Eight leading critics of the United States’s COVID-19 response have called for an investigation of the many failures of policy architects and key decision makers — at institutions ranging from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration to universities and hospitals — over their repeated mishandling of the pandemic.
Given the immense harm inflicted on our society by the follies of a ruling class and their expert advisers who never failed to make a wrong decision when presented with the opportunity, as well as the fact that lives are still being destroyed by their lingering policies, we can only hope this blueprint does not go ignored.
Dubbing themselves the “Norfolk Group,” the association of scholars includes such prominent names as Stanford epidemiologist Jay Bhattacharya, Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff, UCSF physician Tracy Beth Høeg, Johns Hopkins University surgeon Marty Makary, and Indiana University School of Medicine immunologist Steven Templeton.
According to the Norfolk Group’s website, although initially organized by the Brownstone Institute in May 2022, the eight members of the group have since worked free from outside influence to draft the 80-page document they published earlier this year, “Questions for a COVID-19 Commission.”
Presented as a series of summaries and questions pertaining to key elements of U.S. COVID policy, the document, in effect, lays out a thorough indictment of the consistent incompetence of our ruling class while also raising concerns over the possible influence on policy by special interests such as teachers unions and drug companies.
Regarding natural immunity, the authors ask, “Why did the CDC downplay infection-acquired immunity, despite robust evidence for it?”
In respect to school closures, they ask, “Why were schools and universities closed despite early evidence about the enormous age-gradient in COVID-19 mortality … and early evidence that school closures would cause enormous collateral damage to the education and mental health of children and young adults?”
On that matter, they also wonder, “Why did the CDC incorporate policy language proposed by leaders of teachers unions on the scientific and public health aspects of school reopening without soliciting expertise of outside scientists in public health, infectious diseases, or other related fields?”
When discussing lockdowns, they inquire, “Why was so much influence on public health policy accorded to Drs. [Francis] Collins and [Anthony] Fauci? They control the largest source of infectious disease research funding in the world. How many infectious disease scientists, who should have been strong voices during the pandemic, kept quiet for fear of losing the research funding on which their livelihood depends?”
In their section on epidemiologic modeling, they demand, “Why did world leaders overly rely on models that made unverified assumptions about the pandemic’s trajectory rather than trying to verify these assumptions and their implications?”
When addressing COVID-19 vaccines, they raise questions such as, “Why did many organizations continue with mandates through summer and fall of 2021, despite data demonstrating both waning efficacy of symptomatic infection and reduced long term ability to curb viral spread?”
Regarding masks, they state, “Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the evidence that masks did little if anything to stop the spread of respiratory viruses was uncontroversial,” before summarizing a few studies demonstrating this and asking the obvious: “[W]hy did public health officials and agencies promote the idea that masks would be effective against SARS-CoV2?”
In its entirety, the Norfolk Group’s “Questions for a COVID-19 Commission” serves as a blueprint for the kind of investigation our country needs. Just don’t expect the Biden administration to do anything about it.
Daniel Nuccio holds master’s degrees in both psychology and biology. Currently, he is pursuing a PhD in biology at Northern Illinois University studying host-microbe relationships. He is also a regular contributor to The College Fix where he writes about COVID, mental health, and other topics.
Two weeks ago civil liberties group Big Brother Watch released a damning report – entitled ‘Ministry of Truth’, a reference to George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 – revealing highly questionable present day behaviour by shadowy UK Government agencies. The charge sheet includes the setting up of opaque surveillance squads to
monitor people who are “critical of the government”,
“tackle a range of harmful narratives online” and
outsource some of this dirty work – at taxpayer expense – to army units (the 77th brigade) and private (privateer?) companies such as Logically.ai (TheLogically Ltd), which claims to ‘intercept [misinformation and disinformation] threats before they become widespread’.
Picture credit: UK Column News
Reading this, you might be forgiven for thinking you had accidentally stumbled into the Science Fiction section of your local bookshop – despite the parallels, this is not a review of a rehashed version of Philip K Dick’s Minority Report.
No: this, unfortunately, is real. HART itself has been on the receiving end of some Logically’s shoddy – and shady – ‘threat interception’, and it is extremely disheartening to note that at the same time as carrying out its sinister actions, this entity was in receipt of more than £1 million of taxpayer cash to fund its operations.
HART’s experience with the disagreeable Logically.ai outfit came in the summer of 2021. Shortly after we had come together as a volunteer group to counter nonsensical government propaganda and policy, six months’ worth of our internal group messaging was leaked and made public. Logically.ai then gleefully dissected and publicised this ‘leak’, attempting to frame our activities as being somehow subversive by publishing out-of-context quotes from these informal chat logs. We reported this to the police, who agreed that this constituted an illegal hack. The police issued a URN number and one of the perpetrators was identified, but no prosecution ensued. We picked ourselves up, published this riposte to the mud-slingers, and carried on speaking out in the hope that balanced discourse might be resumed.
Though highly objectionable and disruptive to us – and very painful for a handful of our volunteer team who were subsequently targeted – ultimately these leaks only helped establish HART’s credentials – the worst any independent reader of the leaks could conclude is that (1) the grammar of our internal chat logs is not up the standard of our public output and (2) we were somewhat naïve in expressing our unadulterated views on some of the charlatans running the show.
Logically.ai pressed home their ‘threat interception’ mandate by smearing our work. Here are some extracts:
Apart from claims that the government is controlling the media, HART believes that the government is using “covert ‘nudges,” and psychological strategies to “increase compliance” with measures, as well as with vaccinations. “Several interventions of this type have been woven into the intensive communication campaign,” a member writes, alleging that fear, shame and peer-pressure are being weaponized by the government.
HART members are critical of policies such as lockdowns, mask-wearing, and vaccination.
HART members frequently recommend alternative treatments such as ivermectin and vitamin D.
The members [of HART] also repeatedly make claims about the media being controlled, social media censoring their views (a number of members have moved to Parler and Gab), often stating that journalists cannot be trusted.
Astute readers will notice that these statements have either been completely vindicated or can be deemed to have been a prudent assessment of the complex risk-reward profile of certain irreversible interventions. In summary, the UK Government used taxpayer money to pay a ‘threat interceptor’ to discredit HART’s correct statements and replace these with fictions of their own making.
It is therefore galling – to say the least – to note that Logically.ai, a government contractor, presented a Kafkaesque self-referenced submission to the House of Commons Joint Pre-legislative Scrutiny Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill by stating that its “investigation into the HART Group is just one example of how those pushing misinformation target legitimate public figures and media outlets to amplify and endorse their content. Without thoughtful safeguards in place, there is a clear risk we could see more of this kind of activity, particularly around elections and political campaigns”.
Well quite. It is frustrating that they didn’t just quote Orwell:
“Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to BELIEVE that black is white, and more, to KNOW that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary”.
For a bit of Walter Mitty light relief, it is worth perusing some of Logically.ai’s so-called ‘fact-checks’. With about 98% of humanity having cottoned on by now, in January of 2023 the keyboard warriors at the UK Government’s favourite ‘threat interceptor’ were still bravely wading into battle in defence of virus-defeating shreds of damp cotton worn over one’s breathing orifices — Logically.ai’s efforts are extremely weak fodder compared to the recently updated Cochrane review of these ‘physical interventions to disrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses’.
All of this would be uproarious slapstick comedy if it wasn’t deadly serious. Logically.ai’s underhand disinformation campaigning has led to some of our voluntary senior clinician members who are full time nhs employees, facing long investigation processes, with threats to career and huge risk for their dependent families — this is nothing short of despicable, when these clinicians were doing nothing other than questioning dubious policies with no evidence base, thus aiming to protect their patients and the public and fulfil their oath to first do no harm.
Shortly after its action against HART, Logically.ai appointed Brian Murphy, a senior Department of Homeland Security and former FBI executive as ‘Vice President of Strategic Operations’. We do not need to ask why.
By suppressing legitimate discourse, the reprehensible actions of Logically.ai and its shadowy handlers will undoubtedly have contributed to supporting vested interests and corporate greed. How else did an “adult-only vaccine, for people over 50” end up getting injected into young children? Setting aside the exorbitant cost of this exercise, every single death and adverse event in anyone up to the age of 49 could have been avoided but for these people and entities that executed these ‘black ops’ against legitimate and constructive dissent. Do not take our word for it: even those that were cheerleaders for so-called “extraordinary vaccine success” have come round to our point of view:
“The entire population was vaccinated or offered the vaccine, which now looks like a terrible idea when there were deaths among young people who really had no need to be vaccinated. They were not at risk from Covid. The mantra was it limited transmission. We hear less about that now. Parliament was shut down. Government colluded with social media giants to suppress legitimate questions about the origin of the virus and all manner of other policy debates”.
Neatly summarised. If only the checks and balances had been in place to allow rational and constructive discourse – and shadowy ‘black ops’ outfits hadn’t been paid by the UK Government to deploy guerrilla tactics as part of ‘threat interception’ – many lives could have been saved. Yet Logically.ai’s work will have helped frighten politicians and journalists off engaging with HART (and other professional groups) who were providing a much-needed critical voice and therefore slowed a return to common sense thinking. Furthermore, some of our members (all of whom are unpaid volunteers) faced long investigation processes with professional regulators or employers. Trying to silence professionals — who may have dependent families — by threatening their careers is nothing short of despicable. These clinicians were doing nothing other than questioning dubious policies with no evidence base. Their primary intention was to their oath to first do no harm, and protect their patients and the public.
For those minded to think of the UK civil service as a benign & mostly ‘good’ counterweight to a (perhaps corrupted and politicised) UK Government, Big Brother Watch’s Ministry of Truth report is a shocking read, covering appalling behaviour by various parts of the UK Government and the civil service. While it has been extensively covered in various alternative media outlets as well as Spectatorand the Mail on Sunday (“Army spied on lockdown critics: Sceptics, including our own Peter Hitchens, long suspected they were under surveillance. Now we’ve obtained official records that prove they were right all along”), mainstream coverage has been relatively forgiving. Our experience tells us that much more is yet to come to light. The Ministry of Truth report quite correctly points out that “Whitehall officials are tasked to make a success of government policies – not to act as an authority on truth. These two roles clearly conflict”. These conflicts have not yet been resolved.
The key take-away for those who have hitherto believed that ‘the system’ might be acting in your best interests is a recognition that possibly – just possibly – historical precedent should encourage at least a modicum of scepticism when lapping up the Party Line from so-called ‘trusted’ sources. Statements from ‘saintly’ leaders along the lines of “We will continue to be your singlesource of truth… unless you hear it from us, it is not the truth” are giant red flags – why does the truth need to be controlled by government diktat? Why does Ofcom still prescribe what broadcasters can and cannot say on topics of critical importance such as these we are seeking to discuss?
For those who have been attempting to challenge the mainstream ‘official’ narrative since March 2020, the Ministry of Truth report is little more than confirmation of what is already well known – or at least suspected – and of course there is great suspicion that this is just a ‘Limited Hangout’ (a controlled minor admission before the ‘dead cat’ strategy is deployed to move the conversation on). On the plus side, it is heartening to see that this is an apolitical topic – it is noteworthy that people from the left and right of the political spectrum are voicing concerns.
The authorities – or actors within – have systematically neutered discourse and the freedom of speech that are so critically necessary for democracy to work properly. Subsequent non-denials and obfuscation – and lack of any sort of regret – give a clue that what Big Brother Watch has been able to publish is likely only the tip of the iceberg.
Let us hope that those controlling the mainstream narrative will find the growing cacophony of peaceful & rational protest harder and harder to ignore.
Call to action:
Please share this article with friends, family and colleagues
If you haven’t already done so, please sign up for HART’s free regular bulletin here.
These investors have ethical responsibilities, and are regulated by the FCA. The industry association, the British Venture Capital Association, might also be interested.
The US State Department funds UK-based Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), an organization that partners with platforms to flag misinformation and disinformation. The organization has been accused of classifying conservative viewpoints as hate and disinformation.
In September 2021, the State Department awarded ISD a grant to “advance the development of promising and innovative technologies against disinformation and propaganda” in the UK and Europe after it won the US-Paris Tech Challenge. The challenge was also won by the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), an organization that has been accused of demonetizing conservative news websites by putting them on a blacklist used by advertisers, the Daily Caller reported.
The State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) funded the ISD to research Russian disinformation tactics on Wikipedia. However, the department insisted that it does not engage in content moderation on social media.
ISD has several partnerships with social media platforms on content moderation decisions. The organization is a member of Spotify’s Safety Advisory Council, which advises the platform on how to respond to misinformation.
ISD is also part of YouTube’s Trusted Flagger program, whose members are tasked with improving the platform’s enforcement of its guidelines and can flag more content than other users. Google said that it “prioritizes flags from Trusted Flaggers.”
The organization also has partnerships with Google to counter hate and extremism in the UK and Europe. It also partners with Amazon’s Audible, Facebook, and Microsoft.
ISD is mostly focused on extremism and terrorism. However, it has also been targeting what it deems misinformation and hate.
Since Russia began its special military operation in Ukraine almost a year ago, one of the key features of the collective West’s response, alongside sanctions and the expulsion of Russian diplomats, has been the accommodation of refugees fleeing the conflict, with millions of Ukrainians being housed across Europe since last February, including 70,000+ in the 26-County Irish State.
The first question that springs to mind regarding this approach however, is that if it is being done out of genuine concern for those fleeing conflict in Ukraine, then why was it not implemented in 2014 when that war first began?
In April of that year, following five months of Western-instigated violence in response to then-President Viktor Yanukovych’s decision to suspend an EU-trade deal in order to pursue closer ties with neighbouring Russia, the ethnic Russian Donbass region in the east of the country would break away to form the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, their residents having little choice lest they face genocide and ethnic cleansing at the hands of the anti-Russian neo-Nazi elements which composed the new Western-backed Kiev government.
A war on both Republics would follow, involving neo-Nazi paramilitaries such as Azov Battalion and Right Sector, which despite efforts to resolve the conflict peacefully via the federalisation solution offered by the Minsk Accords, would ultimately result in 14,000 deaths over the space of 8 years.
Despite this slaughter, no mainstream campaign existed in Ireland during the same period intended to expel Ukrainian diplomats or to welcome those fleeing conflict in the Donbass.
Likewise, no similar campaign has existed for those fleeing other conflicts such as that in Yemen, classed as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis by the United Nations, with a paltry 70 Yemenis being granted access to social services in the 26 Counties in the past year, in comparison to 72,609 Ukrainians in the same period following Russia’s intervention.
It must also me asked that if Leinster House genuinely cared about the plight of refugees fleeing conflict, then why contribute to the conflicts that created those refugees in the first place by allowing US warplanes to land in Shannon Airport over the past 20 years?
Since the Russian operation began in Ukraine last February, talks of the 26 County State joining an EU army have increased amongst establishment voices also, with the stated aim of such an alliance being to ‘act in complementarity’ with NATO, the coalition having been a key contributor to the refugee crisis over the past two decades by laying waste to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria.
With these facts established, it can safely be concluded that Leinster House’s ‘concern’ for refugees has little to do with helping those fleeing war, and much like the wider West’s support of Ukrainian ‘freedom fighters’ being a cover to use Ukraine as a proxy to tie Russia down in an Afghan-style military quagmire.
Further, the Fine Gael-Fianna Fáil coalition is using emotive media coverage of the Ukrainian conflict as a means to swell the labour market and to keep wages stagnant on behalf of the corporate class.
Indeed, protests related to the effects of such a move would arise in late November, when upwards of 300 migrants were suddenly moved into a disused office block in East Wall, a working-class area of inner-city Dublin.
Residents would begin what would go on to become weekly demonstrations over the move, citing the lack of consultation with community officials beforehand, the suitability of the office block for accommodation, and the lack of transparency on whether those who had been moved into the office block had been vetted.
Despite these protests receiving support from residents of the office block themselves, the Irish mainstream media would, in lockstep, decry them as being ‘anti-refugee protests’ and ‘organised by the far-right’, a label that would also be applied to similar protests that emerged around Dublin and other locations in response to other wildly unsuitable locations chosen by Leinster House to accommodate adult migrants, including a school in Drimnagh, like East Wall, another working-class area of Dublin.
This dismissal of ordinary working class people’s concerns as ‘far-right’ bears a stark similarity to mainstream media descriptions of last year’s Freedom Convoy in Canada, when in response to a government mandate requiring all truck drivers re-entering from the US having to be vaccinated, a nationwide protest would begin in the second-largest country in the world.
The government of Justin Trudeau – like Leo Varadkar, another ‘Young Global leader’ of the World Economic Forum – would respond in an authoritarian fashion, freezing the bank accounts of protest organisers and attacking demonstrators with mounted Horses and teargas.
An approach, that with the head of the 26-County police force condemning the current protests and secretive police units monitoring organisers, may soon become a reality on the other side of the Atlantic.
Gavin O’Reilly is an Irish Republican activist from Dublin, Ireland, with a strong interest in the effects of British and US Imperialism; he was a writer for the American Herald Tribune from January 2018 up until their seizure by the FBI in 2021, with his work also appearing on The Duran, Al-Masdar, MintPress News, Global Research and SouthFront. He can be reached through Twitter and Facebook and supported on Patreon.
Since 9/11, terrorism has become the ultimate entitlement program for America’s political elite. Whether it is illegally spying on Americans or blowing Somali dissidents to pieces, invoking terrorism provides all the cover needed for Washington policymakers. But the disastrous results of granting politicians a blank check to fight terrorism should have been undeniable almost 60 years ago.
Back in the 1960s, terrorism was what the communists did. Anti-terrorist moral fervor and ideological blinders propelled the U.S. into its biggest foreign policy blunder since World War II.
As the French Foreign Legion struggled to reconquer Vietnam in the wake of World War II, the U.S. government constantly embellished the storyline to demonize the communist opposition.A CIA operative provided materials for a massive bomb that ripped through a main square in Saigon in 1952. A Life magazine photographer was waiting on the scene, and his resulting snap appeared with a caption blaming the carnage on Viet Minh Communists. The New York Times headlined its report: “Reds’ Time Bombs Rip Saigon Center.” The bombing was touted as “one of the most spectacular and destructive single incidents in the long history of revolutionary terrorism” committed by “agents here of the Vietminh.” The press coverage boosted public support for U.S. government aid to the French army fighting the Communists. A Vietnamese warlord named General Trinh Minh Thé, a CIA collaborator, claimed credit for the bomb but the U.S. media ignored his statement.
In the wake of the French defeat in 1954, U.S. military advisors poured into Vietnam. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy declared: “Now we have a problem in making our power credible, and Vietnam is the place.” The Kennedy administration sought credibility by profoundly deceiving the American people and Congress regarding its Vietnam policy.JFK violated the limits on the number of American military advisors established in the 1954 Geneva peace treaty between the French and the Vietnamese communists. He also deceived the American public by mislabeling the growing U.S. contingent in South Vietnam as advisors at a time when they were becoming actively engaged in fighting.
The US government regarded the South Vietnamese government headed by Ngo Dinh Diem as corrupt, oppressive, and inept. The Pentagon Papers described a May 8, 1963 debacle in the city of Hue, South Vietnam: “Government troops fire on a Buddhist protest demonstration, killing nine and wounding fourteen. The incident triggers a nationwide Buddhist protest and a crisis of popular confidence for the Diem regime. [The Government of South Vietnam] maintains the incident was an act of [Viet Cong] terrorism.”
The Diem government was outraged that the Buddhists demanded legal equality with Catholics and the right to fly the Buddhist flag. In August 1963, South Vietnamese Special Forces “carried out midnight raids against Buddhist pagodas throughout the country. More than 1,400 people, mostly monks were arrested and many of them were beaten,” according to the Pentagon Papers. The CIA was bankrolling these Special Forces, which were supposed to be used for covert operations against the Viet Cong or North Vietnam, not for religious repression. Diem’s terrorizing of the Buddhists swayed the U.S. to back a coup that led to his assassination a few months later.
The Lyndon Johnson administration exploited the terrorist label to sway Americans to support greater U.S. involvement in Vietnam. In a special message to Congress on May 18, 1964 seeking additional fund for Vietnam, LBJ declared, “the Viet Cong guerrillas, under orders from their Communist masters in the North, have intensified terrorist actions against the peaceful people of South Vietnam. This increased terrorism requires increased response.” Johnson scorned a proposal by French president Charles de Gaulle for a Geneva conference on the growing Vietnam conflict because LBJ declared the conference would “ratify terror.” In a June 23, 1964 press conference, LBJ declared that “our purpose is peace. Our people in South Viet-Nam are helping to protect people against terror.”
U.S. policymakers were hungry for a pretext to unleash bombing. On May 15, 1964, U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge recommended planning for the South Vietnamese air force to hit “a specific target in North Vietnam,” carefully timed after a “terrorist act of proper magnitude beforehand by the North Vietnamese,” the Pentagon Papers revealed.
At that time, the U.S. was already carrying out an array of “non-attributable hit-and run” raids against North Vietnam, including “kidnappings of North Vietnamese citizens for intelligence information, parachuting sabotage and psychological warfare teams into the north, commando raids from the sea to blow up rail and highway bridges, and the bombardment of North Vietnamese coastal installations by PT boats,” according to the Pentagon Papers. Thai pilots flying American planes bombed and strafed North Vietnamese villages. But the Johnson administration denied that the U.S. was committing any provocations.
Johnson had already decided to attack North Vietnam to boost his election campaign. On August 2, 1964, the destroyer U.S.S. Maddox fired on North Vietnamese ships near the North Vietnamese coast. Two days later, the Maddox reported that it was under attack from North Vietnamese PT boats. Within hours, the ship’s commander wired Washington that the reports of an attack on his ship may have been wildly exaggerated: “Entire action leaves many doubts.” But the Maddox’s initial report was all LBJ needed to go on national television and announce that he had ordered immediate “retaliatory” airstrikes against North Vietnam. Johnson railroaded a resolution through Congress granting him unlimited authority to attack North Vietnam. The resolution was written months earlier and the administration was waiting for the right moment to unveil it.
Both the Viet Cong and the South Vietnamese government were terrorizing people at the time the U.S. involvement rapidly expanded in 1965. But the U.S. government looked only at the Viet Cong’s terrorism to justify launching its own bombing campaign that killed far more civilians than did the Viet Cong or the North Vietnamese army prior to the end of the war.
The American media endlessly recited the terrorist storyline that the U.S. government created to justify ramping up the Vietnam War. University of California Professor Daniel Hallin observed, “The theme of terrorism directed against civilians was central to television’s image of the enemy… Television coverage of the North Vietnamese… focused on terror to the almost total exclusion of politics. The American media also almost completely ignored attacks on Vietnamese civilians by the U.S. military.”
The political racketeering that spawned the Vietnam War should remind Americans to be wary of any salvation mission championed by their rulers. The U.S. government perennially claims to be an innocent bystander after its covert interventions unleash havoc abroad. There is no shortage of evil governments and evil factions that butcher innocent people. But foreign atrocities, real or imagined, don’t make Washington trustworthy.
Jim Bovard is the author of Public Policy Hooligan (2012), Attention Deficit Democracy (2006), Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (1994), and 7 other books.
The Government Junta of Chile was the highest organ of state power in the South American nation during the 1973-1990 military dictatorship. The period was characterized by repressive policies and extensive economic transformation. It is estimated that more than 3,000 people were killed, and tens of thousands disappeared during the military rule.
New research into the remains of Chilean poet Pablo Neruda has confirmed that poisoning was the cause of his death in 1973, the poet-diplomat’s nephew Rodolfo Reyes has said.
Following the court-approved exhumation of the body, international experts were called in to examine the remains of the Nobel laureate. According to Reyes, the results of the study confirmed he died not from cancer, as stated in official documents, but from poisoning.
Reyes has detailed that the final report outlined traces of the botulism agent had been found in the poet’s remains. Moreover, experts at McMaster University in Canada and the University of Copenhagen determined the bacteria had entered his body before death, thus confirming the idea of poisoning.
“We now know that there was no reason for the clostridium botulinum to have been there in his bones,” Reyes told Spanish media. “What does that mean? It means Neruda was murdered through the intervention of state agents in 1973.”
The report was released to Paola Plaza, a Chilean judge, on Wednesday; however, she has not made the findings public. It’s expected the report will be publicly released on March 7.
In Chile, Neruda is known not only as a poet but also as a diplomat and public figure. The Chilean Communist Party nominated him for president in 1970, although he later withdrew his candidacy in favor of socialist Chilean President Salvador Allende, who would later go on to be overthrown by General Augusto Pinochet in a US-backed coup.
Neruda died on 23 September 1973, 12 days after the coup d’état that toppled the Allende government. He died at the Santa Maria Hospital in Santiago. Speculation on Neruda’s cause of death has remained a hot talking point for decades, with his body having been first exhumed under court order in 2017.
On November 16, 2022, the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, General Mark Milley, at the conclusion of the seventh session of the Ukraine Contact Group (UCG) tasked with identifying and fulfilling military support requirements for Ukraine in its ongoing conflict with Russia, issued a very pessimistic assessment of the situation on the ground.
Noting that, for the moment, “Russia right now is on its back,” Milley warned that the Russian decision to incorporate nearly 20% of Ukrainian territory into its own borders, combined with the then-ongoing mobilization of 300,000 reserves, meant the conflict would not end any time soon. “[T]he probability of a Ukrainian military victory, defined as kicking the Russians out of all of Ukraine, to include what they claim is Crimea… is not high, militarily,” Milley noted.
What a difference three months make.
On February 14, 2023, on the eve of a 10th meeting of the UCG, Mark Milley seemed to have a change of heart, telling reporters that Russia has “lost” in the Ukraine conflict. As it approaches the one-year mark, Joint Chiefs chairman gen. singling out Russian President Vladimir Putin, Milley declared that Putin “thought he could defeat Ukraine quickly, fracture the NATO alliance, and act with impunity. He was wrong,” Milley said, adding that Russia has paid an “enormous price on the battlefield” as a result.
The American military chief continued. “Russia is now a global pariah and the world remains inspired by Ukrainian bravery and resilience. In short, Russia has lost—they’ve lost strategically, operationally, and tactically.”
Milley might want to consult with specialists the next time he opts to opine on matters pertaining to the conflict in Ukraine. Far from a “global pariah,” Russian diplomats are being welcomed with open arms in geopolitically vital regions of the world, such as Africa. This strong diplomatic showing, when combined with a strong Russian economy, which the International Monetary Fund expects to expand 0.3% in 2023 and 2.1% in 2024, despite stringent US and European-backed economic sanctions, points to a strategic victory by Russia.
As for Milley’s assessments regarding the state of play operationally and tactically, he would do well to heed recent comments by US Army General Christopher Cavoli, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, to a Swedish defense conference this past January. Cavoli noted that both the scale and intensity of the combat ongoing in Ukraine made it clear that the NATO alliance was not prepared to fight a large-scale ground war in Europe.
“The magnitude of this war is incredible,” Cavoli said. “If we average out since the beginning of the war, the slow days and fast days, the Russians have expended on average well over 20,000 artillery rounds per day. The scale of this war is out of proportion with all of our recent thinking,” Cavoli noted, adding, “it is real, and we must contend with it.”
Cavoli’s emphasis on artillery is critical in parsing out Milley’s assertions that Ukraine had the upper hand operationally and tactically, given the major role played by artillery in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. While the intent of the 10th gathering of the UCG, convened on February 14, Saint Valentine’s Day, was to focus on the provision of high-value items to Ukraine, such as tanks and aircraft, the conference quickly diverted into the realm of reality, where the critical shortage of artillery ammunition arose as the primary problem facing Ukraine. While the United States had already delivered more than one million 155mm artillery shells to the Ukrainian Army, the scale of the fighting alluded to by General Cavoli means that Ukraine is firing off in a single day the total number of shells the US can produce in a month. At this rate, Ukraine is expected to run out of ammunition by the end of the summer.
Pro-hint to General Milley—if your opponent is firing many times the amount of artillery as you are, and you run out of ammunition, the operational and tactical advantage belongs to them, not you.
And while NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s recognition that Ukraine and NATO were facing an existential crisis when it came to artillery ammunition, there was no ready solution on the horizon the rectify the problem, especially in a time frame that would alter the dire logistical reality that come this summer, the Ukrainian Army will lose the ability to resist the Russian Army.
Two decades of singular focus on low-intensity combat in Iraq and Afghanistan has atrophied both US and European production lines for artillery ammunition. It would take years to start up new production lines, and even then, the private defense industries involved would be loath to do so without long-term contracts which, given the moment-by-moment aspect of NATO aid to Ukraine, is not forthcoming.
Meanwhile, Russia’s defense industry is chugging along on all cylinders, not only producing ammunition in sufficient quantities to meet its prodigious expenditure rates in Ukraine, but also build stocks sufficient to supply an expanding Russian military, expected to grow to over 1.5 million in the next several years.
Russia, unlike Ukraine, isn’t running out of ammunition any time soon, a fact which, in a war defined by artillery firepower, means it holds the operational and tactical edge over their Ukrainian opponents.
The issue is larger than simply the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. As General Cavoli alluded, not only has NATO stripped away its existing stockpile of artillery ammunition, it lacks the industrial capacity to replenish these stocks in the foreseeable future. According to former NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary General Jamie Shea, the trans-Atlantic alliance has “largely used up the available stocks” in supplying Ukraine, and now must focus on replenishing its own depleted stocks before the issue of meeting Ukraine’s urgent demands can be addressed.
Ukraine rolled into the Saint Valentine’s Day meeting with high expectations, dreaming of tanks and fighter aircraft. Instead, it left a jilted lover, told by its NATO allies that the well has literally run dry.
And if this situation holds for the next several months, General Milley might have to eat his words, since Russia is apparently on the course to achieve a decisive strategic, operational, and tactical military victory over Ukraine and its NATO sponsors.
The US and its allies are exposing civilian space assets to potential attack by utilizing them for military purposes, a senior Russian diplomat has warned. The warning came after NATO unveiled plans for a space monitoring fleet that will use commercial and military satellites for its missions.
Konstantin Vorontsov, deputy director of the non-proliferation and weapons control directorate in the Russian Foreign Ministry, said on Thursday that the US is weaponizing space and blurring the boundaries between military and civilian infrastructure in orbit.
American use of spacecraft to benefit other nations on the battlefield “is in fact a form of participation in [conflicts] by proxy,” Vorontsov said, adding that “quasi-civilian space infrastructure” in particular could face “retaliation.”
“At the very least, such provocative use of civilian satellites is questionable under the [1967] Outer Space Treaty,” he stated.
Vorontsov’s warning came at a round table discussion in the Russian parliament which focused on the legacy of the Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative, and how it influences current US military planning.
Ahead of the announcement of NATO’s new space project on Wednesday, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that the US-led bloc will use commercial satellites as a military booster.
“This will improve our intelligence and surveillance, and support NATO missions and operations,” Stoltenberg said, adding that this would allow for “better navigation, communication, and early warning of missile launches.”
The NATO chief revealed the project as he reported on what the organization was doing to assist Ukrainian forces against Russia.
The fusion between civilian and military equipment in the Ukrainian conflict came to the forefront last week, when SpaceX announced that it was restricting the functionality of its Starlink space internet system, meaning Kiev’s troops could not use it to pilot drones.
CEO Elon Musk explained that Starlink was a commercial product not intended for military purposes, and that he did not want it to be used to escalate the hostilities, potentially unleashing a “third world war.”
The system remains available to the Ukrainian military for communication, even though SpaceX as a private company could simply switch off the terminals, he added.
It is possible that new anti-Russian resolutions will be voted on in the near future. According to a recent official communiqué, the activities of the eleventh special emergency session of the UN General Assembly will resume on February 22nd. With that, new attempts to implement measures against Moscow at the international level are expected – and the most likely thing is that the new efforts fail as well as the previous ones.
The information about the resumption of the session on the 22nd was formally issued by the official representative of General Assembly President Polina Kubiak. According to her, the call request was received on February 10, having been demanded by the delegation of the European Union, in partnership with other pro-Western states.
“The eleventh extraordinary special session of the General Assembly will be held on February 22 at 15.00 (23.00 Moscow time). The head of the EU delegation on behalf of the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States and the 27 members of the European Union”, she said.
Started last year, the eleventh session aims to discuss possible recommendations on the topic of Russian special military operation in Ukraine. Originally, the session opened on February 28, 2022, at United Nations Headquarters in New York. It was temporarily postponed to March 2 following the adoption of Resolution ES-11/1, where the first recommendation to “condemn” Russia was made. The representatives of the General Assembly met again later, on March 23, 24 and April 7, when resolutions ES-11/2 and ES-11/3 were adopted, proposing, among other measures, the suspension of the Russian Federation from the Council of Human Rights of the United Nations.
In this sense, considering the precedents, it is possible that there will be new attempts to “isolate” Russia in the international scenario through the adoption of resolutions condemning the special operation in Ukraine. Most likely, the proposed new resolutions will focus on the most recent phases of the operation, as according to several reports Moscow is preparing for a final offensive against Kiev soon.
Procedurally, special sessions are convened within 24 hours after the receiving of a request by the UN Secretary General. To validate the arranging, it is only necessary to have the application supported by the vote of a member of the Security Council, which is why these sessions are frequently organized, even if few states agree with the resolutions proposed during them. Furthermore, a session can be convened even at the mere request of a majority of UN members, which makes them even more common and trivial.
In other words, the fact that countries will meet on the 22nd to discuss again the topic of Russia’s special military operation is not at all worrying for Moscow. The Russian government has already demonstrated that it receives broad international support from its direct allies in the BRICS as well as from several emerging countries. At previous Assembly meetings, many countries have declined to support anti-Russian resolutions, choosing to reject, abstain or even not attend the events. A similar situation is expected for the next summit, considering that since last February the process of geopolitical decentralization has intensified more and more.
However, this shows the West’s insistence on maintaining an anti-Russian policy and trying to impose it at the international level. NATO and its allied countries are not satisfied with Moscow’s decision to react to the constant aggressions suffered by the Russian people in Donbass over the last nine years. In addition to backing the neo-Nazi regime and sending weapons and mercenaries so that the conflict continues indefinitely, the West continues to demand from international society that it promotes an “isolation” of Russia, trying to make it a “pariah” through sanctions and resolutions which are rejected by most states.
It is already clear that the isolation of Moscow is not feasible. As the world’s largest country, producer of many important commodities and a key partner of many states, Russia simply cannot be “isolated”, and all attempts to make this possible are meant to fail. In the specific case of the UN, the only thing that the West can achieve by calling sessions to discuss the operation in Ukraine is to propose some resolutions without any practical effect, which will work as mere “recommendations” to which only the Western countries themselves and their allies will comply.
Instead, the best course of action would be to discuss a reformulation of the UN in order to make the organization appropriate for the current geopolitical context. Extending the Security Council, changing some procedures and preventing Western hegemony in the organization are important steps to be taken to prevent the UN from becoming obsolete and failing in its objective of guaranteeing world peace.
Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Feral Rural University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
Chinese President Xi Jinping held a welcoming ceremony for Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi prior to talks at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, February 14, 2023
The three-day state visit by Iran’s president Ebrahim Raisi to China on February 14-16 is a landmark event affecting regional politics and international security. The red carpet welcome accorded to Raisi signified the high importance attached by Beijing to the comprehensive strategic partnership between China and Iran in the prevailing international milieu.
In a ‘curtain-raiser’ on Monday, Global Times wrote that the visit “shows the Raisi administration’s unswerving determination to promote the ‘Look to the East’ policy.”
The CCP Central Committee newspaper then went on to make a profound statement: “Iran’s ‘Look to the East’ policy meant the transition from its policy of negative balancing and non-alignment to building alliances with non-western world powers that have similar political structures to Iran, such as Russia and China.”
This must be the first time that Beijing explicitly hailed Iran’s transition toward an alliance with non-western world powers that do not qualify as liberal democracies — “such as Russia and China.” This characterisation becomes the leitmotif of Raisi’s visit to China. Indeed, Beijing, Moscow and Tehran are sailing in the same boat as the pioneers of a democratised world order defying US hegemony.
On the following day, in a lengthy editorial, Global Times dwelt on the strategic ramifications, taking note that “outside the US-West bloc and its influence circle, there is huge space and potential for win-win cooperation” between Beijing and Tehran. It said:
“China’s deepening cooperation with Iran also has anti-hegemony and anti-bullying feature. Both China and Iran uphold independent foreign policies, firmly defend the principle of non-interference in internal affairs on international occasions, and safeguard the common interests of developing countries. This is conducive to promoting the multi-polarization and diversified development of the world, and conforms to the general trend of the times…
“Under Washington’s moves, the international structure is being divided and restructured, with the vicious trend of forming blocs and camps again emerging, which puts the non-Western world in a difficult situation and once again faces historical choices. The existing US-led international system has designs to bully and exploit developing countries and emerging countries. Now Washington still thinks that it is not convenient enough, that the interests of developing countries have increased in weight, and wants to reconstruct a new international system with a stronger tendency, which is undoubtedly a major challenge for the non-Western world and needs to be resisted by forming a joint effort.”
This compelling thought appeared in the opening statement of Chinese President Xi Jinping at the meeting with Raisi on Tuesday at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing when he said that “amid the profound changes in the international situation, China and Iran have constantly consolidated their strategic mutual trust and steadily advanced pragmatic cooperation. They have promoted their common interests and upheld international fairness and justice, writing a new chapter for China-Iran friendship.”
Xi underscored that “China supports Iran in safeguarding its sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national dignity as well as resisting unilateralism and hegemony, and opposes attempts by external forces to interfere in Iran’s domestic affairs and undermine its security and stability.”
The big picture comprises three key elements here: Moscow’s ‘friendship without limits’ with Beijing, Iran’s Eurasian integration, and the Russian-Iranian alliance in the making. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation provides a platform for all three countries for strengthening communication and coordination in a spirit of mutual respect and trust and jointly work on regional security issues.
Raisi’s visit will accelerate the implementation of the 25-year agreement signed in 2021 between Iran and China. The program, including energy, trade and infrastructure, faced obstacles due to the pandemic and the escalation of US sanctions. But things are on the cusp of change. China watches Russian stealing a march on it, although the latter’s 25-year agreement with Iran is still a work in progress.
To be sure, the talks in Beijing focused on how to advance practical cooperation between Iran and China, even as China is coming out of the self-imposed restrictions during the pandemic, is raring to go and is revving up the Belt and Road.
However, what is yet to sink in is that a major outcome of the confrontation between Russia and the NATO countries is that Iran is set to break through the rings of western containment through the past four decades since the 1979 revolution. Beijing sees that Russia is providing strategic depth for Iran in a win-win engagement.
Just before Raisi embarked on the state visit to Beijing, the new governor of Iran’s central bank, Mohammadreza Farzin stated in Tehran that “The financial channel between Iran and the world is being restored.” In effect, he was announcing that Iran and Russia have taken a significant step towards linking their banking infrastructures amid Western sanctions.
After years of work, the two countries have managed to connect Iran’s SEPAM national financial messaging service to Russia’s Financial Messaging System of the Bank of Russia (SPFS), the Russian equivalent of SWIFT, that aims to link with other major powers like China and India. The tie-up signifies that Moscow today has the political will to forge ahead with an optimal partnership with Iran, as they also pursue greater use of their national currencies in trade.
Moreover, Russia and Iran are creating a firewall to sequester their defence cooperation from the prying eyes of the US. Moscow is about to transfer cutting-edge military technology to Tehran, including the famous Su-35 multipurpose 4+ generation fighter jets as part of a $3 billion arms deal that also includes two S-400 air defence systems. None of this is escaping Beijing’s attention. (Interestingly, Farzin was included in Raisi’s delegation to Beijing.)
Beijing understands that the confrontation between Russia and the US is working to the advantage of two of its key partners to break out of the Western stranglehold of sanctions and realise their full potential as regional powers— North Korea and Iran — which has profound implications for the power dynamic in the Asia-Pacific and West Asia.The Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces GeneralMohammad Bagheri greeted the newly-appointed North Korean counterpart General Pak Su-il recently with a call for expansion of military ties “to confront any move that disrupts global security.”
China-Iran relationship is entering interesting times. Fortuitously, the Gulf states themselves are decoupling from the US-Israeli strategy to whip up anti-Iran frenzy. Meanwhile, Iran’s relations with Saudi Arabia are steadily improving and the latter is developing diversified external relations as well with accent on partnerships with China and Russia. The growing similarity lately in the respective diplomatic trajectories of Iran and Saudi Arabia would have a calming effect incrementally on Gulf security and eliminates the scope for US interference in the GCC interaction with China (and Russia.)
President Xi highlighted to Raisi the importance of stability in West Asia, saying that upholding stability matters to the well-being of the countries and people in the region and also has great relevance to world peace, global economic development and the stability of energy supplies.
Xi noted in particular that “China appreciates Iran’s willingness to actively improve relations with neighbouring countries, and supports countries in the region in resolving their differences through dialogue and consultation to realise good neighbourliness.”
This paradigm shift in Gulf security puts the Sino-Iranian partnership on the right side of history.
In late 2019 and early 2020, I was asked to work on the front line in an emergency department to help with the ‘war effort’. We had no idea what was going on, apart from a few videos of the Chinese suddenly collapsing due to this new contagion. We were waiting for it to hit the U.K.
It hit, I saw what it did to people, they became unwell, x-ray x-ray x-ray, PPE, barriers, red lights, code words, panic, panic. Our world changed overnight, and my world changed especially. One minute we were told not to wear masks, the next moment it was made mandatory etc.
At this point, my sole focus was to protect myself and my family, so I began studying in order to do so successfully. I read papers during my breaks and at night before work. I reflected on what I saw at work and made a mental note of the real-life evidence.
The emergency department warped as time went on; I saw a lot of errors and mismanagement of resources. Patient care was being delayed, which led to staff burnout and medical errors. I could see that if this went on, people would needlessly die.
I knew something had to change. So in efforts to bring about some change, I wrote a book outlining how Toyota’s lean manufacturing methods could aid in improving patient safety as well as reducing costs in emergency departments. The book was called Saving A&E The Toyota Way. While researching for it, I learned a lot about healthcare infrastructure, artificial intelligence and preventative medicine. I knew what the national health situation was like; I knew we had to change as a species.
I presented that book to my hospital; my consultants liked it, but as an academic piece. That was not my intention, but hey ho, life goes on. There were more pressing matters at hand.
As the pandemic was progressing, I continued to research, write blogs and share what I saw. And I saw a lot of unscientific rubbish, unethical practices and poor care. The research papers said one thing, and yet we were doing something completely different. I knew very early on that not everyone needed to be jabbed. Something seemed fishy.
I worked in the emergency department and then paediatrics during the second peak. There was one child admitted due to COVID-19 who was later discharged. The ward was largely empty. And yet many doctors online were saying that COVID-19 was extremely dangerous to children. Nonsense.
Something was off: doctors weren’t being doctors, autopsies weren’t being done, the medical field was ignoring anyone who didn’t have COVID-19, and yet staff were doing TikTok dances. They asked me to join. I refused.
While all this was happening, I lost my grandma. The doctors didn’t want to see her in her home; her infection got bad; she didn’t want to go to the hospital; she became septic; she had to go in. I visited her after my shifts and fed her during my breaks.
I got the bad news from a doctor on the night she died. I asked the doctor if we could see her as a family, and he approved. We saw her one after the other, in tears and trying not to wake the other patients. Midway through, a matron I used to work with told us we couldn’t see her due to hospital policy and warned us that if we carried on she would call security on us. I told her we had approval already. She didn’t care. I saw evil in her eyes.
I asked her why she became a nurse. It was surely to treat and help people with compassion. She didn’t budge. I said, “Go ahead and call security then.”
Thank God, we had enough time for our family to all say their goodbyes. I made sure I was the last one. I knew and saw that many others weren’t as lucky as I was. Many had to FaceTime their dying family members. We were treated so badly and healthcare professionals encouraged it. I also knew the evils that lurked inside mankind that day.
During paediatrics I asked my colleagues about masks and jabs. Why did we only allow one parent to see their newborn child while wearing a mask, whereas we could all snuggle up together in the staff room maskless? I’d get responses that sounded like parrots. “It’s the rules”; “Policy”; “To stop infection”; “We just have to do it”. No science. No debate. No conversation. No brain.
I later worked in a children’s psychiatric ward, and what I witnessed was truly backward. Many children, many of whom wanted to commit suicide, were placed in solitary confinement so that useless PCR swabs could be taken. Two would need to be done, and the nurses would sometimes forget to do these. I actually had to make them a table so they would remember. Children were required to be swabbed, but staff members who would go wherever they pleased over the weekend were not.
I told my seniors that none of this made sense and that children did not suffer with COVID-19, but they just told me it was policy. The hospital trust actually recruited people to make sure staff were changing into scrubs before work too. The worst of it was when we had a ward round on one occasion. In psychiatry, the patient would sit in the room with the rest of the staff. This particular time my consultant found out that the young person who was in the room with us wasn’t swabbed. After the patient had left, she made us all stay in the room and asked us to lock the door and find ways to disinfect the room. She was seriously considering bleaching all surfaces. In disbelief, I asked her if we had to all strip down naked and shower together too. I had work to do, so I left.
The mental health of children and adults during lockdown was the lowest I’ve ever seen it in my career. Children were arriving with life disruption-related issues such as trauma, abuse, etc. all related to lockdowns.
My next job was in general practice. I was working towards becoming a GP. I enjoyed understanding and caring for all sorts of patients. I’m a generalist at heart. However, this transition marked another difficult time for me.
On the last day of hospital medicine and just before the first day of GP work, a close work colleague of mine went to play football, collapsed and never woke up. Deep down, I knew what had caused this. I knew the link between mRNA technology and myocarditis early on.
I cried finding this information out. I cried in front of my mother for the first time in my adult life. I’m in fact tearing up typing this. My friend was killed.
I went to his parents’ house to give my condolences. His parents were there, broken. He recently proposed to his fiancée. She was there too, broken. We viewed his funeral via Zoom.
There’s a spot in the park I dip into regularly while looking up at the leaves. I am reminded of him when I do this. I am reminded of how lucky I am to be alive. Deep down, I was terrified about what this meant for people around the world.
Time went on, and I worked in general practice. There was discussion about making vaccinations mandatory for all healthcare workers. I knew this was not only unscientific and unethical, but murderous. Yet my colleagues didn’t seem to care. They were safe, I guess.
Regardless, I could not do anything about it, so I plodded along. I never stopped reading papers, writing, tweeting and sharing information. I saw patients; I saw jab-related side effects, missed periods, new-onset whole-body inflammation, hair loss, etc. I saw cognitive dissonance too.
All of a sudden, one day, my practice asked me for my full jab status. This puzzled me because the managers knew I had to be jabbed with everything else in order to work in all the other specialties. I knew they wanted to know only one result. Whether or not I had taken the COVID-19.
I didn’t lie. I told them the truth. The next day, in a panic, they asked me to stop seeing patients face-to-face. They had made a team decision as a team, without me, that I was no longer able to see patients. They felt that I was a threat to them and that I would scare them away.
I have never had COVID-19. I worked on my health and immunity every day, and I purposely breathed in the virus in the emergency department to stimulate T cells. I knew jabs increased one’s risk of infection and showed them evidence. I was the least risky person in the practice and I knew it.
They didn’t care. They didn’t care about evidence. They didn’t care about ethics, about immunity, about anything. I shrugged this off and called patients instead. I was ostracised at work and many colleagues acted coldly towards me. I was alone, but not lonely; I knew I had evidence on my side.
Many doctors had to take sick leave from work multiple times due to COVID-19. I had meetings discussing my jab status. A doctor with myocarditis on long-term meds post-jab urged me to get the shot. One said I was “too principled”, It was surreal.
They admitted it was all politics. I asked them why they didn’t read papers? I asked them about T cells. Silence.
I have wanted to become a doctor since the age of six. I love biology and enjoy helping people using my knowledge. But I understood that I was working in an environment that was harming people. I had many sleepless nights thinking about leaving.
One morning, after parking my car at work, I felt a warmth around my head. It had no words, but if it did, it told me that everything would be okay. As soon as I had that experience, my decision was made, and I felt light; a colossal weight had been lifted.
I asked to quit, and a few meetings later (carried out to make sure I wasn’t crazy), I left healthcare and then deregistered myself from the medical register. I wanted to be totally free. I needed to be.
The flat my girlfriend and I were planning to buy fell through. I was in financial turmoil. My mother cried for weeks. I was lost, but I was free. I wasn’t part of the killing system.
I did what I only knew – I began writing. I started a Patreon and am grateful for those who did and continue to contribute to that. But it wasn’t enough. I ended up being on the dole for just less than a year. The guy I had to call every two weeks was surprised I was once a doctor.
I began learning and researching everything I could to help people who had been jabbed. I knew what was going on and I didn’t want another pandemic to happen. I wanted to save as many lives as possible.
I would take my bike, cycle across the park to my local library, and work feverishly every day till close. Around this time, I was permanently suspended on Twitter for stating facts.
I see this as a blessing now, as it made me work even harder to produce something that could never be banned. A book. I worked and researched to make sure I got this book out before 2023.
I was blessed around this time to come into contact with Alex Mitchell. He introduced me to other people injured by the shots. I was determined to make sure their voices got heard. I included their stories in the book.
During this time, on my walks, I had many insights and extraordinary experiences that many people may not believe or might dismiss as crazy. I saw light, and I ended my fears.
Before the new year, I released my book, Calling Out The Shots. It goes through what genetic agents are, what they do to our bodies, how we can improve our immunity, ways we may mitigate jab damage and what we need to do as a society to heal.
The book marks my first gift to the world. I am working on many more and other projects. I will fight for humanity until my final breath.
Dr. Eashwarran Kohilathas is a medical doctor, qualified personal trainer and author who aims to help people achieve physiological, psychological and spiritual freedom. This article first appeared as a Twitter thread.
By Norman Fenton and Martin Neil | Where are the numbers? | February 14, 2023
It has long been hypothesised that deadly health policies were a major factor in the wave of deaths attributed to covid in the Spring of 2020. This is also referred to as the iatrogenesis hypothesis.
Jonathan Engler looked at what had happened in Lombardy, Italy and concluded that many of the “deaths which occurred in the aftermath of the cataclysmic changes to the delivery of healthcare — especially of the frail and elderly — might have been caused by policy, rather than virus.” Anna Farrow made a similar convincing case that this happened in Canada while @NellyTells reports it was happening in Spain. Likewise, there has been a long-term concern that excessive use of Midazolam was a contributing factor in the UK and the Daily Mail newspaper reported on it as long ago as July 2020.
NG163 Death Protocol
More detailed evidence to support the iatrogenesis hypothesis for the UK (and elsewhere) has been provided in twitter threads by Jikkyleaks and this recent thread is particularly revealing… continue
This essay goes to the matter of Kosovo; where the Western states (NATO & the EU) have determined Serbia is not fit to govern a minority (of ethnic Albanians) on their own (Serbian) territory but the now purported (by the West) independent Kosovo is fit to govern a minority (of ethnic Serbs.)
The EU position seems to embrace an attitude of ‘never mind the inconvenient fact’ that recent Kosovo ‘leaders’ are being arrested and delivered to international tribunal for crimes against ethnic Serbs (includes organ harvesting), also not to mention what amounts to mere ‘lip service’ (no concrete action or enforcement) concerning the repatriation of 250,000 Serbs driven from Kosovo in an ethnic Albanian engineered cleansing pogrom following the NATO bombing of Serbia.
Insofar as an EU repatriation precedent, Croatia’s ethnic cleansing of Srpska Krajina shows the dishonesty of the EU position; there is no realistic expectation (and never was) by the European Union that the 200,000 Serbs expelled from this (formerly) Serb majority region would be allowed to return to Croatia and their homes. Meanwhile Croatia had been admitted to the European Union.
So, in the context of Serbs are not trustworthy to govern an ethnic minority of Albanians but Albanians are trustworthy to govern a minority of Serbs, the EU de facto embraces (actual outcomes, not political postures) just the sort of ethnic cleansing the NATO bombing was supposed to stop? … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 