Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Monkeypox Vaccine Insanity — Too Many Risks and Now, Liability-Free

The Defender | August 17, 2022

For totalitarians and technocrats bent on shredding constitutional protections and wresting control from ordinary people over personal decision-making in areas ranging from health to finances, the events of the past two-and-a-half years were a proving ground — showing that promises of safety via injection could persuade many people to act against their own best interests, often with disastrous results.

But with the public growing increasingly ho-hum about the COVID-19 pandemic and the U.S. discarding tens of millions of COVID-19 vaccines — including over a quarter of some states’ doses — tyrants wanting to “further advance draconian biosecurity policies and global power grabs” needed a new emergency to keep the injection scam going.

In May 2022, right on cue, entered monkeypox, with (echoes of decades past) cases reported “predominantly … in networks of men who have sex with men.”

Just like the coronavirus Event 201, the reported monkeypox outbreak was prefigured by a “tabletop simulation” one year prior and by “suspiciously” timed, before-the-fact clinical trials of monkeypox treatments and vaccines.

With the “outbreak” thus positioned in the headlines, what happened next?

  • After allowing suspense to build for a couple of months but with fewer than a dozen deaths worldwide, the World Health Organization (WHO) head Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in late July “side-stepped” his own advisors to pronounce monkeypox a “public health emergency of international concern,” the WHO’s first such ruling since SARS-CoV-2.
  • With no U.S. deaths, the Biden administration and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) followed suit, declaring a public health emergency.
  • Around the same time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr. Robert M. Califf soothingly told Americans, “We understand … an emerging disease may leave people feeling concerned and uncertain, but it’s important to note that we already have medical products in place …”

One of the “products in place” was the Jynneos smallpox vaccine (brand names Imvanex or Imvamune), which the FDA licensed for adults in September 2019, conveniently approving it not only for smallpox but for “prevention” of monkeypox — even though in primate studies, pox lesions developed just the same.

At the time of licensure, the CEO of Bavarian Nordic — the Danish biotech company that developed the smallpox jab in partnership with the U.S. government, funneling millions of doses into America’s Strategic National Stockpile — crowed that the green light for monkeypox would create “new commercial opportunities.”

At present, a suddenly woke WHO is “accepting proposals” to rebrand monkeypox so as to “avoid offense,” but with the historically loaded “pox” word planted in the public’s subconscious — a word that calls to mind not only unsightly skin eruptions but social stigma and Shakespearean curses — the damage has been done.

Officials no doubt expect the latest “pox” — which also has exotic associations with prairie dogs and African rodents — to stoke the types of fears that will send people running straight into the arms of the nearest vaccinator.

In cities like San Francisco — where long lines of “mostly men” reportedly have been queuing up in the wee hours of the morning for a chance at a shot — the drum-beating about a “rapid rise in cases” already appears to be working.

What’s the big deal?

The same fallacious PCR (polymerase chain reaction) technology used to conjure up large numbers of COVID-19 “cases” out of thin air — a technology that inventor Kary Mullis warned should never be used for diagnosis — is once again the WHO’s preferred laboratory test for monkeypox.

Setting aside the thorny PCR issue, there are many other questions one could ask about monkeypox and its supposed discovery in humans in 1970, including why, after half a century in which the condition labeled monkeypox “never really [got] off the ground outside of a couple of countries in Africa,” it is “suddenly in every Western nation and being hyped up by public health authorities, the mainstream media and the World Health Organization.”

Other than the skin lesions, the symptoms of so-called monkeypox “could describe hundreds of millions of cases of simple flu-like illness or even the common cold.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) characterizes monkeypox as “generally a mild disease,” involving little more than rashes, fevers and chills that typically require “no specific treatment.”

A public health expert at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health said, “Monkeypox is not likely to kill anybody in the United States,” with short-lived pain being about the worst that it might do.

In the 2021 pandemic tabletop exercise focused on monkeypox, one of the features of the “fictional” scenario under discussion was that an “unusual strain” of monkeypox would come along to wreak global havoc.

Obligingly, media accounts in 2022 are evoking a monkeypox that “seems to have changed,” though reporters are issuing mixed messages.

In a conversation on NPR, for example, a science reporter described “very localized” and “extremely subtle” monkeypox symptoms not “matching up” to the “horrible rash” depicted in medical textbooks, prompting the interviewer to remark on the “good news” of a milder disease — at which point the reporter felt compelled to correct the benign impression, adding, “it can also be really severe and really painful” and “make you sick for, like, up to four weeks.”

Skin reactions of all kinds are well-documented adverse consequences of vaccination. In Israel, a renowned vaccine scientist has been making the case that the immune system breakdown caused by COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is the culprit responsible for the current monkeypox situation.

Why else, others are asking, would symptoms appear simultaneously in multiple countries and continents that just happen to correspond to the locations that deployed Pfizer’s COVID-19 jab?

Atrocious smallpox vaccine track record

From their earliest days through today, smallpox vaccines had a dreadful track record — and this fact is not even particularly controversial.

In 2003, researchers openly characterized the smallpox vaccine available at the time, Wyeth’s Dryvax, as “less safe than other vaccines,” describing “known adverse events that range from mild to severe,” including death, brain swelling, lesions and other skin problems.

They concluded the “net harm would result if smallpox vaccine were made available to the general public on a voluntary basis” and that some individuals would be “unable to weigh the risks and benefits for true informed consent.”

Although Dryvax fell out of favor in the mid-1980s, it continued to be used to vaccinate groups such as military personnel, lab workers and others deemed “high risk.”

In 2007, the FDA approved Acambis’s ACAM2000, made with a “clone” of Dryvax and grown in lab cultures of African green monkey kidney (Vero) cells.

Right after Acambis won a 10-year contract to supply the U.S. government with the vaccine, the company was gobbled up by Sanofi Pasteur.

The U.S. military, which by then had given Dryvax to more than 1.4 million military personnel and contractors, immediately switched to ACAM2000, albeit with a first-ever, FDA-imposed requirement that each person vaccinated receive a “medication guide.”

ACAM2000’s “unwieldy” method of administration involves using a two-pronged needle to make “a series of tiny jabs at the skin” designed to elicit a “kind of gnarly pustule” which, if it doesn’t show up a week later, necessitates yet another attempt.

In an article published by The Defender in November 2020, Pam Long, an Army veteran, described smallpox vaccination (whether Dryvax or ACAM2000) as one of “four horsemen of pharma” destroying veterans’ health.

Long highlighted cardiac risks, in particular.

Back in 2003, CDC authors described adverse reactions from Dryvax ranging from “benign, if frightening in appearance” to “life-threatening,” conceding that myopericarditis was “truly” an adverse outcome but admitting to not knowing about long-term consequences.

In 2021, when the Military Vaccine Agency published a study involving monthly surveillance of clinically “adjudicated” cardiac and neurological adverse events experienced in temporal association with ACAM2000 vaccination, it reported a significantly higher rate of myopericarditis in younger men (under age 40), and overall rates of “any cardiovascular event” of 1.14 per 1,000.

As Long noted, the FDA documented a much higher incidence of 6.9 cardiac events per 1,000 for ACAM2000, and one study reported myocarditis in one in every 175 recipients.

New kid on the block

By June 2022, the media build-up promoting monkeypox vaccination and the Jynneos injection in particular was on full display, with headlines playing up the idea of hordes eager for jabs that are in short supply.

To tee up demand for the “newer generation” — and largely unfamiliar — Jynneos vaccine, CNBC classified its competitor, ACAM2000, as practically a dinosaur, an “older generation smallpox vaccine that can have serious side effects.”

In late July, Vox agreed there would be “trade-offs” if the U.S. were to tap into its “100 million-odd doses” of ACAM2000 “currently sitting on the shelves at the Strategic National Stockpile, largely untouched” — trade-offs such as “potentially concerning side effects, the complex way it has to be administered, and limits on who can safely receive the vaccine” (no immunocompromised individuals, no pregnant women, no one with eczema and no babies).

While ACAM2000’s “cumbersome” mode of administration does not lend itself to “assembly-line” distribution, Jynneos, Vox assured us, “can be given in public venues, like festivals and even bathhouses.”

However, we know very little about Jynneos, other than the serious adverse events listed in the package insert — Crohn’s disease, sarcoidosis (an inflammatory disease affecting multiple organs, notably the lungs), eye weakness and throat tightness (a potential sign of anaphylaxis).

A higher proportion of Jynneos recipients (1.3%) also experienced cardiac adverse events compared to placebo recipients (0.2%) who received saline.

A CDC scientist who led a clinical trial that was supposed to provide information about efficacy and side effects — a trial that recruited subjects in the Democratic Republic of the Congo from 2017 to 2020 — gave a monkeypox briefing to CDC advisors in late June but, according to Dr. Meryl Nass, scientific advisor to Children’s Health Defense, he was “coy” about sharing the study’s results.

Liability-free yet again

Nass also pointed out that although Jynneos is licensed and, under ordinary circumstances, would be susceptible to vaccine injury lawsuits, the FDA and HHS pulled a fast one yet again that effectively shields Bavarian Nordic and the U.S. government from liability.

Using vaccine “shortages” as their excuse, they arranged the liability shield by putting Jynneos under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) umbrella that shifts the U.S. over to administering “fractional doses” and using a different mode of administration (injection into the skin rather than between skin and muscle).

The EUA also permits administration of Jynneos to children if they are deemed “high risk.”

After the EUA announcement, Bavarian Nordic’s CEO expressed “reservations” about the altered dosing and mode of administration, stating further studies would have been a “prudent” step “before overhauling the nation’s monkeypox vaccine strategy.”

The Biden administration’s rejoinder was that Bavarian Nordic was just voicing sour grapes about “a potential loss in profits.”

The company needn’t worry — its stock has gone up by more than 150% since the announcement of a “moneypox” outbreak.

As for Americans, we have a choice: We can join the crowds supposedly clamoring for yet another vaccine that doesn’t prevent anything.

Or we can “just say no,” recognizing that there just might be something “unusual about a global pandemic occurring just months after a simulation of a global pandemic of exactly that kind, followed shortly after by the first-ever global outbreak of an even-more-obscure virus just months after a simulation of an outbreak of exactly that kind.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

August 17, 2022 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

What to Know Before Deciding to Take The Novavax Injection

Accepting an injection of spike protein hoping it is safe or effective is absurd. Yet, many are again forced to make a decision threatening their health and ability to support their family.

By Pierre Kory, MD, MPA | August 17, 2022

A subscriber asked me to write a post about my thoughts on Novavax because she “really trusts my judgement.” Flattered, I felt like I should share what they are. So here goes.

Before any medical intervention, but especially in the case of a novel or barely tested one, a long standing practice of medical ethics is that informed consent must be obtained. The emphasis should be on the informed part and not the consent part. Note that informed consent has been one of the foundations of medical ethics, essentially an inviolable standard, or at least it used to be before this “emergency” came along where now you have pharmacists injecting children with barely a mention of the risks, “because they might be too scared to take the shot.”

Informed consent discussions are simple in structure but often complex and time-consuming to conduct. It relies on providing the patient with as detailed and comprehensive a knowledge of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the intervention.

So, should we go through an informed consent discussion with the novel Novavax injection? Actually, I would not. Why? Because I don’t hold informed consent discussions for interventions I do not recommend or would not want my patient to consider. I instead tell them not to consider and give them my reasons for that recommendation. Thus, I only conduct informed consent discussion for interventions that I feel would bring about greater benefits than risks (generally much greater), and I would only do so for patients with active illness in order to get them better. A vaccine is a much different proposition as they are given to patients without disease.

Why would I not even consider Novavax as a reasonable option? Simple:

  • There has never been a successful or safe coronavirus vaccine. The last 18 months have shown that COVID vaccines lead to increased chances of getting ill, equal or increased chances of transmitting, and higher likelihood of entering hospital and dying. And that is leaving unmentioned the lethality and toxicity of the mRNA platform ones. See my “Vaccine Exemption Letter” post for the data to support these statements. The coronavirus is a rapidly mutating virus, thus vaccines will always be non-neutralizing because by the time they are manufactured and ready for injection, the virus has mutated into forms poorly responsive to older, narrower antibodies.
  • Novavax is still formulated with a two and a half year-old protein for this rapidly mutagenic coronavirus, so it would be like giving a two and a half year old flu shot for this years flu (worse actually). Yet our health system, including every single academic medical center in the country is still mandating and eager to adopt use of an outdated viral protein. I would love to say this is beyond belief, but this is the world we live in now.
  • We now have the omicron variant circulating, which is generally well tolerated by most, particularly those who are healthy or young (and even the old), and especially those with natural immunity.
  • The country now has abundant natural immunity, which even the CDC now admits offers equal protection (actually, natural immunity offers better protection but let’s give the CDC some credit for telling at least a partial truth). So why are we still vaccinating and/or mandating in those who have recovered from COVID?
  • Vaccinating against respiratory viruses works very poorly as the antibodies do not reach high concentrations in the nasal and respiratory mucosa which is where the virus enters. The flu vaccine is almost completely ineffective, even when you get this years flu shot. Not known by most.
  • Vaccinating against respiratory viruses with non-neutralizing vaccines actually weakens and warps the immune system such that you are more likely to get other respiratory viruses or illnesses as well (this has been well reported after flu vaccinations given that those vaccinated against the flu are more susceptible to other respiratory viral infections).
  • Proposing a novel and barely tested product coming out of the pharmaceutical industry to a patient is a wicked proposition in modern times. Note the pharmaceutical industry is a documented criminal industry which has repeatedly put out unsafe and ineffective products (even deadly, i.e opioids, Avandia, Vioxx, Bextra, the list goes on), followed by burying the adverse event data while pushing their wares through control of professional societies, federal/state legislation, and captured agencies. They have paid over $12 billion in criminal fines and over $16 billion in civil fines, just in the last 20 years across the 20 largest settlements. Their history of these actions stretches even longer.
  • The history of criminality around the COVID vaccines dwarfs any actions the industry has done in the past. The Pfizer documents that the PFDA (the P is not a typo) tried to hide for 75 years reveal insane amounts of manipulations to try to show they work and are safe. They didn’t and weren’t. Further the testimony from the Ventavia/Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson reveals that the studies were so poorly done with such little follow-up of patients that they are simply not credible. Remember, Pharma. Does. Not. Care. About. Your. Health. Just your wallet (actually the government’s wallet, which I suppose is also your wallet).

So, conceptually, I think the idea of getting any coronavirus vaccine at this point is preposterous. However, let’s try to do a more traditional informed consent using the structure of risks/benefits/alternatives. The following is what I think other providers (or pharmacists egads) should be telling people prior to offering them Novavax, or more accurately, in order to get them to avoid it.

Yes, Novavax is a “non-mRNA” vaccine and is designed more along the line of a traditional vaccine in that an amount of viral protein is injected into the arm, it is then recognized as a “foreign” protein by our immune system which then makes antibodies against it. These antibodies are then thought (“hoped” remember) to help clear the virus rapidly and efficiently after exposure such that we avoid illness. Sounds good on paper. Not. Just ask Geert Vanden Bossche, one of the worlds top immunologists and vaccine experts.

RISKS

Novavax delivers the spike protein. As a self-described clinical expert in spike-protein induced disease, the spike protein is a pathogen. A pathogen is a substance or organism that is capable of inducing illness. Note that I call myself an expert because there are very few of us out here studying it’s pathogenicity, however I would argue Professor Paul Marik has taken the lead across the globe in amassing all the basic science and clinical research underlying the knowledge of the mechanisms and treatments of spike-protein induced diseases. That scholarly document is in evolution, and has over 300 scientific references at this point, with rapid evolutions and additions each week. Note that it appears to be the world’s sole “comprehensive” scholarly work on spike protein pathogenicity and empirically proposed treatments.

Another great sadness about the US COVID response is that almost the entire health system and all of academia have yet to recognize the spike as a pathogen or formulate any approach to treating Long-Haul or Post-Vaccine Injury. Until they do, they will continue to fail to recognize the causes or mechanisms of these syndromes as well as to offer effective treatments. And, it goes without saying, they will not be able to discuss this in thier ill-informed consent discussions. Their deplorable failure at treating these disabling diseases is astounding and will continue for the foreseeable future. Remember, the system docs won’t treat because they are all members of the Church of RCT Fundamentalism (a.k.a “evidence based medicine.”) You know, where they will sit there paralyzed until some massive randomized controlled trial is published in a high-impact medical journal and then is recommended by a federal agency or national medical society. You know what that system produces by now if you read my Substack. Not only will it leave patients untreated for months to years, but while the docs sit around waiting, Pharma, via the agencies and media, will suppress or attack any generic medicines or supplements that front-line doctors and patients have found effective. They will do this with ferocity and depravity until such a time they can “save the day” with the massive promotion of a novel, pricey Big Pharma pill which they will get our government to pay for at a price they set. Think about what happened to ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine until Pharma saved the day with the pathetic and poisonous Paxlovid using our government coffers. Rinse repeat here.

The two major and complex diseases unleashed by the spike are what we call “long haul” and “post-vaccine injury” syndromes. I probably should differentiate post-vaccine into two subtypes, with one being an acute, sudden death syndrome caused by massive heart attacks, myocarditis (which can cause lethal arrhythmias or pump failure), and/or massive strokes. Excess mortality amongst the vaccinated in 2021 skyrocketed and is showing up in Life Insurance industry data in both the U.S and other countries. However I don’t see those events in my practice because they are sudden deaths occurring in asymptomatic patients (who are often swimming or running or doing something else fun until they suddenly drop dead). My practice instead sees patients who suffer with the more chronic subtype consisting of myriad, disabling symptoms across multiple organ systems. Now, whether there is enough spike in Novavax to produce similar deadly events or chronic syndromes in the future, who knows. More on that below.

SHORT TERM RISK DATA

Not looking good here folks. Let’s take a look at the actual published trial of Novavax, and their chart detailing the “side effects.” Then let’s compare it to Pfizers mRNA “vaccine” trial published in December 2020. Look carefully. I will interpret these charts below.

Click for full size

Here is how I interpret the data:

  1. The “local” and “systemic” adverse events are absurdly high in both. I remember thinking back in December 2020 when I was reading the Pfizer trial, I said to myself, “Wow, that does NOT look friendly!” Not just the wickedly high frequency of really sore arms with redness and swelling, but the very high rates of “systemic symptoms” of fatigue, headache, chills, vomiting, muscle pain. Very high rates of those. Ouch.
  2. Next, look at the “dose response,” meaning look at the incidence of adverse events after the 2nd shot compared to the 1st shot. If it is higher after the 2nd, it indicates a “dose-response relationship,” which, when we are talking about a therapeutic, is a pillar of evidence to support the efficacy of the drug. For instance, ivermectin in COVID has a strong dose response relationship, meaning the higher the dose, the more effective it is (that is why all the high impact trials tried as much as they could to limit the dose of ivermectin, in particular during history’s most fraudulent trial called the TOGETHER trial).

Conversely, a dose-response in terms of side effects is a pillar of the measure of toxicity. The more you give, the sicker you get. Not cool. Now take a look at Pfizers published chart above, keeping in mind, these are only the short term systemic side effects.

  1. Pfizer: fatigue goes from 47% after the 1st to 59% after the 2nd in young folks and 34% up to 51% in older folks. Chills: 14% to 35% in young, 6% to 23% in old. Same pattern and increases with muscle pains and also joint pains and use of anti-pyretic medications.
  2. Now, take a look at Novavax. Note how they don’t give you the numeral percentages and instead make you crane your neck and use a ruler to estimate the actual incidences and increases. But just looking at the height of the bars from shot 1 to shot 2 and the increases in the yellow at the tops of the bars (yellow = “Grade 3” reactions – i.e. more severe), you see again what looks like a scary shot to me with some of the local and systemic events reported even higher than with Pfizer’s mRNA shot! So, is Novavax safer?

LONG TERM SIDE EFFECTS. Unknown. Remember the famous, “I guess we will just have to give it to see how safe it is” by one of the nations top vaccine experts. I swear, again, and I say this often, you just cannot make this stuff up. So, an informed consent discussion should relate that long term side effects are unknown. Remember as well, we are not in a supposed “emergency” anymore, despite the fact our government keeps renewing its emergency powers. If the person conducting this discussion tries to argue that in terms of long term effects, it is safe and effective because the mRNA vaccines were safe and effective, that is so categorically ridiculous it does not even bare addressing. Again, read my “Vaccine Exemption Letter” post for the data on toxicity and lethality of those vaccines. Do not proceed. My caution would be that spike protein is a pathogen with sequences that we know generate antibodies that then are capable of attacking many tissues (what are called autoantibodies which cause a category of diseases called “auto-immune” diseases). Also, spike protein, when broken down by the body is known to generate amyloid like fragments which are highly thrombogenic (i.e. cause clotting). Spike protein also stimulates immune cells called monocytes and macrophages which disturb numerous organ functions. Spike protein is also toxic to mitochondria which are the energy producing parts of each cell. In summary, don’t sign up for any more spike protein than is already circulating in the world.

Also, Novavax, like the mRNA vaccines uses “nanoparticles” in a “saponin-based adjuvant” solution which is novel and proprietary, patented only in 2020. Well, thats reassuring no? Their published paper states that the adjuvant and the vaccine was found to be “safe and immunogenic” in Phase 1 and 2 trials. Then I found this in the supplementary appendix from one of the earlier trials, ”the mechanism of Matrix-M1 (the adjuvant) is not well defined, but it has been associated with a potent induction of leukocyte activation and migration into the draining lymph nodes in their previous study.” Not reassuring.

EFFICACY

Unknown, but likely ineffective as it has not been tested against Omicron, or any of its sub-variants or whatever future variant will be circulating when it rolls out. Plus, as we know now, all the predicted efficacy reported from COVID-19 vaccine trials were never observed in the real-world, again likely due to trial shenanigans and data manipulations and removal and/or miscategorization of those who fell ill during the trial or simply due to the fact the virus is rapidly mutating. Even if it were effective, we know from the past two years, it would be short lived. I again have to mention natural immunity. It already protects against severe disease and reasonably well from re-infection, and there is no credible data to suggest adding an even older spike protein vaccine using a newly patented adjuvant will better protect you or make you healthier.

ALTERNATIVES TO VACCINATION

For readers of my Substack, you all know that you can always just skip the vaccine and instead just rely on early treatment which has been shown to be near perfectly effective in achieving rapid recovery and avoidance of hospitalization and death, especially when given in synergistic combinations like the FLCCC’s or the AAPS’s protocols. In fact, as you know, no vaccine would ever get an EUA or approval if effective treatments were available. Further, there are now over three dozen effective treatments supported by controlled trials, with many of them repurposed and/or over the counter. I suppose you could also just rely on Paxlovid given its demonstration of such incredible efficacy in treating President Biden and Dr. Fauci.

Hope this helps.


P.S. I opened a tele-health clinic providing care not only in the prevention and treatment of acute COVID, but with a specialized focus on the study and treatment of both Long-Haul and Post-Vaccination injury syndromes. If anyone needs our help, feel free to visit our website at www.drpierrekory.com.

P.P.S. I am getting professional help (hah!) to write a book about what I have personally witnessed and learned during Pharma’s historic Disinformation war on ivermectin. Pre-order here for:

August 17, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

RNA for Moderna’s Omicron Booster Manufactured by CIA-Linked Company

BY WHITNEY WEBB | UNLIMITED HANGOUT | AUGUST 17, 2022

Since late last year, messenger RNA for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines, including its recently reformulated Omicron booster, has been exclusively manufactured by a little known company with significant ties to US intelligence.

Earlier this week, the United Kingdom became the first country to approve Moderna’s reformulated version of its COVID-19 vaccine, which claims to provide protection against both the original form of the virus and the significantly less lethal but more transmissible Omicron variant. The product was approved by the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) with the support of the UK government’s Commission on Human Medicines.

Described by UK officials as a “sharpened tool” in the nation’s continued vaccination campaign, the reformulated vaccine combines the previously approved COVID-19 vaccine with a “vaccine candidate” targeting the Omicron variant BA.1. That vaccine candidate has never been previously approved and has not been the subject of independent study. The MHRA approved the vaccine based on a single, incomplete human trial currently being conducted by Moderna. The company promoted incomplete data from that trial in company press releases in June and July. The study has yet to be published in a medical journal or peer reviewed. No concerns have been raised by any regulatory agency, including the MHRA, regarding Moderna’s past history of engaging in suspect and likely illegal activity in past product trials, including for its original COVID-19 vaccine.

The approval comes shortly before several Western countries, including the UK, plan to conduct a massive COVID-19 booster vaccination campaign this fall. Moderna has also noted that approval for its Omicron booster vaccine are pending in the US, EU, Australia and Canada – all of which are also planning fall vaccination campaigns focused on COVID-19. The company’s CEO, Stéphane Bancel, has called the reformulated vaccine “our lead candidate for a Fall 2022 booster.”

Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, Source: ClockworkOrange

However, unlike the company’s original COVID-19 vaccine, the genetic material, or messenger RNA (mRNA), for this new vaccine, including the newly formulated genetic material meant to provide protection against the Omicron variant, is being manufactured, not by Moderna, but by a relatively new company that has received hardly any media attention, despite its overt links to US intelligence. Last September, it was quietly announced that a company called National Resilience (often referred to simply as Resilience) would begin manufacturing the mRNA for Moderna COVID-19 vaccine products. Under the terms of the multi-year agreement, “Resilience will produce mRNA for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine at its facility in Mississauga, Ontario, for distribution worldwide.”

Reinventing Biomanufacturing”

National Resilience was founded relatively recently, in November 2020, and describes itself as “a manufacturing and technology company dedicated to broadening access to complex medicines and protecting biopharmaceutical supply chains against disruption.” It has since been building “a sustainable network of high-tech, end-to-end manufacturing solutions with the aim to ensure the medicines of today and tomorrow can be made quickly, safely, and at scale.” It further plans to “reinvent biomanufacturing” and “democratize access to medicines,” namely gene therapies, experimental vaccines and other “medicines of tomorrow.”

In pursuit of those goals, the company announced it would “actively invest in developing powerful new technologies to manufacture complex medicines that are defining the future of therapeutics, including cell and gene therapies, viral vectors, vaccines, and proteins.” It was founded with the reported intention “to build a better system for manufacturing complex medicines to fight deadly diseases” as a way to improve post-COVID “pandemic preparedness.”

The company initially marketed its manufacturing capabilities as “the Resilience platform”, and offers principally “RNA Modalities”, including RNA development for vaccines, gene editing and therapeutics; and “Virus Production”, including viral vectors, oncolytic viruses (i.e. a virus engineered to preferentially attack cancer cells), viruses for use in vaccine development and gene-edited viruses for unspecified purposes. It is worth noting that, to date, many controversial “gain-of-function” experiments have justified modifying viruses for the same purposes as described by National Resilience’s Virus Production capabilities. In addition, National Resilience offers product formulations and other modalities, such as biologics and cell therapies, to its clientele and the “Virus Production” of its website has since been removed.

Resilience CEO Rahul Singhvi, Source: Resilience

National Resilience, being such a young company, has very few clients and there is little publicly available information on its manufacturing capabilities aside from the company’s website. The firm only acquired its first commercial manufacturing plant in March 2021, located in Boston, MA and purchased from Sanofi, followed shortly thereafter by the acquisition of another separate plant located in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. Makeovers were announced for the plants, but little is publicly known about their progress. Prior to the acquisitions, the company had been subleasing a Bay area facility in Fremont, California. Reporters were puzzled at the time as to why a company with roughly 700 employees at the time had acquired a total of 599,00 square feet of manufacturing space after having only emerged from stealth less than 6 months prior.

In April 2021, National Resilience acquired Ology Bioservices Inc., which had received a $37 million contract from the US military the previous November to develop an advanced anti-COVID-19 monoclonal antibody treatment. This acquisition also provided National Resilience with its first Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3) laboratory and the ability to manufacture cell and gene therapies, live viral vaccines and vectors and oncolytic viruses.

Despite being in the earliest stages of developing its “revolutionary” manufacturing capabilities, National Resilience entered into a partnership with the Government of Canada in July of last year. Per that agreement, the Canadian government plans to invest CAD 199.2 million (about $154.9 million) into National Resilience’s Ontario-based subsidiary, Resilience Biotechnologies Inc. Most of those funds are destined for use in expanding the Ontario facility that Resilience acquired last March and which is now manufacturing the mRNA for Moderna’s COVID-19 products. Canada’s Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, François-Philippe Champagne, asserted at the time that the investment would “build future pandemic preparedness” and help “to grow Canada’s life science ecosystem as an engine for our economic recovery.” More recently, in 2022, the company has announced a few new clients – Takeda, Opus Genetics and the US Department of Defense.

According to National Resilience’s executives, the company’s ambitions apparently go far beyond manufacturing RNA and viruses. For instance, Resilience CEO Rahul Singhvi has claimed that the company is seeking to build “the world’s most advanced biopharmaceutical manufacturing ecosystem.” Yet, Singhvi has declined to offer much in the way of specifics when it comes to exactly how the company plans to become the planet’s most elite biomanufacturing company.

In an interview with The San Francisco Business Times, Singhvi states that Resilience is looking to fill its massive manufacturing plants with “technologies and people that can set and apply new standards for manufacturing cell therapies and gene therapies as well as RNA-based treatments.” Prior to Resilience, Singhvi was CEO of NovaVax and an operating partner at Flagship Pioneering, which played a major role in the creation and rise of Moderna.

Singhvi has further insisted that National Resilience is “not a therapeutics company, not a contractor and not a tools company” and instead aims “to boost production using the new therapeutic modalities” such as RNA-based treatments, which have become normalized in the COVID-19 era. Whereas contract manufacturers “are like kitchens, with pots and pans ready for any recipe,” “what we’re trying to do is fix the recipes,” Singhvi has explained. One member of Resilience’s board of directors, former FDA Commissioner and Pfizer Board member Scott Gottlieb, has described the company as seeking to act as the equivalent of Amazon Web Services for the biotechnology industry.

Essentially, Resilience bills itself as offering solutions that will allow “futuristic” medicines, including mRNA vaccines, to be produced more quickly and more efficiently, with the apparent goal of monopolizing certain parts of the biomanufacturing process. It also appears poised to become the manufacturer of choice for mRNA vaccines and experimental therapeutics in the event of a future pandemic, which some public health “philanthropists” like Bill Gates have said is imminent.

Perhaps the company’s most noteworthy ambition relates to their claims that they support clients through the government regulatory process. Given the company’s emphasis on speedy mass production of experimental gene therapies, its stated intention of getting the “futuristic” medical products it manufactures to market as quickly as possible seems at odds with the slower, traditional regulatory processes. Indeed, one could easily argue that the approvals of mRNA vaccines for the first time in human history during the COVID-19 crisis were only possible because of the major relaxing of regulatory procedurse and safety testing due to the perceived urgency of the situation.

Resilience seems intent on seeing that phenomenon repeat itself. As previously mentioned, the company claims to allow for the setting and application of “new standards for manufacturing cell therapies and gene therapies” and also says it plans to become a “technology-aggregating standards bearer that helps therapies come to market more efficiently.” It previously offered on its website “regulatory support” and “strategy consulting” to clients, suggesting that it would seek to mediate between clients and government regulators in order to fulfill its goal of having the products it manufactures taken to market more quickly. In addition, upon launch, the company claimed it planned to obtain unspecified “regulatory capabilities.” If so, it is certainly notable that former top Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials are either on the company’s board or, as will be noted shortly, played a major role in the company’s creation.

The People Behind Resilience

Resilience was co-founded by Biotech venture capitalist Robert Nelsen, who is known for listening “to science’s earliest whispers, even when data are too early for just about anyone else.” Nelsen was one of the earliest investors in Illumina, a California-based gene-sequencing hardware and software giant that is believed to currently dominate the field of genomics. As mentioned in a previous Unlimited Hangout investigation, Illumina is closely tied to the DARPA-equivalent of the Wellcome Trust known as Wellcome Leap, which is also focused on “futuristic” and transhumanist “medicines.” Nelsen is now chairman of National Resilience’s board, which is a “Who’s Who” of big players from the US National Security State, Big Pharma and Pharma-related “philanthropy.”

Bob Nelsen of ARCH Venture Partners, Source: ARCH Venture Partners

However, while Nelsen has been given much of the credit for creating Resilience, he revealed in one interview that the idea for the company had actually come from someone else – Luciana Borio. In July of last year, Nelsen revealed that it was while talking to Borio about “her work running pandemic preparedness on the NSC [National Security Council]” that had “helped lead to the launch of Nelsen’s $800 million biologics manufacturing startup Resilience.”

At the time of their conversation, Borio was the vice president of In-Q-tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA that has been used since its creation in the early 2000s to found a number of companies, many of which act as Agency fronts. Prior to In-Q-Tel, she served as director for medical and biodefense preparedness at the National Security Council during the Trump administration and had previously been the acting chief scientist at the FDA from 2015 to 2017.

Borio is currently a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations, a consultant to Goldman Sachs, a member of the Bill Gates-funded vaccine alliance CEPI, and a partner at Nelsen’s venture capital firm ARCH Venture Partners, which funds Resilience. Nelsen’s ARCH previously funded Nanosys, the company of the controversial scientist Charles Lieber. Around the time of her conversation with Nelsen that led to Resilience’s creation, Borio was co-writing a policy paper for the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security that recommended linking COVID-19 vaccination status with food stamp programs and rent assistance as a possible means of coercing certain populations to take the experimental vaccine.

Borio is hardly Resilience’s only In-Q-Tel connection, as the CEO of In-Q-Tel, Chris Darby, sits on the company’s board of directors. Darby is also on the board of directors of the CIA Officers Memorial Foundation. Darby was also recently a member of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI), where members of the military, intelligence community and Silicon Valley’s top firms argued for the need to reduce the use of “legacy systems” in favor of AI-focused alternatives as a national security imperative. Among those “legacy systems” identified by the NSCAI were in-person doctor visits and even receiving medical care from a human doctor, as opposed to an AI “doctor.” The NSCAI also argued for the removal of “regulatory barriers” that prevent these new technologies from replacing “legacy systems.”

Resilience Board Member Drew Oetting, Source: 8VC

Another notable board member, in discussing Resilience’s intelligence ties, is Drew Oetting. Oetting works for Cerberus Capital Management, the firm headed by Steve Feinberg who previously led the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board under the Trump administration. Cerberus is notably the parent company of DynCorp, a controversial US national security contractor tied to numerous scandals, including scandals related to sex trafficking in conflict zones. Oetting is also part of the CIA-linked Thorn NGO ostensibly focused on tackling child trafficking that was the subject of a previous Unlimited Hangout investigation.

Oetting is also the co-founder of 8VC, a venture capital firm that is one of the main investors in Resilience. 8VC’s other co-founder is Joe Lonsdale and Oetting “started his career” as Lonsdale’s chief of staff. Lonsdale is the co-founder, alongside Peter Thiel and Alex Karp, of Palantir, a CIA front company and intelligence contractor that is the successor to DARPA’s controversial Total Information Awareness (TIA) mass surveillance and data-mining program. In addition, Oetting previously worked for Bill Gates’ investment fund.

Also worth noting is the presence of Joseph Robert Kerrey, former US Senator for Nebraska and a former member of the conflict-of-interest-ridden 9/11 Commission, on Resilience’s board. Kerrey is currently managing director of Allen & Co., a New York investment banking firm which has hosted an annual “summer camp for billionaires” since 1983. Allen & Co. has long been a major player in networks where organized crime and intelligence intersect, and is mentioned repeatedly throughout my upcoming book One Nation Under Blackmail. For instance, Charles and Herbert Allen, who ran the firm for decades, had considerable business dealings with organized crime kingpins and frontmen for notorious gangsters like Meyer Lansky, particularly in the Bahamas. They were also business partners of Leslie Wexner’s mentors A. Alfred Taubman and Max Fisher as well as associates of Earl Brian, one of the architects of the PROMIS software scandal – which saw organized crime and intelligence networks cooperate to steal and then compromise the PROMIS software for blackmail and clandestine intelligence-gathering purposes. Allen & Co. was a major investor in Brian’s business interests in the technology industry that Brian used in attempts to bankrupt the developers of PROMIS, Inslaw Inc. and to market versions of PROMIS that had been compromised first by Israeli intelligence and, later, the CIA.

In addition to these intelligence-linked individuals, the rest of Resilience’s board includes the former CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Susan Desmond-Hellmann; former FDA Commissioner and Pfizer board member, Scott Gottlieb; two former executives at Johnson & Johnson; former president and CEO of Teva Pharmaceuticals North American branch, George Barrett; CalTech professor and board member of Alphabet (i.e. Google) and Illumina, Frances Arnold; former executive at Genentech and Merck, Patrick Yang; and Resilience CEO Rahul Singhvi.

To Boost or Not to Boost

It is certainly telling that the normally publicity hungry Moderna has said so little about its partnership with Resilience and that Resilience, despite its ambitious plans, has also avoided the media limelight. Considering Moderna’s history and Resilience’s connections, there may be more to this partnership that meets the eye and concerned members of the public would do well to keep a very close eye on Resilience, its partnerships, and the products it is manufacturing.

Given that we now live in a world where government regulatory decisions on the approval of medicines are increasingly influenced by corporate press releases and normal regulatory procedures have fallen by the wayside for being too “slow,” there is likely to be little scrutiny of the genetic material that Resilience produces for the “medicines of tomorrow.” This seems to be already true for Moderna’s recently retooled COVID-19 vaccine, as there has been no independent examination of the new genetic sequence of mRNA used in the Omicron-specific vaccine candidate or its effects on the human body in the short, medium or long term. For those who are skeptical of the outsized role that intelligence-linked companies are playing in the attempted technological “revolution” in the medical field, it is best to consider Resilience’s role in the upcoming fall vaccination campaign and in future pandemic and public health scenarios before trying its “futuristic” products.

Whitney Webb has been a professional writer, researcher and journalist since 2016. She has written for several websites and, from 2017 to 2020, was a staff writer and senior investigative reporter for Mint Press News. She currently writes for The Last American Vagabond.

August 17, 2022 Posted by | Book Review, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

Weaponizing the Bureaucracy: Who Will Protect Us from the Government’s Standing Army?

By John & Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute | August 17, 2022

“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.”—James Madison

The IRS has stockpiled 4,500 guns and five million rounds of ammunition in recent years, including 621 shotguns, 539 long-barrel rifles and 15 submachine guns.

The Veterans Administration (VA) purchased 11 million rounds of ammunition (equivalent to 2,800 rounds for each of their officers), along with camouflage uniforms, riot helmets and shields, specialized image enhancement devices and tactical lighting.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) acquired 4 million rounds of ammunition, in addition to 1,300 guns, including five submachine guns and 189 automatic firearms for its Office of Inspector General.

According to an in-depth report on “The Militarization of the U.S. Executive Agencies,” the Social Security Administration secured 800,000 rounds of ammunition for their special agents, as well as armor and guns.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) owns 600 guns. And the Smithsonian now employs 620-armed “special agents.”

This is how it begins.

We have what the founders feared most: a “standing” or permanent army on American soil.

This de facto standing army is made up of weaponized, militarized, civilian forces which look like, dress like, and act like the military; are armed with guns, ammunition and military-style equipment; are authorized to make arrests; and are trained in military tactics.

Mind you, this de facto standing army of bureaucratic, administrative, non-military, paper-pushing, non-traditional law enforcement agencies may look and act like the military, but they are not the military.

Rather, they are foot soldiers of the police state’s standing army, and they are growing in number at an alarming rate.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the number of federal agents armed with guns, ammunition and military-style equipment, authorized to make arrests, and trained in military tactics has nearly tripled over the past several decades.

There are now more bureaucratic (non-military) government agents armed with weapons than U.S. Marines. As Adam Andrzejewski writes for Forbes, “the federal government has become one never-ending gun show.”

While Americans have to jump through an increasing number of hoops in order to own a gun, federal agencies have been placing orders for hundreds of millions of rounds of hollow point bullets and military gear. Among the agencies being supplied with night-vision equipment, body armor, hollow-point bullets, shotguns, drones, assault rifles and LP gas cannons are the Smithsonian, U.S. Mint, Health and Human Services, IRS, FDA, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Education Department, Energy Department, Bureau of Engraving and Printing and an assortment of public universities.

Add in the Biden Administration’s plans to grow the nation’s police forces by 100,000 more cops and swell the ranks of the IRS by 87,000 new employees (some of whom will have arrest-and-firearm authority) and you’ve got a nation in the throes of martial law.

The militarization of America’s police forces in recent decades has merely sped up the timeline by which the nation is transformed into an authoritarian regime.

What began with the militarization of the police in the 1980s during the government’s war on drugs has snowballed into a full-fledged integration of military weaponry, technology and tactics into police protocol. To our detriment, local police—clad in jackboots, helmets and shields and wielding batons, pepper-spray, stun guns, and assault rifles—have increasingly come to resemble occupying forces in our communities.

This standing army has been imposed on the American people in clear violation of the spirit—if not the letter of the law—of the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the government’s ability to use the U.S. military as a police force.

Unfortunately, the increasing militarization of the police, the use of sophisticated weaponry against Americans and the government’s increasing tendency to employ military personnel domestically have all but eviscerated historic prohibitions such as the Posse Comitatus Act.

The menace of a national police force—a.k.a. a standing army—vested with the power to completely disregard the Constitution, cannot be overstated, nor can its danger be ignored.

Historically, the establishment of a national police force accelerates a nation’s transformation into a police state, serving as the fundamental and final building block for every totalitarian regime that has ever wreaked havoc on humanity.

Then again, for all intents and perhaps, the American police state is already governed by martial law: Battlefield tactics. Militarized police. Riot and camouflage gear. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Drones. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Concussion grenades. Intimidation tactics. Brute force. Laws conveniently discarded when it suits the government’s purpose.

This is what martial law looks like, when a government disregards constitutional freedoms and imposes its will through military force, only this is martial law without any government body having to declare it.

We are sliding fast down a slippery slope to a Constitution-free America.

This quasi-state of martial law has been helped along by government policies and court rulings that have made it easier for the police to shoot unarmed citizens, for law enforcement agencies to seize cash and other valuable private property under the guise of asset forfeiture, for military weapons and tactics to be deployed on American soil, for government agencies to carry out round-the-clock surveillance, for legislatures to render otherwise lawful activities as extremist if they appear to be anti-government, for profit-driven private prisons to lock up greater numbers of Americans, for homes to be raided and searched under the pretext of national security, for American citizens to be labeled terrorists and stripped of their rights merely on the say-so of a government bureaucrat, and for pre-crime tactics to be adopted nationwide that strip Americans of the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty and creates a suspect society in which we are all guilty until proven otherwise.

All of these assaults on the constitutional framework of the nation have been sold to the public as necessary for national security.

Time and again, the public has fallen for the ploy hook, line and sinker.

We’re being reeled in, folks, and you know what happens when we get to the end of that line?

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we’ll be cleaned, gutted and strung up.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute.

August 17, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Syria denies holding American citizens captive, including journalist Austin Lee

Press TV – August 17, 2022

Syria has dismissed allegations of holding American nationals, including freelance journalist and veteran US Marine Corps Austin Tice, who disappeared a decade ago while reporting on the foreign-sponsored conflict in the Arab country.

The Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates said in a statement on Wednesday that Damascus “denies that it has kidnapped or is hiding any American citizens who entered its territory or resided in areas under the sovereignty and authority of the Syrian government.”

“The US administration, represented by President [Joe Biden] and Secretary of State [Antony Blinken], issued last week misleading and illogical statements that included baseless accusations against Syria that it had kidnapped or detained American citizens including former US Marine Austin Tice,” it said.

“The Syrian Arab Republic categorically denies the accusations of his kidnapping, or holding any American citizen,” the ministry stated, reiterating the Damascus government’s full commitment to the principles of the international law and the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

The Syrian foreign ministry also denied any secret contacts with US officials on missing Americans, emphasizing that “any official dialogue with the American government will only be public based on the respect of Syria’s sovereignty.”

“The US must immediately and unconditionally withdraw all its military forces that are unlawfully present on the Syrian soil, stop plundering and smuggling Syrian crude oil and wheat crops, end support for separatist groups and terrorist outfits stationed at the illegal US-run military base in al-Tanf region, and remove sanctions imposed by successive US administrations against the Syrian nation,” the ministry statement added.

Biden last week claimed that his administration knew with “certainty” that Tice, who was abducted in the Syrian capital Damascus in August 2012, was being held by Syria’s government.

“On the tenth anniversary of his abduction, I am calling on Syria to end this and help us bring him home,” the US president said in a statement.

The Syrian government has denied on multiple occasions that it is holding Tice, who reported for The Washington Post and McClatchy newspapers, among other news outlets.

Tice’s family said Austin was traveling in the Damascus suburb of Darayya to work on one of his final pieces for the summer on August 13, 2012, when he was abducted. He was supposed to leave for Lebanon the following day.

Since then, the only information Tice’s family has received from his captors was a 43-second video that surfaced five weeks after his disappearance.

It was titled “Austin Tice is Alive” and showed Tice and a group of militants, but contained no other information.

Tice is one of two Americans who went missing in Syria. The other is Majd Kamalmaz, a psychologist from Virginia, who vanished in Syria in 2017.

August 17, 2022 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , | 1 Comment

World order looks different from Moscow, Beijing

BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | AUGUST 17, 2022

The Chinese Defence Ministry announced today its participation in the Vostok 2022 strategic command and staff exercise in Russia, which is slated for August 30-September 5. The low-key statement in Beijing said China will send some troops and the participation is within the framework of the two countries’ annual cooperation plan. 

The statement mentioned that “India, Belarus, Tajikistan, Mongolia and other countries will also participate.” It said the Chinese participation “aims to deepen pragmatic and friendly cooperation with the militaries of the participating countries, enhance the level of strategic coordination among all participating parties, and enhance the ability to deal with various security threats.”

In what can be construed as an oblique reference to the conflict in Ukraine and the big power tensions in general, Beijing stated that the exercise is “unrelated to the current international and regional situation.” 

Vostok is one of the capstone events of the Russian Armed Forces’ annual training cycle to test national preparedness for large-scale, high-intensity warfare against a technologically advanced peer adversary in a multidirectional, theatre-level conflict. 

Vostok 2018 involved approximately 300,000 troops –- as well as 1,000 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, 80 ships, and 36,000 tanks, armoured and other vehicles — and was unprecedented in scale. And Russian, Chinese and Mongolian forces were the sole participants and was hyped up as a carefully orchestrated Russian-Chinese military demonstration. 

It seems the Chinese participation will be scaled down, notwithstanding the gathering storms on the horizon for both Russia and China. The Chinese announcement comes a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin used exceptionally harsh language to condemn the “Western globalist elites,” accusing them of provoking chaos, “fanning long-standing and new conflicts and pursuing the so-called containment policy” in the pursuit of an agenda “to keep hold onto the hegemony and power that are slipping from their hands.” Putin alleged, “They need conflicts to retain their hegemony.” 

The speech while addressing the 10th Moscow Conference on International Security in Moscow on Tuesday, also contained some pointed references to the Asia-Pacific region. Putin said: 

“NATO is crawling east and building up its military infrastructure… US has recently made another deliberate attempt to fuel the flames and stir up trouble in the Asia-Pacific. The US escapade towards Taiwan is not just a voyage by an irresponsible politician, but part of the purpose-oriented and deliberate US strategy designed to destabilise the situation and sow chaos in the region and the world. It is a brazen demonstration of disrespect for other countries and their own international commitments. We regard this as a thoroughly planned provocation. 

“They want to shift the blame for their own failures to other countries, namely Russia and China, which are defending their point of view and designing a sovereign development policy without submitting to the diktat of the supranational elites. 

“We also see that the collective West is striving to expand its bloc-based system to the Asia-Pacific region, like it did with NATO in Europe. To this end, they are creating aggressive military-political unions such as AUKUS and others.”          

Significantly, Putin called for “a radical strengthening of the contemporary system of a multipolar world.” He said, “ All these challenges are global, and therefore it would be impossible to overcome them without combining the efforts and potentials of all states… 

“Russia will actively and assertively participate in such coordinated joint efforts; together with its allies, partners and fellow thinkers, it will improve the existing mechanisms of of international security and create new ones, as well as consistently strengthen the national armed forces and other security structures by providing them with advanced weapons and military equipment. Russia will secure its national interests, as well as the protection of its allies.” 

Notably, however, the Chinese commentaries generally steer clear of bracketing the Taiwan question and the conflict in Ukraine as analogous, as symptomatic of the birth throes of a multipolar world. In a commentary today, the senior editor with People’s Daily, Ding Yang once again flagged that the real danger is that the US and China may “sleepwalk into conflict.” 

He wrote that the US is “like a runaway horse running wildly to the precipice of war,” but the aim is how to profit from a war, or rather “how to profit from someone else’s war.” Ding took a Marxian perspective that the US policy is driven by the interests of US capital and “Washington sees China as an enemy because it has moved the US cheese.” 

As he sees it, at its core the US strategy is “to squeeze China out of the global market and manufacturing chain.” Thus, even with regard to Taiwan, “One of the main aims is to create tensions and further pulling Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company into the US chip siege against China.” 

Ideology, human rights, etc., are only alibis for the capital competition for markets. Plainly put, it unnerves the US that “Chinese capital is also starting to go global.” 

Deng is confident that “If we follow the logic of capital development as they see it, what matters is that Chinese manufacturing will eventually push them out of the global industrial chain, leaving them with no money to make and no work to do. So the first thing they want to do is to maximise their share of the Chinese market.” 

“Then the next thing to do is inevitably to implement a global stranglehold on Chinese capital and Chinese manufacturing.” This is where the danger lies, as “the option of war is an inherent part of US capital export and expansion.” 

But China’s advantage is that “in contrast to the historical path of Western capital’s global expansion, there is a logic of “common development” behind Chinese capital going abroad.” 

Interestingly, the government newspaper China Daily reported today that China’s holdings of US Treasuries have been further reduced through July, but China is only one of many other countries doing so, including Japan, reacting to the Fed’s tightening cycle.

But “the decline may gradually decelerate.” The point is, it is “unrealistic” for China to give up on US debt holdings so long as the US Treasuries remain a critical international reserve asset! This is diametrically opposite the revisionist path Russia took. 

August 17, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

NATO ready to intervene in Kosovo – Stoltenberg

Samizdat | August 17, 2022

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has reiterated his promise that the bloc will intervene if “stability” is jeopardized in Kosovo during a press conference with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic on Wednesday.

”Should stability be jeopardized, KFOR stands ready to intervene and will take any measures that are necessary to ensure a safe and secure environment and freedom of movement for all the people of Kosovo,” he said.

The leader of the military alliance called on “all sides” to “show restraint and avoid violence,” arguing that diplomacy was the only way forward, even while threatening military intervention under the UN mandate if the two parties did not abide by the EU-mediated dialogue.

Stoltenberg is set to hold a meeting with Kosovo Prime Minister Albin Kurti later on Wednesday, while Vucic and Kurti will meet on Thursday in Brussels to continue the dialogue.

Tensions between Serbia and Kosovo are running high after the province passed a law requiring Serbs to exchange their passports for special Kosovo-issued documents and switch out their Serbian license plates for plates issued in Kosovo.

Stoltenberg initially told Vucic that NATO would intervene in Kosovo in the event of stability being jeopardized during a phone call on August 3, echoing a communique from the NATO mission to Kosovo issued the previous week.

The announcement of the new law was accompanied by heavily armed special police taking control of two border crossings with Serbia, leading local Serbs to erect roadblocks in protest and Vucic’s government to issue a statement condemning Pristina’s behavior. NATO peacekeepers were deployed to defuse the tensions, and Kurti’s government agreed to delay the implementation of the new legislation in return for the protesters dismantling their barricades.

Russia has accused the West of fueling tensions between Serbia and its breakaway province, claiming the eruption was aimed at weakening the one European holdout from NATO and forcing it to adopt anti-Russian sanctions embraced by the rest of the continent. Kosovo, on the other hand, has blamed Russia for the escalation, arguing that Moscow is trying to distract from the war in Ukraine.

August 17, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | 2 Comments

US to Deploy Strategic Assets to Region If DPRK Conducts Nuclear Test: Pentagon

Samizdat – 17.08.2022

The United States and South Korea agreed to deploy US strategic assets to the region if North Korea conducts a nuclear test, the two nations said in a joint statement for their 21st integrated defense dialogue.

“Both sides shared their assessments of activities at the DPRK’s Punggye-ri nuclear testing site. The two sides affirmed that, should the DPRK conduct a nuclear test, the ROK and the U.S. will engage in a strong and firm bilateral response, to include options to deploy U.S. strategic assets to the region,” the statement said.

On Wednesday, North Korea launched two cruise missiles toward the Yellow Sea, the South Korean military said.

The 21st South Korea-US Integrated Defense Dialogue was held in Seoul on August 16-17. The delegations were led by US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia, Siddharth Mohandas, and South Korean Deputy Minister for National Defense Policy, Heo Tae-keun.

The United States and South Korea will expand the scope and scale of joint military drills in response to recent missile tests conducted by North Korea, and will start with the Ulchi Freedom Shield exercise next week, according to a joint statement.

“The leaders discussed the DPRK threat, particularly the increased volume and scale of DPRK missile tests over the course of the last year. With this in mind, and considering the evolving threat posed by the DPRK, both leaders committed to expanding the scope and scale of combined military exercises and training on and around the Korean Peninsula—starting with Ulchi Freedom Shield next week—to bolster combined readiness,” the joint statement said.

On August 16-17, the two countries held their 21st integrated defense dialogue in Seoul. The delegations were led by US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia, Siddharth Mohandas, and South Korean Deputy Minister for National Defense Policy, Heo Tae-keun.

August 17, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , | 1 Comment

NATO’s 2030 Strategic Concept threatens to destabilise the world

By Ahmed Adel | August 17, 2022

The new NATO 2030 Strategic Concept indicates a disturbing change in the Alliance’s strategic orientation. As a result, provocations towards Moscow, as well as Beijing, are escalating, especially after the former was labelled by NATO as “the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area.” In this context, the Atlantic Alliance urged member states to allocate more resources for military purposes, as well as to increase the rapid reaction forces on its Eastern European front from 40,000 troops to a staggering 300,000. This is in addition to escalations in the South China Sea.

NATO’s Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, explained that, unlike the previous document of the same title, which was adopted in Lisbon in 2010, there are no longer any guidelines on cooperation with Moscow, not even in the areas of arms control, the fight against terrorism or drug trafficking. Relations with Russia are continuously deteriorating as the West instigates less cooperation and more conflict. 

The behaviour of NATO’s main members – the US and the United Kingdom, as well as Germany and France, in Ukraine, but also in the Caucasus and Central Asia, signify that Russia is the most direct threat to Western hegemony despite China’s massive economic rise. Therefore, there is nothing epochal about the positioning on NATO’s eastern borders since it is a logical epilogue of a process that has been ongoing since at least 2014. Arguments can be made though that this process began with the Syrian War in 2011, or perhaps even as early as 2008 with the NATO-instigated Russo-Georgia War.

The change in strategic orientation, projected in the medium term, also concerns China’s relations with the West and Russia. The tightening of relations between China and Russia is contrary to the interests of the Alliance because, according to NATO, “China seeks to undermine the current world order by controlling global logistics and its economy,” hence NATO’s strengthening of relations with its Asia-Pacific partners.

It is also for this reason that the US encouraged the dismantling of the EU-China investment agreement, openly supports protesters in Hong Kong and repeats claims of a Chinese-perpetrated genocide against the Uyghurs, escalates tensions in the South China Sea, and helped dismantle the 17 + 1 format, which in practice can no longer function. This is also in addition to Nancy Pelosi’s recent visit to Taipei and the establishment of the AUKUS alliance.

For the most part, in NATO’s new strategic orientation, China could arguably be heading towards a similar situation to that of Russia in 2014. For NATO strategists, China’s response to Pelosi’s visit, manifested by military and naval exercises in the South China Sea, is excessive. They are of this view because China exposed how easily Taiwan could be isolated from the outside world, with the US only able to watch on.

NATO is moving very explicitly and in a targeted manner against China. Perhaps such a step was induced or accelerated by Beijing’s refusal to align itself with the West’s anti-Russian sanctions and condemnation of the demilitarisation of Ukraine. 

Proceeding with such provocations and escalations is also very risky for NATO though. A NATO-instigated war against China, just as the Alliance left Russia no choice but to demilitarise Ukraine to ensure its own national security, would reshape the world much faster and more fundamentally than what has already occurred due to the war in Eastern Europe. The attempted isolation of Russia not only failed, but in fact accelerated the changing of the global geopolitical and economic system away from Western hegemony. 

As China is the largest industrial power in today’s world, as well as a massive market for consumer goods and a key investor and creditor in numerous regions, without a stable China, there is no global stability. If the Alliance was not able to achieve its goal in Ukraine, a region where several NATO members directly border Russia, there is little prospect that it can make any major achievement on the Asian front.

If the Alliance is not capable of coping with a direct confrontation with Russia in Europe, it raises the question on how it will be able to cope with a direct confrontation on two fronts against a potential Russian-Chinese coalition. NATO’s anti-Chinese and anti-Russian strategic commitment, which has been framed until at least 2030, is a dangerous provocation, and not only for the targeted countries. The West’s provocations are a danger to the entire world as it can dramatically affect global stability and the quality of life of everyday citizens, hence why the NATO 2030 Strategic Concept is alarming. 

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

August 17, 2022 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | 6 Comments

US recent ballistic missile test boosts world’s re-nuclearization 

By Lucas Leiroz | August 17, 2022

Nuclear tensions are rising more and more. The US military said on August 16 that it had conducted a test with the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile. In the official statement, it was also stated that the operation was already previously scheduled, having been postponed in order to avoid increasing tensions with Beijing during China’s show of force near Taiwan earlier this month. For some unexplained reason, Washington considered the current moment to be the most “appropriate” for the maneuver.

The missile was launched from the Vandeberg Space Force base in California and traveled about 6,760 km. Military spokespeople indicated that the self-propelled projectile was unarmed and equipped with a test reentry vehicle. Additionally, the statement makes clear that the mission was intended to demonstrate the readiness of US nuclear forces.

“Air Force Global Strike Command Airmen launched an unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile equipped with a test re-entry vehicle from Vandenberg Space Force Base, California, Aug. 16 at 12:49 a.m. Pacific Time to demonstrate the readiness of U.S. nuclear forces and provide confidence in the lethality and effectiveness of the nation’s nuclear deterrent”, the statement says.

Manufactured by Boeing, the Minuteman III is a missile with nuclear capability and high destructive power. Currently, this missile is a key element in the US military’s strategic arsenal. The weapon has a range capability of over 9,660 km and can travel at a speed of approximately 24,000 km per hour. Minuteman III is also considered a part of the so-called American “nuclear triad”, along with the submarine-launched ballistic missile Trident and nuclear weapons carried by long-range strategic bombers.

Commenting on the relevance of the test, Colonel Chris Cruise, 576th Flight Test Squadron Commander, said: “Make no mistake – our nuclear triad is the cornerstone of the national security of our country and of our allies around the globe (…) This scheduled test launch is demonstrative of how our nation’s ICBM fleet illustrates our readiness and reliability of the weapon system. It is also a great platform to show the skill sets and expertise of our strategic weapons maintenance personnel and of our missile crews who maintain an unwavering vigilance to defend the homeland”.

It must be mentioned that tests with this equipment had previously been canceled by the US on at least two occasions, one in April and another in early August. The first cancellation was motivated by the need to avoid nuclear tensions with Russia in the midst of the special military operation in Ukraine. The second one was due to tensions with China over Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taipei.

What is not clear, however, is why the current moment was considered appropriate by the US military to conduct this type of test. Tensions with Russia and China have not ceased – not even decreased. Washington continues to destabilize Eastern Europe’s security by sending weapons to the Ukrainian government in order to “delay” Russian victory in Ukraine – even though it is well known that these weapons are being used to hit civilian targets and nuclear plants (Zaporozhye). In the same sense, provocations against China are still on the rise, with recent new visits by American officials to the island, even after constant Chinese messages for the US to stop violations of Beijing’s sovereignty.

So, in fact, the American test can only be interpreted as a real show of force. Despite previous cancellations, the choice of the current moment was not motivated by being a “more stable” scenario – because it is not. The choice was made precisely to, in the midst of the global security crisis, show the world the power of the American war arsenal. Furthermore, it is obviously a response to Chinese military activities in the Taiwan Strait, considering that this issue is the current major global focus of tensions.

The result of the American attitude will be only one: boosting even further the militarization and re-nuclearization of the world. What is expected for the near future is that the US rival countries put themselves in a state of alert – including nuclear alert, in the case of the powers that have this technology. For example, the North Korean government, according to recent reports, is planning a new nuclear test. With the US launching ballistic missiles, it is likely that projects in this direction will be heightened. Something similar can be said about Iran, which, in the face of the US threat, is expected to become even more resistant in negotiations on a new nuclear deal.

Once again, the US is pushing for the re-nuclearization of international politics. It is unreasonable for a country to provoke its rivals and then, faced with the responses, decide to dissuade them by launching missiles. Washington needs to understand that the multipolar world order will be built through multilateral dialogue and non-interventionism, not through military intimidation.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.

August 17, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | | 1 Comment

‘Dirty bomb’ in Ukraine would affect nine countries

Samizdat – August 16, 2022

A total of nine countries could be contaminated if the Russian-controlled Zaporozhye nuclear power plant in southern Ukraine is hit by multiple launch rocket systems, a former chief inspector of the USSR’s nuclear authority told RT.

Russian troops established control of the Zaporozhye NPP, Europe’s largest facility of the kind, early on in the course of military operations in Ukraine. Since then, Russia has repeatedly accused Kiev of launching artillery and drone strikes on the facility. Ukrainian officials claimed that the Russians were shelling themselves to discredit Kiev.

In an interview published on Tuesday, Vladimir Kuznetsov warned that if the plant is hit by volley fire, with numerous missiles striking the storage facility that holds spent nuclear fuel, chances are that more than one container would be damaged. This scenario would entail radiation escaping “into the environment – hence the contamination of not only the industrial site but also the Dnepr river which is nearby,” the expert noted.

Kuznetsov also pointed out that such a strike would most likely be accompanied by a fire, and “God knows where the wind would send the combustion products.”

The former chief inspector surmised that should 20 to 30 containers be breached in such an attack, the “radiation would affect approximately nine countries: Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland, the Baltic states and obviously Western Ukraine.”

Russian forces took over the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant in early March, within the first two weeks of Moscow’s military campaign against its neighbor.

In recent weeks, the Russian military has accused Ukraine of deliberately targeting the facility multiple times and warned that a major nuclear disaster, akin to that at Chernobyl in 1986, or even worse, could happen if such attacks continue unchecked.

Kiev, meanwhile, denies these allegations and claims that it is Russian forces that are shelling the power plant to frame the Ukrainian military – a point of view shared by the US and EU. The UN has called the attacks “suicidal” and proposed sending an International Atomic Energy Agency delegation to the site to provide “technical support” and help avoid a further escalation.

On Tuesday, local government administration member Vladimir Rogov told Russian media that Ukrainian forces had fired multiple rockets directly at the coolant systems and nuclear waste storage site inside the facility.

Since the storage site is out in the open, any hit would result in the release of nuclear waste ranging from dozens to hundreds of kilograms and lead to contamination of the area, the official explained.

“In plain language, that would be like a dirty bomb,” said Rogov.

August 17, 2022 Posted by | Environmentalism, Nuclear Power, War Crimes | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ICAN-OBTAINED DATA REVEALS MORE EVIDENCE OF DEATH SPIKE

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | August 11, 2022

ICAN attorneys have obtained annual statements from the five largest insurance companies in the U.S. revealing similar trends showing unexplained increases in non Covid-related death benefit payouts in 2021.

See also:

MONKEYPOX MAYHEM: PC VS PUBLIC HEALTH

A simmering outbreak is now racing upwards while a questionable response juggles political correctness, public health, and a vaccine of unknown effectiveness against a population unwilling to ‘fall in line’ for more public health fear tactics.

August 17, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment