Aletho News


They want you to feel climate change is a “personal threat”. Here’s why.

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | July 21, 2022

“The climate crisis is a public health crisis”, that is a tweet by Hillary Clinton’s official twitter account yesterday afternoon.

The tweet included a link to a news story claiming that Spain and Portugal had seen over a thousand people had die in the past week, due to the heatwave (they’ve since amended that number to over 2000).

I don’t want to get into the maths of it, but across two countries totalling around 58 million people, 2000 in a week is not very many at all.

And, as I have pointed out, in a post-Covid world we can’t really be sure what “died due to the heat” even means.

Case in point – we’re already seeing drownings termed “heatwave deaths”… because they wouldn’t have been swimming if it wasn’t so hot.

But we’re not here to fact-check yet more figures or definitions. The point of this article is to highlight the message behind the tweet, and it’s not a new one. It’s all about taking the powers the states have acquired through “covid”, and then applying them to “climate change”

Maybe that means “climate lockdowns”, or “climate passports”, or rationing fuel or banning travel… but whatever terms or phrases they eventually use, it’s definitely some authoritarian fantasy made flesh.

That’s the target, and it has been from the beginning.

Since the earliest days of the “pandemic” there have been consistent (and ludicrous) attempts to try and associate “Covid” and “climate” in the public mind.

They started by directly linking the two, and to this day try and make out that climate change will cause more zoonotic pandemics. But that never really hit home.

The more consistent and pervasive messaging has been an effort to rebrand “climate change”, not as an environmental problem but as a “public health” problem.

This messaging first appeared in March 2020, when the pandemic was less than three months old the British Medical Journal published a paper titled “The WHO should declare climate change a public health emergency”, which argued that global warming was far more dangerous than a simple virus, and should be treated just as seriously.

Nobody really listened. In the two years since they’ve tried to bring it back over and over again, but it never lands.

Just weeks into lockdown we were already being told that lockdowns were healing the planet, and journalists were asking “if we can do this for covid, why not climate?”

By September of 2020 they were talking about “avoiding a climate lockdown”.

March of 2021 saw reports springing up claiming we needed a “covid lockdown every two years” to meet out climate goals.

In summer of 2021 the latest IPCC report prompted talk of “hinging from covid to climate” that never really took off.

This past March the think tank Public Policy Project repeated the demand that the WHO recognise climate change as a “public health emergency”.

And just yesterday, the BMJ was back at it, publishing two articles on the same topic. One warning about The inconvenient truths of health and climate crises that can’t just be ignored and another titled Groundhog day: the signs of a climate emergency are with us again

There’s a new push in the works, and the thinking behind it is clear.

After decades of propaganda that saw “global warming” become “climate change” become “global heating” and eventually “climate emergency”, people simply are not scared of it.

Maybe it’s subconscious knowledge that it’s a propaganda campaign, maybe it’s the literal 60 years of failed prophecies, but whichever it is people are not scared, not like they were of Covid anyway.

The powers-that-be have pretty much admitted this themselves, there’s a revealing Sky News article about it from just a couple of days ago, headlined:

Why is it so hard to get people to care about climate change?”

We saw, during Covid, the UK government’s Behavioural Insights Team published a memo which said people were not scared enough of Covid, and the messaging needed to change in order to scare people into compliance:

The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging.

That same thinking holds with climate change. They want it to be the new covid, but to get there they need people to feel “an increased level of personal threat”.

That means hitting the dangers of climate change hard. It means fudging death numbers and manufacturing alarming statistics. And it means peppering those headlines with influential figures – like Hillary Clinton – calling climate change a “public health crisis”

That’s why the heatwave is being talked about in such absurd terms. That’s why the UK declared its first ever “heatwave” national emergency, and why Biden is considering declaring a “climate emergency” (whatever that means).

It’s why we’re seeing warnings of “thousands dying”, and suddenly getting “wildfires” (that turn out to be arson).

It’s why doctors have started literally diagnosing “climate change”, as if it were a disease.

They want – and need – to change the climate conversation. It’s not going to be about the environment anymore, it’s going to be about “public health”.

Climate change is being rebranded – it will no longer be a threat to the planet, from now on it is a threat to you.

And as soon as they that message has a grip on people, they will turnaournd and say “so, about those climate lockdowns.

July 21, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | 1 Comment

What You Don’t Know Could Hurt You: Novavax’s ‘Loud-and-Clear’ Nanoparticle Adjuvant

The Defender | July 20, 2022

In recent months, COVID-19 vaccination in the U.S. has “slowed to a crawl” as an increasingly distrustful public says “no thanks” to primary shots and boosters.

Still, U.S. public health agencies continue to authorize, approve and recommend COVID-19 vaccines — even for infants.

On Tuesday, advisors to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — perhaps believing they can reverse the slowdown in “vaccine uptake” and without admitting to the ravages caused by the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) shots — unanimously recommended the “Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last week granted Novavax Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine, for adults age 18 and up.

Back in 2020, Operation Warp Speed awarded Novavax — another company that like Moderna, never brought a product to market before COVID-19 — a secret contract worth $1.6 billion (now being reported as $1.8 billion).

It was one of the largest taxpayer handouts channeled through Operation Warp Speed.

The media’s obliging sales pitch is that the Novavax injection is a “game changer” in comparison to the mRNA and adenovirus-vectored gene therapy shots, and should be “reassuring to those who are hesitant.”

In fact, according to the CDC’s advisors, the unvaccinated represent the “primary target population for Novavax.”

To further entice the unvaccinated, headlines feature the misleading claim that Novavax’s EUA jab — featuring recombinant moth-cell-based nanoparticle technology, the problematic surfactant polysorbate 80 and a never-before-approved nanoparticulate adjuvant called Matrix-M — is “free of side effects.”

However, the day after the FDA issued its Novavax authorization, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) made its own announcement, stating it was updating its product information for the Novavax COVID-19 shot to disclose “new” side effects.

The EMA’s list of side effects included “severe allergic reaction [anaphylaxis] and unusual or decreased feeling in the skin” (called paresthesia and hypoesthesia, respectively).

In addition, the EMA said it is assessing myocarditis and pericarditis as Novavax side effects — safety signals that also were on display in the FDA’s briefing document.

And in clinical trials, older adults who received the Novavax vaccine experienced an increased incidence of hypertension compared to those in the placebo group.

In short, as reported last week and last month by The Defender, the evidence contradicts Novavax’s downplaying of its vaccine’s association with heart problems and other side effects.

Apparently unaware of any potential cardiac risks, die-hards who have swallowed the slanted Novavax messaging blithely suggested in online comments that they would take bizarre skin problems over the heart problems they associate with other COVID-19 vaccines any day.

Adjuvants — ‘leave them out if you can’

Adjuvants, sometimes referred to as “the immunologist’s dirty little secret,” are components of at least 80% of all vaccines. They are supposed to “stimulate and enhance the magnitude and durability of the immune response.”

Additional adjuvant actions include modifying or broadening the immune response in certain age groups (such as infants and older adults) who tend not to respond to vaccines as strongly as vaccine makers would like, and increasing the body’s uptake of the vaccine antigen and protecting the antigen “from degradation and elimination.”

Less often admitted is the sordid association between adjuvants’ tenacious and “immunostimulatory” properties and systemic adverse events — such as neurotoxicity, “enigmatic” autoimmune issues (dubbed “autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants” or “ASIA” by Israeli autoimmunity expert Yehuda Shoenfeld), narcolepsyinfertility and other wild-card effects.

For these reasons, Dr. Martin Friede — lead scientist at the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Initiative for Vaccine Research — candidly remarked to other global vaccine insiders in late 2019, “We do not add adjuvants to vaccines because we want to do so” but out of perceived necessity.

Friede added:

“The first lesson is, while you’re making your vaccine, if you can avoid using an adjuvant, please do so. Lesson two is, if you’re going to use an adjuvant, use one that has a history of safety. And lesson three is, if you’re not going to do that, think very carefully.”

Undermining these seeming appeals to safety, Friede has since gone on to shill for Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot and for mRNA vaccine technology more broadly.

Nanoparticles times two

For many decades, aluminum-based adjuvants were the only game in town.

However, with the burgeoning of nanotechnology and encouragement from sponsors like the National Institutes of Health, manufacturers shifted gears toward a new generation of “novel” nanotech adjuvants designed to not only amplify vaccine responses but also to serve as carrier systems that distribute the vaccine’s payload to “key cells of the immune system.”

Generally left unmentioned in the hype surrounding these next-generation, nanoparticle-based adjuvants is the abundant evidence of nanoparticle toxicity.

Well before COVID-19 vaccines came along, researchers warned about nanomaterials’ ability to “cross biological membranes and access cells, tissues and organs” — such as the brain, heart, liver, kidneys, spleen, bone marrow and nervous system — “that larger-sized particles normally cannot.”

They also cautioned that in the cells, “nanomaterials may be taken up by cell mitochondria and the cell nucleus,” with the potential for DNA mutation, structural damage to mitochondria and cell death.

Moreover, researchers identified extensive biotoxic impacts of nanoparticles on the cardiovascular system, including “cardiac damage and dysfunction, vascular dysfunction, EC [epithelial cell] abnormities [sic], atherosclerosis, abnormal angiogenesis, platelet activation, blood coagulation and thrombosis.”

Nevertheless, in pre-COVID-19 studies of experimental vaccines containing Novavax’s Matrix-M, researchers waxed enthusiastic about the nanoparticle-based adjuvant’s “significant” and “potent” action — including its strong “immunostimulatory properties” even without any accompanying antigen.

And, where nanoparticles are concerned, the Novavax COVID-19 shot actually delivers a double whammy, combining Matrix-M with genetically engineered spike protein nanoparticles.

As Novavax explains it (for some reason putting the word “adjuvant” in quotes), “The spike protein is the ‘signal,’ but … we want your immune system to hear that signal loud and clear [and] that signal boost comes from our Matrix-M ‘adjuvant.’”

Phospholipids and autoimmunity

Not unlike the lipid nanoparticle “carrier systems” in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 injections, the “immunostimulant” Matrix-M adjuvant includes two types of fat molecules — cholesterol and phospholipids — bundled with detergent-like saponins.

In human biology, phospholipids are essential for properly functioning cell membranes. But in the vaccine laboratory, synthetic versions are viewed as “essential components of advanced vaccines.”

Unheeded by the pharmaceutical industry is the fact that up to 5% of healthy individuals are estimated to harbor antiphospholipid antibodies, produced in a “mistaken” autoimmune response.

Researchers have linked the autoantibodies to the risk of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), an autoimmune disorder characterized by recurring blood clots as well as fetal loss, fetal growth retardation and other obstetric complications.

Although researchers claim to be baffled as to why some people develop APS, studies have noted the emergence of APS and other autoimmune conditions following receipt of numerous vaccines, including those against tetanusinfluenzahuman papillomavirus (HPV) — and now COVID-19.

In a study published in August 2021, the authors suggested that in people with preexisting antiphospholipid antibodies, both the mRNA and adenovirus-vectored COVID jabs — and presumably other types such as the Novavax injection — could plausibly function as “the straw that breaks the camel’s back,” triggering “aberrant activation of the coagulation pathway.”

Rheumatologists are also reporting surges in blood clotting disorders, including APS.

Will the unvaccinated public take the bait?

In 2005, the EMA mused that while new adjuvants often had trouble gaining approval due to safety concerns such as “acute toxicity and the possibility of delayed side effects … an increased level of toxicity may be acceptable if the benefit of the vaccine is substantial.”

In a 2017 study, investigators studying Matrix-M approvingly noted that “rapid activation” of the immune system “is highly desirable in adjuvants used for emergency vaccination.”

With its authorization of Novavax’s souped-up COVID-19 jab, the FDA appears to have endorsed both of these views.

Outside the U.S., Novavax’s potent adjuvant also is being test-driven in children in the African nation of Burkina Faso, where almost 1 in 10 of the unfortunate toddlers who received an experimental Matrix-M-containing malaria vaccine withdrew or were “lost to follow-up” before or just after the third dose.

Acknowledging only seven serious adverse events, the researchers concluded, “None … were attributed to the vaccine.”

Does Novavax even take its product seriously?

In a comment posted at Yahoo!Finance, a person who signed up for the Novavax clinical trials and then, after researching the untried company, decided to withdraw, noted the doctor running the trial responded, “Oh sure, that’s fine. You want to wait and get one of the real vaccines.”

In another sign of Novavax’s lackadaisical corporate attitude, the labels on the COVID-19 vaccine vials will contain no information about expiration dates, forcing healthcare providers into using an “online expiry date checker tool,” which CDC advisors acknowledge could be both burdensome and a source of “confusion.”

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a “nova” as “a star that suddenly increases its light output tremendously and then fades away to its former obscurity in a few months or years.”

Will we say the same for “Nova”-vax’s shot in a few months’ or years’ time?

© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

July 21, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Watershed Moment for Sceptics as PM Candidate Rishi Sunak Makes Election Pitch Saying “I Stopped Lockdown”


In a watershed moment for lockdown sceptics, Prime Minister candidate Rishi Sunak has said his opposition to lockdown is a reason that Conservative members should vote for him to lead the country.

In an interview with Andrew Marr on LBC, the former Chancellor said that last December he cut short an overseas trip and flew back to London to intervene and “stop us sleepwalking into a national lockdown”.

“We were hours away from a press conference that was going to lock this country down again because of Omicron,” he said. “And I came back and fought very hard against the system, because I believe that would be the wrong thing for this country, with all the damage it would have done to businesses, to children’s education, to people’s lives.”

It is the first time a leading politician, whether from the Government or opposition, has suggested that being opposed to lockdown is a reason to vote for him or favour him for office. It is indicative of a significant shift in public opinion about Covid restrictions, particularly that Sunak felt able to be so bold in trumpeting his opposition to lockdown and his role in defeating it without a need to couch it in careful language about taking the virus seriously and being cautious. That his interviewer, Andrew Marr, didn’t challenge him on it is further indication of how opinion has changed. This is despite a number of recent high profile calls for restrictions to be reintroduced, most recently by the editors of the BMJ and HSJ.

It offers hope that the future lies with politicians willing to turn their back on the ruinous and illiberal restrictions of 2020 and 2021.

Here is what Rishi said in full.

I’ll tell you what I was doing in December, though, because I still remember it quite vividly. You know what I did in December was fly back from a Government trip I was on overseas and I flew back to this country to stop us sleepwalking into a national lockdown. Because we were hours away from a press conference that was going to lock this country down again because of Omicron. And I came back and fought very hard against the system, because I believe that would be the wrong thing for this country, with all the damage it would have done to businesses, to children’s education, to people’s lives.

That’s really important in December Andrew because we were hours away, we were hours away from a national lockdown, but I came back and challenged the system, and said this is not right and we don’t need to do this and I’m glad I won the argument. But it should give people some confidence that in the same way I stood up for Brexit, in the same way I did that, I am prepared to push hard and fight for the things that I believe in even when that’s difficult.

Watch it here (from 28:45).

July 21, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | 2 Comments

Court Strikes Down “Quarantine Camp” Regulation in New York State

By Bobbie Anne Flower Cox | American Thinker | July 19, 2022

We have had a tremendous victory here in New York: a Supreme Court Judge has struck down Governor Kathy Hochul’s forced quarantine regulation! On July 8, 2022, Judge Ronald Ploetz ruled that the “Isolation and Quarantine Procedures” regulation is unconstitutional and “violative of New York State law as promulgated and enacted, and therefore null, void and unenforceable as a matter of law.”

Shockingly, New York’s Governor, Kathy Hochul, and Attorney General, Letitia James, plan to appeal the decision. Yes, that’s right… the Governor and AG, both unabashedly support quarantine camps! One would think that this fact, in and of itself, would be disturbing enough but add to it the fact that they’re both running for election this November, and you can see just how unconstitutionally brazen and wholly out-of-touch with New Yorkers each of these “leaders” is.

For anyone who missed my prior article on this horrific forced quarantine regime,  the regulation truly shocks the conscience. Without exaggeration, it’s something out of a dystopian horror movie. It gives the unelected bureaucrats in the Department of Health the power to pick and choose who they want to “detain,” if they believe it’s even possible you might have a communicable disease. They don’t have to prove you’re actually sick.

And when I say “detain,” I mean lock you in your home or force you from your home into a facility. The government chooses which “detention center” and the length of your stay there is purely at the government’s discretion. That’s right: No time limit so it could be for days, months, or years…. Furthermore, there is no age restriction so that the government could force you, your child, your grandchild, or your elderly parent into detention.

This illegal quarantine regulation allowed for endless possibilities of abuse because there were no due process protections built in to safeguard against government abuse. Once targeted by the DOH, you would have no recourse whatsoever: No chance to prove that you aren’t actually infected with a disease. No chance to confront your jailers, see their supposed evidence against you or challenge their quarantine order in a court of law before getting locked up. Judge Ploetz stated in his decision that the regulation “merely gives ‘lip service’ to Constitutional due process.”

It gets worse. In the true fashion of a dictatorship, the government could tell you what you could and couldn’t do while in quarantine. For example, bureaucrats and politicians could decide to deprive you of your cell phone or internet access, thereby totally cutting off your communications with the outside world. They might also decide to restrict your food intake or force you to take certain medicines or “treatments” that the government deems appropriate. They could even choose to discriminate against those with certain views or beliefs, creating political prisoners, all in the name of supposed “health and safety”.

Judge Ploetz noted in his decision that, “[i]nvoluntary detention is a severe deprivation of individual liberty, far more egregious than other health safety measures, such as requiring mask wearing at certain venues. Involuntary quarantine may have far-reaching consequences such as loss of income (or employment) and isolation from family.”

I fully concur and so, when I first read this regulation last year, I knew I had to strike it down. It was clear to me that this “regulation” violated the separation of powers that is so clearly laid out in our Constitution. It violated existing New York State laws that have been on the books for decades. It violated due process protections.

I knew that, if I didn’t strike it down, then “quarantine facilities” could become a new norm in New York State. And if that happened, I knew it would spread like a cancer to other states across the nation. At that point, there’d be no place left to run and hide. This was not a fight only for New Yorkers; it was a fight for all Americans.

An inspirational note: When I started this lawsuit, I had no support whatsoever. Because I’ve been handling the case pro bono, nobody else wanted to work with me for free and it was near impossible to find anyone who shared my vision and my strategy for success. You see, this was the very first lawsuit of its kind in the entire nation and, very possibly, in the world. So, it took a tremendous amount of my time, energy, and resources to execute.

The Governor and her co-defendants are represented by New York’s Attorney General, Letitia James. She has hundreds of lawyers working for her, all armed with unlimited resources. After all, it’s our tax dollars they use to pay all those attorneys. It’s truly a David v. Goliath story, especially because, while I once worked in a large, prominent, international Manhattan law firm, for the past 20+ years, I’ve had my own small law office in the suburbs of NYC. Since I’m handling this case pro bono, I don’t have the Attorney General’s team of attorneys or her unlimited resources.

Eventually, I found a few fabulous allies. Namely, my petitioners (Senator George Borrello, Assemblymen Chris Tague, and Mike Lawler) and, eventually, Assemblyman Andrew Goodell, Assembly Minority Leader Will Barclay, and Assemblyman Joseph Giglio who filed an Amicus Brief to support my case. Plus, attorney Tom Marcelle, who is now running for New York State Supreme Court judge.

After months of battling against the AG, last week we won the case! I’ve successfully struck down a severely unconstitutional regulation that the Governor and her Department of Health brazenly issued without any care whatsoever for the rights of the people. Now, I hope that other attorneys in states across the nation can use my lawsuit as a roadmap to help them strike down unconstitutional regulations in their states. Even international attorneys are contacting me to learn the details about how I structured and won this case. I hope it will aid them, too.

During one of my recent interviews, the host posted a picture of President Kennedy with a quote, “One person can make a difference, and everyone should try.” She said that quote reminds her of me. Well, I hope that quote and this story inspire you to try!

Senator Borrello and Assemblymen Tague and Lawler are calling on the Governor to back off an appeal and to let this decision stand. If you’re a New Yorker, you can help with this effort. Call, email, or write to Governor Hochul (518- 474-8390 Twitter: @GovKathyHochul) and the Attorney General (800-771-7755 Twitter: @TishJames) to tell them that the voters do not want an appeal filed; that an appeal would be going against the will of the people; and that it would be a tremendous waste of taxpayer money.

To find out more about our monumental lawsuit, sign up for weekly updates, or support the lawsuit, go to You can find me on Substack at:

July 21, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism | , , , | Leave a comment

German Government Admits Covid Vaccines Cause Serious Injury for One in 5,000 Doses – But its Own Data Show the Real Rate is One in 300 Doses


The German Government publicly acknowledged on Wednesday that the Covid vaccines cause serious side effects for one in every 5,000 doses.

A tweet from the Ministry of Health stated (via Google translate): “One in 5,000 people is affected by a serious side effect after a COVID19 #vaccination. If you suspect #sideeffects, get medical attention and report your symptoms to @PEI_Germany.” It later added a correction that the figure related to the reporting rate and to doses rather than individuals: “Correction: According to @PEI_Germany, the reporting rate for serious reactions is 0.2 reports per 1,000 vaccine doses.”

This is an unusual and welcome admission from a Government, and perhaps the beginning of governments properly acknowledging the scale of injuries caused by the novel Covid vaccines.

However, the one in 5,000 figure is certainly on the low side. The correction tweet clarified that it was a reporting rate of serious reactions, and it appears from the PEI website to refer to the rate of adverse event reports to the German equivalent of the Yellow Card and VAERS passive reporting systems. Assuming this is correct, then we might expect an under-reporting factor of around 10, meaning the true number of serious side-effects may be 10 times higher.

The Germans are actually very good at monitoring vaccine safety. In addition to their passive reporting system, the German medicines regulator, the PEI, runs an active vaccine safety monitoring app called SafeVac 2.0. The data from this monitoring tool were included in a Europe-wide report on vaccine safety published last month; they showed that 0.3% of vaccine recipients in Germany reported at least one serious adverse reaction to the first dose of the vaccine. The report states:

Of the 520,076 participants from Germany who had received the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 1,838 (0.3%) reported experiencing at least one serious adverse reaction. A total of 1,191 (0.2%) and 39 (0.2%) participants receiving BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna respectively reported experiencing a serious adverse reaction while 608 (0.7%) receiving AstraZeneca reported a serious reaction.

These German figures are in line with the overall rates across Europe, according to the report: “Across the sites 0.2-0.3% reported at least one serious adverse reaction after receiving the first and/or the second dose.”

However, note that a rate of 0.3% is 15 times higher than the rate of 0.2 per 1,000 (i.e., 0.02%) quoted in the tweet. If the figure in the tweet comes, as I suspect, from a passive reporting system (which seems likely as the tweet directs readers to the PEI’s passive reporting portal), this would be an under-reporting factor of 15, which is about what we expected.

But why, then, is the German Government using the 0.02% figure instead of the 0.3% figure from its state-of-the-art vaccine safety monitoring tool when drawing attention to vaccine side effects? I’d like to think that question didn’t answer itself.

In addition, it wasn’t easy to find the SafeVac 2.0 data. I searched in vain for them on the PEI website; if they’re there then they are nowhere obvious. In the end I could only find them, via a general web search, embedded in the Europe-wide study cited above.

Worries about high rates of serious vaccine side effects have been raised before in Germany. In May, Professor Harald Matthes, a scientist leading a separate study into the safety of the vaccines, said that according to his data around 0.8% of vaccinated people in Germany were struggling with serious side-effects. This was in line with international evidence, he said, and much more needs to be done to help them.

The number is not surprising. It corresponds to what is known from other countries such as Sweden, Israel or Canada. Incidentally, even the manufacturers of the vaccines had already determined similar values ​​in their studies… Most side effects, including severe ones, subside after three to six months, 80% heal. But unfortunately there are also some that last much longer.

In view of around half a million cases with serious side effects after Covid vaccinations in Germany, we doctors have to take action. We have to come to therapy offers, discuss them openly at congresses and in public without being considered anti-vaccination.

A board member of a large German insurance company also spoke out in February, saying that his company’s data showed serious vaccine injuries running at around 10 times the rate reported by the German Government.

Elsewhere, an Israeli Government survey found that 0.3% of vaccinated people reported being hospitalised as a result of their Covid vaccination, while a U.S. CDC survey found 0.9% of vaccinated people reported seeking medical care as a result of their vaccination.

The evidence is consistent, then, that 0.3-0.9% of vaccinated people (the percentage partly depending on the number of doses) suffer a serious reaction to the vaccine that leads them to require medical care or hospitalisation.

These data should be much more widely publicised as part of obtaining informed consent. Everyone who receives a Covid vaccine should have been told in writing that the rate of serious side effects is around one in 300 doses (with variations for age and sex). Note that such a frequency is properly termed ‘uncommon’ rather than ‘rare’, as the serious side effects are currently labelled. This is an extremely high frequency for a vaccine of course, and raises serious questions about whether the vaccines should be approved at all, especially for younger age groups.

As it is, hardly anyone knows that these are the Government’s own data on serious vaccine reactions, and governments are making no obvious effort to tell them.

So, it’s one cheer for the German Government for actually doing something to raise awareness of serious vaccine side effects. But next time, maybe use the actual data, rather than a figure that’s 15 times smaller.

July 21, 2022 Posted by | Deception | , | Leave a comment

South American trade bloc snubs Zelensky

Samizdat | July 21, 2022

South America’s Mercosur trade bloc has declined a request by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to speak at its summit, host nation Paraguay said on Wednesday, according to the AFP news agency.

Mercosur members Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay failed to reach an agreement on whether to invite the Ukrainian leader, Deputy Foreign Minister, Raul Cano said, albeit refusing to name the countries that opposed the move.

“There was no consensus on such communication, that’s why the Ukrainian counterpart has already been informed that under current circumstances there are no conditions allowing to speak with the president of Ukraine in the Mercosur format,” the minister explained.

Earlier this month, Julio Cesar Arriola, Paraguay’s foreign minister, said that Zelensky had talked with Mario Abdo Benitez, the nation’s president, on the phone and asked for the opportunity to address the upcoming Mercosur summit. According to Arriola, Benitez promised to discuss the matter with his colleagues in the bloc.

Mercosur is an economic and political organization that was established in 1991 to create a common market and incentivize development in South America.

After Russia attacked Ukraine in late February, Zelensky has addressed a slew of national parliaments and major international forums, including NATO, the G7 and the UN in an effort to rally countries to Kiev’s cause and help it fight off Moscow’s offensive.

However, in late June, when the Ukrainian president took part in a virtual meeting with the African Union, only a handful of leaders reportedly tuned in to listen to his speech. Following the conference call, the President of Senegal and African Union Chairperson, Macky Sall, indicated that Africa’s position of neutrality over the conflict in Ukraine remained unchanged.

July 21, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , | 1 Comment

UK pumping more arms into Ukraine

Samizdat | July 21, 2022

The UK will send Ukraine anti-tank weapons, drones, artillery guns and tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition, Defense Secretary Ben Wallace told Parliament on Thursday. Ukraine will receive more than 20 M109 and 26 L119 artillery guns, as well as counter-battery radar systems and more than 50,000 rounds of ammunition for its existing Soviet-era artillery systems.

The UK will also send 1,600 anti-tank weapons as well as drones, including hundreds of “loitering aerial munitions,” more commonly known as “suicide drones.”

The arms will be sent to Ukraine in the coming weeks, and Wallace’s announcement comes several weeks after outgoing Prime Minister Boris Johnson pledged an additional £1 billion ($1.2bn) in military support to Vladimir Zelensky’s government. In total, the UK has spent £2.3 billion on weapons and training for Kiev’s military since Russia’s military operation in Ukraine began in February.

This money has already paid for nearly 7,000 NLAW, Javelin and other anti-tank missiles, 16,000 artillery rounds, six mobile anti-air missile launchers, as well as a number of M270 rocket artillery systems and 120 armored vehicles.

The impact of these shipments on the battlefield, however, has been debatable. Captured Ukrainian troops have described the Javelin missile launchers – sent by both the UK and the US – as “completely useless” in urban combat, while soldiers are reportedly encountering battery issues with the NLAW “making it impossible to use.” Russia’s military doctrine also favors heavy artillery bombardment of enemy positions from far beyond the NLAW’s 600 meter range.

Both sides have leaned heavily on artillery as fighting rages on in eastern Ukraine and the Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. Utilizing superior firepower, Russian and allied troops recently brought the entirety of the Lugansk People’s Republic under their control and seized operational control of Seversk, which is within striking distance of the major cities of Slavyansk and Kramatorsk.

Ukraine has received a dozen M142 HIMARS rocket artillery systems from the US. While US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin described these weapons as making “such a difference on the battlefield,” Ukrainian Defense Minister Alexey Reznikov claimed this week that his forces need at least 50 of the systems to hold back Russia’s advances and 100 – around a third of the US’ entire stockpile – to conduct a counteroffensive.

In terms of conventional artillery, the 50,000 shells promised by Wallace is enough to keep Ukraine’s guns firing for roughly eight days. As of last month, Ukraine’s deputy head of military intelligence estimated that his forces were expending 6,000 shells per day, and that Ukraine has one artillery gun for every 15 fielded by Russia.

Meanwhile, a report by the Royal United Services Institute, a British think tank, claims that Russia is firing approximately 20,000 artillery shells per day.

July 21, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , | 1 Comment

Iran eyes 5.7 mln bpd of oil output by 2029

Press TV – July 21, 2022

Iran plans to attract around $160 billion worth of domestic and foreign investment to its petroleum sector until 2029 to significantly increase its production of oil and gas, according to a new report.

The Thursday report by the official IRNA news agency said that the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) has outlined a seven-year investment plan under which Iran’s production of crude oil will reach 5.7 million barrels per day by 2029.

Iran’s current oil output capacity is just over 3.8 million bpd although actual production has dropped to nearly 2.6 million bpd mainly because of American sanctions that hamper direct exports of Iranian crude.

It added that Iran also seeks to meet a natural gas production target of 1.5 billion cubic meters (bcm) per day by 2029, up from a current output of just over 1 bcm per day.

The IRNA analysis said a current administrative government in Tehran, which may remain in office until 2029 under a second four-year term, has already secured nearly $50 billion worth of investment for development projects in the Iranian petroleum sector.

It said the commitments include a memorandum of understanding reached earlier this week between the NIOC and Russia’s state petroleum company Gazprom for up to $40 billion worth of investment in oil and gas projects.

Others include contracts signed in early July with a consortium of Iranian banks and energy companies to carry out development projects in oilfields shared with Iraq in southwestern Iran.

The report also said that the NIOC had signed a $500-million contract in March with a foreign company, whose name it said would remain confidential because of US sanctions, to develop the oil layer of the South Pars gas field in the Persian Gulf.

July 21, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

Biden’s Middle East visit: a failed lobbying trip for Israel, not the United States

By Dr Mustafa Fetouri | MEMO | July 21, 2022

Even before landing in Israel, the first leg of his Middle East tour, President Joe Biden was already preoccupied with three issues: integrating Israel into the wider region, rallying as many countries as possible against Iran and persuading the Saudis to pump more oil into the market to ease the high prices at the pump for the American consumers. Anything else is a bonus. However, the visit failed, at least, to achieve its main objectives, both economically and politically.

By the time his visit ended on 16 July, the President did everything to help Israel, with limited success and very little else. He was, indeed, on a presidential PR trip but not for his re-election, nor for Washington’s tarnished image in the region, but for Israel. The same Israel that is being repeatedly described by the United Nations Human Rights office, Amnesty international and others as an apartheid state, imposing suffocating and discriminatory draconian laws on Palestinians under its brutal occupation. Instead of questioning the Israeli policies and practices in the occupied West Bank, Mr. Biden sought to reassure his Israeli friends that he is on their side, no matter what.

At the Jeddah Security and Development Summit, President Biden was rebuffed, albeit indirectly, as all Arab leaders present appeared to dismiss any idea of peace unless Israel ends its occupation of Palestinian land. The Summit, despite all its shortcomings, proved to him that Arabs have not yet dumped the Palestinians.

On Iran, all leaders at the Summit spoke of the need to settle Tehran’s nuclear issue peacefully, while nobody supported the idea of a military alliance that might include Israel against Iran—some form of Middle East NATO structure. Whatever Biden said in this regard remains as his administration’s position and not that of its regional allies—including Israel, which does not support the US idea of reviving the Iran nuclear deal.

No breakthrough on the issue of integrating Israel into the region, either, despite the recent wave of normalisation between different Arab countries. In fact, Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister, Prince Farhan bin Faisal, denied that normalisation between Israel and his country was even discussed. He also said that there is no connection between Riyadh opening its airspace to all civilian air carriers, including Israel’s, and normalisation between his country and Israel. This is another failure in Biden’s PR campaign to help Israel at the expense of the Palestinians. Saudi Arabia has been the virtual signatory to the Abraham Accords from day one but, at least for now, Riyadh does not see any reason to take any other steps in that direction.

Just before he departed Israel for Saudi Arabia, Biden and Yair Lapid signed what they called the “Jerusalem US-Israel Strategic Partnership Declaration”, renewing the US’s never-ending commitment to keeping Israel as a regional superpower. Overall, the Declaration is nothing but a repetition of the same commitments successive American administrations have been making to Israel since its creation. For example, the Declaration reads that the US commitment to Israeli superiority and security is “bipartisan and sacrosanct”, enjoying the support of both Republican and Democratic parties in the US. This has been a standard US policy, regardless of who is in the White House.

On the Palestinian issue, where the US is supposed to be the honest broker, the Declaration said that Mr. Biden, not the Israeli Prime Minster, still “supports” “a two-state solution”. But this support is meaningless if the US does not take any steps to, for example, curb the Israeli land grab policy. President Biden would have been taken more seriously if he announced how the “two-state” solution could be reached. It could also indicate how serious he is if he announced that steps taken by his Republican predecessor, Donald Trump, will be reviewed and, perhaps, reversed. Former President, Trump, recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, contravening international law.

Notably the Strategic Declaration singles the US’s support to “combat” what it called “unfairly singling [Israel] in any international forum, including the International Criminal Court [ICC]”. Why, now, did the US choose to make its support for Israel against the ICC a strategic issue?

The answer is simple: for the first time in its history, Israel is being cornered by legal cases focusing on its criminal conduct against the Palestinians, who are bringing a dozen cases before the ICC. The most recent is that of the slain Al Jazeera reporter, Shireen Abu Akleh, who was shot last May. The Palestinian Authority has asked the ICC to investigate Shireen’s murder, who happened to be an American citizen of Palestinian descent.

The US intelligence community, the United Nations, rights groups and many media outlets believe an Israeli soldier fired the fatal shot that killed her. A case like this involving such a high profile reporter, if investigated by the ICC, has the potential to become a serious legal challenge for Israel. It could also turn into an international embarrassment should Washington follow through on its pledge to support Tel Aviv against the ICC. It will also test the US rhetoric about freedom of the press, free speech and accountability. Its potential fallout could push Washington to head off any action in this regard before it becomes an issue before the International Court.

It must have been an embarrassment already for President Biden, as his motorcade passed under a huge poster of Shireen on his way to Ramallah. During his news conference, with President Mahmoud Abbas, Shireen’s picture was sitting in the front row of the packed room as a reminder to him that Palestinians will not forget her and he should not forget that she is an American citizen, just like him. Mr. Biden referred to her as a “proud Palestinian” but said nothing about accountability for her death. He has already resisted 24 Democratic senators’ calls asking him for an investigation of her murder under US auspices.

The last top goal of Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia was increased oil production by Saudis Arabia to bring down oil prices for US consumers. Here, he also failed as the Saudis reminded him that they wish to honour their commitment made to other producers within the OPEC Plus group, of which Russia is a member. Furthermore, the Saudi Foreign Minister, on 19 July in Tokyo, said “Russia is an integral part of OPEC Plus” and the group has to cooperate, otherwise “it would be impossible to properly ensure adequate supplies of oil to the international markets.” Mr. Biden hoped the Saudis would move away from Russia because of the war in Ukraine but he, again, failed to score anything against Moscow.

Other than advocating for Israel, with minimum success, the US President failed and he might be regretting the visit altogether.

July 21, 2022 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Russia, Iran and Turkey agree the US troops must leave Syria

By Steven Sahiounie | MIDEAST DISCOURSE | July 20, 2022

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, President Vladimir Putin of Russia, and President Ebrahim Raisi of Iran held talks yesterday in Tehran at the 7th Astana summit for peace in Syria, stressing the need for respecting Syria’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The summits date from January 2017, and are named for the Kazakhstan capital they were first held at. The trio of leaders decided the next meeting will be held in Moscow before the end of the year.

The Syrian Foreign Minister, Faisal Mekdad, arrived in Tehran late on Tuesday to be briefed about the latest decisions following the meeting of the presidents.

The joint conclusions

Many important issues were discussed by the trio concerning the situation in Syria, which has developed into a stalemate. Global media has stopped covering Syria since 2019 when the battlefields went silent, but a political solution has been elusive.

One point that Turkey, Russia and Iran agreed upon was the need for the US occupation troops to leave Syria, and their unified opposition to the Biden administration policy in Syria, which includes the need to lift US sanctions on Syria which are oppressing the Syrian people.

“We have certain differences concerning what is happening on the Euphrates eastern bank. But we have a shared position that American troops must leave this territory,” Putin said while adding, “They must stop robbing the Syrian state, Syrian people, illegally exporting oil from there.”

The trio affirmed that there was “no military solution” to the conflict in Syria, and agreed on the need to eliminate terrorism and opposed any attempts to divide the country.

The three leaders also jointly condemned Israel’s ongoing attacks on civilian targets in Syria, and agreed that the crisis in Syria could only be resolved peacefully and by the Syrians themselves.

Raisi said, “The international community bears the responsibility to solve the crisis of the displaced and Syrian refugees, and we will support any initiative to do so.”

The Turkish position

For at least two months, Erdogan has threatened to conduct a fourth military invasion into northern Syria. Analysts had thought the summit would be used by Iran and Russia to convince Turkey a new attack on the US-sponsored SDF in the northeastern Kurdish region would be a destabilizing event for the region. It appears that Turkey was able to get assurances from Iran and Russia that the SDF would not present a border terrorist threat to Turkey.

The US, Russia and Iran had all shared the view that Turkey should not begin a new military attack in northern Syria.

Turkey and US are NATO members and had been allies. But, the US chose to partner with the SDF, who are a separatist group in Syria led by Kurds who are following a socialist political ideology based on the communist framework of the PKK, an internationally outlawed terrorist group who have killed thousands in Turkey over three decades.

The trio agreed that terrorism must be eradicated everywhere, and there cannot be “good terrorists” who are used by the US, while others are deemed “bad terrorists” such as ISIS and Al Qaeda.

US President Obama began the US-NATO attack on Syria in 2011 for ‘regime change’. He failed. The US used the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East, as well as global Al Qaeda branches which were transported into northern Syria from their base in southern Turkey, were the CIA operated a terrorist headquarters which was finally shut down in 2017 by President Trump.

Erdogan is a Muslim Brotherhood follower, and his AKP party is aligned with the international terrorist group banned in Egypt, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

The US position

The Biden administration has made no changes to US policy in Syria since taking office. The US is not present in any Syrian peace talks. Obama started the destruction in Syria, but Biden is not offering any solution. The US sanctions have prevented any reconstruction from beginning, and the Syrian people have been struggling under hyper-inflation, with no end in sight.

Russia, Turkey and Iran agreed the US-EU sanctions should be lifted and described them as being “in contravention of international law, international humanitarian law and the UN Charter including, among other things, any discriminatory measures through waivers for certain regions which could lead to this country’s disintegration by assisting separatist agendas.”

Trump had ordered the withdrawal of US troops from Syria, but the Pentagon insisted that they stay in support of the SDF who steal the oil from the main oil field in Syria and sell the oil to support their socialist administration. That oil is the property of Syria, and because they are refused access to the oil, the Syrian people live with just two hours of electricity per day.

Damascus considers the US troops in Syria as a military occupation force which destabilizes the country and is against the UN charter and international law.

US raids on terrorists in Idlib

Idlib is the last remaining terrorist controlled area in Syria. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is the Radical Islamic terrorist group who keep about three million persons as human hostages. Turkey protects the terrorists and keeps Russian and Syrian military from attacking Idlib, while the UN and other humanitarian groups keep the terrorists, their families, and civilians fed. The US has also been very vocal and has accused the Syrian and Russian military for attacking terrorists in Idlib.

In a double-faced US policy in Idlib, the US has continued to kill ISIS leaders in Idlib, including the first assassination of the ISIS Calipha Baghdadi ordered by Trump. Since then, another five ISIS leaders have been killed by the US in Idlib. The US know that the terrorists in control in Idlib are allies of ISIS, and yet the US policy is to protect Idlib from being cleared of terrorists.

In 2015, Russia was asked to enter Syria as the Al Qaeda affiliate Jibhat al-Nusra was threatening to create an Islamic State in Syria. Putin recalled at the summit, “We broke the backbone of international terrorism there.”

Grain crisis discussion

Putin and Erdogan discussed the supply of grain from Russia and Ukraine to world markets. Putin thanked Erdogan for his efforts “to mediate by providing Turkey with a platform for negotiating food issues and grain exports across the Black Sea.” Putin called on the US to lift all restrictions on grain exports from Russia to improve the global food market situation.

Erdogan has been leading efforts to broker a deal to allow thousands of tons of grain that is being blockaded by Russia to leave Ukraine’s ports. Turkey has responsibility under the 1936 Montreux convention for naval traffic entering the Black Sea, and is proposing that Russia allow Ukrainian grain ships to leave Odesa on designated routes.

Steven Sahiounie is a journalist and political commentator.

July 21, 2022 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Saudi coalition seizes another Yemen-bound fuel tanker

Press TV – July 20, 2022

Yemen’s Petroleum Company (YPC) says the Saudi-led coalition has seized yet another Yemen-bound fuel ship in blatant violation of a UN-brokered ceasefire.

In a statement released on Wednesday, the YPC said the seizure has “brought the number of confiscated Yemen-bound fuel ships to three” in recent days. The Lady Sarah fuel vessel was inspected and cleared by the UN, it added.

Reacting to the seizure, Mohammed Abdulsalam, the chief negotiator of Yemen’s National Salvation Government, said the coalition has constantly violated the truce and is “killing time, which is not accepted by our nation.”

Saudi-led coalition forces committed thousands of violations of the ceasefire agreement within a month of its entry into force on April 2. The agreement was extended under the auspices of the UN on June 2 and is set to expire next month.

Over the past year, the coalition has been consistently looting and selling large quantities of Yemeni gas and crude oil.

Yemeni authorities accuse the Saudi-led coalition of carrying out a systematic campaign aimed at depleting the country’s natural resources.

Earlier this month, Mohammad Tahir Anam, an adviser to the Yemeni Supreme Political Council, warned Riyadh and its allies that companies and ships involved in the looting of Yemeni oil will be targeted by the Ansarullah resistance movement if the theft persists.

On July 3, Yemeni Prime Minister Abdulaziz Saleh bin Habtoor said the looting of Yemen’s oil by the Saudi-led coalition is carried out under directives from the White house.

Yemen’s Minister of Oil and Minerals Ahmad Abdullah Dares has warned that the Saudi seizure of ships carrying petroleum products to Yemen could lead to the suspension of the service sectors and cause “a humanitarian catastrophe.”

Yemeni media reports said participants at a massive protest in the capital on Wednesday denounced the seizure of fuel tankers heading to the port of Hudaydah by Saudi-led forces.

The protest was organized in front of the United Nations office in Sana’a.

Saudi Arabia and a number of its regional allies — including the United Arab Emirates (UAE) — launched the devastating war on Yemen in March 2015. The war was meant to eliminate Yemen’s popular Houthi Ansarullah movement and reinstall a former regime. The conflict, accompanied by a tight siege, has failed to reach its goals, but has killed hundreds of thousands of Yemeni people.

The Yemeni army and popular committees have intensified their retaliatory attacks against targets deep inside Saudi Arabia and the UAE in response to the Saudi siege.

July 21, 2022 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Hungary Wants to Buy Additional Natural Gas From Russia: Lavrov

By Ilya Tsukanov – Samizdat – 21.07.2022

Hungary has asserted an independent policy unique in the European Union in relation to the Ukrainian crisis, refusing to slap sanctions on Russian energy, and refusing to allow its territory to be used by NATO to transfer weapons to Kiev.

Russia and Hungary are intent on advancing their bilateral cooperation, notwithstanding EU sanctions, and are looking to implement major projects, including in the energy sector, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has indicated.

“Despite the difficult international situation, despite the desire of some of our partners to increase sanctions pressure against Russia, our interaction continues, and last year we managed to overcome the recession caused by the pandemic and to achieve growth of over 25 percent in our trade turnover,” Lavrov said, speaking to his Hungarian counterpart Peter Szijjarto in Moscow on Thursday.

“We note the mutual commitment of the Russian and Hungarian governments to promote our interaction, our partnership, including in the implementation of major projects in energy, transport and other areas,” Lavrov said.

The Russian foreign minister indicated that Budapest has expressed interest in buying additional gas supplies from Russia, and that Moscow would consider this request immediately.

Hungary imports approximately 65 percent of its oil and some 80 percent of its gas from Russia, and recently refused to cut down amid Brussels’ attempts to force a “phase out” of Russian crude supplies.

“I consider your visit very timely, including for the continuation of our trust-based exchange of views on regional and international issues,” Lavrov said.

“I know that you are closely following the situation in Ukraine as it develops, including from the point of view of the Hungarian national minority, and today we will be prepared to give you our vision of how our special military operation is developing and about the prospects for resolving this serious crisis,” he said.

Hungary has refused to toe the line set by its NATO and EU allies amid the Ukraine crisis, calling for an immediate ceasefire as the only possible chance to avoid a steep economic crisis in Europe. Budapest has also been critical of Brussels’ tough sanctions against Moscow, saying they threaten to undermine Hungary’s own economic and energy security.

Last week, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban suggested that Europe had “shot itself in the lungs” with sanctions, and was now paying the price.

“At first I thought we just shot ourselves in the foot, but the European economy shot itself in the lungs and is gasping for air,” he said. “There are countries committed to the sanctions policy, but Brussels must admit that it was a mistake, that it has not fulfilled its purpose and has even had the opposite effect,” Orban added, suggesting that restrictions were hurting the EU much more than Russia.

Hungary’s relations with Ukraine worsened dramatically after the 2014 coup in Kiev, and the new Ukrainian government’s legislative efforts to deprive the community of 150,000 ethnic Hungarian-Ukrainians living in the country’s Zakarpattia region of the right to receive a public education in their native tongue.

Following the escalation of the Ukraine crisis in February, tensions have degenerated into a bitter war of words, including mutual recriminations about the state of Ukrainian and Hungarian officials’ mental health.

In May, an advisor to Ukraine’s energy minister suggested that “something” should happened to the Soviet-era Druzhba (‘Friendship’) oil pipeline carrying Russian crude through Ukraine to Hungary to speak to Orban “in the language he understands.” The same month, Orban’s name was added to a notorious Security Service of Ukraine-curated website containing the personal information of so-called “enemies of Ukraine.” Several individuals listed on the website have subsequently been killed.

July 21, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | 1 Comment