Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Israeli Regime Revokes Permanent Residency Of Jerusalemite Lawyer Salah Hammouri

Al-Mezan Center For Human Rights | October 18, 2021

Earlier this morning, the Israeli Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked officially notified 36-year-old Palestinian-French human rights defender Salah Hammouri of the revocation of his permanent residency status in Jerusalem based on a “breach of allegiance to the State of Israel.” This decision comes after being approved by the Israeli Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit and Minister of Justice Gideon Sa’ar. The initiation of his residency revocation and forced deportation, pursuant to Amendment No. 30 to the Entry into Israel Law of 1952, comes on the heels of the Israeli apartheid regime’s targeted harassment campaign against Salah Hammouri, a vocal Palestinian human rights advocate, long-time employee at Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association, and former prisoner.

In communicating the decision to move forward with residency revocation on the basis of “breach of allegiance,” the Minister of Interior cites intentionally vague and broad allegations of “terroristic activities” and/or affiliation with “terrorist entities,” based on withheld “secret information” withheld. The withholding of “secret information” mirrors the Israeli occupation’s administrative detention practices, in stark violation of fair trial standards, which place Palestinians under indefinite detention based on secret material that cannot be disclosed to the detainees or their lawyers. To this end, she further cites recommendations based on his past history of arrests—most of which were under administrative detention, without charge or trial. Notably, the Ministry explicitly alludes to the notable escalation of permanent residency revocation of Palestinian Jerusalemites for “breach of allegiance,” as exemplified by the case of Salah Hammouri, by stating that the decision was necessary “to deter others from breaching allegiance to the State of Israel.”

As a Palestinian human rights defender who challenges Israel’s widespread and systematic human rights violations and voices legitimate calls for justice and accountability, Salah has endured constant Israeli attempts to intimidate him and his family, including previous arbitrary arrests, banning from entering the West Bank for almost 16 months, and the deportation of his wife, Elsa Lefort, a French national, separating him from his wife and son in 2016.

Previously, on 3 September 2020, the Israeli occupying authorities notified  Salah Hammouri of the Ministry’s intention to revoke his permanent residency status for so-called “breach of allegiance” to the State of Israel. Notably, Salah and his legal counsel, HaMoked Center for the Defence of the Individual and Advocate Lea Tsemeel, submitted written and oral claims challenging the decision.

Salah is alarmed by the imminent threat of having his residency revoked, which denies Salah’s basic human rights to family life, freedom of movement and residence, including the right to leave and to return to his country, freedom of expression, as enshrined in Article 19 of the ICCPR and freedom of peaceful assembly and association, in line with Articles 21 and 22 of the ICCPR.[1] Residency policies embedded in Israel’s regime of racial domination and oppression are designed to maintain a perilous legal status for Palestinians in East Jerusalem and uphold an Israeli-Jewish demographic majority in the city.

Israel’s policy of revoking Palestinian residency rights in East Jerusalem further violates Article 43 of the Hague Regulations and Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which stipulates that the Occupying Power may not act as a sovereign legislator or extend its own legislation over the occupied territory.[2] Moreover, the criterion of allegiance to Israel is illegal. In fact, international humanitarian law explicitly forbids the Occupying Power from demanding allegiance from the occupied population, as stated in Article 45 Hague Regulations and Article 68(3) of the Fourth Geneva Convention.[3] Furthermore, the transfer of Palestinians from occupied East Jerusalem is considered a war crime under Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.[4] The revocation of residency policy forms part of a widespread and systematic transfer policy directed against a civilian population, which may also amount to a crime against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute.[5]

[1] Articles 19, 21, and 22, ICCPR.

[2] Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and Its Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land (adopted 18 October 1907, entry into force 26 January 1910) (henceforth the “Hague Regulations”) Article 43, Hague Regulations, and Article 64, Fourth Geneva Convention.

[3] Article 45, Hague Regulations, and Article 68(3), Fourth Geneva Convention.

[4] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (adopted 17 July 1998, entry into force 1 July 2002) 2187 UNTS 3. (henceforth “Rome Statute”)

[5] Article 7, Rome Statute

Israeli Minister of Interior to Officially Revoke Permanent Residency of Lawyer Salah Hammouri_0.pdf

October 19, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | , , | 1 Comment

Propaganda, Character Assassination & the Campaign Against Prof David Miller

By Dr Piers Robinson | OffGuardian | October 19, 2021

On October 1st 2021, the University of Bristol decided to buckle in the face of a near 3 year-long pro-Israel lobby campaign and fire Professor David Miller.

I have worked with David for many years now, co-published work on the theory of propaganda, researched and written about the UK FCO propaganda operation (ongoing) that has sought to overthrow the Syrian government, and developed the fledgling Organisation for Propaganda Studies.

David was, is, and will continue to be, a major intellectual force with respect to our understanding of propaganda, and his integrity, particularly in relation to the Israel-Palestine issue, is now cemented in history. He became a voice for the Palestinians, highlighting the ways in which propaganda has worked in order to simultaneously suppress public understanding of the nefarious actions of the Israeli government against them and erase awareness of their plight.

Inevitably and predictably he became an essential target for the pro-Israel lobby and the implementation of a remarkably sustained and aggressive campaign designed to falsely smear him as ‘anti-Semitic’ and have him fired.

I also have a relationship with the University of Bristol. I studied for my MSc in International Relations back in 1996-97 (funded by the Economic and Social Research Council [ESRC]) and continued in 1997 to undertake a PhD (also ESRC funded) under the supervision of Professor Eric Herring. I left at the end of the 2nd year of the PhD to take up my first full-time academic post at the University of Liverpool, School of Politics and Communication Studies. My PhD was awarded in 2000 from the University of Bristol.

Smear campaigns and character assassination are a core feature of contemporary propaganda and our ‘democratic’ landscape. There is even an academic Handbook on the tactic, titled The Routledge Handbook of Character Assassination and Reputation Management, whilst US investigative journalist Sharyl Atkinson has provided a powerful account detailing how legitimate political views are stifled through nefarious attempts to destroy reputations.

I have witnessed this tactic first hand through my experience researching propaganda and the war on Syria.

For the ‘thought crime’ of questioning and researching UK government-linked ‘influence operations’ in that war, in particular the controversy over the OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) and the alleged chemical weapon attack in Douma 2018, myself and other colleagues (including David), have been subjected to aggressive and continuous smearing some of which is documented here.

Even when OPCW whistleblower scientists emerged and corroborated what we had been saying, those attacking us have simply continued with accusations of our being ‘conspiracy theorists’, ‘war crime deniers’ and agents of ‘disinformation’. That smear campaign also now incorporates OPCW whistleblowers with attempts to blacken their reputations.

What we see today is not completely new and David’s experience is not an isolated one.

In an earlier era, scientists such as Professor Steven Jones were smeared and pushed from their positions when raising perfectly objective, evidence-based and rational questions regarding 9/11. Chemist and laboratory director Kevin Ryan was fired for blowing the whistle on his own company which had obfuscated evidence related to the building collapses that occurred on 9/11.

To this day, and as Dr David Hughes has recently detailed in an academic journal, mainstream academia continues to self-censor and avoid substantial analysis of 9/11.

Today, with Covid-19, we now appear to be seeing an unprecedented level of attacks on academics who have raised what are, again, perfectly objective, evidence-based and rational questions regarding the efficacy of lockdowns and the drive toward coerced/mandated injections.

High profile and leading academics such as Sunetra Gupta (University of Oxford) and even Professor Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA technology used in the current Covid-19 injection, have had to battle concerted drives to discredit them, with, for example, Gupta being accused of being a ‘conspiracy theorist’.

Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, an early critic of lockdown, has been accused of anti-Semitism in what appears to be a wildly ill-founded and crude attempt to discredit his expertise.

The assault on professional autonomy appears to be accelerating rapidly with Professor Robert Malone declaring in October 2021 that:

[p]hysicians who speak out are being actively hunted via medical boards and the press. They are trying to delegitimize and pick us off one by one…This is happening globally.”

Something is indeed ‘rotten in the state of Denmark’.

In David’s case we have seen how powerful actors, in this case the pro-Israel lobby and the Israeli government, have worked to organize and influence in order to build sufficient pressure on the University of Bristol so that they would take the extreme step of firing him.

The campaign has been huge and drawn upon both mainstream media and celebrity influencers, as well as student bodies, in order to relentlessly misrepresent his work as anti-Semitic when, in truth, David’s views and work are based on a clear commitment against racism and discrimination.

It is worth noting that an independent report from a QC, commissioned by the University of Bristol, concluded that Professor Miller’s comments did not constitute unlawful speech and had also explicitly determined his remarks were not anti-Semitic. And, in all of this controversy, the progressive destruction of the Palestinian people and the illegal actions of the state of Israel government continue unabated.

Of course, it is this wider issue that those attacking David most want us all to forget. By allowing itself to play along with a nefarious campaign to smear and cancel David, the University of Bristol has become an important element in what are widely acknowledged to be crimes and atrocities. In doing so the University has clearly placed itself on the wrong side of history.

Smear campaigns and character assassination, then, are nothing new; but they are now intensified to the point that academics such as David are being fired, and high-profile scientists even from the medical sciences are targeted. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression cannot flourish in this environment and nor can academia, especially when rational debate is being supplanted with propaganda and politicized science.

Our ability to evaluate, debate, and speak truth to power are being fundamentally undermined and, along with that, so is any pretence that we live in a functioning democracy. That the University of Bristol has become an active participant in these nefarious processes should be a source of shame for all those who work there. For sure, the memories of my time there are forever tarnished and I will never again think fondly of my postgraduate days at Bristol nor speak in positive terms about the institution.

David’s experience is part of a wider process across democracies whereby power has sought to wrestle control of both professional classes and publics. We will now see, in the coming years, who will prevail.

Trust in institutions, whether government, mainstream media or academia, is likely to decline and rapidly so. And we are now living in an era when there are unprecedented opportunities for the development of new institutions in which freedom of expression and speaking truth to power are cherished, promoted and protected.

The vibrant independent media scene and increasingly discredited mainstream media are good examples of these dynamics although, as Glen Greenwald explains here, there is a concerted drive by political power and corporate media to regain control; I doubt they will ever succeed.

The pro-Israel lobby and the University of Bristol might think that they have secured a major victory in their campaign to silence critical debate on Israel, but they will not have the last word and, certainly, they will not have succeeded in silencing Professor Miller nor putting a stop to his essential work.

Despite the personal loss, and unlike the University of Bristol, Professor Miller will emerge stronger and more influential than ever.

A petition in support of Professor Miller can be signed here.

Dr Piers Robinson is co-Director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies, convenor of the Working Group on Syria, Media and Propaganda and associated researcher with the Working Group on Propaganda and the 9/11 ‘Global War on Terror.

October 19, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Ethnic Studies Mandated in California

Perpetual victim Jews constitute a “marginalized community”

BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • OCTOBER 19, 2021

It is more-or-less accepted that Jewish Zionists pretty much control many aspects of what comes out the other end of US foreign policy formulation and have plausibly done so since the time of President Bill Clinton, if not before. It was also a given that President Donald Trump, for all his talk of Making America Great Again, would shower benefits on Israel, a propensity that has already become well established for the Joe Biden Administration. And it should also surprise no one to learn that the benefits derived from the Israel-lean in foreign policy accrue to the Jewish state, allowing it to continue its human rights violations and war crimes at will. The benefit to the US Taxpayer, who generously funds the enterprise, amounts to nothing in return but the scorn of much of the rest of the world that sees Washington as Jerusalem’s poodle.

But what is perhaps somewhat more interesting to observe as it unwinds is the penetration of state and local governments by advocates of policies and legislation that is narrowly focused on Jewish or Zionist interests. Florida, with its large Jewish population and the leadership of a governor who desperately wants to become president, has not surprisingly led the way. Its “Florida Stands With Israel” license plate is so far unique, as was Governor Ron DeSantis’s stunt holding his first state cabinet meeting in Jerusalem in May 2019 disguised and funded as a “trade mission,” accompanied by a planeload of his most ardent Zionist supporters. That no one appears to find this pandering to a foreign country that has been accused of multiple crimes appalling is itself appalling.

State governments have been adhering to demands by Israel to punish those who seek to boycott the Jewish state and its illegal West Bank settlements, both individually and through pressure on corporations, as has taken place with Ben & Jerry ice cream. Universities have also fired faculty and banned instruction that is critical of Israel. But much of the manipulation of ties with local governments has a financial objective, as the various trade agreements entered into between Israel and individual states, though described as investments, only lead to a cash flow in one direction. Grant Smith, who heads the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRMEP), has detailed how one such board that he has identified is a unique example of a state’s economic policies being manipulated by a dedicated Israeli fifth column in government. It is named the Virginia Israel Advisory Board (VIAB).

The VIAB is unique because it is actually part of the Virginia state government. It is funded by the Commonwealth of Virginia and is able to access funds from other government agencies to support Israeli businesses. It is staffed by Israelis and American Jews drawn from what has been described as the “Israel advocacy ecosystem” and is self-administered, appointing its own members and officers. Only Virginia has such a group actually sitting within the government itself, ready to make secret preferential agreements, to arrange special concessions on taxes and to establish start-up subsidies for Israeli businesses. Israeli business projects have been, as a result, regularly funded using Virginia state resources with little accountability.

Smith reports how VIAB is not just an economic mechanism. Its charter states that it was “created to foster closer economic integration between the United States and Israel while supporting the Israeli government’s policy agenda.” Smith also has observed that “VIAB is a pilot for how Israel can quietly obtain taxpayer funding and official status for networked entities that advance Israel from within key state governments.” The board grew significantly under Democratic governor Terry McAuliffe’s administration (2014-2018). McAuliffe, who is running again, regarded by many as the Clintons’ “bag man,” received what were regarded as generous out-of-state campaign contributors from actively pro-Israeli billionaires Haim Saban and J.B. Pritzker, who were both affiliated with the Democratic Party. McAuliffe met regularly in off-the-record “no press allowed” sessions with Israel advocacy groups and spoke about “the Virginia Advisory Board and its successes.” That was, of course, a self-serving lie by one of the slimiest of the Clinton unindicted criminals. In short, the VIAB is little more than a mechanism set up to carry out licensed robbery of Virginia state resources being run by a cabal of local American Jews and Israelis to benefit their co-religionists in Israel. As a side benefit to us Virginians, its reckless activities have led to numerous zoning and environmental violations.

Other initiatives in a number of states are “educational” or cultural. The pressure is constantly on to memorialize the claimed perpetual victimhood and suffering of Jews. This has led to taxpayer supported holocaust museums springing up like mushrooms and the mandatory teaching of holocaust courses in 20 states. Lest there be any confusion, the courses are used inter alia to support the mythology about the founding of Israel, indoctrinating yet another generation of Americans on the “right thinking” over the issue.

It is perhaps inevitable that California, with 500,000 wealthy and politically powerful Jewish residents clustered around Los Angeles and San Francisco, would have to climb on to the Israel and Jewish-interests gravy train sooner or later. Indeed, Californians are already overloaded with the Zionist narrative. School children in 8th and 9th grade English courses are required to read, study and discuss the Diary of Anne Frank. In 10th grade they move up to the largely fictional “Night” by Elie Wiesel. History textbooks, as nearly everywhere in the United States, heavily emphasize the holocaust in World War 2, together with the repeated false claim that the war was initiated by German Chancellor Adolf Hitler largely to exterminate Jews.

In spite of all that already in place, it is interesting to note the back story behind Governor Gavin Newsom’s recent signing of State Assembly Bill 101 which mandates a curriculum reform for the state’s public and charter schools that creates an Ethnic Studies requirement for graduation. The bill was focused on “telling the stories” of California’s “historically marginalized communities.” The legislation to authorize the curriculum was actually delayed for over one year due to organized Jewish objections that led to a veto by Newsom and numerous revisions of the text moderated by those same Jewish groups and their associates in government. Their pushback was spearheaded by the progressive California Legislative Jewish Caucus, which claimed that the original text would open the door to possible school student exposure to groups like the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement. It was also feared that it could lead to discussion of claims of brutal treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis.

There were also objections because there was no section on anti-Semitism specifically, that the Jewish experience of bad treatment and suffering in America was not part of the curriculum. It was an odd claim given the prosperity and power of the California Jewish community, which has been prominent for over a century and concentrated in wealthy enclaves like Hollywood and Beverly Hills.

Newsom delayed in doing anything as he was engaged in what eventually became a serious recall fight, in which he needed Jewish money and both political and media support. With that in mind, he accepted that the curriculum reform would have to be amended to include anti-Semitism, and even went so far as to define any discussions of Muslims as part of a consideration of Islamophobia, effectively closing the door to any independent look at the Palestinian cause.

To be sure, there were nevertheless objections from more extreme Zionist groups, including the Amcha Initiative, which protested with the following somewhat ironic statement: “While certainly not all in the ethnic studies field fall into this category, there is a vocal and active faction of extremists who have long been seeking to inject their antisemitic and anti-Zionist agenda into our nation’s classrooms.” One might observe that if that were true, they are only following the model established by Jewish zealots.

So, under Jewish pressure, “Ethnicity” came to be primarily defined as Jews, Muslims, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans and Blacks. Sikhs and Armenians were to be allowed to discuss their own ethnicities in schools where they have a large presence, but no Irish nor Italians need apply, even though they both constituted numerically more Americans than many of the other groups, far more than the number of Jews. And, though Europeans and white, they also had their own “ethnically” derived problems as immigrants, with the Irish systematically denied jobs and housing in nineteenth century America while President Teddy Roosevelt described Southern Italians as the “most fecund and least desirable population of Europe.” In 1902, future President Woodrow Wilson added his view “but now there came multitudes of men of the lowest class from the south of Italy … having neither skill nor energy nor any initiative of quick intelligence.”

And there is, of course, a back story to the back story. California Jewish media reports that “The signing comes two days after Newsom held a press conference and photo-op announcing a new initiative supported by a number of Jewish groups and Holocaust educators, to form a governor’s council to improve Holocaust and genocide education for young people across the state.”

The Israeli media quickly picked up on the good news which means more money and political support for the Jewish state and other Jewish causes. “The council will provide educational resources regarding the Holocaust and other instances of genocide to students at California schools and ‘provide young people with the tools necessary to recognize and respond to on-campus instances of antisemitism and bigotry’ according to the governor’s office. ‘We find ourselves in a moment of history where hate pervades the public discourse,’ Newsom said. ‘National surveys have indicated a shocking decline in awareness among young people about the Holocaust and other acts of genocide.’”

So, once again Israel wins both ways in California, joining states like Texas, Florida and Virginia that are already fully on board. Not only has the mandatory Ethnic Studies program largely shut out the Palestinians and turned Jews into perpetual victims, Governor Newsom has also put his markers down on increasing the consumption of the standard holocaust myth to indoctrinate young Americans who have the misfortune to attend California schools. And the trend is unfortunately a national one as more states appear poised to get on board the pander to Israel movement.

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.org address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org

October 19, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

Health Secretary to Force Fluoridated Water on Entire Country

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | October 19, 2021

In 2019, 97% of countries in Western Europe were not adding fluoride to their water.1 While a handful use fluoridated salt, the majority do not. Yet, despite the lack of fluoridated water or salt in their diets, the rates of tooth decay have declined significantly in all the countries.2

In September 2021, Great Britain’s health secretary Sajid Javid announced he would be adding fluoride to all public water supplies,3 forcing citizens to consume the neurotoxin. The statement came in conjunction with approval by the United Kingdom’s chief medical officers from England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.4

Paradoxically, his announcement comes one year after a consumers’ group in the U.S. filed a federal lawsuit challenging water fluoridation that supplies 200 million U.S. citizens. The suit was brought against the Environmental Protection Agency and would require water utilities to stop fluoridation.5

Fluoride is a naturally-occurring mineral in water and soil that scientists in the 1940s found might help prevent tooth decay.6 Water fluoridation began in the U.S. in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1945 and other Michigan communities and then states adopted the practice in the years that followed.

Ninety-six percent of the fluoride7 used in U.S. water systems comes from apatite ore, the source of phosphate fertilizers. While the mineral’s composition also includes “high concentrations” of hydroxide, fluoride and chloride, the CDC calls the addition of this neurotoxic chemical “one of public health’s greatest success stories.”8 Yet, this “great success story” originates with highly toxic by-products in the production of fertilizer.9

The production process involves mixing the apatite with sulfuric acid derived from molten sulfur, which the American Water Works Association describes as “a waste product from cleaning petroleum feedstock.”10

Once the toxic vapors are converted to a dangerous liquid waste, it is transported from fertilizer factories to water reservoirs where it is added to drinking water.11 However, unlike pharmaceutical grade fluoride in toothpaste, this is “an untreated industrial waste product, one that contains trace elements of arsenic and lead.”12

Unfortunately, not many are aware of the effects fluoride has as a cradle-to-grave neurotoxin or the origin of the waste product added to the water supply. Although there has been some pushback against the proposal in the U.K.,13 Javid “is understood to be keen to press ahead with adding the mineral to the water supply and will gain powers to do so across England under laws going through parliament.”14

Despite Evidence of Danger, UK to Force Fluoridation

In a concerted effort to convince the public to accept the proposal, the U.K.’s chief medical officers came out together endorsing water fluoridation across the U.K. countries.15 In an effort to make it look like adding fluoride to the water is a benefit to U.K. citizens’ health, they added the proposal to legislation called “The Health and Care bill,”16 which is set to go before the MPs, which will then give Javid the authority needed to order fluoridation.17

In response to this, three British scientists sent a public letter to Great Britain’s prime minister, Boris Johnson. In the press release published from the U.K Freedom from Fluoride Alliance they write,18 “This is not a good time for the British government to mislead the public on the dangers posed by the practice of water fluoridation.”

The scientists believe that the statements from the chief medical officers from the four U.K. countries extol the weak benefits of fluoridation, but ignore stronger evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin. According to the scientists,19

“The dental lobby has controlled this debate for far too long. You can repair a damaged tooth but early damage to the brain (especially during fetal development and infancy) cannot be repaired or reversed.

This is so serious for the future of our country that the matter should not be resolved by the kind of ‘sleight of hand’ used by those who wrote the script for the CMOs’ statement.”

In their statement20 there are two short paragraphs that deal with the risk of fluoridation, which the scientists refer to as “sleight of hand.” Within the paragraphs, the CMOs do not mention the numerous studies demonstrating neurotoxicity and do not mention the lawsuit against the U.S. EPA. These points were made in their open letter to the prime minister in which they said they:21

“… sincerely hope that your health advisers will acknowledge the strong scientific evidence of fluoride’s neurotoxicity (and other ill health effects) and put the health of our people above promoting what appears to be a well-intended but clearly outdated practice of water fluoridation.

This would not be the first time that a well-entrenched medical or dental practice has had to give way to advances in scientific understanding of unexpected side effects.”

However, as reported in The Times,22 “Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, has dismissed safety concerns over the compounds, saying there is no evidence that it causes cancer and that claims about health risks are ‘exaggerated and unevidenced’.”

Strong Evidence Fluoride Is Neurotoxic

One of the first studies demonstrating fluoride has an adverse effect on children’s IQ was originally published in 1989 in the Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases. Since then, the Fluoride Action Network23 has recorded dozens of studies that have analyzed the relationship between IQ and fluoride.

Of these, 70 human studies and 60 animal studies have demonstrated an association between exposure and a reduction in learning or memory capacity. The human studies had children and adult participants that provide compelling evidence of damage. The Fluoride Action Network also published an analysis of the challenges associated with the studies that did not find an association.24

Some of the strongest studies demonstrating an association were published in 2019 and 2020. The claims made by proponents of fluoridation that there is only “one or two studies” finding harm, or that they are only from areas with naturally high fluoride levels, are no longer relevant. The scientific evidence can now be considered overwhelming and undeniable. The studies include:

Green 2019 — published in the Journal of the American Medical Association’s journal on Pediatrics.25 It reported substantial IQ loss in Canadian children from prenatal exposure to fluoride from water fluoridation.26

Riddell 2019 — published in Environment International.27 It found a shocking 284% increase in the prevalence of ADHD among children in fluoridated communities in Canada compared to nonfluoridated ones.28

Till 2020 — published in Environment International.29 It reported that children who were bottle-fed in Canadian fluoridated communities lost up to 8.8 IQ points compared to those in nonfluoridated communities.30

Uyghurturk 2020 — published in Environmental Health,31 It found that pregnant women in fluoridated communities in California had significantly higher levels of fluoride in their urine than those in nonfluoridated communities. The levels found in their urine were the same as those found to lower children’s IQ in past studies.32,33

Malin 2019 — published in Environmental Health.34 It linked a doubling of symptoms indicative of sleep apnea in adolescents in the U.S. to levels of fluoride in the drinking water. The link between fluoride and sleep disturbances may be through fluoride’s effect on the pineal gland.35

Malin 2019 — published in Environment International.36 It reported that exposure to fluoridated water led to a reduction in kidney and liver function among adolescents in the U.S. and suggested those with poorer kidney or liver function may absorb more fluoride bodies. The National Institutes of Health funded this study.37

The level of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic now far exceeds the evidence that was in place when lead was banned from gasoline. A recent review by Danish scientist, Harvard professor and neurotoxicity expert Dr. Philippe Grandjean also concluded that:38

“… there is little doubt that developmental neurotoxicity is a serious risk associated with elevated fluoride exposure, whether due to community water fluoridation, natural fluoride release from soil minerals, or tea consumption, especially when the exposure occurs during early development.

Given that developmental neurotoxicity is considered to cause permanent adverse effects, the next generation’s brain health presents a crucial issue in the risk-benefit assessment for fluoride exposure.”

Fluoride Is an Endocrine Disrupter That Affects the Brain

Evidence shows that fluoride as an endocrine disrupter affects both sleep and the brain. It contributes to the rising rate of children and adults with attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD). One study39 published in 2015 demonstrated that children with higher rates of medically diagnosed ADHD resided in states where there was a greater proportion of people consuming fluoridated water.

In 2006, the National Resource Council of the National Academies labeled fluoride an endocrine disruptor.40 According to the National Institutes of Health in 2014,41 “Research shows that endocrine disruptors may pose the greatest risk during prenatal and early postnatal development when organ and neural systems are forming.” The NIH has since removed that statement from their website.42

Exposure to fluoride is also linked to thyroid disease,43 which in turn contributes to heart disease, obesity, depression and other health problems. Fluoride has an adverse effect on sleep patterns. One study44 found chronic low-level exposure altered sleep patterns in adolescents aged 16 to 19.

They found fluoride levels of .52 mg per liter was associated with a 1.97 times higher likelihood of sleep apnea at least once per week. This level is lower than the current recommendation of 0.7 mg/L.45

The researchers theorized46 that the accumulation of fluoride in the pineal gland may affect sleep patterns. Additionally, the researchers wrote that in adults, fluoride concentrations in the pineal gland correlate with calcification, which in turn is associated with a decrease in melatonin production, lower sleep time and lower REM sleep percentage.

Health and Human Services Lowers Level of Fluoride in 2015

In 2010, a study47 published in the Journal of the American Dental Association concluded that there was an association between fluorosis and children’s teeth and intake from infant formula and other dietary sources. They wrote:

“Results suggest that prevalence of mild dental fluorosis could be reduced by avoiding ingestion of large quantities of fluoride from reconstituted powdered concentrate infant formula and fluoridated dentifrice.”

The CDC also followed suit in 2010, warning that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula with fluoridated water could increase the chance of a child developing enamel fluorosis.48 These recommendations have since been deleted.49

However, your teeth are the window to your bones, and when you see damage to your teeth you must ask the question: What kind of damage to your bones is occurring?

In April 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services admitted the fluoride levels they had been promoting damaged children’s teeth.50 Major dental fluorosis was apparent in 41% of teenagers,51 which includes white spots, yellow coloring or pitted enamel.

Despite levels of fluoride that were high enough to cause fluorosis, the CDC52 also reported that 42% of children and adolescents ages 6 to 19 years and 90% of adults had cavities in their permanent teeth. Although some health experts continue to promote fluoride as protection against cavities, it’s apparently not doing the job.

Instead of completely removing fluoride from the water to protect bone health in 2015, the HHS announced they would simply reduce the level of fluoride in the water to minimize “the risk of cosmetic fluorosis in the general population.”53 To stress the idea that fluorosis is solely a cosmetic issue negates the potential risk to bone health.

By 2020, the American Dental Association was fully on board with fluoridating water in the U.S. In a letter54 to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, they noted their members agreed that the 2018 edition of Fluoridation Facts, the ADA’s resource on community water fluoridation, answered questions on the relationship between consumption and lowered intelligence or behavioral disorders.

Choosing to blatantly ignore all the studies showing fluoride is a dangerous neurotoxin, they stated, “The evidence from individual studies and systematic reviews does not support claims of a causal relationship.”55 Additionally, they urged that the National Toxicology Program Monograph on Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Health should move its classification of fluoride from a “presumed” neurotoxin to an “unknown” neurotoxin.

Their justification for this was to claim:56 “There is not a wide body of literature examining fluoride as a potential neurotoxin.” In other words, 70 human and 60 animal studies were not enough to “support claims of a causal relationship” and is not a “wide body of literature examining fluoride as a potential neurotoxin.”

Help End the Practice of Water Fluoridation

What might be assumed from statements made by politicians and experts, is there is a greater concern over tooth decay than there is over loss of intelligence, brain health in adults and children and damage done through endocrine disruption.

For citizens in the U.K., a petition has been initiated in Parliament recommending that instead of adding fluoride to compel the entire nation to ingest a neurotoxin, “it would be better if people brush their teeth with toothpaste daily and monitor intake of sugar.”57

U.K. citizens can sign the petition at this link. If it reaches 100,000 signatures, Parliament must consider it for debate. For those who live in an area with fluoridated water, you can protect your health by filtering the water supply.

Because fluoride is a very small molecule, it’s difficult to filter once added, but reverse osmosis filtration can be effective.58 Clean pure water is a prerequisite for optimal health; thus, the only real solution is to stop the practice of artificial water fluoridation.

Sources and References

October 19, 2021 Posted by | War Crimes | , | 1 Comment

Tokyo must stop and listen to the world, says Beijing, as Japan’s PM claims Fukushima wastewater release into ocean can’t wait

RT | October 18, 2021

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has reiterated its opposition to Japan’s decision to release nuclear wastewater from the Fukushima power plant into the ocean, after Tokyo’s new leader said the discharge could wait no longer.

Speaking on Monday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian took aim at Japan’s new prime minister, Fumio Kishida, who visited the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant on Sunday.

“The Japanese side must listen to the voice of the international community, revoke the wrong decision, and stop advancing preparations for the discharge of nuclear wastewater into the ocean,” the spokesman told the gathered press, arguing that Tokyo needed the authorization of other nations and international institutions.

Zhao claimed the issue of Fukushima nuclear wastewater disposal was not a private matter for Japan, but a major international issue concerning the public health of everyone living in Pacific Rim countries, as well as for the global marine environment.

He said China and other nations had requested assurances about the reliability of Japan’s nuclear wastewater purification equipment and raised concerns about the impact of releasing the supposedly treated waters into the ocean.

He added that Japan had yet to exhaust all measures for safely storing the nuclear wastewater, which was used to treat the Fukushima powerplant after it went into meltdown a decade ago.

Zhao’s comments came after Japanese leader Kishida visited the nuclear plant and its huge facility for storing wastewater on Sunday. “I felt strongly that the water issue was a crucial one that should not be pushed back,” Kishida told reporters having been shown around by the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power.

In August, the operator announced plans to build an undersea tunnel to facilitate the release of over a million tons of treated water after the government had already elected to discharge the liquid into the sea. The International Atomic Energy Agency has said it will send experts to Japan later this year to evaluate the plans for discharging into the ocean.

Last year, Greenpeace said the wastewater from the plant was more dangerous than the Japanese government had claimed. In a paper, the organization said the allegedly treated water still contained “dangerous levels of carbon-14” – a radioactive substance that has the “potential to damage human DNA.” The water is also known to contain radioactive tritium.

October 19, 2021 Posted by | Environmentalism, Nuclear Power, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

New court filings illuminate academia’s deep role in climate industry

By Chris Horner | Watts Up With That? | October 18, 2021

You may have noticed the media cycle has subtly begun for next week’s House Oversight Committee climate change show-trial, as energy crises unfold worldwide and President Biden prepares to take 13 Cabinet members and no grants of legislative authority from Congress supporting his “climate” agenda to the annual “Conference of the Parties” in Glasgow (where, like President Obama before him, he will claim that while legislative authority would be nice, in its absence he will do what he wants anyway — not, in fact, how these things are supposed to work).

With that backdrop, see the attached opening trial brief and declarations of Lindzen, Happer, Horner and Walter which were filed on Friday in open records litigation in Los Angeles. The subject of the records at issue is the role of academia (specifically, plaintiffs’ tort bar consultants among UCLA Law faculty) in the climate litigation industry, and what they boast of to at least one major donor behind these efforts. You may recall one such email by UCLA Law faculty describing the AGs, activists, “prospective funders” and faculty gathering at the “secret meeting at Harvard” was “about going after climate denialism—along with a bunch of state and local prosecutors nationwide”.

As context to the Regents’ behavior in this matter, the trial brief and declarations detail the climate industry’s Enron origins, and the role of academics supporting the plaintiffs’ effort (also noted is the spate of briefings of federal judges by the plaintiffs’ side, initiated after Judge Alsup dismissed litigation against oil companies in the Northern District of California, which briefings also trace back to UCLA faculty).

In another footnote, early in the attached Horner Declaration, you’ll find timely reference to a 1999 email warning of the consequences of seeking to rig the economics of the energy industry in the name of “global warming” (later, climate change). Cue the past few weeks’ headlines from around the world manifesting just those consequences:

Maybe Enron can dodge the macro problem and have our micro benefits, but then again I have to think that a politicized international energy market for any reason will create as much or more downside than upside. (April 1, 1999 memo to Lay)

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that, as cynical as they were about it, Enron Knew.… a couple very important things*. Despite being the company that had bet the most on greenhouse warming and most wanted the alarmism to take root, Enron also knew the systemic economic risks from pushing the climate agenda. But, in the pursuit to “make [itself] rich,” plowed ahead. Others followed in Enron’s footsteps, with far too much success, and we all are now facing the consequences.

* PS See here for the other key point Enron knew, something that puts the lie to the very foundation underpinning the ongoing climate litigation tsunami — Enron knew and bitterly debated the uncertainties of the theory underpinning the climate agenda.

The excerpts from and links to emails and memos debunk the claims that, as one piece put it, “The Utilities Knew, Exxon Knew, Shell Knew, They All Knew” of catastrophic man-made global warming in the 1970s, or 1980s… showing there was instead intense and often bitter internal fighting over the risks of designing business plans around the theory when it was so laden with uncertainty. That was in the late 1990s.

10-15-21-Opening-Trial-Brief-PetitionerDownload

Jt-Evidentiary RecordDownload

October 19, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Vaccine Safety Update

By Will Jones  • The Daily Sceptic • October 19, 2021

This is the 14th of the round-ups of Covid vaccine safety reports and news compiled by a group of medical doctors who are monitoring developments but prefer to remain anonymous in the current climate (find the 13th one here).

By no means is this part of an effort to generate alarm about the vaccines or dissuade anyone from getting inoculated. It should be read in conjunction with the Daily Sceptic‘s other posts on vaccines, which include both encouraging and not so encouraging developments. At the Daily Sceptic we report all the news about the vaccines whether positive or negative and give no one advice about whether they should or should not take them. Unlike with lockdowns, we are neither pro-vaccine nor anti-vaccine; we see our job as reporting the facts, not advocating for or against a particular policy. The vaccine technology is novel and the vaccines have not yet fully completed their trials, which is why they’re in use under temporary and not full market authorisation. This has been done on account of the emergency situation and the trial data was largely encouraging on both efficacy and safety. For a summary of that data, see this preamble to the Government’s page on the Yellow Card reporting system. (Dr Tess Lawrie in June wrote an open letter to Dr June Raine, head of the MHRA, arguing that: “The MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans,” a claim that has been ‘fact checked’ here.) We publish information and opinion to inform public debate and help readers reach their own conclusions about what is best for them, based on the available data.

Summary of Adverse Events in the U.K.

According to an updated report published on October 14th, the MHRA Yellow Card reporting system has recorded a total of 1,228,991 events based on 372,878 reports. The total number of fatalities reported is 1,719.

  • Pfizer (22.7 million first doses, 19.8 million second doses) now has one Yellow Card in 188 people vaccinated. Deaths: 1 in 40,391 people vaccinated (562).
  • AstraZeneca (24.9 million first doses, 24 million second doses) has one Yellow Card in 106 people vaccinated. Deaths: 1 in 22,514 people vaccinated (1,106).
  • Moderna (1.5 million first doses, 1.2 million second doses) has one Yellow Card in 90 people vaccinated. Deaths: 1 in 75,000 people vaccinated (20).

Overall, one in every 132 people vaccinated (0.76%) have experienced a Yellow Card adverse event. The MHRA has previously estimated that the Yellow Card reporting rate may be approximately 10% of actual figures.

  • Thrombosis & Embolism (all types) = 7,072
  • Anaphylaxis = 1,353
  • Acute Cardiac = 16,092
  • Pericarditis/Myocarditis (Heart inflammation) = 1,000
  • Herpes = 4,322
  • Headaches & Migraines = 122,717
  • Blindness = 424
  • Deafness = 599
  • Spontaneous Abortions = 593 miscarriages + 13 foetal deaths/stillbirths
  • Facial Paralysis incl. Bell’s Palsy = 1,752
  • Strokes and CNS haemorrhages = 2,662
  • Guillian Barre Syndrome = 491
  • Pulmonary Embolism & Deep Vein Thrombosis = 3,502
  • Seizures = 2,872
  • Paralysis = 1,173
  • Nosebleeds = 3,120
  • Dizziness = 35,509
  • Vomiting = 15,807
  • Reproductive/Breast Disorders= 43,969

Further analysis can be found via the UK Freedom Project.

Source: Pfizer; Moderna; AstraZeneca; Unspecified. “F” denotes fatal.

October 19, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Official Government Reports Show Vaccinated Lost 40% Of Their Immunity

THE EXPOSÉ • OCTOBER 10, 2021

Latest UK PHE Vaccine Surveillance Report figures on Covid cases show that doubly vaccinated 40-70 year olds have lost 40% of their immune system capability compared to unvaccinated people.

Their immune systems are deteriorating at around 5% per week (between 2.7% and 8.7%). If this continues then 30-50 year olds will have 100% immune system degradation, zero viral defence by Christmas and all doubly vaccinated people over 30 will have lost their immune systems by March next year.

The 5 PHE tables below from their excellent Vaccine Surveillance Report, separated by 4 weeks, clearly show the progressive damage that the vaccines are doing to the immune system’s response.

People aged 40-69 have already lost 40% of their immune system capability and are losing it progressively at 3.3% to 6.4% per week.

Weekly Decline in doubly vaccinated immune system performance compared to unvaccinated people…

Everybody over 30 will have lost 100% of their entire immune capability (for viruses and certain cancers) within 6 months.
30-50 year olds will have lost it by Christmas. These people will then effectively have full blown acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and destroy the NHS.

The vaccine booster shots have to be the same as the vaccines themselves, because it takes forever to do clinical trials and get approval for something different. So if you take a booster shot, these figures show that you are giving yourself an even faster progressive form of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (after a couple of months of effectiveness).

Table 2. COVID-19 cases by vaccination status…

Cases reported by specimen date between week 32 and week 35 2021 – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1016465/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_36.pdf

Cases reported by specimen date between week 33 and week 36 2021 – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1018416/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_37_v2.pdf

Cases reported by specimen date between week 34 and week 37 2021 – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1019992/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_38.pdf

Cases reported by specimen date between week 35 and week 38 2021 –  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1022238/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_39.pdf

Cases reported by specimen date between week 36 and week 39 2021 – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023849/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_40.pdf

Pfizer originally claimed a 95% efficiency for their vaccine (calculated as in the last column above). The figures above indicate that their figures may well have been correct immediately after vaccination (the younger age groups have had the vaccine for the shortest time).

But the figures above also show that the vaccines do NOT merely lose efficiency over time down to zero efficiency, they progressively damage the immune system until a negative efficiency is realised. They presently leave anybody over 30 in a worse position than they were before vaccination. For more see here.

October 19, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | 1 Comment

Lockdown: Where Did ‘The Science’ Come From?

By Noah Carl  • The Daily Sceptic • October 19, 2021

In a previous post, I looked at where ‘The Science’ of community masking came from. Here I’ll do the same thing for lockdowns.

As many lockdown sceptics (including myself) have noted, lockdowns represent a radical departure from conventional forms of pandemic management. There is no evidence that, before 2020, they were considered an effective way to deal with influenza pandemics.

In a 2006 paper, four leading scientists (including Donald Henderson, who led the effort to eradicate smallpox) examined measures for controlling pandemic influenza. Regarding “large-scale quarantine”, they wrote, “The negative consequences… are so extreme” that this measure “should be eliminated from serious consideration”.

Likewise, a WHO report published mere months before the COVID-19 pandemic classified “quarantine of exposed individuals” as “not recommended under any circumstances”. The report noted that “there is no obvious rationale for this measure”.

And we all know what the U.K.’s own ‘Pandemic Preparedness Strategy’ said, namely: “It will not be possible to halt the spread of a new pandemic influenza virus, and it would be a waste of public health resources and capacity to attempt to do so.”

As an additional exercise, I searched the pandemic preparedness plans of all the English-speaking Western countries (U.K., Ireland, U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand) for mentions of ‘lockdown’, ‘lock-down’ ‘lock down’ or ‘curfew’.

Only ‘curfew’ was mentioned, and only once – in Ireland’s plan. The relevant sentence was: “Mandatory quarantine and curfews are not considered necessary.” None of the lockdown strings were mentioned in any of the countries’ plans.

So where did ‘The Science’ of controlling Covid using lockdowns come from? As everyone knows, China implemented the first lockdown (of Hubei province) in January of 2020. Yet it wasn’t until March that lockdowns became part of ‘The Science’.

As this chart taken from the paper by David Rozado shows, major Western media outlets did not start mentioning ‘lockdown’ frequently until March:

And this chart confirms that worldwide Google search interest for ‘lockdown’ was essentially nil until 8th March 2020:

So what happened in early March? Well, Italy was the first Western country to lock down – on 9th March last year. And as Michael Senger argues, its decision appears to have been prompted by the WHO’s report of 24th February, which gave a glowing evaluation of China’s lockdown. (Senger’s piece is well worth reading.)

Other Western countries then followed suit. The next most important event, following Italy’s decision to lock down, was the publication of a report by Neil Ferguson’s team on 16th March.

This report has been described as the “catalyst for policy reversal”. Up until then, the U.K. had been more or less following its pandemic preparedness plan. As late as March 5th, Chris Whitty told the Health and Social Care Committee that “what we’re very keen to do is minimise social and economic disruption”.

Although other, similar reports had already been published, the analysis by Neil Ferguson’s team was seen as particularly authoritative. According to the New York Times, the report “also influenced the White House to strengthen its measures”.

On March 17th, Neil Ferguson and his colleagues held a press conference after returning from Downing Street. They confirmed that Britain would be adopting a new strategy. “The aim is not to slow the rate of growth of cases but actually pull the epidemic into reverse,” Ferguson said.

As to why the U.K. was changing tack, Ferguson noted, “We have had bad news from Italy and from early experience in UK hospitals”. However, subsequent revelations suggest that “bad news” was less important than the shifting of the Overton window.

In an interview with the Times published in December last year, Ferguson noted that “people’s sense of what is possible in terms of control changed quite dramatically between January and March”. Referring to China’s lockdown, he elaborated, “We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… And then Italy did it. And we realised we could”.

After China’s initial response in Hubei, it took two months for lockdowns to go from ‘unprecedented’ to ‘unavoidable’. They received two major doses of intellectual credibility: first from the WHO, and then from Neil Ferguson’s team. Italy set the all-important precedent for Western countries.

As to whether one should trust ‘The Science’ on lockdowns, a reasonable answer would be, ‘Do you mean the pre or the post-Covid science?’

October 19, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Ben Swann Interview – Exposing The COVID Illusion & The Impending Technocratic Future

Ryan Cristián – Last American Vagabond – October 15, 2021

Joining me today is Ben Swann, here to discuss how he has been fighting back against the COVID-19 tyranny, and the actions he is taking to create a space where the truth can be heard. And no discussion with Ben would be complete without a back and forth about the many different ways in which COVID-19 itself is a deception.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Email | RSS

(https://www.rokfin.com/TLAVagabond)
(https://odysee.com/@TLAVagabond:5)
(https://www.bitchute.com/channel/24yVcta8zEjY/)

October 19, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment