What a coincidence: Dengue cases skyrocket just as dengue vaccine approaches licensure
And just as Bill Gates is rolling out his genetically engineered mosquitos
BY MERYL NASS | JULY 26, 2023
One dengue vaccine was licensed in the US in 2019 after killing dozens of kids in the Philippines. Philippine Ministry of Health and Sanofi officials went on trial for manslaughter in that case, just before the FDA issued the same vaccine a license. While the license was only issued for people aged 9-16, and only if they had had dengue once already, your tax dollars rolled it out all over Puerto Rico. Will all vaccinators follow those strictures?
Here’s what CDC notes about the licensed vaccine:
This vaccine is different from other vaccines in that it is only recommended for people who have already been infected with dengue virus. The reason is that children without previous dengue infection are at increased risk for severe dengue disease and hospitalization if they get dengue after they are vaccinated with Dengvaxia. Therefore, healthcare providers should check for evidence of a laboratory-confirmed previous dengue infection before vaccination.
Another dengue vaccine has come before the VRBPAC FDA committee twice, and I blogged those meetings. It appears it only works for 2 of the 4 dengue strains. It supposedly did not need a blood test before use. Takeda is the manufacturer and it describes the vaccine here.
Epoch Times reports:
The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that cases of dengue fever could reach record highs this year.
Dengue rates are rising globally, with reported cases since 2000 up eight-fold to 4.2 million in 2022, a WHO official said on July 21.
In January, the WHO claimed that dengue is the world’s fastest-spreading tropical disease and alleged it could be a “pandemic threat.”
The disease was found in Sudan’s capital Khartoum for the first time on record, according to a health ministry report in March, while Europe has reported a surge in cases and Peru declared a state of emergency in most regions.
About half of the world’s population is now at risk, Raman Velayudhan, a specialist at the WHO’s control of neglected tropical diseases department, told journalists in Geneva on Friday.
Cases reported to the WHO hit an all-time high in 2019 with 5.2 million cases in 129 countries, said Mr. Velayudhan via video link.
I’m wondering how big the dengue market will get, given that no one had heard of RSV a year ago, and now the GSK and Pfizer RSV vaccines for elders are predicted to be worth $9 billion. No one had heard of dengue. But they will hear about it now.
Sporadic Reports of Malaria Followed by “Breakthrough” Announcement of mRNA Vaccine
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | July 26, 2023
As an internal medicine physician and cardiologist I am in tune to diseases seen and presented at “morning report” at big academic medical centers. I can tell you over the decades each year there are a few cases of malaria. Travel history and contact tracing are never precise enough to declare where it came from. Malaria gives us a chance to talk about the characteristic life cycle of organism (plasmodium species), the mosquito vector, use of diagnostic testing including the blood smear etc.
So I was suspicious a few days ago when I heard about malaria in the U.S. as making a “comeback” and some patients asking me about bug spray. Now I see why there could be a manufactured interest in the age-old illness that is well treated with medications—a mRNA vaccine.
Alexa Cook at NewsHub is reporting: “ A team of researchers from Victoria University of Wellington’s Ferrier Research Institute, the Malaghan Institute and the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity in Australia have developed an mRNA-based vaccine that can effectively target and stimulate protective immune cell responses against the malaria-causing parasite.”
The timing of these events is uncanny. The only reason why a few cases of malaria which are always around would make the news would be an announcement of a new therapy or vaccine. So next time you hear about an old disease making a comeback, look for some new profitable drug or vaccine on the horizon and be suspicious of a false medical scare to juice up investor interest.
‘Health Program or Military Program’? White House Taps Military Official to Lead New Pandemic Policy Office
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 26, 2023
Just weeks after ending the COVID-19 national and public health emergencies and the resignation of COVID-19 Response Coordinator Ashish Jha, the White House launched its Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy (OPPR).
Retired Major General Paul Friedrichs, a military combat surgeon, will lead the office, the White House said.
According to the White House, the OPPR will be “a permanent office in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) charged with leading, coordinating, and implementing actions related to preparedness for, and response to, known and unknown biological threats or pathogens that could lead to a pandemic or to significant public health-related disruptions in the United States.”
The OPPR will take over the duties of President Biden’s COVID-19 and monkeypox response teams, including “ongoing work to address potential public health outbreaks and threats from COVID-19, Mpox, polio, avian and human influenza, and RSV [respiratory syncytial virus],” the announcement stated.
The OPPR also will oversee efforts to “develop, manufacture, and procure the next generation of medical countermeasures, including leveraging emerging technologies and working with HHS [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] on next generation vaccines and treatments for COVID-19 and other public health threats.”
According to The New York Times, Friedrichs, set to take office Aug. 7, will have the authority to “oversee domestic biosecurity preparedness.” He will work on the development of next-generation vaccines, ensure adequate supplies in the Strategic National Stockpile and “ramp up surveillance to monitor for new biological threats.”
Several medical, biosecurity and civil liberties experts questioned the selection of a career military and biosecurity individual to head a new office charged with pandemic preparedness.
They also told The Defender they saw parallels between the White House’s establishment of the OPPR and ongoing United Nations (U.N.) efforts to draft a global declaration on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response (PPPR).
‘Is OPPR a health program or a military program?’
Friedrichs, a board-certified physician, is currently a special assistant to the president and senior director for Global Health Security and Biodefense at the National Security Council.
He previously served as joint staff surgeon at the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and as medical adviser to the Pentagon’s COVID-19 task force.
Throughout his career, the White House said, Friedrichs worked closely with federal, state, tribal, local and territorial government partners, as well as industry and academic counterparts.
According to the White House:
“As the United States’ representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Committee of Military Medical Chiefs, he worked closely with many of America’s closest allies and partners throughout the pandemic and in developing medical support to the Ukrainian military.”
In his previous roles at the National Security Council and DOD, Friedrichs was a strong proponent of COVID-19 vaccines and countermeasures.
The Times reported that, in a February speech, Friedrichs said, “The military health system became the pinch-hitter that stepped in to help our civilian partners as we collectively struggled to work through that pandemic.”
In a February 2022 podcast, Friedrichs praised the COVID-19 vaccines and also appeared to blame those who were unvaccinated for placing “stress on our system.”
And in remarks shared in January 2022 with the Association of the United States Army, Friedrichs asked military families to continue holding off on gatherings so that service members are “able to do the things that our nation depends on them to do.”
Does Friedrichs’ appointment signal more vaccine mandates?
Describing Friedrichs’ appointment as “a joke and a fraud,” Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., a bioweapons expert and professor of international law at the University of Illinois who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, told The Defender :
“DOD has routinely enforced experimental medical vaccines on U.S. Armed Forces, in gross violation of the Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation — that is, a Nuremberg crime against humanity — from today’s COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ and going all the way back in recent history to the ‘vaccines’ that produced Gulf War sickness starting in 1990-1991, when Friedrichs was a U.S. Military medical doctor.
“Of 500,000 U.S. troops inoculated, 11,000 died and 100,000 were disabled. I do not recall that Friedrichs was among the handful of courageous and principled military medical doctors who refused, as a matter of principle, to inflict Nuremberg crimes on our own troops. Did he? That needs to be investigated.”
Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., author of “Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom,” said the selection of Friedrichs, who supported military vaccine mandates, may signal similar future mandates for the general public.
“We should not forget that the DOD mandated the COVID-19 vaccine for service members,” Rectenwald said. “The OPPR will mandate vaccines for the nation.”
And writing on her blog, Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist, biological warfare epidemiologist and member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, questioned if the OPPR plans “to use the military’s OTA [other transaction] authority again to bypass the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] and vaccinate us with untested junk that turned out to be poison, like it did for COVID.”
Is OPPR “a health program or a military program?” Nass wrote.
Nass told The Defender that if the main purpose of the OPPR was to respond to pandemics and pandemic threats, an epidemiologist or infectious disease doctor would have been tapped to head the office instead of a military general.
Similarly, Dr. David Bell, a public health physician, biotech consultant and former director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund, told The Defender :
“COVID-19 demonstrated that the sort of interventions envisioned by the pandemic preparedness lobby such as lockdowns and coerced mass vaccination, have poor public health outcomes.
“Public health should be concentrated on informing the public to make personal decisions about health, rather than the population-control approaches we saw for COVID-19 that are most profitable to the corporate world. We must hope this new health bureaucracy is more independent of vested interests, and will take an evidence-based approach.”
Nass suggested that Friedrich’s selection belies a broadly encompassing biosecurity agenda, which would include censorship of non-establishment medical information, surveillance and mass, or mandatory, vaccination, tied to U.N. and World Health Organization (WHO) “pandemic preparedness and response” efforts.
A ‘WHO globalist worldwide medical and scientific police state’ here in the U.S.?
Other experts also noted the similarities between the name of the OPPR, the U.N.’s draft PPPR and a similar recent agreement among WHO member states.
Still in “zero draft” form, the PPPR is scheduled to be discussed by the U.N. General Assembly in September 2023. It would also be tied to the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations.
Similarly, a June 28 document from the WHO said, “Member States … have agreed to a global process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”
And a separate but similar set of proposals — part of the U.N.’s “Pact for the Future” and “Our Common Agenda” — would give the U.N. secretary-general unprecedented emergency powers not only for pandemics but seemingly for an unlimited range of other potential crises. The U.N. will discuss these proposals in September 2024.
Boyle told The Defender the OPPR is “obviously being coordinated with the U.N. [and] the Biden administration to establish the effective functioning of a WHO globalist worldwide medical and scientific police state here in the United States.”
“You need the mentality of an unprincipled military medical major general to do that,” Boyle said. “All the trains will run on time.”
Rectenwald drew similar connections, telling The Defender the OPPR and Friedrichs’ selection:
“Signifies the militarization of pandemic responses in the U.S., in line with the ‘global governance’ measures outlined by the U.N.’s Pandemic Preparedness, Prevention and Response declaration.
“This new wing of the executive branch is the means by which this ‘global governance’ (read: one-world totalitarian system) is being introduced to the U.S., using pandemic preparedness as the pretext.”
Notably, proposals for a government “pandemic preparedness” office date at least as far back as October 2020, when the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) issued an extensive set of recommendations calling upon the U.S. government to “adopt a robust strategy for domestic and global pandemic preparedness.”
The report recommended that the U.S. “finally treat pandemics as a serious national security threat, translating its rhetorical support for pandemic preparedness into concrete action.”
According to the CFR, this would entail “bolstering the White House’s leadership role in preparing for and responding to pandemics, improving congressional input into and oversight over executive branch efforts, reforming the CDC so that it can perform more effectively, and clarifying the often confused division of labor across federal, state, and local governments in pandemic preparedness and response.”
“The president should designate a focal point within the White House for global health security, including pandemic preparedness and response,” the report added. “This office would have lead responsibility for coordinating the multiple federal departments and agencies in anticipating, preventing, and responding quickly to major disease outbreaks.”
OPPR reports to Congress required only every 5 years, not annually
The establishment of the OPPR resulted from the passage of the PREVENT Pandemics Act in December 2022.
The bill, introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and the now-retired Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), passed as part of an omnibus spending bill, contained a requirement for the creation of a White House pandemic preparedness and response office.
Though the bill was passed in December 2022, the White House was unable to immediately establish a pandemic preparedness office and name a director.
A Politico report in May said these efforts were “hindered by concerns over whether [the office] will have the influence within the administration and the financial resources needed to fulfill its broad mission — especially as COVID plummets down the list of political priorities.”
According to the White House announcement, OPPR will “Develop and provide periodic reports to Congress” as required by law, including drafting and delivering to Congress “a biennial Preparedness Review and Report and Preparedness Outlook Report every five years.”
On her blog, Nass wrote, “Instead of the more customary yearly reports, the reporting to Congress is being delayed considerably, perhaps until after many of us have died from the countermeasures — a great way to evade oversight.”
In a separate blog post, Nass also observed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requested $20 billion for “pandemic preparedness” in its fiscal year 2024 budget.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
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.
UK Government Censorship Unit Consulted With United Nations and G7 on “Misinformation”
By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | July 28, 2023
The UK government is not a fan of free speech and its Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU), which urged social media companies to censor Covid dissent from UK citizens, is one of many recent examples of the ways it tries to chill the public’s speech.
But recently released witness statements have revealed that the government’s eagerness to crack down on speech is so great that it doesn’t even restrict its censorship operations to domestic government agencies. Instead, it lets representatives from foreign governments, who weren’t elected by UK citizens, give feedback to a domestic censorship unit that target the lawful speech of UK citizens.
The witness statements from Sam Lister, director-general for strategy and operations at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), and Susannah Storey, permanent secretary at the DCMS, were made public this week as part of an independent inquiry into the coronavirus pandemic. However, Lister’s statement was given in March 2023 and Storey’s statement was given in April 2023.
Lister’s witness statement revealed that the CDU consulted with international partners “who provide additional insights on potentially harmful disinformation, based on social media data and academic research.”
Storey’s statement elaborated on the scope of these consultations and revealed that the CDU attended multiple “disinformation sessions” with these international partners which include the Internet Government Forum (a United Nations initiative), Digital Nations (a UK-founded network that has 10 member countries), and G7 (an intergovernmental political forum consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, and the US).
Foreign government representatives were just some of the many partners interfacing with the CDU, according to the statements.
Both Lister’s and Storey’s statements revealed that UK spy agencies were involved with the CDU since its inception.
Additionally, the statements divulged that some of the other partners that work with the CDU, the Counter Disinformation Cell (a unit that was formed by the CDU), and the DCMS, which oversees the CDU, include other government departments, academia, civil society, social media companies, think tanks, and international organizations.
Lister and Storey claim that the purpose of these partnerships is to address “disinformation” and “misinformation” and “combat online harm spread by disinformation.”
Previous reports have revealed that the CDU has a high censorship success rate with 90% of the posts that it flags being removed or suppressed. Despite the CDU being responsible for mass censorship of lawful speech, the UK government has defended the unit and claimed that it supports free speech.
Israel court orders 500 Palestinian residents out to build new Israeli neighbourhood
MEMO | July 28, 2023
An Israeli court on Monday ordered 500 Palestinian residents of Ras Jrabah, a village in the Negev (Naqab) that predates the establishment of the state of Israel, to evacuate and demolish their homes to make way for a new Israeli neighbourhood.
Represented by the legal centre, Adalah, the Palestinian villagers had argued that they owned and resided on the land for generations, prior to the 1970 Land Law that registered land and established state-owned real estate.
However, despite their decades of continuous residence in the area, the Beersheba Magistrate’s Court rejected the claim that the Palestinian residents have lawful authority to stay and use the land.
In addition to claiming that the evidence presented by the Palestinian families in court is insufficient and ordering them to evacuate by March 2024, the Israeli Judge Menachem Shahak also ordered them to pay 117,000 shekels ($31,630) in legal charges.
The Israel Land Authority (ILA) has plans to expand the city of Dimona by occupying the village of Ras Jrabah and turning it into a new neighbourhood called “Rotem”.
Judge Shahak also rejected the Palestinian villagers’ request to be integrated into the new neighbourhood, claiming the Israeli Bedouin Development and Settlements Authority in the Negev is the authorised body to make that decision.
However, the Israeli Bedouin Settlement Authority has only offered to relocate them to the town of Qasr Al-Sir, which belongs to other Palestinian families.
The court’s approval comes after the ILA failed in its attempt at evacuating the village 30 years ago, reported Haaretz. Palestinian Bedouins in the Negev (Naqab) have faced the threat of forcible displacement for decades, with their land being seized and their homes levelled by Israeli occupation forces.
Adalah condemned the move as a crime of apartheid and argued that displacing the villagers to resettle them in a Bedouin town was part of a strategy of racial segregation.
It said in a statement: “Since the Nakba, the state of Israel has employed a range of tools and policies to forcibly displace the Bedouin residents in the Naqab. Their livelihood has been confined to restricted areas and segregated townships, and they have been subjected to harsh living conditions, with no regard for their basic needs and way of life.”
“This is part of a system of Jewish supremacy that was constitutionally enshrined in the Jewish Nation-State Law, which prioritises “Jewish settlement” as a value that all state bodies are mandated to promote. Israel’s judicial system approves, time after time, the displacement of Palestinian citizens in favour of Jewish expansions, thereby advancing Israel’s colonial objectives.”
The forced displacement of Ras Jrabah’s residents to expand the Jewish city of Dimona, which was built on the residents’ lands, serves as clear evidence that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid against its Palestinian citizens, and urgent international intervention is necessary to halt it.
The Adalah lawyers will be appealing the judge’s decision.
New “thrust” in Ukrainian counteroffensive not enough to reverse military scenario
By Lucas Leiroz | July 28, 2023
Western media are trying to improve Kiev’s image and create new expectations around the so-called “counteroffensive”. In an article published by the New York Times on July 26, authors stated that “Ukraine has launched the main thrust of its counteroffensive”. It was reported that the Ukrainian authorities had authorized a new war effort, giving an important boost to the operation. At this phase, it is said that a large number of NATO-trained troops are being moved to the front lines. The objective is to gain territory in the regions liberated by the Russians, mainly in the south of the country.
“The United States and other Western allies have trained about 63,000 Ukrainian troops, according to the Pentagon, and have supplied more than 150 modern battle tanks, a much larger number of older tanks, hundreds of infantry fighting vehicles and thousands of other armored vehicles (…) In villages all along the southern front line on Wednesday, unusually heavy artillery fire could be heard as Ukrainian guns thundered from hidden positions and Russian artillery and mortars targeted former Russian positions and villages now occupied by Ukrainian soldiers. Ukrainian troops deployed along that part of the front say they are steadily pushing the Russian troops back in what they describe as step by step, rather than breakthrough, movements”, the article reads.
In fact, the NYT report is in line with what some other outlets have been saying on the topic recently. For example, CNN published an article on the same day, “Ukraine’s counteroffensive is ramping up after months of slow progress”, in which it is also said that Kiev is deploying well-trained and equipped troops to regain positions currently under control of the Russian armed forces.
“The Ukrainian military had been holding large numbers of trained troops, some equipped with more powerful Western weapons, back since the operation started in early June. While it still maintains some combat power in reserve, it has now deployed the ‘main bulk’ of the forces committed to the counteroffensive forces”, CNN’s text reads.
This information is not entirely false. There is some veracity in the data, as Kiev has indeed recently launched a second phase of its “counteroffensive” against Russian forces. After the absolute military failure in Donbass, the Ukrainian focus has been on trying to recover some ground in the south, mainly in Zaporozhye. To achieve these strategic objectives, indeed, many NATO-trained troops that until now had been kept in the rear are finally being sent to the frontlines.
Keeping special forces outside the front has been a common Ukrainian practice. Kiev tries to preserve what is left of its military potential by keeping its well-trained troops as long as possible in the rear, while newly recruited and poorly equipped soldiers are sent in large numbers to the “meat grinder” at the frontlines. Kiev allows the deployment of its well-trained forces to the front only at specific times when there is some feasible hope of territorial gain. Currently, Ukraine is betting on the possibility of regaining ground in the south, which explains why forces trained abroad are finally being sent to the region.
It remains to be seen, however, whether the Ukrainian plans will really go as expected by the regime and media. Despite having many NATO-trained troops, the regime is militarily weakened after months of intense fighting. The Russians have created a very solid defensive line with their recent territorial gains, making it difficult for enemy forces to achieve any significant progress.
Also, it must be emphasized that there are a lot of minefields around these Russian-dominated regions. The Ukrainian armed forces are sending large numbers of special forces and NATO military tanks there, which is resulting in heavy losses. As Kiev’s well-trained soldiers die, the regime will be forced to bet once again on sending its inexperienced troops, resulting in new “meat grinders”.
It is unlikely that Ukraine will achieve any relevant territorial gains, except in the event of some strategic retreat by Russian units. Russia’s military advantage will not be easily reversed by simply sending the best troops to the front. In practice, the Ukrainian action sounds more like a gesture of desperation, with the regime sending everything it still has to the lines, trying to gain some ground. Not by chance, a Pentagon official commented on the case classifying the Ukrainian effort as a “big test“.
Even if there is a “thrust”, this does not seem enough to reverse the Russian gains in the conflict. Ukrainian losses so far have been too severe to be compensated by merely deploying a few NATO-trained forces. Wars are not won with just a few special troops, depending also on a strong apparatus of artillery and aviation, in addition to the ability to replace losses. In all these sectors, the Russians continue to have an extreme advantage, which is why Western propaganda about the Zaporozhye offensive sounds like yet another irresponsible attempt to spread expectations of [an impossible] victory.
Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.