By Robert Inlakesh | The Cradle | September 20, 2023
The secret US-Iran deal revealed to the public last month has largely been portrayed as a “humanitarian agreement” – the release of US prisoners in exchange for the return of frozen Iranian funds that will bring relief to the people of Iran.
But as tidbits of new information emerge on the agreement, it has become clear that Washington and Tehran have agreed on a far more comprehensive array of arrangements.
The US, for instance, has quietly approved the release of significantly more Iranian funds than the $6 billion figure touted in the media. Dr. Mohammed Marandi, former media advisor to the Iranian nuclear negotiating team in Vienna, confirms to The Cradle that almost $20 billion of Iran’s internationally frozen assets have already been released as part of the agreement.
The reported $6 billion only constitutes Iranian funds frozen in South Korea, while an additional $11 billion was held by Iraq, with the remaining portions scattered across various other countries. These assets, Marandi says, have now been successfully released and are under the control of Iran’s Central Bank.
Based on information from Iranian and Arab diplomatic sources who requested anonymity, the US-Iran deal terms include – but are not restricted to – the following commitments from the two sides:
Iran’s commitments include:
US commitments include:
The closure of remaining IAEA “open files” regarding several Iranian nuclear, military, and civilian sites.
Western diplomatic sources tell The Cradle that the main reason the US initiated secret talks with Iran is because Washington has a critical need to increase oil supply in global markets.
Deescalating with Tehran can bring new energy sources online quickly to make up for lost Russian supplies. This is why one of the unpublicized US deal concessions to Iran is to ignore sanctions on Iranian oil and gas trades.
The problem for the Biden administration, since the failure of nuclear talks, has consistently been domestic political opposition toward the easing of “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran. This new backroom agreement provides a way to bypass Washington’s institutional roadblocks, and flood the market with Iranian oil supply.
Reviving a ‘dead’ deal
Already, Washington-based think tanks are understanding that the Iran-US prisoner swap could be a softball maneuver by the Biden administration to publicly kickstart the easing of tensions with Tehran. This move is seen as a way to navigate around the stubborn resistance of congressional representatives and pressure from Israeli hawks against reviving the Iran Nuclear Deal, also known as the JCPOA.
Monday’s prisoner exchange of both Iranian and American prisoners, which received blanket coverage by both country’s media, has agitated parties opposed to any Iranian-US detente and has them scrambling to discover the hidden significance behind the breakthrough Qatari-brokered agreement.
Richard Goldberg, Director of the Iran Program at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said in a 13 September interview with the Saudi-owned Asharq al-Awsat newspaper that the US-Iran prisoner swap was strategically designed to deflect congressional criticism over the renewal of the JCPOA.
He contends that by linking sanctions relief to the prisoner exchange instead of a JCPOA revival, US President Joe Biden has effectively defused tensions with Iran and sidestepped the political hurdle of presenting a new nuclear deal to Congress – a move that would have otherwise proved contentious in the lead-up to the 2024 presidential elections.
In June last year, indirect negotiations between the US and Iran officially fell apart, ending a year’s worth of on-and-off efforts to reach a consensus in Vienna. Later in the year, while on the sidelines of an election rally in November, Biden declared the 2015 JCPOA “dead.”
But in May 2023, secret indirect negotiations between US and Iranian officials took place in Oman.
In June, the New York Times released an article on ongoing talks between the two parties aimed at finalizing an informal agreement that could potentially replace the need to resurrect the 2015 nuclear deal and “avert a nuclear crisis.”
The Cradle’s diplomatic sources confirm this was never merely a prisoners-for-cash swap, but a quiet initiative to defuse escalating US-Iran tensions – and proponents of continued conflict – by crafting a settlement that completely bypassed the naysayers.
This settlement, which would begin with some simpler humanitarian gestures to build goodwill and trust between the two parties, would then provide the foundation for negotiations over more complicated issues.
Beyond the prisoner swap
Despite Biden’s public commitment to revive the Iran nuclear deal, his negotiating team has dismally failed to secure an agreement. This week’s prisoner exchange was seen as just the right kind of sweetener to pave a new, unencumbered path toward securing the basic requirements of the two adversaries.
But even this humanitarian gesture by both sides has failed to quell media criticism. US outlets and social media platforms have castigated the Biden administration for releasing $6 billion of Iran’s frozen assets to secure the release of just 5 US prisoners.
And while US officials claim that the funds were transferred to designated bank accounts in Qatar and restricted to the purchase of food and agricultural products, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi went public to make clear that Iran has full discretion on the use of these funds.
Raisi has described the release of the five prisoners as a “purely humanitarian action” and hinted that it could serve as a foundation for future humanitarian initiatives, code for sanctions relief.
His statement has further fueled speculation that the US and Iran are privately moving toward a broader agreement – well beyond the prisoner exchange – that will substitute the hotly-contested JCPOA.
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | September 23, 2023
However hard Big Pharma is pushing the new Covid jabs, investors know the truth.
Even though we are getting closer to winter, a perfect time to sell Covid jabs, Moderna’s share price is down 44%.
And Pfizer’s is down 36%.
Clearly investors in the know realise that people just aren’t taking the Covid shots anymore.
So the sales team has been brought in to try and drum up business. All over the MSM news today are reports of a new study which claims to show that Long Covid can cause long-term damage to multiple organs.
The study, published in The Lancet is titled “Multiorgan MRI findings after hospitalisation with COVID-19 in the UK (C-MORE): a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study”.
Read any MSM coverage of this study and you will be led to believe that a third of Long Covid patients sustained damage to multiple organs five months after infection. Lung injuries were almost 14 times higher among Long Covid patients, whilst brain and kidney injuries were three and two times higher respectively.
‘Study lead Dr Betty Raman said people who had more than two organs affected were “four times more likely to report severe and very severe mental and physical impairment”’.
Scary stuff, sign me up for my booster now.
But is the study all that it is made out to be?
First of all the declarations of interests page is over 1,600 words long with reference after reference to links with Big Pharma.
Secondly, and most importantly, the study is massively flawed. It recruited 2,710 participants and whittled these down to 259 who were discharged from hospital with PCR-confirmed or clinically diagnosed COVID-19 between March 1 2020 and Nov 1 2021.
This group was then compared with 52 non-Covid-19 controls from the community. The average age of the study group was 57 and the control group was 49. As the study says, “compared with non-COVID-19 controls, patients were older, living with more obesity and had more comorbidities”. 50% of the study group were obese compared with only 37% of the control group. 40% had smoked at some point in their lives compared with only 17% of the control group. I could continue with percentages of all the pre-existing comorbidities but I think you get the picture.
(For those who will ask the question, 40% of the control group were vaccinated at follow-up compared with 44% of the study group.)
So what do you think happens when you take an unhealthy, older group of people who have been in hospital with Covid and you compare them with a younger, healthier group of people from the community. You geniuses, you guessed it. You find that the unhealthier group are unhealthier.
Give the Big Pharma sales team a genius medal for that one and a sucker medal to the MSM who did the sales pitch for them.
But don’t take it from me, here is what Professor Francois Balloux, Director of the UCL Genetics Institute in London, has to say about the study:
Thus, my point is not that the conclusions of the study are necessarily false but that the control group is inadequate. I worry the study may have been published as is because it fits a particular narrative, and not necessarily because it is sound and robust.
By choosing a control group made of elderly, frail, terminally ill patients, it might be possible to demonstrate that Covid actually repairs organ damage, which would obviously be an absurd conclusion, and which should rightly be called out. Yet, here we are …
By Shabnam Palesa Mohamed | Take Back Power | September 23, 2023
“Regardless, acting as the UN’s general assembly, its 78th president Dennis Francis tried to irregularly and unlawfully approve a ‘historic’ but currently non-binding political declaration on pandemics and other areas related to health, free speech and national sovereignty”. International renowned law professor Francis Boyle said “This is very dangerous. We cannot underestimate its significance. It’s like a stick of dynamite ready to be exploded.”
The United Nations is facing one of the worst scandals in its controversial history, caused by its brazen tendency to defy democratic principles and disrespect national sovereignty. This time, given significant socio-political developments, the world is paying attention.
During the latter part of this September, the UN held its SDG Summit and its 78th General Assembly. At the top of its agenda for the 19th and 20th, was, inter alia, the adoption of a high level political declaration on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.
The declaration was due to be adopted via ‘silence procedure’: If a country’s delegate did not object to the declaration, they would be deemed to accept it in full. This silent procedure was a Covid-era tool that outlived its utility and is clearly a dangerous practice.
The PPPR declaration is being strongly criticised as text that is political theatre, without real commitments, except for the promise to hold another high-level meeting in 2026. During the member state comments session, many heads of state were glaringly absent.
Eleven countries wrote a compelling letter detailing the discriminatory attitudes, unlawful procedures and veto threats forcing compulsion on critical agenda items in high level meetings at the 78th UN General Assembly. The meetings include the following:
1. High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, 18 and 19 September
2. High-level meeting on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, 20 September
3. High-level meeting on universal health coverage, 21 September
4. High-level meeting on the fight against tuberculosis, 22 September
These countries, represented by delegates, include two from Africa: Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Eritrea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Nicaragua, the Russian Federation, the Syrian Arab Republic, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.
One of the key issues that lead to the revolt by these eleven countries is apparently that earlier drafts of the Agenda 2030 health and sustainable development declarations included language calling on countries to refrain “from promulgating and applying any unilateral, economic, financial or trade measures not in accordance with international law”. Unsurprisingly, this paragraph was summarily removed from the final drafts and opens up sanctions which have a devastating impact on health and sovereignty.
On the fundamental subject of consensual language in UN facilitations, the letter affirms support from the Group of the 77 and China, and from the Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter, consisting of 19 countries, among others. The Group of 77 is the largest intergovernmental organization of developing countries in the United Nations, comprising of 135 countries.
Dated 17 September 2023, the three page letter to the UN GA president Dennis Francis (Trinidad and Tobago) and UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres (Portugal), objected to unilateral coercive measures and other glaring issues in international law. The eleven countries stated (for readability, bold headers, italics emphasis, numbering and notes are mine):
No consent, lack of transparency and illegal unilateral coercive measures
1. It is regrettable that it has not been possible to find a political solution to the current stalemate, created, not only due to the lack of will of some developed countries to engage in true and meaningful negotiations to have balanced and acceptable outcomes for all, but also due to the lack of transparency and poor handling of your predecessor’s team of all these processes.
2. As you are aware, the issue of the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures (UCMs) is an existential one for our peoples. A third of the world’s population is affected by these illegal measures. There is ample evidence, including from UN sources, of the heavy toll caused by UCMs on targeted countries’ capacities to achieve sustainable development and to make further progress in protecting the right to health of their respective populations. Regardless of these facts, we have engaged in the negotiations of these draft outcomes in good faith, with a spirit of compromise and a constructive approach, in order to reach consensus.
3. Since the beginning of these processes, we have insisted on the need to include our concerns in these important political documents, on the basis of consensual language, as reflected in paragraph 30 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This request has been echoed by a large number of delegations, including from the Group of the 77 and China, and from the Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter, among others.
SPM note: The delegates’ critical concerns are completely ignored by the United Nations leadership, confirming that the multilateralism motto touted often by the United Nations is sloganeering on empty rhetoric. The letter continues to lay bare:
Unfair practices including veto, lack of inclusion, absence of balance, and neglect
4. The legitimate concerns of a large number of developing countries have been ignored. Hence, it is our duty to express our strong concerns on the unacceptable way in which this situation unfolded, running in clear contradiction with the spirit of multilateralism and the overall goal of “leaving no one behind”.
5. First, there has been no real willingness from a small group of developed countries to engage in meaningful negotiations to find compromises, forcing unfair practices which pretend to impose a kind of “veto” on certain issues, and pretending to even prevent their discussion within the framework of intergovernmental negotiations.
6. Second, in some cases, negotiations were not conducted in a truly inclusive, fair and balanced way. Our delegations had to witness how, in some cases, even single delegations were accommodated a great deal in their concerns, while others’ priorities, including ours, were bluntly neglected.
Objections includes forced consensus, bulldozing, and ignoring repeated breaking of silence
7. For example, the draft outcome of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development under the auspices of the General Assembly – SDGs Summit, was reopened with the purpose of exclusively accommodating the priorities of a few delegations from developed countries, while, in this very same process, and in the three (03) health-related negotiations, nothing was done to reflect and accommodate the legitimate concerns of delegations from developing countries that, in addition had broken silence repeatedly, including the Group of 77 and China.
8. Third, the attempt to ignore formal communications of delegations from developing countries, including from the Group of 77 and China, on behalf of its 134 Member States, indicating strong reservations and objections.
9. Fourth, the attempt to force consensus by your predecessor’s team, and now by your Office, when it is evident that no consensus has been reached on any of these processes; as well as the lack of transparency, inclusiveness and efficient use of the limited time available then to find compromises.
Developing countries take a stand against discrimination perpetrated through the United Nations
SPM: The clear, well-reasoned and articulate letter continues, setting a precedent in protecting national sovereignty:
10. Our delegations are convinced that this is no way to handle multilateral and intergovernmental negotiations on issues of great relevance for the international community, particularly for developing countries. Thus, we would like to put on record that we do not condone, nor accept, this practice, and that it does not set any precedent for the work of the United Nations and its General Assembly.
11. This is particularly relevant, as we look forward to future negotiation processes on fundamental matters, in which we will continue engaging with great determination, flexibility and constructiveness.
Delegations call for a recall of the nature and legal standing of UN meetings
12. Our delegations would also like to recall the nature and legal standing of the meetings in which the SDGs Summit, the High-Level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response, the High-Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage, and the High-Level Meeting on the Fight against Tuberculosis, will take place.
13. In relation to the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) on Sustainable Development under the auspices of the General Assembly, SDGs Summit, and in accordance with General Assembly resolution 67/290, in its operative paragraph 9, “all meetings convened under the auspices of the General Assembly shall operate under the rules of procedure of the main committees of the Assembly, as applicable, unless otherwise provided in the present resolution”.
14. Also, operative paragraph 4 of that very same resolution clearly states that the Forum “shall result in a concise negotiated political declaration to be submitted for the consideration of the Assembly”.
15. Hence, we expect a process to take place at a later stage, where the General Assembly will formally consider the adoption of the draft Political Declaration, under Chapter XII of the Rules of Procedures of the General Assembly.
16. Similarly, General Assembly resolutions 75/315, 77/274 and 77/275, are clear in indicating that the political declarations of the three health-related High-Level Meetings should “be submitted by the President of the General Assembly for adoption by the Assembly”.
Opposition to any attempt that formally adopts draft outcome documents, and the right to take action
SPM: The ground breaking letter against illegitimate operations by the UN, continues:
17. In that sense, our delegations oppose any attempt to pretend to formally adopt any of the draft outcome documents in question, during the meetings scheduled for 18, 20, 21 and 22 September 2023, respectively.
18. In addition, we reserve the right to take appropriate action upon the formal consideration of these four (04) draft outcome documents in the coming weeks, after the conclusion of the High-Level Segment of the 78th Session of the General Assembly, when they must all be considered by the General Assembly in accordance with its rules of procedures.
19. In that spirit and in the interest of transparency, we respectfully request hereby your good offices for circulating as soon as possible this letter as an official document of the General Assembly, under agenda items 19 and 127, entitled “Sustainable development” and “Global health and foreign policy”, respectively.
SPM: The letter ends.
• Blatantly ignoring the official letter to the UN, the WHO Director-General Adhenom Tedros Ghebreyesus incorrectly said “As you know, this morning, the 193 Member States of the United Nations approved the political declaration on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. The declaration is a strong signal from countries that they are committed to learning the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to strengthening the world’s defences against pandemics.”
• He continued with almost delusional dishonesty “In the declaration approved today, Member States have demonstrated that even at this time of division and polarisation, it’s still possible for countries to come together to agree on a shared response to shared threats. It is that same spirit of collaboration that we urge countries to demonstrate as they continue their negotiations on the Pandemic Accord and the amendments to the International Health Regulations.”
• Displaying his complicity in violating international law, he said “The political declaration, approved by Mr Dennis Francis, President of the 78th United Nations General Assembly, and the result of negotiations under the able leadership of Ambassadors Gilad Erdan of Israel and Omar Hilale of Morocco, underscored the pivotal role played by WHO as the “directing and coordinating authority on international health,” and the need to “commit further to sustainable financing that provides adequate and predictable funding to the World Health Organization, which enables it to have the resources needed to fulfil its core functions.”
• Meanwhile, unperturbed by what member states delegates communicated days before, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said, in a message delivered by Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohamed (Britain-Nigeria): “By next year’s World Health Assembly in May, I urge all countries to deliver a strong, comprehensive pandemic accord, focused on equity; as well as amendments to strengthen the International Health Regulations. And I urge you to support the World Health Organization, including by honouring the commitment to increase assessed contributions to half of its budget, and supporting the proposed investment round.
• Unconcerned with the diplomatic fallout and failing in his duty to abide by international law, Guterres continued to outline three key priorities: First, Sustainable Development Goals Stimulus (read debt slavery). Next, countering what it defines as misinformation – which will lead to the suppression of critical thinking and free speech. Third, responding to complex global shocks via a UN emergency platform – that will make national governments and the will of the people they serve irrelevant.
On reading this article, Professor Boyle replied to me: “Right! This is a great Defeat for the Globalists. The International Court of Justice has ruled that some types of UN General Assembly Resolutions Adopted by Consensus can become Customary International Law, and the Globalists Lawyers know that. So from my perspective what happened was an Historic Defeat for the Globalists. Tedros and the WHO are trying to turn a pig’s ear into a silk purse. In fact, this was an historic failure. The Globalists tried and failed to get their Declaration adopted by Consensus by the UN General Assembly, thus preventing it from arguably becoming Customary International Law, which is what they intended to do in the first place. But they will try again.”
He continued “The danger here is that this is a Statement by Heads of State and Heads of Government, either one of whom can bind their states under international law and all of whom together could arguably create customary international law. That is what the Drafters of this Statement intended. This is very dangerous. We cannot underestimate its significance. It’s like a stick of dynamite ready to be exploded. This is all part of the Globalists Strategy to create a Worldwide Totalitarian Medical and Scientific Police State under the guise of the WHO. Thanks. Then if the 11 vote this way against it, then that will prevent this Declaration being adopted by Consensus and thus arguably becoming part of customary international law, which is what those behind the Declaration intend.”
Financing the supranationals’ ambitions – $500 billion per year, minimum
About $2 billion has already been collated for a new World Bank managed Pandemic Fund. It is said to be insufficient, compared to the amounts required, especially for debt-burdened countries, to comply with UN and WHO expectations and improve their health systems and prepare hospitals, data surveillance systems and laboratory facilities to meet potential pandemic needs.
A Sustainable Development Goals “stimulus” package in addition to “deep” reforms to the international financial architecture is required, according to UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed. “Many developing countries are drowning in debt,” Mohammed told the high level meeting, echoing views expressed at the UN’s SDG Summit. She called for long-term financing of at least $500 billion annually as part of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) recovery plan.
Although Africa is not actually poor, “Today Africa spends more on debt service costs than on health care and education. We need a finance boost so that countries can invest in universal, resilient health care; their populations have a right to [access]. “We’re calling on countries to support the stimulus to scale up affordable long-term financing by at least $500 billion per year, and to support the development of an effective debt-relief mechanism that supports payments, suspensions, longer lending terms and lower rates for developing countries that are drowning in debt – and create the fiscal space to spend on the health that people have a right to [enjoy].”
Winnie Byanyima, Executive Director of UNAIDS agrees, saying that future pandemic responses need to be based on technology-sharing to facilitate more equitable access to pharmaceutical and other medical products. Byanyima also expressed that many countries were disempowered to invest adequately in health and pandemic preparedness as they were paying debts that were larger than their health budgets.
World Bank Senior Managing Director Axel Van Trotsenburg welcomed the first anniversary of the pandemic fund, which received pledges from 133 countries worth $2 billion. Despite this “very good starting point”, Mr. Trotsenburg warned that $10 billion should be allocated to pandemic preparedness and called on Member States to provide the necessary resources.
In my view, it is accurate to call what is going on under the rule of the United Nations diplomatic fraud and an act of aggression. It is also accurate to have predicted that the United Nations will be the real power driving the WHO’s ambitions, or substitute itself.
Global Threats Council – another One World Government Toolbox
“Critics have also expressed misgivings about the ability of WHO, representing politically weak health ministries, to oversee and enforce the kinds of tough, binding commitments that would be needed for effective pandemic response. Those concerns have been behind the push to make UN fora platforms for pandemic debate and decisions.
Advocates for more UN-centred action have proposed the creation of an independent pandemic governance mechanism in the office of the UN Secretary-General, and/or a UN Global Threats Council, to oversee the implementation of any pandemic accord approved by WHO member states.
“I continue to believe that action at the head of state and government level is so needed to help break the cycle of panic and neglect, which sets in around pandemics and to sustain political momentum around preparedness and response,” said Clark, who has called for the creation of a UN-hosted Global Threats Council. “And then on accountability, independent monitoring of country preparedness is needed to guarantee our mutual assurance, compliance and accountability with international agreements.”
Juan Manuel Santos, former President of Colombia and a member of The Elders, believes that the UN may be the better forum as “pandemic preparedness encompasses far more than health”. Santos told a UN side meeting on Tuesday hosted by the Pandemic Action Network (PAN) that if the pandemic accord negotiations are still “mired in confusion” by the time the WHO Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) meets for the seventh time later this year, “someone has to say, enough, we need to shift it back to New York.”
“The world is inching closer to “a great fracture”, UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned as leaders converged in New York for #UNGA78. “It’s reform or rupture,” he said. I agree on the great fracture framing. The united front developed by these eleven countries – with a combined 154 other countries that also have objections about UN documents and processes – has cataclysmic implications for the United Nations – far too long a well oiled front for corporate colonialism and violent peace-making.
I am aptly reminded of the trailblazing stand that the 47 nation African bloc took at the World Health Organisation’s World Health Assembly 75 last year, where they raised objections to controversial International Health Regulation amendments, on the basis that they were rushed, and that they threaten national sovereignty – the WHO, unconvincingly, often denies any such threat.
At UN General Assembly 78, at least two presidents made compelling statements I find relevant to the seismic shift:
• Algeria’s president, Abdelmadjid Tebboune, called for reform and transparency in UN organs, particularly in reforming the Security Council. “Any effort to strengthen joint international action forces us to respond to the constant appeals to strengthen the multilateral system by reforming the main organs of our organisation in order to make them more transparent and ensure the necessary balance among the main organs and ensure equitable geographical distribution. This should be an absolute priority for the international community in order to find a consensus.”
• Paraguay’s President Santiago Peña, has called for reforms to strengthen the UN and bolster its ability to respond to global crises. “The lack of tangible results, inefficacy perceived in multilateral institutions and difficulties in addressing global problems in an effective manner have led to frustration and have led to an increase in the sense that national interests should prevail over multilateral cooperation,” he said from the podium.
Sanctions: inhumane unilateral coercive measures impacting health and sovereignty
Seismic shifts in geopolitics are leading to so-called LMICS (low to middle income countries) or EMDC’s (emerging and developing countries) to consider their cooperation options at a national, regional and inter-regional level. Emerging countries represent 80 percent of the world’s population, while billionaires own more wealth than the majority of their fellow citizens, and corporations can own more than the GDP of countries.
The threat of sanctions through the United Nations, influenced partly by the World Health Organisation as detailed in my July article, is one these countries have a lived experience of, and which seems to weighing in its overall fear factor, evidenced by multiple revolts.
The latest report of the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights clearly says: “Unilateral sanctions and over-compliance have a detrimental impact on implementation of all aspects of the right to health of all people in the countries under sanctions, including access to adequate medicine, healthcare facilities, medical equipment, access to qualified medical assistance, prevention and control of deceases, scarcity of health professionals, access to health facilities, training and access to up-to-date scientific knowledge, technologies, research, exchange of good practices.”
The UN and WHO have gone too far in their diabolical attempts to engineer a one world government. In weeks and months ahead, I anticipate more countries joining this coalition and asking themselves why they should remain members of the United Nations and the World Health Organisation. They will have growing support from their peoples, desperate to avoid further indignity, discrimination, exclusion, sanctions, lockdowns, censorship, coerced vaccines, digital ID’s, CBDC’s, and the erasure of the sovereignty we value.
Call to Action:
1. Raise your voice against the UN – WHO power grab. CHD Africa will deliver names and countries (only) to UN and WHO leaders (1 minute)
2. Share this article with your family, community, organisations, and media on all sides of the fence (as often as you can)
3. Share this article with your country’s political and diplomatic representatives (with urgency and please follow up)
4. Sign up to CHD Africa’s newsletter for news, analysis, updates and calls to action (immediately for full access)
5. Follow CHD Africa on Telegram and X (Twitter) for information, updates and calls to action (beat censorship!)
Author: Shabnam Palesa Mohamed is an award-winning activist, journalist, lawyer, mediator and socio-political analyst with combined experience of over 20 years. She is based in South Africa and serves as the executive director of Children’s Health Defense Africa.
Ukrainian flags over UK universities
Professor Dame Sally Mapstone
President
Universities UK
Woburn House
20 Tavistock Square
London WC1H 9HQ
11 September 2023
Dear Professor Mapstone
We have noted, with increasing concern, the practice of flying Ukraine flags above many universities across the United Kingdom. We are aware that UUK is a forum and does not direct the work of UK universities. Nevertheless, we wonder if the issue of Ukraine flag flying by UK universities has ever been discussed and, if it has not been discussed, if it should be.
In relation to this, we have several questions the first of which is ‘why?’ The conflict in Ukraine is not one in which our country is directly involved, although we are providing aid along with other western countries. However, we provide military aid to other regions of the world and have, until recently, been directly involved in military action in support of other countries. We do not recall at any time in our university careers having seen the flags of other nations being flown above any UK university. What is so unique about the conflict in Ukraine?
According to figures published by Clarivate in Research Professional News at the end of last year, there were 800 Ukrainian university students in the UK and over 3000 Russian students. Has anyone at UUK evaluated the consequences for the mental health and security of those Russian students? We are aware that not every Russian student will support their country’s military involvement in Ukraine; nevertheless, it could be alienating for them to see the Ukraine flag. How much more so for those Russian students who do support their country? It appears that they may have been judged and found guilty for merely being patriotic.
It is too easy to take sides, as many UK universities clearly have, in the conflict in Ukraine. That the immediate cause of the conflict is Russian’s invasion of a sovereign territory is indisputable. However, it also seems naïve, especially for seats of learning which exist to look beyond immediate facts, to analyse situations and to propose solutions, to make partisan displays of support.
As explained with meticulous supporting information in How The West Brought War to Ukraine by Benjamin Abelow, the roots of the conflict are deep. There are undeniably faults on both sides and some indisputably dangerous elements vying for position on both sides. Moreover, the west is not innocent in its ambitions regarding the region and courting NATO membership of Ukraine contrary to previous agreements with Russia about the status of countries on its borders, while ignoring overtures from Russia about NATO membership now seems very foolish. The presence of the Ukraine flag above UK universities defies these complexities.
We urge UUK to consider this matter and to urge its members to keep UK universities out of the conflict in Ukraine.
Yours sincerely
Professor Roger Watson
Honorary Professor
The University of Hull
Dr Niall McCrae
Workers of England Union
Russian response remains to be seen
BY STEPHEN BRYEN | ASIA TIMES | SEPTEMBER 23, 2023
Russian defense sources say that an ATACMS tactical ballistic missile was launched from Kulbakino Air Field in Ukraine. If the Russian report is correct then the Washington debate about sending tactical ATACMS missiles to Ukraine is fake, as they already are there.
The Russian report has not been confirmed. What is clear is that the Ukrainians used missiles to attack Sevastopol on September 21st, targeting Russia’s Black Sea headquarters. The historic HQ building was hit.
Reports say that President Biden told Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky that he agreed to send a “small number” of ATACMS missiles to Ukraine. Apparently Biden acted against Pentagon recommendations. Biden had been warned that ATACMS would be a war escalation. He was also told that there were not many ATACMS in inventory.
ATACMS has a range of around 300km. It is ground launched.
Kulbakino is the home of the 299th Ukrainian Tactical Air Brigade. It is located in Mykolaiv Oblast. It supports a number of aircraft – most importantly the Su-24M fighter-bomber, which has been modified to fire the Stormshadow cruise missile.
ATACMS is typically launched from the M270 MLRS (multiple-launch rocket system). It can also be launched from a HIMARS platform.
The M270 is a tracked, armored vehicle that supports launch tubes for missiles. It is based on the Bradley fighting vehicle chassis. It can fire one ATACMS missile and then the platform needs to be reloaded.
The M142 HIMARS is based on the Army’s MTV truck frame. Like the M270 MLRS, it can fire one ATACMS missile.
HIMARS already is in Ukraine so delivery of the missiles will not require any significant field modifications.
The US has only small stocks of HIMARS currently available. The US Marines, who operate HIMARS, need ATACMS in order to blunt any Chinese attack either on the Senkaku islands or aimed at Taiwan. The Marines have carried out joint exercises with Japan, where Japan test fired the M270 in a demonstration. However, with ATACMS in short supply, the Marines operated the vehicle but only simulated firing the missile.
Taiwan has also requested HIMARS from the United States, equipped with the accurate ATACMS system to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion. Taiwan has ordered 28 launchers and 864 missiles. These are supposed to be delivered between 2024 and 2027. However, if Ukraine gets the supplies instead, Taiwan will be forced to wait even longer.
Because of Biden’s decision the Germans will not be able to hide behind the US as an excuse not to provide the German-Swedish Taurus KEPD 350. Taurus, a joint product of MBDA Deutschland and Saab Bofors, is a long range cruise missile with a range of 500 km. It is launched by aircraft. Most likely, if Taurus cruise missiles are delivered to Ukraine, they will be operated by Ukraine’s Su-24s, although these are also in short supply. The systems on the Su-25 in Ukraine probably are not modern enough to support the Taurus.
Taurus has a range of 500km after launch. It carries a 481 kg MEPHISTO (multi-effect penetrator highly sophisticated and target optimized) warhead.
ATACMS has different types of warheads and it is not clear what will be sent to Ukraine. Originally the missiles had cluster munition warheads, but later that was changed to so-called unitary warheads.
The Russians understand that both Taurus and ATACMS are threats to Russian territory, exposing its cities, air bases, nuclear power plants and defense installations to heavy attack.
Most of what Ukraine has so far launched into Russian territory have been small drones. While drones have done some damage, many of them have been shot down. Russia does have layered air defenses, although they do not appear to be well integrated, and there are considerable coverage gaps.
Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, interviewed by ABC News, was asked, “Are you OK if Ukraine uses those missiles [ATACMS] to strike deep into Russia?” He replied: “Their decision, not ours.” Blinken knows very well that Ukraine needs support from US overhead intelligence for long-range strikes, something the Russians also understand very well.
The Russians have made clear that delivering these missiles to Ukraine is a significant escalation by NATO and the United States. It remains to be seen exactly how and in what ways Russia will respond.
By John-Michael Dumais | The Defender | September 21, 2023
From 1953 through 1987, an estimated 1 million people who passed through North Carolina’s Camp Lejeune Marine Corps base were unknowingly exposed to chlorinated solvents and other contaminants — up to 280 times the safe level for humans.
During that time, miscarriages and stillbirths were rampant. Many children were born with birth defects such as cleft lip or palate, brain stem issues or malformed organs. Some died from leukemia.
People who lived or worked at the base have suffered and died from cardiac defects, kidney disease, liver cancer, bladder cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, Parkinson’s disease and other ailments.
Many are still suffering today — and are still awaiting justice.
In 2022, President Biden signed into law the PACT Act (Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics), a part of which facilitates compensation for those who suffered at Camp Lejeune.
But the military continues to stonewall the process, leaving many — especially women who suffered miscarriages and stillbirths — out in the cold, according to an NBC News investigation published this week.
The human toll
Frank Bove, a senior epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), told NBC that exposure to trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, vinyl chloride and benzene, which found their way from Camp Lejeune into drinking water supplies, did not need to be long-term.
The chemicals could cause harm after only “days or weeks” — that’s long enough to damage a developing fetus.
Jeri Kozobarich was 24 and pregnant when she arrived at the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps training facility in early 1969, she told NBC.
At a reception, she approached another pregnant woman and asked, “When are you due?” The woman answered, “My baby’s dead.”
Two months later, during a routine checkup, Kozobarich learned the baby girl in her womb was dead.
“It turned out all the wives in the squadron, they all had either birth defects or they lost their babies,” she said. “Everyone was afraid.”
This story was echoed by other women interviewed for the investigation. One woman, LaVeda Kendrix, had one stillbirth and nine miscarriages during her time at the base.
Ann Johnson’s daughter, Jacqueta, was born with a cleft lip, a cleft palate and brain stem issues. She couldn’t breathe or swallow on her own.
“She couldn’t cry out loud,” Johnson told NBC. “You could see her open her mouth, and you could see tears roll down her [one] eye, but she couldn’t make any noise.”
Jacqueta died seven weeks later on the car ride home.
“For 39 years, this has been at the back of my head: ‘Did I do something wrong?’” Johnson said.
Crystal Dickens worked in the base’s motor pool as a mechanic beginning in the late 1970’s. Dickens was pregnant with twins after suffering three miscarriages in 1979, when she was told, during her six-month checkup, there was only one heartbeat.
Marine veteran Jerry Ensminger learned of the contaminated water from a news report, finally receiving an answer to the mystery of why his daughter, Janey, died of leukemia in 2007 at age 9.
Beth Steimel Barger, who lived at Camp Lejeune during her teen years from 1976-1982, told The Defender she developed ovarian cancer at age 26. At 33 she had a hysterectomy. Her mother developed breast cancer and had a double mastectomy.
Later genetic testing found no history of these cancers in her family, Barger said.
Other family members developed various cancers. A nephew developed Spondyloarthritis, inflammatory arthritis affecting the spine, when he was 10. Her father and sister have tremors.
Grady Edward Walker told The Defender he was 14 when his family in 1970 moved to Camp Lejeune, where his stepdad was stationed. They stayed until 1981.
His stepdad, who suffered multiple melanomas, passed 10 years ago from lung cancer. Grady’s niece was born with a single kidney and other chronic health complications.
Children’s Health Defense President Mary Holland told The Defender :
“What happened at Camp Lejeune is terrible: Service members and their families were forced to drink and use toxic water for decades due to the military’s gross negligence. The Marine Corp. knew of the toxicity but covered it up, and the ones who suffered were the most vulnerable. Pregnant women miscarried and had stillbirths, repeatedly.”
Justice delayed and denied
Despite the plethora of similar stories from Camp Lejeune, cases surrounding stillbirths, miscarriages, infertility and birth defects have been particularly difficult to litigate, attorneys told NBC News.
Many of the medical records needed to prove the arguments would now be several decades old and are incomplete or unavailable.
Claimants must also prove it was contaminated water that caused the ailments. Given the high rate of stillbirths in the U.S. — 1 in 175 pregnancies — and the prevalence of birth defects — 1 in 33 babies — that may be a tall order.
Attorney Andrew Van Arsdale, whose law firm represents 9,500 camp Lejeune claimants, told NBC the process could go on for decades.
The Navy Judge Advocate General’s office told Van Arsdale’s firm they were specifically looking for severe disease cases.
“They are not even looking at this miscarriage issue right now, because I think it is a complicated issue,” he said.
“It’s like we’re invisible,” said Kendrix, now 65 years old.
“There is no record whatsoever of my child who passed away in the womb,” Dickens said.
Camp Lejeune lawsuits, numbering over 1,100, are expected to comprise one of the largest mass litigations in history. Payouts could exceed $20 billion.
In June, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) urged the four federal judges overseeing the cases in the Eastern District of North Carolina to speed up the process of consolidating the cases.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been receiving claims for years for 15 of the illnesses and conditions related to the Camp Lejeune water contamination. But, according to Van Arsdale, progress has been slow. “They’re fighting us at every turn,” he said.
According to a 2022 report by the VA’s inspector general, the VA mishandled more than one-third of all disability claims related to Camp Lejeune water contamination, affecting more than 21,000 cases and resulting in a loss to veterans of nearly $14 million.
The majority of the denied claims were the result of the staff’s failure to request additional evidence of injury.
Responding to these issues, Congress passed the PACT Act. A section of that law, the “Camp Lejeune Justice Act,” allows individuals who were exposed to toxic water at Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987 to file a claim for compensation.
Since the PACT Act was signed, more than 90,000 administrative claims have been submitted to the Navy, but few have been resolved.
The PACT Act does not set a deadline for the resolution of claims, but allows for victims and families to sue in federal court if claims are not resolved after six months, according to Reuters.
Earlier this month, the Navy and DOJ announced a new fast-track program for injured veterans and family members.
However, those suffering injuries more than 35 years ago — before 1988 — are not eligible for compensation under the “elective option” published by the Navy.
The elective option does not cover cardiac birth defects, but does include an exception for “in utero” claims based on the mother’s “residential or occupational exposures for at least 30 days during the nine-month period before the claimant’s birth,” according to the Navy document.
Van Arsdale told NBC he thought the Navy’s offer was a “clever attempt” to “pick off desperate” victims who may not have much more time to live and who might therefore jump at a settlement now rather than wait for litigation.
According to an article Monday by Washington D.C. CBS affiliate WUSA9, claimants do not need a lawyer to file.
Under the PACT Act, the deadline to file a claim is Aug. 10, 2024 for injuries diagnosed or treated before Aug. 10, 2022 for those who had exposure for not less than 30 days.
Holland told The Defender, “While Congress’ Camp Lejeune Justice Act is a step in the right direction, it won’t bring back the dead or restore the ill to robust health. This was an avoidable tragedy.”
A history of negligence
Leaders at Camp Lejeune knew as early as 1980 that their water was contaminated, according to court filings by DOJ attorneys.
Yet, nothing was done.
In 1982, Camp Lejeune’s water supplies were formally tested and found to be contaminated.
One of the owners of the lab that performed the tests, Mike Hargett, told NBC he personally met with one of Camp Lejeune’s leaders to discuss the findings, but said he was dismissed in less than five minutes.
The worst of Camp Lejeune’s drinking water wells remained open until 1985.
“We swam in it. We drank the water. We bathed in the water. We were totally exposed,” Dickens said.
It wasn’t until 2008 that former residents of the base were notified, under congressional edict, that they may have been exposed.
“To have not shut down the wells for so long, to have hidden information for 20 years, and now the continued stonewalling is just despicable,” Barger told The Defender.
Retired Maj. Gen. Eugene Gray Payne told NBC leaders should have taken the warnings more seriously. “Someone dropped the ball badly,” he said.
Payne assumed leadership of Camp Lejeune in 2007.
During a 2010 congressional hearing, Payne said he and the base commandant had been told “over and over” that the water situation was “better than it was.”
Payne said the fear of backlash by those who had been negligent “would’ve been tremendous,” admitting that in a large bureaucracy like the Navy’s, such a cover-up is “a very real danger.”
Barger offered one possible explanation for the ongoing negligence. “I’m not making excuses,” she told The Defender, “But a contributing factor is that on these bases, the physicians are constantly changing, the commanding officer of the hospital is constantly changing, and in an age before computerized records, things can get lost.”
But, she agreed, the trail of lost babies should have been more than enough to spark an investigation years sooner.
Camp Lejeune’s contaminants
The contaminants at Camp Lejeune came from leaking underground storage tanks, waste disposal sites, industrial area spills and an off-base dry-cleaning firm.
Three of the bases’s eight water treatment facilities contained contaminants while serving mainside barracks and family housing at multiple locations.
A study published in Environmental Health in 2014 reported samples taken at Camp Lejeune between 1980-1985 primarily contained tetrachloroethylene (also known as perchloroethylene or PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE) and their breakdown products, trans-1,2-dichloroethyline and vinyl chloride.
Benzene was also found in the water but at officially safe concentrations.
The highest contamination level for TCE was detected at 1400 µg [micrograms]/L; for PCE it was 250 µg/L, and for vinyl chloride, 22 µg/L.
The current U.S. maximum contaminant levels for TCE, PCE are 5 µg/L, and for vinyl chloride, 2 µg/L.
TCE and PCE are commonly used as industrial degreasing solvents and are used in dry cleaning and in some refrigerants. PCE is used to remove oil from fabrics, as a carrier solvent, and as a fabric finish or water repellent. Both are known carcinogens.
TCE can smell sweet or be odorless, and its vapors can be absorbed directly through the skin. It breaks down slowly in water and soil, and quickly in air. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency:
“TCE has the potential to affect the developing fetus, irritate the respiratory system and skin, and cause light-headedness, drowsiness, and headaches. Repeated exposure to TCE has been associated with effects in the liver, kidneys, immune system, and central nervous system.”
PCE breaks down slowly in soil, water and air, evaporates quickly from water, and can travel long distances by air. According to the CDC:
“Breathing high levels of tetrachloroethylene for a brief period may cause dizziness or drowsiness, headache, and incoordination; higher levels may cause unconsciousness and even death.
“Exposure for longer periods to low levels … may cause changes in mood, memory, attention, reaction time, and vision.
“Studies in animals … have shown to cause cancers of the liver, kidney, and blood systems, and changes in brain chemistry.”
The 2014 study compared health outcomes at Camp Lejeune to those at a military base without water contamination issues. Marines and Navy personnel at Camp Lejeune faced significantly increased hazard ratios for all cancers, for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and for multiple myeloma.
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease), due to vinyl chloride exposure, had the highest mortality hazard ratio of all diseases in the study.
John-Michael Dumais is a news editor for The Defender. He has been a writer and community organizer on a variety of issues, including the death penalty, war, health freedom and all things related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | September 21, 2023
Another Covid booster approval using shocking new data has the many turning away for good from the FDA and CDC. Learn the facts about the new COVID-19 shot that was just approved for all Americans over the age of 6 months.
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | September 21, 2023
While virtually every US Health Advisor is recommending the new COVID-19 booster for everyone older than 6 months old this Fall, Florida Surgeon General, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, has taken a firm stance to urge healthy people under 65 to NOT get the booster. Hear about the lack of evidence of efficacy and the attacks he has endured from the mainstream media.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Alan Hart | June 4, 2012
In retrospect it can be seen that the 1967 war, the Six Days War, was the turning point in the relationship between the Zionist state of Israel and the Jews of the world (the majority of Jews who prefer to live not in Israel but as citizens of many other nations). Until the 1967 war, and with the exception of a minority of who were politically active, most non-Israeli Jews did not have – how can I put it? – a great empathy with Zionism’s child. Israel was there and, in the sub-consciousness, a refuge of last resort; but the Jewish nationalism it represented had not generated the overtly enthusiastic support of the Jews of the world. The Jews of Israel were in their chosen place and the Jews of the world were in their chosen places. There was not, so to speak, a great feeling of togetherness. At a point David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first prime minister, was so disillusioned by the indifference of world Jewry that he went public with his criticism – not enough Jews were coming to live in Israel.
So how and why did the 1967 war transform the relationship between the Jews of the world and Israel? … continue
 | Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate… |
 | Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa… |
 | Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals… |
| John Edward Kendrick on Colonel Jacques Baud & Nat… | |
 | eddieb on Villains of Judea: Ronald Laud… |
 | rezjiekc on Substack Imposes Digital ID Ch… |
 | loongtip on US strikes three vessels in Ea… |
| eddieb on An Avoidable Disaster |
 | Steve Jones on For Israel, The Terrorist Atta… |
 | cleversensationally3… on Over Half of Germans Feel Unab… |
| loongtip on Investigation Into U.S. Milita… |
| loongtip on Zelensky’s Impossible De… |
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 