Aletho News


Lawmakers push back against ‘sleepwalking’ into direct conflict with nuclear-armed Russia

Samizdat | May 11, 2022

Republicans in the US House of Representatives are increasingly divided over Washington’s aid pipeline to Ukraine, with establishment politicians touting a “proxy war” with Russia while members of the populist Freedom Caucus argue that Congress is neglecting domestic priorities while provoking a nuclear-armed adversary.

The infighting escalated as the House passed a $39.8 billion military and economic aid package for Kiev. While Democrats voted in lockstep to support the spending binge, 57 Republicans gave the plan a thumbs-down. Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), who was among the 149 GOP members who voted yes, followed up on Wednesday by saying that “Investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military without losing a single American troop strikes me as a good idea.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) shot back that Crenshaw was pushing a “proxy war.” She added, “You speak as if Ukrainian lives should be thrown away, as if they have no value, just used and thrown away. For your proxy war? How does that help Americans? How does any of this help?”

Crenshaw ignored the substance of Greene’s critique, replying, “Still going after that slot on Russia Today, huh?”

By playing the Russia card, Crenshaw essentially echoed the Democratic response to Greene when she spoke out against the Ukraine aid bill on Tuesday on the House floor. After Greene pointed out that Congress was neglecting such domestic crises as surging illegal immigration at the southern US border and a severe shortage of baby formula, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland) accused her of repeating Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “propaganda.”

Greene wasn’t the only one speaking out against Washington’s Ukraine policy. For example, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) argued that by ramping up aid to Ukraine and sanctions against Moscow, President Joe Biden’s administration is “sleepwalking” into a direct war with Russia while leaving Americans “in the dark.”

“It’s as if the administration is probing Putin’s nuclear red line,” Gaetz said on Wednesday. “A game of chicken between nuclear powers is insane, and this from Joe Biden, who campaigned to be America’s calming sedative.” He added that US weapons are winding up in the hands of neo-Nazi ‘Azov’ fighters, even as Democrats go on a “daily snipe hunt” for white supremacy in the US.

“Just a year ago, we lost a war against goat herders waving rifles,” Gaetz said. “Now we’re rushing to fight a nation that possesses 6,000 nuclear warheads.”

Gaetz noted that Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Massachusetts) asserted last week that the US is already “fundamentally at war” with Russia.

“Then why not vote on an Authorization to Use Military Force?” Gaetz asked. “Or are we just going to operate in Ukraine like we have in Yemen and throughout the world – forever undeclared wars.”

“I suspect many in this body won’t want a vote or a debate because regime change in Russia is their actual objective, not defending Ukraine. And to achieve this goal, they’re willing to send billions to Kiev that will line the pockets of corrupt officials, just like we did in Afghanistan.”

Other conservative Republicans, such as Chip Roy (R-Texas), pointed out that the massive Ukraine aid bill was given to lawmakers just a few hours before the vote was scheduled.

“Why don’t we actually have a debate on the floor of the people’s House instead of the garbage of getting a $40 billion bill at 3 o’clock in the afternoon – not paid for, without any idea what’s really in it, with a massive slush fund that goes to the State Department?” Roy said. “We’ve got $40 billion that is unpaid for, and you want to sit here and lecture this body about what we’re going to do or not do about standing alongside Ukraine?”

Like other Freedom Caucus members, Roy said Congress was ignoring more important issues, such as “wide-open borders, the inflation that’s killing people, the jobs that people can’t get because of the costs of goods and services in this country.”

“We’ve got a baby formula shortage at home, inflation that is crushing working families and a president that is beholden to nearly all of our adversaries,” said Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado). “I’d say there are a few problems closer to home that we need to solve.”

May 11, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , | 1 Comment

Google introduces new wallet with support for digital IDs and vaccine cards

Digital ID cards are being normalized by Big Tech

By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | May 11, 2022

Google will be integrating digital ID cards and proof of vaccination cards into a new Google Wallet app that’s set to be released in a few weeks.

Google revealed the new digital wallet app at its Google I/O ‘22 keynote. Sameer Samat, Google’s Vice President of Product Management, said the tech giant is working with US states and governments around the world to bring digital IDs to Google Wallet and that driver’s licenses will be the first type of ID to be digitized in the app.

Samat noted that items with highly personal information, such as vaccine cards, are stored on device and “not shared with anyone, not even Google.”

Google’s embrace of digital IDs and vaccine cards follows Apple introducing the tech last year when it partnered with several US states and the Transport Security Administration (TSA) to digitize driver’s licenses and then stuck taxpayers with part of the bill for the rollout.

When it started digitizing driver’s licenses, Apple insisted that users could present their ID without needing to unlock, show, or hand over their device. Samat made similar claims at Google I/O ‘22 and said users can share information from driver’s licenses that are stored in Google Wallet without having to give the phone to another person by either using near-field communication (NFC) or a quick response (QR code).

Digital vaccine cards have also started to be normalized by two of the world’s biggest phone manufacturers – Apple and Samsung.

As these powerful tech companies embrace digital IDs and vaccine cards, national governments and influential international organizations are also pushing for greater adoption of this tech.

Related: 🛡 The EU has big plans to normalize Digital IDs

May 11, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

“Genetically Edited” Food – The next stage of the Great Reset?

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | May 11, 2022

The Queen’s Speech was interesting this year.

For all the people outside the UK who don’t understand what the “Queens Speech” actually is, it’s a farcical state occasion in which the Queen (or, in this case, Prince Charles since her majesty is ill/secretly dead/having “mobility issues”) makes a speech about what “her government” intends to do for the next 12 months.

Of course, the Queen doesn’t actually write the speech, or have any input on its content, or have any control at all over what “her” government intends to do. She’s just a mouthpiece in a big gold hat.

It’s the UK equivalent of the State of the Union, only done in Halloween costumes made out of shiny stolen rocks.

The whole thing is nothing but a grand, gilt statement of intent from the British Deep State, wrapped in mink and draped in medals they never earned. It’s a joke, but it is worth listening to.

Or, if you have a sensitive stomach, you can just read the full text the next day on the UK government’s website (that’s what I do).

A lot of the content is entirely predictable.

More money to Ukraine, with a promise the UK will “lead the way in championing security around the world”. More online censorship via the “Online Safety Bill”. A compulsory register for homeschooled children via the “Schools Reform Bill”.

There’s also mention of “securing the constitution” by introducing the UK’s own “Bill of Rights”. We broke down that particular Trojan Horse back in February.

But the part I found most interesting is the stated plan to “encourage agricultural and scientific innovation at home” via the proposed Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill.

The proposed bill (which, for some reason is not available through the parliament website) follows on from DEFRA’s announced “loosened regulation” of genetic research back in January.

To quote the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB), the legislation would “take certain precision breeding techniques out of the scope of restrictive GMO rules”.

Essentially, this would see new “gene-edited” foods as distinct from old-fashioned “genetically modified” foods, and therefore not subject to the same rules and oversight.

The claimed distinction is that gene editing, as opposed to genetic modification, doesn’t introduce DNA from other species. Therefore, in effect, is merely speeding up what could potentially naturally happen over time.

Now, you might think this is just semantics, and that such a law will just provide a loophole for ALL “genetically modified” foods to simply rebrand themselves as “genetically edited” foods, and thereby avoid regulation. But that is disgustingly cynical and shame on you for even thinking it.

All in all, this is pretty on-message stuff, and not especially surprising. What’s noteworthy is – by pure happenstance, I’m sure – it appears to coincide with a renewed push on the GM food front in other countries all over the world.

In December 2021, Switzerland added an amendment to its moratorium on GMO crops, permitting the use of certain “gene editing” techniques.

Last month, Egypt announced their new strain of GM wheat. Just two days ago, Ethiopia’s National Agricultural Biotechnology Research Center announced they had researched, and the country will now be growing, genetically modified cotton and maize.

Despite Russia’s sweeping ban on the cultivation and/or importing of genetically modified crops, they have nonetheless created a 111 billion Ruble project to create up to 30 varieties of genetically edited plants and farm animals.

Britain’s deregulation of GM food is always described as a “post-Brexit” move – with the EU chided around the world for its “precautionary principle” on GM crops – and yet as long ago as last April, the EU was calling for a “rethink” on GM crops.

In fact, just today, European Biotechnology Magazine reports:

The EU Commission has launched its final consultation on the deregulation of new breeding techniques in agriculture


So, we’re seeing a sudden increase in the variety of GM crops available and a simultaneous push for deregulation of the industry in Western nations.

Why would they be doing this now?

Well, there is a food crisis.

Or, more accurately, they have just created a food crisis. And as the cliched Hegelian dialectic inevitably goes, their manufactured “problem” is now in need of their contrived “solution”.

We should expect to see genetic engineering pitched as a solution to our food crisis in the very near future… like yesterday. Or indeed, two months ago.

That’s how fast they work now, with barely a pretence at concealing the plan. Spitting out the answer so fast they make it obvious they knew the question beforehand.

On March 15th, when the “special operation” in Ukraine was less than 3 weeks old, the Times was already headlining:

War forces farmers to think again about GM crops

… and reporting:

Genetic modification could make Britain’s food system less susceptible to geopolitical turmoil

A week later Verdict published an article titled “Improving food self-sufficiency with GM crops during geopolitical crises”

Last week, the Times of Israel asked:

Can gene editing help farmers satisfy the rising demand for food?

Four days ago, the Manila Times published an article titled “In times of food scarcity: Revisiting genetically modified crops”.

Two days ago (so before the Queen’s speech specifically mentioning the gene editing bill), Scotland’s Press & Journal ran an opinion piece headlined: “Scottish Government must lift GM crop ban to ease cost of living crisis”.

Yesterday, the “information services” company IHS Markit published an article on GM regulation in Europe, in which they claimed:

The Ukraine-Russia conflict has demonstrated the fragility and vulnerability of global and European food supply chains. Around the world, governments in leading agricultural-producing countries are now catching up with the United States, both to better legislate gene-edited (GE) products, as well as differentiate them from the older Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) technology, and its negative connotations to some consumers, commentators, farmers, retailers, politicians and lawmakers.

And just today, the Genetic Literacy Project published an article by Ukrainian-Canadian David Zaruk, railing against the EU’s “precautionary principle” on GMOs and calling for an embracing of “new technology” to prevent widespread hunger and increase food sovereignty.

It goes on and on and on.


Of course, it’s not all about the food crisis – giving corporate giants free rein to genetically alter all the food we eat will also be good for the planet. They talk about that a lot recently.

On February 8th this year, the University of Bonn published a new study claiming “Genetic engineering can have a positive effect on the climate”

On February 24th this year, the Cornell-based NGO “Alliance for Science” published an article claiming “GMOs could shrink Europe’s climate footprint”, based on the study mentioned above.

In a response to the Queen’s Speech, the UK’s National Institute of Agriculture and Botany claimed that genetic modification will make farming “more sustainable”.

In a reminder we’re not just talking about crops but genetically engineering livestock as well, in February Deutsche Welle suggested that genetically altered “Climate sheep and eco pigs could combat global heating”.

Three weeks ago, Stuff.NZ asked simply:

Can GM save the planet?”

The narrative is clearly set: Genetically engineered food will save us all from the food crisis, and global warming too. Plus anything else they can think of.


Not content with the semi-constant fluffing of the GM business, the MSM are also turning their guns on organic farming and giving it both barrels.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Ukraine Crisis Reveals the Folly of Organic Farming: As food prices skyrocket, the world needs to admit it can’t live without modern, efficient agriculture.

The Telegraph blames organic farming policies for tipping Sri Lanka into bloody chaos”

The “Allliance for Science” article mentioned above goes out of its way to criticise the EU’s pro-organic “farm to fork” plans, claiming “[organic farming] has lower yields and would be associated with increases in global [greenhouse gas] emissions by causing land-use changes elsewhere”.

Meanwhile, Erik Fyrwald, the CEO of the Swiss agrochemicals group Syngenta (so possessing somewhat of a conflict of interests), told Swiss newspaper NZZ am Sonntag that the West must “stop organic farming to help future food crisis”, adding that organic farming is worse for the planet, because ploughing up fields releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

We already saw wellness “cults” accused of peddling “anti-vax conspiracy theories” last year, this will easily extend to organic farmers and their customers.

NOTE: In an interesting (again, probably totally accidental) parallel, the currently simmering “Bird Flu outbreak” has also hit organic and free-range farmers hard, with one (sponsored) Guardian article asking if “year-round” bird flu could spell “the end of free-range eggs”.


Having just seen how the Covid19 “vaccine” campaign unfolded, it’s not hard to see how the pro-GM push will go from here. Genome-edited crops and farm animals are going to become the new “settled science”.

They will be sold to the public as cheapermore nutritious, better for the environment and good for “preventing future pandemics” (yes, they literally did say that already).

Naturally, anyone who resists the push for gene-edited food, and/or mourns the planned death of organic farming, will be accused of “questioning the science”.

Eating British GM foods will be “doing your part” and “helping Ukraine”, while people who want more expensive organic products will be deemed “unpatriotic” or “selfish”.

Just as we saw Covid sceptics denounced as spreading “Russian disinformation”, despite Russia’s willing complicity in the Covid lie, those who argue against genome-edited food will be said to be “sharing Russian talking points” or “doing Putin’s work for him” despite Russia being well onboard the gene-editing train.

It all gets very predictable from there. Organic farmers will probably be “anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist Russian spies” by the end of the summer.

… This probably explains why Bill Gates was buying up so much farmland last year, too.

May 11, 2022 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

Nina Jankowicz, Disinfo Board chief, voiced support for UK government setting standards for acceptable speech

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | May 11, 2022

The head of the Department of Homeland Security’s new controversial Disinformation Governance Board recommended the idea of the government setting speech standards during testimony in the UK Parliament last year.

When asked by a lawmaker if the government should set minimum speech standards, like banning misogyny on the internet, Nina Jankowicz agreed.

Read the transcript here.

She went on to suggest that the communications watchdog should set the standards and fine tech platforms for non-compliance.

“For Ofcom [the UK’s communications regulator] to be able to establish the minimum standards that would be applied to all platforms and incur fines would be a useful starting point,” Jankowicz said. “That could be based, again, on the preexisting terms of service.”

Jankowicz said that alternative platforms, which are pro-free speech would be a problem, and blasted them for supporting “freedom of expression and fairy dust.”

Another idea she sold to UK lawmakers was social media companies being forced to hand over data to the government for censorship purposes.

“The social media platforms can do that if they are compelled to,” she said. She added that “you or Ofcom would need to determine exactly what measures you would like to see and compel the social media platforms to hand over that data.”

Jankowicz also promoted the idea of content demotion and shadow banning saying it, “… is not only about taking down content. It can be about demoting content to and saying ‘You can shout in the black void, but you do not get a huge audience to do that,’” she said. She continued to explain that demoting content would “allow us to get around some of the free speech concerns.”

May 11, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | 2 Comments

FDA announces FIVE meetings in June to push Novavax in adults, Moderna in kids 0-17, and Pfizer in kids under 5

The blitzkrieg culminates with a “Future Framework” to automatically deem all reformulated Covid-19 shots as “safe and effective” WITHOUT further clinical trials

By Toby Rogers | May 11, 2022

I. FDA goes full Shock & Awe in the attempt to get several toxic shots authorized in quick succession

In a little noticed article in the Washington Post, the FDA revealed that they are going to hold FIVE meetings of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) in June. FIVE! The meetings have not been officially announced on the FDA website yet but the best guess at this point is as follows:

June 7, Novavax in adults
June 8, Moderna in adolescents (delayed for a year because of myocarditis concerns)
June 21, Moderna in kids <6
June 22, Pfizer in kids <5
June 28, “Future Framework” for Covid-19 shots

This is very troubling. It means that the FDA is shifting into Shock & Awe military strategy to try to push through five authorizations in quick succession — so that the public does not have time to think and react. This is not the proper way to do science, it is an attack on democracy, and if they succeed, the FDA will kill and injure millions of American for years to come.

Let’s talk about what we know about each of these shots and then talk about what we can do to stop the FDA from destroying our country.

II. Novavax is terrible and useless

Novavax is a protein subunit vaccine. Fellow Substacker Robyn Chuter has done the best deep dive that I’ve seen on Novavax:

Novavax – hope or hype?

Robyn reviewed 3 Novavax clinical trials and the results are always terrible:

• No reductions in hospitalizations.
• No reductions in deaths.
• Tiny absolute risk reduction for a couple months (and then, after six months, the control group gets injected too so there is no long term data).
• Significant risk of adverse events in the vaccinated group.

This is not a surprise. The SARS-CoV-2 virus was never a good candidate for a vaccine (in the same way that HIV and the common cold have never had a successful vaccine in spite of decades of efforts). Recombinant proteins are not safer nor more effective than mRNA — they just fails in different ways. Novavax also uses a proprietary new adjuvant, “Matrix M”, that is not well studied.

III. Moderna mRNA shots in adolescents and kids are useless and terrible

A few days ago, I did a deep dive into the problems with the Moderna mRNA shot in kids. To summarize briefly:

• The Moderna application to inject adolescents has been held up since June 2021, because the Moderna shot increases the risk of myocarditis.

• Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway have all suspended the use of the Moderna mRNA shot in teenagers because it leads to myocarditis. Finland and Sweden even suspended its use in men under 30 years old.

• We have no data from the Moderna clinical trial in kids younger than 12 other than selective leaks to the NY Times. But we know that even with Moderna rigging the trials, the shot made no difference on clinically significant outcomes including infection, hospitalization, ICU visits, or death.

However the Moderna shot did cause fevers in 15% to 17% of kids and fevers over 104 degrees in 0.2% of kids (which, if you multiply that by the 18 million kids they want to inject = 36,000 kids with potentially permanent neurological injury from a shot that provides no benefit).

IV. Pfizer mRNA shots in kids under 5 are useless and terrible

I’ve done several articles on the dangers of Pfizer mRNA shots in kids under 5. To summarize briefly:

• There is no Covid emergency for children under five years old. The CDC’s own research shows that 74.2% of kids 0-11 already had natural immunity. That was as of February 2022 — by now the number is probably closer to 100%.

• The Pfizer mRNA shot does not work very well in kids. The Pfizer clinical trial in kids 6 months to four years old failed in December 2021 and failed again in February 2022. A study by the NY State Department of Health shows that against the Omicron variant, after one month the Pfizer shot was only 12% effective in kids 5 to 11. After 6 weeks, vaccine effectiveness was a shocking MINUS 41% (vaccinated children were significantly more likely to catch Covid than the unvaccinated).

• The harms from the Pfizer mRNA shot in children are catastrophic. There are now 47,736 VAERS reports of adverse events in children following Covid-19 shots. These reports likely understate harms by a factor of 41 to 100. There are numerous reports of fatalities in children following Covid-19 shots (including reports that mysteriously disappear).

For those who want more details, Michael Palmer, MD; Sucharit Bhakdi, MD; and Wolfgang Wodarg, MD produced a 50 page guide, “On the use of the Pfizer and the Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in children and adolescents.”

V. The FDA’s proposed “Future Framework” for Covid-19 Vaccines is the worst idea in the history of public health

The “Future Framework” is how the FDA plans to rig the process in perpetuity. The “Future Framework” will take the” “flu strain selection process” that is used every year — and apply it to future (reformulated) Covid-19 shots.

Manufacturers love this because then all future Covid-19 shots will be deemed automatically “safe and effective” WITHOUT FURTHER CLINICAL TRIALS because they are “biologically similar” to existing Covid-19 shots.

This approach does not work with the flu shot (last year the flu shot was somewhere between 0% and 14% effective) and it will not work with Covid-19 shots either.

Moderna is already signaling that they want to manufacture a Covid-19 shot with Wuhan and Beta strains — even though neither strain is still in widespread circulation.

If the “Future Framework” is approved, there will be no future clinical trial data submitted to the FDA in connection with Covid-19 shots in perpetuity.

VI. What is to be done. Talking points.

I imagine we are all tempted to just say/write:

• No Novavax in adults.
• No Moderna in adolescents.
• No Moderna in little kids.
• No Pfizer in little kids.
• No “Future Framework”.

The problem with that approach is that negating a frame reinforces a frame. So the more we just say NO, the more we reinforce the very thing we are trying to stop.

Furthermore, we do not want to leave the bougiecrats in an existential abyss because they are incapable of original thought. So if we just say no, they will not know what to do with themselves and will become panicked and vengeful and start lashing out.

So let’s find a way to reframe and give our country a path out of this valley of misery. My proposed talking points are as follows.

1. The FDA must revoke the existing authorizations for Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J Covid-19 shots and withdraw them from the market immediately. SARS-CoV-2 was never a good candidate for a vaccine. These shots do not stop infection, transmission, hospitalization, nor death. They appear to have negative efficacy and are driving the evolution of variants that evade vaccines. The pandemic will never stop as long as the FDA and CDC are promoting shots that lack sterilizing immunity.

2. The FDA and CDC must pivot to therapeutics. This was always the answer. The CDC’s own research showed that chloroquine is safe and effective for prophylaxis and early treatment of SARS coronaviruses (hydroxychloroquine is even safer than chloroquine). The best frontline doctors have found that ivermectin is a life saver if used early. About twenty off-the-shelf treatments are more effective than vaccines. Get these safe and effective medicines to people who need them and let doctors be doctors again and treat patients based on their own best clinical judgment.

3. Vaccine safety assessments must be based on actual science. That means:
• Large (50,000+ person) double blind randomized controlled trials with inert saline placebos conducted by an independent third party.
• Safety and efficacy studies for two years prior to any application followed by 20 years of follow up (with the control group intact).
• Greater than 90% efficacy with less than 1% Grade 3 Adverse Events.
• Proper monitoring for carcinogenesis, mutagenesis, and impairment of fertility.

VII. What is to be done. Whom to contact:

Please reach out and find a way to awaken the moral core of these 36 people:

You can use the talking points from above or share your own story and insights.

Political appointees:

Xavier Becerra
Secretary, Health & Human Services
200 Independence Avenue S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
c/o Sean McCluskie

Robert Califf
FDA Commissioner
Food and Drug Administration
Mail stop: HF-1
10903 New Hampshire Ave.
Silver Spring MD 20993-0002
phone: (301) 796-5400
fax: (301) 847-8752

Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH
White House Covid Czar
Brown University School of Public Health
121 South Main Street
Providence RI 02903

Rochelle Walensky
Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Roybal Building 21, Rm 12000
1600 Clifton Rd
Atlanta, GA 30333
phone: (404) 639-7000

FDA staff:

Peter Marks
Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
FDA, Mail stop: HFM-2
10903 New Hampshire Ave., WO71-7232
Silver Spring MD 20993-0002
phone: (240) 402-8116
fax: (301) 595-1310

Hong Yang
Biologist, FDA/CBER/OBE
Building WO71, Room 5338
Mail stop: HFM-210
Silver Spring MD 20993-0002
phone: (240) 402-8836
fax: (301) 595-1240

Richard Forshee
Associate Director, FDA/CBER/OBE
Building, WO71, Room 5342
Silver Spring MD 20993-0002
phone: (240) 402-8631
fax: (301) 595-1240

Hui-Lee Wong
Associate Director for Innovation and Development,
Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology,
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
White Oak Building 71, Room 5222
Silver Spring MD 20993-0002
phone: (240) 402-0473

Leslie Ball
Office of Vaccines Research and Review
Division of Vaccines and Related Products Applications,
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
Building WO22, Room 6156
Silver Spring MD 20993-0002
phone: (301) 796-3399

Doran L. Fink
Deputy Director – Clinical
Division of Vaccines and Related Products Applications
Office of Vaccines Research and Review, CBER
Mail stop HFM-475
Building WO71, Room 3314
Silver Spring MD 20993-0002
phone: (301) 796-1159

VRBPAC Members:

Hana El Sahly, M.D., Chair VRBPAC
Associate Professor
Department of Molecular Virology and Microbiology
Department of Medicine
Section of Infectious Diseases
Baylor College of Medicine
Houston, TX 77030

Paula Annunziato, M.D.
Vice President and Therapeutic Area Head
Vaccines Clinical Research
North Wales, PA 19454

Adam C. Berger, Ph.D.
Director, Division of Clinical and Healthcare Research Policy
Office of Science Policy
Office of the Director
National Instituters of Health
6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 630
Bethesda, MD 20892
(301) 827-9676

Henry H. Bernstein, D.O.
Professor of Pediatrics
Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell
Department of Pediatrics
Cohen Children’s Medical Center
New Hyde Park, NY 11042
phone: (516) 838-6415 (office)
fax: (516) 465-5399

Captain Amanda Cohn
Chief Medical Officer
National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Rd
Atlanta, GA 30333 MS C-09
phone: (404) 639-6039
fax: (404) 315-4679

Holly Janes, Ph.D.
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center •
Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division
1100 Fairview Avenue North,
P.O. Box 19024
Seattle, Washington 98109 U.S.A.
phone: (206) 667.6353

Hayley Gans, M.D.
Professor of Pediatrics
Department of Pediatrics
Stanford University Medical Center
Stanford, CA 94305
phone: (650) 723-5682
fax: (650) 725-8040

David Kim, M.D.
CAPT, U.S. Public Health Services
Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
330 C Street SW, Suite L600
Washington, DC 20024
phone: (202) 795-7636

Arnold Monto, M.D.
Professor Emeritus
Department of Epidemiology
University of Michigan School of Public Health
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
phone: (734) 764-5453
fax: (734) 764-3192

Paul Offit, M.D.
Professor of Pediatrics
Division of Infectious Diseases
Abramson Research Building
The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
Philadelphia, PA 19104
phone: (215) 590-2020

Steven Pergam, M.D.
Medical Director
Infection Prevention
Seattle Cancer Care Alliance
Seattle, WA 98109
phone: (206) 667-7126

Jay Portnoy, M.D.
Director, Division of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology
Children’s Mercy Hospitals & Clinics
2401 Gillham Road
Kansas City, MO 64108
phone: (816) 960-8885
fax: (816) 960-8888

Eric Rubin, M.D., Ph.D.
New England Journal of Medicine
Adjunct Professor
Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health
665 Huntington Ave
Building 1, Room 811
Boston, MA  02115
phone: (617) 432-3335

Andrea Shane, M.D.
Professor of Pediatrics
Emory University School of Medicine
2015 Uppergate Drive NE, Rm. 504A
Atlanta, GA 30322
phone: (404) 727-9880 (direct)
(404) 727-5642 (main)
fax: (404) 727-8249

Geeta K. Swamy, M.D.
Senior Associate Dean
Vice Chair for Research & Faculty Development
Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine
Duke University
Box 3967 Med Ctr,
Durham, NC 27710
phone: (919) 681-5220

Temporary VRBPAC members (but their votes count just the same):

A. Oveta Fuller, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Microbiology and Immunology,
University of Michigan Medical School
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
phone: (734) 647-3830

Randy Hawkins, M.D.
Charles Drew University
1731 E. 120th St.
Los Angeles, CA 90059
(323) 563-4800

James Hildreth, Sr., Ph.D., M.D.
Department of Internal Medicine
School of Medicine
President and Chief Executive Officer
Meharry Medical College
Nashville, TN 37205

Jeannette Lee, Ph.D.
Professor Department of Biostatistics
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
Little Rock, AR 72701
phone: (501) 526-6712

Ofer Levy, M.D., Ph.D.
Staff Physician & Principal Investigator
Director, Precision Vaccines Program
Division of Infectious Diseases
Boston Children’s Hospital
Harvard Medical School Associate Member
phone: (617) 919-2900
fax: (617) 730-0254

Wayne Marasco
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
450 Brookline Avenue
Jimmy Fund 824
Boston, MA 02215
Phone: (617) 632-2153
fax: (617) 632-3889

H. Cody Meissner, M.D.
Professor of Pediatrics
Tufts University School of Medicine
Director, Pediatric Infectious Disease
Tufts Medical Center
Boston, MA 02111
phone: (617) 636-5227
fax: (617) 636-4300

Michael Nelson, M.D., Ph.D.
Professor of Medicine
Asthma, Allergy and Immunology Division
UVA Division of Asthma, Allergy & Immunology
PO Box 801355
Charlottesville, VA 22908
phone: (434) 297-8399
fax: (434) 924-5779

Stanley Perlman, M.D., Ph.D.
Professor of Pediatrics
University of Iowa
3-712 Bowen Science Building (BSB)
51 Newton Rd
Iowa City, IA 52242
phone: (319) 335-8549

Mark Sawyer, M.D.
Professor of Clinical Pediatrics
8110 Birmingham Way
Bldg. 28, 1st Floor
San Diego, CA 92123
phone: (858) 966-7785
fax: (858) 966-8658

Melinda Wharton, M.D., MPH
Associate Director for Vaccine Policy
National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
1600 Clifton Road, Mailstop E05,
Atlanta, GA 30333
phone: (404) 639.8755
fax: (404) 639.8626

I know that we’re all weary. We’ve been battling Pharma fascism for the last two years and battling against the FDA every day for the last few months. I imagine it’ll take about an hour to call or write to all 36 people on this list. It’s a heavy lift. But that’s the price of liberty. This is what it’s going to take to save our Republic. So let’s fire up our computers and get out our phones and generate the largest response in the history of the movement. Let’s make history together!

May 11, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | , , | 1 Comment

EU, UK join US in launching online ‘disinformation’ policies, ‘one-world governance’ of social media

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | May 11, 2022

The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and the U.K.’s proposed Online Safety Bill are among the latest government policies designed to hold social media companies responsible for hate speech and “disinformation” posted by users.

Experts interviewed by The Defender expressed concerns about the potential slippery slope of regulations — in the U.S. and overseas — which, under the guise of “combating disinformation,” stifle the spread of information deemed inconvenient for governments and other powerful actors.

As reported by The Defender, in the U.S., these proposals include a government “disinformation board” and a bill pending before Congress, the Digital Services Oversight and Safety Act.

The EU’s new regulations, experts said, may have far-reaching impacts beyond Europe.

Michael Rectenwald, author of “Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom,” said he can foresee a future in which such regulations might affect all speech — not just speech on social media platforms.

Rectenwald told The Defender :

“[T]he EU’s DSA represents a major step toward one-world governance of social media and Internet search and one step closer to global government.

“Since the distinction between ‘on-line’ and ‘off-line’ activity will lose all meaning as the Internet includes the Internet of Things and Bodies, the DSA may become the law of the land.”

Is EU’s Digital Services Act on collision course with Musk’s Twitter plans?

In timing that coincided with Elon Musk’s intent to purchase Twitter, the EU announced April 23 the passage of the Digital Services Act (DSA).

The DSA seeks to tackle the spread of “misinformation and illegal content” and will apply “to all online intermediaries providing services in the EU,” in proportion to “the nature of the services concerned” and the number of users of each platform.

According to the DSA, “very large online platforms” (VLOPs) and “very large online search engines” (VLOSEs) — those with more than 45 million monthly active users in the EU — will be subject to the most stringent of the DSA’s requirements.

Big Tech companies will be obliged to perform annual risk assessments to ascertain the extent to which their platforms “contribute to the spread of divisive material that can affect issues like health,” and independent audits to determine the steps the companies are taking to prevent their platforms from being “abused.”

These steps come as part of a broader crackdown on the “spread of disinformation” called for by the Act, requiring platforms to “flag hate speech, eliminate any kind of terrorist propaganda” and implement “frameworks to quickly take down illicit content.”

Regarding alleged “disinformation,” these platforms will be mandated to create a “crisis response mechanism” to combat the spread of such content, with the Act specifically citing the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the “manipulation” of online content that has ensued.

The DSA also will ban certain types of advertising on digital platforms, including targeted ads tailored to children or to people of specific ethnicities or sexual orientations.

Tech companies also will be required to increase transparency in the form of providing regulators and researchers “access to data on how their systems recommend content to users.”

This latter point appears similar to Musk’s plans to make Twitter’s algorithms “open source to increase trust.”

Companies violating the provisions of the DSA would risk fines of up to 6% of their total global annual revenue, while repeat offenses may result in the platforms being banned from the EU — despite the “open internet” principle professed by the principle of “net neutrality” enshrined in EU law.

According to Techcrunch, the DSA will not fully come into effect until early 2024. However, rules for VLOPs have a shorter implementation period and may be enforced by early 2023.

A spokesperson for the European Commission — the EU’s executive branch — said the new regulations will ensure Big Tech’s “power over public debate is subject to democratically validated rules, in particular on transparency and accountability.”

Margrethe Vestager, the vice president of the European Commission, added, “With today’s agreement we ensure that platforms are held accountable for the risks their services can pose to society and citizens,” and, “With the DSA we help create a safe and accountable online environment.”

Directly addressing Musk, the European Commission’s internal market commissioner, Thierry Breton, tweeted, “Be it cars or social media, any company operating in Europe needs to comply with our rules — regardless of their shareholding. Mr. Musk knows this well,” adding, “[Musk] is familiar with European rules on automotive [referring to Musk’s ownership of Tesla Motors], and will quickly adapt to the Digital Services Act.”

Separately, Breton stated, “We welcome everyone. We are open but on our conditions. At least we know what to tell him: ‘Elon, there are rules. You are welcome but these are our rules. It’s not your rules which will apply here.’”

Breton’s warning to Musk bears a striking resemblance to the statements of then-German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, who in 2015 warned the newly elected left-wing Greek government not to entertain thoughts about renegotiating the austerity measures imposed on the country by the EU and International Monetary Fund, stating, “Elections change nothing. There are rules.”

Voice of America, a media outlet reflective of official U.S. government policy, reported “the job of reining in a Musk-led Twitter could fall to Europe,” referring to the DSA.

According to Gizmodo, the EU’s new legislation “could have global reverberations,” adding, “Lawmakers are also hoping it could serve as a model for other countries like India and Japan.”

However, Gizmodo warns the success of the DSA in accomplishing its objectives is far from guaranteed, referring to the example of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): “Some predicted [the GDPR] would fundamentally shift online privacy protection worldwide, and instead [it] basically just gave us those insufferable cookie permission pop-ups.”

While the DSA would apply to all 27 EU member states, some of these countries have already enacted similar domestic legislation. For instance, Germany has regulations in place that require digital platforms to remove hate speech within 24 hours or face fines of up to €50 million ($56 million).

Techcrunch, in reporting on the passage of the DSA, referred to legislation in countries not frequently noted for their democratic traditions or respect for free speech, such as China, TurkeyIndia and Nigeria.

As Techcrunch stated, platforms in these countries found to be “non-compliant” with domestic mandates may face fines, police raids, shutdowns and prison sentences for their executives.

Similar regulations pending in U.K.

Legislation similar to the DSA, the Online Safety Bill, is pending in the U.K. It would require Big Tech platforms to moderate “illegal” and “harmful” content in order to be allowed to operate in the U.K.

The bill would require digital platforms to protect users from such “harmful” content, with the threat of fines of up to 10% of global turnover for companies found in violation, as well as potential prison time for senior managers of these companies in cases of non-compliance.

A spokesperson for the U.K. government said:

“Twitter and all social media platforms must protect their users from harm on their sites.

“We are introducing new online safety laws to safeguard children, prevent abusive behaviour and protect free speech.

“All tech firms with users in the U.K. will need to comply with the new laws or face hefty fines and having their sites blocked.”

Max Blain, a spokesperson for U.K. prime minister Boris Johnson, said, “Regardless of ownership, all social media platforms must be responsible” for “protecting” users.

As The Defender recently reported, Damian Collins, a member of the British parliament with the British Labour Party who led a parliamentary committee that developed the Online Safety Bill, is a board member of the Center for Combating Digital Hate, which partners with prominent “fact-checking” firm NewsGuard.

As previously reported by The Defender, NewsGuard, in turn, closely collaborates with the World Health Organization (WHO), which also recently expressed concerns about Musk’s purchase of Twitter.

As U.S., EU  sign commitment to ‘democratic values’ on the internet as they prepare policies to regulate online speech

Overshadowed by the news of Musk’s Twitter purchase and developments such as the DSA and the Biden administration’s “disinformation board,” several dozen countries quietly signed the “Declaration for the Future of the Internet” April 28.

Fifty-six countries and entities, including the U.S. and the EU, signed this declaration, described as “a political commitment to push rules for the internet that are underpinned by democratic values” and a response to Russia “wielding internet disruptions as a part of its escalating attacks on Ukraine.”

U.S. News reports that the declaration — which is not legally binding — is the first of its kind globally, and “protects human rights, promotes free flow of information, protects the privacy of users, and sets rules for a growing global digital economy among steps to counter what two Biden administration officials called a ‘dangerous new model’ of internet policy from countries such as Russia and China.”

According to the U.S. State Department, the declaration’s principles include:

  • Protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of all people.
  • Promote a global Internet that advances the free flow of information.
  • Advance inclusive and affordable connectivity so that all people can benefit from the digital economy.
  • Promote trust in the global digital ecosystem, including through protection of privacy.
  • Protect and strengthen the multi-stakeholder approach to governance that keeps the Internet running for the benefit of all.

In turn, the declaration was described by the EU as being “in line with the rights and principles strongly anchored in the EU.”

EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, known for her strong support of digital “vaccine passports” throughout the EU, stated:

“Today, for the first time, like-minded countries from all over the world are setting out a shared vision for the future of the Internet, to make sure that the values we hold true offline are also protected online, to make the Internet a safe place and trusted space for everyone, and to ensure that the Internet serves our individual freedom.

“Because the future of the Internet is also the future of democracy, of humankind.”

Thierry Breton remarked:

“This Declaration will ensure that the Internet and the use of digital technologies reinforce, not weaken, democracy and respect for human rights.”

According to the State Department, “[t]he Declaration remains open to all governments or relevant authorities willing to commit and implement its vision and principles.”

What does all this mean for Musk, Twitter and the future of free speech online?

Social media analysts and experts expressed varying opinions and predictions as to what regulations such as the DSA may mean for the global operations of digital platforms such as Twitter — especially if Musk attempts to make good on his pledges to “restore free speech.”

Vasilis Vasilopoulos, data protection officer with Greek public broadcaster ERT and a Ph.D. candidate in journalism and mass media studies at Greece’s Aristotle University, told The Defender there are some positive elements to the DSA.

However, the boundaries of what is considered free speech should also be expanded, albeit within certain limits, he said.

Vasilopoulos added:

“The DSA is not the only means through which the problem of unethical [social media] algorithms with deceptive motives, or the unethical use of social media platforms, can be solved.

“[I]t is obvious that these platforms have surpassed the limits to democracy that we believed existed, and therefore, it is important that instead of imposing restrictions, we expand these boundaries, in favor of humanity and not capital or power.”

Matthew Spitzer, professor at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, said the EU’s proposals in particular may clash with Musk’s stated goals for Twitter, telling The Defender :

“[The DSA] may interfere with one of Elon Musk’s stated goals for buying Twitter. He seems to want less content moderation. But this regulation requires a lot of it.

“Second, this regulation dovetails with Musk’s stated desire for increased transparency. He had promised more transparency.”

Spitzer added his view that the DSA will likely increase the cost of operation for all social media companies, especially if they must also conform to domestic laws passed by various EU member states.

He added that U.S. tech companies may represent an easy target for European regulators, telling The Defender :

“[T]here will be conflicts between the USA and Europe … all of the target companies started in the USA. They are easy political targets in Europe.”

Referring specifically to Elon Musk and Twitter, Rectenwald said:

“If Musk is to have his way, the platform would no longer discriminate against content based on ‘wokeness,’ political beliefs, or the adherence to official state narratives and dictates.

“This could include the restoration of banned accounts on request by users and dramatic changes to Twitter’s discriminatory, leftist algorithms.”

According to Rectenwald, the EU’s regulations may “hamstring” Musk’s vision for Twitter and lead to a one-size-fits-all approach to content moderation, resulting in a “slippery slope” wherein “any information and opinion that differs from WHO-established official narratives regarding pandemics or other health-related crises” would be restricted.

Rectenwald said:

“Most likely, in order to meet the EU’s regulatory requirements and to streamline their efforts, VLOPs and VLOSEs will simply apply one set of rules to all online content.”

He also added that further pressures on platforms like Twitter may come not from EU regulators, but from the tech industry itself:

“[P]ressure to conform to ‘woke’ dictates will come from the Big Tech ‘woke’ cartel, including threats to remove the Twitter app from the Apple Store for failure to censor ‘hate speech,’ and the flight of ‘woke’ advertisers.

“Most likely, Musk’s purchase of Twitter will make no difference as free speech is further curtailed.”

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.

May 11, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Biden Disinformation Czar Demands Power to Edit Other People’s Tweets

By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | May 11, 2022

In a newly released video clip, Biden disinformation czar Nina Jankowicz demands that “trustworthy verified people” like her be given the power to edit other people’s tweets, making Twitter more like Wikipedia.

Yes, really.

Asserting that she was “eligible for it because I’m verified,” Jankowicz then bemoaned the fact there are people on Twitter with different opinions to her who also have the blue tick but “shouldn’t be verified” because they’re “not trustworthy.”

“So verified people can essentially start to edit Twitter the same sort of way that Wikipedia is so they can add context to certain tweets,” said Jankowicz.

She then provided the example, which she claimed was non-political, of President Trump tweeting about voter fraud.

“Someone could add context from one of the 60 lawsuits that went through the court or something that an election official in one of the states said, perhaps your own Secretary of State and his news conferences, something like that,” said Jankowicz.

“Adding context so that people have a fuller picture rather than just an individual claim on a tweet,” she added.

Of course, Twitter already slaps warning labels on such tweets, but now Jankowicz wants approved regime propagandists to be empowered to insert their narrative on an individual basis.

Also note how two of the other participants in the conversation were wearing face masks, despite it being a remote Zoom call.

As we previously highlighted, Jankowicz was handed the role of overseeing Biden’s ‘Ministry of Truth’ despite revealing that free speech makes her “shudder” while also promoting the lie that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation.

Jankowicz also ludicrously cited Christopher Steele as an expert on disinformation. Steele was the author of the infamous Clinton campaign-funded Trump ‘peegate’ dossier’ that turned out to be an actual product of disinformation.

But yeah, a person with a proven track record of pushing disinformation and hyper-partisanship should totally be given the power to edit tweets she disagrees with.

May 11, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Video | | 3 Comments

The Vaccine Cajolers, Part 1: How jab zealots set out to stifle sceptics

THIS is the first of a special five-part investigation into the way in which, and why, winning ‘vaccine confidence’ became the primary goal of world health agencies, regardless of need, efficacy or risk. 

By Paula Jardine | TCW Defending Freedom | May 11, 2022

Since the UK’s Covid-19 vaccine programme began in December 2020, 140million doses have been administered to 55million people, representing 73 per cent of the population.

The high level of acceptance of these vaccines, which were developed in one tenth of the normal time frame – and in the case of the mRNA vaccines using a novel technology never previously licensed for use in either humans or animals – is a remarkable testament to the level of public trust in vaccines.

It is arguably the end product of two decades of work, first by GAVI, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisations (now called The Vaccine Alliance) and recently by initiatives such as that of the London-based Vaccine Confidence Project, established to deliver the goal of universal childhood vaccination set 40 years ago by UNICEF, the United Nations children’s welfare organisation.

GAVI was set up in 1999  ‘to save children’s lives and protect people’s health through the widespread use of safe vaccines, with a particular focus on the needs of developing countries.’

It was founded at the instigation of Dr Seth Berkeley, its current CEO, who was then working for the Rockefeller Foundation. ‘We will have an outside body that can bring in industry (which the World Health Organisation can’t legally do), do advocacy and build a truly international alliance,’ he said.

The Vaccine Alliance, a public-private partnership financed by vaccine manufacturers, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and national governments, aimed to give impetus to the universal vaccination campaign and to revitalise the fortunes of a stagnating market for new vaccines. The UK government is currently is largest single donor, having made a five-year pledge in 2020 of £1.65billion.

Its initial focus was on gaining the ‘long-term commitment of client governments and donors to full immunisation’, the latter implying vaccination on schedule and for every possible disease. This was different to its twin, the concept of universal vaccination.

When GAVI was launched, a UNICEF employee and anthropologist, Dr Heidi Larson – who would later found the Vaccine Confidence Project – was chosen to lead its vaccine communications and advocacy work.

She later explained how the nature of the advocacy was soon to evolve away from the initial focus on client governments.

‘There was a growing epidemic of individuals and communities and even some government officials questioning and refusing vaccines,’ she said. ‘I ended up getting the nickname “Director of UNICEF’s Fire Department,” because it turned out to be a crisis management position, because people weren’t taking vaccines.

‘I saw what seemed to be a trend: The northern Nigeria boycott of the polio program made it into the international press, but it wasn’t one place, it was everywhere.

‘I didn’t have time in my day job to investigate what was going on there, because there was not a quick fix. That’s when I put together a proposal and got some seed money and founded the Vaccine Confidence Project.’

There is no seminal document laying out a case for universal vaccination. As a public policy objective, it originated with the Rockefeller Foundation (RF). Its end goal is to eradicate diseases one-by-one via vaccination, the so-called vertical approach to public health introduced by the RF soon after its founding in 1913. It was part of a package of cheap, technological quick fixes for health care in developing countries originally called Selective Primary Health Care.

These interim measures were necessary because matching the industrialised world’s standards of sanitation, clean water, nutrition and health care to reduce the disease burden was ‘prohibitively expensive’.

An RF trustee, James P Grant, had been appointed executive director of UNICEF in 1980, operating it as a rival to the vaccine-agnostic World Health Organisation of his era.

In 1980, in an article on the eradication of smallpox, WHO director-general Dr Halfdan Mahler did not even mention vaccines. Rather, he stressed: ‘Smallpox eradication is a sign, a token, of what can be achieved in breaking out of the cycle of ill-health, disease and poverty.’

But Grant engaged in what the New York Times called ‘tireless, peripatetic proselytising’, using his UNICEF pulpit to zealously promote vaccination.

With rearguard reinforcement from the US Centres for Disease Control (CDC), by 1984 he had brought the WHO, the agency meant to provide the technical lead, on board with ‘universal’ vaccination.

Today, UNICEF is a quasi-arm of the pharmaceutical industry. Figures in its most recent Immunisation Roadmap document show it is now responsible for distributing 40 per cent of vaccines in developing countries, while its 659 staff spend more than half their time managing immunisation programmes and supply chain logistics.

In Part 2 tomorrow, I will explain how GAVI’s ten-year strategic plan, the Decade of the Vaccine, set out to eliminate vaccine scepticism.

May 11, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

Israel shoots dead Al Jazeera journalist during invasion of Jenin

MEMO | May 11, 2022

Israeli occupation forces shot dead Al Jazeera correspondent Shireen Abu Akleh this morning during an invasion of the northern occupied West Bank city of Jenin.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health said Abu Akleh was shot by a live bullet in the head and rushed to hospital where she was declared dead.

Another reporter, Ali Al-Samudi, was also shot by a live bullet in the back, the ministry said. He was reported to be in a stable condition.

Waleed Al-Omari, Al Jazeera‘s bureau chief in Ramallah, said: “It seems that she was shot by an Israeli sniper.” He added that Abu Akleh had been standing in an area away from Palestinians who were protesting against Israel’s deadly raid of Jenin.

Al-Omari’s account negates Israel’s claim that there had been gunfire in the area to which occupation forces responded.

“During the operation in Jenin refugee camp, suspects fired an enormous amount of gunfire at troops and hurled explosive devices. [Israeli] forces fired back. Hits were identified,” the Israeli army said in a statement.

The army also said it was “looking into the possibility that journalists were injured, potentially by Palestinian gunfire.”

A Palestinian paramedic denied the Israeli army’s claims.

In a statement, Al Jazeera said Israeli occupation forces “assassinated in cold blood” its correspondent. This, it added, was “a blatant murder, violating international laws and norms. Al Jazeera Media Network condemns this heinous crime, which intends to only prevent the media from conducting their duty.”

May 11, 2022 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | , , , | 1 Comment

Russia accuses Lithuania of extremism

Samizdat | May 11, 2022

The Lithuanian parliament’s resolution branding Russia a “supporter of terrorism” amounts to “provocation, extremism and political hypocrisy,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said.

Earlier this week, the Baltic country’s lawmakers unanimously passed a resolution stating that “the Russian Federation, whose military forces deliberately and systematically bomb civilian targets, is a state that supports and practices terrorism.”

Since the beginning of the conflict in late February, Ukraine and Russia have accused each other of shelling residential areas. Kiev denies that it targets civilians, while Moscow insists that it only hits military targets.

On her show on Sputnik radio on Wednesday, Zakharova said the three Baltic countries, all NATO members, have expressed “neither concern, condemnation nor at least bewilderment” over the actions of the alliance in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yugoslavia, which led to “hundreds of thousands of casualties among the civilian population,” and to the “emergence of conflicts in places where they were not even contemplated.”

Because of this, Zakharova argued, there is no point in believing that the Lithuanian parliament’s resolution has anything to do with pacifism or with any desire “to resolve the extremely difficult situation in Ukraine.”

“This should be treated exactly as an element of provocation, extremism and political hypocrisy,” the foreign ministry spokeswoman said, adding: if Lithuania is truly concerned of the fate of Ukraine and of “its own European continent,” it should not have engaged in “provocative activities” over the last eight years, but instead care about the fate of people in Donbass and urge Kiev to observe the Minsk agreements.

If Lithuania is really concerned now, it would call for a ceasefire, oppose the supply of weapons to Kiev, and offer intermediary services, Zakharova said. “Instead, they are doing exactly the opposite.”

Russia attacked the neighboring state following Ukraine’s failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements, first signed in 2014, and Moscow’s eventual recognition of the Donbass republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. The German and French brokered protocols were designed to give the breakaway regions special status within the Ukrainian state.

The Kremlin has since demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join the US-led NATO military bloc. Kiev insists that the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked and has denied claims it was planning to retake the two republics by force.

May 11, 2022 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , | 1 Comment

Who is winning? It is all down to timing

By Gilbert Doctorow | May 11, 2022

Over the course of the past couple of weeks, Johnson’s Russia List, the daily digest of news and commentary about Russia to which a great many American academics and international affairs professionals subscribe, has been filled with articles by respected experts from think tanks, from the universities all explaining why Russia is losing the war.  Some of these analysts specialize in military affairs: they tell us that the Russians do not have sufficient men and materiel to close the cauldron in the Donbas and achieve their objective of destroying Ukraine’s most effective fighting force. Being just a layman in these matters, I read their arguments with concern. This concern is amplified by the writings of other American experts published in JRL who explain how Russia’s failure at arms will precipitate regime change or chaos in the Russian Federation.

Against this background, I was amazed to read today’s Morning Briefing from The New York Times, which seemingly out of nowhere is telling a very different story. It is so remarkable that I copy it uncut below.

Russia makes gains in eastern Ukraine

More than two months into the war in Ukraine, Russia is making some significant territorial gains, even as its invasion has been marred by poor planning, flawed intelligence, low morale and brutal, indiscriminate violence against civilians. Follow the latest updates from the war.

Russian forces have advanced to the border between Donetsk and Luhansk, according to the Russian defense ministry — provinces where Moscow-backed separatists have been fighting Ukraine’s army for eight years. If confirmed, the news makes it more probable that Russia could entirely control the region, known as the Donbas, compared with just a third of it before the invasion.

If Russia can hold on to, or expand, the territory it occupies in the south and east, and maintain its dominion in the Black Sea, it could further undermine Ukraine’s already battered economy, improve Moscow’s leverage in any future negotiated settlement and potentially expand its capacity to stage broader assaults.

To be sure, Russia’s announcements yesterday of successes in reaching the western and northern territorial boundaries of what had been Lugansk oblast before the civil war that began in the summer of 2014 bear on the NYT’s article. However, by just following the daily maps of territories under the control of the Lugansk People’ Republic the “new” conclusion about the overall state of play could have been reached by any military professional without guidance from the Russian Ministry of Defense. I believe the greater factor in the NYT’s change of tune today about who is winning and who is losing the war was the successful passage yesterday of a new 40 billion aid package by Congress. From the standpoint of Washington, “mission accomplished” and now we can move on. The entire logic of that bill was to provide urgently needed assistance to back Kiev in what has been portrayed as a very successful defense and the start of a counter-offensive against the Russians to recover lost ground. If the Ukrainians are seen to be losing, and losing badly, why bother? In this regard, it is worth considering another item in the news today, this time in the pro-Kremlin Russian daily newspaper Rossiiskaya Gazeta: Quote A foolish PR stunt by the Kiev regime to seize Zmeiny Island [in the Black Sea, southwest of Odessa] on the eve of Victory Day led to the senseless death of more than 50 Ukrainian fighters and soldiers from elite subdivisions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. In addition, the Ukrainian army lost 4 planes, 10 helicopters, 3 cutters and 30 drones. This was reported by the representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense, Major General Igor Konashenkov. In particular, during the attempt to seize the island, the Kiev regime lost in the area around the island three SU-24 bombers and one SU-27 fighter jet. Out of the 10 Ukrainian Air Force helicopters which were destroyed, three Mi-8 were shot down with a landing party on board along with one Mi-24 support helicopter. Additionally, six Mi-7 and Mi-24 helicopters which were detached to the operation were destroyed on ground near the city of Artsiz, Odessa oblast. Konashenkov said that three Ukrainian armored Centaur landing craft cutters were destroyed at sea together with their landing parties on board. “Thus, this military adventure ended in catastrophe for Ukraine.”

If this is indicative of the way the long-awaited Ukrainian counter-offensive in Donbas will be managed, it is unlikely the trajectory of the war sketched in today’s New York Times article will be changed in the coming weeks, with or without Mr. Biden’s package of 40 billion dollars of assistance.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2022

May 11, 2022 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | 1 Comment

Association of Tennis Professionals to take action against Wimbledon over Russian ban

Samizdat | May 11, 2022

Wimbledon is likely to be stripped of its rankings points by the ATP men’s tennis tour after a number of leading players condemned the tournament for its ban on Russian and Belarusian players, according to reports.

The decision could be ratified by the ATP board within the next 24 to 48 hours, according to The Telegraph, which reports that chief executive Andrea Gaudenzi “has little choice” but to follow the advice of players on the issue.

The decision would see Wimbledon deprived of its rankings points and would effectively turn this year’s event into an exhibition tournament.

The move has been on the cards since the ATP strongly condemned the announcement on April 20 by the All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC), which organizes the grass court showpiece, that it was banning Russian and Belarusian players because of the conflict in Ukraine.

The decision was mirrored by the UK Lawn Tennis Association (LTA), which will bar players from the two countries from all events in Britain this summer.

UK tennis officials have attempted to justify the ban by saying it is in line with government policy, and that the appearance of stars such as Russian men’s world number two Daniil Medvedev would somehow hand the Russian leadership a propaganda coup.

Both the men’s ATP and women’s WTA tours have suggested that the ban is discriminatory. The two tours have continued to allow Russian and Belarusian players to compete as neutrals – a position shared by the International Tennis Federation (ITF).

Men’s world number one Novak Djokovic has described the Wimbledon sanctions as “crazy,” while 21-time Grand Slam winner Rafael Nadal also said he disagrees with the step. British two-time Wimbledon winner Andy Murray has said is “not supportive” of the ban.

The ATP Player Council includes Nadal, Murray and Swiss icon Roger Federer, as well as nine other men’s stars. Djokovic is part of a separate, independent union.

Players will have an important say in the matter, with three elected player representatives on the ATP board as well as three tournament representatives.

The Daily Mail has reported that a “revolt is brewing” over the issue and that meetings of the ATP hierarchy have been held recently at events in Madrid and Rome.

According to The Telegraph, the women’s WTA “is leaning towards” taking the same step as its male counterpart and is also set to remove rankings points from Wimbledon.

The London Grand Slam – with its mammoth £35 million ($43 million) prize money fund – will still be a major money-spinner for players but will not contribute towards their positions in the world rankings or the race to the end-of-season tour finals.

As a private members’ club, Wimbledon is free to decide which players it invites to the famous tournament at SW19.

Other UK events, however, are held under the auspices of the ATP and WTA and would likely be fined for their non-admittance of Russian and Belarusian players, as well as having rankings points removed.

Aside from US Open champion Medvedev, other big-name stars to be affected by the ban are Russian men’s world number seven Andrey Rublev, Belarusian women’s world number eight Aryna Sabalenka, and two-time Grand Slam winner Victoria Azarenka.

The French Open, which gets underway on May 22, has stated it will not follow in Wimbledon’s footsteps and will allow Russian and Belarusian players to appear as neutrals.

May 11, 2022 Posted by | Russophobia | | 3 Comments