Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The NATO Lie

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | April 26, 2022

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought to the forefront the NATO treaty to which the United States is a party. President Biden and the Pentagon have steadfastly maintained that a Russian attack on any NATO member automatically obligates the United States to go to war against Russia. That, of course, would necessarily mean the virtual certainly of all-out nuclear war between Russia and the United States, a war that would, needless to say, end up destroying both countries and killing hundreds of millions of people in the process. 

There is one big problem with the Biden/Pentagon position: It’s a lie. In fact, the NATO treaty does not obligate the United States to automatically come to the defense of any NATO member in the event Russia attacks that particular country. That’s because the NATO treaty does not operate to amend the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution is the document that the American people used to call the federal government into existence. The Constitution established a federal government of limited powers. The government was divided into three branches — executive, legislative, and judicial — with enumerated powers being delegated to each branch of government. 

With respect to war, the Framers delegated the power to declare war to Congress and the power to wage war to the president. What that meant was that the president is prohibited from waging war against another nation without first securing a declaration of war from Congress. 

When the U.S. government was converted from a limited-government republic to a national-security state after World War II, a fourth branch was effectively added to the federal government: the national-security branch, consisting of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA.

While it has been said that these entities are actually part of the executive branch, as Michael Glennon has pointed out in his excellent book National Security and Double Government (which I cannot recommend too highly), the national-security section of the federal government, owing to its overwhelming power, is actually the part that is running the show, with the other parts of the federal government operating deferentially in support. 

The Constitution provides for the specific ways to amend the Constitution. Quoting whitehouse.gov: “An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.”

Notice something important: The Constitution does not provide that it can be amended by treaty. The Framers did not want federal officials to have the power to amend the Constitution by simply entering into treaties with other nations that changed the terms and conditions of the Constitution.

Therefore, the NATO treaty cannot operate to amend the constitutional provision that requires a congressional declaration of war before the president can legally wage war. Thus, if Russia attacks, say, NATO member Poland, the Constitution requires the president to secure a declaration of war from Congress against Russia before the president, the Pentagon, and the CIA can wage war against Russia.

Now, take a look at an article entitled “The NATO Treaty Does Not Give Congress a Bye on World War III” by Michael Glennon, who I mentioned above. It’s posted at a website entitled lawfareblog.com. This is one of the most important articles that you will read in your lifetime. I cannot emphasize too highly why you should read this article and, equally important, share it with everyone you know and, equally important, ask them to share it with everyone they know. 

Glennon is professor of international law at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. From 1977-1980, he served as counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You can read more about his credentials on Wikipedia by clicking here. 

Glennon’s article makes the scholarly but easily readable case that the NATO treaty does not — and cannot — automatically obligate the United States to go to war in the event Russia (or any other nation) attacks a NATO member. 

Of course, there is a much more fundamental question that Americans must confront: Why is the United States in NATO at all? NATO was established after World War II to ostensibly protect Western Europe from an attack by the Soviet Union, notwithstanding the fact that there was never any real likelihood that the Soviet Union, which was totally devastated in World War II, had any interest in going to war with Western Europe (and a nuclear-armed United States).

Regardless of whether NATO was necessary or whether it was just part of the Cold War racket, one thing is crystal clear: Once the Soviet Union dismantled, NATO’s mission became moot. At that point, this Cold War dinosaur should have been dismantled and sent into extinction. 

Instead, what the NATO bureaucrats did was keep this dinosauric entity in existence and, even worse, began using it to absorb former members of the Soviet Union, which enabled the Pentagon to establish its nuclear missiles ever closer to Russia’s borders. It was when the Pentagon, operating through NATO, announced an intention to absorb Ukraine that Russia decided to invade Ukraine, as the Pentagon knew it would, in order to prevent the Pentagon from establishing its nuclear missiles (and military bases, troops, tanks, and other weaponry) on Russia’s border. 

Thus, one of the keys to getting America back on the right track — toward liberty, peace, prosperity, and harmony with the people of the world — is to immediately withdraw from NATO, which would bring the immediate dissolution of this Cold War dinosauric entity, as well as bring U.S. troops home from Europe (and everywhere else). It is U.S. foreign interventionism that is a root cause of the loss of liberty and prosperity in America as well as America’s disharmony with the people of the world.

In the meantime, it is in the interest of every American to understand the nature of the NATO lie, a lie that holds that the NATO treaty automatically obligates the U.S. government to go to war against Russia in the event of an attack by Russia on another member of NATO. That’s why, again, I highly recommend reading Michael Glennon’s article and sharing it with everyone you know and asking them to share it with everyone they know.

April 26, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

The Nation’s Top Scientists Lied

By Dr. Scott Atlas | Brownstone Institute | April 13, 2022

This adapted excerpt is from Dr. Scott W. Atlas’ bestselling book, A Plague Upon Our House, published by Bombardier. 

CDC Director Robert Redfield’s congressional testimony on September 23, 2020, immediately caught my attention. I watched in disbelief as Redfield told Congress that “more than 90 percent of the population”—more than three hundred million people in the US—remains susceptible to the illness.

The statement was based on incomplete and outdated data, as well as an apparent lack of understanding of the literature, and it struck me as one of the most erroneous and fear-inducing proclamations of any public health official to that moment. Approximately two hundred thousand Americans had already died from COVID; the last thing the public needed was an exaggeration of the future risks, implying to some that ten times that number could still die.

First of all, the numbers didn’t add up. At that point, confirmed cases in the US already totaled approximately seven million, and the CDC itself had estimated that approximately ten times the number of confirmed cases, a very conservative estimate, were likely to have had the infection. A Stanford seropositivity study back in April had shown that confirmed cases underestimated the total infections by a factor of approximately forty times. It made no sense that only 9 percent, or thirty million Americans, had been infected.

Second, the 9 percent calculation was blatantly wrong. That number came from antibody testing by the states. I looked at the CDC website myself, and sure enough, the data was based on antiquated testing from several states.

Some antibody totals were pulled from several months earlier, before many of those states had experienced a significant number of cases. It therefore grossly underestimated the number of cases that had already occurred. The data was simply not valid, but you needed to pay attention to the details.

More importantly, Redfield’s basic claim was fundamentally flawed. The conclusion that serum antibody testing revealed the entire population of those protected from COVID was counter to an entire body of published literature and contrary to fundamental knowledge of immunology, including other coronavirus infections.

It was well known that antibody tests showed one cross-section in time—they were transient—even though immune protection can last. From studies on SARS-2 and most other viruses, antibody levels change over a span of months. They typically appear in the first couple of weeks, peak in a few months, and then decrease over a span of several months.

The literature on COVID had already shown these patterns. A month before this press conference, a Nature Reviews Immunology study on COVID-19 explicitly stated, “The absence of specific antibodies in the serum does not necessarily mean an absence of immune memory,” and explained, “memory B-cells and T-cells may be maintained even if there are not measurable levels of serum antibodies.”

Japan’s study demonstrated this dramatically. In their study, antibody levels increased from 5.8 percent to 46.8 percent over the course of the summer. The most dramatic increase occurred in late June and early July, paralleling the rise in daily confirmed cases within Tokyo, which peaked on August 4.

Out of the 350 individuals who completed both offered tests, 21.4 percent of those who tested negative became positive, and 12.2 percent of initially positive participants became negative for antibodies. A striking 81.1 percent of IgM-antibody-positive cases at first testing became negative in only one month. They stated that “[antibody tests] may significantly underestimate previous COVID-19 infections.” It had also been widely reported in several major scientific journals that antibody responses are not necessarily detectable in all COVID patients, especially those with less severe forms.

But the flaws in Redfield’s estimate extended deeper. Even those familiar with first-year college biology know that other components of the immune system, memory B-cell and T-cells, provide protection from virus infections. Some T-cells kill the virus, and they also help antibodies form. T-cells develop and provide protection that lasts far longer, even after antibodies disappear—sometimes for years in other SARS viruses.

T-cells for this virus had already been documented, even in people unexposed to SARS-2, meaning that in these cases, cross-protection was present from T-cells originating in response to other coronaviruses. T-cells had also been found in individuals with completely asymptomatic SARS-2 infections.

NIH Director Francis Collins had highlighted that very data in his Director’s Blog a few weeks earlier, writing, “In fact, immune cells known as memory T cells also play an important role in the ability of our immune systems to protect us against many viral infections, including—it now appears—COVID-19.”

Scientists from some of the top research institutions in the world, like Sweden’s Karolinska Institute, San Diego’s La Jolla Institute, Duke University, Berlin, and others had published this evidence. Karolinska demonstrated T-cell immunity in both asymptomatic and mild cases of COVID—even if antibody-negative.

Singapore researchers had noted robust T-cell responses to this virus, SARS2, from seventeen-year-old SARS1 samples. Since T-cells are obviously not discovered by antibody tests, those individuals were not included in Redfield’s count. Yet he apparently had not considered this essential, indeed fundamental, point as he testified to Congress and made headlines.

After watching this debacle on TV, I knew full well what was coming later that day. The media would latch on to this and create even more public panic. I also knew that the responsibility for clarifying this grossly erroneous statement would be mine. There was no question it would come up at the president’s press conference, and even if it did not, it still needed to be explained.

I rushed over to Derek Lyons’s office to update him and to make sure we would alert the president beforehand. A few others in the West Wing were there, so I summarized to them what had been said to Congress.

The mood ranged from amazement to dejection to frustration. An advisor to the president on legal matters warned me, with a smile on his face, “Scott, don’t just bluntly say, ‘Redfield is wrong!’ Say something softer, like ‘He misstated things.’”

I nodded, knowing that I needed to restrain my words, even though this was the same man who had tried to destroy me in the national press a few days earlier. But this wasn’t personal at all. Clarifying the facts about the pandemic and countering the unending barrage of misinformation and pseudoscience about it, in this case coming from within the administration itself, was one of my most important roles in this national crisis.

During the pre-brief in the Oval Office a few hours later, I outlined the issue to the president. It was decided, as expected, that I would answer the question when it came up. And so it did.

A reporter from ABC News directly asked me if Redfield’s statement that more than 90 percent of Americans remained susceptible to the disease was true. I took the friendly advice I had received earlier in the day.

“I think that Dr. Redfield misstated something there,” I said, and then did my best to calmly explain the problems with outdated information and the contribution of cross-reactive T-cells and T-cell protection that would not have been included in his data. I correctly stated what was widely known and factual—that the protection from the virus “is not solely determined by the percent of people who have antibodies.” During my answer, as I fended off interruptions, I tried to explain in understandable language as best I could.

I also made a serious effort to be somewhat delicate, because I felt extremely uncomfortable about having to correct the director of the CDC on the national stage.

Unfortunately, my disgust with the confrontational mood in that press room prevented me from being more diplomatic when that reporter asked, “Who are we to believe?” My reflexive answer was “You’re supposed to believe in the science, and I am telling you the science.” Then I referred him to several expert scientists by name. However, I had the strong sense that he was not really interested in the facts at all. Rather, it was another attempt to amplify discord.

After exiting the press room, I walked alongside the president. He briefly stopped to check the news coverage on the set of TV monitors outside the briefing room, as he typically chose to do. After some banter between the president and the staff standing in the area, we began walking back toward the Oval Office.

President Trump turned to me on his right, smiling wryly but with a genuinely puzzled look on his face. “Is Redfield political or just stupid?” he asked, subtly shaking his head. I looked right back at the president and hesitated. The answer was obvious to both of us.

Needless to say, the media immediately played up the disagreement between me and Redfield. It fed into their narrative of conflict between me and the other Task Force doctors, one that Redfield personally caused with his offensive and unwarranted remark that everything I said was “false.”

Later, Dr. Fauci appeared on TV and criticized my straightforward attempt to clarify important information as “extraordinarily inappropriate.” I wondered if he was more concerned with protecting his bureaucrat colleague’s reputation and undermining mine than ensuring that correct information was being told to the American public.

Martin Kulldorff, the world-renowned Harvard epidemiologist, posted his reaction on Twitter: “Scott Atlas stated the simple fact that immunity is higher than those with antibodies, whereupon Dr. Fauci criticizes him without contradicting what was actually said. Stating a simple scientific fact is not ‘extraordinarily inappropriate.’ What is going on?”

Scott W. Atlas, M.D., is the Robert Wesson Senior Fellow in health care policy at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University and a fellow at Hillsdale College’s Academy for Science and Freedom.

April 26, 2022 Posted by | Book Review, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Christian Drosten, Karl Lauterbach try to block Health Ministry committee set to evaluate lockdowns and other containment measures

Health minister Karl Lauterbach caught maskless on a train
eugyppius | April 25, 2022

In March 2021, the German Bundestag ordered the Ministry of Health to set up an expert committee to evaluate the effectiveness of containment measures in Germany, from lockdowns to masks. They required this committee to complete their evaluation by 30 June 2022, and to publish a report before the end of September.

The committee finally convened on 22 April via video conference, delayed apparently because communicating with Karl Lauterbach’s ministry has been a huge problem. In the hours after that meeting, the committee chair notified its members that he had finally heard from Lauterbach. The health minister had raised the idea of extending the evaluation deadline to 31 December, and suggested that the committee mandate might end up being redefined.

As Welt explains, Christian Drosten had previously voiced staunch opposition to the project of investigating the efficacy of containment measures:

… [A]n internal virtual meeting in March, Charité virologist Christian Drosten argued against individually evaluating the containment measures. In a nine-minute speech, he said there was too little data, it was too early for such a study, and one could end up “in hot water,” according to WELT information. In view of this intervention from Drosten, who has been one of the most important advisers to political decision-makers since the start of the pandemic, the committee turned to the Ministry of Health for further instructions.

Nothing came of that meeting; the committee had a mandate from the Bundestag, the legal force of which does not rest upon Drosten’s feelings.

When Welt asked the health ministry to comment on the latest delays, a Lauterbach spokesman said the experts don’t have sufficient data, and that the ministry is in discussions with the Bundestag about how to handle this. He even denied that there would be any delay in the committee’s work, which is plainly a lie, because Welt has documents and off-the-record statements from committee members to the opposite effect. One such member even complained to their reporter that “It shows great disrespect to try to withdraw our mandate to evaluate containment measures after so many hours of work.”

We are asked to believe that containment measures have been super successful in the past, and that they remain an important tool for future waves. Lauterbach himself has promised the return of containment in the Fall, because he did not get his vaccine mandate. At the same time, nobody must be permitted to evaluate the efficacy of these allegedly crucial measures. We can’t be allowed to know which ones work and which ones don’t. That would be dangerous somehow, even for an expert committee. In fact it would be so dangerous, that Christian Drosten, the public face of mass containment in Germany, felt compelled to deliver a secret lecture warning against any such evaluative process.

What’s really galling about all this, isn’t that they’re lying, but that they’re terrible at it.

April 25, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

“A Magnet for Conspiracy Theories”: Wikipedia Kills Entry for Hunter Biden’s Investment Company

By Jonathan Turley | April 24, 2022

Wikipedia editors are under fire this week for removing the entry for Rosemont Seneca Partners, the investment company connected to Hunter Biden and his alleged multimillion dollar influence peddling schemes. The site bizarrely claimed that the company was “not notable.” The timing itself is notable given the new disclosure that Hunter Biden’s business partner, Eric Schwerin, made at least 19 visits to the White House and other official locations between 2009 and 2015. That included a meeting with then-Vice President Joe Biden despite Biden’s repeated claim that he knew nothing about his son’s business dealings. Schwerin was the president of Rosemont Seneca.

Wikipedia has been accused of raw bias in removing the entry at a time when interest in the company is at its peak, including the possibility of an indictment of Hunter Biden over his financial dealings.  Rosemont Seneca is one of the most searched terms for those trying to understand the background on the Biden business operations.

Yet, an editor known only as “Alex” wrote that the company was simply “not notable” — an absurd claim reminiscent of the recent claim by Atlantic Magazine’s writer Anne Applebaum that she did not cover the scandal because it simply was “not interesting.”

Alex wrote: “This organization is only mentioned in connection with its famous founders, Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz.” That itself is an odd statement. It is mentioned as one of the key conduits of alleged influence peddling money. Alex added that “keeping it around” ran the risk of the page becoming “a magnet for conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden.”

Any Wikipedia page could be a magnet for conspiracy theories, including the page on Hunter Biden himself. The fact is that this is a real company with real dealings that are the subject of a real criminal investigation. Indeed, various Republican members have already pledged to conduct investigations into this and other companies if they secure either house of Congress after the midterm elections.

So Wikipedia killed it just as a United States Attorney is drilling down on financial dealings of Hunter Biden, including money received from foreign sources through Rosemont Seneca.

The bias in the reference to the “conspiracy theories” is glaring. While some clearly misstate the facts of the Hunter Biden dealings (on both sides of the controversy), the central role of the company in these dealings is no conspiracy theory. I have long criticized Hunter Biden and his uncle for engaging in raw influence peddling — a practice long associated with the Biden family.

I have also been highly critical of how media and social media companies killed the Hunter Biden story.  Much like Wikipedia’s explanation this week, they claimed the Hunter Biden laptop story was merely conspiracy theories and Russian disinformation before the election. We are now approaching the midterm elections and suddenly Wikipedia is killing the page on this key company.

Republican senators claim that Hunter Biden was a partner in Rosemont Seneca with Chris Heinz, the stepson of future Secretary of State John Kerry, and their friend, Devon Archer. Archer was recently sent to prison for fraud in a matter that did not involve Hunter Biden.

In 2013, Rosemont Seneca entered into a business partnership with a Chinese investment fund called Bohai Capital. There are references in these transactions to Bohai Harvest RST. “RST” stood for “Rosemont Seneca Thornton,” a consortium of Rosemont Seneca and the Thornton Group, a Massachusetts-based firm.

Hunter Biden’s counsel insists that he did not have an equity interest in RST. However, Rosemont Seneca and RST feature greatly in the controversial transactions with foreign figures. Moreover, the Wall Street Journal reports that:

“Prosecutors have focused in particular, those people said, on the payments from Burisma, which first flowed to a company called Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC before going on to Mr. Biden. Between 2014 and 2019, Hunter Biden held a Burisma board seat for which he was paid around $50,000 a month.”

The company has been tied to a series of payments to Hunter Biden from car purchases to cash transfers that are under investigation. Wikipedia does not (and should not) take sides in such allegations. Rather, it can serve as a conduit for those searching the company as part of a major and ongoing controversy.

Yet, “Alex” does not consider any of that “notable” and dismisses references to the company in a federal investigation as mere “conspiracy theories.”

Wikipedia was founded on lofty and even revolutionary goals of empowering the world with free access to sources of knowledge. The key minds behind Wikipedia saw the danger of bias creeping into this work and emphasized the need for strict neutrality.

Larry Sanger declared “Wikipedia has an important policy: roughly stated, you should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly.”

Likewise, Jimmy Wales insisted “A general-purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.”

I have long been a fan of Wikipedia and its noble purpose. For that reason, I am saddened by this move which seems to reject the essential pledge of the company. Wikipedia’s editors have been increasingly accused of bias in such decisions. However, this move is particularly raw and inexplicable. Wikipedia will lose the trust of many if it goes down the path of companies like Twitter in allowing staff to use its platform for their own political agendas.

Wikipedia should immediately reverse and disassociate itself from the decision of “Alex” on the Rosemont Seneca page.

April 24, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Anatomy of a Bogus “Disinformation” Smear

Justin Ling, the fearsome Freelance Investigative Journalist
By Michael Tracey | April 23, 2022

Foreign Policy is a publication that specializes in Serious essays about all manner of Serious topics in the realm of foreign policy. If you’ve ever touted your professional credentials as a Serious Foreign Policy Thinker, or if you one day aspire to a Senior Fellow sinecure in Serious Foreign Policy Studies — there’s a good chance you’re a subscriber.

I only just found out that on April 12, this highly prestigious journal ran an article that accuses me of participating in a “Russian disinformation operation.” (Gee, never could have guessed that’d be the accusation. How unexpected.) It took awhile for me to learn of this article’s existence, because I wasn’t contacted ahead of time for any sort of comment or given any chance to reply — apparently a journalistic convention that’s fallen out of favor. Oh well.

The journalist who wrote the article is someone named Justin Ling. I had only ever vaguely heard of this person, but after some modest inquiry, now understand that he self-identifies as a “freelance investigative journalist.” In this capacity, Ling claims to specialize in issues of “misinformation, conspiracy theories, and extremism.” Those who pompously declare themselves to be big media experts in such topics all tend to fit a certain obnoxious mold. Glenn Greenwald has remarked that this newly-concocted journalistic “beat” generally consists of “an unholy mix of junior high hall-monitor tattling and Stasi-like citizen surveillance.” NBC News in particular employs a whole dedicated fleet of these people, who — as Greenwald put it — “devote the bulk of their ‘journalism’ to searching for online spaces where they believe speech and conduct rules are being violated, flagging them, and then pleading that punitive action be taken (banning, censorship, content regulation, after-school detention).”

Justin Ling belongs squarely to this pretentious media clique — he even claims to have been one of its pioneers. And his latest foray into “freelance investigative journalism” apparently entailed scrolling through my Twitter feed. Which you may notice often seems like the main activity of this new breed of journalist; the ones who, like Ling, hold themselves out as seasoned, world-wise “misinformation” debunkers. They really love sitting around on Twitter, waiting to exclaim that a harmful new “conspiracy theory” has emerged. Conveniently, they’ve preemptively endowed themselves with the divine right to adjudicate what does and does not constitute a “conspiracy theory.” Precisely when “information that journalists happen to personally disagree with, or be offended by” magically becomes “disinformation” still remains a mysterious puzzle. Those like Ling who parade around in this fashion can be frequently observed snidely dismissing concerns about online censorship — even as they piously warn how very dangerous it is that uncensored “content” is allowed to proliferate on the internet.

Naturally, Ling also now claims to specialize in Ukraine, and since the invasion has diligently worked to DEBUNK all manner of Ukraine-related disinformation. While the definition is always in flux depending on this media cohort’s latest political imperatives, “disinformation” in April 2022 seems to largely be defined as any information which may run counter to the interests of the Ukraine Government or its patrons, such as the US and Canada — the latter of which Ling is a proud resident.

So when people on the internet started rudely discussing the statement by Victoria Nuland last month that US-funded biological laboratories exist in Ukraine, Ling deployed his amazing investigative skills to purportedly unearth where this “conspiracy theory” had originated. And you won’t believe what he discovered: the whole thing supposedly started with a random account on Twitter. Ling doesn’t actually prove that this “conspiracy theory” originated with the tweet he says he found — he just asserts that it did, and excitedly adds that the account in question had also expressed some belief in QAnon nonsense. Even though Ling presents no tangible proof for his foundational contention, that’s totally fine with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which aired his little segment attributing the whole “biolabs” story — get ready for this shocker — to a nefarious Russian/right-wing “disinformation” network. Ling managed to valiantly map out the network by screenshotting tweets.

To demonstrate that any misgivings about the “biolabs” were reprehensible “disinformation,” Ling conducted a friendly chat with a Pentagon official, Robert Pope, who denied that there was anything untoward going on. This was the extent of Ling’s investigative journalism on the issue; in the segment, Ling is shown doing nothing other than presumptively accept the Pentagon official’s explanation.

Despite airing on the Canadian government’s TV channel, the segment has that annoyingly familiar feel of choreographed and branded “edginess” — reminiscent of VICE, where Ling also once worked. Amidst the sonic backdrop of weird, thumping ambient music, the viewer is for some reason made to follow along with Ling as he adventurously travels throughout Virginia highways and airports.

The CBC’s description of the segment reads: “Investigative reporter Justin Ling exposes how a QAnon conspiracy theory about US-funded ‘biolabs’ in Ukraine morphed into mainstream disinformation.” Which is strange, because a high-ranking US State Department official, Victoria Nuland, is the one who confirmed the existence of the US-funded biolabs — in public Congressional testimony. Given her well-documented history of intimate “meddling” in Ukraine, and her membership in one of the most prominent neoconservative familial dynasties in the US, Nuland’s comment understandably sparked widespread interest. Nonetheless, Ling and the CBC seemed satisfied that they had settled the issue, and successfully pinned the entire thing on the usual nexus of the Kremlin and Fox News.

This is far from Ling’s first battle on the frontlines of the information war. A biography on his Talent Bureau page states: “He is also investigating Russian meddling in Canadian politics, a project that has taken him from inside the headquarters of the Department of National Defence to a NATO training base in Latvia.” Man, I’d love to know how much it costs for a custom Ling speech on that fascinating topic.

Ling identifies as a “queer journalist,” whatever that means exactly, and part of his coverage of the war in Ukraine has been to convene a “panel of queer Ukrainians.” During that panel, Ling said: “I’ve spent a little time in Kiev myself. I’m looking forward to going back someday soon. I have to confess, Kiev has maybe some of the most fierce drag queens I’ve ever seen in my life.” So that’s some background on Ling.

Which brings us to his latest groundbreaking Foreign Policy investigation. Ling again decided to boldly tackle the most taboo of subjects: bad stuff Russia is alleged to have done. Daring to “go there” requires immense bravery on Ling’s part, and he deserves real credit. In the Foreign Policy article, Ling sets his sights on the allegations earlier this month that Russia was guilty of committing horrendous crimes against Ukrainian civilians in the town of Bucha. Based on evidence he saw online, including “radio chatter,” Ling announced his opinion that “it’s not hard to conclude that it was Russian forces who massacred Ukrainian civilians.” Anyone who might be inclined to seek an independent, impartial investigation before reaching firm conclusions about such a grave question — which happens to be the stated position of obscure, inconsequential countries like India and China — had merely fallen victim to “the constellation of disinformation channels” organized by Russia, according to Ling’s thesis. Despite what he calls a “preponderance of the evidence” that instantly showed Russia was 100% culpable, Ling decries:

That is apparently not enough for recently reelected Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who was criticized by his allies in Poland for refusing to accept that Russia perpetrated the killings.

Despite Russia’s flimsy defense, some Westerners have nevertheless chosen to believe it. Writer Michael Tracey tweeted to his 240,000 followers that the photos were “war propaganda” and cast doubt on their authenticity. Conspiracy site Infowars ran breathless coverage touting information, largely cribbed from those pro-Russian Telegram channels, that “exposes the truth” of what happened in Bucha.

Note that I’m sandwiched right between Viktor Orban and Infowars, which basically makes me an ideological Satan for the average Foreign Policy reader. However, you may be shocked to learn that Ling drastically misrepresents what I actually said, and conveniently doesn’t even bother to include a link or full quote so people can judge for themselves.

Contrary to Ling’s bogus assertion, the only thing I “cast doubt” on in the tweet he uncovered was the propriety of mindlessly disseminating a warring party’s propaganda — which journalists and “experts” of all stripes have shown zero reservations about doing since the outset of this conflict. So long as it’s the warring party to which they’re politically and emotionally committed, they’re more than happy to present the propaganda as verified fact. It seems self-evidently ludicrous, for instance, that CBS would simply take PR material directly from Zelensky and blast it out on air with no corroboration — but that’s exactly what they’re doing. And that’s the practice I was “casting doubt” upon. You’d think this would almost be a banal point — with many journalists at least in theory claiming to be cognizant of how the “fog of war” distorts the news-gathering process. But that the point has become so intensely controversial speaks to how normal standards of rational thought have been thoroughly obliterated over the past two months.

Ling further accuses me of “believing” the Russian government, which is just straightforwardly stupid. He cites no evidence for this accusation — Foreign Policy editors obviously don’t care whether anything he blurts out has even the slightest hint of corroboration behind it. For the record: not on the day of the tweet in question, nor at any point since the war started, have I ever expressed uncritical “belief” in anything a Russian government official has said. Again, Ling has absolutely nothing to back up his malignant accusation. As far as that one tweet supposedly at issue, I didn’t need the Russian government or anyone else to tell me what should’ve been plain as day to anyone who cares to maintain some semblance of critical faculties. What I was calling “war propaganda” were materials that had been directly propagated by Ukraine government officials, on Twitter and other social media channels:

This stuff was literally coming straight from the Ukraine Ministry of Defense — the PR wing of a foreign military in the middle of waging war. While it was also furiously lobbying the US and other governments to provide heavier armaments for use in that war. How is this not the textbook definition of “war propaganda”? What would be the definition of “war propaganda” — if not this? Sure enough, the government-disseminated propaganda materials were immediately cited by journalists to demand outright US/NATO military intervention in Ukraine. I had linked to one example in the very tweet that Ling claims was evidence of my participation in a “Russian disinformation operation”:

It’s understandable that these concepts might be confusing for Ling. Because around the same time as he was carefully monitoring my Twitter feed for incriminating signs of “disinformation” offenses, take a wild guess at what Ling was also doing. Go ahead. If you guessed “uncritically disseminating the propaganda of a warring party” — you would be correct. Here’s the intrepid investigative journalist in action, dutifully amplifying a call from one of Zelensky’s official advisors for provision of more US/NATO weaponry:

Here’s Ling applying his indefatigable freelance investigative journalism skills by simply reposting images that had been published directly by Zelensky:

Here’s Ling disseminating the totally uncorroborated claims of a full-fledged spy agency, the UK’s GCHQ. It’s unclear if Ling would regard this practice — simply repeating the claims of unvarnished spymasters whose very job is to manipulate public opinion — as “disinformation.”

Maybe he’s of the belief that “Western” spy agencies are definitionally incapable of perpetuating disinformation, and only hated enemy states such as Russia are capable of such a thing. I asked him to explain, but strangely he’s not returning my messages at the moment, despite having previously been so eager to accuse me of heinous affronts. None of this I take personally, though. Given his track record, it makes sense that Justin Ling would have severe difficulty comprehending what “war propaganda” means.

This is of much less significance, but also notice that Ling intentionally does not refer to me as a “journalist” in his petty gibe, and instead merely as a “writer.” Which is fine — I honestly don’t care one way or another what this Ling creature chooses to call me — but it’s a perfect example of the little passive-aggressive sniping tactics that journalists constantly use to police the boundaries of their snotty social club. I’m more than happy to call Ling a “journalist” — because to my mind, the word “journalist” doesn’t connote any kind of moral rectitude, or even competence. Being a journalist is very much consistent with being a self-righteous sleaze-peddler, so Ling can certainly fit the bill.

Another severe difficulty of Ling’s, which raises fundamental questions about his ability to cover his declared beat, is recognizing what “disinformation” even is. Maybe Ling missed it, but earlier this month Ken Dilanian of NBC News — one of the most faithful mouthpieces of the US national security state — went on air and openly revealed that the US Government is mounting a full-fledged “information warfare” campaign related to Ukraine. A key component of which is feeding fake information to the media. Dilanian cited one particular fake story that had been deliberately planted to journalists by intelligence officials — despite those officials knowing it was fake. Weirdly though, all the newly emboldened, “disinformation” debunking journalists like Ling don’t seem to regard that campaign of unconcealed information warfare as within their job’s purview.

Ling also appears to have missed a recent revelation reported at CNN of all places, in which an anonymous “Western” official is quoted saying this about the current PR activities of Ukraine government officials: “It’s a war — everything they do and say publicly is designed to help them win the war. Every public statement is an information operation, every interview, every Zelensky appearance broadcast is an information operation.” And yet despite the admitted existence of this “information operation,” Ling is gleeful to participate in it, by giddily spreading around the Ukraine officials’ photos, videos, and claims without a shred of independent corroboration — all under the veneer of Ling’s tough, adversarial journalism. Russia is obviously engaged in its own “information operation,” but so too is Ukraine. Will Ling report on himself next as a “disinformation” culprit?

Of course he won’t, because despite his bogus pretensions, Ling has made it perfectly clear that he has no problem at all with “disinformation” as such. In fact, he actively supports disinformation tactics when it’s in service of his desired political objectives. He publicly demanded that the “intelligence service” of his own government, Canada, ought to be “doing a lot more” to proactively counter Russia by utilizing more robust information warfare techniques. So that’s Justin Ling for you: a “disinformation” reporter who loves disinformation.

If you want to understand why there is so little deviation today from the burgeoning pro-war consensus, it’s got a lot to do with media functionaries like Ling. Most journalists would be utterly mortified to be accused, in a “Serious” outlet like Foreign Policy, of abetting a “Russian disinformation operation.” And their fear would probably be rational: this could genuinely be a career-killer, particularly in the current war-fevered climate. All bets are off in terms of what retribution tactics are potentially on the table. They could be socially shunned, professionally ostracized, and have their material well-being seriously imperiled. The self-appointed “disinformation” pontificators such as Ling, posturing as these tenacious public-spirited watchdogs, really could destroy them.

Ling is an especially blatant joke and fraud, but the media industry is increasingly dominated by creeps like him. Fortunately, they can’t do much to me — except to provide occasional amusement at how pathetic they are.

April 23, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

How to lie with statistics – Vaccine efficacy edition

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | April 23, 2022

Just a quick post to show another method of how to increase vaccine efficacy. This time looking at data from Switzerland and Liechtenstein (S&L).

By mid December 2021, S&L were at the peak of their third wave. It was ok though because 67% of the country had been fully vaccinated, 17% with a booster. 32% of selfish people had still not been vaccinated however.

As the vaccines stop people from going to hospital this would show up in the stats.

Yes, as predicted, there was a slight increase in hospitalisations for fully vaccinated citizens (Moderna – red line, Pfizer – light blue line) but a massive spike in hospitalisations for those pesky unvaccinated (dark blue line).

Job done, vaccine efficacy proven.

But hold on a second, there is another category. “Vaccine unknown, fully vaccinated”. Let’s add this to the graph.

They don’t really want you to see this line so have made it a faint grey colour. However much they would like to pretend it wasn’t there, it is. And it shows a lot of fully vaccinated people going to hospital, and continuing to go to hospital, until March 2022, well after the peak for unvaccinated individuals.

Lot’s of fully vaccinated people going into hospital who have forgotten which vaccines they had. Did they forget or were they too ill? Is this an admin issue or are these people who had a combination of vaccines and so couldn’t be put in one category?

Either way, this grey lined category shifts a lot of people out of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccinated categories. It makes vaccine efficacy look much better than it actually is by saying only this many Pfizer or Moderna vaccinees were hospitalised.

Another great example of how to lie with statistics.

April 23, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

EU commission sued over Covid-19 vaccine secrecy

Samizdat | April 23, 2022

Five Green MEPs are suing the European Commission over its ultra-secretive vaccine contracts, arguing that the heavily redacted versions released by the EC “made it impossible to understand the content of the agreements,” in a statement published Friday.

“Secrecy is a breeding ground for distrust and skepticism, and it has no place in public agreements with pharmaceutical companies,” Margrete Auken, a Danish MEP involved in the suit, declared, adding that “the European Commission’s refusal to provide transparency on its vaccine contracts affects the public’s confidence in the EU’s ability to obtain the best possible outcome for its citizens.”

The MEPs are demanding the details of the contracts the EC signed with vaccine-makers BioNTech, Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Novavax, including price per dose, advance payments, conditions for vaccine donations, liability, and indemnification matters.

“Purchases made with public money should come with public information, definitely in matters of health,” Dutch MEP and party to the lawsuit Kim van Sparrentak said in the group’s statement, noting that “confidentiality under the guise of trade secrets only fuels uncertainty and fear.”

In addition to Auken and van Sparrentak, the MEPs signing on to the suit are Tilly Metz (Luxembourg), Jutta Paulus (Germany), and Michele Rivasi (France), the chair of the parliament’s committee on Covid-19.

The lawsuit, filed in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, comes as EC President Ursula von der Leyen revealed that every EU member state would be required to adopt EU Digital Covid Certificates, a digital health passport issued to those with proof of vaccination, a negative PCR test, or proof of recovery from Covid-19. While the validity period for such certificates was due to lapse at the end of June, the EC is not only renewing it another year, but making it mandatory for all 27 EU countries from July 1. Only 15 are currently using it, according to von der Leyen.

The move comes despite many EU states winding down their Covid-19 restrictions, moving away from some of the stricter measures imposed in the first 18 months of the pandemic. Germany, which had initially sought to require all citizens over the age of 60 to receive a Covid-19 vaccine, has been forced to axe those plans after they were voted down in the Bundestag, though the country’s health minister has warned that the government may reimpose mask mandates, as he expects infections to increase in the fall.

In response to the lawsuit, the EC has insisted it cannot reveal the contracts it signed with the vaccine-makers back in 2020, claiming “the commission is in the business of respecting contracts.” At the time, EU lawmakers who wanted to see the contracts were prohibited from taking notes and forced to sign non-disclosure agreements.

Much of the world seemed to be headed for mandatory Covid-19 vaccination six months ago. However, the realization that despite their manufacturers’ initial promises, the vaccines were no magic bullet – not only incapable of stopping the spread, but incapable of preventing further infection – has cooled public fervor for mandates. Health concerns and complaints of discrimination against the unvaccinated have also contributed to the backlash. However, the manufacturers, as well as most officials, continue to insist that the vaccines are “safe and effective.”

April 23, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception | , , | Leave a comment

“Operation Thermostat”: Energy rationing & the pivot from Ukraine to climate?

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | April 22, 2022

Italy is officially becoming the first country to start rationing energy after cutting their supply of Russian gas and oil.

From next month, until at least March 2023, public buildings across the nation will be banned from running air conditioning at lower than 25 degrees, or heating higher than 19 degrees.

The plan, termed “Operation Thermostat” in the press, is being sold as a way for ordinary people to show “solidarity” with the people of Ukraine, with Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi saying:

Do we want to have peace or do we want to have the air conditioning on?”

I’m not exactly sure how adjusting your thermostat is going to achieve ‘peace’, but hey we’re living in the age of sentimental manipulation over reason, so – just believe.

For example, the Guardian is illustrating the story with pro-peace artwork allegedly done by Italian schoolchildren (in English, for some reason).

There’s no talk yet of this kind of energy-rationing rule extending to private businesses or homes, but a marker has been set down. Expect other nations to follow suit.

After that of course will come the opinion pieces asking questions like “we rationed gas to fight Putin, why not climate change?”, and headlines saying that “Europe-wide gas rationing was good for the planet” or something similar.

… Oh wait, it’s already happening.

Honestly, when I originally wrote the above paragraph I had no idea the Wall Street Journal had published this opinion piece for Earth Day, headlined:

This Earth Day, We Could Be Helping the Environment—and Ukraine”

It argues that rationing energy to fight Putin is just like digging for victory to fight Hitler, and – just as I predicted – would also be good for the planet:

During the Second World War, victory demanded more oil […] In the wars dominating the globe today — Putin’s land grab in Ukraine, and the global land grab caused by rising sea levels and spreading deserts — victory demands getting off fossil fuels as fast as we possibly can.

It even hints at a quasi-lockdown – this time for the sake of beating Putin and combating climate change:

Everyone who can work from home could continue to do so, at least on, say, Mondays, knocking a day off the national commute. Carpools could be organized, taking special advantage of the fact that there are now two million electric cars on the road. More bike paths could be made available, and, when air-conditioning season begins, Americans could turn their thermostats up a degree.

Remember lockdowns were marketed as planet-saving almost from the moment they were put in place, despite it making almost zero sense. The agenda was pretty obvious right from the start.

It’s interesting that “operation thermostat” should be announced on April 22nd – Earth Day – despite having zero to do with climate change. It’s also noteworthy that climate protests groups have piggy-backed on the idea to call for an EU-wide boycott of Russia’s fossil fuels.

We already know they planned a “pivot from covid to climate”, and moves like this mean they can easily “pivot from Ukraine to climate” too.

April 22, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Berlin Senate tries to hush dramatic increase in heart complaints and strokes in 2021

Free West Media | April 20, 2022

The Berlin SPD member of parliament Robert Schaddach inquired in March with a parliamentary question to the Senate’s internal administration about the development of relevant fire brigade incidents that suggest the suspicion of vaccination consequences. Schaddach said: “The aim of the question is to determine the development of the Berlin fire brigade’s deployment figures with regard to heart complaints and strokes over the past four years.”

The answer of the senate administration gives cause for concern. Under the headings of “Heart Complaints/Implanted Defibrillator” and “Chest Pain/Other Chest Complaints”, the number of logged deployments in 2021 increased by 31 percent to a total of 43,806 deployments compared to the averages from 2018/2019. Similarly, the number of logged deployments under the keywords “Stroke/Transient Ischaemic (TIA) Attack” increased by 27 percent to a total of 13,096 deployments compared to the averages from 2018/2019.

However, the Berlin Senate Administration does not want to comment on this development. It writes evasively in its response of April 7: “Changes in the frequency of use of the main complaint protocols ‘Heart complaints/Implanted defibrillator’ as well as ‘Chest pain/Other complaints in the chest’ within the framework of the standardised emergency call query may be related to more intensive protocol use, the classification of symptoms, the further development of quality management, but also changes in the number of emergency rescue deployments, for example due to population growth or demographic change.”

While the Berlin Senate administration is trying to keep the information out of the public eye, its response was received with all the more interest by the Feuerwehrgemeinschaft Berlin, an association of several hundred firefighters critical of vaccination. A spokesperson for the association explained: “Such rates of increase need to be explained.” He also said it was striking that the highest rates of increase are occurring precisely in the age groups that are not commonly understood to be vulnerable groups.

It is now necessary to “examine whether there is a causal connection here with the vaccination side effects caused by the Corona vaccine, which have increasingly come into the media spotlight”, according to the fire brigade community. It therefore “urges the management of the Berlin fire brigade to initiate a scientific and open-ended investigation of a possible connection in cooperation with the experts of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) and the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI)”.

Until meaningful results are available, the “facility-based vaccination obligation”, which is still in force, must be suspended.

April 22, 2022 Posted by | Deception, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

As jabbed athletes collapse, the authorities look the other way

By Guy Hatchard | TCW Defending Freedom | April 21, 2022

THROUGHOUT 2021, attempts were made to debunk persistent reports that an unusual number of athletes were suffering cardiac events which might be related to mRNA Covid vaccination. The main theme of these fact-checking efforts was denial – athletes were not at risk and cardiac events were not happening.

In 2022 this dialogue is evolving because the numbers are growing and harder to ignore. According to an investigative report by OAN, a pro-Trump online US news site, 769 athletes suffered sudden health events between March 2021 and March 2022 with an average age of 23 years. In February, 15 top tennis players were unable to complete their matches in the Miami Open tournament.

Of necessity in the face of mounting numbers of injury reports, the fact-checking dialogue has hesitated on the brink, but on February 1 this year, the Washington Post still labelled stories of adverse effects of mRNA vaccines on athletes FALSE. Its story relied heavily on a discussion of the Danish footballer Christian Eriksen, who suffered a cardiac arrest on June 12 2021 just before half time in a match against Finland. The circulation of the apparently false story that Eriksen had been vaccinated was attributed by the Washington Post to a shady far-Right group in Austria seeking to influence their upcoming election.

Dig deeper and the story gets more murky. Few if any of the participants in this argument on both sides have verified hard facts to hand. The Washington Post, which had probably realised by February that it was quite possible that an unusual number of athletes were unexpectedly falling to the ground, decided to finish its article by asserting that the sporting collapses must be down to Covid, not Covid vaccination. Again no hard facts about actual athletes, just a polarised muck-throwing event.

As a scientist I realise that what is lacking here is reliable data. Why is it lacking? Here is the nub – the authorities are so sure they are right about the safety of vaccines that they are refusing to collect data. New Zealand has refused to institute mandatory reporting of adverse events following mRNA vaccination and other countries are in the same boat. We don’t have a lot of data to go on because it is not being collected. Sporting bodies are not counting either, or perhaps they have lost count or looked the other way.

Delving into the world of psychology, I find this unsettling. Why wouldn’t we collect data? Why aren’t we allowed to ask questions? Why isn’t the Ministry of Health counting and publishing up-to-date medical data on the frequency of cardiac and thrombotic events of all types?

There are stories in the popular press (actually not so popular these days) reporting recent excess cardiac events as due to ‘holiday heart syndrome’ or the need for young people ‘to avoid strenuous exercise’. Neither of these had been a thing until 2021. Why hasn’t the MoH quashed these speculative sallies into obfuscation by publishing data? You tell me.

The finger-pointing gets worse. One particular ‘whack-an-antivaxxer’ sport recently originated at Otago Medical School in New Zealand. A popular digest of a study of 1,000 people born in Dunedin in 1972 was reprinted in leading publications around the world. The article implied that anti-vaxxers suffered from sexual abuse, maltreatment, deprivation or neglect, or having an alcoholic parent as they were growing up. They were also described as low educational achievers likely to suffer from mental illness.

I am a little sceptical by nature, so I noticed that the reports were based on an article in a publication called The Conversation, which has received support during the pandemic from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Conversation describes itself as both devoted to academic rigour and seeking to explain science to the general public. Curiously its article about the Dunedin survey contained only one quantitative piece of information – 13 per cent of the respondents were vaccine resistant. No other quantitative information was provided to support the extreme characterisation of the vaccine hesitant in the article.

I tracked down the actual study entitled ‘Deep-seated psychological histories of COVID-19 vaccine hesitance and resistance’. Seven of the ten authors were based in the USA. One of the authors disclosed that he is funded by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The survey completed in April 2021 actually found that 13 per cent of the respondents were vaccine resistant and 12 per cent were vaccine hesitant. So fully 25 per cent of the respondents were vaccine hesitant to varying degrees.

I then rapidly came across an old friend used to distort information: absolute differences versus relative differences.

Of those willing to vaccinate (note the word used is willing, not necessarily keen), 62 per cent had at least one Adverse Childhood Event (ACE). Of those hesitant or resistant to vaccination 73 per cent had at least one ACE. The difference between 62 and 73 per cent is not large in absolute terms.

Based on this small difference, Professor Richie Poulton, a Dunedin-based co-author of the study, was quoted in the Otago Daily Times as saying about the vaccine hesitant and resistant responders:

‘The childhood experiences of those surveyed ranged from sexual abuse, parental neglect, poverty, to isolation and lack of achievement in school. They covered the whole suite of difficulties you can think of that might impinge on a person’s good development. Their personality became very stress reactive – they saw danger or threat where there essentially was none.’

Now you probably did percentages at school, so do you think Professor Poulton’s comments accurately reflect the difference between 62 per cent and 73 per cent exposures to at least one ACE? Because I certainly don’t. A significant percentage of both groups experienced ACEs growing up, but they had different opinions about vaccination.

Wouldn’t it be more productive to ask: why do we have such a high rate of ACEs in New Zealand? Is our mental health service under-funded? Is our education system failing us? Is support for families sufficient?

I went further down the pages examining results of a battery of ‘questionnaires’. I found that although there were measurable differences between the two groups: ‘vaccine willing’ and ‘vaccine hesitant and resistant’, their average scores were well within the standard deviation of the mean standardised score for each test.

This means most of those responding to the survey were relatively average people. The vaccine hesitant and resistant were being falsely characterised as ill-educated social deviants. This sounds like victim blaming. So much for the academic rigour and capacity to explain science to which The Conversation proudly aspires.

Were the media comments about the study an unsupported and false attempt to discredit the unvaccinated and categorise them as outcasts and misfits without the necessary intelligence to think for themselves? The small differences between the two groups were insufficient to justify this black-and-white condemnation widely shared around the world’s media.

There were some differences in educational attainment. Some 35 per cent of the vaccine willing had a BA degree or higher, while 15 per cent of the vaccine hesitant or resistant had a BA or higher. However the Dunedin results may be misleading regarding the influence of education. A study in the USA found that people with a PhD were more likely to be vaccine hesitant, implying that a decision not to vaccinate may possibly be encouraged by the development of high level critical thinking.

In the mainstream media articles, Professor Poulton pleaded with us to feel pity for the unvaccinated, because of their supposed difficult childhood (which was in fact not so different from that of the vaccinated). Was he simply lowering our opinion of the unvaccinated by playing upon stereotypes? Subtly hammering home the current mainstream media messaging that only Right-wing extremists and selfish antisocials remain unvaccinated.

Did he realise that the unvaccinated are legitimately concerned about the vaccinated because they have been unwittingly exposed to serious but as yet unquantified medical risk?

As I am aware that Covid mRNA vaccine adverse events are running at 30-50 times higher than any previous vaccine, I would ask different questions of the data:

  • Were those willing to be vaccinated being misled by the inadequate content of their education?
  • Do prior adverse experiences provide good reason to be more cautious in future?

The Immunisation Advisory Centre at the respected University of Auckland (incidentally partly funded by pro-vaccine interests) reassuringly says:

‘Confirmed cases of myocarditis are rare. More than 80 per cent of reported cases of myocarditis following mRNA Covid vaccination have recovered quickly with rest and commonly used oral anti-inflammatory medications such as ibuprofen.’

Are you reassured by this, or have you looked at the Medsafe adverse event data where 18,000 mRNA vaccine recipients reported chest pain and shortness of breath – symptoms admitted by the Immunisation Advisory Centre to be indicative of myocarditis?

Have you concluded, like me, that as many as 80 per cent of cases of myocarditis among the vaccinated remain unreported and untreated? A ticking time bomb, of which professional athletes represent only the tip of the iceberg.

The question is, how long are our health authorities going to continue to look the other way and refuse to start counting accurately, appropriately, and retrospectively?

April 21, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

‘Explosive’ Legal Agreement With U.S. Lets Wuhan Lab Destroy Data

By Emily Kopp | U.S. Right to Know | April 20, 2022

The Wuhan Institute of Virology has the right to ask a partnering lab in the U.S. to destroy all records of their work, according to a legal document obtained by U.S. Right to Know.

A memorandum of understanding between the Wuhan lab and the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch states that each lab can ask the other to return or “destroy” any so-called “secret files” — any communications, documents, data or equipment resulting from their collaboration — and ask that they wipe any copies.

“The party is entitled to ask the other to destroy and/or return the secret files, materials and equipment without any backups,” it states.

This right is retained even after the agreement’s five year term ends in October 2022. All documents are eligible for destruction under the agreement’s broad language.

“All cooperation … shall be treated as confidential information by the parties,” the agreement states.

The directors of the maximum biocontainment labs in Wuhan and Texas announced a formal cooperative agreement in Science in 2018. The labs are two of just a handful of facilities in the world that do similar cutting edge work on novel coronaviruses. The lab in Texas, with funding from the National Institutes of Health, was doing biosafety training with the lab in Wuhan, which operates under the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The labs also intended to do joint research projects and share resources, according to the agreement.

The revelation that the Wuhan lab retained the right to call for the destruction of data on U.S. servers funded by U.S. taxpayers comes amid a debate about what sort of investigation is necessary to exculpate the city’s coronavirus research from suspicions it sparked the COVID-19 pandemic. It also raises questions about assurances from Wuhan Institute of Virology senior scientist Zhengli Shi that she would never delete sensitive data.

The clause also raises a number of legal red flags for the Texas lab, experts say.

“The clause is quite frankly explosive,” said Reuben Guttman, a partner at Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC who specializes in ensuring the integrity of government programs. “Anytime I see a public entity, I would be very concerned about destroying records.”

Guttman said that even private entities are expected to have internal records retention and destruction policies, but that as a public institution the Texas lab faces an even higher standard under laws meant to safeguard federal and state taxpayer dollars. These laws include the federal False Claims Act and the Texas Public Information Act. The Galveston National Laboratory is part of the University of Texas System and receives federal funding.

“You can’t just willy nilly say, ‘well, you know, the Chinese can tell us when to destroy a document.’ It doesn’t work like that,” he said. “There has to be a whole protocol.”

The clause could also risk obstructing Congressional investigations into the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Texas lab was “built by the National Institutes of Health to help combat global health threats,” said Christopher Smith, a spokesman for UTMB, in a statement. “As a government-funded entity, UTMB is required to comply with applicable public information law obligations, including the preservation of all documentation of its research and findings.”

“UTMB believes it is an operational — and moral — imperative that all scientists working in biocontainment anywhere in the world have first-hand knowledge of the proven best practices in biosafety and laboratory operations,” Smith continued. “All research at UTMB is subjected to a rigorous and transparent pre-experiment approval protocol, including involvement and oversight by scientific experts who helped design federal guidelines.”

Only the Texas attorney general can make a determination about what otherwise releasable public records should be exempted from disclosure, according to Kelley Shannon, executive director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas. It’s also unlawful to destroy records requested under the Texas Public Information Act.

Liza Vertinsky, an expert in global health law and intellectual property at Emory University, said that the all-encompassing definition of what is considered “secret” in the memorandum of understanding, or MOU, is problematic.

“The way I read the MOU, although it is poorly drafted, ‘secret’ refers to the ‘cooperation and exchanges, documents, data, details and materials’ that are part of this MOU,”  she said. “It is as broad as the MOU, covering what the MOU is intended to cover.”

Edward Hammond, an independent biosafety proponent and a longtime advocate for more transparency at the Galveston lab, also flagged the broad language.

“In agreements like this that I’ve seen before, you have confidentiality provisions in relation to intellectual property… I can’t recall seeing an instance of these more general confidentiality provisions,” he said in an email. “Doesn’t this run against the purportedly pure academic interests of UTMB?”

In 2009, the Galveston lab unsuccessfully lobbied the Texas legislature for an exemption to the Texas Public Information Act to be written in order to prevent records being released to Hammond.

WIV calls data deletion accusations ‘appalling’

The agreement could also undermine claims that the WIV would never delete records. A WIV virus database that went dark in 2019 remains a source of intrigue for reporters, scientists, and U.S. intelligence agencies interested in the pandemic’s origins.

Wuhan Institute of Virology senior scientist Zhengli Shi told MIT Technology Review that allegations by Western biosecurity experts that her lab may have scrubbed records relevant to COVID-19 are “baseless and appalling.”

“Even if we gave them all the records, they would still say we have hidden something or we have destroyed the evidence,” Shi told the outlet, which cast any such suspicions as rooted in anti-Chinese prejudice.

The agreement also seems to address suspicions that the partnership could aid a bioweapons program either in the U.S. or in China, stating the labs will “exchange the virus resources strictly for the scientific research purposes.”

A number of clunky or unusual provisions in the agreement suggests it may have been drafted at least in part by Chinese partners and translated into English.

For example, it states nothing in the agreement should be construed as establishing a relationship between “master and servant,” unusual language in modern American legal documents.

Other documents obtained by U.S. Right to Know demonstrate that despite the formal collaboration, Galveston National Laboratory faced delays in obtaining a sample of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, from its partner lab at the pandemic’s epicenter. The Texas lab ended up obtaining its first sample from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

U.S. Right to Know obtained the WIV-UTMB memorandum of understanding through the Texas Public Information Act as part of an investigation into risky viral research funded through taxpayer dollars.

April 21, 2022 Posted by | Deception | | Leave a comment

Durham: Five Witnesses Connected to the Clinton Campaign’s False Russian Claims Have Refused to Cooperate

By Jonathan Turley | April 17, 2022

Special Counsel John Durham continues to drop bombshells in filings in the prosecution of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann. Just last week, Durham defeated an effort by Sussmann to dismiss the charges.  He is now moving to give immunity to a key witness while revealing that the claims made by the Clinton campaign were viewed by the CIA as “not technically plausible” and “user created.” He also revealed that at least five of the former Clinton campaign contractors/researchers have invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to cooperate in fear that they might incriminate themselves in criminal conduct. Finally, Durham offers further details on the involvement of Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias and former British spy Christopher Steele in the alleged false claims.

Recently, Durham revealed extremely damaging evidence against Sussmann. However, this is the first full description of the Clinton associates refusing to cooperate under the Fifth Amendment. Durham noted that he gave immunity to an individual identified only as “Research 2.” He then noted that this was made necessary by the refusal to cooperate by key Clinton associates:

“The only witness currently immunized by the government, Researcher-2, was conferred with that status on July 28, 2021 – over a month prior to the defendant’s Indictment in this matter. And the Government immunized Researcher-2 because, among other reasons, at least five other witnesses who conducted work relating to the Russian Bank-1 allegations invoked (or indicated their intent to invoke) their right against self-incrimination. The Government therefore pursued Researcher-2’s immunity in order to uncover otherwise-unavailable facts underlying the opposition research project that Tech Executive-1 and others carried out in advance of the defendant’s meeting with the FBI.” [Emphasis added]

For his part, Sussmann and the Clinton associates have sought to use attorney-client privilege to keep evidence from Durham.

Durham also detailed how the false Russian collusion claims related to Alfa Bank involved Clinton General Counsel Marc Elias and Christopher Steele. Indeed, the new requested immunized testimony would come from a Tech executive who allegedly can share information on meetings with Elias and Steele.

The Alfa Bank hoax and Sussmann’s efforts paralleled the work of his partner Elias at the law firm Perkins Coie in pushing the Steele Dossier in a separate debunked collusion claim.  The Federal Election Commission recently fined the Clinton Campaign and the DNC for hiding the funding of the dossier as a legal cost by Elias at Perkins Coie.

“Durham notes that both the CIA and FBI were sent on an effective wild goose chase by the Clinton campaign. He notes that the government found the allegations to be manufactured and not even technically possible.  He refers to the CIA in the following passage:
Agency-2 concluded in early 2017 that the Russian Bank-1 data and Russian Phone Provider-1 data was not “technically plausible,” did not “withstand technical scrutiny,” “contained gaps,” “conflicted with [itself],” and was “user created and not machine/tool generated.”

This dovetails with the statements of the Clinton associates themselves who were worried about the lack of support for the Russian collusion claims.  “Researcher 1” features prominently in those exchanges.

According to Durham, the Alfa Bank allegation fell apart even before Sussmann delivered it to the FBI. The indictment details how an unnamed “tech executive” allegedly used his authority at multiple internet companies to help develop the ridiculous claim. (The executive reportedly later claimed that he was promised a top cyber security job in the Clinton administration). Notably, there were many who expressed misgivings not only within the companies working on the secret project but also among unnamed “university researchers” who repeatedly said the argument was bogus.

The researchers were told they should not be looking for proof but just enough to “give the base of a very useful narrative.” The researchers argued, according to the indictment, that anyone familiar with analyzing internet traffic “would poke several holes” in that narrative, noting that what they saw likely “was not a secret communications channel with Russian Bank-1, but ‘a red herring,’” according to the indictment.

“Researcher-1” repeated these doubts, the indictment says, and asked, “How do we plan to defend against the criticism that this is not spoofed traffic we are observing? There is no answer to that. Let’s assume again that they are not smart enough to refute our ‘best case scenario.’ You do realize that we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag to even make a very weak association.”

“Researcher-1” allegedly further warned, “We cannot technically make any claims that would fly public scrutiny. The only thing that drives us at this point is that we just do not like [Trump]. This will not fly in eyes of public scrutiny. Folks, I am afraid we have tunnel vision. Time to regroup?”

It appears that the “time to regroup” has passed with the issuance of immunity deals to compel testimony.

Here is the filing:

US-v-Sussmann-04162022-US-Filing

April 20, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »