Covid and flu vaccinations mandatory for front-line healthcare and social care workers in England.
Javid said that while he’s keeping an open mind until he sees the results of the consultation, he believes that:
“It is highly likely that front-line NHS staff and those working in wider social care settings will also have to be vaccinated to protect those around them and this will be an important step in protecting those at greatest risk”.
Tyranny just rolls off the tongues of these fascists doesn’t it? Nobody cares though. There wasn’t so much as a murmur from the Labour Party benches, the so-called party of the working man and woman.
The Health Secretary had just threatened hundreds of thousands of people who work in the nation’s hospitals and care homes, that if they don’t take his medicine, they’ll be out of a job. Not a peep from Labour.
Javid was laying out his plans for tackling covid and flu this Winter. On flu, he said that in the next few weeks we will see the launch of the largest flu vaccination campaign the country has ever seen.
He said that people will also be encouraged to meet outdoors where possible, and try to let in fresh air when meeting indoors.
He also said that people will be encouraged to wear face masks in crowded areas where they can come into contact with others they don’t normally meet. This was greeted by jeers from his Tory colleagues on the backbenches.
I never believed for a moment, that we would ever see the back of the arbitrary measures introduced to tackle covid. I said many times on The Richie Allen Show that we’d be living with these measures and more forever. I hate being right.
Critics of the foreign and national security policies of the Joe Biden regime were quick to note that the American soldiers being pulled out of Afghanistan were no doubt a resource that will be committed to a new adventure somewhere else. There was considerable speculation that the new model army, fully vaccinated, glorious in all its gender and racial diversity and purged of extremists in the ranks, might be destined to put down potentially rebellious supremacists in unenlightened parts of the United States. But even given an increasingly totalitarian White House, that civil war type option must have seemed a bridge too far for an administration plagued by plummeting approval ratings, so the old hands in Washington apparently turned to what has always been a winner: pick a suitable foreign enemy and stick it to him.
It is of course generally known that when Joe Biden was running for president, he committed himself to making an attempt to reenter the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) of 2015 which placed limits on the Iranian nuclear program and also established an intrusive inspection routine. In turn, the Iranians were to receive relief from sanctions related to the program. In 2018 President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement based on the false argument that Iran was cheating on the arrangement and was secretly engaged in developing a weapon. Trump’s neocon supporters on the issue also argued without any evidence that Iran was intending to use the agreement as cover for its efforts to accumulate enriched uranium, guaranteeing that they would be able develop a weapon quickly when the inspection regime expires in 2025.
The Trump move was, of course, backed by the Israel Lobby and it was widely seen as deferring to Israeli interests at a time when the agreement was actually good for the United States as it blocked an unfriendly country’s possible nuclear proliferation. Unfortunately, a US government’s bowing to Israel is not exactly unusual and the withdrawal was subject to only limited criticism in the mainstream media.
Joe Biden, who has described himself as a Zionist, is no less prone to pandering to Israel than is Trump. When he raised the issue of JCPOA during his campaign in a bid to appeal to his party’s progressives, he also caveated the move by indicating that the agreement would have to be updated and improved. The talks in Vienna, which Iran and the US are indirectly engaged in, have been stalled for several months due to Iranian elections and over Washington’s insistence that Iran include in the agreement restrictions on the country’s ballistic missile program while also ceasing its alleged interference in the political turmoil in the region. The interference charge relates to Iranian support of the completely legitimate Syrian and Lebanese governments as well as of the Houthi rebels in Yemen who have been on the receiving end of Saudi Arabian aggression supported by Washington.
As Iran insists that any return to status quo ante be based on the existing agreement without any additions, to include relief from sanctions which Washington has rebuffed, it has been clear from the beginning that there is nowhere to go. Recently it has been argued in neocon and media circles (essentially the same thing) that the new conservative president of Iran Ebrahim Raisi means that no arrangement with Iran can be trusted and they point to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports that suggest that Iran has started to enrich admittedly small amounts of uranium. To add to the confusion, there have been some reports suggesting that Israel deliberately targeted and destroyed IAEA monitoring equipment in a June raid to make clear assessments of nuclear developments more difficult to obtain.
To finish the charade, which was not expected to result in anything, Secretary of State Tony Blinken, traveling Germany to mend fences over the Afghanistan debacle, has now warned that the US is getting “closer” to giving up on renegotiating the Iran nuclear deal. Blinken declared to reporters that “I’m not going to put a date on it but we are getting closer to the point at which a strict return to compliance with the JCPOA does not reproduce the benefits that that agreement achieved.”
When Blinken refers to benefits he is now of course meaning the full package of demands being made by Washington, which, as noted above, go far beyond the original intention of the agreement. As Iran has repeatedly insisted that it is only willing to discuss the original formulation which would provide for them some sanctions relief, something that Blinken certainly knows, he evades the issue of Washington being the spoiler in the Vienna talks.
Now that Afghanistan has fallen with considerable blowback to the fortunes of the Biden Administration, the situation with Iran becomes potentially more important, even while recognizing that Iran does not threaten the United States or its actual interests in any way. Biden-Blinken are clearly interested in sustaining a purported vital interest in the Middle East so troop levels throughout the region can be maintained. There is a commitment with Baghdad to remove all US “combat troops,” however that will be defined, by year’s end, but there are also American soldiers in Syria fighting a war and large military bases in Kuwait, Doha, and Bahrain. The US also maintains a skeleton presence of air force personnel in Israel as well as large arms supply depots.
To justify all that an enemy is essential and Iran fits the bill. And it should surprise no one that steps are now being taken to confront the evil Persians in their home waters. The United States Navy’s Bahrain-based 5th Fleet announced last week that it will create a special new task force that will incorporate airborne, sailing and underwater drones to confront Iran. In the announcement the spokesmen revealed that in coming months drone capabilities would be expanded to cover a number of chokepoints critical to the movement both of global energy supplies and worldwide shipping, to include the crucial Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of all oil passes. It also will presumably include the Red Sea approaches to the Suez Canal as well as the Bab el-Mandeb Strait off Yemen.
The systems being deployed by what has been dubbed the 5th Fleet Task Force 59 will include some recently developed innovative technologies, to include underwater, long range, and special surveillance drones. Armed drones will use the same platforms and some of the drones will be small enough to be fired from submarines, which will confuse points of origin and permit plausible denial by Washington if they should be used to deter or intimidate the Iranians.
So, the fall of Afghanistan might be seen as welcome after all these years of mayhem, but it may have opened the door to heightened tension in the nearby Persian Gulf. Washington-Biden-Blinken are intent on proving to the world that in spite of Afghanistan the United States is nobody’s patsy. Unfortunately, putting the screws to Iran yet again is no solution to Washington’s inability to perceive its proper role in the world. The lesson that might have been learned in Afghanistan and also Iraq apparently has already been forgotten.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.orgaddress is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org
DOCTORS yesterday warned Euro MPs that they will be held personally responsible for harm and death caused by Covid vaccines.
Doctors for Covid Ethics, a group of doctors and scientists from 30 countries, sent letters to all European Parliament members giving notice of liability.
They sent the same letter to Emer Cooke, executive director of the European Medicines Agency.
Their action came as the parliament resumed business with a debate on health and prevention of disease, which will be voted on today.
The notice, served with supporting documentation, read: ‘The rush to vaccinate first and research later has left you in a position whereby Covid-19 vaccination policy is now entirely divorced from the relevant evidence-base.
‘As you consider your next steps in mandating a vaccine that is contra-indicated by science, we draw your attention to recently published Freedom of Information requests, which reveal gross negligence in the Covid vaccine authorisation process, including misleading the Commission on Human Medicines as to whether any independent verification of vaccine trial data had occurred.’
Its website says: ‘We have written three letters to the European Medicines Agency, urgently warning of short term and long term dangers from Covid-19 vaccines, including clotting, bleeding and platelet abnormalities. We first began warning of blood-related risks before media reports of clotting led to vaccine suspensions around the world.
‘In the absence of crucial safety data, we are demanding the immediate withdrawal of all experimental gene-based Covid-19 vaccines.
‘We oppose vaccine passports, which threaten public health and violate Nuremberg and other protections. We are warning that “health passes” place coercive pressure on citizens to submit to dangerous medical experimentation, in return for freedoms that once were human rights.’
IN HER INTRODUCTION to ‘A State Of Fear’, Laura Dodsworth writes, “We don’t like to believe we can be manipulated, let alone that we have been manipulated – this book may hurt.”
Hurt it will, pitilessly exposing by turns the damage that fear has done to us over the past year, the way that terror eclipses reason or common-sense, and the way it has been weaponised to control us by the Government’s behavioural scientists. If you care about the future of liberty and democracy in the UK, this book will not help you sleep at night. It may however find a place at the top the pile on your bedside table: its hard-hitting chapters read once with shock and maybe, for some, a degree of incredulity, but then referred to again with increasing belief and conviction as a new revelation, campaign or headline brings home a key theme or passage.
It’s well researched and rigorously factual, but passion and anger shine through every page. They turn it from a dry analysis into a page-turning thriller in which we repeatedly discover ourselves as protagonist, victim, or supporting cast. The anecdotes and observations resonate with moments from our own lives over the past eighteen months, making personal the revelations about the polished levers and engines which generated them.
In a book about fear, perhaps the most frightening point of all is just how easy it now is to control a democratic society through the levers of behavioural science. Without debate or public consent, the Government has built capabilities in department after department to control how we think, feel, and act subliminally using cutting-edge psychology, research and communication. The advent of Covid-19 turbocharged these teams, which were headed by the SPI-B behavioural science committee and handed almost unlimited power and money. As the discipline with the greatest representation on SAGE, behavioural scientists carried more weight in the pandemic even than virologists and medical experts.
Likely anticipating the charge that she has succumbed to the dark theories of those who smell conspiracy in every action of Government, Dodsworth has rigorously researched and checked her claims. What emerges is comprehensive, informative and authoritative: page after page rings true and makes one nod as an anecdote of the past year strikes a chord.
Dodsworth vividly illuminates not just the effects fear has had, but how it influences us and why we are so prone to these extreme reactions. The expert insight and personal testimony show both how fear was created and how it took control of the population, often driving victims to extremes of behaviour that they view in hindsight as totally out of character.
Little here is speculative: the book deals in what we can see and know of events over the past year. It draws on highly-placed sources, though sadly many of those with real inside knowledge are quoted anonymously as they were too frightened of losing their careers to go on the record. This inevitably raises questions over the credibility of their claims, but it’s impossible to dismiss what they say because the substantiation is robust, the evidence convincing, and it so often chimes with personal experience.
At one point, a source in Government is quoted as saying,
“Hancock is quite paranoid and a total ‘wet’. He’s a real panicker.”
This will surprise few people – we can all see Hancock’s shortcomings – but these moments of recognition are important in building our understanding of the way in which politicians moved so quickly from championing freedom to enforcing repression. ‘The fear spread from the health department to the other departments and they all fell under the spell of the SAGE scientists foretelling doom’.
This was a different kind of fear to that felt by the public: fear not of the illness itself, but of its political fall-out. Politicians were terrified of failing in any step which might later be found to have saved lives. The virus might not represent a deadly threat to the vast majority of British people, but it could certainly be lethal to their own prospects for electoral success.
An insider tells Dodsworth that ministers fear ‘they’ll get hauled through the press for their own mistakes and that’s worse for them than ruining people’s businesses.’
This spectre still stalks Whitehall. I’m told that from March 2020 onwards, any Civil Servant minded to reject tough restrictions has simply been asked, ‘what will you tell the Inquiry?’ Few are brave enough to resist that threat. Yet it only works one way – deaths and suffering from Covid-19 may bring retribution. Deaths and suffering caused by restrictions are so unimportant to the decision-makers that they have not even bothered to consider whether the harm of measures may outweigh the benefits. Recovery has been campaigning since its launch for the coming Covid-19 inquiry to be comprehensive, investigating the full impact of the measures taken, positive and negative: this is why it’s so important.
We now know beyond question that the consequences of the Government action will be devastating for many, from the thousands who have not been treated or diagnosed with cancers over the past year to the millions whose livelihoods have gone. The mental health impact alone has been enormous and experts warn that some will bear the scars for life – including many children. This is vividly brought to life via the personal experiences which preface each chapter of the book.
Yet fear sells above all else. Broadcasters have enjoyed unprecedented viewing figures while Covid-19 has raged. An Ofcom report in September found that the average UK adult spent 6 hours 25 minutes watching content in April 2020 – up by an hour and a half from 2019.
That kind of power over eyeballs brings huge influence and profits, so broadcasters who gorge on drama and sensation grow fat. The reporters who provide it win pay rises and awards. For them, the best scientist is not the most accurate or eminent expert, but the one who produces the most wild and exciting prediction: the one which will really get viewers scared.
Reporters rush from No.10 conference to Covid ward with breathless anticipation of a child at a theme park racing from the dodgems to a rollercoaster. It’s what happens next that matters: the next scary number, the next variant. Checking whether the last prediction came true is dull. Boring old cancer and heart disease may be the bigger killers, but they’re old news. No-one has pushed a camera in the face of the grieving relatives of a cancer patient who was turned away for treatment or a worried oncologist. If you want to be heard, you have to talk Covid.
The pressure on Government is no longer to do what is best for the country, but what is best for the story. Over and over again, this leads to poor decision-making. Leaders are rewarded not for good policy, but for media-friendly sound-bites. Today, the business of Government has become less about doing what is right and more about doing what will play out best on the airwaves. Managing the opinion of the country has become more important than managing the country. Behind closed doors, our leaders have taken the logical next step.
Dodsworth reveals how successive governments have assembled a vast interconnected machine for producing and weaponizing fear with the explicit aim of controlling behaviour. Those who operate it argue that their intentions are good.
It’s the old paternalist thinking with a high-tech upgrade. People can’t be trusted to make the correct choices if they are given access to information and left to decide for themselves. So they must be subliminally ‘nudged’ in the right direction (or, during Covid-19, bludgeoned). Information which might disrupt the narrative is suppressed. Those who choose for us won’t admit the possibility that they could get it wrong. We, the ordinary people, are fallible; they are not. As Dodsworth says,
“Nudge is clever people in government making sure the not-so-clever people do what they want.”
All this was already happening prior to Covid-19. Yet it was little studied. A colossal machine was assembled out of public sight without any consideration as to the ethics and consequences, since those involved saw their goals as good and the ends as justifying the means.
As Dodsworth finds, its workings are wrapped in shadow. Attempting to dissect its component parts, she identifies some of the departments involved, but beyond confirming their existence, no-one in Government will answer her questions. In a book which contains many shocks, not least is how much of all this is being hidden from us in our supposedly free and democratic society. Not only are our strings to be pulled without our conscious knowledge, the details of how and why we are being manipulated must be hidden from us, lest we see through the tricks and hold the puppet-masters to account.
Behavioural science regards the mass of humanity as no more than rats in a maze, to be prodded down one alley and forbidden another. The scientists wish to control the rats: they do not accept that the rats should have any control over them.
These are disturbing claims, but the more they are researched, the more substantiation can be found. For example, she refers to the questionable role of Ofcom in enforcing a distorted narrative across the broadcast media, citing the guidance issued to broadcasters on 23 March 2020. This says that any report featuring content around Covid-19 which ‘may be harmful’ will be subject to statutory sanction.
As she points out, these comparatively innocuous words in practice force broadcasters to censure a huge amount of critical content, even where it is accurate, especially where it tends to calm fears or reassure people, since fear has been used to maximise compliance with restrictions.
An online search reveals that this was followed by additional Ofcom guidance on 27 March 2020, which is chillingly explicit. For example, it prohibits the broadcasting of ‘medical or other advice which… discourages the audience from following official rules and guidance.’ There’s no ambiguity here. Ofcom is telling broadcasters that they cannot allow informed, expert opinion, no matter how accurate or important, if it conflicts with the official guidance. This is extraordinary.
It gives added bite to her central point: ‘any regulator charged with upholding freedom of expression – as is the case with Ofcom – should proceed to restrict that freedom only on a closely reasoned basis. That is something Ofcom has manifestly failed to do.”
In the process, it has turned our theoretically impartial broadcasters into mere cheerleaders for restrictions. She argues that what they report is no longer news: “There is a word for only sharing information which is biased and used to promote a political cause: propaganda.”
Could the BBC have done more to preserve its integrity? When reporting restrictions were imposed on it during the Gulf War, it prefaced reports with a reminder that restrictions were in place. It could have done the same here, alerting viewers to the controls on pandemic reporting. It chose not to do so and therefore the public is unaware that anything has changed.
Her interview with Piers Robinson, Co-Director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies, concludes with the stark warning, ”It is not inconceivable that we are walking into an absolute nightmare in which freedom of speech and debate become significantly curtailed.”
It’s one of many moments in the book where you catch yourself thinking, ‘can this really be happening?’ It’s hard to believe that we have lost so many freedoms without a whisper from the supposed parliamentary Opposition, or that a leader who has championed our liberties so loudly in the past has moved so decisively to remove them.
‘A State Of Fear’ is essential reading if you want to understand how majority backing for the uniquely repressive response to Covid-19 was engineered so quickly. It’s a deeply troubling tale. However, it raises broader concerns about a world in which the combined power of psychology, technology, media and research are increasingly being used to dictate our choices without our knowledge or consent.
These questions go to the heart of our humanity and the kind of world we want for ourselves and our children. How many of us really want to live in fear, even if it means we are protected from our own misjudgements? Can governments be trusted with subliminal tools so powerful that they can instruct us what to think? With ‘A State Of Fear’, Laura Dodsworth has launched a vital debate.
Recovery formed last October to campaign for the Five Reasonable Demands for good government during Covid-19, a moderate, balanced alternative to the Government’s damaging approach to Covid-19, which experts have warned will end up costing many more lives than it saves and the Government itself says has already cost the country as much as the entire Second World War.
Jon Dobinson, is a co-founder and Campaign Director of Recovery, and MD of award winning advertising agency Other. He is a former D&AD judge and Chair of the Creative Jury of the International Business Awards.
There’s been an absolutely brutal campaign against Ivermectin in the public press. I thought it was time to deploy my background as a Toxicologist to review the known toxicity of Ivermectin. Fortunately, a world-class review paper on Ivermectin came out in 2021 by Jacques Descotes, a prominent toxicologist working at the behest of Medincell.
That comprehensive review of Ivermectin reveals that it is among the safest and most well-tolerated drugs ever introduced to the market.
In this episode I walk through the expert review of Ivermectin by Jacques Descotes MD, PharmD, PhD which was conducted in early 2021. We discuss the safety, toxicity, and known side effects and drug interactions, few and mild as they are. The conclusion is that “Ivermectin human toxicity cannot be claimed to be a serious cause for concern.”
The Biden administration and the media present Putin’s threat to use nuclear weapons in response to military setbacks as an unprecedented break with long-established and hitherto unquestioned rules of international statecraft. This narrative is a lie.
In fact, the United States and other imperialist powers have not only considered on several critical occasions using nuclear weapons to reverse military defeats. They have directly threatened to drop atom bombs in order to extract concessions from their enemies.
There are the well-documented demands of General Douglas MacArthur for the dropping of nuclear bombs on China, President Eisenhower’s weighing of France’s request for the detonation of nuclear devices at Dien Bien Phu, and President Kennedy’s threats during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Far less known and even more serious were the use of nuclear threats by President Nixon against the USSR and Vietnam. Operation Giant Lance was initiated on October 27, 1969, according to Wikipedia, to force a settlement of the Vietnam War on terms favorable to the US.
According to Wikipedia, Nixon “authorized a squadron of 18 B-52 bombers to patrol the Arctic polar ice caps and escalate the nuclear threat … to coerce both the Soviet Union and North Vietnam to agree on favorable terms with the US, and conclusively end the Vietnam War.”
Nixon made use of what was referred to as the “madman” tactic to convince the Soviet Union that he was capable of ordering a nuclear strike. Another operation, related to Giant Lance, was “Duck Hook.” … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
![Afghan protesters shout slogans against the US and Israel during a protest in downtown Kabul on December 8, 2017 [WAKIL KOHSAR/AFP via Getty Images]](https://i2.wp.com/www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/GettyImages-888278700-scaled-e1631610540399.jpg?resize=1200%2C799&quality=85&strip=all&zoom=1&ssl=1)
Aletho News 