Aletho News


Two and 3-year-old kids with seizures is “the new normal”

I’m getting multiple reports from nurse friends about 2 and 3 year-olds having seizures. It is only happening to vaccinated kids, and symptoms start 2 to 5 days after the COVID jab.

By Steve Kirsch | July 4, 2022

Doctors are mystified by a rash of seizures, rashes, etc. happening to 2 and 3-year-old kids.

The only thing these kids have in common is that they were given the COVID vaccine just days earlier (two to five days earlier).

The doctors cannot figure out what is causing the seizures (since it couldn’t be the vaccine since those are safe and effective). The medical staff is not permitted to talk about the cases to the press or on social media or they will be fired.

One nurse posted something to the effect of “how is this legal????” I had to paraphrase to protect the poster.

This is why you are hearing these reports from me. They can’t fire me.

There is nothing on the mainstream media about this since the nurses and doctors aren’t allowed to talk about it.

This will all come out some day, but for now, everyone is keeping quiet about it and the doctors are instructed to convince the parents that it isn’t vaccine related and that they are the only ones having the problem.

Because that’s how science works.

July 5, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 1 Comment


Computing Forever | July 5, 2022

Support my work on Subscribe Star:
Support my work via crypto:
Follow me on Bitchute:
Subscribe on Gab TV:
Subscribe on Odysee:


Computing Forever | July 1, 2022

What’s Behind the Worldwide Drop in Birth Rates, Nine Months After the Vaccination Rollouts to Younger People?

Women’s Health and COVID-19 from the front line covid critical care alliance Watch the full show linked here:


Computing Forever | January 5, 2021


July 5, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, False Flag Terrorism, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Financial Times Censors Criticism of Vaccine Article


Earlier today, the Financial Times removed a comment from a reader calling himself ‘Mykonos Mike’ underneath an article about why COVID-19 infection and vaccination are only partially effective – and, in some cases, completely ineffective after a certain period of time has passed – when it comes to reducing a person’s likelihood of becoming re-infected, infecting others, and ending up with a severe bout of the disease. The reason given for removing the comment, in spite of the fact that it was the most liked and commented on, was “violating our community guidelines”, although, needless to say, no more detail was provided.

In light of this, we thought it was only right to republish Mykonos Mike’s comment in full.

Is this the long winded drivel to explain how people who have taken four doses of a 95% effective vaccine can get infected multiple times? The science in the pandemic has been so wrong it entered fairy tale wonderland story telling level, almost from the beginning. This is volume 15 of series four of the story. I’ll provide a spoiler – nobody cares anymore. And the decisions made in relation to this virus were ineffective and have created massive social and economic problems that will last decades. Time to start calling it as it is FT, the media are hugely complicit in this nonsense. Governments, scientists, health authorities and pharmaceutical companies need to answer very direct questions.

You can read the FT article Mike is commenting on here. Here’s an excerpt.

A surge in COVID-19 hospital admissions driven by the BA.5 subvariant of Omicron, accompanied by the inability of vaccines to prevent reinfection, has prompted health policymakers to rethink their approach to boosters.

U.S. regulators last week recommended changing the design of vaccines to produce a new booster targeting Omicron — the first change to the make-up of shots since their introduction in late 2020. Research into immune imprinting, whereby exposure to the virus via either infection or vaccination determines an individual’s level of protection, is now driving the debate over the make-up of COVID-19 vaccines.

Immunologists say that, more than two years into the coronavirus pandemic, people have acquired very different types of immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, depending on which strain or combination of strains they have been exposed to — leading to big differences in COVID-19 outcomes between individuals and countries.

“The effect is more nuanced than ‘more times you have it, less protection you get’,” said Professor Danny Altmann of Imperial College London, who is investigating the phenomenon with colleagues. “It’s more helpful to consider it as progressive fine-tuning of a huge repertoire. Sometimes this will be beneficial for the next wave, sometimes not.” …

A study of 700 U.K. healthcare workers by the Imperial team, published last month in the journal Science, found that Omicron infection had little or no beneficial effect of boosting any part of the immune system — antibodies, B-cells or T-cells — among people who had been imprinted with earlier SARS-CoV-2 variants.

The Daily Sceptic has addressed the claims being made about this study and the supposed loss of natural immunity with Omicron here.

July 5, 2022 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Will Pfizer Be Charged for Mislabeling Vaccine Side Effects?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | July 5, 2022

As the U.S. Food and Drug Administration continues to release Pfizer’s clinical trial documentation,1 we’re finding more and more evidence that very little has been done on the up-and-up, and the COVID jab trials may be among the most fraudulent in medical history.

Can All Serious Adverse Effects Be Written Off?

Importantly, Pfizer classified almost all severe adverse events that occurred during its Phase 3 trials as unrelated to the injection. As reported by The Defender, June 21, 2022:2

“The latest release by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine documents reveals numerous instances of participants who sustained severe adverse events during Phase 3 trials. Some of these participants withdrew from the trials, some were dropped and some died.

The 80,000-page document cache includes an extensive set of Case Report Forms (CRFs) from Pfizer Phase 3 trials conducted at various locations in the U.S., in addition to other documentation pertaining to participants in Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine trials in the U.S. and worldwide …

The CRFs included in this month’s documents contain often vague explanations of the specific symptoms experienced by the trial participants. They also reveal a trend of classifying almost all adverse events — and in particular severe adverse events (SAEs) — as being ‘not related’ to the vaccine.”

The Defender article includes 11 examples3 of trial participants who experienced severe adverse effects that were classified as “unrelated” to the experimental gene transfer technology they’d received just days or weeks earlier.

A 2,566-page document4 catalogues the serious adverse events and six deaths that occurred during the trial. These events were all classified as “toxicity level 4,” which is the most serious, yet none of them were deemed related to the injection.

This simply isn’t believable. It’s completely unrealistic, especially when serious events occur in multiple participants. A handful of examples of Level 4 adverse events listed in this document — all of which were written off as “not related” to the mRNA injection — include:5

  • Acute respiratory failure
  • Cardiac arrest
  • Brain abscess
  • Adrenal carcinoma (adrenal cancer)
  • Chronic myeloid leukemia (blood and bone marrow cancer)

The six deaths reported were listed as being caused by arteriosclerosis, cardiac arrest, hemorrhagic stroke and myocardial infarction.6 Many participants also dropped out or were excluded from the trial due to serious side effects involving the heart, cardiovascular system, cancer, stroke, hemorrhage and neurological impacts.

Examples of Level 3 Adverse Events

Most Level 3 adverse events were also dismissed as unrelated to the shot. As reported by The Defender, only a “small number” were listed as being related to the injection. Examples of Level 3 side effects include:7

  • Deafness/hearing loss
  • Tachycardia (disruption of the normal electrical impulses that control your heart rate — the very problem that underlies most cases of “sudden adult death syndrome” or SADS)
  • Ventricular arrhythmia (abnormal heart rhythm that makes the lower chambers twitch rather than pump — another underlying cause of SADS)
  • Neutropenia (low neutrophil level in your blood; neutrophils are a type of white blood cell made by your bone marrow that fight infections by destroying viruses and bacteria)
  • Vertigo

45% Experienced One or More Adverse Events

Another document8 that raises suspicions of bias is one admitting that “40% to 45% of participants who received BNT162b1 and BNT162b2 across age groups and across dose levels reported one or more AEs [adverse events] from Dose 1 through 28 days (i.e., 1 month) after Dose 2.”

BNT162b2 was the candidate injection that went on to receive Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA. Among those who got the highest dose (30 micrograms) of BNT162b2, 50% of younger participants 25% in the older age group reported one or more adverse events.

The most common adverse events were nervous system disorders, followed by musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders. Yet despite high rates of side effects across dose levels, this document also insists that “most AEs were considered by the investigator as not related to study intervention.”

During the open-label period of the study, 12,006 participants were followed for a minimum of six months, and among those, 28.8% reported at least one adverse event at some point during that follow-up, and 2.1% reported one or more severe adverse events.

Incidence Rate in Treatment Group FAR Higher Than Placebo

As reported by The Defender :9

“The review provides data for participants from dose 3 … to the data cutoff date. The severe adverse event incidence rate (IR) was 6.0 per 100 PY (patient-years), with specific conditions reported including pulmonary embolisms, thrombosis, urticaria, a cerebrovascular accident and COVID-19 pneumonia.

Here, the review adds that the IR for original placebo participants who had at least 1 life-threatening AE from Dose 3 to the data cutoff date was 0.5 per 100 PY.

Only one such life-threatening event, an instance of anaphylactoid reaction, was considered to be related to the vaccination. Other life-threatening, serious adverse events included cardio-respiratory arrest, gastrointestinal necrosis, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism …

Notably, according to the review, ‘all … events of facial paralysis were considered by the investigator as related to study intervention.” [Editor’s note: these specifically refer to events that occurred during the open-label follow-up period when BNT162b2 Dose 3 or Dose 4 was offered to both placebo and initial treatment groups.]

Young Children Have Extremely Low Risk of Death From COVID

In the end, we all know what happened. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Pfizer concluded the shot was safe and effective for everyone and the FDA went along with it. The vaccine manufacturers and the FDA have decided it isn’t even worth invoking the precautionary principle for the very youngest of children, which is nothing short of reprehensible, criminal maleficence.

In mid-June 2022, against strong objections from physicians, scientists and researchers, the FDA’s vaccine advisory panel — the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) — unanimously agreed to grant EUA to both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID shots for infants and young children.10,11

Pfizer’s EUA is for a three-dose regimen (3-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 5 years old, while Moderna’s EUA is for a two-dose regimen (25-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 6 years.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,12 an estimated 75% of American children ages birth to 11 already have some level of immunity, having been exposed to one of the several variants that have come into circulation over the past two-plus years.

This immunity level alone makes EUA for COVID shots questionable. CDC data also prove young children have a very low risk of hospitalization and death from COVID, which makes the EUAs even more questionable.

Data13 published in mid-March 2022 suggest babies and young children under the age of 4 have had a peak hospitalization rate for COVID of 14.5 per 100,000. That peak occurred after Omicron became predominant. The hospitalization rate for the Delta variant in this age group was 2.9 per 100,000.

In all, since March 2020, a total of 2,562 infants and young children (6 months to 4 years) have been hospitalized WITH COVID. Of those, 2,068 had COVID listed as the primary reason for admission (84.7% of the total), and only 624 required ICU admission.

The median length of hospital stay was 1.5 days (range: one to three days). Of the 2,562 children with suspected COVID infection, 16 of them (0.6%) died in the hospital. Death certificate data push that number a bit higher. The Vaccine Reaction notes,14 “According to death certificate data,15 202 deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 among children 6 months to 4 years of age through May 11, 2022.”

While any death is tragic, it’s worth noting that 923 (35.8%) of the children hospitalized with suspected COVID also had one or more underlying medical conditions.16 We don’t know for sure, but it’s quite possible that those who died with a COVID diagnosis actually died from whatever underlying condition was present or had brought them to the hospital in the first place.

What I’m trying to say is that 16 to 202 deaths over two-plus years aren’t cause for panic, and that’s true even if COVID was the primary cause of those deaths. The likelihood of your child getting injured by the mRNA shot is undoubtedly significantly greater than their risk of dying from COVID.

Jab More Likely to Put You in the Hospital Than Keep You Out

The same is true for adults, by the way. A June 2022 analysis17,18 of Pfizer and Moderna trial data found the shots are more likely to put you in the hospital than keep you out of it. As reported by The Daily Sceptic :19

“A new paper20 by BMJ Editor Dr. Peter Doshi and colleagues has analyzed data from the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccine trials and found that the vaccines are more likely to put you in hospital with a serious adverse event than keep you out by protecting you from COVID.

The pre-print (not yet peer-reviewed) focuses on serious adverse events highlighted in a WHO-endorsed ‘priority list21 of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines.’ The authors evaluated these serious adverse events of special interest as observed in ‘phase III randomized trials of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ …

Dr. Doshi and colleagues found that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Pfizer and 15.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Moderna …

When combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with a risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated … The authors note that this level of increased risk post-vaccine is greater than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization in both Pfizer and Moderna trials, which was 2.3 per 10,000 participants for Pfizer and 6.4 per 10,000 for Moderna.

This means that on this measure, the Pfizer vaccine results in a net increase in serious adverse events of 7.8 per 10,000 vaccinated and the Moderna vaccine of 8.7 per 10,000 vaccinated.”

Doshi’s team wasn’t the first to reanalyze Pfizer’s trial data. The Canadian COVID Care Alliance has also published a clear and easy-to-read summary22 of the Pfizer trial results, and the many questions raised by it. As noted by Dr. Robert Malone:23

“The bottom line is that the Pfizer Phase 3 trial which was used by NIAID [the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases], FDA and CDC to justify the emergency use authorization is pretty much a junk clinical trial which was inappropriately halted long before it even got close to meeting the intended follow up period, did not provide a sufficiently long follow up analysis of vaccination-associated adverse events, and in which the control group was intentionally eliminated.

This resulted in basically erasing any opportunity to ever get to the bottom of what the major true risks of the Pfizer mRNA inoculations were. In terms of more minor risks, the study was not powered (not big enough) to evaluate those.”

FDA and CDC Have Neglected Important Duties

Doshi and his coauthors also note the FDA also watered down results by including “thousands of additional participants with very little follow-up, of which the large majority had only received one dose.”

They then further diluted the appearance of risk by counting only the number of people affected rather than counting the total number of individual adverse events. This makes a big difference, as twice as many people in the treatment group reported multiple serious adverse events, as compared to the placebo group.

The FDA and CDC have both also failed to produce promised follow-up investigations. In July 2021, now a full year ago, the FDA said it would investigate four “potential adverse events of interest following Pfizer vaccination,” namely pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, immune thrombocytopenia and disseminated intravascular coagulation, but to date, no update has been issued.

Similarly, in early 2021, the CDC published a protocol on how to use proportional reporting ratios to detect signals in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), but no study or report showing what that protocol might have found has ever been published.

As it turns out, the CDC hasn’t been looking for safety signals in VAERS — not with the proportional ratios protocol or any other. So, while they’ve publicly claimed they haven’t seen any signals of concern, the reason they haven’t seen any signals is very simple: They never looked at the data!24

That’s how ridiculous things are now. When a drug company or health agency claims they haven’t found a problem, you actually have to ask them, “where, when, how and how often did you look?” But of course, virtually no one would ever ask such questions because they would assume these agencies are competent, which of course is a false assumption.

Their Fraudulent Behavior Could Be Their Undoing

As you probably know, the makers of the COVID shots are indemnified against legal liability for any injuries and all deaths stemming from their products. No one is able to sue them for damages.

The only way to hold them responsible is to prove they’ve committed fraud. This would remove their liability immunity. As detailed at the beginning of the article, their consciously choosing to miscategorize adverse events during the initial trials and concealing the harms should be a slam dunk to convict them of fraud.

But there is also another fact they concealed: There’s evidence showing they knew the mRNA doesn’t stay in the injection site but, rather, distributes throughout the body,25 and this too could be a smoking gun that proves fraud. If convicted of fraud, Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen would likely face liabilities in the trillions of dollars in damages.

When I exposed Merck’s Vioxx scandal in 1999 in this newsletter, before they even released their drug on the market, I thought that was huge. Their drug killed more than 60,000 people, and they could have been liable for $25 billion in damages, but their clever lawyers reduced it to $5 billion.

Well, that catastrophe is a drop in the bucket compared to the COVID scam, which has likely killed between 600,000 and 750,000 Americans, disabled as many as 5 million, and injured an estimated 30 million Americans in one way or another.26,27 That’s just the estimated toll in the U.S., so you can imagine what the global numbers might be. It’s a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. A June 2022 survey by Steve Kirsch also found:28

  • 6.6% of COVID jabbed respondents suffered heart injury (about 10 million Americans, based on the national vaccination rate)
  • 6.3% had to be hospitalized for their side effects (another 10 million Americans)
  • 9.2% of those who took the jab had to seek medical help for their injury, which translated over the whole country would be about 18 million doctor’s visits
  • People who got the shot were more likely to die from COVID than the unvaccinated
  • 2.63% of the responders had lost someone in their household to COVID infection, and 2.03% had lost someone in their household to the COVID jab

Expect Depopulation

Whether intentional or not, mounting evidence now indicates the COVID-19 injections will result in depopulation through premature death and adverse effects on fertility in women and men alike. I’ve previously discussed the risk of pregnancy loss and infertility in women who get the shot, as the mRNA has an affinity for accumulating in the ovaries29 (as well as the adrenals, liver and bone marrow).

Research30,31 from Israel now also reveals the shot deteriorates sperm count and sperm motility in men for about three months. Considering the multidose mRNA shots are recommended at three-month intervals, you can see how this can really decimate a man’s prospects of fathering a child.

Fertility has been on a steady decline for decades in most parts of the world,32 but the worldwide COVID jab campaign may massively speed that up. Germany recently released data showing a 10% decline in birth rate during the first quarter of 2022.33

Other countries are also seeing a drop in birth rate, nine months after the start of the mass vaccination campaign against COVID. Between January and April 2022, Switzerland’s birth rate was 15% lower than expected, the U.K.’s was down by 10% and Taiwan’s was down 20%.34

What punishment could possibly be appropriate for company heads and health agency leaders responsible for causing massive depopulation worldwide through products that were based on fraudulent science and fictional claims? I doubt if there’s enough money in the world to set that right.

Future Trials To Be Skipped Altogether

As if matters weren’t already beyond horrible, the FDA is considering allowing manufacturers to reformulate their COVID injections in perpetuity without conducting any additional clinical trials!35 In other words, they’d allow drug companies to change the mRNA and/or other ingredients without any safety or efficacy testing whatsoever. As reported by Toby Rogers, Ph.D., in a June 27, 2022, article in The Defender :36

“FDA released a briefing document37 in connection with this scheme to end science as we know it in connection with future COVID-19 shots … The briefing document is 18 pages of text, 1.5 line spacing, with just 19 references — 9 of which are pre-prints or from the CDC’s in-house newsletter Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) which means they are not peer-reviewed.

Any true believer in The Narrative(TM) could have written this in a few hours. To base the entire future of COVID-19 shots on this glorified undergrad term paper is madness …

The core argument of the briefing document is hilarious (or rather, it would be hilarious if it was not a plan to permanently institutionalize genocide and hide the evidence). In several places the FDA argues (colloquialisms mine):

1. These COVID-19 shots work great … Boosters too, total home run, the Israelis even have 10-weeks of data showing that they might help old people. What more evidence could you want?

2. Okay, well, it depends on what you mean by ‘work.’ These shots do not stop infection, transmission, hospitalization, or death, even though that’s why we licensed them. Any protection wears off fairly quickly, but It’s Not Our Fault(TM) because This Wily Virus(TM) mutates too fast and no one told us that it would ever mutate.

3. So these shots must be reformulated but we cannot possibly ask Lord Pharma to do proper clinical trials ever again because we already know that these shots work great (see point #1)!”

In short, the FDA argues that since there are time constraints, evaluation of effectiveness must rely on “measures other than actual health outcomes.” In other words, whether the shots actually lower your risk of severe illness, hospitalization and death will have no bearing.

The only measure they’ll take into account is whether or not the jab triggers a rise in antibody levels, which has never been proven to be beneficial. If anything, the increase in COVID antibodies actually increases your risk of infection. This also means that as long as antibody levels are through the roof, the death rate could be just about anything, because it’s not part of the safety equation.

Faith in Magic Has Officially Replaced Science

As noted by Rogers,38 “The ‘Future Framework’ is a plan to base the entire COVID-19 vaccine program on magical thinking rather than science.” Indeed, Dr. Deborah Birx recently confirmed that the whole vaccine push has been based in faith in magic.39

June 23, 2022, Birx answered questions from the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asked whether the government was lying or guessing when they stated that vaccinated individuals couldn’t catch or spread COVID. At first, she claimed she didn’t know, but when pressed, she replied, “I think it was hope that the vaccine would work in that way.”40

So, the government issued mandates and made unequivocal, absolute statements that were not allowed to be questioned because they HOPED the shots would work a certain way — all while insisting they were the ones following and trusting the science and anyone who questioned their logic was a dangerous nut job. Let that sink in. Hope is literally the diametrical opposite of science.

It’s an Insiders’ Plot

As explained by Rogers, the same old players are behind this brazen attempt to eliminate the need for clinical trials: CDC staffers, academics who are in the pockets of Bill Gates and the NIAID, the drug companies themselves and the World Health Organization. Rogers writes:41

“I did not understand until just yesterday (as I started to write this article) that this entire ‘Future Framework’ is actually coming from the WHO. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the biggest voluntary contributor to the WHO. So Gates is likely directing the play.

Gates requires that WHO use the McKinsey consulting firm so this is probably a McKinsey operation (and McKinsey also works for Pharma so this is a huge conflict of interest). As Naomi Wolf points out, the involvement of the WHO also raises troubling questions about the influence of the Chinese Communist Party over this process.

As far back as January, the WHO/Gates/McKinsey junta realized that these shots were terrible and so they decided to use that as an opportunity to seize even more power and control.

The WHO set up a Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition (TAG-CO-VAC) to implement these Orwellian ‘Future Frameworks’ across the developed world to lower manufacturing costs for Pharma and avoid bothersome health data that might hurt profits. All the messaging we have seen from the FDA and leaked to the press was initially developed and released by TAG-CO-VAC.”

No doubt, we live in unprecedented, precarious times. Logic, reason, science and sanity itself has been tossed aside by those who claim the right to make decisions for all mankind. If the FDA goes forward with this “Future Framework” scheme, the only safe assumption is that COVID shots will become more and more dangerous.

Worse, we can expect other vaccines and drugs to be allowed on the market without clinical trials as well. It truly could change the science of medicine as we know it.

Of course the WHO also wants to seize control over health care worldwide, which would eliminate medical rights everywhere. It’s a nightmare scenario with no end in sight as of yet. All we can do is continue to push back, to inform ourselves, to speak out, share facts and data, and refuse to comply with unscientific recommendations based on little more than hope in fabricated conclusions.

Sources and References

July 5, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 2 Comments

Internet Searches for “death after vaccine” Increased After Covid Injection Roll-out

By Ryan Matters | New Brave World | July 3, 2022

Google is the largest and most used search engine in the world with a desktop market share of over 85%!

Data from Google Trends shows a marked increase in people searching for “death after vaccine” immediately after Covid-19 injections were rolled out around the world.

Google Trends provides insights into the popularity of certain search terms within a given timeframe and locality. According to Google:

Google Trends provides access to a largely unfiltered sample of actual search requests made to Google. It’s anonymized (no one is personally identified), categorized (determining the topic for a search query) and aggregated (grouped together). This allows us to display interest in a particular topic from around the globe or down to city-level geography.

The Covid-19 injection roll out began in January 2021 (with trials being run for months before). Data from Google Trends suggests that searches for terms such as “death after vaccine”, “vaccine chest pains”, “vaccine side effects”, “vaccine pain” and “vaccine vomiting” increased at almost the exact same time.

An increase in searches for the term “death after vaccine” could be interpreted as being due to people looking specifically for that kind of data. However, it could also be due to people knowing someone who died shortly after getting injected and looking for more information.

VAERS (the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) provides further corroboration for this hypothesis. The reporting system has received almost 30,000 reports of death following Covid injections since December 14, 2020. (And it is important to keep in mind that vaccine adverse events are not required to be reported. In fact, they are criminally underreported, and many physicians are uneducated on how to use the platform).

According to a recent article on Children’s Health Defense:

VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show 1,314,594 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID-19 vaccines, including 29,162 deaths and 241,226 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and June 24, 2022.

Noteworthy is that “death after vaccine” wasn’t the only term that saw an increase in searches. So did “vaccine chest pains”, “vaccine side effects”, “vaccine pain” and “vaccine vomiting”.

July 5, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | 1 Comment

15 years of failed experiments: Myths and facts about the Israeli siege on Gaza

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | July 5, 2022

Fifteen years have passed since Israel imposed a total siege on the Gaza Strip, subjecting nearly two million Palestinians to one of the longest and most cruel politically-motivated blockades in history. Back then, the Israeli government justified its siege as the only way to protect Israel from Palestinian “terrorism and rocket attacks”. This is the occupation state’s official line to this day, and yet not many Israelis — certainly not in government, the media or even ordinary people — would argue that Israel today is safer than it was prior to June 2007.

It is widely understood that Israel imposed the siege as a response to the Hamas takeover of the Strip, following a brief, violent confrontation between the movement, which is the current de facto government in Gaza, and its main political rival Fatah, which dominates the Palestinian Authority in the occupied West Bank. However, the isolation of Gaza was planned years before the Hamas-Fatah clash, or even the legislative election victory of Hamas in January 2006.

In fact, the late Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was determined to redeploy Israeli forces out of Gaza long before these dates, making the siege possible. Culminating in the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in August-September 2005, the plan was proposed by Sharon in 2003, approved by his government in 2004 and finally adopted by the Knesset in February 2005.

The “disengagement” was an Israeli tactic intended to remove a few thousand illegal Jewish settlers from occupied Gaza — to go to other illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank — while redeploying the Israeli army from crowded population centres in the Gaza Strip to the nominal border areas. This was the actual start of the Gaza siege.

The above assertion was even clear to James Wolfensohn, who was appointed by the Middle East Quartet as the Special Envoy for Gaza Disengagement. In 2010, he reached a similar conclusion: “Gaza had been effectively sealed off from the outside world since the Israeli disengagement… and the humanitarian and economic consequences for the Palestinian population were profound.”

The ultimate motive behind the “disengagement” was not Israel’s security, or even to starve the Palestinians in Gaza as a form of collective punishment. The latter was a natural outcome of a much more sinister political plot, as communicated by Sharon’s own senior advisor at the time, Dov Weisglass. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in October 2004, Weisglass put it plainly: “The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process.” How? “When you freeze [the peace] process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem.”

Not only was this Israel’s ultimate motive behind the disengagement and subsequent siege of Gaza, but also, according to the seasoned Israeli politician, it was all done “with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of [the US] Congress.” The US president at the time was none other than George W. Bush.

All of this took place before Palestine’s legislative election, Hamas’s victory and the Hamas-Fatah clash. The latter merely served as a convenient justification for what had already been discussed, “ratified” by Washington and implemented.

For Israel, the siege was a political ploy which acquired additional meaning and value as time passed. In response to the accusation that Israel was starving Palestinians in Gaza, Weisglass was very quick to reply: “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”

What was then understood as a facetious, albeit thoughtless statement, turned out to be actual Israeli policy, as revealed in a 2008 report which was made available in 2012. Thanks to the Israeli human rights organization Gisha, the “redlines [for] food consumption in the Gaza Strip” — composed by the Israeli Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories — were made known. It emerged that Israel was calculating the minimum number of calories necessary to keep Gaza’s population alive, a number that is “adjusted to culture and experience” in the Strip.

The rest is history. Gaza’s suffering is absolute, with 98 per cent of the Strip’s water undrinkable; hospitals lacking essential supplies and life-saving medications; and movement in and out of the territory more or less prohibited, with relatively few minor exceptions.

Even so, Israel has failed miserably, with none of its objectives achieved. Tel Aviv hoped that the “disengagement” would compel the international community to redefine the legal status of the Israeli occupation of Gaza. Despite pressure from Washington, that never happened. Gaza remains part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories as defined in international law.

Furthermore, Israel’s September 2007 designation of Gaza as an “enemy entity” and a “hostile territory” changed little, apart from allowing the Israeli government to carry out several devastating wars against the Palestinians in the enclave, starting in late 2008.

None of these wars have served a long-term Israeli strategy successfully. Instead, Gaza continues to fight back on a much larger scale than ever before, frustrating the calculations of Israeli leaders, a fact which became clear in the befuddled, disturbing language to which they resorted. During one of the deadliest Israeli wars on Gaza, in July 2014, right-wing Knesset member Ayelet Shaked wrote on Facebook that the war was “not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority.” Instead, according to Shaked, who a year later became Israel’s Minister of Justice, this was “a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people.”

In the final analysis, the governments of Sharon, Tzipi Livni, Ehud Olmert, Benjamin Netanyahu and Naftali Bennett all failed to isolate Gaza from the greater Palestinian body; break the will of the Palestinians in the Strip; or ensure Israeli security at the expense of the Palestinians.

Moreover, Israel has fallen victim to its own hubris. While prolonging the siege will achieve no short or long-term strategic value, lifting the siege, from Israel’s viewpoint, would be tantamount to an admission of defeat, and could empower Palestinians in the West Bank to emulate the Gaza model. This lack of certainty further accentuates the political crisis and lack of strategic vision that has defined all Israeli governments for nearly two decades.

Israel’s political experiment in Gaza has backfired, inevitably so. The only way out is for the siege of Gaza to be lifted completely. Not eased; lifted. Completely. And this time, for good.

July 5, 2022 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , , , | 1 Comment

Crime and Punishment

Government officials must be held accountable


Quite likely a majority of Americans would agree that it is wrong for the government or police to torture someone, though some would surely accept the “ticking time bomb” exemption, where a detainee is withholding information that could save many lives. It is in fact illegal to torture someone as well as it being morally wrong. Indeed, it could constitute a crime against humanity or a war crime depending on circumstances. The United States, which has signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture and is bound by it, has thereby accepted legal sanctions to back up the view that torture is never permissible. Under US law, torture committed by “government officials and their collaborators upon a person restrained by the government is a felony punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison, and its fruits are inadmissible in all courts.” Given that background, one is astonished to learn that some in the government have not taken the obligation seriously. To be sure, the US has been quick to react when lower ranking officials, contractors and ordinary soldiers have reportedly been involved in torturing prisoners, as occurred with Abu Ghraib prior to 2004, but the higher one goes up the ladder of power the less do laws apply to even the most egregious misbehavior.

It has long been known that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), in the wake of 9/11, resorted to torture in its overseas “black” prisons, but details of what took place and anything that would stand up in court as evidence has been difficult to discern as it has been easy for the Agency to shroud its more nefarious deeds through claims of protecting “states secrets.” But now some more details have emerged. The news that former Donald Trump appointed CIA Director Gina Haspel during her tour overseeing a prison in Thailand in 2002 personally observed at least one terrorist suspect being tortured by waterboarding, which simulates being drowned repeatedly until a confession is obtained. Waterboarding was used by the Japanese on prisoners of war in the Second World War and was subsequently considered to be torture, a war crime.

The new information came from one of the creators of the Agency’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” program, psychologist James E. Mitchell, who was testifying in a May pretrial hearing at Guantanamo Prison relating to the treatment of Saudi al-Qaeda linked terrorist suspect Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who has been accused of being complicit in the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 that killed 17 American sailors. Al-Nashiri, who was shipped to Gitmo in 2006 and who has been waiting sixteen years for his trial, could face the death penalty if he is convicted. His defense is seeking to demonstrate that the evidence against him was obtained by torture and should therefore be inadmissible.

Al-Nashiri was subjected to four months of waterboarding as well as to what have been described as “other coercive techniques” during his questioning in Thailand. According to testimony, the hooded interrogators repeatedly slammed al-Nashiri’s head into a wall and forced him naked into a small confinement box. When he briefly went on a hunger strike due to his treatment he was fed rectally. It is not known how frequently Gina Haspel, the senior officer in charge of the base, observed the torture, which she allegedly watched but did not participate in, but she drafted up the classified cables detailing what had occurred and what information had been developed. Oddly, al-Nashiri was freely answering the questions from the interrogators, who recommended that the extreme measures be stopped, but CIA Headquarters insisted that the torture continue in the belief that nothing is “true” until it is verified under torture. Rather than resigning to demonstrate her disagreement, Haspel allowed the process to continue, which is why in part some of her former Agency colleagues regularly refer to her as “Bloody Gina.”

Videotapes were made of the torture but they were subsequently destroyed. Haspel participated in the November 2005 destruction of hundreds of hours of recordings contained on 92 tapes showing at least two interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and al-Nashiri. She did so while serving as chief of staff to the Director of the National Collection Service Jose A. Rodriguez Jr. At her Senate confirmation hearing as Director in 2018, she said “I would also make clear that I did not appear on the tapes.” Rodriguez, who made the decision to destroy the tapes, also reportedly determined how to handle a suspected terrorist detainee Gul Rahman. Rahman was chained, nearly naked, to a concrete floor for an extended time and then froze to death. There was an internal CIA investigation but no officer on-site nor at the Agency headquarters was punished – let alone prosecuted. In fact, Rodriguez, who was in charge of the detention site, received a $2,500 bonus for his “consistently superior work.”

The Agency currently regards the existence of the black prisons and the procedures used to elicit information as a “state secret” even though the existence of the sites is widely known and has been reported on extensively. After serving as Director of Central Intelligence Haspel retired from CIA in January 2021. She currently works for a major Washington law firm King & Spalding L.L.P., a typical transition for senior officials who are able to exploit the revolving door between government and the private sector. She reportedly is part of the firm’s Government Matters practice where she “advise[s] clients on cybersecurity and information technology, among other issues.”

Every instance of torture by the federal government or its agents is by law a separate felony. Beyond that, what went on in the Agency’s black overseas prisons is shocking even in a Washington where no crime is too low to be contemplated by the governments we have unfortunately placed into power. Some might object that Gina’s actions amounted to oversight of a dreadful necessity, but there is something particularly loathsome about a powerful Administration intelligence officer finding time to watch the horrors performed on a suspect who undoubtedly was not afforded any due process before he arrived in his cell to be experimented on by a team of modern-day Torquemadas.

The unfortunate fact is the Gina Haspel is not alone. She committed what are undeniably felonies and now enjoys a well-paid sinecure with a law firm that deals extensively with the government. One might recall similar trajectories relating to the former CIA Director George Tenet who lied America into a war with Iraq that is regarded as the greatest foreign policy failure since the Second World War. He was rewarded with a professorship at Georgetown. And then there is his partner in crime Paul Wolfowitz, he of the fabricated intelligence, who was named head of the World Bank only to subsequently step down after an unacceptable sexual relationship with a subordinate whom he rewarded with promotions was exposed. He is now a Senior Fellow at the neocon affiliated American Enterprise Institute think tank. George and Paul just might consider how the Nuremberg Trials regarded starting a war of aggression as “the ultimate war crime.” And they might suggest a bit of retrospection from their friends George Bush, Doug Feith, Scooter Libby, and Condi Rice, all of whom have been complicit in the same infamy. And then there is Donald Trump’s assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani based on a lie that he was seeking to kill Americans. They are all doing quite well, thank you, either still active or ensconced in highly respected retirement positions, shielded by their wealth and power.

As long as there is no accountability in Washington the farce of government “of the people, and for the people” will continue. That a government can use the “secrets privilege” to conceal and avoid any consequences when killing people without any due process is despicable. If you use government resources to murder someone, you should be tried and go to prison. If you start a war through deliberate lying, you should stay in prison forever. Those who make the decisions to commit crimes are wired into the system and are in a sense bullet-proof, while the public has been completely brainwashed and the beat goes on. Another recent story tells how the CIA was apparently planning to kill currently imprisoned journalist Julian Assange in London. It reportedly included scenarios for a possible shoot-out in the heart of the city, the ramming of Russian diplomatic vehicles and the disabling of any airplane that might be involved in an escape attempt. Who came up with that one? It dates back to 2010, when the noted constitutional lawyer Barack Obama was president. Didn’t he or his advisers know that murder is against the law?

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is

July 5, 2022 Posted by | Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | 3 Comments

Russia says Ukraine ‘tortured’ captured soldiers

Press TV – July 5, 2022

Russia says its soldiers recently released as part of a prisoner swap with Ukraine were “beaten” and “tortured with electricity in captivity.”

The Russian Investigative Committee, which probes major crimes, said in a statement on Tuesday that it was “verifying facts of inhuman treatment of Russia soldier prisoners in Ukraine.”

Moscow and Kiev exchanged 144 prisoners of war each last week.

The investigative committee said the freed Russian soldiers had told investigators about “the violence they had suffered.”

One of the soldiers, according to the Russian statement, said Ukrainian medics had treated him without applying anesthetics and that he was “beaten, tortured with electricity in captivity.” He said he was left without food and water for days.

Another Russian soldier said he was badly beaten and had his wound irritated by Ukrainian medics.

The Russian committee said the testimonies of the freed soldiers were examples of “violations of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war.”

July 5, 2022 Posted by | Subjugation - Torture, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

EU economies are down on their knees


On July 1 at the White House, US President Joe Biden made a startling disclosure that “the idea we’re going to be able to click a switch, bring down the cost of gasoline, is not likely in the near term.” 

American gas exporters have positioned themselves accordingly to fill the gap as Europe turns away from Russian imports. FT reported recently that “US liquefied natural gas producers have announced a string of deals to boost exports as the industry capitalises on shortages that have left Europe with a mounting energy crisis.” 

The deals are so lucrative that Cheniere, America’s leading gas exporter, has taken an investment decision to push ahead with a project that will boost its capacity more than 20 per cent by late 2025, anticipating long-term supply deals and locked in purchases of US gas over the coming decades. The US producers of gas are reportedly running plants flat-out to increase supplies to the EU. 

The US has overtaken Russia for the first time as Europe’s top gas supplier. Although LNG from the US is sold to Europe at much higher costs than pipeline gas from Russia, EU countries have no choice. 

With Russian supply via Nord Stream at just 40% of capacity, and deliveries to be halted completely for annual maintenance on July 11-21, the outlook for near-term Russian gas supply to Europe appears bleak. 

Germany has warned of the risk that Nord Stream gas may not return at all following the maintenance. At any rate, Russian supply to Europe is at record lows and is “set to remain constrained through the third quarter,” per S&P Global.

Germany is heading for a major economic crisis. The head of the German Federation of Trade Unions has been quoted as saying in the weekend, “Entire industries are in danger of collapsing forever because of the gas bottlenecks — especially, chemicals, glass-making, and aluminium industries, which are major suppliers to key automotive sector.” Massive unemployment is likely. When Germany sneezes, of course, Europe catches cold — not only the Eurozone but even post-Brexit Britain. 

Welcome to the European Union’s “sanctions from hell.” The US literally hustled the Europeans into the Ukraine crisis. How many times did Secretary of State Antony Blinken travel to Europe in those critical months in the run-up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine to ensure that the door to any meaningful talks with the Kremlin remained shut! And American energy companies are today making windfall profits selling gas to Europeans. Won’t Europeans have the common intelligence to realise they have been had? 

Now, Biden has washed his hands of the gas crisis. He brusquely stated at a press conference in Madrid on June 30 that such premium on oil prices will continue “as long as it takes, so Russia cannot, in fact, defeat Ukraine and move beyond Ukraine. This is a critical, critical position for the world. Here we are. Why do we have NATO?” 

Biden’s counterfactual narrative is that the sanctions against Russia are going to work eventually and a long war in Ukraine would be Russia’s undoing. The US narrative is that if you look under the hood of the Russian economy, it may not be flexible and resourceful enough to develop an entrepreneurial bunker spirit and adopt new business models to neutralise the sanctions. Biden is convinced that the Russian economy is in the grip of industrial mafias that are not very innovative and, therefore, there aren’t many options for Russia under the western sanctions. 

Biden said in Madrid: “Look at the impact that the war on Ukraine has had on Russia… They’ve (Russians) lost 15 years of the gains they made in terms of their economy…  They can’t even — you know, they’re having — they’re going to have trouble maintaining oil production because they don’t have the technology to do it. They need American technology. And they’re also in a simi- — similar situation in terms of their weapons systems and some of their military systems. So they’re paying a very, very heavy price for this.” 

But even if that’s the case, how does all that help the Europeans? On the other hand, President Putin’s strategic calculations with respect to the war remain very much on track. Russian forces made indisputable progress in establishing full control over Luhansk. On Monday, Putin gave the green signal to a proposal from the army commanders to launch “offensive operations.” Five months into the war, Ukrainians are staring at defeat and Russian army generals know it.

Russia didn’t wander into Ukraine unprepared, either. Evidently, it took precautionary steps both before and since the war to shield its economy. And this enables the Russian economy to settle down to a “new normal”. Washington’s options are quite limited under the circumstances. Fundamentally, western sanctions do not address the causes of the Russian behaviour, and therefore, they are doomed to fail to solve the problem at hand. 

To be sure, Putin has some nasty surprises in store for Biden closer to the November mid-term elections. Biden blithely assumes that he controls all the variables in the situation. Schadenfreude is never a rational basis for statecraft. 

Yesterday, the strategically important Kherson region bordering Crimea formed a new government with the First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia’s Kaliningrad region heading the cabinet and Russian nationals among his deputies. Now that HIMARS multiple launch rocket system, contrary to Biden’s promise, is blasting Russian cities, expect some major Russian retaliation. 

The pathway of Russia’s offensive operations is being relaid to include Kharkov and Odessa as well, apart from Donbass. The influential Kremlin politician and chairman of Duma Vyacheslav Volodin said on Tuesday. 

“Some people are asking what our goal is and when all this will end. It will end when our peaceful cities and towns no longer come under shelling attacks. What they are doing is forcing our troops not to stop on the borders of the Lugansk and Donetsk republics (Donbass) because strikes (on Russian regions) are coming from the Kharkov regions and other regions of Ukraine.”

How long does Biden think the Europeans will want to be involved in a protracted proxy war with Russia? Bild reported on Sunday that 75% of German respondents see recent price hikes as a heavy burden, while 50% said they feel their economic conditions are worsening; every second German fears a lack of heating this coming winter due to reduced Russian gas supplies and rising inflation in the European Union. 

Yet, Biden says war will go on “for as long as it takes” and fuel shortage will continue “for as long as it takes.” The European economy is expected to start contracting over the course of the second half of 2022 and the recession may continue until the summer of 2023 at least. 

Analysts at JP Morgan Chase, the US investment bank, said last week that Russia could also cause “stratospheric” oil price increases if it used output cuts to retaliate. It said, “The tightness of the global oil market is on Russia’s side.” Analysts wrote that prices could more than triple to $380 a barrel if Russia cut production by 5m barrels a day.

Putin’s decree last week is ominous — the Kremlin taking full control of the Sakhalin-2 oil and gas project in Russia’s Far East. State-owned Gazprom held a 50% plus one share stake in the project and its foreign partners included Shell (27.5%), Mitsui (12.5%), and Mitsubishi (10%). The decree stipulates that Gazprom will keep its majority stake, but foreign investors must ask the Russian government for a stake in the newly created firm within one month or be dispossessed. The government will decide whether to approve any request. 

This will unsettle energy markets further and put more strain on the LNG market, and can be seen as a move to put more pressure on the West by concurrently restricting gas supplies to Europe and creating more demand for LNG in Asia that will draw off supplies currently going to Europe. Sakhalin-2 supplies circa 4% of the global LNG market! 

The only part of the US agenda that is going well seems to be the unspoken part of it: the very same Anglo-American objectives that Lord Ismay once predicted as the rationale behind the NATO’s existence —”to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”  

July 5, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , , | 3 Comments

Foreign Policy Fail: Biden’s Sanctions are a Windfall For Russia!

By Ron Paul | July 4, 2022

It’s easy to see why, according to a new Harris poll, 71 percent of Americans said they do not want Joe Biden to run for re-election. As Americans face record gas prices and the highest inflation in 40 years, President Biden admits he could not care less. His Administration is committed to fight a proxy war with Russia through Ukraine and Americans just need to suck it up.

Last week a New York Times reporter asked Biden how long he expects Americans to pay record gasoline prices over his Administration’s Ukraine policy. “As long as it takes,” replied the president without hesitation.

“Russia cannot defeat Ukraine,” added Biden as justification for his Administration’s pro-pain policy toward Americans. The president has repeatedly tried to deflect blame for the growing economic crisis by claiming Russia is solely behind recent inflation. “The reason why gas prices are up is because of Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia,” he said in the same press conference.

But Biden has a big problem: Americans do not believe him. According to a Rasmussen poll earlier this month, only eleven percent of Americans believe Biden’s claim that Russian president Vladimir Putin is to blame for high prices.

When it comes to disdain for the average American hurt by higher prices, there is more than enough in the Biden Administration to go around.

Brian Deese, Director of President Biden’s National Economic Council, was asked in a recent CNN interview, “What do you say to those families that say, listen, we can’t afford to pay $4.85 a gallon for months, if not years?”

His answer? “This is about the future of the Liberal World Order and we have to stand firm.”

Has there ever been an Administration more out of touch with the American people? If you asked working Americans whether they’d be happy to suffer poverty for the “liberal world order,” how many would say “that sounds like a great idea”?

President Biden’s attempts to bring down gasoline prices are bound to fail because he does not understand the problem. He can beg the Saudis to pump more oil, he can even threaten the US oil companies as he did in a Tweet yesterday. He can buy and sell from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an attempt to give the impression that prices are lowering. None of it will work.

The strangest part of this idea that Americans must suffer to hurt the Russians is that these policies aren’t even hurting Russia! On the contrary: Russia has seen record profits from its oil and gas exports since the beginning of the Ukraine war.

According to a recent New York Times article, increasing global oil and gas prices have enabled Russia to finance its war on Ukraine. US sanctions did not bring the Russian economy to its knees, as Biden promised. They actually brought the American economy to its knees while Russian profits soared.

As Newsweek noted last week, Russian television pundits are joking that with the financial windfall Russia has seen since sanctions were imposed, “Biden is of course our agent.”

Washington’s bi-partisan foreign policy of wasting trillions on endless wars overseas has finally come home. Biden is clearly out of touch, but there is plenty of blame to go around. The only question is whether we will see an extended recession… or worse.

Copyright © 2022 by RonPaul Institute.

July 5, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | 1 Comment

Moscow responds to Japan’s threat to cap Russian oil prices

Samizdat | July 5, 2022

Tokyo’s proposal to place a cap on Russian oil prices would lead to significantly less oil on the market and could drastically push oil prices higher, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev warned on Tuesday.

Responding to the idea put forward by Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida on Sunday, Medvedev wrote on his Telegram channel that Japan “would have neither oil nor gas from Russia, as well as no participation in the Sakhalin-2 LNG project” if Tokyo decided to go through with the proposal.

“Japanese PM Kishida recently blurted out that the price ceiling for Russian oil would be set at half its current price. Plus, a mechanism will be created that will not allow the purchase of our oil at a price higher than the established one,” the former president wrote.

He went on to explain what this would mean when “translated from Japanese into Russian,” writing that such a move would severely limit the amount of oil available on the market, causing its price to be “much higher.”

“In fact, it will be even higher than the predicted astronomical price of $300-400 a barrel. Compare this with the dynamic of gas prices,” Medvedev said.

During last week’s G7 summit, the leaders of Germany, France, Canada, the US, the UK, Japan, and Italy agreed to explore the feasibility of introducing temporary import price caps on Russian fossil fuels, including oil, citing the ongoing military conflict between Moscow and Kiev.

However, as the Kremlin has pointed out, implementing a measure such as the one proposed by Japan would first require the approval of other countries. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated on Monday that Kishida’s idea was merely “a single statement only, without any decisions taken.”

July 5, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

London wants social media to “proactively” tackle would-be disinformation from states such as Russia

Samizdat | July 5, 2022

London has proposed new legislation that would require social media to “proactively” tackle “disinformation” that allegedly pours into the UK from foreign states such as Russia and harms the nation, the government said on Tuesday. Platforms failing to do so will be subject to huge fines or could be blocked.

The legislation, which is subject to parliamentary approval, would oblige social media platforms to hunt down what the government believes to be fake accounts that act in the interests of foreign states and seek to influence UK politics, including elections.

The new amendment will also compel social media, search engines and other websites to crack down on such accounts in order to minimize the number of people exposed to “state-sponsored disinformation.”

“We cannot allow foreign states or their puppets to use the internet to conduct hostile online warfare unimpeded,” said Nadine Dorries, the UK culture and digital secretary, pointing out that the Ukraine conflict has shown that Russia is ready to weaponize information.

According to the proposed law, social media will have to make creating fake accounts more difficult and will also need to fight bots used for misleading the public. Ofcom, the British media regulator, will have the authority to fine any internet resources that don’t comply up to 10% of their global turnover.

The amendment is set be included in the National Security Bill, which will be discussed by British MPs next week.

This latest move by the UK government would directly target, for instance, the Russian pranksters known as Vovan and Lexus, who had pulled a stunt on UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace and Home Secretary Priti Patel. As a result, their channel was banned by YouTube in late May.

On Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov criticized the West for harassment of Russian journalists, saying that Western countries have “buried the freedom of speech with their own hands.” In his view, Western governments intentionally create their own laws allowing them to decide what is “freedom of information” and what is “propaganda.”

July 5, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment