The covid booster cancer time bomb
By Professor Angus Dalgleish | TCW Defending Freedom | January 30, 2024
I have previously reported on my concern about the rise in stable cancer relapses that I have witnessed in my melanoma clinic.
None of these patients of mine presented with the classic prodrome of relapse that I had always noticed previously, such as severe depression due to bereavement, divorce or bankruptcy. Indeed the only thing I found they had in common was to have had a recent booster mRNA covid vaccine. I phoned around my colleagues not only in the UK but also in Australia to check their experience. In no case did they deny such a link. Indeed, they were equally alarmed at the association between booster vaccines and relapse that they too were witnessing, as well an increase in new cancers, particularly in those below 50 years old. In addition to melanoma these colleagues were also very concerned about a sudden big increase in young patients with colorectal cancer.
Rather than instigating a proper inquiry to investigate this when we raised these concerns, the medical authorities told us all that what we were witnessing was a coincidence, that we had to prove it and above all, not to upset our patients.
Recently the American Cancer Society (ACS) has warned of a surge in new cancer cases in the US this lastyear of over 2million, with many of these cases occurring in younger patients. Indeed, the chief scientific officer of the ACS, William Dahat, announced in addition that cancers were presenting with more aggressive disease and larger tumours at the time of diagnosis, especially in younger patients. Of further interest it noted a difference in the microbiome (the community of micro-organisms such as fungi, bacteria and viruses that exist in a different environment) between patients under 50 compared with those over 50.
This surge mirrors a report from Phinance Technologies of late last year which analysed in detail data from the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) which showed that disability and deaths in 2021 and 2022 had increased dramatically in all age groups, but especially in the 15-44 age group.
The Lancet also published an article before Christmas reporting excess deaths post covid pandemic to be up by 11-15 per cent over than expected for under-25s and for between 25-49 year olds. This is in fact the pattern found in many countries that have looked at the data. Germany for example has reported excess deaths rising from 7 per cent in 2020 to 24 per cent in 2023.
What makes this all the more surprising is that negative deaths should be the norm after a pandemic as you cannot die twice!
The link between covid vaccines and myocarditis and early death particularly in the young, highlighted by Peter McCullough and colleagues as well as by Aseem Malhotra here in the UK, is incontestable. Now we have a confirmatory report from the CDC in the US, data that the authorities here have refused to act on so as not to alarm vaccinated patients!
Although it is obvious that these excess deaths are real and are continuing to rise, all we get from our Chief Medical Officer, Sir Chris Whitty, are risible attempts to explain away the increase, such as that it is a result of patients not getting their statins in lockdown (hey, patients under 55 do not get statins routinely!) The situation is no better in the US where Harvard researchers have put the blame on sleep disturbance!
The first obvious candidate is lockdown itself when the National Health Service became the National Covid Service and all screening was cancelled or delayed, resulting in an increase in cancer detection and late presentation. Many negative lifestyle factors almost certainly increased as a result of lockdown, such as a lack of exercise and too much food, especially takeaways.
What very few of these reviews consider is that this rise in excess deaths could be a result of the booster vaccine programme, even it clearly follows the vaccine rollout programme starting in 2021 and increasing in 2022 and 2023.
With regards to the link to cancer, there are numerous reports in the literature of cancers arising within days of the vaccines being administered, especially in the case of lymphomas and leukaemias. There are several reports of PET scan mapped tumours exploding at the site and draining area of covid injections with the advice to inject covid vaccines away from known cancers! Outside my clinical observations, several friends have developed cancer after a totally unnecessary covid booster taken only to facilitate travel.
For a possible association between a booster vaccine and the appearance of cancer we need a plausible scientific causal explanation. Unfortunately for those who still insist that these cases are mere coincidences, there are several compelling ones to choose from:
Firstly, it has been reported that T cell responses are suppressed after the boosters (not the first two injections) and that this is especially marked in some cancer patients.
Secondly, the antibody repertoire switches after the first booster from a protective IgG1 and IgG3 dominant B cell response to a tolerising IgG4 one, made worse by further boosters, as reported in a recent Science Immunology paper. As many cancers are controlled by effective T cell led immunity, the sudden perturbation of this control would clearly explain the development of B cell leukaemia and lymphomas, melanoma renal cell cancers and colorectal ones, all tumours which can respond to immunotherapy.
Another report by Loacker et al in Clin Chem Lab Med shows that mRNA vaccines increase PD-L1 on granulocytes and monocytes, which means they effect the very opposite of what the immunotherapy agents do against these tumours, and whichin turn explains why many of these tumours appear to be resistant to this otherwise effective therapy. Taken together, the effect on the immune response of these boosters can easily explain the relapses and so-called turbo-charged cancers appearing.
Other reports document the presence of DNA plasmids and SV 40 (a known cancer-inducing gene) sequences, as well as the ability of mRNA to bind to important suppressor genes. Although this is controversial and has been challenged, it has led to the realisation of significant batch-to-batch variation that could enhance the cancer process yet probably not manifest itself for a few years. The very possibility that we could be sitting on a vaccine-inducing cancer time bomb means that we must never again get involved into a mass vaccine programme for another possible Disease X.
But unless the government wakes up to this now, we will be at the mercy of the World Health Organization doing the very same thing when they decide to release the Disease X virus in order to take back control and destroy our lives all over again.
Fluoride Expert Squares Off Against EPA on Day 1 of Landmark Trial
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.| The Defender | February 1, 2024
After a nearly four-year delay, federal Judge Edward Chen on Wednesday heard opening statements in a lawsuit seeking to compel the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit water fluoridation in the U.S. due to fluoride’s toxic effects on children’s developing brains.
Food and Water Watch sued the EPA in 2017 — after the agency denied its petition to end water fluoridation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This week’s trial is the first to challenge the dismissal of such a petition. Other plaintiffs include Fluoride Action Network (FAN), Moms Against Fluoridation and other advocacy groups and individuals.
Fluoride’s neurotoxic effects on children’s brain development were not in dispute during opening statements and in testimony delivered by the plaintiffs’ first expert witness, Dr. Howard Hu, an internist and preventive medicine specialist, with a doctoral degree in epidemiology.
Instead, attorneys for both sides faced off over the question of what level of fluoride in the water supply poses a risk to the developing brain of fetuses and children.
Levels of fluoride found in drinking water in the U.S. are typically 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which is lower than the 1.5 mg/L levels found to be neurotoxic by the key reports discussed in the trial.
Attorneys for FAN argued that according to the EPA’s own guidelines for chemical risk evaluation — which they allege the EPA is failing to implement — fluoridating water at a dose that is so close to a known hazard level is too risky, especially given that children are exposed to fluoride from other sources in their daily lives.
They also argued the EPA’s failure to follow its own guidelines is unprecedented. The agency bans other regulated toxic chemicals, such as methylene chloride or trichloroethylene at levels much lower than the known hazard level to ensure the chemicals won’t pose a risk to human health.
And, they said, water fluoridation is unnecessary because the benefits to dental health come from the topical application of fluoride, not from its ingestion.
The EPA argued there is no compelling evidence that fluoride is a neurotoxin at the current levels used for fluoridation in the U.S. and that therefore water fluoridation doesn’t pose a risk to children.
Over two hundred million Americans drink fluoridated water, a practice that has been backed by public health officials and dental associations for decades.
If Chen decides fluoride poses an unreasonable risk, the EPA will have to revisit its rules on water fluoridation.
Fluoride regulation ‘long overdue’
Wednesday’s trial was picked after a June 2020 ruling by Chen that placed the trial on hold pending the release of the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) report on the link between fluoride exposure and neurodevelopment effects.
The report was released in draft form under court order in March 2023, after top public health officials at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) tried for almost a year to block its publication.
The NTP report concluded that fluoride exposure at levels equivalent to 1.5 mg/L is associated with lower IQ in children.
The second phase of the trial is scheduled to take place over nine days at the federal courthouse in San Francisco, with a Zoom feed available for up to 1,000 viewers to watch live.
FAN member Clint Griess told The Defender that fluoride regulation was long overdue, but he had confidence Chen was carefully considering the science. He said:
“This [phase of the trial] is long overdue. We won after the first trial in my opinion. The judge is being extremely cautious. He has recognized, in his own words, that ‘justice delayed is justice denied.’
“Here we are in 2024, and we are still delaying and denying justice to millions of Americans. I’m very glad we are finally here and our lawyers are doing a great job. And I have every confidence that we will be victorious.”
EPA must apply its own guidelines to fluoride
In his opening arguments, the plaintiffs’ attorney Michael Connett told the court it faced an issue of national importance, “whether the widespread addition of fluoride to water presents a risk of neurodevelopmental harm to children, including IQ loss.”
The EPA faced a similar question in the 1970s, he said, when it had to address the question of adding lead to gasoline.
The EPA was in a quandary, he said, because, at the time, there was no clear evidence that lead was damaging at the levels used. But the EPA decided the margin between the hazard level and the exposure level posed too great a risk — leading the agency to outlaw lead in gasoline.
Connett said that properly applying the EPA’s risk assessment framework for existing chemicals under TSCA is at the heart of the decision the court is facing regarding water fluoridation.
During the first part of the trial in 2020, the agency used the wrong standard to assess the evidence, he said, holding the plaintiffs to a burden of proof the EPA had never held anyone else.
Connett said:
“What you see in this trial is the clash of fundamentally different paradigms. On one hand, you have the sort of 70-year-old longstanding approach by the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and dental interests where basically it’s not a risk until you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 0.7 [mg/L] fluoride water is causing harm, and that’s been their approach.
“But that’s not how the EPA does business. They use risk assessment. And we are in a position where the plaintiffs are the ones explaining how the EPA is supposed to do risk assessment.”
The EPA’s risk assessment framework, he said, begins with determining whether and at what level a chemical poses a hazard through a dose-response analysis. Then it assesses community exposure. The third piece, he said, is that the EPA looks at the margin between the hazard level and exposure level.
Connett said there are two types of risk. The first is when human exposure exceeds the hazard risk, but that is very rare. For example, the EPA didn’t have that type of data when it decided to ban lead in gasoline.
Then, he said, there is inferred risk, where exposure is lower than the hazard level. This scenario focuses on whether that margin between hazard and exposure may put some people at risk. TSCA mandates the EPA protect the most susceptible people from risk, he said.
The EPA typically requires a margin of 30-fold to determine whether something has a risk. However, some are much higher — for example, tetrachloroethylene is banned at levels 89 times lower than the hazard level, and methylene chloride exposure is not allowed at levels 27 times lower.
In this case, he said, rather than inferring risk as it ought to, the EPA is requiring a risk hazard at the exposure level, which for fluoride is 0.7 mg/L.
Connett outlined the evidence the plaintiffs will present. It includes undisputed evidence that fluoride passes through the placenta and gets into the fetal brain. FAN also will present data from animal studies and human studies, including the NTP report at the center of the trial.
“The NTP found that a large number of studies have been published on fluoride and human IQ. In total, they identified 72 human studies, of which 64 found a connection between fluoride and IQ deficiency. Of the 19 highest quality studies, 18 found lowered IQ, a 95% consistency,” he said.
Connett introduced the first witnesses, Hu and Dr. Bruce Lanphear, professor of health sciences at Canada’s Simon Fraser University.
Connett also previewed evidence the EPA would introduce to attempt to show fluoride is not neurotoxic at low levels, namely a study conducted in coastal Spain by Jesus Ibarluzea, Ph.D., and published in 2022 after the NTP finished its systematic review.
That study did not find evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic at low levels. Instead, it found fluoride increased IQ for boys by 15 points — a finding Connett called “implausible.”
Connett told The Defender, “The EPA has never applied the principles of risk assessment to fluoridation and this case is finally getting them to confront the principles on this issue.”
Chen pushed back on EPA during opening comments
In its opening statement, the EPA argued that anything can be toxic at high levels. The agency’s attorney laid out the EPA’s core argument that there is not enough data showing fluoride’s neurotoxicity at low levels present in drinking water and the law requires a “preponderance of evidence” of risk.
He highlighted a line in the NTP report indicating that more studies at lower exposure levels were needed to fully understand the potential associations with neurotoxicity.
Chen paused the remarks to ask the EPA to confirm the NTP report did establish that with moderate confidence that fluoride caused neurotoxicity at 1.5 mg/L, a relatively low level, which the EPA attorney confirmed.
“Do you disagree with the NTP’s use of 1.5 [mg/L as a hazard level]?” Chen asked. The EPA’s lawyer said they did not.
The EPA also argued that TSCA says “must be a preponderance of the evidence that the chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk.”
According to the EPA, studies of fluoride’s neurotoxicity at low levels have mixed findings — some show there are statistically significant adverse effects at low levels and others found there are not.
Given that, EPA’s attorneys argued the data is “too inconsistent” to conclude that low-level fluoride exposure presents an unreasonable risk.
Chen interrupted the opening comments again to ask whether, as the plaintiffs argued, that uncertainty is precisely what should inform the discussion of risk. “If the outcome wasn’t lowered IQ but cancer or death,” he asked, “would that change things?”
The EPA closed by telling the judge that what matters for TSCA is whether 0.7 mg/L presents an unreasonable risk. Chen pushed back again, “Shouldn’t we consider that in context,” he asked, because fluoride exposure occurs through sources other than water?
The EPA named the expert witnesses it will call later in the case, including David Savitz, Ph.D., and the EPA’s Stan Barone.
‘The evidence is quite persuasive’
The first witness, Dr. Howard Hu, an environmental epidemiologist and chair of the Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California took the stand yesterday to begin the trial’s deep dive into the science.
Hu has authored more than 300 papers in peer-reviewed journals and published several studies on fluoride. He also advises the EPA and collaborates with its scientists on issues related to lead exposure.
In 1993, Hu co-founded the ELEMENT research project, a pregnancy and birth cohort funded by the EPA and the National Institutes of Health and used to study how prenatal exposure to environmental toxins, including lead, mercury and fluoride affects children’s neurodevelopment.
In such cohorts, researchers collect epidemiological data during pregnancy and then from children over their lifetimes to study a variety of health outcomes tied to environmental exposures.
More recently at San Diego, Hu analyzed data on fluoride and neurotoxicity from the MADRES cohort, comprised of Los Angeles County residents, largely Latino. That research is not yet published.
Hu testified about his research, which consistently finds a link between fluoride and lowered IQ in children.
One of his fluoride studies examined the ELEMENT cohort and found that prenatal levels of fluoride that appeared in maternal urine predicted offspring intelligence scores at ages 4 and 12, with IQ levels lower with incremental increases in maternal fluoride levels.
A second paper expanded the analysis of the 2017 paper and made similar findings. Hu said the neurotoxic effects of fluoride were the strongest in the nonverbal domains, which he said is similar to lead.
Hu also addressed other cohort studies that have different findings, such as the MIREC study in Canada or the Danish study referred to as Odense where the research was conducted, which Hu also used in some of his research.
For example, the MIREC study found sex-specific findings whereas the ELEMENT study did not. The Danish cohort study did not find statistically significant toxic effects.
Hu told the court that different sexes and demographics can have different life experiences that can account for different outcomes.
Overall, he said, his research supports the idea that fluoride at current exposure levels in drinking water is toxic.
Hu also discussed his concerns about the Spanish study the EPA is using as a basis to argue fluoride is not toxic at low levels. He testified it did not control for seafood consumption, which creates high levels of fluoride exposure. He testified it did not control for seafood consumption by pregnant mothers, which creates high levels of fluoride exposure and also has been shown to confer IQ benefits, so it could be a confounding factor in an analysis.
He also criticized the EPA’s opening statements. He said the EPA was presenting data as black and white. Epidemiology, he said, is moving away from characterizing things in that way. Even when a study, like the Danish Odense study, is “negative,” as the EPA put it, the data in the study can indicate a more nuanced reality.
On cross-examination, the EPA asked Hu to concede that the Spanish study was well done. Hu agreed but said he had serious reservations about it, which he had previously discussed.
The EPA also challenged the work he did with Grandjean reporting the Danish study. The results of the Danish study, which did not identify neurotoxic effects, were only published in 2023 as part of a “pooled” study where he and his colleagues used the Danish, Mexican and Canadian data to characterize the dose-effect of fluoride exposure, which the EPA’s lawyer implied was a form of selectively reporting results.
Hu told the court combining the studies increased the power of the analysis and the ability of the research to address questions of public health.
After his testimony, Hu told journalist Derrick Broze, “The evidence is quite persuasive that there is a negative impact of fluoride exposure on the neurodevelopment of children.”
The Defender is providing daily updates on the landmark trial pitting Fluoride Action Network against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency taking place in San Francisco, beginning Feb. 1.
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
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 “NO LIABILITY” aspect of the unlicensed, novel vaccine developed in 100 days is in-your-face in the WHO’s proposed treaty
BY MERYL NASS | FEBRUARY 2, 2024
The globalist lawyers who drafted the pandemic treaty definitely anticipated injuries from the 100 day vaccines. So what did they do? They made sure that all the nations signing up to the Treaty “shall shall shall” i.e., MUST give the WHO, its lawyers, the nations, the manufacturers, the doctors and anyone else involved a bullet-proof liability shield.
Just in case someone did not understand, they said it 3 times, 3 different ways, in 3 paragraphs. I screenshot what they said so there would be no confusion.
If you don’t want the mandated experimental vaccines for which nobody is liable, join us to fight against this nonsense. DoorToFreedom.org
https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb7/A_INB7_3-en.pdf
Microsoft CEO Says the Company Is Working To Address Election “Disinformation and Misinformation”
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | February 2, 2024
Concerns are growing over the role of Big Tech companies in moderating “misinformation,” particularly due to the fear that these corporations already wield significant power and influence which could potentially sway political outcomes, including elections.
Many worry that the concentrated power in these tech giants allows them to arbitrarily define what constitutes misinformation, leading to a situation where they could suppress certain viewpoints or information. This raises questions about the impartiality and fairness of such moderation, especially in the context of political discourse and the democratic process. The debate is fueled by the concern that these companies, due to their size and reach, could have a disproportionate impact on public opinion and electoral processes.
In an AI-focused interview with Microsoft CEO, Satya Nadella, it was revealed that Microsoft intends to combat alleged “disinformation” throughout the 2024 elections.
During his conversation with NBC’s Lester Holt on NBC Nightly News’ January 30 edition, Nadella was questioned about how AI might either assist or endanger the future election.
However, Nadella’s response seemed to imply a willingness to use technology for censoring content in pursuit of fighting what he identified as disinformation.
Nadella stated, “This is not the first election where we dealt with disinformation or propaganda campaigns by adversaries and election interference.
“We’re doing all the work across the tech industry around watermarking, detecting deep fakes and content IDs. There is going to be enough and more technology quite frankly in order to be able to identify the issues around disinformation and misinformation.”
Canada smears China over ‘interference’ in elections to fool its people, blindly follow US: expert
By Zhang Yuying | Global Times | February 3, 2024
After Canada released an assessment smearing China for “interference” on Thursday at a hearing investigating “foreign influence” in its past two elections, Chinese experts on Saturday pointed out that this is actually an attempt by the Canadian government to fool its people into supporting the policy of following the US to engage in strategic competition with China.
According to media reports, the assessment was released by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service at a hearing held to investigate whether foreign countries interfered in Canada’s past two elections, after the country smeared China as “meddling” and set up a commission to conduct an inquiry.
However, Canada’s repeated hype about China’s “intervention” in its elections was refuted by Chinese experts as an attempt by the Canadian government to gain social consensus supporting the country’s policy of following the US’ strategic competition with China.
Canada hopes that through such hype, its people’s fear and resistance to China will increase, so that they will give strong support to the Canadian government’s current policy and future direction toward China, which is to have competition and confrontation, Li Haidong, a professor at China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times on Saturday.
“Canada is blindly following the US, and wishes to show its “loyalty” through such acts,” Li added.
The expert also pointed out that by smearing China, Canada is sending a warning to local Chinese, as well as those who have extensive economic, trade and people-to-people ties with China, to reduce their contacts with the Chinese side. “This is a very unwise and foolish approach that undermines the comprehensive connection and mutual understanding between China and Canada,” Li said.
In response to Canada’s smearing, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said in May 2023 that China follows a foreign policy of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs, and is also firmly against interference by any country in other countries’ internal affairs.
“We have no interest in interfering in Canada’s internal affairs, including its elections, nor will we do any such thing. We urge Canada to abandon its ideological bias and Cold War mentality and stop making an issue of China,” said Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning.
Analysts noted that Canada’s repeated smearing will undoubtedly have a destructive impact on China-Canada relations. “Since elections involve politicians as well as high participation from all sectors of society, Canada’s false accusations against China not only undermine mutual trust and communication at the government level, but also disrupt people-to-people exchanges between the two countries,” experts said.
No Iranian base or advisors targeted by US strikes in Iraq, Syria: Diplomat
Press TV | February 3, 2024
Iran’s Ambassador to Damascus Hossein Akbari says no Iranian bases or military advisors have been targeted in deadly strikes by the US occupation forces on a number of sites in Iraq and Syria.
Akbari said on Saturday that contrary to claims, the attacks aimed to destroy Syria’s civil infrastructure amid the pro-Palestine actions undertaken by the resistance front.
He said the US government’s terrorist act on Friday night was carried out mainly to make up for Israel’s defeats in the Gaza Strip and strengthening armed Takfiri terrorists based on the borders of Iraq and Syria.
The US Central Command (CENTCOM) said in a statement on Friday that its forces had struck more than 85 targets “with numerous aircraft” during overnight raids on localities in Iraq and Syria.
The Syrian state media reported that the US aggression targeted positions in Syria’s eastern province of Dayr al-Zawr and the city of al-Bukamal near the Iraqi border, falling short of providing details on the extent of damage and the exact number of casualties.
Sixteen people were killed, among them civilians, and 25 injured in the US airstrikes in Iraq, Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani’s office said.
ISIS exploits US strikes to attack Iraqi forces in Anbar
The Cradle | February 3, 2024
The Iraqi army and the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMU) clashed with ISIS militants in western Anbar governorate on 3 February, an Iraqi security source told Al-Mayadeen.
The Iraqi Al-Nujaba satellite channel said that ISIS took advantage of the US bombing of targets in Iraq and Syria by launching an attack on the army and the PMU forces in the area of Kilometer 160 on the Al-Sakkar highway near the town of Rutba in Anbar.
The US has occupied the nearby Al-Tanf Base on the Syrian side of the border since 2015 and has used it to arm and train ISIS militants.
The US and allied intelligence agencies used ISIS to attack the Syrian and Iraqi armies as part of its effort to effect regime change in Damascus starting in 2011 and to depose Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki in 2014.
After ISIS conquered large swathes of Iraq and Syria, US forces turned against the group. With help from Kurdish forces, the US took control of much of the territory in Syria ISIS once controlled. In Iraq, the US partnered with Iraqi forces to retake Mosul.
Gulf-backed Syria researcher Charles Lister wrote in Foreign Policy on 24 January that ISIS is enjoying a resurgence and that 10,000 ISIS militants are detained within at least 20 makeshift prisons in US and Kurdish-controlled northeastern Syria, constituting an ISIS “army in waiting” and its “next generation.”
The comments raised fears the US may use ISIS militants to counter forces from the Islamic Resistance in Iraq (IRI), a coalition of Shia armed groups that seek to expel US forces from Syria and Iraq and end the Israeli genocide on Gaza.
Iraq summons US chargé d’affaires in protest over airstrikes
Press TV – February 3, 2024
Iraq has summoned the US chargé d’affaires in Baghdad to deliver a formal memorandum of protest over the overnight airstrikes on dozens of sites used by anti-terror resistance groups in the country.
The Iraqi Foreign Ministry announced in a Saturday statement that it is going to call in David Burger “in protest at the US aggression which targeted Iraqi civilian and military sites” due to the absence of Ambassador Alina L. Romanowski, the official Iraqi News Agency (INA) reported.
The statement said Iraqi officials will deliver an official note of protest regarding the strikes against locations in the towns of Akashat and Al-Qa’im in the western province of Anbar.
The Iraqi government said at least 16 people were killed in the US strikes. It condemned the “new aggression against” Iraq’s sovereignty. Civilians were among the fatalities, and 25 people were wounded in the bombings that targeted both civilian and security areas, a government spokesperson said.
“This aggressive strike will put security in Iraq and the region on the brink of the abyss,” the Iraqi government said, and denied Washington’s claims of coordinating the attacks with Baghdad as “false” and “aimed at misleading international public opinion.”
The presence of the US-led military coalition in the region “has become a reason for threatening security and stability in Iraq and a justification for involving Iraq in regional and international conflicts,” a statement from Prime Minister Mohamed Shia al-Sudani’s office read.
Syrian official news agency SANA also reported several casualties after the attacks in the desert region and border areas with Iraq.
US Central Command (CENTCOM) said its military forces struck more than 85 targets in the two countries “with numerous aircraft to include long-range bombers flown from the United States.”
“The airstrikes employed more than 125 precision munitions,” it added in a statement.
US President Joe Biden said in a statement on Friday that the strikes were the first in a series of actions by Washington in response to a recent drone attack that killed a number of soldiers at a remote US base in Jordan.
“Our response began today,” Biden said. “It will continue at times and places of our choosing,” he stated.
Three US soldiers were killed and about 40 others injured in the assault on the military base known as Tower 22 near the Jordan-Syria border on Sunday.
The Islamic Resistance in Iraq, an umbrella group of anti-terror fighters, claimed responsibility for the drone strike.
In retaliation for the latest flurry of US strikes in Iraq and Syria, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq announced it had conducted missile strikes against the Ain al-Asad Airbase, housing US occupation forces in the western Iraqi province of Anbar. The group also said it had staged missile and drone strikes against the strategic al-Tanf military base in southeastern Syria near the border with Jordan and Iraq, as well as the al-Khadra Village in Syria’s northeastern province of al-Hasakah.
EU Leaders Squander Another €50 Billion on Propping up Kiev Regime… and Self-Destruction
Strategic Culture Foundation | February 2, 2024
Finally, the European Union’s threats, blackmail, and arm-twisting have paid off to push through a giant €50 billion aid package to the hopelessly corrupt Kiev regime. This is while European farmers revolt against the EU leadership over higher energy costs and cheap imports from Ukraine that are putting them out of business and wiping out their livelihoods.
The EU leaders are committing the entire bloc of 500 million people to political suicide. The reckless cavalier attitude is something to behold. Bring on the pitchforks, Merci!
The 27 leaders of the European Union met in an emergency summit this week not to deal with the bloc’s mounting internal political, economic, and social problems but rather to lavish mountains of more aid on non-member Ukraine.
When the leaders held their last summit in December, it was a spectacle of back-biting and sordid wrangling. At that gathering, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban vetoed the allocation of more funds to the Ukrainian regime amid bitter recrimination and bickering. This time around, however, Hungary caved in to the intense pressure to agree on the package.
Days before the summit in Brussels this week, it was reported by the Financial Times that the European Council had drawn up plans to sabotage the Hungarian economy if Budapest persisted in not signing up for the massive aid plan. That speaks volumes about the perverse mindset at the apex of the EU bureaucracy. It demonstrates the undemocratic character of the bloc despite pretentious claims to the contrary.
Brussels had already frozen up to €10 billion in central funding for Hungary and there were reported threats to remove Budapest’s voting rights in the bloc’s decision-making which would have been a blatant violation of the EU’s declared principle of unanimity.
The allocation of €50 billion to a non-member state is astounding. Even more bewildering is that the latest largesse is only a fraction of the total aid that the EU leadership has pumped into Ukraine since the proxy war against Russia erupted in February 2022. Over the past two years, the European Union has given the Kiev regime an estimated €100 billion.
The United States and other Western allies have also plied Ukraine with another €100 billion. About half of this goes on weapons, while the other half pays for state financing.
As we have noted here previously, the cumulative funding by the West to Ukraine has far exceeded the historic Marshall Fund that the U.S. allocated to all of Europe for reconstruction following World War Two (about €170 billion in today’s money).
There is simply no precedent or justifiable rationale for this mobilization of financial support for Ukraine. This has all been done as a fait accompli by an elite class with no democratic mandate. No referenda have been conducted to consult the public about the inordinate expenditure. Indeed, polls indicate that the European public – like the American public – is opposed to their governments supporting Ukraine.
The Biden administration is vying with growing resistance in Congress to send Ukraine an additional $60 billion.
To boot, the Kiev regime under the puppet president Vladimir Zelensky is a byword for rampant corruption and repression. It is admitted by Pentagon sources that something like $400 million of military spending has been siphoned off by the Kiev junta. The real figure is plausibly even greater.
The grotesque allocation of financial resources to Ukraine has nothing to do with supporting democracy or defending the country from alleged Russian aggression.
EU leaders like German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen keep repeating a mantra about defending Ukraine because, they say, if it is defeated then all of Europe is in danger of Russian invasion. This is the most preposterous scaremongering by politicians who are ideologically blinded by Russophobia and slaves to propagating Western hegemony.
The latest €50 billion injection to a war-addicted Ukrainian regime is openly said to be for sustaining its government and paying for salaries and services. In other words, Ukraine is a failed state, and yet European citizens, workers, and farmers – who themselves are subsisting in hard economic times – are expected to bankroll a corrupt cabal.
Furthermore, the hardship that tens of millions of European citizens are enduring is a direct result of their political leaders and the Brussels bureaucratic elite pandering to the United States’ agenda of hostility towards Russia.
That U.S.-led aggression, which can be traced back to the CIA-instigated coup in Kiev in 2014 to bring a NeoNazi regime to power, has sabotaged Europe’s economy. European leaders have treasonously served Washington’s geopolitical interests and not those of ordinary Europeans. The insane imposition of sanctions on Russia has led to huge hikes in energy prices which has decimated European businesses and the living standards of consumers, workers, and farmers.
The higher costs of production are a major factor in the surging protests across Europe by farmers. Another factor is the EU’s undemocratic import of cheaper agricultural produce from Ukraine as a sop to the Kiev regime. Those imports have undermined farmers all across Europe, in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Hungary, and the Baltic countries.
The scandalous abuse of European funds to prop up a corrupt fascist regime that violently suppresses political opponents, media, and the Orthodox Church, and glorifies Nazi collaborators, has one fundamental purpose – to prolong a proxy war against Russia. That war’s objective is for eventual strategic subjugation.
The Western regimes are so bankrupt and impotent in the face of their broken capitalist economies that they are seeking to exploit Russia’s vast natural wealth. This is the continuation of the Lebensraum policy of Nazi Germany by Western imperialists.
Ukraine has lost the proxy war against Russia. It is a shameful, criminal debacle. Up to 500,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed over the past two years by superior Russian forces. The vile Kiev regime, of course, wants to keep the war racket going for its insatiable grifting. Washington and its European vassals in high office want to keep the war going out of elitist imperial ambition, an ambition that is ultimately futile in the new emerging multipolar global order.
While European leaders were ensconced in the European Council in Brussels, the parliament was blockaded by angry farmers from all over Europe. Protesters were calling out politicians by name. The contempt is palpable. Paris and other capitals across Europe are being besieged by motorway chokepoints. National economies are on the brink as a result.
One might even perceive that European farmers in France, Germany, Belgium, and elsewhere, are implementing tactics similar to the Yemenis in the Red Sea. Squeeze the chokepoints and watch the empire writhe.
You couldn’t make this farce up. European elitist regimes are waging war in Europe against nuclear-powered Russia by wasting the public’s money to lavish a Neo-Nazi mafia in Kiev and by doing so making the lives of European citizens even harder. The upshot is political and economic suicide for the European Union.
The EU is holding parliamentary elections in June amid the dramatic rise of anti-EU or Eurosceptic parties. Two years of senseless war in Ukraine is fomenting popular disgust with the elite class. The anger out there may not even be contained by voting in elections. The fury seems to be beyond making little Xs in a box. A collapse is coming and heads are going to roll.
Pentagon, Raytheon Sign Contract Worth $68.4Mln for Delivery of 50 Missiles to Taiwan
Sputnik – 03.02.2024
The US Department of Defense has signed a contract worth $68.4 million with the Raytheon defense-industrial company for the production and delivery of 50 air-to-ground missiles to Taiwan, the Pentagon said on Saturday.
“Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona, was awarded a $68,420,396 modification (P00001) to a firm-fixed-price order (N0001924F2560) … This modification exercising an option for the production and delivery of 50 Joint Standoff Weapon Air-To-Ground Missiles (AGM-154 Block III C) for the government of Taiwan,” Pentagon said in a statement.
The work under the contract is expected to be completed in March 2028, the statement read.
Taiwan has been governed independently of mainland China since 1949. Beijing views the island as its province, while Taiwan — a territory with its own elected government — maintains that it is an autonomous country but stops short of declaring independence.
Beijing opposes any official contacts of foreign states with Taipei and considers Chinese sovereignty over the island indisputable. In response to visits of high-ranking US delegations to Taiwan in 2022 and 2023, the Chinese military launched large-scale drills near the island, in what it called a warning to Taiwanese separatists and foreign powers.
Canada to Hand Over 1980s-Designed CRV7 Missiles to Ukraine
Sputnik – 03.02.2024
The countries of the collective West, led by the United States, have been providing military aid to Ukraine since the start of Russia’s special military operation in February 2022 in the amount of hundreds of billions of dollars.
Canada may transfer CRV7 air-to-surface missiles to Ukraine that were developed in the 1980s and taken out of service in the early 2000s, according to Canadian broadcaster CBC, citing a representative of the country’s Defense Ministry.
“The federal Conservatives are demanding that the Liberal government donate to Ukraine tens of thousands of surplus air-to-ground missiles that were scheduled to be scrapped,” the material said.
At the moment, Canada has about 83,300 missiles in its arsenal, part of them already without warheads, according to CBC.
The leader of the opposition Conservative Party of Canada, Pierre Poilievre, also demands that these munitions be sent to Kiev. According to him, it is better to give these weapons to Ukraine than to make Canadians pay millions of dollars to decommission them.
Earlier, on January 1, Volodymyr Zelensky held talks with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, thanking him in particular for the delivery of additional NASAMS air defense systems and shells. However, later, on January 9, CTV News reported that Kiev had not received the NASAMS air defense missile system that Canada had promised to purchase from the US for the needs of the Ukrainian military.
The CRV7 air-to-surface missile, an outdated weapon from the past, is no longer in use due to advances in technology and the development of more sophisticated missiles. Designed for use during the Cold War, these missiles have been replaced by more accurate, faster, and more versatile ones with greater range, payload capacity, and precision guidance systems.