Stanford tells doctors to give false information in order to overcome vaccine hesitancy
By Steve Kirsch | October 21, 2022
I found a Stanford course used to train doctors worldwide on how to overcome vaccine hesitancy. Basically, they tell doctors to give false information. They truly believe the false narrative.
Here’s the link for the Stanford course that teaches doctors how to overcome vaccine hesitancy.
It’s a series of short YouTube videos. It’s free to watch all the videos.
Here is the outline of the cases covered:
I viewed a number of the lessons to save you the pain and agony.
Some takeaways:
- They don’t expect to turn people around to support the vaccine in a single session. They admit it can take many sessions.
- They clearly think that people who don’t take the vaccine are simply misinformed and need to be set on the right track.
- They recommend giving people false information (like saying the risk of myocarditis is higher for the virus than the vaccine) in order to deal with their objections. Of course, they don’t admit in the course that their advice is false.
- At no time should the doctor try to learn anything from the patient (like that the doctor is wrong). It’s all about getting the patient to conform to the narrative, not to discover truth. None of the interventions are designed to examine the data or find the truth or allow the patient to change the doctor’s mind. You are never supposed to do anything like look at the data!
- I really think they should do their therapy session on me as one of their case studies. If they can show people how they set me on the “correct path,” that would be astonishing. It would be so entertaining to watch them try to do that. People would pay money to see that. I can’t figure out where I can volunteer to do that.
- One of the references is to a paper on why people resisted making the HPV vaccine mandatory. I can tell you why people resisted the HPV vaccine… that vaccine is the second most dangerous vaccine in VAERS, that’s why. Only the COVID vaccines are more dangerous. It has 3 times the number of adverse events that all other vaccines combined at the time it was introduced. That’s why!
Summary
If you want insight into how “they” think about “us,” this is a good reference.
US Poured Millions Into Hungarian Opposition Trying to Topple PM Orban
By Evgeny Mikhaylov – Samizdat – 23.10.2022
Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stated that Washington had fueled the movement against Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, since the US doesn’t consider the country obedient enough.
“Now, it turns out that the opposition in Budapest was also financed. The Hungarian [newspaper] Magyar Nemzet published an investigation into the funding of the liberal-left coalition of opponents of [Prime Minister] Viktor Orban by the American NGO Action for Democracy. The investigators and special services will probe all the circumstances of the attempts of foreign meddling in the political life of the country, but it is already obvious that the bill approaches millions of dollars,” Zakharova said.
According to the report, the foundation, created just before the February elections, enjoyed close ties with the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). The report also suggested that Action for Democracy is connected to Hungarian-born billionaire George Soros, who funds Open Society Foundations, banned by Hungary several years ago.
Zakharova also reminded that the EU leadership was also discontent with Budapest’s independent stance, threatening Hungary with fines and sanctions, while calling it an “electoral autocracy” for refusing to follow orders from Brussels.
Hungary has staunchly opposed the EU sanctions against Russia. Budapest has repeatedly warned that Brussels’ decision to send military aid to Kiev amid the Russian special military op there and to impose restrictions against Moscow will result in a major economic collapse of the bloc.
The sanctions, backed by the US, Britain, and the EU, exacerbated fuel market issues, resulting in a major energy crisis across Europe, with record-high inflation and skyrocketing cost of living.
Reports about Putin’s threat are false – Scholz
Samizdat | October 22, 2022
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has dismissed reports that Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to escalate the conflict in Ukraine.
When asked about the issue during an interview with Die Welt newspaper on Saturday, Scholz said the media had been too loose in its interpretation of official reports from Berlin on its discussions with Moscow.
“For good reasons, I don’t speak about the negotiations that I have with the Russian president. But here’s what I can say: The reports that I read about the alleged threats during these negotiations are false,” the chancellor said.
The Russian and German leaders last talked on the phone in mid-September. According to Berlin, Scholz urged Putin to find a diplomatic solution for the conflict in Ukraine based on a ceasefire and the complete withdrawal of Russian troops during their 90-minute conversation. He also “emphasized that any further Russian annexation steps would not go unanswered and would not be recognized under any circumstances.”
According to the Kremlin, Putin told Scholz about the incessant shelling of cities in Donbass by Ukraine, which had led to civilian deaths and the destruction of infrastructure. The Russian leader called it a “gross violation of humanitarian law” by Kiev.
A few weeks after that, referendums on joining Russia were held in Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions, and in the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, with the territories being officially incorporated into the Russian state in early October.
Earlier this week, Scholz told Deutschlandfunk outlet that the tone of his conversations with Putin “is always friendly, even if we have very different views on the matter.”
“I think it’s important that we have this conversation,” the chancellor said, but added that one shouldn’t “harbor any illusions” about those contacts bringing swift results.
Fauci forced to testify on social media censorship
Samizdat | October 22, 2022
The White House’s chief medical advisor, Anthony Fauci, and other senior officials are set to be deposed under oath as part of a lawsuit claiming the government worked alongside social media platforms to create a “massive censorship enterprise” throughout the Covid-19 outbreak.
In a Friday ruling, Judge Terry Doughty granted a joint request from the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana to compel several current and former officials to testify in the suit, among them Fauci, ex-White House press secretary Jen Psaki, Director of White House Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and two high-level figures from the FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
“After finding documentation of a collusive relationship between the [Joe] Biden administration and social media companies to censor free speech, we immediately filed a motion to get these officials under oath,” Missouri AG Eric Schmitt said in a statement. “It is high time we shine a light on this censorship enterprise and force these officials to come clean to the American people, and this ruling will allow us to do just that. We’ll keep pressing for the truth.”
While the defense insisted that senior officials can only be called to testify about their actions in office under “extraordinary circumstances,” Judge Doughty said the personnel in question met that standard. He added that the two GOP-led states “have proven that Dr. Fauci has personal knowledge about the issue concerning censorship across social media as it related to Covid-19,” ordering him to cooperate with a deposition.
Requests to depose the other officials were granted on similar grounds, as the judge concluded all either held direct meetings with social media firms about the purported censorship, or had close knowledge of those discussions.
Jen Easterly, who heads up the DHS’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) was also ordered to testify. She played a “central role” in “flagging misinformation to social-media companies for censorship,” the plaintiffs argued, describing the cyber agency the “nerve center” of “the federal government’s efforts to censor social media users.” The same official was said to be involved in the DHS’ now-defunct ‘Disinformation Governance Board’ – dubbed the ‘Ministry of Truth’ by critics – which would have created a new mechanism to facilitate cooperation between the White House and social media sites.
Initially filed last May by Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, the lawsuit claims the federal government encouraged online platforms to censor, delete or ban certain speech about the pandemic, including discussion of the “lab leak theory of Covid-19’s origin,” as well as questions about the effectiveness of face masks, vaccines or lockdown policies, among other issues. The two AGs have largely relied on documents obtained through subpoenas of YouTube, Twitter and Facebook’s parent firm Meta, which detail regular communications between the government and social media sites.
The White House, as well as the eight officials ordered to testify, have yet to comment on Friday’s ruling. The depositions must take place within 30 days of the order, though it remains unclear whether the defense intends to appeal the decision.
‘Gearing Up to Fight Biological Weapons?’ White House Launches $88 Billion National Biodefense Strategy
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | October 20, 2022
The Biden administration on Tuesday announced a new $88 billion national biodefense strategy that outlines the government’s plans for how to respond to future pandemics, public health emergencies and biological threats.
The launch of the “National Biodefense Strategy and Implementation Plan for Countering Biological Threats, Enhancing Pandemic Preparedness, and Achieving Global Health Security” included the signing of National Security Memorandum-15 (NSM-15).
Key elements of the new strategy include the rapid production and distribution of vaccines and diagnostic tests, and enhancing global health security.
The strategy also includes a new framework for the federal government’s role during a future crisis, which places the White House at the center of any such response, coordinating the actions of multiple federal agencies.
The White House said the new strategy adopts lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.
In an interview with The Defender, University of Illinois international law professor Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, said:
“It appears that the enormous amount of money here, $88 billion over five years, when you add it on to well over, I would say, maybe $130 billion [in biodefense spending] since Sept. 11, 2001, means that they are gearing up to fight biological weapons warfare around the world.”
Boyle told The Defender that between October 2001 and October 2015, the federal government spent $100 billion “on biological warfare purposes.”
“To put that into perspective,” he said, “in constant dollars, the Manhattan Project to develop the atom bomb was $40 billion.”
Plan calls for development, distribution of new vaccines within 130 days
Biden’s new biodefense strategy includes the rapid development and deployment of new vaccines and diagnostics that it foresees in response to any future “biological threats.”
According to the White House’s plan, these “biological threats” may be “naturally occurring, accidental [or] deliberate,” “with the potential to significantly impact humans, animals (domestic and wildlife), plants, and the environment, and to negatively affect health, the economy, society, and security.”
According to STAT, the plan’s targets include:
- Being able to test for new pathogens within 12 hours.
- Making rapid tests available to the public within 90 days.
- Repurposing existing drugs within 90 days.
- Developing vaccines within 100 days.
- Manufacturing enough of the new vaccine for the entire U.S. population within 130 days and “for the high-risk global population” within 200 days.
- Developing new treatments within 180 days.
In justifying the new strategy, an unnamed senior Biden administration official quoted by The Hill said:
“We … know that the risk of another pandemic as bad or worse than COVID is a real threat. The new National Biodefense Strategy therefore outlines a bold vision … towards a world free of pandemics and catastrophic biological incidents.”
According to Defense One, other goals contained within the plan include “detecting the spread of pathogens before patients even begin to show symptoms like fever” and “scaling up the number of diagnostic test kits by tens of thousands within a week.”
A further element of the plan is “restoring community, the economy and the environment after a pandemic or biological incident,” The Hill reported.
The Biden administration’s plan also includes provisions for preparedness against the “accidental release of biological agents, and threats posed by terrorist groups or adversaries seeking to use biological weapons.”
Noting that COVID-19 “has highlighted that the United States and the world are vulnerable to biological threats, whether naturally occurring, accidental, or deliberate,” the plan states:
“It is a vital interest of the United States to prepare for, prevent, detect, respond to, and recover from biological threats at home and abroad.
“Therefore, countering biological threats, advancing pandemic preparedness, and achieving global health security are top national and international security priorities for the United States.
“Moving forward, the United States must fundamentally transform its capabilities to protect our Nation from biological threats and advance pandemic preparedness and health security more broadly for the world.”
According to STAT, an unnamed senior Biden administration official said Tuesday, “One of the important things that COVID has taught us is that we need to be able to move much faster to counter pandemic threats, and we also need to be prepared for completely unknown threats.”
The same official said the plan includes “moonshot” targets that are not scientifically feasible presently, but potentially could be within a decade.
According to the official, these new developments can target the 26 families of viruses that infect humans, “many of which we are far less prepared for than coronaviruses.”
Will Congress fund it?
Some questioned the plan’s price tag and the willingness of Congress to approve its funding.
One of the elements of the new strategy is its connection to a March 2022 request to Congress for $88 billion in funding over five years for “pandemic preparedness and biodefense,” a request that has thus far “stalled.”
These monies are intended, in part, “to fund new research to predict outbreaks before they become pandemics,” and “accelerate rapid testing to get ahead of where viruses are moving,” Defense One said.
Some of this money will come from the baseline funding of the federal agencies involved in this strategy, but it’s unclear whether Congress has “much of an appetite for additional public health spending,” according to STAT, which noted that “Republicans in Congress have balked at recent requests for funding the ongoing monkeypox and COVID-19 responses.”
According to the White House, the new strategy “builds on USAID’s [U.S. Agency for International Development] announcement earlier this year committing $150 million to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations to accelerate the development of life-saving vaccines and countermeasures against biological threats.”
The White House also included the $1.4 billion in “seed funding” it provided earlier this year to the “groundbreaking new Financial Intermediary Fund for Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response at the World Bank.”
Boyle described the $88 billion in projected funding over the next five years as “a dramatic escalation” with “no justification from legitimate scientific reasons.”
He noted that since 2015, the federal government has “allocated anywhere from $5 to $6 billion per year on biological warfare purposes, which, being conservative, would mean a sum total from Sept. 11, 2001, until now, of $135-$140 billion.”
In his view, this money is being allocated “into further expanding the U.S. biological warfare industry … for the purpose of waging biological warfare,” and instead “should have been spent on the public health of the American people.”
‘You find Tony Fauci behind all of it’
Part of the price tag for the new biodefense strategy appears to be directed toward “recruiting, training and sustaining a robust, permanent cadre of health workers in all 50 states,” in the words of a senior Biden administration official quoted by Reuters.
Referring to it as a “public health army,” STAT reported that this “cadre of health workers” will include “laboratory technicians, veterinarians, and community health workers — to not only better detect emerging diseases but respond to them.”
In turn, Defense One reported that the strategy “aims to boost the number of local healthcare workers” and “traditional frontline healthcare workers,” but also, many new positions “related to research and data collection,” including “expanding the CDC’s epidemiology field officer program” and “bringing more epidemiologists to every state.”
The Biden administration also said it is “committed to helping at least 50 countries strengthen their own local capacities,” “strengthening public health workforces both in the United States and globally” and “establishing international mechanisms to bolster laboratory safety,” according to STAT.
For some, “international mechanisms” may bring to mind the recent and ongoing efforts by the World Health Organization (WHO) to establish a renewed “global pandemic treaty” — efforts in which the United States under the Biden administration has played a leading role.
As previously reported by The Defender, the Biden administration expressed broad support for a “pandemic treaty” and previously headed negotiations on this issue.
In his interview with The Defender, Boyle also drew connections between the Biden administration’s new strategy, and efforts to develop the “pandemic treaty.”
Referring to the Biden administration’s recently signed executive order on “advancing biotechnology and biomanufacturing,” Boyle remarked that it makes mention of “dual-use research of concern, and research involving potentially pandemic and other high-consequence pathogens.”
For Boyle, “dual-use research” refers to the development of both “offensive and defensive biological weapons of warfare,” noting that “when it comes to biological warfare, defense means offense.”
“If they are saying they are doing all this for defensive purposes, it’s because they are also planning offensive use of biological warfare weapons, with the defense to defend themselves in the event that adversaries respond in kind,” Boyle added.
This then connects to the “pandemic treaty,” according to Boyle, noting that Dr. Anthony Fauci has close ties to the WHO’s executive committee:
“If you recall, Trump pulled us out of the WHO. The first act Biden did was to put us back into the WHO … and he appointed Tony Fauci as the U.S. government’s representative on the WHO executive committee.
“So the same guy supporting this ‘dual research of concern’ … is also implementing, supervising this new WHO treaty.”
Biden’s strategy also “calls for international mechanisms that can help strengthen lab safety and biosecurity practices around the world,” especially in light of “questions about the risks and benefits of research into potentially dangerous viruses,” including the COVID-19 Wuhan lab-leak theory.
This may indicate that Biden is seeking to expand gain-of-function research globally. As recently reported by The Defender, facilities conducting such research — including a facility where a purportedly “more lethal” strain of the COVID-19 Omicron variant was developed — are currently being expanded in the U.S.
Gain of function refers to the “manipulation of pathogens to make them more dangerous,” in the hope of “getting ahead of a future outbreak.”
As part of the new strategy, a “policy coordination structure for biodefense among government agencies with oversight by the White House” was signed, Reuters reported.
According to The Hill, this memorandum “outlines the coordination structure for biodefense across federal agencies, directs agencies to prioritize biodefense, directs the intelligence community to track evolving threat landscapes and ensures the government is continuously reviewing and adjusting priorities.”
Boyle, an outspoken critic of gain-of-function research, said it appears such research will be an integral part of the Biden administration’s new biodefense strategy. He told The Defender :
“It’s clear in the language that they are going full steam ahead on abusing DNA, genetic engineering, gain-of-function, synthetic biology, gene splicing, CRISPR-Cas9, to develop biological warfare weapons.”
He said that the proposed WHO pandemic treaty includes language on “measures to provide oversight and report on laboratories that do work to genetically alter organisms in order to increase pathogenicity and transmissibility.”
For Boyle, “this means gain-of-function work, using and abusing DNA engineering, synthetic biology, CRISPR-Cas9. That’s in the WHO treaty.”
“It all ties up,” Boyle added. “The executive order, the biodefense strategy, the WHO treaty. You find Tony Fauci behind all of it.”
Boyle added:
“When you add all this up together, it seems to me they’re gearing up to prepare to wage offensive biological warfare and preparing for the defense, for other states to respond with biological warfare weapons.”
Plan calls for coordination across federal agencies under White House control
The administration’s new biodefense strategy will utilize more than 20 federal agencies, while “oversight for the strategy will be at the White House, under the national security advisor.”
According to a senior Biden administration official, the new strategy “directs the U.S. intelligence community to monitor for threats and ensure the United States ‘continuously adapts to this evolving threat landscape’ by holding annual exercises,” to “prevent epidemics and biological incidents before they happen,” Reuters reported.
This may bring to mind exercises and simulations that took place just prior to the COVID-19, monkeypox and anthrax outbreaks, which appeared to predict, with remarkable similarity, what was to follow.
According to Biden’s new strategy, the heads of the relevant federal agencies “shall implement the Biodefense Strategy, as well as related strategies such as the U.S. Global Health Security Strategy, and include biodefense-related activities … within their strategic planning and budgetary processes.”
Federal agencies also will be expected to coordinate with each other and with non-federal agencies on matters pertaining to “the biodefense enterprise.”
Is new strategy a ‘moonshot,’ or ‘pie-in-the-sky’?
In addition to questions about funding, some also questioned the feasibility of the new plan.
Defense One wrote that meeting some of the “moonshot” goals of the strategy “will require scaling up data-collection efforts at research facilities around the globe,” in addition to significantly ratcheting up a host of other research-related efforts, noting that the administration “did not specify exactly what technologies they will invest in.”
According to Defense One, “new approaches to RNA research” to “ease pandemics” may need to be developed, in addition to “new forms of plant-based vaccines” that could “allow for the scaling up of vaccine production by orders of magnitude.”
An unnamed senior Biden administration official quoted by Defense One acknowledged that the “moonshots” foreseen by the plan “are not possible today, but these capabilities can be achieved and are within our reach with the right resources over the next five to 10 years.”
Hiring more health workers may also prove challenging for the Biden administration due to a shortage of nurse practitioners that is expected to grow by 2025, along with looming “shortages of other healthcare workers.”
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
No balanced coverage of covid vaccines in legacy media, says Peter Doshi
By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | October 16, 2022
Peter Doshi, associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and senior editor at The BMJ, has spoken out about how the mainstream media has ignored important data on covid-19 vaccines.
In a recent interview with German TV, Doshi said, “Our legacy media has not done a good job in providing balanced coverage about the vaccines.”
He said there has been “a lot of nervousness” about how to communicate vaccine harms to people and is concerned that “we’re not getting the information we need to make better choices and to have a more informed understanding of risk and benefit.”
Doshi’s concerns extended to the over-confidence of public health authorities engaged in promoting the covid-19 vaccines.
“It was very unfortunate, that from the beginning, what was presented to us by public health officials was a picture of great certainty… but the reality was that there were extremely important unknowns,” said Doshi who has written and spoken about these unknowns, highlighting that even public health officials were aware of these limitations.
“We entered a situation where essentially the stakes became too high to later present that uncertainty to people.” He added, “I think that’s what set us off on the wrong foot. Public officials should have been a lot more forthright about the gaps in our knowledge.”
Doshi was part of an international group of eminent academic researchers and physicians who went back and re-analysed the safety data from the original randomised clinical trials that underpinned the FDA’s decision to authorise the mRNA vaccines in December 2020.
I reported on the pre-print study, but since then, it has been published in the peer-reviewed journal, Vaccine.
The authors focused on serious adverse events that occurred in the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine trials, events the sponsors classified as “serious” generally because they resulted in hospitalisation.
In short, their analysis showed that mRNA vaccines were associated with 1 additional serious adverse event for every 800 people vaccinated, which Doshi said is “much more common” than what we’ve traditionally observed for other vaccines where the adverse event rate is in the range of 1 to 2 per million vaccinees.
“Just to put that in some perspective, a rate like that in past years has had vaccines taken off the market. In 1976, we saw Guillain Barre Syndrome after influenza vaccines that were then withdrawn.”
The authors of the study also found the trial data showed that the increase in serious adverse events following mRNA vaccination surpassed the reduction in risk of ending up hospitalised with covid-19.
Despite public assurances that covid-19 vaccines would save lives and protect the community by preventing transmission, Doshi knew from the outset that it was never properly tested. In Oct 2020, Doshi published an article in The BMJ:
Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out [emphasis added]
It was, therefore, unsurprising to Doshi that the vaccines failed to stop the spread.
“One of the big reasons is that it’s an intramuscular vaccine, and this doesn’t produce mucosal immunity. Infections of covid, influenza and other acute respiratory infections, start in the mucosal membranes, a place where these vaccines are not particularly good, historically, at producing immunity antibodies” said Doshi.
Doshi and his colleagues have called on public health authorities and drug manufacturers to release the raw data so that we can better understand who is most at risk of a serious adverse event.
“There’s no reason to think that these risks are going away and if it’s in the low-risk population, that’s very bad news, because low-risk people have much less to potentially gain from covid vaccines, so the side effect profile in such people has to be extremely low,” said Doshi, pointing out that Denmark now recommends against routine covid-19 vaccination for people under 50.
The FDA and the vaccine manufacturers have the raw ‘patient level’ data, but they have not released it and we’re now almost 2 years into the roll out of the product.
“They should immediately be warning people about this safety signal that we found, and they should immediately be replicating our analysis — the data are indicating there’s increased risk at a level that is much higher than has previously been realised,” said Doshi.
Throughout the pandemic, we’ve been told to “trust the science” but Doshi says, “How can one recommend responsibly that these products are based on science if the data are not available? Science is about sharing data. We’re in an era of open science, not secret science.”
Doshi and colleagues have penned an open letter to the CEOs of the vaccine companies asking for the raw data, but as yet, they have not received a reply.
See the full interview on mdr.de
AOL Reviews and Accepts “Israel Killed JFK” Comment
Then Re-Reviews and Rejects It Four Hours Later
BY KEVIN BARRETT • UNZ REVIEW • OCTOBER 19, 2022
Earlier today, NBC News published a surprisingly fair and informative JFK assassination story. Headlined “‘What are they hiding?’: Group sues Biden and National Archives over JFK assassination records,” Mark Caputo’s piece details the Mary Ferrell Foundation’s lawsuit demanding that the federal government comply with the JFK Records Act and release the 16,000 records that, by law, it was required to release back in 2017.
Since the headline asked “what are they hiding?” I was happy to answer the question in a succinct comment:
Israel killed JFK, using its CIA assets like James Angleton and mob assets like Meyer Lansky, to eliminate an obstacle to its nuclear weapons program, and put its man LBJ in the White House in preparation for the 1967 land grab. Free online book: https://www.unz.com/book/michael_collins_piper__final-judgment/
I was not surprised when my post didn’t immediately go through, but instead elicited a warning: “Sure about this? Your post is more likely to get published if you keep the conversation civil.” My post was perfectly civil, so I clicked on “post anyway” which elicited “your comment is under review.” About an hour later, I received an email stating that the post had been approved. It appeared beneath the article, garnered a couple of “likes”—and then was taken down shortly before 8 pm. (See screenshot at the top of this article.)
I am reasonably certain that if I had blamed the JFK assassination on Oswald, Ruby, the CIA, the mob, fascists, militarists, the military-industrial complex, Russia, Cuba, French intelligence, Oliver Stone, aliens, or the man in the moon, AOL would not have seen anything less than civil in my comment. But blaming the nation whose intelligence services actually did it is taboo. Why is that? Who made those rules? Who enforces them?
As the headline says: What are they hiding?
Obviously the people who killed both Kennedys (and did 9/11) couldn’t have executed either coup d’état without controlling the media. So ask yourself: What group controls the media to the extent that you can’t even post a comment casting aspersions on their favorite nation?
US May Be Compelled to Answer Questions on Biolabs in Ukraine, This Time at UNSC
Samizdat – 19.10.2022
The issue of US biolabs in Ukraine has once again received wide international publicity. On October 18, Belarus, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria, and Russia called for invoking Article VI of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) because of US military and biological activities in Ukraine.
Article VI of the Biological Weapons Convention allows states-parties to lodge a complaint with the United Nations Security Council if they suspect a breach of treaty obligations by another state. In the event of such a development, the United States, as a state-party to the convention, would be obliged to cooperate in any investigation that may be initiated by the UNSC.
Chinese experts interviewed by Sputnik believe that if the US has nothing to hide, it should provide a comprehensive explanation.
In early March 2022, the Russian Ministry of Defense released information indicating that the United States was deploying an extensive biological research program in Ukraine. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the US has spent more than $200 million on 46 biological laboratories in Ukraine that participated in the US military biological program.
According to Lt. Gen. Igor Kirillov, chief of the Radiation, Chemical and Biological Protection Forces of the Russian Armed Forces, one of the priority tasks of the Ukrainian laboratories was to collect and send to the United States strains of pathogens of dangerous infectious diseases – cholera, anthrax, tularemia, and others. At the same time, the transportation of the pathogens was not controlled within the WHO, BWC, or other international institutions, and various biological agents and substances were tested on Ukrainian military personnel, indigent citizens, and patients of mental hospitals.
According to Russia, the United States, under the guise of scientific activities and efforts to improve laboratory security systems, has been developing biological weapons in Ukraine.
According to data obtained by the Russian MoD from Ukrainian officials, traces of US activities were partially destroyed on the day the Russian special military operation was launched, and many pathogens were removed from the country, indicating that the US intends to continue research outside the country. Indirectly, this was also indicated by the words of US Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. During a March 8 hearing of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, she reported on the presence of biosafety research facilities in Ukraine. She expressed concern about the possibility that these biolaboratories and materials stored there might come under the control of the Russian Armed Forces.
The US subsequently denied any connection between the laboratories and the Pentagon. However, according to Yang Mian, a professor at the Institute of International Relations, Communication University of China, the very existence of such laboratories raises questions:
“Russia says that it has found many US biolaboratories in Ukraine near Russia’s borders, some of which were researching infectious diseases. The US denied the accusations, saying that they were engaged in scientific research. Outside observers have every reason to ask: Why did the US set up so many laboratories around Russia? The US could have conducted research on these diseases internally as well as externally. Therefore, this situation is suspicious one way or another,” he said.
According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, the US Department of Defense controls 336 biolaboratories in 30 countries around the world. In this regard, the issue of US-led biological research is of great concern to China, and this information provided by the Russian Ministry of Defense immediately resonated in the country.
“China has always demanded that the United States disclose the purpose and role of its own biological experiments. China’s concern could greatly increase international attention to this issue, as well as increasing pressure on the United States. China is very concerned about the safety of human life. Regarding this issue, China believes that the United States has a responsibility and should give a transparent and open report to the world,” Yang Mian explained.
According to the expert, what is most suspicious is the ambiguous actions of the United States, and the attempts to “cover up the issue”:
“Russia is demanding an investigation. Many countries are demanding it. It is imperative, the activities of the US should be investigated. But they are obstructing the investigation in every way possible. If the US is in the clear, then what is there to be afraid of? Many such studies have a dual purpose. The US says it was engaged in scientific research, but couldn’t it have been used to create new kinds of weapons? The US should provide evidence and explanations.”
Lyu Chao, dean of the Institute of American and East Asian Studies at Liaoning University, holds a similar view:
“The disclosed information about American biolaboratories in Ukraine has alarmed the international community. Therefore, the US has to provide a clear explanation. Better yet, instead of making excuses, it should conduct an international investigation, including one under the auspices of the WHO. This would be even more convincing,” Lyu Chao said.
Both experts were cautious in their assessments and noted that the topic of US biolaboratories in Ukraine requires additional clarification, both in terms of US arguments and scientific expertise. Due to the politicization of the situation, it is unlikely that the United States will agree to provide more clarity and engage in truly open cooperation. Moreover, judging by the experience of the September BWC meeting, where half of the participating countries did not attend, not everyone has the courage to openly question Washington’s position. Nevertheless, the current initiative of the eight countries is a case where the Western hegemon does not find itself in its usual role of prosecutor, but in the role of justifying itself. Perhaps the United States will have to answer questions that worry so many countries after all.
Canadian intelligence reported ‘no concerns’ about Freedom Convoy on day Trudeau invoked Emergencies Act
By Anthony Murdoch – Life Site News – October 17, 2022
OTTAWA – Documents show that the Canadian federal government received regular updates indicating the Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa were non-violent in nature, despite the Trudeau administration’s claims otherwise.
According to Blacklock’s Reporter, Internal Department of Public Safety reports show that on the same day Prime Minister Justin Trudeau enacted the Emergencies Act (EA) to clear out the protesters, a report stated the protests were peaceful.
“No concerns at this time,” noted a February 14 report from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
Trudeau on the same day, however, claimed to reporters that the protests were “illegal and dangerous,” saying they could not be allowed “to continue.”
Multiple daily reports from the Department of Public Safety leading up to Trudeau enacting the EA show that there were no major concerns that the Freedom Convoy protests were violent.
A January 27 report said, “The Freedom Convoy so far has been peaceful and cooperative with police.”
Blacklock’s Reporter listed five such statements asserting there were no issues.
A January 29 report stated there were “No major incidents,” while a report from February 1 said, “no violence took place.”
A February 6 report concluded that disruption to “government activities is so far minor.”
A report from February 10 said that there was a “minimal” amount of people on Parliament Hill, while an update from the next day stated the “situation remains stable and planning is ongoing.”
Canada’s Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino also claimed the Freedom Convoy might be violent in nature, despite the internal reports stating otherwise.
Government staff even wrote that the “majority of the events have been peaceful,” noting that as most people were working from home, there was very little disruption to “government activities.”
Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs in a memo said that it had “not observed any significant indicators of foreign state involvement related to the truckers’ convoy.”
Canada’s draconian COVID measures were the catalyst for the Freedom Convoy, which took to the streets of Ottawa to demand an end to all mandates for three weeks in February.
The EA gave the Trudeau government unprecedented powers such as the ability to freeze bank accounts without a court order and deploy police at will.
While Trudeau revoked the EA on February 23, many who supported the Freedom Convoy were targeted by the federal government and had their bank accounts frozen without a court order.
Canada’s Public Order Emergency Commission began public hearings last Thursday into Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act.
The hearings are open to the public livestream and will call forth at least 65 witnesses over six weeks.
Video footage showed police using what many said was disproportionate force
Many claims by government officials and mainstream media pundits that the Freedom Convoy would lead to violence never came to light.
After Trudeau had enacted the EA, scuffles only broke out after police directly intervened in the protests.
Video footage of police on horseback trampling an elderly protester went viral, as well as videos showing non-violent protesters being physically assaulted and pepper-sprayed by police.
Also, an independent journalist said she was beaten and intentionally shot at with a tear gas canister.
Just recently, former Ottawa Police Service (OPS) chief Peter Sloly testified that Freedom Convoy protesters were permitted by the cops to park their vehicles outside Canada’s Parliament in the early days of the protest.
OPS interim chief Steve Bell recently acknowledged his department did not request that Trudeau invoke EA to take down the Freedom Convoy.
Even Sloly said he did not request the use of the EA. He resigned as OPS Chief on February 25.
Trudeau had made claims that the Freedom Convoy protesters were funded by foreign entities with ties to terrorist-linked financing. This reasoning was used as justification for Trudeau to use the EA against the Freedom Convoy.
Canada’s state broadcaster the CBC in March had to retract a story that falsely claimed most support for the Freedom Convoy came from foreigners.
‘Profiles of the Vaccine-Injured’: New CHD Book Exposes Life-Changing Impact of Vaccine Injuries
The Defender – October 17, 2022
Governments, public health experts and the media have so often repeated the false claims that vaccine injuries are “rare,” “almost nonmeasurable” or “one in a million,” that many people believe them — until they experience an injury.
The controlled messaging — together with censorship of vaccine injury stories in the public square and indecent gaslighting of injured individuals who speak up — have thrown a cloak of invisibility over vaccination’s potential to ruin health and torpedo financial security.
“Profiles of the Vaccine-Injured: ‘A Lifetime Price to Pay’” — a new book by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) with a foreword by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. — exposes the official soft-pedaling of vaccine risks as a dangerous lie.
As the book takes pains to explain, vaccine injuries are common, not rare. They are “equal opportunity,” affecting all demographic groups, including young and old, rich and poor.
Vaccine injuries are, more often than not, profoundly life-changing, and they have significant ripple effects on family members.
And, with the advent of experimental COVID-19 injections, they are occurring on a scale never before seen.
Because nearly all vaccines, whether fully licensed or authorized for emergency use, are liability-free, in most cases, families are left holding the bag for the medical, educational, caregiver and other expenses that a serious vaccine injury generates — costs that have the potential to bankrupt not only individual households but the nation.
Nine stories
The heart of the book resides in nine vaccine injury stories, told by mothers of injured children and by persons injured as adults.
Their injuries, at ages ranging from 12 months to 49 years, followed receipt of “routine” childhood vaccines, travel vaccines or COVID-19 shots.
The interviews convey in vivid detail what it’s like to live with conditions such as severe autism, chronic pain or immune systems gone haywire — and, in one case, describe the tragic loss of a promising teenager’s life shortly after receiving a shot.
The nine individuals also describe experiences with gaslighting and obfuscation by the medical profession, strained family relationships and interrupted or curtailed careers, along with immense regret for “the worst decision of their life.”
Equally importantly, they identify a theme that, while common, is perhaps one of the most underrecognized facts about vaccine injury: “When it comes to vaccine injuries, there’s no help legally or financially — you’re on your own.”
Dollars and cents
Although the two pieces of legislation that established vaccines’ liability-free status have been in place for years or decades — the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (for most licensed vaccines) and the 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act (for Emergency Use Authorization vaccines) — the laws and their financial ramifications remain unknown to large swaths of the public.
Both laws created mechanisms for vaccine injury compensation, but little more than one in four petitioners (28%) to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program have obtained anything — usually after years of wrangling with adversarial government attorneys — and no one has received compensation from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) for a COVID-19 vaccine injury.
Just after the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, The Associated Press described the CICP as “an obscure program with a record of seldom paying claims,” and interviewed worried experts who admitted the program could “get overwhelmed very, very quickly.”
Instead of getting “overwhelmed,” Forbes noted that relatively few individuals had, by November 2021, applied to CICP for compensation for COVID-19 vaccine-related injuries or deaths — around 1,360 — but the financial magazine speculated that the low number might be because “people don’t know the special fund exists.”
By September 2022, the landscape had shifted, with nearly 9,000 CICP petitions filed, though the program’s fiscal year 2022 budget contained funds sufficient to compensate at most three applicants.
As Wayne Rohde, a long-time analyst of U.S. vaccine injury compensation statistics, stated in an analysis of the CICP, “Our government really does not want to compensate those who have been injured.”
An unhealthy nation
In its introductory chapters, “Profiles of the Vaccine-Injured” also takes a comprehensive look at other sources of information on vaccine injuries, ranging from vaccine package inserts to published research.
Discussing the poor showing of U.S. children — and adults — in global health rankings, the book reiterates a point that CHD has emphasized in other books: namely, that vaccination must be considered a key “elephant in the room” linked to America’s chronic disease epidemics.
The recent forced release of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) V-safe app suggests that the COVID-19 injections are responsible for shocking numbers of debilitating symptoms, including severe pain as well as unprecedented rates of hospitalization and worse.
In fact, while Americans’ health disadvantage — which “begins at birth and extends across the life course” — had translated into plunging life expectancy even before the COVID-19 injections, premature deaths have become especially noticeable since the vaccines’ rollout.
Exposing the truth behind the vaccine safety myth, “Profiles of the Vaccine-Injured” is, as Kennedy writes in his foreword, ultimately a call to arms.
“When you are done weeping and tearing out your hair from fury, frustration and indignation, join Children’s Health Defense in doing something about it,” Kennedy wrote.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Moscow comments on alleged military use of Iranian drones
Samizdat | October 18, 2022
All weapons used by troops have Russian designations, Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov has said, reiterating a denial of reports that Moscow was using Iranian-supplied drones against Kiev.
“No, we have no such information. Russian hardware is being used. You know it well. It has Russian designations. All further questions can be addressed to the Defense Ministry,” Peskov said on Tuesday.
American and Ukrainian officials have claimed on many occasions that Russia received various unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) from Iran and was using them in the conflict with Ukraine.
On Monday, multiple drones were spotted flying over the Ukrainian capital Kiev, with troops desperately trying to shoot them down with small arms, according to videos from the scene.
At least one “kamikaze drone” was reportedly hit and crashed into an apartment block, setting off a deadly explosion. A soldier interviewed by Ukrainian television claimed that he was among those who managed to divert the aircraft off its course with gunfire, adding that he later helped rescue people from under the rubble at the crash site.
The mayor of Kiev, Vitaly Klitschko, said that Russia attacked the city with 28 drones on Monday morning and that the Ukrainian military managed to intercept “most” of them. He reported a total of five explosions, including the one at the residential building. Other drones apparently reached their intended targets, including energy infrastructure facilities.
The drones, designated Geran-2 in Russia, are allegedly a localized version of the Iranian-made Shahed-136. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky claimed last week that Russia had acquired as many as 2,400 Shahed UAVs, as he asked G7 members to provide more air defense systems.
Last month Ukraine cut diplomatic ties with Iran over the alleged supply of weapons to Russia. Neither Moscow nor Tehran confirmed the purported purchase.
Kiev reportedly urged Israel to ramp up intelligence-sharing in response to Moscow’s alleged deal with Iran. Israeli Minister of Diaspora Affairs Nachman Shai said last Sunday that he supported taking Kiev’s side because of the claimed Iranian involvement.
Featured Video
Fear Is the Mind Killer
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda
Dr. Joseph Mercola | July 9, 2022
“Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda,” is the fourth vaccine-related documentary by Dr. Andrew Wakefield. It tells the story of an intentional infertility vaccine program conducted on African women, without their knowledge or consent.
While it’s been brushed off as a loony conspiracy theory for years, there’s compelling evidence showing it did, in fact, happen, and there’s nothing to prevent it from happening again. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Fear Is the Mind Killer
- Israeli strikes kill 10 in southern Lebanon, including 3 rescue workers
- Israeli military ‘failed on all fronts’: Poll
- US at a crossroads: Iran’s firm positions leave Trump no option but to capitulate
- Iran signals decisive response to end US maritime bullying, piracy
- Trump eager for off-ramp in war on Iran, but Netanyahu has him trapped: Former official
- Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ offers ‘limited’ shield against ballistic missiles: Defense official
- Ukraine Seeks to Provoke a Nuclear Conflict: Zakharova
- US squares up to China over Panama Canal
- Monroe Doctrine 2.0: ‘Great Reset’ for US Imperialism?
- If Americans Knew
- How Tony Dokoupil Became the Face of ‘Zionist Fanatic’ Bari Weiss’s CBS
- Far Right Israeli Settler Movement Enters Syria in a Push for “Greater Israel”
- ‘People Have the Right to Be Buried’: In Gaza, Thousands of Palestinians Remain Trapped Under Rubble
- Born during Israel’s genocide: Gaza’s child survivors bear the scars of war
- Who are the women and girls behind Gaza war’s horrific casualty toll?
- Beloved Gaza doctor detained “indefinitely” without charge – Daily Update
- By Week’s End, Trump’s War Will Be Plainly Illegal
- CBS News Reportedly Ousts London Bureau Chief Over Differences With Bari Weiss Over Gaza Coverage
- State Department Says US Is in Conflict With Iran ‘At the Request’ of Israel
- What ceasefire? Israel won’t stop killing in Gaza, Lebanon – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
Aletho News 