Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Google “disinformation” and “election integrity” expert joins The White House

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | July 26, 2022

The long-since established “revolving door” scheme between the White House and Big Tech has continued with the appointment of former Google executive Camille Stewart Gloster as Deputy National Cyber Director with the Office of the National Cyber Director.

And before she joined Google, Gloster was already once working for the government – as a policy adviser in the Department of Homeland Security during the Obama administration.

The White House Office of the National Cyber Director has been operating for a year now, with Gloster slated to deal with workforce programs and security issues pertaining to supply chain; reports say that she will be joining other deputies in the Office who come from Microsoft, the CIA, and the National Security Council.

The practice of giving government jobs to former Big Tech execs, and of Big Tech employing former government officials is frowned upon as one way to establish an infrastructure of what critics fear can – and does – easily turn into “systemic collusion.”

Gloster, meanwhile, is known for her focus at Google, combating what the tech behemoth defines as misinformation on the Android platform – specifically, to “reduce the risk of user harm from misinformation.”

“She joins ONCD from Google, where she most recently served as Global Head of Product Security Strategy, and before that as Head of Security Policy and Election Integrity for Google Play and Android,” the announcement states.

Gloster has praised US and Chinese social media giants, favoring Twitter’s testing of “a community-based points system” to combat “misinformation” – a social credit style fact-checking system for politicians and public figures.

She also welcomed TikTok announcing new rules banning “harmful misinformation,” noting that it was good the super-popular video platform was aware that content posted there can influence political discourse.

Another way to influence political discourse, of course, is to arbitrarily declare content as misinformation and ban or downrank it, a method Big Tech has been employing in earnest over the past years.

July 26, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Hunter Biden Evidence Wrongly Labeled Disinformation by FBI: Whistleblower

By Oleg Burunov | Samizdat | July 26, 2022

While Hunter Biden was initially probed for his financial and business dealings in foreign countries during his father’s vice presidency, US prosecutors then significantly widened their scope to include Joe Biden’s son’s business associates, their related deals, and the purchase of at least one firearm.

Republican Senator Chuck Grassley has demanded that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Justice (DoJ) answer a DoJ whistleblower’s allegations that the FBI downplayed damning information about Hunter Biden ahead of the 2020 presidential election.

Grassley is the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the FBI and the DoJ.

In letters to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland, the senator revealed that a “highly credible” whistleblower had come forward alleging a widespread effort by some FBI officials to turn a blind eye to negative evidence on President Joe Biden’s son.

“The information provided to my office involves concerns about the FBI’s receipt and use of derogatory information relating to Hunter Biden, and the FBI’s false portrayal of acquired evidence as disinformation,” the letter, in particular, reads.

Grassley insisted that in October 2020, one month before the US presidential election, “an avenue of derogatory Hunter Biden reporting was ordered closed” by a senior FBI agent at the bureau’s Washington Field office.

The senator argued that the allegations obtained by his office “appear to indicate that there was a scheme in place among certain FBI officials to undermine derogatory information connected to Hunter Biden by falsely suggesting it was disinformation.”

According to the Senate Judiciary Committee member, “the volume and consistency of these allegations substantiate their credibility and necessitate this letter.”

DoJ’s Hunter Biden Probe Reportedly Reaches Critical Stage

His letter comes after CNN cited unnamed sources as saying last week that the federal probe into Hunter Biden had reached a “critical juncture” and investigators are weighing whether to charge the president’s son.

The sources told the broadcaster that prosecutors are now primarily focused on tax- and gun-related charges against POTUS’ son.

The firearm charge relates to at least one false statement made by Hunter in his procurement of a weapon. It is believed Biden’s son should have been prohibited from purchasing a firearm due to his self-professed struggles with drug addiction.

In recent months, prosecutors have discussed the matter with DoJ officials and investigators from both the FBI and Internal Revenue Service (IRS), according to the insiders.

The DoJ’s probe specifically looks into the contents of Hunter Biden’s so-called “laptop from Hell”, including compromising emails, naked photos and graphic videos that have been released since 2020, when the New York Post was the first to make public several emails from the device.

The laptop uncovered details about unseemly and potentially illegal activities by the president’s son, ranging from crack cocaine and alcohol-fueled parties with high-priced prostitutes to “business deals” involving the trading of cash for access to the elder Biden during his tenure as Barack Obama’s vice president.

Joe Biden has repeatedly dismissed any knowledge of his son’s business activities, and most news outlets and social media companies successfully shielded him from the laptop’s revelations ahead of the 2020 presidential election campaign, at which time the computer was dismissed as a “Russian disinformation operation.”

Earlier this year, the New York Times and The Washington Post changed course, confirming that the laptop was authentic and that the damning information contained within was real.

July 26, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , | Leave a comment

Washington is the problem, not the solution, so why is Abbas seeking new ‘powerful’ sponsors?

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | July 25, 2022

To describe US President Joe Biden’s recent visit to Israel and Palestine as a “failure” in terms of activating the dormant “peace process” is to use a misnomer. For this statement to be accurate, Washington would have had to indicate that it had even a nominal desire to push for negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian leadership.

Political and diplomatic platitudes aside, the current US administration has done the exact opposite, as indicated by Biden’s words and actions. Alleging that the US commitment to a two-state solution “has not changed”, Biden dismissed his administration’s interest in trying to achieve such a goal by declaring that the “ground is not ripe” for negotiations.

Given that the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly announced its readiness to return to negotiations, one can only assume that the process is being stalled due to Israel’s intransigence. Indeed, none of Israel’s top leaders or major parties champion negotiations — the so-called peace process — as a strategic objective.

However, Israel is not the only one to blame. The Americans have also made it clear that they have moved on from that political sham altogether, one which they invented and then sustained for decades. In fact, the final nail in the “negotiated solution” coffin was hammered in by the Donald Trump administration, which has simply backed every Israeli claim and shunned all legitimate Palestinian demands.

The Biden administration has been blamed habitually by Palestinians, Arabs and progressive voices within the Democratic Party for failing to reverse Trump’s prejudiced moves in favour of Israel: moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, for example; shutting down the US Consulate in East Jerusalem; and accepting the unfounded Israeli claims regarding its jurisdiction over illegal Jewish settlements built on occupied Palestinian land. The list goes on.

Even if one assumes that the Biden administration is capable of reversing some or all of Trump’s unlawful actions, what good would that be in the greater scheme of things? Washington was, and remains, Israel’s greatest benefactor, funding its military occupation of Palestine with an annual gift of $4 billion, in addition to many other schemes, including a massive and growing budget allocated just for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defence system.

As horrific as Trump’s years were in terms of undermining a just resolution to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, Biden’s policies are but a continuation of an existing pro-Israel American legacy that surpasses that of Trump by decades.

For Israel, the “peace process” has served its purpose, which explains the infamous declaration by the CEO of the Jewish settlement council, Yesha, in the occupied West Bank in 2018: “I don’t want to brag that we’ve won… Others would say it appears that we’re winning.”

However, Israel’s supposed “victory” following three decades of a fraudulent “peace process” cannot be credited to Trump alone. Biden and other top US officials have also been quite useful. While it is understood widely that US politicians support Israel out of self-interest — they need, for example, to appease the influential pro-Israel lobby in Washington — Biden’s support for Israel has an ideological foundation. The US president was less than bashful when he repeated his famous statement at Israel’s Ben Gurion airport on 13 July: “You need not be a Jew to be Zionist.”

Consequently, it may appear puzzling to hear Palestinian officials call on the US — and Biden specifically — to put pressure on Tel Aviv to end its 55-year occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Mohannad Al-Aklouk, the Palestinian representative at the Arab League, is just one who has repeated the same clichéd and unrealistic language of expecting the US to “exert practical pressure on Israel”, “set the stage for a fair political process based on international law”, and “meet its role as a fair sponsor of the peace process”. Strangely, Al-Aklouk truly believes that Washington, with its dismal track record of pro-Israel bias, can be the saviour of the Palestinians.

Another Palestinian official told the New Arab that PA President Abbas was “disappointed with the results of Biden’s visit” as, apparently, the Palestinian leader “expected that the US president would make progress in the peace process.” The same source added that Abbas’s authority is holding meetings with representatives from “powerful countries” to replace the US as sponsors of the negotiations.

Abbas’s political stance is confusing. The “peace process” is, after all, an American invention. It was a unique, self-serving style of diplomacy that was formulated to ensure Israel’s priorities remain centre stage of US foreign policy in the Middle East. In the Palestinian case, the “peace process” served only to entrench Israel’s colonisation of Palestine, while degrading, or completely sidelining, legitimate Palestinian demands. This “process” was also constructed with the aim of marginalising international law as a political and legal frame of reference for the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Instead of questioning the entire “peace process” apparatus and apologising for the strategic blunder of pursuing American mirages at the expense of Palestinian rights, the Palestinian Authority is still clutching desperately to the same old fantasy, even when the US and Israel have long abandoned the political farce that they created.

Even if China, Russia or India, for example, would agree to be the new sponsors of the “peace process”, there is no reason for Tel Aviv to engage in future negotiations when it is able to achieve its colonial objectives with full support from the US. Moreover, none of these countries have, for now, much leverage over Israel, and so are unable to sustain any kind of meaningful pressure on Tel Aviv to respect international law.

Yet, the PA is still holding on, simply because the “peace process” has proved to be greatly beneficial in terms of funds, power and prestige enjoyed by a small but powerful class of Palestinians that was formulated largely after the Oslo Accords in 1993.

It is time for Palestinians to stop investing their political capital in the Biden or any other administration. What they need is not a new “powerful” sponsor of the “peace process”, but a grassroots-based struggle for freedom and liberation starting at home, one that galvanises the energies of the Palestinian people themselves. Alas, this new paradigm cannot be achieved when the priorities of the Palestinian leadership remain fixated on the financial handouts and political validation of Washington and its Western allies.

July 25, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

Get Ready For The 100 Year Long Climate “Emergency”

By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | July 22, 2022

On March 13, 2020, then President Trump declared a “national emergency” due to the newly-arising outbreak of the Covid-19 virus. Three days later, on March 16, Trump set forth a program of “15 Days to Slow the Spread.” The program included strong recommendations for anyone who felt sick, or had tested positive for the disease, to stay at home during the two-week emergency window.

Here we are now some two years and four months later. The supposed Covid-19 15 day “emergency” has been repeatedly extended, first by Trump through the last ten months of his term, and then for the additional 18 months since January 2021 by President Biden. It’s been two-plus long years of lockdowns, work from home, business closures, school closures, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and on and on, with little to no evidence that any of it ever did any good.

On Monday July 18 (2022) President Biden extended the Covid-19 “emergency” for yet another 90 days to mid-October. You might think that the whole concept of an “emergency” has lost all meaning if it can somehow persist for more than two and a half years, well past the point where normal people have stopped paying any attention to it whatsoever. “Emergency” used to mean something immediate, like a hurricane or a tornado wrecking a town, or someone having a heart attack, or a shooter actively firing. By any reasonable view of the word “emergency,” things connected with Covid-19 that might have fallen under that term ended months if not years ago. But for a bureaucracy, what the term “emergency” means is the opportunity to issue orders that you could not otherwise issue, and pass out money that you could not otherwise pass out. Now that you have gotten a taste of the heady drug of “emergency” powers, why would you ever give them up if you could avoid it? Years later, it’s still an “emergency” if the bureaucrats want it to be. Or at least, that’s their view.

Which brings us to the so-called “climate emergency.” Since the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA on June 30, the bureaucracies in the “climate” space, together with all the environmental activists, have been thrown into a tizzy. The Supreme Court just declared that the bureaucracies have no power to fundamentally transform the use of energy in the economy without a clear direction from Congress, which on the climate issue cannot be found in existing statutes. And it has become clear that no further such statutory direction is likely to emerge from Congress before the mid-term elections in November. After November, changes in the make-up of Congress will probably make further such legislation even less likely, if not completely off the table for years if not decades. So what is a self-respecting climate alarmist to do?

To those over there on the left, the answer seems obvious: Demand declaration of a “climate emergency.” With that declaration, the statutory gap could perhaps be filled by another whole category of laws providing special powers in the event of a declaration of “emergency.” The calls for President Biden to make such a declaration have been everywhere since the Supreme Court’s decision at the end of June. In the politician category, a collection of Democratic Senators (Edward Markey and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Alex Padilla of California, Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Bernie Sanders of Vermont) sent a strong letter to Biden on July 20 making the demand:

Declaring the climate crisis a national emergency under the NEA would unlock powers to rebuild a better economy with significant, concrete actions. . . . Under the NEA, you could redirect spending to build out renewable energy systems on military bases, implement large-scale clean transportation solutions and finance distributed energy projects to boost climate resiliency. All of these actions would employ Americans in new and emerging industries while securing American leadership in global markets.

Environmental groups were out even ahead of the Senators with the same demand. Here is Greenpeace on July 8:

Congress and the Courts are failing to protect our communities from the climate crisis and it’s time for President Biden to be the leader we need. By declaring a climate emergency, President Biden unlocks an expanded set of powers under the National Emergencies Act and other federal laws.

There are many, many more examples of the same demand from all the usual suspects.

Indeed, there was lots of talk that Biden was going to make the big declaration on Wednesday, when he went to Massachusetts to give a speech at a closed coal-fired power plant. He somehow stopped just short of the formal “emergency” declaration, but took the occasion to emit the usual clichés about the impending climate apocalypse, including liberal use of the term “emergency” itself. Excerpt:

“Climate change is literally an existential threat to our nation and to the world,” Mr. Biden said. . . . “This is an emergency, an emergency, and I will look at it that way.”

It’s entirely possible that the climate “emergency” declaration could issue literally any day now.

What would declaration of an “emergency” mean? The idea is that there are plenty of existing statutes out there granting the Executive powers of various sorts in the event of such an “emergency,” provided that there had been a formal declaration of it. Thus arguably there would be a way around the lack of clear statutory authority that sank the EPA’s power plant regulations in the West Virginia case. The Nation on July 21 gives a rundown of some of the powers that the Executive could purport to exercise in the event of such a declaration with respect to the climate:

[S]uch a declaration would enable the Biden administration to access funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program for combating the impacts of heat waves, extreme weather events, and natural disasters and could enable faster implementation of critical mitigation strategies. An official climate emergency announcement could also allow the Biden administration to curtail crude oil exports and stop offshore drilling through laws and exemptions related to national security and energy development. The Biden administration could access financial support for clean energy infrastructure through FEMA and the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, and it could cut energy costs for families by supporting domestic offshore wind projects, helping to facilitate an affordable clean energy transition.

Here’s the problem. There is no sense in which the climate is an “emergency” within the ordinary meaning of that word in the English language. Predictions by climate models of a few degrees of temperature rise over the next century are the opposite of an “emergency.” Indeed, the statutes granting various “emergency” powers to the Executive all deal with the question of time periods too short to give the Congress time to enact legislation appropriate to the situation at hand. That circumstance is the opposite of what we have with the climate.

But if you are on the left, or a climate activist, this situation is just too important to wait for Congressional action that may never come. An “emergency” must be declared, to last for — how long? A hundred years? During which time, the bureaucrats can issue whatever orders they want, and spend whatever funds they want, all in the name of saving the planet. None of which will or can have any effect on the 85% (and growing) of world carbon emissions that come from outside the U.S. and which the U.S. government cannot affect in any way.

It’s all a huge insult to the intelligence of the American people. I doubt that the courts will be fooled, most particularly the Supreme Court.

July 24, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | 3 Comments

Biden Is Extending The Covid Emergency And Prolonging The War On Doctors

By Pierre Kory, MD | The Federalist | July 22, 2022

A recent New York Times/Siena College poll showing 64 percent of Democrats preferring a new standard-bearer in 2024 rocked the White House and the political landscape, but it should not have come as a big surprise. After all, President Joe Biden continues to fall short of the promises that drew many Democrats, including myself, to his candidacy in 2020: his pledge for a new strategy combatting Covid-19.

Consider the Food and Drug Administration’s recent decision allowing pharmacists to play doctor and prescribe Pfizer’s anti-viral treatment Paxlovid, which Biden himself, having contracted Covid-19, is now taking. The agency claims this is meant to increase access to the medicine, which must be taken as soon as symptoms arise. But the drug’s fact sheet is a tangled web of restrictions that will make it impractical for most pharmacies to take the risk. Why is the FDA encouraging this?

The answer is plain to anyone who has been following the plight of independent doctors during the pandemic. Our public health agencies — heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry and beholden to Biden’s “vaccine first” approach — are committed to diminishing the medical profession and centralizing authority with bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. They have prosecuted a relentless campaign to reduce physicians to cogs in a health care system that is aggressively transforming all medical professionals from providers to prescribers.

The problems with Paxlovid are no secret. FDA granted Pfizer emergency use authorization for the drug after a single trial with questionable results. The medicine has many contraindications, meaning it can’t be taken by someone who simultaneously would be taking certain anti-depressants, anti-seizure, anti-psychotic, cholesterol, or blood pressure medications. Furthermore, many Americans cannot take Paxlovid, given that nearly half of adults have cardiovascular disease.

The risks are plain to see in FDA’s guidance, which recommends referring the patient to a doctor if “sufficient information is not available to assess renal and hepatic function” or “potential drug interactions.” Numerous contraindications are listed, and caution is advised throughout. The burden is on the patient to furnish medical records to prove that he or she doesn’t have any significant kidney or liver disease, drug sensitivities, or other medications that could cause serious adverse events.

Nevertheless, pharmacies have spent months and millions of dollars lobbying for the right to play doctor and prescribe Paxlovid. The economic motives of such a move are clearly in their favor, as, unlike doctors, they profit directly from dispensing drugs. It’s no surprise the National Community Pharmacists Association celebrated the win as a “course correction.” Its CEO said, “Pharmacists are the drug therapy and drug interaction experts. This move opening up their ability to assess the need for and prescribe Paxlovid will improve patients’ timely access to treatments that will help keep them out of the hospital and alive.”

This may be as absurd a statement by a health organization as any I have heard in the pandemic. No pharmacist could ever safely dispense a novel medicine with an unprecedented amount of drug interactions without in-depth knowledge of the severity of the patient’s medical problems or the critical necessity of each of their other medicines. This fact was not lost on the American Medical Association, which temporarily snapped out of its woke-activist-induced coma to offer qualified criticism.

“While the majority of COVID-19 positive patients will benefit from Paxlovid, it is not for everyone, and prescribing it requires knowledge of a patient’s medical history, as well as clinical monitoring for side effects and follow-up care to determine whether a patient is improving—requirements far beyond a pharmacist’s scope and training,” American Medical Association President Jack Resneck Jr. said in a statement.

The tell is right there, though. The AMA is fine with Paxlovid as long as physicians are doing the prescribing. Ceding authority is the problem, which is why the agency previously called the idea “dangerous in practice and precedent” when the Biden administration first proposed it in the Test to Treat initiative.

Covid cases and deaths are down massively from their last peak in January. Most states have lifted restrictions and returned to normal. Yet just days after the FDA made this announcement, the Biden administration again extended the Covid public health emergency — because the president can’t lose the specter of Covid as a political tool.

Vaccination rates have leveled off, and Paxlovid sales bottomed out in April due to a combination of supply problems and sinking demand. Pfizer pushed expectations for the drug sky high, and now it needs to deliver on that promise. The FDA’s move shows how deftly the company has used the pandemic to influence government and public health agencies to serve its shareholders.

The pharmaceutical industry, led by Pfizer and in league with the Biden administration, is waging war against independent doctors who refuse to cede control over patient well-being — and they are winning. If there is any hope for change, it will come in November.

The red wave forming off our political shores is a culmination of many factors. Inflation and gas prices are hitting all-time highs, and just 13 percent of Americans believe the country is heading in the right direction. But relying on scare tactics to distract voters back to Biden is a strategy not supported by medical conditions on the ground.

Let’s hope whoever rides into Washington on that red wave will take on this fight with integrity.

Pierre Kory, MD, is president and chief medical officer of the Front-Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance.

July 23, 2022 Posted by | Corruption | , , | Leave a comment

Sonia Elijah | Session 113: Mycelium

Corona Investigative Committee | July 16, 2022

REINER FUELLMICH INTERVIEWING SONIA ELIJAH CIC SESSION 113 – MYCELIUM 15/07/2022
SONIA ELIJAH ON PFIZER VACCINE SAFETY REPORT
Sonia Elijah – Investigative Journalist and Broadcasterat trialsitenews.com , Has a background in Economics and was a former BBC researcher. Her analysis of the Pfizer Covid vaccine safety report, received worldwide attention.
The Corona Committee was founded on the initiative of attorney and economist Viviane Fischer and attorney Dr. Reiner Fuellmich. It is conducting a review of evidence on the Corona crisis and measures.

Learn more about the committee:
https://corona-investigative-committee.com

Anonymous tips to the Corona Committee:
https://securewhistleblower.com

Dr. Reiner Fuellmichs english Telegram channel:
https://t.me/s/ReinerFuellmichEnglish

Tor:
http://2hfjtvg32qm6kjo2esoqu3djhc6xctn2wofnkrpc4vjez47a5wei44qd.onion

Only through your support the work of the Committee is possible:
https://corona-investigative-committee.com/support/

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

Ukraine’s Naftogaz Reportedly Requests $5Bln in Government Subsidies to Buy Gas Ahead of Winter

Samizdat – 20.07.2022

Ukraine’s state-run oil and gas company Naftogaz has requested 150 billion Ukrainian hryvnias ($5 billion) in subsidies from the government to purchase enough gas ahead of the heating season, the RBC Ukraine news agency reported on Wednesday, citing the firm’s letter to the government.

Naftogaz had to request budgetary help since raising such massive funds otherwise is neither possible domestically nor internationally, the company wrote in the letter to the cabinet, according to the report.

“In such conditions, the state budget is the only possible source of financing the purchase of imported natural gas… The most favorable option is to increase the authorized capital of Naftogaz of Ukraine,” the letter read, according to the report.

The company suggested increasing its authorized share capital by 150 billion Ukrainian hryvnias, the report said.

On July 12, Naftogaz asked the holders of its Eurobonds to defer interest payments for two years but was not granted such concession, thereby exposing the company to the risk of default.

Ukraine’s former housing and communal services minister, Oleksiy Kucherenko, has accused Naftogaz of forging its profit results in 2021, saying that the breach now has to be patched with 264 billion hryvnias from the budget. The ex-official also noted that Ukraine’s budget is running low, so Kiev may have to request assistance from the United States.

July 20, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Economics | | 3 Comments

How Pfizer Profited From the Pandemic

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | July 18, 2022

According to Kaiser Health News (KHN),1 the COVID-19 pandemic has been a real boon to Pfizer. Not only has it yielded “outsize benefits” in terms of profits, but it has also “given the drugmaker unusual weight in determining U.S. health policy.”

“Based on internal research, the company’s executives have frequently announced the next stage in the fight against the pandemic before government officials have had time to study the issue, annoying many experts in the medical field and leaving some patients unsure whom to trust,” KHN reporter Arthur Allen writes, adding:2

“When last year Bourla suggested that a booster shot would soon be needed, U.S. public health officials later followed, giving the impression that Pfizer was calling the tune.

Some public health experts and scientists worry these decisions were hasty, noting, for example, that although boosters with the mRNA shots produced by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech improve antibody protection initially, it generally doesn’t last.

Since January, Bourla has been saying that U.S. adults will probably all need annual booster shots, and senior FDA officials have indicated since April that they agree … The company’s power worries some vaccinologists, who see its growing influence in a realm of medical decision-making traditionally led by independent experts …

When President Biden in September 2021 offered boosters to Americans — not long after [Pfizer CEO Albert] Bourla had recommended them — Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia … wondered, ‘Where’s the evidence you are at risk of serious disease when confronted with COVID if you are vaccinated and under 50?’

Policies on booster recommendations for different groups are complex and shifting, Offit said, but the CDC, rather than Bourla and Pfizer, should be making them. ‘We’re being pushed along,’ he said. ‘The pharmaceutical companies are acting like public health agencies.’”

The fact that a vaccine-pusher like Offit — infamous for claiming a baby can safely tolerate 10,000 vaccines at once3 — is questioning and pushing back against Pfizer’s influence over health policy reveals just how brazen, unethical and potentially dangerous that is.

Massive Profits Made From Useless Products

According to Allen, Pfizer’s revenue in 2021 was $81.3 billion4 — approximately double that of 2020 — and the COVID shot accounted for $36.78 billion5 of that. For comparison, Lipitor, Pfizer’s previous top selling statin, generates roughly $2 billion a year,6 while their strep vaccine, Prevnar 13 rakes in $6 billion a year.7

Its mRNA gene transfer injection against COVID now dominates 70% of the U.S. and European markets, and Paxlovid, Pfizer’s COVID drug, has become a standard treatment choice in hospitals. This, despite researchers finding Paxlovid (molnupiravir) causes severe rebound and supercharges mutations.

In a rational scenario, that finding would have put a stop to its use, but no. In an official health advisory8 to the public, issued May 24, 2022, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first warns that Paxlovid is associated with “recurrence of COVID-19 or ‘COVID-19 rebound,’” and then in the very next sentence stresses in bold print a narrative supporting its use and enriching Pfizer with instructions saying:

“Paxlovid continues to be recommended for early- stage treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 among persons at high risk for progression to severe disease.”

Allen also notes that, during an investor call, a Pfizer official highlighted reports of Paxlovid’s failure, but spun it into “good news” for investors, as patients may require multiple courses!9 Obviously the objective has long ago shifted from helping humans to raping them for as much profit as possible.

Similarly, while Pfizer’s COVID jab clearly doesn’t prevent infection or spread, and Americans are rejecting the shots in growing numbers — 82.2 million doses had expired and were chucked in the trash as of mid-May 202210 — the U.S. government still went ahead and ordered another 105 million doses at the end of June 2022.

These are intended for a fall booster campaign, at a cost to taxpayers of $3.2 billion.11 The U.S. is actually paying about 50% more for each of these new jab boosters this time around — $30.47 per dose compared to $19.50 per dose paid for the first 100 million doses.

The U.S. government has also promised to purchase another 20 million courses of Paxlovid, at an eye-watering cost of $530 per five-day course. Basically, Pfizer is being financially rewarded for producing products that are useless at best and dangerous at worst, and we’re all paying for it. In case you’re curious, that is another $10.6 billion transferred from U.S. taxpayers to Pfizer.

Future Boosters Won’t Undergo Human Clinical Trials

After you likely thought it couldn’t ever get any worse, KHN also touches on, but doesn’t delve into, the fact that Pfizer suggested they skip human trials as they move forward with jabs that are reformulated for newer variants. If this strikes you as crazy, you’d be right. It’s sheer madness, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — a clearly captured agency — has already surreptitiously agreed to this egregious miscarriage of science.

How this wicked scheme, known as the “Future Framework,”12 was adopted by the FDA without formal vote is explained by Toby Rogers, Ph.D. — a political economist whose research focus is on regulatory capture and Big Pharma corruption13 — in the video above. He also explained it in a June 29, 2022, Substack article:14

“Yesterday [June 28], the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee approved a bivalent COVID-19 shot with the Wuhan strain and the Omicron variant … Wait, hold up, I thought the FDA was voting on the Future Framework yesterday?

The policy question was whether reformulated COVID-19 shots would be treated as new molecular entities (which they are) in which case they should be subject to formal review or whether reformulated shots would be treated as ‘biologically similar’ to existing Covid-19 shots and be allowed to skip clinical trials altogether.

Apparently the FDA did not have the votes to just pass this as a policy question. If you ask anyone whether reformulated mRNA represents a new molecular entity, well of course it is, so that would require formal regulatory review.

What the FDA did instead was to smuggle the policy question in disguised as a vote about reformulated ‘boosters’ for the fall.

In essence, the FDA just started doing the Future Framework (picking variants willy nilly, skipping clinical trials) and essentially dared the committee members to turn down a booster dose — knowing that all of the VRBPAC members are hand-picked because they’ve never met a vaccine they did not like.

So of course only two people on the committee had the courage to turn down a booster dose — even though it was based on this preposterous process (that was never formally adopted) where there was literally no data at all … By stealth, the FDA replaced a system based on evidence with a system based entirely on belief.”

Countries Held to Ransom

In 2021, secret details of Pfizer’s contracts came to light, showing they are essentially holding countries hostage to nonnegotiable demands for payment in full AND freedom from liability.15

In late February 2021, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported16 that Pfizer was demanding countries put up sovereign assets as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 jab.

Several countries, including Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and Peru, agreed to this demand, putting up bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings as collateral. In short, theses governments are guaranteeing Pfizer will be compensated for any expenses resulting from injury lawsuits against it, so the company won’t lose a dime if its COVID shot injures people.

Shockingly, these terms are binding even if those injuries are the result of negligent company practices, fraud or malice!

In October that same year, Public Citizen published the secret contracts17,18 between Pfizer and Albania, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, the European Commission, Peru, the U.S. and the U.K., further revealing the extent to which these countries handed power over to Pfizer. In almost all scenarios, Pfizer’s interests come first.

For example, government purchasers must acknowledge that the effectiveness and safety of the shots are completely unknown, all while indemnifying Pfizer against any and all financial liability. This is the ultimate corporate maleficence, using their leverage to force the kill shot down these countries’ throats and avoiding any personal responsibility for damages.

Even if Pfizer eventually is convicted of fraud in the U.S. and loses all its liability protection from the COVID jabs because of it, that judgment would not impact these foreign contracts. These countries sold their souls to Pfizer and have absolutely no recourse but to pay even if the shots kill everyone.

The contracts for at least four countries also secure Pfizer’s intellectual property rights even if the company is found to have stolen intellectual property rights of others. In such case, the government purchaser becomes the liable party. As explained by Public Citizen :19

“For example, if another vaccine maker sued Pfizer for patent infringement in Colombia, the contract requires the Colombian government to foot the bill. Pfizer also explicitly says that it does not guarantee that its product does not violate third-party IP, or that it needs additional licenses.

Pfizer takes no responsibility in these contracts for its potential infringement of intellectual property. In a sense, Pfizer has secured an IP waiver for itself. But internationally, Pfizer is fighting similar efforts to waive IP barriers for all manufacturers.”

Equally shocking is that countries are forced to follow through on their vaccine orders even if other drugs or treatments emerge that can prevent, treat or cure COVID-19.20 Is it any wonder, then, that governments around the world have suppressed the use of safe and effective outpatient drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin?

If these drugs were allowed to be used and could be proven to work, the COVID injections would be completely unnecessary and their emergency use authorization would disappear, yet governments are on the hook for hundreds of millions of doses.

Pfizer Has ‘Habitual Offender’ Track Record

The fact that Pfizer has behaved like a criminal who works out a cover story for a planned murder before committing it is not surprising, considering its history. Pfizer, has been sued in multiple venues over unethical behavior, including unethical drug testing and illegal marketing practices.21

In his 2010 paper,22 “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR,” Robert G. Evans, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor at Vancouver School of Economics, described Pfizer as “a ‘habitual offender,’ persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.”

Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries were fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. They are recurrent criminal felons. None of these convictions has deterred their nefarious behavior.

In 2011, Pfizer agreed to pay another $14.5 million to settle federal charges of illegal marketing,23 and in 2014 they settled federal charges relating to improper marketing of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune to the tune of $35 million,24 as well as $75 million to settle charges relating to its testing of a new broad spectrum antibiotic on critically ill Nigerian children.

As reported by the Independent 25 at the time, Pfizer sent a team of doctors into Nigeria in the midst of a meningitis epidemic. For two weeks, the team set up right next to a medical station run by Doctors Without Borders and began dispensing the experimental drug, Trovan. Of the 200 children picked, half got the experimental drug and the other half the already licensed antibiotic Rocephin.

Eleven of the children treated by the Pfizer team died, and many others suffered side effects such as brain damage and organ failure. Pfizer denied wrongdoing. According to the company, only five of the children given Trovan died, compared to six who received Rocephin, so their drug was not to blame.

The problem was they never told the parents that their children were being given an experimental drug. What’s more, while Pfizer produced a permission letter from a Nigerian ethics committee, the letter turned out to have been backdated. The ethics committee itself wasn’t set up until a year after the trial had already taken place. Pfizer’s rap sheet also includes bribery, environmental violations, labor and worker safety violations and more.26

Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

Now, despite Pfizer being one of the least ethical drug companies, we’re told to trust them with our very lives, and the lives of our precious children. They’re going to put out booster shots this fall that have undergone absolutely no testing whatsoever, and we’re to simply throw caution to the wind because Pfizer — which has no liability whatsoever — says so.

In 2014, Pfizer faced a surge of lawsuits that accused it of hiding known side effects of its anticholesterol drug Lipitor.27 They got off scot-free that time, as a federal judge dismissed thousands of cases alleging the drug caused Type 2 diabetes.28,29 But at least they had liability and could be sued.

When it comes to the COVID jabs, injured patients and family members of those killed by it won’t even have the ability to sue for damages, as governments around the world have indemnified them completely, and it looks as though they might not even be liable even if they’re found guilty of fraud. But we will have to see what the courts rule on that one. Still, that any nation would agree to a contract like that is just mindboggling.

Meanwhile, mounting evidence shows the COVID shots destroy immune function over time, and Pfizer’s own trial data reveal deaths and serious adverse events numbering in the tens of thousands.

It’s hard to tell who’s more deserving of punishment — Pfizer or the equally captured federal agencies, the FDA and the CDC, that go along with them and do nothing to protect the lives of the youngest members of our society. Clearly, it’s up to us to protect ourselves and our loved ones, because wolves in sheep’s clothing are ruling the roost — they’re making all the decisions, and captured agencies are simply doing their bidding.

Sources and References

July 20, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

220-Meter Turbine Breaks in Two in One of Sweden’s Largest Wind Parks

Samizdat – 18.07.2022

A 220 meter high wind turbine with a span of 145 meters, part of a wind farm in Viksjö outside the city of Härnösand in Västernorrland County, has broken in half and crashed into the forest.

No one was injured and the wind farm will be closed until an accident team examines the wind farm.

According to the Nysäter Wind company, which owns the farm, no one was injured. An accident team is on its way to investigate the wind turbine, and is expected to begin its work on Monday. Until then, the farm is closed, and access to the adjacent areas is limited.

“Parts of the turbine are sticking up and leaning against each other. That is why we approach with caution and block off. We also ask ourselves the question of how this could happen. We hope that the investigation can find out,” Nysäter Wind board member and advisor Per Nordlund told national broadcaster SVT.

Nysäter Wind suspected that oil had leaked from the gearbox and urged the public to stay away from the site.

The Nysäter windfarm in Viksjö is touted as one of Sweden’s largest wind power projects. With its 114 turbines, it will be one of Europe’s largest onshore wind turbines and by far the largest investment ever in the history of Härnösand.

However, the wind farm in Viksjö previously ran into trouble during the construction stage. Journalist investigations by SVT and others indicated that subcontractors had been left unpaid for their work, which led to bankruptcy risks, and about 30 companies being owed money to the tune of at least SEK 60 million ($5.7 million).

No fewer than six reported violations of environmental regulations were reported during construction; forests with protected species were felled and waste was dumped in sensitive natural environments.

Furthermore, the massive project was stopped by the county administrative board over environmental criticism, leading to further delays in construction. Only in June 2022 was the park ready for inauguration.

The share of domestic wind power resources in Swedish national consumption has risen from 0.3 percent in 2000 to 20.3 percent in 2020.

To counter soaring electricity prices and alleviate Europe’s dependence on energy fuels, the Swedish government plans a massive expansion of offshore wind power. However, critics slammed the plans as inefficient and a way of shifting the bill to the customers themselves. Among others, energy expert Marie Knutsen-Öy called it “an indirect subsidy that creates unnecessary costs and impairs the functioning of the electricity market”.

July 18, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Environmentalism | | 1 Comment

Fauci Likely to Birth His Own COVID Variant After Paxlovid

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | July 13, 2022

Pfizer’s Paxlovid was granted emergency use authorization to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in December 2021.1 The drug consists of nirmatrelvir tablets — the antiviral component — and ritonavir tablets, which are intended to slow the breakdown of nirmatrelvir.2

What started out as a slow rollout — only 40,000 or fewer prescriptions were written for the drug in the U.S. each week through April 2022 — has gained steam, with more than 160,000 Paxlovid prescriptions now being issued each week.3 As of June 30, 2022, 1.6 million courses of Paxlovid have been prescribed in the U.S. since its emergency use approval in December.4

Yet, this increase in prescribing could be contributing to one of the significant downfalls of the drug — the creation of selective pressure on SARS-CoV-2, which promotes mutations that could make it resistant to the drug.5 The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also issued a warning to health care providers and public health departments about the potential for COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid treatment.6

This recently happened to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), who experienced a return of COVID-19 symptoms after taking Paxlovid. He then took a second course of the drug, which could trigger even more mutations in the virus.

Paxlovid Triggers Fauci’s COVID-19 Rebound

Fauci said he tested positive for COVID-19, with only minimal symptoms. As his symptoms increased, he took Paxlovid for five days, after which he tested negative for three consecutive days. On the fourth day of testing, he tested positive for COVID-19 again, with symptoms worse off than they were the first time.
“It was sort of what people are referring to as a Paxlovid rebound,” he said. “… Over the next day or so I started to feel really poorly, much worse than in the first go around.”7 He was then prescribed a second course of Paxlovid.

On June 30, he stated, “I went back on Paxlovid, and right now I am on my fourth day of a five-day course of my second course of Paxlovid. Fortunately, I feel reasonably good. I mean, I’m not completely without symptoms, but I certainly don’t feel acutely ill.”8 In the CDC’s health advisory regarding COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid treatment it’s stated:9

“Recent case reports document that some patients with normal immune response who have completed a 5-day course of Paxlovid for laboratory-confirmed infection and have recovered can experience recurrent illness 2 to 8 days later, including patients who have been vaccinated and/or boosted …

These cases of COVID-19 rebound had negative test results after Paxlovid treatment and had subsequent positive viral antigen and/or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing.”

COVID-19 Still Spreads During Paxlovid Rebound

People who take Paxlovid can still transmit COVID-19 to others, even if they’re asymptomatic, according to a preprint study.10 Study author Dr. Michael Charness of the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Boston told CNN, “People who experience rebound are at risk of transmitting to other people, even though they’re outside what people accept as the usual window for being able to transmit.”11

The CDC12 and Pfizer13 have suggested that sometimes COVID-19 naturally comes back after a person tests negative, implying that COVID-19 rebound is spontaneous and not necessarily linked to Paxlovid. However, Charness and colleagues didn’t find this to be the case. When they analyzed 1,000 cases of COVID-19 diagnosed among members of the National Basketball Association — none of whom took Paxlovid — no cases of COVID-19 rebound were found.14

Research published in Clinical Infectious Diseases 15 looked into why Paxlovid may be leading to rebound symptoms and suggests it could be the result of insufficient exposure to the drug.16 “Not enough of the drug was getting to infected cells to stop all viral replication,” UC San Diego Health reported. “They suggested this may be due to the drug being metabolized more quickly in some individuals or that the drug needs to be delivered over a longer treatment duration.”17

Pfizer Seeks FDA Approval for Paxlovid

Despite the many questions regarding Paxlovid’s association with rebound infections, Pfizer is moving ahead and seeking full approval of the drug from the FDA.18 The drug’s emergency use authorization restricts who the drug can be sold and marketed to. Once full FDA approval is granted, Pfizer can market the drug directly to consumers.

Paxlovid’s emergency use authorization allows it to be prescribed for adults and children ages 12 and older who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19.19 Pfizer estimates that up to 60% of the U.S. population meets these criteria and has at least one risk factor for severe illness, such as obesity or diabetes, making them eligible for the drug.20

However, concerns have risen over whether Paxlovid, which is said to cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 86% in high-risk patients, when taken within five days of symptoms starting,21 is effective in people who are not high-risk.

In fact, Pfizer stopped a large trial of Paxlovid in standard-risk patients because it didn’t show significant protection against hospitalization or death in this group.22 According to a news release from Pfizer:23

“In previously reported interim analyses, the company disclosed that the novel primary endpoint of self-reported, sustained alleviation of all symptoms for four consecutive days was not met, and a non-significant 70% relative risk reduction was observed in the key secondary endpoint of hospitalization or death (treatment arm: 3/428; placebo: 10/426).

An updated analysis from 1,153 patients enrolled through December 2021 showed a non-significant 51% relative risk reduction (treatment arm: 5/576; placebo: 10/569). A sub-group analysis of 721 vaccinated adults with at least one risk factor for progression to severe COVID-19 showed a non-significant 57% relative risk reduction in hospitalization or death (treatment arm: 3/361; placebo: 7/360).”

Is Paxlovid Triggering SARS-CoV-2 Mutations?

Initial reports have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 is not mutating and becoming resistant to Paxlovid, but some experts believe it’s only a matter of time before this occurs — and emerging research suggests it’s already happened.

David Ho, a virologist at the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at Columbia University, was among the first to document resistance mutations in HIV 30 years ago and believes the same may be coming with SARS-CoV-2.24 He’s also experienced post-Paxlovid COVID-19 rebound firsthand. Bloomberg reported:25

“Ho said he came down with COVID on April 6 … His doctor prescribed Paxlovid, and within days of taking it, his symptoms dissipated and tests turned negative. But 10 days after first getting sick, the symptoms returned and his tests turned positive for another two days.

Ho said he sequenced his own virus and found that both infections were from the same strain, confirming that the virus had not mutated and become resistant to Paxlovid. A second family member who also got sick around the same time also had post-Paxlovid rebound in symptoms and virus, Ho says.

‘It surprised the heck out of me,’ he said. ‘Up until that point I had not heard of such cases elsewhere.’ While the reasons for the rebound are still unclear, Ho theorizes that it may occur when a small proportion of virus-infected cells may remain viable and resume pumping out viral progeny once treatment stops.”

Studies Show COVID-19 Virus Developing Paxlovid Resistance

Two separate studies cultured SARS-CoV-2 in a lab and exposed it to low levels of nirmatrelvir, which would kill some, but not all, of the virus. “Such tests are meant to simulate what might happen in an infected person who doesn’t take the whole regimen of the drug or an immunocompromised patient who has trouble clearing the virus,” Science reported.26

One of the studies revealed that SARS-CoV-2 developed three mutations after 12 rounds of nirmatrelvir treatment — “at positions 50, 166 and 167 in the string of amino acids that make up MPRO.”27 The mutations amounted to a 20-fold reduction in the virus’ susceptibility to nirmatrelvir.28 The other study29 also found mutations at positions 50 and 166, revealing that when they occurred together, SARS-CoV-2 became 80 times less susceptible to nirmatrelvir. According to the study:30

“Reverse genetic studies in a homologous infectious cell culture system revealed up to 80-fold resistance conferred by the combination of substitutions L50F and E166V. Resistant variants had high fitness increasing the likelihood of occurrence and spread of resistance.”

Lead study author Judith Margarete Gottwein with the University of Copenhagen told Science, “This tells us what mutations we should be looking for [in patients].”31 Ho, who was not involved in these studies, agreed that it appeared mutations were an inevitable outcome.

He told Science, “when you put pressure on the virus it escapes … Given the amount of infections out there, it’s going to come.”32 It’s also completely unknown what may happen when two courses of Paxlovid are taken in quick succession to treat COVID-19 rebound — as occurred with Fauci. It’s possible that ever-mutating COVID-19 variants could be created.

Other antivirals on the market to treat COVID-19 have also led to concerns over mutations. Molnupiravir (sold under the brand name Lagevrio) was developed by Merck and Ridgeback Therapeutics and approved by the FDA for emergency use December 23, 2021, for high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID symptoms.

However, not only might it contribute to cancer and birth defects, it may also supercharge the rate at which the virus mutates inside the patient, resulting in newer and more resistant variants.33

Other Early COVID-19 Treatments Ignored

Using drugs that cause high rates of organ failure, like remdesivir, and drugs that cause the virus to rebound with a vengeance, like Paxlovid, and potentially trigger mutations don’t seem to be in the best interest of public health. The fact that U.S. health authorities have focused on these drugs to the exclusion of all others, including older drugs with high rates of effectiveness and superior safety profiles, sends a very disturbing message.

An investigation by Cornell University, posted on the University’s preprint server January 20, 2022, found ivermectin outperformed 10 other drugs against COVID-19, making it the most effective against the Omicron variant.34 It even outperformed Paxlovid, yet it’s been vilified by health officials and mainstream media.

Remdesivir costs between $2,340 and $3,120,35 and nirmatrelvir costs $529 per five-day treatment,36 while the average treatment cost for ivermectin is $58.37 Do you think this has anything to do with ivermectin’s vilification?

Paxlovid alone has cost U.S. taxpayers $5.29 billion,38 while safe and less expensive options exist. Dr. Pierre Kory, who is part of the group that formed the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group (FLCCC) to advance early treatments for COVID-19, pleaded with the U.S. government early on in the pandemic to review the expansive data on ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, keep those with early symptoms from progressing and help critically ill patients recover — to no avail.39,40

However, if you’d like to learn more about its potential uses for SARS-CoV-2, FLCCC’s I-MASK+ protocol can be downloaded in full,41 giving you step-by-step instructions on how to prevent and treat the early symptoms of COVID-19.

Sources and References

July 14, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 2 Comments

Petro Government in Colombia Poised to Return Key ‘Stolen’ Asset to Venezuela

By José Luis Granados Ceja | Venezuelanalysis | July 11, 2022

Troubled agrochemical company Monómeros, a subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-owned Pequiven, could return to Venezuelan control, Colombian President-elect Gustavo Petro told local radio Tuesday.

The Colombia-based agrochemical producer is considered Venezuela’s second most important foreign-held asset. It came under the control of Venezuela’s hardline opposition in May 2019 alongside a number of other foreign assets following the recognition of Juan Guaidó as “interim president” by Washington and its allies as part of efforts to oust the Nicolás Maduro government.

Since being handed over to the opposition, Monómeros has been plagued by scandals and corruption allegations, which has severely impacted its productivity and has generated serious problems for Colombia’s rural producers.

Colombian Senator Luis Fernando Velasco Chaves, a member of Petro’s transition team managing the Presidential Administrative Office file, reiterated concerns about the management of the firm following a meeting Tuesday with officials from the government of outgoing president President Ivan Duque.

“I am very concerned that Monómeros is still in the hands of Guaidó, Monómeros in the hands of Guaidó was a disaster, it disappeared,” said Velasco.

The senator also ridiculed Guaidó’s management of Monómeros, saying the incoming government could not negotiate with “ghosts that do not exist”.

The agrochemical enterprise, which has two main plants, played a major role in Colombia’s food chain, previously supplying nearly half of the fertilizers and 70 percent of the agrochemicals used by coffee, potato and palm oil production, according to local sources.

“Please look at what is happening to us, ask our peasants, ask our farmers, we are not producing and we are paying three times the [previous] cost of supplies,” said Velasco.

Mismanagement and infighting by the Venezuelan opposition eventually led Colombia’s Corporation Superintendency to assume control of Monómeros. Colombian law allows the corporate watchdog to employ such a process when an enterprise is in a critical “judicial, accounting, economic or administrative” situation.

The Maduro government called the superintendency’s takeover a “flagrant theft” of Venezuela’s assets and demanded they be returned to its rightful owner, the state-owned petrochemical company Pequiven. Maduro has said that Venezuela was engaged in “permanent diplomatic, political and legal activity” to recover the country’s foreign assets and the government has made the return of seized foreign assets a condition of a return to talks with the opposition.

The agrochemical producer did not fare much better under control by Colombian officials, with Petro claiming the company was driven into the ground, leading to a sharp increase in costs for Colombia’s agricultural sector.

“The company ended up practically closing its operations and lost the market it had in Colombia,” said the president-elect in a recent interview.

Monómeros faced yet another scandal after officials from the US Embassy to Venezuela revealed to Guaidó insider Enrique Sánchez Falcón that the company’s board had hired a lobbyist with ties to former US Ambassador to Venezuela Otto Reich without the knowledge or authorization of Guaidó’s team.

Sánchez Falcón told the outlet Efecto Cocuyo that the lobbyist was allegedly working to renew Monómeros’ sanctions waiver with the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) but that the effort was “unnecessary” since the license was likely forthcoming anyway. Guaidó subsequently announced an investigation into the irregular hire of the lobbyist. The OFAC license was eventually renewed in late June.

The current leadership of the firm has apparently failed to even update officials from Guaidó’s team about the status of the Monómeros. Guaidó ally Yon Goicoechea said he believes the secrecy is tied to a hostile takeover effort. The US-backed “interim president” has pledged to overhaul the management of the corporation but the efforts have led to corruption accusations and further infighting amidst the opposition camp.

A press spokesperson from Guaidó’s office did not respond to a request for comment on the possible return of Monómeros to Venezuelan state management.

Outgoing Colombian President Iván Duque has steadfastly refused to return control of Monómeros to Venezuela, given that he does not recognize Maduro as president.

Duque recently said that he would also decline to extend an invitation to Maduro for Petro’s inauguration. The president-elect has said invitations are the purview of the outgoing government but said Maduro’s attendance would be “prudent”.

Petro, who has committed to reestablishing diplomatic and economic ties between Colombia and Venezuela, takes office on August 9.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Mérida.

July 13, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine wants $9 billion in monthly aid

Samizdat | July 13, 2022

Kiev has nearly doubled its request for monthly aid from its Western allies, the Financial Times reported on Wednesday, citing an economic adviser to the Ukrainian president.

“For the next months, we have to receive $9 billion per month instead of $5 billion,” the publication quotes Oleg Ustenko as saying, who added that “it will be next to impossible” for Ukraine to survive without the funds. The figure of $5 billion was announced by President Volodymyr Zelensky last month, an amount still way above what Kiev’s supporters have provided so far.

The US has given Ukraine $3 billion in aid over the past two weeks to help Kiev pay public sector-employees.

The EU has also pledged to support the country financially, although the bloc has struggled to structure the aid. On Tuesday, the European Council approved a €1 billion loan to Ukraine, as part of a €9 billion long-term loan package proposed by the European Commission in May. However, media reports suggest that Germany has been blocking the wider aid package, with some EU members questioning whether the overall amount of €9 billion is too much. Concern has also been voiced that Kiev may default on its debt.

Since February, the EU has provided €2.2 billion in aid to Ukraine.

July 13, 2022 Posted by | Corruption | , , | 9 Comments

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »