Aletho News


Israel snubs Biden request to halt actions that could embarrass the US President

MEMO | June 16, 2022

US President, Joe Biden, sought assurance from Israel that no action is taken in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem that could create tensions ahead of his controversial visit next month to the Apartheid State. Biden’s team made the request to the Israelis in what seems to be an attempt by the White House to avoid repeating the embarrassment Biden suffered over a decade ago when he visited the territory as Vice President under the administration of Barack Obama.

During the 2010 visit, Biden vowed unyielding American support for Israel’s security. The Israelis returned the favour by humiliating the then vice President with an announcement to build 1,600 new Jewish only houses, in illegal settlements, in occupied East Jerusalem. Biden condemned the move as “precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now.” A statement by the White House condemned “the substance and timing of the announcement.”

Barbara Leaf, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, and her deputy for Israeli-Palestinian affairs, Hady Amr, are laying the groundwork for Biden’s visit scheduled for 13-15 July. Leaf asked Israel to halt actions like home demolitions, evictions of Palestinians and decisions on settlement building, as well as decrease Israeli military operations in the West Bank until after Biden’s visit, officials told Axios.

The Israelis have said they are not able to give such assurances, but they will, nevertheless, try their best. According to Axios, senior members of the Israeli team, including Defence Minister, Benny Gantz, told Leaf they will do their best, but explained the domestic political complexities of halting such actions, in addition to what they called the operational needs of the Israeli military in order to stop attacks.

With the trip coming fresh after the Israeli killing of Palestinian journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh, the Americans are fearful of a global outrage coinciding with Biden’s visit to the Apartheid State. “The Biden administration doesn’t want us to create any crisis in the West Bank … They want quiet and calm” for Biden’s visit, a senior Israeli official is reported saying.

Not only is the US team desperate to avoid embarrassment for Biden, they are also putting together a plan to show that the US President is capable of making progress. Israeli, Palestinian and US officials said Leaf, Amr and US ambassador to Israel, Tom Nides, tried to put together a package of tangible deliverables for the Palestinians to coincide with the Biden visit.

But they did not make significant progress on the package because there are not enough meaningful things the US can give and Israel is not willing to take any steps with political significance that will be enough for the Palestinians, the officials said, according to Axios.

“We need a political horizon. We want to hear President Biden say what his detailed position regarding the two state solution is,” PLO official and adviser to the Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, Hussein Al-Sheikhal-Sheikh, is reported saying. “The US wants the visit to take place in a good atmosphere – different than the one now,” Al-Sheikhal-Sheikh added implying that Washington is more concerned about its image than it is about Israel’s daily human rights violations.

In a blow to the Biden team’s effort to portray the US President as the broker of peace, the PA and Israel rejected their proposal to meet. Palestinian officials stressed that such a meeting should include an Israeli commitment to the two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, otherwise, the meeting would be useless.

June 16, 2022 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | 4 Comments

China doubles down on vision with Russia


The most animating template of the West’s “information war” lately against Russia is, perhaps, its distorted projection of the China-Russia relationship in the context of the Ukraine crisis. This dubious enterprise has practical implications for the “endgame” in Ukraine, the West’s efforts to “erase” Russia and the US’ struggle with China — above all, it is fraught with consequences for the emerging world order. 

Henry Kissinger, who is responsible for the hypothesis of the US-Russia-China triangle in Cold War history, recently made a pitch to invoke the spectre of a “permanent alliance” between Russia and China to give a shock therapy to the Western audience over their craving to isolate Russia from Europe. Kissinger advised Kiev to make territorial concessions to Moscow. The relevance of Kissinger’s hypothesis is debatable today, and, perhaps, a much bigger rationale needs to be found to explain the epochal nature of the China-Russia relationship, which is at an all-time high level historically. 

Clearly, neither China nor Russia is seeking an alliance and their relationship is certainly not in the nature of a classic alliance but, paradoxically, it also goes far beyond the definable scope of an alliance. This comes out vividly from the document issued during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Beijing in February titled Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on the International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable Development. 

Against such a backdrop, the conversation between Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping on June 15 should conclusively scatter the West’s information war. Xi Jinping chose his birthday to make this call, attesting to the deep friendship between the two leaders over a decade, which provides not only a solid foundation to the relationship but great stability, considering the nature of the two political systems and the “alchemy” of their statecraft. The centrality of this singular factor is either deliberately obfuscated or not properly grasped in the West’s discourses.  

From the readouts of the June 15 phone conversation (here and here), the following salients are to be noted: 

  • At its most obvious level, the two leaderships have underscored beyond doubt that the China-Russia strategic partnership characterised by a high degree of trust is not buffeted by the current events or the turbulence and uncertainty in the international situation. 
  • China and Russia remain committed to extending mutual support on matters regarding each other’s core interests and matters of paramount concern, such as sovereignty and security. The Chinese readout emphasised Putin’s support for China on Taiwan, Hong Kong and Xinjiang. 
  • The West’s efforts to create daylight in the China-Russia partnership remain futile. 
  • Notwithstanding the West’s sanctions against Russia, the trade and economic cooperation between China has good momentum and is poised to make steady progress. China is willing to push for the steady and long-term development of practical bilateral cooperation despite the western sanctions against Russia. 
  • On the “Ukraine issue”, China assesses the situation in both its historical context and the merits of the issue and seeks a proper settlement in a responsible manner. In a significant rhetorical departure, there was no reference to sovereignty and territorial integrity questions or to “war” or ceasefire, etc. 
  • Broadly speaking, more than 100 days into the war in Ukraine, Xi has focused squarely on his support for Russia. The big message is that the events in Ukraine have not dented Xi’s basic commitment to the Sino-Russian partnership. 

The bottom line is that China doubles down on its vision with Russia as spelt out in the joint statement of February 4. It is to be noted that Xi’s call was timed shortly before a European summit is slated to put on a show of solidarity with Ukraine and, equally, as countdown begins for a NATO summit at the end of this month, which is expected to approve a new “strategic concept” that will upgrade vigilance against Russia and also mention potential challenges to the alliance from China for the first time. The leaders of Japan and South Korea will be attending the NATO summit for the first time. 

The key message here is that China and Russia have no choice but to jointly resist NATO’s all-round suppression through close strategic coordination, and further maintain the balance of the global strategic situation. Indeed, the 13-hour joint air patrol in late May by a task force of Russian and Chinese strategic bombers over the Sea of Japan and East China Sea bang in the middle of the Ukraine conflict speaks for itself. 

The fact that Tokyo has overnight breathed life into the dispute over Russian “occupation” of the Kuril Islands just when Moscow is involved in a conflict on the western front, would bring Russia and China on the same page with regard to the ascendency of Japanese militarism, with US support and encouragement, as a new factor in the Asia-Pacific.

All in all, Xi Jinping’s call and the vehement expression and display of Chinese support and understanding has come at a time when Putin needs it most. The Kremlin readout explicitly stated: “It was agreed to expand cooperation in energy, finance, the manufacturing industry, transport and other areas, taking into account the global economic situation that has become more complicated due to the illegitimate sanctions policy pursued by the West. The further development of military and defence ties was touched upon as well.” 

To borrow the undiplomatic words of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Xi may have inflicted “a major reputational damage for China” in the West. Quite obviously, Xi has ignored the repeated warnings by US officials that the “sanctions from hell” to weaken Russia would visit China too if Beijing gave support to Moscow. Curiously, Xi rebooted the China-Russia partnership although Biden Administration officials are spreading a notion lately that a “thaw” is on the cards in US-China relations. 

Following the meeting on Monday between Yang Jiechi, CCP Politburo member and Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security advisor at Luxembourg, the White House characterised the discussion as “candid, substantive, and productive,” while the Chinese press release was noticeably circumspect: “The United States should put China in the right strategic perspective, make the right choice, and translate President Biden’s remarks into concrete actions that the United States does not seek a new Cold War with China; it does not aim to change China’s system; the revitalisation of its alliances is not targeted at China; the United States does not support “Taiwan Independence”; and it has no intention to seek a conflict with China. The United States needs to work with China in the same direction to earnestly implement the important consensus reached by the two heads of state.” 

Yang warned that “The Taiwan question concerns the political foundation of China-U.S. relations, and if it is not handled properly, it will have a subversive impact. This risk not only exists, but will continue to rise.” The Chinese readout described the discussion as “candid, in-depth and constructive communication and exchanges.” 

Xi’s call with Putin came two days later.

June 16, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , , , | 1 Comment

The Road to Nuclear Armageddon

By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. | June 16, 2022

Ladies and gentlemen, we face a grave danger. The leader of a major European power wants to make territorial revisions. He is surrounded by hostile powers who threaten him. He does not seek war with other countries but if the hostile powers continue to encircle him, he will fight. A European war looms.

You probably think I’m talking about the current crisis between Russia and the Ukraine, but I’m not. I’m talking about Europe just before World War II began in September 1939. At that time, Hitler wanted small territorial revisions with its Polish neighbor. East Prussia was cut off from the rest of Germany by a band of territory called the Polish Corridor.

As the great British historian A.J. P. Taylor explains,

“The losses of territory to Poland were, for most Germans, the indelible grievance against Versailles. Hitler undertook a daring operation over this grievance when he planned co-operation with Poland. But there was a way out. The actual Germans under Polish rule might be forgotten—or withdrawn; what could not be forgiven was the ‘Polish corridor’ which divided East Prussia from the Reich. Here, too, there was a possible compromise. Germany might be satisfied with a corridor across the corridor—a complicated idea for which there were however many precedents in German history. German feeling could be appeased by the recovery of Danzig. This seemed easy. Danzig was not part of Poland. It was a Free City, with its own autonomous administration under a High Commissioner, appointed by the League of Nations. The Poles themselves, in their false pride as a Great Power, had taken the lead in challenging the League’s authority. Surely, therefore, they would not object if Germany took the League’s place. Moreover, the problem had changed since 1919. Then the port of Danzig had been essential to Poland. Now, with the creation of Gdynia by the Poles, Danzig needed Poland more than the Poles needed Danzig. It should then be easy to arrange for the safeguarding of Poland’s economic interests, and yet to recover Danzig for the Reich.”

The British responded by guaranteeing Poland’s western boundary against Germany. They also issued a guarantee to Romania, even though there had been no threat to that country. As a result of the guarantee, Poland refused to negotiate with Germany. War broke out, and Poland was destroyed. The great Murray Rothbard tells us what happened:

“And as a direct result, Poland was destroyed. Hitler’s ‘demands’ on the Poles were almost non-existent; as Taylor points out, the Weimar Republic would have scorned the terms as a sell-out of vital German interests. Hitler at most wanted a ‘corridor through the Corridor’ and the return of heavily-German (and pro-German) Danzig; in return for which he would guarantee the rest. Poland resolutely refused to yield’ one inch of Polish soil,’ and refused even to negotiate with the Germans, and this down to the last minute.”

Murray draws an important lesson from what happened then. This lesson provides the key to keeping us out of a nuclear war today. And of course a nuclear war would destroy the world. Here is what Murray says:

“[Polish Foreign Minister Józef] Beck clearly knew that Britain and France could not actually save Poland from attack. He relied to the end on those great shibboleths of all ‘hard-liners’ and other ‘crackpot realists’ everywhere: X is ‘bluffing’; X will back down if met by toughness, resolution, and the resolve not to give an inch. (Just as in the case of Finland, when the ‘X is bluffing’ line of the hard-liners is shown to be sheer absurdity, and X has already attacked, the ‘hard-liner’ turns, self-contradictorily, to the dictum that not ‘one inch of sacred soil’ will be given up, no peace while the enemy is on our soil, etc., which completes the ruin of the country by its ‘hard-line’ rulers. This is what Beck did to Poland.) As Taylor shows, Hitler had originally not the slightest intention to invade or conquer Poland; instead, Danzig and other minor rectifications would be gotten out of the way, and then Poland would be a comfortable ally, perhaps for an eventual invasion of Soviet Russia. But Beck’s irrational toughness blocked the path.”

Now we have the background we need to understand what’s going on today. Russia is surrounded by a hostile NATO alliance. The propagandists for brain-dead Biden like to say that Putin had Ukraine surrounded. But in fact, the US and its NATO satellites had Russia surrounded. In the years before the current crisis, we had ample opportunity to reach a compromise settlement. Instead, we kept the option of membership in NATO open to Ukraine and overthrew a Ukrainian President who was pro-Russian. At the Kremlin. . . in a speech in November 2021] Putin drew his red line:

‘The threat on our western borders is … rising, as we have said multiple times. … In our dialogue with the United States and its allies, we will insist on developing concrete agreements prohibiting any further eastward expansion of NATO and the placement there of weapons systems in the immediate vicinity of Russian territory.’

A story in The New York Times exposes what brain-dead Biden and the gang of neo-cons that controls him have in store for us. According to an item that was published April 26,

“When Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III declared Monday at the end of a stealth visit to Ukraine that America’s goal is to see Russia so ‘weakened’ that it would no longer have the power to invade a neighboring state, he was acknowledging a transformation of the conflict, from a battle over control of Ukraine to one that pits Washington more directly against Moscow. . . in word and deed, the United States has been gradually pushing in the direction of undercutting the Russian military.

It has imposed sanctions that were explicitly designed to stop Russia’s military from developing and manufacturing new weapons. It has worked — with mixed success — to cut off the oil and gas revenues that drive its war machine. . . over the longer term, Mr. Austin’s description of America’s strategic goal is bound to reinforce President Vladimir V. Putin’s oft-stated belief that the war is really about the West’s desire to choke off Russian power and destabilize his government. And by casting the American goal as a weakened Russian military, Mr. Austin and others in the Biden administration are becoming more explicit about the future they see: years of continuous contest for power and influence with Moscow that in some ways resembles what President John F. Kennedy termed the ‘long twilight struggle’ of the Cold War.

Mr. Austin’s comments, bolstered by statements by Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken about the various ways in which Mr. Putin has ‘already lost’ in the struggle over Ukraine, reflect a decision made by the Biden administration and its closest allies, several officials said on Monday, to talk more openly and optimistically about the possibility of Ukrainian victory in the next few months as the battle moves to the Russian-speaking south and east, where Mr. Putin’s military should, in theory, have an advantage.

At a moment when American intelligence officials are reporting that Mr. Putin thinks he is winning the war, the strategy is to drive home the narrative that Russia’s military adventure will be ruinous, and that it is a conflict Mr. Putin cannot afford to sustain.”

Let’s make sure we understand this. Critics of US policy have pointed out for a long time that America has surrounded Russia with nuclear bases. It helped overthrow a pro-Russian government in the Ukraine. Naturally, this made Putin nervous. He does not want an invasion of Russia through the Ukraine, as happened in World War II, when Russia lost millions of lives. Now, the brain dead Biden gang of neocons is saying to Putin, “You are exactly right! We do want to degrade Russia to a minor power and use the Ukraine as a base for attack!”

Nothing could be more certain to lead to nuclear disaster. The Russians warn us about this  A story in The Guardian says:

“Russia’s foreign minister has accused Nato of fighting a proxy war by supplying military aid to Ukraine, as defence ministers gathered in Germany for US-hosted talks on supporting Ukraine through what one US general called a ‘very critical’ few weeks.

Sergei Lavrov told Russian state media: ‘Nato, in essence, is engaged in a war with Russia through a proxy and is arming that proxy. War means war.’

He also warned that the risks of nuclear conflict were now ‘considerable’. . . When asked about the importance of avoiding a third world war, Lavrov said: ‘I would not want to elevate those risks artificially. Many would like that. The danger is serious, real. And we must not underestimate it.’”

If it weren’t for the US arms shipments to the Ukraine, Russia and the Ukraine would quickly arrange a settlement that would protect Russia’s security interests. Those in control know this, but they don’t want a peaceful settlement along these lines. They want to rule the world. They don’t want countries that reject US supremacy to have a role in the world.

“Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told CNN’s Jim Sciutto on Tuesday that the entire ‘global international security order’ put in place after World War II is at stake if Russia gets away ‘cost-free’ following its invasion of Ukraine. . . ‘What’s at stake is the global international security order that was put in place in 1945. That international order has lasted 78 years. . . Milley’s warning about the potential global implications of Russia’s actions in Ukraine also underscores the current sense of urgency felt by the US and its allies as the war enters what they say is a critical juncture… Shortly after Milley’s interview, [Defense Secretary] Austin also stressed the importance of moving quickly to provide Ukraine with the military aid it needs, saying during a news conference that the US and other allies and partners ‘don’t have any time to waste’ when it comes to providing crucial assistance to counter Russia as their invasion continues.

‘We don’t have any time to waste. The briefings today laid out clearly why the coming weeks will be so crucial for Ukraine, so we’ve got to move at the speed of war. . . Austin also said that he thought Ukraine ‘will seek to once again apply to become a member of NATO in the future.’”

Is there anything we can do to de-escalate the situation? The greatest Congressman in American history, Dr. Ron Paul, whom we are here today to honor, has the answer. America should end its encirclement of Russia and disband NATO. Let’s look at his vital message to us:

“When the Bush Administration announced in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia would be eligible for NATO membership, I knew it was a terrible idea. Nearly two decades after the end of both the Warsaw Pact and the Cold War, expanding NATO made no sense. NATO itself made no sense.

Explaining my ‘no’ vote on a bill to endorse the expansion, I said at the time:

NATO is an organization whose purpose ended with the end of its Warsaw Pact adversary… This current round of NATO expansion is a political reward to governments in Georgia and Ukraine that came to power as a result of US-supported revolutions, the so-called Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution.

Providing US military guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia can only further strain our military. This NATO expansion may well involve the US military in conflicts unrelated to our national interest…

Unfortunately,. . . , my fears have come true. One does not need to approve of Russia’s military actions to analyze its stated motivation: NATO membership for Ukraine was a red line it was not willing to see crossed. As we find ourselves at risk of a terrible escalation, we should remind ourselves that it didn’t have to happen this way. There was no advantage to the United States to expand and threaten to expand NATO to Russia’s doorstep. There is no way to argue that we are any safer for it.

NATO itself was a huge mistake. . . I believe as strongly today as I did back in my 2008 House Floor speech that, ‘NATO should be disbanded, not expanded.’ In the meantime, expansion should be off the table. The risks do not outweigh the benefits!”

The saddest part of this whole manufactured crisis is that it should make absolutely no difference to us whether Russia controls Ukraine. How is that a threat to the United States? Whatever Biden and his neocon advisers say, America should stay out of conflicts that are none of our business. As usual, Murray Rothbard put it best. “In the context of the 1980 Afghan war, he quoted Canon Sydney Smith – a great classical liberal in early 19th century England who wrote to his warmongering Prime Minister, thus:

“For God’s sake, do not drag me into another war!

I am worn down, and worn out, with crusading and defending Europe, and protecting mankind; I must think a little of myself.

I am sorry for the Spaniards – I am sorry for the Greeks – I deplore the fate of the Jews; the people of the Sandwich Islands are groaning under the most detestable tyranny; Baghdad is oppressed, I do not like the present state of the Delta; Tibet is not comfortable. Am I to fight for all these people?

The world is bursting with sin and sorrow. Am I to be champion of the Decalogue, and to be eternally raising fleets and armies to make all men good and happy?

We have just done saving Europe, and I am afraid the consequence will be, that we shall cut each other’s throats. No war, dear Lady Grey! – No eloquence; but apathy,  selfishness, common sense, arithmetic!”

The same people who imposed Covid-tyranny on us now want us to risk war with Russia. Let’s stop them before it’s too late.

June 16, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Florida Government Says ‘No’ to Shipment of Coronavirus Shots for Babies and Young Children

By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | June 16, 2022

The state government of Florida is standing up against the effort to indiscriminately inject experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots into children four years old and younger. And, as reported Wednesday by Christopher O’Donnell and Ian Hodgson at the Tampa Bay Times, Florida is the only state to make this decision, every other state government having pre-ordered the shots from the United States government in anticipation of the granting of US regulatory approval.

Good for Florida. It is making the right choice in refusing to be a pusher for these shots promoted relentlessly by a collaboration of big business, big media, and big government.

In May of last year I wrote about the need for state and local governments to refuse to participate in the then new rollout of experimental coronavirus shots to 12 to 15 years old children. I concluded my comments on the matter with the following statement after addressing dangers of the shots and the very minimal risk coronavirus tends to pose for children:

It is one thing to stand aside as parents choose to have their children injected with experimental shots that carry significant known health risks and unknown potential negative consequences. It is another to actively encourage the giving of such shots through participating in their promotion and distribution. At some point, shouldn’t state and local governments admit that the risk and rewards related to shots are so out of whack that their taking part in pushing the shot-giving is a clear menace? Being presented with the opportunity to give experimental coronavirus vaccine shots to 12 to 15 years old children seems like a good time to declare ‘no more.’

A statement from the Florida Department of Health, reprinted at Fox 13 TV of Tampa Bay, makes clear that the state government’s decision not to preorder the shots was its way of saying “no more” based on the state having come to its own independent decision that the shots are not the safe and effective wonder for all young children that many people in government and the media proclaim them to be. Here is that statement from the Florida Department of Health:

The Florida Department of Health (Department) has made it clear to the federal government that states do not need to be involved in the convoluted vaccine distribution process, especially when the federal government has a track record of developing inconsistent and unsustainable COVID-19 policies.

It is also no surprise we chose not to participate in the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine when the Department does not recommend it for all children. Doctors can order vaccines if they are in need, and there are currently no orders in the department’s ordering system for the COVID-19 vaccine for this age group.

The local television news report also provided these cogent comments regarding the decision from Joseph Ladapo, the state’s surgeon general:

‘We expect to have good data that the benefits outweigh the risks of any therapies or treatments before we recommend those therapies or treatments to Floridians. That is not going to change. I don’t think that is particularly radical. I think it’s very sensible,’ said Ladapo. ‘From what I have seen, there is just insufficient data to inform benefits and risk in children. I think that’s very unequivocal.’

Bravo to Florida and its surgeon general, about whom I wrote positively upon his appointment to the position in September.

Hopefully, we will see more state and local governments looking critically at the new shady approval of experimental coronavirus shots for young children and declaring their refusal to participate as well.

Copyright © 2022 by RonPaul Institute

June 16, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 5 Comments

Why Won’t My State’s Largest News Organisation Look into These Vaccine Stories?


On June 8th 2022, I sent the following email to several reporters and one editor at, which is the largest news organisation in my state of Alabama. I encourage other Daily Sceptic readers to send the same type of email to the major news organisations in their cities or states.

I don’t expect this news organisation to follow-up on my story suggestions and answer any of my questions, although I would be happy to be proven wrong. My main purpose is to create a record that shows that these reporters and editors are aware of many data points which strongly suggest that Covid vaccines are not ‘safe and effective’ (or necessary for children), and confirm that these ‘watchdog’ journalists will not share these types of stories with their readers. Nor will they pursue their own investigations that might corroborate (or impeach) these findings.

If enough readers participate in this similar experiment, this collective evidence (and the non-responses to our ‘story suggestions’) might provide strong evidence that the mainstream media are conspiring (or at least capitulating) in the cover-up of information that would debunk or challenge many elements of the alleged ‘settled science’ about Covid vaccines. In the opinion of this correspondent, such a finding – suggesting an obvious bias and censorship – would itself constitute an alarming and disturbing scandal.

Note: Story links and excerpts (several from the Daily Sceptic) are provided below this post.

Dear [journalists who routinely write Covid stories and an editor]:

I write to bring to your attention six articles that strongly suggest that Covid vaccines are not “safe and effective” nor necessary for many people. See story links below.

My real purpose in writing is to encourage to do its own reporting to see if your reporters can confirm that the trends depicted in this quantifiable data are, perhaps, also being seen in Alabama.


  1. Are Alabama ambulance companies responding to more calls from individuals suffering health emergencies related to cardiac events than they did prior to widespread Covid vaccination?
  2. Are life insurance companies doing business in Alabama reporting more excess deaths in policy holders since vaccines became widespread, especially in the ages 18 to 64? What are these numbers?
  3. Are funeral homes in Alabama performing more funerals and cremations compared to time periods before Covid vaccines had been widely administered?
  4. Are doctors seeing more complications in vaccinated patients?
  5. Do vaccinated Alabamians now comprise the greatest percentage of PCR-confirmed Covid cases? Are the percentage of vaccinated patients being treated in hospitals now higher than the unvaccinated cohort (as appears to be the case in the U.K., whose data are much more comprehensive and transparent)? Are the percentages of deaths in older age groups (60 plus) now higher among the vaccinated class (as is also the case in the U.K. and other countries)?
  6. How many Alabama children under the age of 18 without serious pre-existing medical conditions have died from Covid in the past 27 months (this would be the mortality figure for ‘healthy’ children)? How many healthy Alabama children died from Covid in the first 12 months of the pandemic? Is death from Covid actually one of the ‘top eight’ or ‘top 10 causes of death of Alabama children in a given year (as has been quoted by public health officials and officials at pediatrician groups)? What are the top 10 annual killers of Alabama children with the number of annual deaths per year?
  7. If I wrote a 1,000-word article, listing several of the ‘accepted Covid narratives’ that I believe are false or dubious and why I believe they are, would you publish this piece?

I’ve come to believe that journalism or independent investigations that would challenge key parts of the ‘Covid narrative’ is not allowed at mainstream news organisations. Can you provide examples from your own reporting that would debunk or refute this theory? Is going to follow up on these articles with your own reporting? If not, why not? Have reporters been told that certain Covid stories cannot be reported? Which journalists have written any story that challenges or questions key parts of the CDC’s ‘settled science’?

Thank you for your consideration.

Bill Rice, Jr.

Supporting link and excerpts:

Stop All Covid Vaccine Booster Programmes Now For Safety Reasons, Says Heart Surgeon in Virology Journal“:

Virology Journal has published a letter from a cardiovascular surgeon, Kenji Yamamoto, setting out the case for ceasing all Covid vaccine booster programmes on safety grounds, calling Covid vaccines a “major risk factor for infections in critically ill patients”. His own cardiovascular surgery department at Okamura Memorial Hospital, Japan, has seen numerous complications in vaccinated patients, including some deaths, he says.

NHS reveals in FOI that Ambulance Call-Outs for Heart Illness have Doubled since COVID-19 Vaccination began among all age-groups“:

The National Health Service has confirmed in response to a freedom of information request that ambulance call-outs relating to immediate care required for a debilitating condition affecting the heart nearly doubled in the whole of 2021 and are still on the rise further in 2022. But the most concerning published figures show that they have also doubled among people under the age of 30.

Indiana Life Insurance CEO Says Deaths Are Up Among people Ages 18-64“:

We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica,” the company’s CEO Scott Davison said during an online news conference this week. “The data is consistent across every player in that business.” …

Davison said the increase in deaths represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” … “Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.

Long Funeral Homes, Short Life Insurers? Ex-Blackrock Fund Manager Discovers Disturbing Trends In Mortality“:

On Wednesday, Dowd noted that funeral home company Carriage Services saw a 28% increase in September 2021 vs. 2020, and a 13% increase in August vs. the same period. Funerals and cremations are up 12% and 13% respectively on the quarter.

Unbelievable U.K. Vaccine Report Update“:

Already evident in previous weeks is that for all but the youngest group, the vaccinated were getting infected at higher rates than the unvaccinated … In several age groups, it would appear the double vaccinated are infected at four to five time the rate of the unvaccinated …

Looking at double (not triple) vaccinated, it appears they have higher rates of hospitalisation for all ages over 60, and comparable rates for ages 18-59.

In this case, the rate of death of the unboosted fully vaccinated is basically twice as high for the over 70 year olds.

For Majority of U.K. children, Covid Mortality is 0.000“:

Only six of the 25 Covid deaths in the U.K. in the first 12 month of the pandemic occurred among children without pre-existing serious medical conditions … This represents a mortality risk to ‘healthy’ children of approximately 0.0001%.

June 16, 2022 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment

Ontario ends daily COVID reports

By Thomas Lambert | The Counter Signal | June 16, 2022

Perhaps a sign of the times, Ontario has finally taken a step forward by ending its schizophrenic daily reports on COVID.

Indeed, it wasn’t so long ago that Premier Doug Ford was making daily appearances to warn those in the province of the dangers of COVID and to push getting vaccinated. However, just weeks after the Freedom Convoy protest began its cross-country trip to Ottawa, Ford made noticeable changes to his rhetoric, saying it was time to get back to normal.

However, while it’s undoubtedly a good sign the Ford government doesn’t feel the need to provide daily reports on COVID anymore, the decision isn’t without caveat, as the province will continue providing COVID data weekly.

“As of June 16, all COVID-19 datasets will be updated weekly on Thursdays by 2 pm,” the Ontario Data Catalogue reads.

This policy change comes only five days after Ontario ended nearly all remaining mask requirements, including those that applied to public transit.

Besides returning to normal, another motivation for moving away from daily COVID reports on vaccination status, cases, hospitalizations, and deaths may be due to what recent data has shown.

As previously reported by The Counter Signal, the per capita case rate, hospitalization rate, and death rate by vaccination status all show that the vaccine makes almost no difference.

Moreover, those who have received a booster dose appear to be the worst off, having the highest rates of infection, hospitalization, and death per capita of any vaccination group, both in the province and Canada.

This reality completely shatters the ongoing mainstream narrative regarding the necessity of continued vaccination, with natural immunity appearing to be more than adequate — if not better — at preventing transmission and severe illness.

Either way, Ontarians and Canadians more generally might not be done with COVID quite yet, as both the federal and provincial governments have indicated that they’re more than willing to bring restrictions and mandates back in the Fall during flu season.

June 16, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , | 1 Comment

State Dept. Not Investigating Saudi Use of US Weapons in Alleged War Crimes: GAO

Samizdat | June 16, 2022

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a scathing report Monday which found that the Department of Defense and the Department of State “have not fully determined the extent to which U.S. military support has contributed to civilian harm in Yemen.” The news comes on the heels of the announcement that US President Joe Biden will be paying a visit next month to Saudi Arabia, a country which in 2019 he pledged to turn into a “pariah.”

“Despite several reports that airstrikes and other attacks by Saudi Arabia and UAE have caused extensive civilian harm in Yemen, [the Department of Defense] has not reported and [the State Department] could not provide evidence that it investigated any incidents of potential unauthorized use of equipment transferred to Saudi Arabia or UAE,” the GAO report concluded.

In February 2021, US President Joe Biden declared he was ending “all American support for offensive operations” in the Saudi war on Yemen. GAO monitors pointed out that while US Military Training Mission staff claimed that “all of the equipment the US sells… to Saudi Arabia must be for defensive purposes,” the “officials could not provide a definition for equipment that is defensive in nature when asked how they distinguish between equipment used for defensive purposes and equipment used for offensive purposes.”

Instead, the report’s authors noted, State Department officials “told us they have no specific definitions for what constitutes ‘offensive weapons’ and ‘defensive weapons’ to direct the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia.”

The report also found that from fiscal year 2015 to 2021, the “Department of Defense administered at least $54.6 billion of military support to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, of which over a third, or $18.3 billion, came in the form of missiles. The remaining military aid was reportedly spent as follows: $7.6 billion on equipment maintenance, $6.2 billion on aircraft, $4.9 billion on “special activities,” $4.6 billion on communication, detection, and coherent radiation equipment, $3.3 billion on ships, $2.8 billion on training, $1.4 billion on construction, $1.2 billion on ammunition, $1.1 billion on support equipment, $900 million on weapons, and $1.8 billion on other expenditures like combat, tactical, and support vehicles, as well as research and development.

Although “the United Nations has characterized the conflict in Yemen as one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises,” the report’s authors explain that the US has “long-standing security relationships with Saudi Arabia and UAE—two primary actors in the conflict—and has continued to provide them military support, including for operations in Yemen since 2015.”

In April, 32 US Congress members urged Secretary of State Anthony Blinken to commit to a “recalibration of the US-Saudi partnership,” noting that the US’ “continued unqualified support for the Saudi monarchy, which systematically, ruthlessly represses its own citizens, targets critics all over the world, carries out a brutal war in Yemen, and bolsters authoritarian regimes throughout the Middle East and North Africa, runs counter to US national interests and damages the credibility of the United States to uphold our values.”

But with Biden’s announcement that he’ll be flying to Riyadh next month for what the Saudi embassy described as “official talks” between Joe Biden and Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the odds of such an adjustment taking place–and of US agencies taking a more proactive approach towards American involvement in alleged Saudi war crimes–are growing ever-slimmer.

June 16, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , , | 1 Comment

WHO Pandemic Treaty a “Power Grab at behest of Big Pharma and Big Donors”: Former UN Asst. Secretary-General


Former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General Ramesh Thakur has warned in the Spectator of the coming massive expansion of the international pandemic bureaucracy and the powers of the WHO to press countries towards authoritarian public health measures. The WHO’s track record during COVID-19 hardly merits reward with further powers, he says.

Health includes mental health and wellbeing and is highly dependent on a robust economy, yet the WHO-backed package of measures to fight Covid has been damaging to health, children’s immunisation programs in developing countries, mental health, food security, economies, poverty reduction, social and educational wellbeing of peoples. Their worst effects were grievous assaults on human rights, civil liberties, individual autonomy and bodily integrity. To make it worse, in promoting these policies the WHO violated, without providing any justification beyond China’s example, (1) the guidance from its own report in October 2019 that summarised a century’s worth of worldwide experience and science; and (2) its own constitution which defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”. The vaccine push has similarly ignored accumulating safety signals about the scale of adverse reactions, on the one hand, and rapidly dwindling efficacy after successive doses, on the other.

Euro-U.S. efforts, backed by Australia, to amend legally binding international health regulations and adopt a new pandemic convention would confer extraordinary powers on the WHO to declare public health emergencies of international/regional concern and command governments to implement their recommendations. WHO inspectors would have the right to enter countries without consent and check compliance with their directives. They would lock in the lockdowns-vaccines narrative and preempt rigorous independent retrospective reviews of their costs and efficacy. The ‘reforms’ amount to a WHO power grab at the behest of Big Pharma and Big Donors. Whether approved as two separate instruments or folded into one overarching new treaty, the changed architecture will greatly strengthen the WHO’s core capabilities on public health surveillance, monitoring, reporting, notification, verification and response. The rush to amend the existing international health regulations encountered significant pushback last month from developing countries, China and Russia but will come up again for discussion and approval shortly. The new treaty under negotiation will be presented to the World Health Assembly in 2024.

The proposed reforms to international health agreements will only make things worse, he says.

On January 24th, Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said an urgent priority was to “strengthen WHO as the leading and directing authority on global health”, for: “We are one world, we have one health, we are one WHO.” On April 12th, he said the Covid crisis had “exposed serious gaps in the global health security architecture”; the new treaty would be “a generational agreement” and “a gamechanger” for global health security. If adopted, it will consolidate the gains of those who have benefitted from COVID-19, concentrating private wealth, increasing national debts and decelerating poverty reduction; expand the international health bureaucracy under the WHO; shift the centre of gravity from common endemic diseases to relatively rare pandemic outbreaks; create a self-perpetuating global biopharmaceutical complex; shift the locus of health policy authority, decision-making and resources from the state to an enlarged corps of international technocrats, creating and empowering an international analogue of the administrative state that has already thinned national democracies. It will create a perverse incentive: the rise of an international bureaucracy whose defining purpose, existence, powers and budgets will depend on outbreaks of pandemics, the more the better.

June 16, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Western media and politicians prefer to ignore the truth about civilians killed in Donetsk shelling

Remnants of the Uragan MLRS rocket which struck the Donetsk maternity hospital June 13. ©  Eva Bartlett / RT
By Eva Bartlett | Samizdat | June 16, 2022

Following intense Ukrainian shelling of Donetsk on June 13, some Western media sources, in tandem with outlets in Kiev, unsurprisingly claimed that the attack – which killed at least five civilians and struck a busy maternity hospital – was perpetrated by Russian forces.

Why Moscow would launch rockets at its own allies wasn’t explained, nor would it make much sense.

The Donetsk People’s Republic’s foreign ministry reported: “Such an unprecedented. in terms of power, density and duration of fire, raid on the DPR capital was not recorded during the entire period of the armed conflict [since 2014]. In two hours, almost 300 MLRS rockets and artillery shells were fired.”

The Ukrainian shelling began late morning, resumed in the afternoon, and continued for another two hours in the evening, a deafening series of blasts throughout the city, terrorizing residents and targeting apartment buildings, civilian infrastructure, the aforementioned hospital, and industrial buildings.

Locals say this was some of the heaviest bombing of Donetsk since 2014, when the eponymous region declared its independence from post-Maidan Kiev.

In the Budyonnovsky district in the south of the city, Ukrainian shelling of a market killed five civilians including one child. Just two months ago, Kiev’s forces hit another Donetsk market, leaving five civilians dead.

In the hard-hit Kievskiy district, to the north, the shelling caused fires at a water bottling plant and a warehouse for stationery, destroying it. The building was still in flames when journalist Roman Kosarev and I arrived about an hour after the attack. Apartment buildings in the area also came under firer, leaving doors and windows blown out and cars destroyed.

The destroyed gas station was on a street where I stayed in April, which is completely residential.

DPR head Denis Pushilin said, “The enemy literally crossed all the lines. Prohibited methods of warfare are being used, residential and central districts of Donetsk are being shelled, other cities and settlements of the DPR are also under fire now.”

Hypocritical silence after maternity hospital shelling

In a world where media reported honestly instead of manufacturing its own reality, there would be outrage over Ukraine’s attack on the Donetsk maternity hospital. But history shows that is not a world we live in.

As I wrote last year, Western media and talking heads also diligently avoided condemnation when terrorists attacked or destroyed Syrian hospitals, including the shelling of a maternity hospital in Aleppo, which killed three women.

At the damaged Donetsk hospital, I saw the gaping hole in the roof and remnants of the Uragan MLRS rocket which struck it. Most of the windows of both buildings were blown out.

Images shared on Twitter noted, “Both gynecology and intensive care have been bombed.” Other footage, taken by Donetsk war correspondent Dmitri Ashtrakhan, showed dozens of women, some heavily pregnant, taking shelter in the basement of the shelled maternity hospital.

Were these women and this hospital in Kiev, you can bet Western media would be loudly reporting it 24/7 for weeks. Instead, just as the West has steadfastly ignored Ukraine’s eight years of war on Donbass, they also omit reporting on the hospital.

Grotesquely, some Ukrainian and Western media instead disingenuously reported that it was a Russian attack, not Ukrainian, which terrorized, injured and killed civilians on June 13.

Just as Western media’s lack of reporting, or twisting of the narrative, on Ukraine’s shelling was to be expected, so too was the UN’s weak-worded condemnation, with the Spokesman for the Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, calling it “extremely troubling.” You can bet that were the situation reversed and Russia responsible for bombing a Ukrainian maternity hospital, his words would have been far stronger.

In fact, they already have been: Three months ago, when Kiev accused Russia of an attack on a maternity hospital, in Mariupol.

Back then, the Guterres emphatically tweeted, “Today’s attack on a hospital in Mariupol, Ukraine, where maternity & children’s wards are located, is horrific. Civilians are paying the highest price for a war that has nothing to do with them. This senseless violence must stop. End the bloodshed now.”

A strong reaction to what later emerged to be a hoax claim, when the UN itself even admitted it could not verify the story. But a mild reaction to a documented reality in Donetsk.

The UN did, at least, rightly note the attack on the Donetsk maternity hospital was, “an obvious breach of the international humanitarian law.” So there’s that.

The thing is, Ukraine has violated international law for its eight years of waging war on the Donbass republics, using prohibited heavy weapons and targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. This is only the latest incident.

Tears flow for hoax hospital bombing

In March, Western corporate-owned media supported Kiev’s claim that Russia had launched air strikes on a Mariupol maternity hospital, claiming three civilians had been killed. At the time, as reported, “The White House condemned the ‘barbaric’ use of force against innocent civilians, and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson tweeted that ‘there are few things more depraved than targeting the vulnerable and defenceless’.”

As it turned out, witnesses reported there hadn’t been any air strike. There were explosions: just as terrorists bombed an Aleppo home in 2016 and used a mildly injured boy for their propaganda against Syria and Russia, so too did Ukrainian forces in Mariupol, setting the stage to incriminate Moscow.

Russia called the accusations “a completely staged provocation,” analyzing photos from the area and noting “evidence of two separate staged explosions near the hospital: An underground explosion and another of minor power, aimed at the hospital building,” and further noting that a “high-explosive aviation bomb would destroy the outer walls of the building.”

Russia also pointed out that the facility had stopped working when Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Battalion expelled staff in late February and militarized the hospital, as Ukrainian forces did elsewhere in Donbass.

Marianna Vyshemirskaya, one of the women featured in the Western propaganda around the hospital, later spoke out and said there was no air strike, and that prior to the alleged event, Ukrainian soldiers expelled all the doctors and moved pregnant women to another building.

She also maintained that she and other women were filmed without warning by an Associated Press journalist dressed in a military uniform and wearing a helmet.

Even now, two days after Ukraine’s intense bombardment of Donetsk and targeting of the maternity hospital, when still more testimonies have emerged, Western media and politicians remain silent.

The suffering, and deaths, of the people of Donetsk doesn’t fit the Western narrative, so they misreport it or simply just don’t reference it at all, enabling Ukraine to continue to commit war crimes.

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine (where she lived for nearly four years).

June 16, 2022 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, War Crimes | | 1 Comment

Turkey & Russia Suggest Path for Grain Ships to Access Ukrainian Ports

By Kyle Anzalone and Will Porter | The Libertarian Institute | June 16, 2022

Ankara and Moscow have put forward potential solutions to reopen Ukraine’s Black Sea ports, with Russia offering safe passage to ships while Turkey said it could help guide vessels around Ukrainian naval mines deployed to stall the Russian advance.

Russia’s UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia told reporters on Wednesday that the Kremlin is open to creating a “safe passage” for grain shipments, but said Moscow could not guarantee a route that would be free of mines

“We are not responsible for establishing safe corridors. We said we could provide safe passage if these corridors are established,” he said. “It’s obvious it’s either de-mine the territory, which was mined by the Ukrainians, or ensure that the passage goes around those mines.”

While Turkey has said it would “take some time” to clear away the munitions, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu suggested safe corridors could be found in some Ukrainian ports, presenting the offer as a short-term solution.

“Since the location of the mines is known, certain safe lines would be established at three ports,” the FM said earlier on Wednesday, adding that ships could “come and go safely to ports without a need to clear the mines.”

Cavusoglu went on to say that Ankara has not received a response from the Kremlin on the proposal, but is currently working with the United Nations on a plan. UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric confirmed that discussions were underway, though noted that an agreement from both Ukraine and Russia would be needed to move forward.

Turkey’s National Defense Minister Hulusi Akar, meanwhile, told TRT that the three nations recently created an “emergency communication mechanism” to resolve the problem and reopen Ukraine’s ports, but it’s not yet clear whether any progress had been made in negotiations. Last Sunday, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also announced that he plans to hold a three-way dialogue on the issue with his Russian and Ukrainian counterparts sometime in the coming weeks, after Ankara hosted several rounds of lower-level peace talks.

Kiev, however, has signaled that it will not accept the Russian or Turkish proposals. Speaking at an event in Washington on Wednesday, David Arakhamia, a lawmaker and the head of Ukraine’s negotiation team, said “Our military people are against [de-mining the ports], so that’s why we have very, very limited optimism for this model.”

The UN has warned that the disruption of grain exports from Ukraine could have a massive impact on global food supplies. Together, Moscow and Kiev provide up to 40% of Eastern Europe’s grain purchases, and make up an even greater part of some countries’ total imports.

While Ukrainian and American officials have repeatedly blamed Russia for the shortages, Moscow has rejected the charge, instead pinning the scarcities on US sanctions and the explosives still deployed at key Ukrainian seaports. The Kremlin previously offered to help establish a safe route for shipping vessels in exchange for sanctions relief, but Washington refused to take up the deal.

The US and its Western partners have attempted to cripple the Russian economy through heavy sanctions in response to the invasion, some pledging outright embargoes on the country’s energy exports. While the penalties initially sent the ruble tumbling, it has since made a significant comeback and is now among the best performing currencies against the dollar in 2022. Meanwhile, the White House is now quietly pushing US shipping companies to do business with Russian fertilizer suppliers.

The conflict raging in Eastern Europe has not severed all business ties between Moscow and Kiev, as Ukraine’s state-run Naftogaz has continued to work with its Russian equivalent, Gazprom. Though the two firms have reportedly done hundreds of millions of dollars in trade since the war kicked off in February, the shaky truce could soon fracture, as Naftogaz is now pursuing a lawsuit against Gazprom for alleged underpayment.

June 16, 2022 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , , | Leave a comment

Google, Twitter, Meta, TikTok and more just signed the EU’s “anti-disinformation” code

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | June 16, 2022

Big Tech companies have signed a new version of the European Union’s “anti-disinformation” code. Some of the companies that signed include Google, Twitter, Meta, TikTok, and Twitch – but also smaller players such as Vimeo and Clubhouse.

There are 34 signatories in total:

Apple declined to sign.

The “code of practice on disinformation,” will require online platforms to show how they are tackling “harmful content.”

It will also require platforms to fight “harmful misinformation” by forming partnerships with fact-checkers and developing tools. They will be forced to include “indicators of trustworthiness” on information verified independently on hot-button issues like COVID-19 and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Perhaps the most notable requirement is providing their efforts to tackle harmful content and disinformation on a country-by-country basis. The move was opposed by online platforms, but national regulators demanded that they need more specific data to better address the spread of disinformation.

The EU’s vice president for values and transparency Věra Jourová, who is in charge of the code, said “to respond to disinformation effectively, there is a need for the country- and language-specific data. We know disinformation is different in every country, and the big platforms will now have to provide meaningful data that would allow to understand better the situation on the country level.”

“Russia’s actions have informed to shape the anti-disinformation code,” she said. “Once the code is operational, we will be better prepared to address disinformation, also coming from Russia.”

The new code also requires online platforms to provide other data, including the AI systems deployed to tackle “disinformation,” number of bots removed, and the number of content moderators in each country.

The code applies immediately but allows for a six-month implementation period for platforms to adhere to the strict rules.

June 16, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | 1 Comment

Russia to export agricultural products to ‘friendly countries’ only

Samizdat | June 16, 2022

Russian Minister for Agriculture Dmitry Patrushev said on Thursday that the country’s grain harvest could reach 130 million tons this year, which would be enough to cover both domestic needs and ensure export potential.

Speaking on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), he pointed to numerous challenges including broken supply chains and difficulties with financial calculations.

Patrushev said Russia has to overcome these obstacles in order to provide food to the countries that need it most. “Our [agricultural] products will be on foreign markets, but only in those countries that are friendly to us, that do not create hurdles and difficulties for us,” he told reporters.

Russia is expecting a bumper grain crop this year, including a record wheat harvest, President Vladimir Putin said last month. He added that a number of countries are facing the threat of famine, stressing that the blame for this situation lies entirely with “the Western elites.”

The grain crisis is being felt across the globe as wheat prices have surged to record highs over the past two months. The global food market, already affected by weather and the Covid pandemic, was dealt another blow due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Western sanctions on Moscow. This has sparked fears of global food insecurity and hunger.

June 16, 2022 Posted by | Economics | | Leave a comment