Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Millions Face New Fluoridation Threats

By Stuart Cooper | Fluoride Action Network | June 21, 2022

The published science over the past decade has taught us a lot about water fluoridation, about both the very real and significant side effects inflicted on the public, but also about the credibility of those who continue to vouch for its safety.

At this point, the question we must ask isn’t whether the overwhelming risks outweigh the theoretical scant benefits, or whether more research is needed to draw strong conclusions. No, the only appropriate question now is: How much more harm will the promoters and regulators of fluoridation allow the practice to inflict on the public?

Without the Fluoride Action Network, our coalition partners, and people like you taking a stand, their answer will be a resounding, “a lot more harm!” With their credibility and influence at stake after defending fluoridation for more than 75 years, they’ve sadly shown that they’ll not only be the last to act, but that they plan to double down until we stop them.

As we speak, tens of millions of residents currently living on community water systems with no added fluoride throughout the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand are facing the imminent threat of having their water dosed with hazardous fluoridation chemicals.

The CDC has announced a new strategy and helped develop a new technology to fluoridate an addition 19+ million Americans, which will also eventually expand to Canadians, Australians and likely others.

Meanwhile, the governments in the U.K. and New Zealand have exploited the recent pandemic to pass sweeping health care reform bills that effectively include nationwide fluoridation mandates due to decades of strong pushback from residents and elected officials at the local level, keeping fluoridation at bay.

Fluoride Has Already Damaged the Teeth of Millions

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s own data taken from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) has repeatedly found that our children in the United States are significantly overexposed to fluoride, evidenced by skyrocketing rates of dental fluorosis.

Fluorosis is a biomarker of toxicity from ingested fluoride, and is a permanent tooth defect, causing unsightly discoloration and mottling of the teeth, weakening the enamel and resulting in increased dental decay.

Ingesting fluoridated water — particularly in reconstituted infant formula — and processed foods made with fluoridated water are recognized as the primary sources of exposure, though swallowing toothpaste and fluoride prescriptions also contribute.

A 2015 review of the practice of fluoridation by the Cochrane Collaboration, the gold standard for evidence-based reviews of health interventions, found that “there is a significant association between dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern or all levels of dental fluorosis) and [water] fluoride level.”

The CDC reported that 41% of adolescents (12 to 15) had dental fluorosis in 2004. At the time this was an increase of over 400% from the rates found 60 years prior. Then the 2012 survey found that the rate jumped significantly to 65+% of adolescents with dental fluorosis.

Now, according to a recent study (Yang, June 2021) published in the journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety using the data from the NHANES 2015-16 survey, the “prevalence of dental fluorosis was 70% in the U.S. children.”

This means that the teeth of millions of children, teens and adults have already been damaged by overexposure to fluoride during development, and the CDC, along with the other promoters of fluoridation are fully aware. However, the teeth are not the only tissues in the body that are harmed by or accumulate fluoride. There is no apparent reason, therefore, why fluoride’s effects on the body would be limited to the teeth. As noted by renowned dentist and researcher Dr. Hardy Limeback:

… it is illogical to assume that tooth enamel is the only tissue affected by low daily doses of fluoride ingestion.

NHANES data has been used in recent published and peer-reviewed studies to link fluoridated water with a number of additional side-effects, including earlier onset of menstruation for black teens, sleep disorders in adolescents, increase uric acid levels in the blood, and kidney and liver impairment in adolescents.

Additional studies on fluoridation have also recently found higher rates of hip fractures, disruption of the endocrine system, and increased rates of hypothyroidism.

Fluoride Is the New Lead

There is now a large body of government-funded research indicating that fluoride is neurotoxic, and is associated with lowered IQ in children and a significant increase in ADHD diagnosis and related behaviors in children at doses experienced in fluoridated communities. Experts in the toxicology have likened the size of the effect to that from lead.

To date, 69 human studies, most from endemic fluorosis areas in China, have associated lowered IQ with fluoride exposure. The highest quality fluoride brain studies have been published since 2017, when the first of five NIEHS-NIH (National Institutes of Health) funded prospective-cohort studies was published (Bashash et al., 2017) finding an association between fetal exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ in Mexico.

A year later, another NIH-funded study found an increase in ADHD symptoms associated with in utero exposure to fluoride (Bashash et al., 2018).

Over the next two years, two more of these government-funded studies found similar results, linking fetal exposure to fluoridated water in Canada to lowered IQ (Green et al., 2019), and finding that bottle-fed infants in fluoridated communities in Canada had a significantly lowered IQ compared to bottle-fed infants in non-fluoridated communities (Till et al., 2020).

And just last year, the fifth NIH-funded study (Cantoral et al, 2021), found that for every 0.5 mg increase in dietary fluoride intake during pregnancy was associated with a 3.10 to 3.46-point lower cognitive score in boys. The authors stated:

“Fluoride is not an essential nutrient and … fluoride ingestion in pregnancy does not strengthen enamel during tooth formation in the fetus but has been associated with increased risk of neurotoxicity, even at optimal exposure levels …

These findings suggest that the development of nonverbal abilities in males may be more vulnerable to prenatal fluoride exposure than language or motor abilities, even at levels within the recommended intake range.”

I strongly urge you to watch and share this recent 20-minute PowerPoint presentation by professor Christine Till, Ph.D., lead author of some of these landmark fluoride studies, explaining her team’s research and findings.

In 2021, the first benchmark dose analysis conducted on maternal fluoride exposure and neurotoxicity to the fetus was published in the journal Risk Analysis (Grandjean, 2021). Benchmark doses analyses are used by the EPA and toxicologist to determine at what level a substance starts to cause harm. It is well established that a loss of one IQ point leads to a reduced lifetime earning ability of $18,000.

The analysis confirmed that extremely low fluoride exposure during pregnancy impairs fetal brain development, finding that a maternal urine fluoride concentration of only 0.2mg/L — which coincides with the level in water (0.2ppm) — was enough to lower IQ by at least 1 point.

This is four times lower than the current government “recommended” level of 0.8ppm in fluoridated communities. It’s also six times lower than the level that was recommended as “safe” by the CDC, HHS, and the American Dental Association for over 60-years up until 2011 (1.2ppm).

For perspective, A urinary fluoride (UF) concentration of 0.2mg/L is far below what a pregnant woman in a fluoridated community would have, as confirmed by two recent studies. A recent study of pregnant women in fluoridated San Francisco, California, found a mean UF concentration of 0.74mg/L. A second study with participants in fluoridated communities across Canada found a mean UF concentration of 1.06mg/L.

Both studies also found that the UF levels were significantly lower for the participants living in the non-fluoridated communities. The authors of the benchmark dose analysis stated:

“These findings suggest that fetal brain development is highly vulnerable to fluoride exposure … and provide additional evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant (i.e., causing adverse effects on brain development in early life).

Given the ubiquity of fluoride exposure, the population impact of adverse effects from fluoride may be even greater than for other toxic elements like lead, mercury, and arsenic … and the benchmark results should inspire a revision of water fluoride recommendations aimed at protecting pregnant women and young children.”

These authors are hardly alone in comparing fluoride’s neurotoxic impact to the well-established harm of lead:

  • Dr. Dimitri Christakis, MPH, and Dr. Frederick Rivara, MPH, editors for the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on their podcast (around 4:25): “[The 4.5 IQ loss is] An effect size which is sizeable — on par with lead.”
  • Christine Till, PhD, co-author of several landmark fluoride/neurotoxicity studies, on Canada’s CTV: “4.5 points is a dramatic loss of IQ, comparable to what you’d see with lead exposure.”
  • David Bellinger, Ph.D., MSc, Harvard professor of neurology, on NPR: “It’s actually very similar to the effect size that’s seen with childhood exposure to lead.”

Other experts, including Linda Birnbaum PhD, former Director of the National Toxicology Program, stress the need to avoid fluoride:

“Given the weight of evidence that fluoride is toxic to the developing brain, it is time [to] protect pregnant women and their children [and recommend they] reduce their fluoride intake.”

There are now nine fluoride mother-offspring studies linking fluoride exposure to harm, and 23 studies published on the association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ since 2017.

How FAN Responded to the Science

Because of the growing list of published fluoride-IQ studies, and the downplaying of their importance by pro-fluoridation advocates such as the Division of Oral Health at the CDC and the American Dental Association, FAN embarked on two initiatives in 2016.

First, we requested the National Toxicology Program undertake a systematic review of ALL the studies (animal, human and cellular) pertaining to fluoride’s potential to damage the brain. The NTP agreed with our request, and they plan to publish the final results of their multiyear review of fluoride neurotoxicity any day now. In the two first drafts the NTP concluded, “that fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans …”

The review drafts identified over 100 studies showing adverse effects including IQ loss and increased ADHD. Among 27 studies designated as high quality, 15 show fluoride injury at the same exposure levels found in community fluoridation programs.

Second, we petitioned the EPA under provisions in the Toxic Substances and Control Act to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridation chemicals to the drinking water supply because it poses an unreasonable risk to the developing brains of children. The EPA’s lack of action led to FAN suing them in federal court.

The initial phase of the trial was held in June 2020, concluding with the judge saying, “I don’t think anyone disputes that fluoride is a hazard.” However, the court is awaiting the final NTP report before moving forward with the final phase of the trial. Here is a short video update on the lawsuit from FAN’s attorney.

This past year, FAN embarked on a two more initiatives. We communicated with the U.S. surgeon general about the risk posed by fluoridation to developing children, and asked that he take action to warn parents.

We also initiated a dialogue with CDC officials (see initial letter signed by 112 professionals) that ultimately led to them organizing presentations for their leadership from several fluoride/neurotoxicity study authors, Dr. Bruce Lanphear, Christine Till, Ph.D., and Dr. Philippe Grandjean on their research.

How Promoters Have Responded to the Science: A New Threat

It has been six months since the CDC heard the presentations on neurotoxicity from the three veteran researchers, and it’s been over a decade since the CDC acknowledged that fluoridation has damaged the teeth of millions.

Yet, the CDC, along with the EPA, World Health Organization, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Dental Association and their state level peers not only have failed to warn residents about the dangers posed by fluoridation, but have continued advocating for fluoridation expansion in spite of the science.

The CDC has partnered with the chemical industry to target 19 million residents in 32,000 small and medium sized communities across the United States that do not add fluoridation chemicals to the public drinking water. Using your tax dollars, the CDC provided upward of $2 million dollars in funds to private business to develop a fluoridation delivery product for water systems serving between 50 and 10,000 people.

The widespread sale and promotion of this new product began in January throughout the U.S., but is also planned for Canada and Australia in the near future. The American Dental Association has joined the CDC in pushing this new strategy.

In July of 2021, the CDC held a “Public Health Grand Rounds” presentation on fluoridation. While there was no mention of the large number of new studies linking low levels of fluoridated water to neurotoxicity, it was an infomercial for a new technology that the CDC and ADA were calling “a game changer” in their efforts to expand fluoridation.

Below is a slide from that presentation, where you can see they intend to increase the percentage of fluoridated water systems from 73% to 77% — representing 19 million people on 32,000 water systems — by 2030.

This goal isn’t exactly new. The CDC and ADA have utilized a number of strategies over the past decade to expand the practice, but largely due to FAN and our network of local volunteers and professionals, the number of fluoridating communities has actually decreased, while the population served has increased slightly due to urban growth.

To accomplish this significant increase over the next eight years, they intend to utilize a new fluoridation system specifically designed to be simple and cheap enough for even the smallest water systems, which could include private systems, or even colleges and public schools.

They’re calling it the “New Wave Fluoridation System.” It utilizes compacted sodium fluorosilicate in a tablet form designed to dissolve over time in a small amount of water, much like the deodorizer tablets used in urinals.

We have learned that this process started in 2013, when CDC’s chief fluoridation engineer, Kip Duchon, suggested that the CDC help develop a product that was feasible for small and rural communities. Soon thereafter the CDC announced a Small Business Innovation Research grant opportunity — providing upward of $2 million — for private business to develop and test the idea.

KC Industries, of Mulberry, Florida, was awarded at least two large grants, one to develop the tablet and the other to develop the injection/feeder system.

KC Industries is a small chemical manufacturer with a handful of employees. According to their website, “The plant was built by Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation and began producing Sodium Fluorosilicate in 1957 as a raw material to manufacture aluminum.”

KC Industries purchased the facility in 1999 and appears to have focused heavily on the “dry” fluoride drinking water additive market with sodium fluoride. Here is their page on their sodium fluoride product; it’s worth a quick look.

Over the past 20 years, more communities have switched their additive to fluorosilicic acid, which is an incredibly dangerous and corrosive liquid, but is cheaper. This led to a massive decline in sales of dry additives, and KC Industries’ profits.

According to their press release, they were struggling until the CDC’s grant, which they say provided “a new lease on life” for the chemical company. They’re expecting “an immediate return on investment” as communities clamor for the new system.

KC Industry representatives have said that interest in the system has come from around the world. The first community to use the product as part of a free pilot project is Cleveland, Georgia. Other communities that have signed on include Marathon, Wisconsin; Center, Colorado; and Aulander, North Carolina. The Missouri state legislature has also included nearly $4 million in funding over the next few years to go toward grants to expand the program in their state.

The CDC employee who initiated this process, Kip Duchon, has retired from the CDC and is now a consultant to the ADA’s National Fluoridation Advisory Committee.

The ADA has already called it a “game-changer” and lobbied Congressional members to include taxpayer funding for this technology in the recent infrastructure bill intended to help economy out of the pandemic.

Meanwhile, the CDC also continues to give very large taxpayer-funded grants to states to pay for public relations campaigns to promote fluoridation.

Pandemic Exploited to Mandate Fluoridation in UK, New Zealand

Even worse than what is happening in North America with the new tablet fluoridation system, is the recent passage of legislation in both the United Kingdom and New Zealand, transferring authority over fluoridation from local officials (and indirectly the public) to unelected public health bureaucrats who have vowed to mandate the practice throughout their respective nations without concern for what the public wants.

Both nations include fluoridation resolutions as part of a much broader legislative effort to centralize public health decisions in response to the pandemic. The U.K. and New Zealand will now join Ireland and Singapore as the four public health outliers in a world that has overwhelmingly rejected fluoridated water.

Last year, the New Zealand government revived, amended and passed a bill that was introduced in 2016, but lacked enough support for passage. As introduced, the bill would have moved fluoridation decisions from local councils — where they reside presently — to district health boards.

However, the current government amended the language to centralize fluoridation authority even further, by giving full control to the director-general of health, Dr. Ashley Bloomfield. Using this process defied the normal democratic process, with no select committee, community consultation or public input. Local councils (and local taxpayers) will be responsible for all capital and operational costs.

Like the CDC, government officials and public health officials were warned in advance of the harm their decision would cause, yet they ignored it.

Some local leaders have quickly made their opposition to this proposal heard, including the mayor of Whangarei, Sheryl Mai, who said, “People who drink water from the tap will be mass medicated whether they want to be or not.”

Mayor Greg Lang of Carterton, and Mayor Alex Beijen of South Wairarapa, both opposed the measure because it took councils, consumers and ratepayers out of the decision. Officials in Christchurch and Southland have also recently voiced opposition, saying safety is a greater priority than fluoride. Clearly, there is still a chance for those communities that push back against this proposal.

In the U.K., decades of efforts by the government to expand fluoridation stalled having reached only 10% of the population. Efforts to fluoridate Northern Ireland failed miserably with 22 councils voting against the measure. Scotland too remained unfluoridated. Efforts over the last two decades to fluoridate Southampton, Manchester, and Hull also failed.

As a result, Prime Minister Boris Johnson proposed an addition to the large Health and Care Act that would effectively mandate fluoridation by giving the health secretary, Sajid Javid, unilateral power to force communities throughout the country to add fluoridation chemicals to the public water supplies.

FAN coordinated with locals to mount opposition to this proposal, including a series of public letters from British scientists accusing public health officials of ignoring the science. The opposition culminated on the floor of the House of Lords, where a number of members spoke out against the proposal, including Lord Reay, who warned of the dangers posed to developing children.

Since passage into law, FAN has made an official submission to the government urging the Department of Health and Social Care to perform a health risk assessment on the effects of fluoridated water on the pregnant woman, the fetus and the formula-fed infant, before implementing fluoridation into the U.K. No regulatory agency in any fluoridating country has ever done this.

However, as the U.K. is contemplating expanding fluoridation to the whole country, it is essential that this is done before they embark on this program.

The Last Line of Defense

I want to conclude by asking the same question I asked at the beginning of this article, but rephrased: How much more harm will YOU allow the promoters and regulators of fluoridation to inflict on the public?

As I write this, millions of developing babies and infants are being overexposed to fluoride from their fluoridated tap water. The research has shown that there is no safe amount of fluoride for the fetus or infant. All will be impacted, some significantly more than others.

Please help us defend these vulnerable children and give them the gift of normal brain development. Help us also protect other vulnerable subpopulations, including those with hypersensitivities, dental fluorosis, bone brittleness and kidney, liver, or thyroid impairment.

The Fluoride Action Network is a nonprofit advocacy group set up in 2000 to broaden awareness among citizens, scientists and policymakers on the toxicity of fluoride compounds. It maintains the largest online database for fluoride toxicity studies, and has helped many of the 300+ communities that have ended or rejected fluoridation chemicals since 2010.

We’re amplifying the voices of a growing chorus of renowned international experts in toxicology, neurology and environmental toxins, warning the public about fluoridation, and educating and recruiting more to speak out.

We’ve captured the surgeon general’s and the CDCs’ attention, made progress with our federal lawsuit against the EPA, helped communities come together to fight fluoridation, and worked with state legislators to defeat mandate bills and support prohibition efforts.

Can you help us continue defend our water and our health, and expand our efforts as new threats arise here in North America and around the world in the United Kingdom and New Zealand? Will you stand with FAN?

Fluoride Awareness Week – Your Help Is Needed

On June 20 to June 26, we launch Fluoride Awareness Week. We set aside an entire week dedicated to ending the practice of fluoridation. There’s no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of artificial water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), has a game plan to END fluoridation worldwide.

Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

June 22, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

WEF’S SCHWAB WAS ‘OPTIMISTIC’ FOLLOWING BRUTAL MURDER OF UK MP

Amazing Polly | June 20, 2022

In the run-up to England’s Brexit vote, Klaus Schwab makes a startling – and ice cold – analysis. Must hear! *** Thank you to everyone who has sent a gift of financial support. To contribute click: https://amazingpolly.net/contact-support.php ***
VIDEO: https://youtu.be/HTmzbSFNK2c?t=1863

June 22, 2022 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

If you don’t want to have a Covid vaccine, get a job enforcing vaccine mandates.

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | June 21, 2022

Last week the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) quietly sent round a memo exempting officials from vaccine mandates. Why is this so hypocritical? Well, because the officials they were exempting from the vaccine mandate were officials hired to enforce the very same vaccine mandate.

So it seems the easiest way to get around the vaccine mandate is to get a job enforcing the vaccine mandate.

I’ve probably said vaccine mandate a few too many times now, so here is the memo itself.

The Biden administration first announced the mandates back in August 2021, stating that healthcare and nursing home staff must be COVID-19 vaccinated or lose funding. After legal challenges, different deadlines were imposed with the final deadline occurring on 21 March 2022.

Vaccine mandate deadlines encouraged/forced (take your pick) employees to get vaccinated with uptake rising from 63% to 88% in a number of months. Doctors, nurses and staff who still decided that vaccination was not for them, lost their jobs.

In February, the CMS warned state survey agencies that they must enforce all federal health and safety requirements or lose federal financial support. Although it didn’t explicitly say so, this was widely recognised as a warning to Florida and other states that had said they would not enforce vaccine mandates. Furthermore, the CMS said they would bring in outside surveyors if states did not comply with their directives.

CMS surveyors were given the role of evaluating whether healthcare workers were complying with federal vaccine mandates. They stated that staff vaccination under 100% would constitute non-compliance. However, the extremely reasonable CMS (sarcasm) said that any facility with over 80% of its staff vaccinated would be given 60 days to reach 100% without further action being taken.

Brian Harrison, state representative of Texas and former chief of staff for the Department of Health and Human Services under the Trump administration, said in an interview with Newsmax “This shows that the Biden administration is truly authoritarian and these mandates never had anything to do with public health in the first place, but sadly and tragically, they had much more to do with giving the federal government more control over our lives. These mandates must end.”

Harrison thinks that after the CMS enforced the mandates on its own surveyors, they were unable to live under the same rules. “They couldn’t take it. So instead of taking down the mandate, which would have been the normal common sense solution, they just exempted their own government contractors instead of all the Americans.”

Rules for thee, not for me.

June 21, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite | , , | Leave a comment

Von Der Leyen’s Proposal to Reduce Heating Temperature by 2 Degrees ‘Naive’, Analysts Say

Samizdat – 21.06.2022

BRUSSELS – The proposal voiced by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to lower domestic thermostats in Europe by 2 degrees Celsius to replace gas supplies from Russia’s Nord Stream 1 is “incredibly naive,” energy experts said on Tuesday.

On Monday, the EC head said that Europeans can replace gas supplies coming via Russia’s Nord Stream 1 pipeline by lowering the heating or air conditioner temperatures by 2 degrees, adding that the EU has comprehensive emergency plans in place, including energy savings.

Samuele Furfari, a professor of geopolitics of energy at ULB university in Brussels, believes that von der Leyen’s proposal is “ridiculous,” as a two-degree reduction in heating cannot replace energy demand of 194 million European households.

“It is incredibly naive of the President of the European Commission to present a 2-degree reduction in domestic heating, for more than 194 million households in the Europe at 27 [countries], as a solution to the end of the supply of Russian gas by Nord Stream 1. It is moreover only the capacity of Nord Stream 1 which would be ‘covered’ by this theoretical and simplistic reduction. There are other gas pipelines delivering Russian gas. She even specifies, since the commission seems to have thought about this ridiculous idea, that it would also apply to air conditioning. We navigate in a pure dream,” Furfari said.

Gas demand is inelastic, so Europe cannot lower the heating in hospitals or schools, and it is “a dream” to believe that EU residents will simply comply with von der Leyen’s proposal, which will “hit people hard” in their comfort zone, he added.

“How are we going to apply this theoretical measure seriously? By installing ‘limited’ room thermostats, such as for car or motorcycle engines? Are we being prepared for Orwell’s society? No EU government is going to accept that Brussels gives them temperature reduction instructions or face sanctions. I am not even talking about the electricity market, which does not work in Europe, with the emphasis wrongly put on pseudo-renewable energies. Obviously, the European Commission is totally stuck, and Brussels does not know what to do. There is no other solution than that of Russian gas supplies for a long time to come. We are waiting for the next ‘brilliant’ idea from the European Commission,” Furfari said.

According to the professor, 70% of the gas consumed in Europe is allocated to the production of heat, and even when Germany relaunches its coal power stations, which emit large amounts of CO2, it will be far too little to compensate for the loss of gas.

Damien Ernst, a Liege university professor in Belgium and a specialist of electromechanical engineering and energy, said that von der Leyen’s proposal shows how much the EU is “at a loss.”

“Europe will suffer terribly in terms of energy prices and scarcity. This astonishing reaction from Ursula von der Leyen is even scary, as she is so naive, and shows how much the EU is at a loss. The EU is not going to send armies of controllers to check the ambient temperature in people’s homes. At best, Europe can only carry out awareness campaigns on the need to save energy,” Ernst said.

If there is a signal that the price will become “astronomically high,” people and businesses will spontaneously reduce their consumption, causing a sharp decrease in demand and reducing the competitiveness of European producers compared to those from Asia and the US, Ernst explained.

“Europe has it all wrong,” he lamented.

AfD spokesman in the Bundestag Economic Affairs and Energy Committee Steffen Kotre, in turn, said that the EC head should advise her German colleagues to immediately open the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, instead of proposing to reduce domestic heating.

“Mrs von der Leyen, the head of the European Commission, should advise Germany to open Nord Stream 2 immediately to compensate for the loss of throughput of Nord Stream 1, and to restart German nuclear power plants for electricity production, rather than make ridiculous statements about the energy savings Europeans should make by reducing their thermostat to compensate for Europe’s misguided policy in the Ukrainian conflict. It would impose a loss of comfort to all the citizens of the union,” Kotre said.

According to the expert, the German federal government is endangering the country’s future with its “energy policy narrow-mindedness,” and the six nuclear power plants, which were shut down at the end of 2021, or scheduled to be shut down at the end of 2022, could replace a significant part of Russia’s natural gas, which is converted into electricity. To cover the rest, the phase-out of Russian gas must be halted.

“Minister [Robert] Habeck’s energy policy is driving our country against a wall,” the professor concluded.

June 21, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

EU Commission comments on Lithuania’s restrictions

Samizdat | June 21, 2022

The EU Commission reiterated its support for Lithuania’s decision to heavily restrict the transit of goods to Kaliningrad Region, Russia. At a regular press conference on Tuesday, European Commission chief spokesman Eric Mamer said the country has merely implemented the EU sanctions on Russia rather than imposing an economic blockade.

“We’re not talking about the Commission giving a recommendation to a country. This is a member state implementing decisions that they have taken when it comes to the sanctions against Russia. And Lithuania is basically doing what it is supposed to do under the sanctions regime,” Mamer stated, noting that the bloc’s stance was “extensively” explained by top EU diplomat Josep Borrell a day before.

Speaking at a press conference on Monday, Borrell insisted that Vilnius’ move does not constitute a blockade against the small exclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania, but was merely the implementation of the EU’s sanctions on Moscow, imposed over the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. On Saturday, Lithuania’s national railway operator banned the flow of sanctioned goods between the region and the rest of Russia, citing instructions from the European Commission.

“Lithuania has not taken any unilateral national restrictions. But, in accordance with European Union sanctions, there are import and export restrictions that apply in relation with certain goods, including the prohibition of transit from those goods through European Union territory. Lithuania is doing nothing else than implementing the guidelines provided by the Commission,” Borrell stated.

A similar take on the situation was given by senior Lithuanian officials. Earlier on Tuesday, Lithuanian PM Ingrida Simonyte told public broadcaster LRT that the decision was based on the sanctions imposed by the EU, and not an attempt to escalate tensions with Russia. The flow of non-sanctioned goods and passenger transit will continue uninterrupted, she said.

The Russian government labeled the move an “economic blockade” of Kaliningrad Region, saying it violates the country’s international obligations to ensure the uninterrupted transit of goods to the exclave. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Monday that Vilnius’ decision was unprecedented, and in “violation of anything and everything.”

The head of Russia’s Security Council, Nikolay Patrushev, warned that the ongoing “blockade” will trigger a response from Moscow that will “have a serious negative impact on the people of Lithuania.”

“Of course, Russia will respond to hostile actions. Appropriate measures are in the works, and will be adopted in the near future,” Patrushev told reporters during a visit to Kaliningrad on Tuesday.

June 21, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Trudeau wasted over $100 million on expired vaccines

The Counter Signal | June 21, 2022

The 13.6 million expired AstraZeneca vaccines that Trudeau donated to foreign countries is estimated to have cost Canadian taxpayers over $100 million.

As per a report from the National Post, “According to a document tabled in the House of Commons last week, the government disposed of roughly 1.2 million doses of Moderna vaccines that expired either in mid-March or mid-April this year.”

“But that wastage is just a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly 13.6 million doses of AstraZeneca vaccines that the government donated to other countries last year and that sat in the manufacturer’s warehouses until they expired, according to new data provided to the National Post by Health Canada.”

According to the Financial Times, doses of AstraZeneca were priced at roughly $3 to $4 per dose when mass-produced, and governments secured orders of the COVID vaccine.

But this is inaccurate in the case of Canada. Trudeau managed to bungle the deal and secured 20 million doses at more than double that price.

“The only cost per dose revealed so far was released by accident when the price for the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine was accidentally left in an email included in a package of documents released to the health committee. That email said Canada would pay $8.18 per dose of AstraZeneca, which would amount to $163 million for the 20 million doses ordered,” the CBC reported in June 2021, just a month before Trudeau announced he’d be donating most AstraZeneca vaccines to foreign countries.

At $8.18 per dose of AstraZeneca, that means that the Trudeau government is estimated to have spent a whopping $111,248,000 on vaccines that were never needed or even wanted, as COVAX was flooded by other countries similarly pawning off their unwanted AstraZeneca vaccines after it was found to cause blood clots.

Indeed, the original agreement was to send even more AstraZeneca vaccines to COVAX that would expire — a total of 17.7 million.

And that’s just for AstraZeneca. Both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines — for which Canada paid a premium — were even more expensive, and many of these are also either already expired or will expire soon.

However, even this is just the tip of the iceberg regarding how much Trudeau sent to COVAX.

In July 2021, the Trudeau government donated an additional $10 million to COVAX, which was on top of a $440 million in prior donations.

Overall, had the PM had better foresight or financial planning, hundreds of millions of dollars could have been saved throughout the pandemic.

June 21, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

Canada threatens to bring back vaccine passports

By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | June 21, 2022

Canada may not have seen the last of the mandatory COVID-19 vaccine passports. Proposed restrictions could even be harsher than before, likely to require three to four inoculations in order to travel.

It’s worth noting that the mandate is not set in stone, but the government is preparing for the possibility of introducing the measures in the Fall. Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos made the announcement during a press conference. The vaccine passport mandate for federal employees and other travelers might be over for now, but Duclos made it clear that it’s likely to return this fall.

In addition to officially denouncing passport mandates, Duclos took the opportunity to explain some changes in wording regarding vaccine requirements. Canada will no longer refer to people who have had all of their vaccinations as “fully vaccinated.” Instead, the language in any official documents will read “up-to-date.” This is because the government says three doses are no longer enough for many people, with some people being told to get four or even five doses.

These changes came after Dr. Theresa Tam, the chief public health officer, told reporters that several studies had just been completed.

Initially, according to the report, two doses of a vaccine would allegedly give a person 50 to 80 percent protection; however, that number falls to just 20 percent against Omicron and newer variations of the coronavirus.

Canada’s goal is now to convince people to get their third and fourth doses and restricting civil liberties has been a controversial way of forcing that over the last couple of years. Over 90 percent of Canadian adults have two doses, but less than 60% have received their booster.

The Conservative Party of Quebec has already started fighting back against the possibility of a third dose being required for a vaccine passport. For them, it’s a personal choice that shouldn’t be mandated. Many in Canada are ready to put the last few years behind them.

June 21, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

The Covid vaccine paper on declining sperm counts is even worse than it seems at first

By Alex Berenson | Unreported Truths | June 20, 2022

On Friday, the journal Andrology published a peer-reviewed paper showing large decreases in sperm counts among men after the second dose of Pfizer’s mRNA Covid jab.

Based on counts from men who donated sperm to three fertility clinics in Israel, this finding is devastating – medically and politically.

It cuts to the heart of the hottest button question of all about the mRNA shots, whether they have hidden fertility risks. That issue has simmered since early 2021, following my reporting that data showed the shots had caused excess miscarriages in rats – and other reports showing that measurable amounts of vaccine reached the ovaries and testes in tests in rats.

Ever since, media “fact-checkers” and public health authorities have dismissed and mocked the concerns and anyone who raises them:

—

Now – after a half-billion men have received mRNA shots – the skeptics appear to be right. Again. The Israeli paper offers hard evidence that the vaccines may present a systemic risk to men’s sperm counts. What was a conspiracy theory is now just a theory. AGAIN.

The paper raises questions about mechanism of action that must be answered immediately. And on top of the myocarditis risk, the finding is more evidence that encouraging – much less forcing – men under 40 to take the mRNA vaccines was a catastrophic mistake.

—

However, the authors qualified their findings by reporting that after five months, sperm levels recovered. Thus the decreases were only temporary, they wrote.

Put aside the fact that a five-month decrease hardly qualifies as temporary for someone trying to start a family – or compared to a “vaccine” that loses effectiveness against Omicron within weeks or months.

As other writers have pointed out, the actual data in the paper do not really support the argument that sperm levels returned to normal after five months. In fact, by some measures, levels continued to decline.

Rather than acknowledging this fact, the authors offered the best possible spin on their data, while at the same time publishing the figures themselves near the end of the paper so that other researchers could see the reality for themselves.

This tactic is now commonplace among researchers putting out data that might raise concerns about the mRNA shots. It is likely a response to the overwhelming political pressure to hide the deepening crisis around the safety and efficacy of shots that governments have given to over a billion people worldwide.

Below is the crucial chart, which shows that “total motile count” – the number of sperm in the ejaculated semen – plunged 22 percent three to five months after the second shot (T2) and barely recovered during the final count (T3), when it was still 19 percent below the pre-shot level.

SOURCE

Even more importantly, the fall in sperm counts CANNOT be blamed on short- or even medium-term inflammation as mRNA-generated spike proteins causes our immune cells to ramp up the systemic production of anti-spike antibodies. If that were the case, one would expect to see a short term decrease in sperm count that reverses over time. Instead, total sperm counts are unaffected shortly after the mRNA shots, then decrease months later and hardly recover.

To play down this unpleasant reality, the researchers instead focused on the fact that median rather than average counts did recover after five months. (The median is the numerical midpoint of a series; If a series goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 20, the median will be 3, but the average will be 30 divided by 5, or 6.)

Both the median and the average can be valuable statistics. Using the median rather than the average will hide extreme outliers. In this case, the fact that the average fell much more than the median is a sign that some of the men probably had near-zero sperm counts in both the second and third time periods – and that fact is arguably more important than the median change.

All of which is to say that this data cannot be easily explained away and should not be ignored, as badly as the media would like to do so. The fall in sperm counts is part of an emerging and increasingly dark picture about the long-term health impacts of the mRNA shots – and should all by itself convince parents not to risk exposing their children to these powerful biotechnologies.

June 21, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

Punishing Dissident Physicians

CA Assembly Bill 2098 would muzzle physicians and severely punish those who challenge covid public health measures

By Aaron Kheriaty, MD | Human Flourishing | June 21, 2022

I will be heading to Sacramento next Monday to testify at a Senate committee hearing on California Assembly Bill 2098. The bill, sponsored by Senator Pan—who has been in Pharma’s back pocket for years and the source of much legislative health policy mischief in my home state—would give the medical board the authority to punish any physicians who challenge the safety and efficacy of covid vaccines. This bill is advanced even as evidence continues to emerge of safety problems with the mRNA shots, including a study this week showing the vaccines lower sperm counts in men:

But this proposed measure seeks to enshrine in law “scientific” conclusions which are highly dubious:

All three of these statements are demonstrably false: (a) The death count figures cited are grossly overestimated by hospitals failing to distinguish dying from covid vs. dying with covid and the financial incentives from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to overestimate covid deaths; (b) the efficacy of vaccines has declined with time and new variants, so the statistic cited here is no longer true of the vaccines against omicron; (c) the CDC has consistently failed to follow-up on serious safety signals, apart from myocarditis, and the post-marketing surveillance data acquired from our FOIA request showed serious safety issues in the first three months of vaccine rollout.

If this bill passes, any physician who raises these or other inconvenient scientific facts or study findings could be disciplined by the medical board, as the text of the bill explains:

 It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.

The supposed scientific “facts” mentioned in the bill make it clear just what information will be considered “misinformation” under this law. This bill will spell the end of scientific integrity and medical freedom in California. I worry that if it passes, other states could follow suit. As I have said before, California is the tip of the spear:

The Tip of the Spear

Here is the text of a letter I submitted last week to the committee where the bill is currently being reviewed:

13 June 2022

To: California Legislators and Committee Members

RE: AB 2098: Physicians and Surgeons: Unprofessional Conduct – OPPOSE

As a licensed physician in California I strongly oppose the proposed California bill AB 2098 and urge you to vote no and oppose as well.

Advances in science and medicine typically occur when doctors and scientists challenge conventional thinking or settled opinion. This is the very nature of scientific progress. Fixating any current medical consensus as “unchallengeable” by physicians will stifle medical and scientific advances and give undue authority to a few gatekeepers who act as guardians of the consensus. As I testified in January at a U.S. Senate panel on Covid policy: “The scientific method suffered [during the pandemic] from a repressive academic and social climate of censorship and silencing of competing perspectives. This projected the false appearance of a scientific consensus—a ‘consensus’ often strongly influenced by economic and political interests.”

One need only look at the last two years to see how frequently public health recommendations and consensus thinking about Covid changed from one month to the next with the advent of new information. It was frontline ICU physicians who discovered and spoke out about bad outcomes when patients were prematurely placed on ventilators. This shifted the consensus in the direction of avoiding ventilation as much as possible. Likewise, it was frontline physicians who discovered that placing covid patients face-down in the prone position while they were ventilated could improve outcomes, challenging another consensus. Both of these advances came by way of challenging the way things were currently being done. Other physicians challenged the early consensus, which did not recommend the use of steroids to treat Covid. Eventually, this dissenting opinion gained ground and now represents conventional thinking: corticosteroids for critically ill covid patients are now standard care. Many other examples regarding guidelines on masks, social distancing, and other Covid policies could be cited here.

Allowing the free interchange among competing perspectives is absolutely necessary for scientific and medical progress. Good science is characterized by conjecture and refutation, lively deliberation, often fierce debate, and always openness to new data. The censorship of free speech in AB 2098 spells not only the demise of civil liberties and constitutional rights, but the end of the scientific enterprise when it comes to dealing with Covid in CA.

Patients will not trust physicians if they believe their physician has been muzzled by the law and cannot speak his or her mind honestly. Patients want to know that if they ask their physician a question, including a question about Covid, they will get their doctor’s honest opinion—regardless of whether they follow that opinion, seek a second opinion, or whatever. Patients will not trust physicians if they know their doctor is simply parroting a consensus judgment that he may or may not agree with or endorse.

This bill will not help us to deal with Covid more effectively. Doctors will be punished for practicing medicine according to their best judgment. Informed consent, the foundation of good medical ethics, will be seriously compromised, and the trust necessary for the doctor-patient relationship will be shattered. I strongly urge you and your fellow lawmakers must oppose AB 2098. It will harm not only physicians and medical institutions in California, but even more concerningly, it will harm patients.

Sincerely,

Aaron Kheriaty, MD

Here is a link to information from The Unity Project on what you can do to oppose this bill—especially important if you happen to live in California. Please spread the word.

June 21, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Explain It to Me, Please

If you want a war with Iran, Russia, China and Venezuela tell me why and how it would benefit Americans

BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • JUNE 21, 2022

So Honest Joe Biden is now going to give another $1.2 billion to the Ukrainians on top of the sixty or so billion that is already in the pipeline, but who’s counting, particularly as Congress refused to approve having an inspector general to monitor whose pockets will be lined. The money will be printed up without any collateral or “borrowed” and the American taxpayer will somehow have to bear the burden of this latest folly that is ipso facto driving much of the world into recession. And it will no doubt be blamed on Vladimir Putin, a process that is already well under way from president mumbles. But you have to wonder why no one has told Joe that the whole exercise in pushing much of the world towards a catastrophic war is a fool’s errand. But then again, the clowns that the president has surrounded himself with might not be very big on speaking the truth even if they know what that means.

Having followed the Ukraine problem since the United States and its poodles refused to negotiate seriously with Vladimir Putin in the real world, I have had to wonder what is wrong with Washington. We have had the ignorant and impulsive Donald Trump supported by a cast of characters that included the mentally unstable Mike Pompeo and John Bolton followed by Biden with the usual bunch of Democratic Party rejects. By that I mean deep thinkers about social issues who would not be able to run a hot dog stand if that were what they were forced to do to make a living. But they are real good at shouting “freedom” and “democracy” whenever questioned concerning their motives.

Indeed, opinion polls suggest that there is a great deal of unrest among middle and working class Americans who see a reversion to Jimmy Carter era financial instability, at that time caused by the oil embargo. Well, there is a new energy embargo in place brought about by the Biden Administration’s desire to wage proxy war to “weaken” Russia. Analysts predict that the costs for all forms of energy will double in the next several months and surging energy costs will impact the prices of other essentials, including food. Given all that, the fundamental issue plaguing both Democrats and Republicans is their inability to actually explain to the American people why the country’s foreign and national security policy always seems to be on the boil, searching for enemies and also creating them when they do not exist, even when the results are damaging to the interests of actual Americans.

That a serious discussion of why the United States needs to have a military that costs as much as the next nine nations in that ranking combined is long overdue and rarely addressed outside the alternative media. The 2023 military budget has been increased from this year’s, totaling $858 billion, and, if one includes the constantly growing largesse to Ukraine, approaching a hitherto unimaginable trillion dollars. The military budget has become a major driver of the country’s unsustainable deficits. The deaths of millions of people directly and indirectly in the wars started in 9/11 aside, the wars of choice have cost an estimated $8 trillion.

The Constitution of the United States makes it clear that a national army was only acceptable to the Founders when it was dedicated to defending the country from foreign threats. Do Americans really believe that bearing the burden of having something like 1,000 military bases scattered around the world really makes them safer? The recent rapid collapse of the security situation in Afghanistan suggests that having such bases turns soldiers and bureaucrats into potential hostages and is therefore a liability. One might also suggest that the insecurity currently prevailing in the country can in large part be attributed to the government’s depiction of numerous “threats” in order to justify both the commitment and the expense.

So where does all the money go? And what are the threats? Starting with a war that the United States is de facto though not de jure involved in, Ukraine, what was the Russian threat that demanded Washington’s intervention? Well, if one discards the nonsense of a “rules based international order” or a plucky little democracy Ukraine fighting valiantly against the Russian bear, Moscow did not threaten the United States in any way before the missiles starting flying. Putin sought to negotiate a settlement with Ukraine based on a number of perceived existential Russian national security interests, all of which were negotiable, but the US and its friends were uninterested in compromise while also plying the corrupt Zelensky regime with weapons, money and political support. The final result is a conflict that will likely only end when the last Ukrainian is dead and it includes the possibility that a misstep by the United States and Russia could lead to a nuclear holocaust. To put it succinctly, what is going on does not enhance US national security, nor does it benefit Americans economically.

And then there is China. Biden let the cat out of the bag on his recent trip to the Far East. He stated that the United States would defend Taiwan if China were to attempt to annex it. In saying that, Biden demonstrated that he does not understand the strategic ambiguity that the US and the Chinese have preferred over the past fifty years as an alternative to war. The White House for its part quickly issued a correction to the Biden statement, explaining that it was not true that Washington is obligated to defend Taiwan. Some uber hawkish congressmen have apparently found the Biden gaffe appealing and are promoting a firm US commitment to defend Taiwan, coupled with a $4.5 billion military assistance package, of course.

At the same time, some officials in the Pentagon and the usual gaggle of congressmen also keep warning about the over the horizon threat from China as an excuse to boost defense spending. Most recently, there was alarm over Chinese participation in a meeting in May in Fiji to consider a China-Pacific Islands free trade pact! In reality, the only serious current threat from China is as an economic competitor. A trade war with China would be a disaster for the US economy, which is heavily dependent on Chinese manufactured goods, but Beijing, with its relatively small military budget, does not pose a physical threat to the United States.

And let’s not ignore Iran which has been hammered by economic sanctions and also through the covert killing of its officials and scientists. The US/Israeli war on Iran has also spilled over into neighboring Syria, where Washington actually has troops on the ground occupying the country’s oil producing region and stealing the oil. Iran’s possible expansion of its nuclear program to produce a weapon was effectively impeded through monitoring connected to a multilateral 2015 agreement called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) but Donald Trump, unwisely and acting against actual American interests, withdrew from it. Joe Biden has been warned by Israel not to re-enter the agreement, so he will no doubt comply with Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s determination to have Washington continue to apply “extreme pressure” on the Islamic Republic. Does either Iran or its ally Syria threaten the United States in any way? No. Their crime is that they are in the same neighborhood as the Jewish state, which finds the US government easy to manipulate into acting against its own interests.

Finally, in America’s own hemisphere there is Venezuela, which has been elevated to the status of Washington’s most hated nation in the region. Venezuelans have been subjected to increasingly punitive US sanctions, including some new ones just last week, which hurt the poorer citizens disproportionately but have not brought about regime change. Why the animosity? Because the country’s leader Nicolas Maduro is still in power in spite of a US assertion that the country’s opposition leader Juan Guaido should rightfully and legitimately be in charge after a possibly fraudulent election in 2018. The latest therapy applied by the United States on Caracas consisted of blocking the country as well as Nicaragua and Cuba from participating in the recent meeting of the Ninth Summit of the Americas which was held in Los Angeles. A State Department spokesman explained that the move was due to the three countries “lacking democratic governances.” Mexican President Lopez Obrador protested against the move and removed himself from his country’s delegation, saying “There can’t be a Summit of the Americas if not all countries of the American continent are taking part.” The despicable US Senator Robert Menendez of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee then felt compelled to add his two cents, criticizing the Mexican president and warning that his “decision to stand with dictators and despots” would hurt US-Mexico relations. So where was the threat from Venezuela (and Cuba and Nicaragua) and why is the US involved at all? Beats me.

What all of this means is that there is absolutely no standard of genuine national security that motivates the US’s completely illegal aggression in many parts of the world. What occurs may be linked to a desire to dominate or a madness sometimes described as “exceptionalism” and/or “leadership of the free world,” neither of which has anything to do with actual security. And the American people are paying the price both in terms of decline in standards of living due to the upheaval created in Ukraine and elsewhere as well as a completely understandable loss of faith in the US system of government. By all means, let us shrink the US military until it is responsive to actual identifiable threats. Let’s elect a president who will follow the sage advice of President John Quincy Adams, who declared that “Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy.” At this point, one can only imagine an America that is at peace with itself and with what it represents while also being considered a friend to the rest of the world.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

June 21, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine Bans Main Opposition Party, Seizes All Its Assets

‘Beacon of democracy’ cracks down on dissent

By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | June 21, 2022

Ukrainian authorities have banned the country’s main opposition party and seized all its assets, once again undermining the narrative that President Zelensky is presiding over a beacon of democracy.

The country’s Ministry of Justice announced the move via Facebook, revealing that the Opposition Platform — For Life had been shut down and its assets, money and property transferred to the state.

The party had previously had its operations suspended in March after it was accused of being complicit with Russia and being “anti-Ukrainian.”

The ban means that Zelensky’s main political opposition has been eliminated. The OPPL was the second largest party in the country and its popularity surpassed that of Zelensky’s Servant of the People party last year.

Its leader Viktor Medvedchuk, who claims he is merely looking out for the interests of the Ukrainian people by seeking better relations with Russia, was placed under house arrest last month.

The announcement said the party was suspected of acting to “undermine the sovereignty” of Ukraine, with authorities have already banned 10 other political opposition parties for the same reason.

Last month, President Zelensky signed a bill into law that gave the green light to ban any party that challenged the government’s policy on the Russian invasion, empowering courts to seize assets without the right to appeal.

While opposition parties are being obliterated, Ukrainians who engage in dissent are also being rounded up and arrested by armed men from the Ukraine Security Service.

As we previously highlighted, Ukraine is also attempting to extradite and imprison citizens who live in other European countries if they criticize Zelensky.

Meanwhile, President Zelensky is still being hailed by western legacy media outlets as a valiant defender of democracy in contrast to the brutal autocratic dictators who control Russia.

What a joke.

June 21, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | | Leave a comment

Lithuania illegally blocking Kaliningrad

By Lucas Leiroz | June 21, 2022

European authorities are stopping the transit of Russian goods in the Kaliningrad region, which is officially a part of the Russian territory. Such a measure tends to significantly increase tensions on the European continent and contribute negatively at a time of major concerns about international peace and security.

On June 18, the governor of Kaliningrad Anton Alikhanov reported to media agencies that the Lithuanian state-owned company “Lithuania Railways” has banned the rail transport in the Russia’s Kaliningrad territory regarding all ​​ sanctioned goods, entirely isolating the Russian exclave in Europe. Apparently, the reason for such a radical measure would have been the international pressure exerted by the rest of Europe for Lithuania to comply with the “EU’s restrictions”.

Commenting on the case, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis said that “this is not a Lithuanian decision. These are European sanctions that came into force on June 17, and the railways are now applying the sanctions”.

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell confirmed the Lithuanian minister’s words and tried to “defuse” the situation, saying that there is no blockade, as only goods that have received sanctions are being barred from transit:

“There is no blockade. The land transit between Kaliningrad and other parts of Russia has not been banned. Second, transit of people and goods that are not sanctioned continues. Third, Lithuania has not taken any unilateral national restrictions. (…) We are in a precautionary mood. We will double-check the legal aspects in order to verify that we are completely aligned with any kind of rule. (…) But Lithuania is not guilty. It is not implementing national sanctions. It is not implementing their will. Whatever they are doing has been the consequence of previous consultation with the commission, which has provided guidelines”.

What seems unacceptable, however, is the fact that such pressure is aimed at blocking the transit of products inside the Russian sovereign space, preventing them from leaving Kaliningrad and reaching the rest of Russian territory. No country has the right to prevent another from transporting its goods to other parts of its own territory. In this case, it is not just about “sanctions against Russia”, but about an illegal attitude that violates all elementary norms and principles of public international law.

Stating that there is simply “no blockade” as the restrictions are only being applied to sanctioned products sounds also totally inappropriate. In addition to obstructing Russian intra-territorial traffic, the products sanctioned by the West are precisely those of greater strategic value, which directly affect Moscow’s national interests. Kaliningrad is undoubtedly isolated at this time and the consequences of this isolation strongly affect both the rest of the Russian territory and the one million Russian citizens who inhabit the exclave.

The Russian government expressed its concern about the case, as can be seen in the words of Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov: “This decision is truly unprecedented. It is a violation of everything. We understand it to be connected to the relevant decision made by the European Union – to extend sanctions to transit. We also consider it illegal (…) We need a serious, in-depth analysis to work out our response decisions”.

In the same vein, Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov made it clear that Moscow reserves the right to respond to illegal attitudes on the part of the Lithuanian State, stating that Russia will defend its interests in the face of the European attempt to prevent the transit of goods between Kaliningrad and the rest of the national territory.

“If the transit of goods between Kaliningrad and the rest of the territory of the Russian Federation through Lithuania is not fully restored soon, then Russia reserves the right to take measures in defense of its national interests”, he said.

It is also necessary to remember that Western think tanks have long suggested that NATO “seize” Kaliningrad. The matter has come to light more recently, after the start of the special military operation in Ukraine, with US and European experts suggesting this type of attitude to be considered as a response to a possible escalation of tensions. Obviously, the current blockade further intensifies Moscow’s concerns about this possible scenario.

There are two possible scenarios for the near future in the face of this new escalation of the European security crisis: either Lithuania immediately breaks the blockade or Russia will respond in some way, probably through the intensification of military naval activities using the Baltic Fleet. Vilnius must act in some way, either sovereignly, refusing to comply with abusive and hostile EU impositions or through diplomatic mediation with the rest of the bloc so that sanctions are eased so that the end of the rail blockade is achieved.

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

June 21, 2022 Posted by | War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »