By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | June 11, 2022
Yesterday Sky News and the Huffington Post and several other outlets all flared up near-identical headlines warning that …
Covid Infections Increase For First Time In Two Months
The HuffPo goes on to explain in more detail…
The jump is thought to have been caused by increases in cases compatible with the original Omicron variant BA.1 and the newer variants BA.4 and BA.5, according to the Office for National Statistics.
All the articles cite the Office of National Statistics (ONS) talking about Omicron and seem to consider this an explanation.
None of them mentions the fact the UK’s Health Security Agency (UKHSA) literally changed the definition of a Covid “case” back in February, making it almost inevitable cases would go up.
It’s all detailed in this post from the UKHSA site, helpfully titled “Changing the COVID-19 Case Definition”.
The article explains that the UKHSA will be moving on from the traditional meaning of “cases”, and instead counting what they call “case episodes”.
Meaning that, up until now, one person repeatedly testing positive for “Covid” throughout the pandemic was considered one “case”:
Until now, COVID-19 cases have been reported at the individual level: every positive test taken and reported by one person has been considered part of a single case record, initiated by their first positive test.
But from now on different positive tests of the same person will be considered separate “cases” as long as they are 90 days apart:
Positive test results that are 90 days apart (regardless of negative tests in between) will be considered as a separate episode of infection, and therefore the person is counted as a case more than once.
The supposed justification for this decision is “waning immunity” and the Omicron variant causing spikes in “reinfections”:
Although reinfections were initially very rare, we have seen the number rising slowly over the last two years, as immunity from prior infection wanes and new variants emerge. During the Omicron variant wave, the number and proportion of people being reinfected with SARS-CoV-2 has increased.
However, the inevitable consequence of this decision will be to make the case numbers go up. The press not including this in their story about the rising case numbers is – at best – astonishing incompetence.
In fact, making case numbers go up is literally the only impact it will have.
The UKHSA goes out of its way to point this out, highlighting that the change will have no effect at all on how they monitor infections, since they already treat new positive tests as new cases for the purpose of contract tracing, and have been doing so all along:
contact tracing has undertaken a very safe practice of following all positive cases, regardless of whether they were possible reinfections or cases of prolonged infection.
So, in short, whether or not the change is scientifically justified, it is a purely aesthetic one that will have no impact on anything, except to make case numbers look bigger.
And, of course, it’s not scientifically justified.
They have already stretched the meaning of “cases” well past its breaking point by defining anyone who tests positive as a “Covid case” whether or not they have any symptoms.
Now every single person who, over the past two years, tested positive on the useless PCR tests and was declared a “case”, can test positive again on the same useless PCR and be declared a new case.
Of course, messing with language to inflate statistics has been the modus operandi since the beginning of the “pandemic”. “Fully vaccinated”, “herd immunity”, “cause of death”, “vaccine”, “case” all have been subject to “updated” definition.
Clearly, this further torturing of statistics is about maintaining the flagging “pandemic” narrative.
Allowing people to become more than one “case” means the ever-increasing numbers of people rejecting the vaccines, masks and hysteria can be countered by the steadily dwindling number of NPCs who still religiously take Covid at face value.
It’s a desperation move. One that, hopefully, people will see right through.
By Paul Homewood | TCW Defending Freedom | June 13, 2022
THE BBC has been accused of institutional alarmism about climate change in a report published by Net Zero Watch. It reveals the BBC’s persistent exaggeration and false information when it comes to climate and weather-related news.
The study, written by me, reveals that the BBC has been forced to correct a dozen items of false claims and fake news in climate-related coverage after receiving complaints in recent years.
It shows that it has become common practice for BBC reporters to publicise exaggerated and often misleading weather-and climate-related stories in order to hype up the potential risks from global warming.
Persistent misrepresentation by BBC journalists in climate news coverage is fuelling the corporation’s institutional alarmism.
Institutional alarmism is a form of hyped and exaggerated news reporting that is deeply embedded in the BBC. It manifests itself as unbalanced, one-sided coverage of climate risks that go uncorrected by the BBC’s in-house fact checkers.
In 2020, the BBC’s director general warned that the problem posed by disinformation online was increasingly serious and that the BBC would need to work harder than ever to expose fake news and separate fact from fiction.
Since then the corporation has set up a team of fact checkers, a BBC-wide Anti-Disinformation Unit and a Climate Misinformation team. Yet none of these teams of fact checkers noticed or addressed the long list of false news stories that were corrected by the BBC only after lengthy and protracted complaint procedures.
The dossier includes the following examples of fake news:
• The three complaints upheld last year against the BBC’s Climate Editor, Justin Rowlatt, two of which concerned a Panorama episode devoted to global warming;
• Claims that the number of floods around the world has increased 15-fold since 2005;
• A BBC News report that the population of African penguins was declining rapidly because of climate change;
• Repeated claims that new onshore wind farms were ‘banned’ in the UK;
• False statements about ‘record’ temperatures;
• A BBC Two broadcast, which wrongly alleged that the reindeer population in Russia was declining because of climate change;
• Repeated claims that hurricanes were becoming more frequent and powerful;
• A World at One broadcast which asserted that sea levels in Miami were rising at ten times the global rate.
Most of the claims were so obviously and ridiculously false that it is hard to see how they made it through the BBC’s editorial process. This of course raises further questions. Is the BBC so entrenched in its own version of climate change that it believes its own propaganda, just as the Soviets did? Or do the editors and various layers of management simply not care whatever lies are published?
The above list is merely the tip of the iceberg. Many other falsehoods occur without being challenged, or where complaints are simply ignored, such as news items about how weather is getting more extreme, Victoria Falls drying up, droughts in California, starving polar bears and many more. One BBC News report baldly stated that the number of weather disasters had increased five-fold in the last 50 years – a patently absurd claim, which the organisation responsible for the database explains is actually due to better data reporting.
One of the most egregious examples of bias came in Sir David Attenborough’s documentary three years ago, Climate Change – The Facts. Despite the title, the hour-long programme had little to do with facts, more to do with propaganda. It made several highly questionable assertions, such as that ‘storms, floods, heatwaves and sea level rise are all getting rapidly worse as a result of climate change’. The documentary provided no data to back up these claims, nor did it offer the views of scientific experts who do not agree.
Often BBC reports are just outright propaganda, with the opinions of Greenpeace, WWF and the Green Party being given prominence but with very little mention of alternative views. Last year’s coverage of the proposed Cumbria coal mine by Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s Environmental Analyst, was a classic example of this.
At other times, the reporting is just silly. For instance, last summer the BBC gave prominent coverage to a report which claimed that the impact of global warming was likely to lead to ‘impaired’ performances at the Tokyo Olympics. This flew in the face of the fact that many Olympics in recent years have taken place in much hotter climes, such as Los Angeles, Atlanta and Athens.
The sheer weight of evidence presented in this paper suggests that bias is now endemic in the BBC’s climate reporting. All the factual errors noted could easily have been avoided with a bit of basic research. Is this carried out and the results ignored if they don’t agree with the BBC’s agenda? Or is the corporation’s output just made up and printed anyway without checks? Either way, this is journalism at its shoddy worst. Who is editing this fake reporting? Why are they not insisting on accurate reporting? Where are the highly paid executives who let all of this continue?
The topic of climate change, Net Zero and the total transformation of society which is demanded to achieve it is of crucial importance for the future of the country. The public deserve all the facts, not just the warped version offered by the BBC.
You can read the report, ‘Institutional alarmism – the BBC’s disastrous climate complaints’, here.
Free West Media | June 12, 2022
Apparently the stance against doctors who work according to their Hippocratic oath and the medical code of ethics is being tightened internationally.
The enforcement of masks is an important goal in order to be able to continue the pandemic, as is known from internal protocols of the Israeli Ministry of Health or statements by the Austrian Director of Public Health. Masks have become a sign of submission while at the same time renouncing fundamental rights.
Even in Switzerland, which is known to be more liberal with the measures and had already lifted many random measures in mid-February, completely disproportionate action was taken against doctors. On social media, users likened the raid to how police would normally respond to a terror threat.
This is already happening in Germany, as the criminal judgment against Dr. Ronald Weikl showed. In Germany, such an act would be less surprising in view of the many house searches, even against judges who had issued “unwanted” judgements, also in connection with masks for children.
The regional court of Passau, Germany is expected to pass a verdict against the “mask doctor” Weikl for writing blank exemption certificates against the mask requirement.
“Whether it was a matter of issuing false health certificates, which is punishable under §278 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), as alleged by the prosecution, or only of medical certificates, for which §278 (StGB) does not apply at all,” noted the Children’s Health Defense Fund.
Weikl acted in the best interest of his patients, his lawyer explained and this should not have led to an indictment due to the lack of a criminal act on his part. The legal principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege applies, which means that one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law – showing concern for his patients and especially children.
The law in Switzerland expressly provides for exceptions to the mask requirement. However, some authorities and the public prosecutor’s offices obviously do not care. For months there has been a veritable witch hunt against doctors who are critical of the measures.
Like Weikl, the Bern psychiatrist Dr. medical Ruke Wyler had issued mask certificates for her patients. The practice of the psychiatrist, who had only fulfilled her medical duty, was stormed in a heavy and a completely disproportionate police operation.
The scientific network Aletheia reported on the raid on the doctor’s practice. Critical doctors who question Corona measures to protect their own patients are being addressed and sanctioned, both abroad and in Switzerland.
Under the supervision of armed police officers wearing bulletproof vests, her computer hard drive was confiscated and patient files were taken away. People who wanted to support the doctor were asked to leave the building under threat of violence.
The Aletheia network said they were extremely concerned about these developments. Doctors who had issued mask certificates for the benefit of their patients did so because, after a thorough study of the data, they had come to the conclusion that wearing masks would be of no benefit, would be only harmful, first and foremost for children.
The medical certificates issued by the doctor could in no way be deemed to be incorrect since there has been no examination by the police or the public prosecutor’s office; this is a matter for medical expertise and the professional code of conduct for physicians. Medical professionals are free from directives, especially from non-physicians.
The vast majority of Corona measures are based on the narrative of the epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2, which has long been refuted. This means that all non-pharmacological measures that go beyond hygiene and self-isolation for sick people (antisocial distancing, masks in public spaces, isolation, quarantine, contact tracing, school closures and curfews) are ineffective and harmful for asymptomatic people who were previously considered healthy.
When it comes to vaccines for children
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | June 6, 2022
Last July, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) in the UK advised that children at increased risk of serious coronavirus (COVID-19) disease should be offered a vaccine. However they said that they are “not currently advising routing vaccination of children outside of these groups [with underlying health conditions], based on the current evidence.
In December, the JCVI advised that children aged 5-11 years in a clinical risk group, or who are a household contract of someone who is immunosuppressed should be offered primary course vaccination.
Then, in February of this year, the JCVI advised that a non-urgent offer of the Pfizer vaccine would be made to children aged 5 to 11 years of age who are not in a clinical risk group.
Not many parents took up this non-urgent offer for their children. The JCVI clearly did not think vaccinating young children was necessary, so included the strange wording of ‘non-urgent offer’.
However the vaccine ideologues in the National Health Service (NHS) had other ideas. Does it matter that the experts don’t think it’s necessary? No, we must vaccinate everyone. Vaccines are good. Vaccines will save us. Vaccines are our road to redemption.
NHS trusts began writing to children directly, using blank envelopes, almost as if they were attempting to bypass the parents. A Telegraph article reported that
“A brightly coloured letter covered in flowers, rainbows and bumblebees said the recipients could now book a vaccination and it provided a link to where they could do so. It also contained an unmarked packet of sunflower seeds, “to help bring some joy and sunshine into children’s live”, the letter read”.
It’s verging on being semi-religious or cult-like.
Another parent said their child’s letter said “Come and see our superheroes and princesses at the vaccination centre. Feel free to dress up!”.
I understand the need for the bureaucrats in the NHS to be seen to be doing something but seriously, back off. The experts have clearly shown that Covid vaccination is not urgent or necessary for young children, so it is not for the NHS bureaucrats to think they know better.
And why the blank envelopes and addressing children directly? It is all getting a bit sinister whether it is being done with the best of intentions or not. This type of coercion does not sit readily with informed consent.
Now, the NHS have updated their vaccination schedule to include the COVID-19 vaccine for 5-15 year olds.
Again, this does not allow informed consent because, by listing it with the usual vaccines, it will be seen as something that should be done, instead of the non-urgent offer that it actually is.
Many parents will be guilt-tripped in to vaccinating their children because they won’t want to answer awkward questions when they visit their GP. Why is there a missing vaccination on your child’s record? Ok jab them doctor, just don’t tell social services.
The NHS bureaucrats need to take a step back, stop trying to do something to make themselves seem useful and most importantly, stop trying to circumnavigate parental consent.
By Rob Slane | The Blog Mire | June 10, 2022
One of the many things that continues to baffle me about the public response to all things Covid, is that the number of people demanding answers to the following questions is pitifully and inexplicably low:
These questions should unite both those who believe with their whole heart that Lockdowns were necessary and saved lives, and those like me who believe they were utterly futile on their own terms, and have caused untold destruction. They should unite both those who believe that masks were necessary and saved lives, and those like me who believe them to have been utterly futile on their own terms, and a destructive dehumanising force designed to perpetuate fear. They should unite both those who think that the so-called vaccines were safe and effective, and those who believe these blood-clotting, immune-suppressing, gene-editing injections to have been useless on their own terms, and the cause of mass casualties, which will one day be found to have killed millions upon millions of people over the course of several years.
All of us should be demanding who was behind this, why they were doing it, and how it came to be unleashed on humanity. For the fact is that a cytotoxic Spike Protein, with HIV Gp120 inserts which infect and destroy immune cells, was created in a laboratory and added to a coronavirus in gain-of-function research. Why are people not interested in who did this to them and why? Why are they not interested in who was behind something that was used to basically mess up their lives, and the entire planet, for the last two years, and long into the future.
If this were a movie, everybody would be waiting with baited breath for the super villains — Fauci, Daszak, Baric, Gates, Schwab to name but five — to face the reckoning. And yet crickets. It’s a bit like if Hitler had survived in 1945 and the Jews and other people groups who suffered under his murderous regime shrugged their shoulders and said, “We need to move on. When’s my next holiday coming?” To those who think the comparison is ludicrous, I would point out that the official number of deaths from the lab-created, souped up coronavirus now exceeds the number 6 million — an infamous historical number — and I would add to it that the number of deaths from Phase 2 of the operation will, in the end, dwarf that number many times over.
What do I mean Phase 2 of the operation? I mean the fiendishly clever plan to inject billions of people around the world with a totally new, experimental product which would cause their bodies to produce the same gain-of-function Spike Protein, replete with the HIV Gp120 insert, by the billions, for an unknown amount of time. The entire point of Phase 1 — the release of the lab-created SARS-CoV-2 — was to create the fear that would lead to these injections. Does anybody seriously still believe these products were an improvised, off-the-cuff response to that virus? If so, perhaps they’d care to explain how all four major manufacturers of these products (Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson) all just happened to choose the same cytotoxic Spike Protein as the part of the virus that the human body would produce? As Mike Yeadon, former Pfizer VP for Allergy and Respiratory Research has pointed out, it is the most dangerous part of the virus, as well as that which mutates the most quickly, making it the most unsuitable part to use in a vaccine. And yet four companies did just that. Perhaps they’d also care to explain Moderna’s confidentiality agreement with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to ‘transfer mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates’ in December 2019. There is no doubt at all that Covid-19 was known about long before you and I ever got to hear about it, as this mention of it in the US Department of Defense database in November 2019, in a contract connected to one of those harmless and benevolent Ukrainian biolabs, clearly shows. There is, therefore, no doubt that the manufacturers of the bioweapon masquerading as a vaccine knew about it and were on it well before it was a thing for the rest of us.
These so-called vaccines, which were never safe nor effective, have already killed or maimed millions around the world. But the real damage is only just beginning. Not only do they train the body to produce antibodies to fight a non-existent enemy — the long-departed original SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein, which is a bit like the 21st Century British Army training to fight a battalion in Hitler’s Wehrmacht — but even more crucially, they infect and kill crucial T-cells. Which is why the ‘vaccinated’ keep getting Covid reinfections — their immune systems have been left defenseless, and with each recurring bout it becomes increasingly depleted.
Which brings us on to Phase 3. Whilst Phase 1 was about freaking people out with a virus that was dangerous to very few (albeit eminently treatable), and Phase 2 was about injecting people with the poison shot masquerading as the solution, Phase 3 is — I believe — all about covering up the effects of the depleted immune systems of millions of people, to ensure that most people continue to ask no questions and many of them ‘go gentle into that good night’. How? By the release of another lab-created, gain-of-function pathogen, which will be used to explain away the ‘mysterious’ deaths of people with crippled immune systems. If Phase 1 and 2 were fiendishly clever, this is from the pit of Gehenna itself.
Alarmingly, there is a probability that such a pathogen has indeed been released, although it is still too early to know if this is what a grinning William Gates III described as ‘the next one’. Much like the Event 201 simulation in October 2019, which just happened to simulate a global coronavirus pandemic, at the March 2021 Munich Security Conference a ‘Tabletop Exercise’ was conducted entitled, ‘Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats.’ Here’s the blurb:
“The exercise scenario portrayed a deadly, global pandemic involving an unusual strain of monkeypox virus that emerged in the fictional nation of Brinia and spread globally over 18 months. Ultimately, the exercise scenario revealed that the initial outbreak was caused by a terrorist attack using a pathogen engineered in a laboratory with inadequate biosafety and biosecurity provisions and weak oversight. By the end of the exercise, the fictional pandemic resulted in more than three billion cases and 270 million fatalities worldwide.”
Hmm? A Monkeypox pandemic! Starting when exactly? Why, would you believe it — in mid-May 2022. And lo and behold, in mid-May 2022, an outbreak of an unusual strain of Monkeypox began. As per the timeline set out on page 10 of their document, the international response would then start around 5th June 2022. And would you believe it, in this last week which began on 5th June, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) update its alert level for Monkeypox to Level 2, the UK Government upgraded Monkeypox to the same category of diseases as leprosy and plague, and the WHO came along to claim that the virus may be spread by ‘community transmission’. Add to this that this particular strain of Monkeypox appears to have been lab-created, and almost inexplicably appeared in about 10 western countries at the same time, and it looks like the timeline in the simulation might not have been entirely a coincidence.
I’m genuinely unsure at this point whether Monkeypox is Phase 3. I’ve heard many say that it would be impossible to create the same level of fear as with Covid, but I’m not so sure. The 2021 Tabletop Exercise had 270 million deaths by the end of 2023, and I have this horrible feeling that a new lab-created pathogen, unleashed on a world where millions have just had their immune systems horribly damaged, could send many to untimely deaths. I pray not; I fear so.
But whether the next thing is Monkeypox, or the great Bird Flu pandemic, as predicted by former CDC Director Robert Redfield, or perhaps Covid redivivus, it is quite clear to anyone with their eyes open and their wits about them that we are well and truly enslaved in the Medical Despotism I predicted back in April 2020:
‘Being “led by the science” is turning out to be an unmitigated disaster, yet it will be “the science” — or Government-approved science — which will be proposed as the saviour. To stop such situations occurring again, we will be told that we must avail ourselves of more technology, more monitoring, more checks, more vaccines, more controls. … Personally, I’d rather trust myself into the hands of the Living God than surrender to the Bill Gatesian Social Distancing Medical Despotism of compulsory vaccines, certifications and health apps that is starting to take shape around us.’
I wish people had listened to the few of us who pleaded with them back then not to fall for the lies of the criminals who were foisting this upon us. Perhaps we could have halted it in its tracks.
Professor Marilyn James, Professor of Health Economics, Professor David Paton, Professor of Industrial Economics | Health Advisory & Recovery Team | June 10, 2022
“It is possible that lockdown will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in modern history” – Professor Douglas Allen[1]
In March 2021, we wrote two sections in ‘Covid-19 the evidence’, namely ‘Economic impacts – the true cost of lockdown’ and ‘Lockdowns – do they work?’. Over a year later, we have revisited not only the financial costs of lockdowns but also the societal costs, the impact on healthcare and the lack of evidence for overall benefit.
Assessing the economic costs of lockdowns and other Covid-19 restrictions is not easy, partly because the pandemic itself would have impacted economic activity independent of Government restrictions. However, we do now have considerable evidence that both voluntary behaviour change and government restrictions have significant economic effects.[2],[3] Further, voluntary changes tend to have most impact on the activity of groups most vulnerable to Covid, whilst Government restrictions have a disproportionate effect on those least vulnerable. This means that not only do most mandatory restrictions have a significant economic impact, but any benefits in terms of reductions in hospitalisations or deaths are minimal.[4]
Many of the immediate economic consequences of lockdowns were masked by the eye-watering amount of money spent by governments on furlough and business support schemes. Given the limited evidence that stay-at home measures and business closures have any significant impact on infection rates[5], the question needs to be asked whether the billions spent paying business to shut down and people not to work could have been used better by building up capacity in the health system. The stay at home message of “protect the NHS” may have been no more than elaborate code for don’t highlight years of dwindling funding that failed to keep pace with growing population and demand in health care, with the NHS entering the pandemic with spending per GDP at the lowest level since 2009.[6]
Although furlough and business support schemes have had success in limiting the impact on unemployment, the longer-term economic consequences of lockdowns are now becoming clear. The lack of spending opportunities during lockdown contributes to a build-up of personal and corporate savings. As restrictions have eased, people begin to spend these savings and, combined with the supply chain issues that have built up in the meantime, sustained inflation is the inevitable result. Even worse, having spent about £70 billion[7] paying healthy people not to work via the furlough scheme and some £150 billion in total on support measures[8], the ability of the government to respond to this lockdown-induced cost-of-living crisis via either tax cuts or increased benefits, is limited due to the hit to public finances caused by lockdown-induced government spending.
It is perhaps no surprise that a series of research papers looking at data from Australia[9], the UK[10], Canada[11] and the US[12], have concluded that the costs of lockdowns exceed any plausible estimate of the benefits many times over.
The pandemic saw one disease prioritised over all others. It is now painfully clear that the “all others” are set to suffer with longer and larger health consequences than those of the covid-19 crisis itself. The report issued by the BMA is terrifying in every sense.[13] At the start of the pandemic 4.24m were waiting for elective treatment this now stands at 6.18m. Ridsdale makes the point “stay home” may well have contributed to excess deaths as people died at home without access to care and government policy prioritised covid above all other health concerns[14]. This figure of 6.18m masks and continues to mask the lack of referrals that occurred. There is no reason to suppose demand has dropped for elective care, yet, since the pandemic there have been 4.51 m fewer elective referrals. The latest figures show some 300,000 are waiting over a year for treatment. Again, this figure is masked by GPs under referring, reporting their ability to make referrals is severely constrained, yet the patients are still sitting at primary care level needing care. If the elective surgical figure continues to remain well below pre pandemic levels, NHS waiting lists will only continue to rise. Add to this routinely soaring long waits of over 12 hours at emergency department level and the gap between target time for cancer surgery and actual time to getting surgery increasing, the health picture created by covid prioritisation in the UK is frightening.
Lockdowns created isolation from our social and working worlds. The latest report from MIND states “Isolation and loneliness have made people’s mental health worse – with young people particularly badly affected.”[15] Similar can be said for older people especially those in care homes. The unintended consequences of removing activity, family and social interaction from the elderly may be more serious than the direct disease consequences of covid, with isolation being listed as cause of death in a number of care homes in the USA.[16]
Given what we now know, it is hard to disagree with the conclusion of Professor Doug Allen’s analysis of lockdown costs and benefits in Canada that “lockdown will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in modern history.” 1
References
Samizdat | June 12, 2022
The US has been concealing information about its “military biological activity” in the post-Soviet states, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Sunday. This, according to Zakharova, raises “serious questions” about Washington’s compliance with the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC).
In an interview with TASS published on Sunday, Zakharova said, “the United States prefers to remain silent about the ongoing work in the post-Soviet space and does not provide information within a framework of the BTWC confidence-building measures.”
“Assertions that the activity of the Pentagon and related structures is focused solely on health issues are not true. Clearly, health care assistance does not require the involvement of the US military,” Zakharova said.
She added that Washington’s claims that it is collecting biomaterial and monitoring the epidemiological situation “only reinforce and intensify” Russia’s fears over America’s compliance with the BTWC.
Moscow’s recently published evidence regarding the alleged sprawling network of US-funded biolabs across Ukraine only adds to the suspicions, Zakharova said.
In a series of briefings starting in March, the Russian military has presented evidence of the Pentagon’s involvement in funding laboratories in Ukraine. According to Russia’s Investigative Committee, the US poured more than $224 million into biological research in Ukraine between 2005 and early 2022. Western pharmaceutical giants, nonprofits, and even the US Democratic Party were involved in the scheme, Moscow claims.
The Pentagon has “significantly expanded its research potential not only in the field of creating biological weapons, but also obtaining information about antibiotic resistance and the presence of antibodies to certain diseases in populations of specific regions” while working in Ukraine, Lieutenant-General Igor Kirillov, the head of the Russian Radiation, Chemical and Biological Protection Force, said in May.
Zakharova also pointed out that the US has not yet withdrawn its reservation to the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the prohibition of biological and chemical weapons. The US was among the countries that declared the protocol would cease to be binding regarding enemy states that do not observe the prohibitions of the protocol.
In this regard, “the question quite reasonably arises about the real goals of the Pentagon’s international military biological activity,” Zakharova said.
Earlier this week, the Pentagon published the ‘Fact Sheet on WMD Threat Reduction Efforts with Ukraine, Russia and Other Former Soviet Union Countries’. In the document, the US military said that following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US and its partners have led “cooperative efforts to reduce legacy threats from nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons left in the Soviet Union’s successor states, including Russia.”
According to the Pentagon, the US has “worked collaboratively to improve Ukraine’s biological safety, security, and disease surveillance for both human and animal health,” by providing support to “46 peaceful Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities, and disease diagnostic sites over the last two decades.” These programs have focused on “improving public health and agricultural safety measures at the nexus of nonproliferation.”
In the same paper, the US military accused Russia and China attempting “to undermine this work by spreading disinformation and sowing mistrust in the people and institutions all over the world that contribute to WMD threat reduction.”
According to Zakharova, Moscow considers this publication part of Washington’s “information campaign” aimed at justifying its military biological activities in the post-Soviet space and to “divert the attention of the international community from its true non-transparent and unseemly direction.”
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
RT | March 15, 2022
Calling the US a “hacking empire” of the world, the Chinese Foreign Ministry urged Washington to stop “malicious” cyber activities following reports that American hackers subverted a network in China to launch attacks on Russia and Belarus.
“China is gravely concerned about cyberattacks against other countries that originate from the US and use China as a springboard,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian told reporters at a press briefing on Monday.
Zhao was commenting on recent Chinese media reports that hackers, mainly from the US but also from NATO allies Germany and the Netherlands, recently hijacked a Chinese computer network for cyberattacks, 87% of which targeted Russia.
“Against the background of the Ukraine situation, such a move may produce the negative effect of misleading the international community and spreading disinformation,” Zhao said, pointing out that “a former US senior official called publicly for launching cyberattacks on Russia not long ago.”
This appeared to be a reference to Hillary Clinton, former US secretary of state and presidential candidate, who made the calls in an MSNBC interview at the end of February. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
