WHO Wants To Run the World?
By Paul Frijters, Gigi Foster, Michael Baker | Brownstone Institute | July 11, 2022
In Geneva in late May at the 75th meeting of the WHO’s decision-making body, the World Health Assembly (WHA), amendments to its International Health Regulations (IHRs) were debated and voted upon. If passed, they would grant the WHO the right to exert unconscionable pressure on countries to accept the WHO’s authority and health policy actions if the WHO decides that there is a public health threat that might spread beyond a country’s borders.
As Ramesh Thakur, the second man at the UN for years, noted, the amendments would mean “the rise of an international bureaucracy whose defining purpose, existence, powers and budgets will depend on outbreaks of pandemics, the more the better.”
This is the first clear instance of a globalist coup attempt. It would subvert national sovereignty worldwide by putting real power into the hands of an international group of bureaucrats. It has long been suspected that the authoritarian elites arisen during covid times would try to strengthen their positions by undermining nation states, and the this 75th jamboree is the first solid evidence of this being true.
What an opportunity then to see who is in the conspiring club. Who drafted the amendments? What was in them? Which individuals supported them or spoke out against them?
WHO were the conspirators?
The amendments on the table at the May WHA meeting had been transmitted to the WHO by the US Department of Health and Human Services on January 18, circulated by WHO to its member states (‘States Parties’) on January 20 and formally introduced to the WHA on April 12.
The proposals, according to an announcement on January 26, were co-sponsored by 19 countries plus the European Union. Even if some co-sponsors had little direct involvement in drafting them, they all would have approved in principle the overarching goal of tightening up the WHO’s authority over member states in the face of a public health event.
Loyce Pace, the HHS’s Assistant Secretary for Global Affairs – the leading US official nominally responsible for the proposed amendments – arrived at the Biden administration fresh from a stint as executive director of an advocacy organization called the Global Health Council.
That council receives funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and its members include Eli Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Abbott Labs, and Johnson & Johnson. You get the idea. Via one of the foxes-turned-chicken-guard, it appears the HHS ‘worked closely’ on these amendments with large pharmaceutical companies, who will be chomping at the bit for a more proactive (read: profitable) response to any public health emergency, real or imagined.
So the conspiring club consists primarily of the US government and its Western allies in lockstep with Big Pharma, and they are looking to undermine both the sovereignty of their own governments and that of other countries, presumably with the idea that the Western elites would do the running.
What was in them? A blizzard of acronyms and euphemisms
To understand what the US proposed at the WHA, we need first to understand how things have worked in the WHO to this point.
The IHRs in their current form have been in force as international law since June 2007. Among other things, they impose requirements on countries to detect, report and respond to ‘public health events of international concern,’ or PHEICs. The WHO Director-General consults with the state where a possible public health event has occurred, and within 48 hours they are meant to come to a mutual agreement on whether or not it actually is a PHEIC, whether or not it needs to be announced to the world as such, and what counter-measures, if any, should be taken. It’s essentially an early-warning system on major health crises. This is a good thing if it’s run by people you can trust and if it has checks and balances to rein in expansionary tendencies.
The proposed amendments would greatly strengthen the power of the WHO relative to this baseline, in a number of ways.
First, they lower the threshold for the WHO to declare a public health emergency by empowering its Regional Directors to declare a ‘public health event of regional concern’ (PHERC, italics ours) and for the WHO to put out a new thing called an ‘intermediate public health alert.’
Second, they permit the WHO to consider allegations about a public health event from non-official sources, meaning sources other than the government of the state concerned, and allow that government only 24 hours to confirm the allegations and a further 24 hours to accept the WHO’s offer of ‘collaboration.’
Collaboration is essentially a euphemism for on-site assessment by teams of WHO investigators, and concomitant pressure at the whim of WHO personnel to enact potentially far-reaching measures such as lockdowns, movement restrictions, school closures, consumption of medicines, administration of vaccines and any or all of the other social, economic, and health paraphernalia that we have come to associate with the covid circus.
Should the state’s government acceptance of the WHO’s ‘offer’ not be forthcoming, the WHO is empowered to disclose the information it has to the other 194 WHO countries, while continuing to pressure the state to yield to the WHO’s invitation to ‘collaborate.’ A non-collaborating country would risk becoming a pariah.
Third, the proposal includes a new Chapter IV, which would establish a ‘Compliance Committee’ consisting of six government-appointed experts from each WHO region tasked with permanently nosing around to ensure the member states are complying with IHR regulations.
There are more crossings-out of the existing IHR language and new language added in, but the flavour of what the US-led alliance is shooting for is a WHO that can unilaterally decide whether there is a problem and what to do about it, and can isolate countries that disagree.
Compliant WHO member states could act as a supporting cast in the isolation effort, through the distribution of their own health budgets and their ‘health-related’ policies, which would include travel and trade restrictions. The WHO would become a kind of command-and-control center for globalist agendas, pushing the produce of (Western) Big Pharma.
Why and how would this work?
We learned during covid times why it would make sense that the US and its allies are insisting on these amendments.
Lowering the bar for declaring a global (or regional) public health threat triggers a huge opportunity for Western pharmaceutical companies. As legal experts have observed: “WHO emergency declarations can trigger the fast-track development and subsequent global distribution and administration of unlicensed investigational diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines.
This is done via the WHO’s Emergency Use Listing Procedure (EULP). The introduction of an ‘intermediate public health alert’ in particular will also further incentivise the pharmaceutical industry’s move to activate domestic fast-track emergency trial protocols as well as for advance purchase, production and stockpile agreements with governments before the existence of a concrete health threat to the world’s population has been detected, as is already the case under WHO’s EULP via the procedures developed for a ‘pre-public health emergency phase’.”
You can bet that the WHO ‘expert teams’ sent in to make on-the-ground assessments, under the banner of ‘collaboration’ with the host country experiencing the health event, will be chock-a-block with operatives from the CDC and who knows what other Western agencies, all poking around potentially sensitive facilities that a host government might justifiably claim a sovereign right to keep to itself. Likewise with the ‘Compliance Committee’ proposed by the US under the new Chapter IV of the IHRs: its government-appointed members have an open-ended brief, enshrined in international law, to be busybodies.
In layman’s terms, the WHO would be turned into an international thug, with its member states offered the role of backyard gang members.
As a bonus for Western elites, the proposals are a sneaky form of rewriting history. By cementing authority within an international organisation to determine the existence of public health crises and direct potentially draconian emergency responses, Western governments would get to enshrine and legitimise their own extreme responses to the covid outbreak, as we have pointed out previously. Their backsides would thereby be given some protection from legal challenges.
The refusniks: Developing countries
The proposals were pushed primarily by Western countries: the US was joined by Australia, the UK and the EU in arguing for passage. The resistance was led by developing countries who saw it as a colonialist ambush in which their ability to set policy and respond to health threats in a manner commensurate with their domestic situations would be overridden.
Brazil reportedly went so far as to threaten to withdraw from the WHO, and the African group of almost 50 countries, along with India, argued that the amendments were being rushed through without adequate consultation. Russia, China and Iran also objected.
Failure on the first try, but the US and its allies in the West will get more shots to push it through.
How do we expect them to do this? Well, when a proposal gets bogged down inside a giant bureaucratic machine like the WHO, the inevitable response is to set up committees to work in the background and circle back with a new set of proposals to be presented at a future meeting. True to form, a ‘working group’ and ‘expert committee’ are being assembled to accept member state proposals on IHR reform by the end of September this year. These will be ‘sifted through’ and reports will be prepared for review by the WHO’s executive board in January next year. The objective is to have a fresh set of proposals on the table when the WHA convenes for the 77th time in 2024.
Not all was lost
Salvaging something from the fact that the WHA failed to get a consensus around its biggest agenda item, the US and its allies got a small victory on the point of when they can try again – though in their desperation they needed to violate the IHRs’ own rules to accomplish it. Article 55 of the IHRs states unambiguously that a four-month notice period is required for any amendments.
In this instance, revised amendments were presented on May 24, the same day that the first lot were rejected. These were discussed, further amended on May 27 and then adopted on the same day. The approved amendments halve the two-year period for any (further) approved amendments to the IHRs to take effect. (The IHRs that came into force in 2007 were agreed to in 2005 – but under the new resolution, anything agreed to in 2024 would come into effect in 2025 rather than 2026.)
Yet, what was achieved in terms of fast-tracking the force of new amendments was lost in slow-tracking their implementation. Nations would have up to 12 months – double the previous suggestion of six months – to implement any IHR amendments that newly enter into force of law.
State of play
Where is all this going?
If the WHO takes the reins on decisions about what constitutes a health crisis, and can pressure every country into a one-size-fits-all set of responses that it, the WHO, also determines, that’s bad enough. But what about if its invitation to ‘collaborate’ with countries is backed up with teeth, such as sanctions against those who demur? And what about if it then broadens the definition of ‘public health’ by, for example, declaring that climate change falls under that definition? Or racism? Or discrimination against LBTQIA+ people? The possibilities thereby opened up for running the world are endless.
A global ‘health’ empire would bring huge harms to humanity, but a lot of power and money is pushing for it. Don’t think it can’t happen.
Paul Frijters is a Professor of Wellbeing Economics at the London School of Economics: from 2016 through November 2019 at the Center for Economic Performance, thereafter at the Department of Social Policy
Vast majority of Swiss citizens don’t buy into vaccine PR
Free West Media | July 11, 2022
Corona is still dividing society to a considerable extent. This was shown by a recent survey from Switzerland. The Lucerne University of Applied Sciences wanted to find out how the Swiss rate communication regarding the “pandemic” – and to what extent they trust the authorities.
The results make one sit up and take notice: 17 percent of those surveyed were dissatisfied with the government, the media and the communication of the authorities during the “pandemic”.
They believe the campaign had been a targeted control of the population by “powerful people”. Another 24 percent were satisfied with the communication from the federal government and the media, but could imagine that “there was a larger secret plan behind the global events surrounding the pandemic”.
Notably, another 24 percent were not satisfied with the crisis communication of the authorities and the media. They did not rule out the possibility that the government had deliberately concealed information in some cases.
Only the remaining 35 percent apparently had no worries, were basically satisfied and did not believe that certain issues had been kept secret. Some 65 percent, on the other hand, were suspicious and considered that secret intentions on the part of those in government were at least conceivable.
This survey is a resounding slap in the face for the state and the media.
Lies, lies, lies
By John Ellwood | TCW Defending Freedom | July 10, 2022
WHILE the public has been distracted by beer, cake and sleaze, our politicians have been consistently lying about their ruinous policies.
Here are the first 20 lies (there are many more):
They lied about Covid
They lied about the ‘vaccine’
They lied about the side effects
They lied about Covid passes
They lied about lockdowns
They lied about the pandemic
They lied about the consequences
They lied about their contracts with Big Pharma
They lied about Russia
They lied about Ukraine
They lied about carbon dioxide
They lied about the ‘climate emergency’
They lied about ‘green’ energy
They lied about heat pumps
They lied about electric vehicles
They lied about Brexit
They lied about immigration
They lied about taxation
They lied about their attack on agriculture
They lied about the influence of the WEF/Gates/all the rest
When the contenders for Downing Street open their mouths, remember the quote ‘Why is this lying b*stard lying to me?’
Twitter Just Lost Its Last Chance To Remain Relevant
By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | July 9, 2022
After months of drama, it would appear the fate of social media giant Twitter has been decided, and the result is an inevitable path to the internet graveyard.
Many people will question the notion that Twitter could ever actually bite the dust, but they are probably unfamiliar with the company’s dismal performance as of late. The reality is, Elon Musk’s potential buyout was their last chance to stay afloat; now that Musk has exited the deal, they face a continued and steady decline into irrelevance like many other Big Tech companies before them.
While it’s possible that Musk’s decision is merely a play for a reduced sale price, it’s probably safe to assume there is not going to be a purchase anytime soon. This sets a chain of events in motion that bode very poor for Twitter given their track record the past couple of years, but first let’s consider the current situation.
While the initial argument from Twitter execs will be that Musk “waived” his rights to change the original deal and thus he is required to buy regardless, his waiver does not extend to his rights to review Twitter’s claims about their user base. The deal itself was predicated on Twitter giving honest assessments of the percentage of users that are actually bots (fake accounts). Twitter initially claimed that bots only made up around 5% of users; it would appear that Musk has discovered this to be false, and this is the position his lawyers have asserted through the SEC.
If it turns out that a large portion of Twitter is actually fake, then Musk surely has grounds to terminate the deal. A waiver against changing the deal does not negate the original requirements of the deal according to his legal council, and this makes perfect sense.
But why is Twitter so desperate to force Musk to buy when they were so resistant before, to the point that they were willing to use a “poison pill” maneuver to dilute his shares and prevent him from gaining a majority of holdings? Why are they so insistent when most of the company was up in arms only a month ago, frothing and raging over the chance that free speech might become policy on the platform? We have to look at the company’s financial health before Musk’s purchase announcement as well as what is likely to happen now that he has dumped it.
In truth, Musk could have saved the company from a slow but accelerating implosion. Twitter’s stock has been a relatively poor performer for a few years. In 2020 at the onset of the covid pandemic, it saw a massive jump along with most other Big Tech companies on the assumption that user rates would increase along with the covid lockdowns. This did not really happen.
In Fall of 2021 their stock value began to falter, with the price plunging by more that 50% just before Elon Musk announced his majority share interest.
In April, Twitter admitted that the company “might” have been overcounting its users. People with multiple accounts had those accounts linked together, but Twitter was still counting them as separate users. They indicated that up to 2 million users were created through secondary accounts (which means there are probably many millions more that they have not found or admitted to). On top of this and the bot issues, Twitter user base was in decline anyway.
In 2019, Twitter abandoned its original method of counting users and moved to a new metric which “discounted the loss of bot accounts.” This spurs the question that is now at the core of Musk abandoning the sale: How many users on Twitter are actually fake?
In February, despite the change in its metrics, Twitter announced its user numbers had still fallen short. On top of this, the company suffered a net income loss of $1.4 billion in 2020 and a loss of $221 million in 2021. After stock declines, the only thing left for Twitter was user growth, and they didn’t have it.
Musk’s possible purchase of the company lifted share prices at a time when the platform was nearing the edge of the Big Tech abyss – The moment when a website goes the way of Myspace. With their reputation in the gutter after consistent censorship of conservatives and alternative media sources, the alienation of their user base was becoming a real problem. The platform was now known as nothing more than a “blue checkmark” cult hangout for the extreme political left; in other words, not an inviting place for anyone without pronouns in their bio. Musk moving in revitalized public interest in the company, if only for a short time.
Despite their rabid distaste for free speech, Twitter needed Musk. In order to meet Musk’s demands for user data, they dumped their entire server in his lap, maybe to bury him in so much information that sifting through it would take too long to discover anything out of order. The mainstream media actually crowed about the tactic, applauding Twitter’s action as a way to stick it to Musk.
However, they did not seem to consider the implications of ALL of Twitter’s data now in the hands of outside interests. If there is fraud at Twitter against its shareholders, then it will eventually be known. Maybe this is all that Musk wanted in the first place.
What happens next in terms of the deal is unclear. No doubt court proceedings will go on for years, but Twitter likely doesn’t have that much time. Musk dropping out of the sale will result in an immediate drop in stock price and perhaps even a violent devaluation. The question among shareholders will be this: “What did Musk discover in his analysis of Twitter user accounts? Did he find an immense number of bots?”
People will err on the side of caution and sell their shares while they can.
It’s a lose/lose situation for Twitter, because as they push the issue in court there will be discovery. In discovery all the data will be laid bare, and if Twitter is actually a hollow company with huge fake user numbers then the public is going to hear about it. Their share prices will collapse even further, there will be an SEC investigation and many lawsuits. Even if large corporate interests like Blackrock or Vanguard stepped in to shore up stock prices, none of these companies have the social influence to encourage wider buying from individual investors. They would have to take increasing losses to save a company that cannot be saved.
The result could be the expedited death of the platform.
Whether or not you like Elon Musk is not important. What’s important is the exposure of one of the biggest social media conglomerates in the world to incredible scrutiny. Twitter’s web influence has been waning for some time, but they still hold a measure of power over the flow of information within our culture. Perhaps a reckoning is at hand, and maybe the public will get a peek behind the curtain of the Big Tech empire to see how things REALLY operate.
Kiev blasts calls for oversight of US military aid to Ukraine
Samizdat | July 9, 2022
Kiev has reacted angrily to a call voiced by US Congresswoman Victoria Spartz (R-Ind) to “establish proper oversight” over weapons and aid deliveries to Ukraine. The idea amounts to an attempt to “undermine” existing mechanisms of delivering aid to Ukraine amid the ongoing conflict with Russia, Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Oleg Nikolenko said Saturday.
Spartz’s stance is particularly cynical given the Ukrainian origins of the congresswoman, Nikolenko noted in a Facebook post.
“The Congresswoman should stop undermining the existing mechanisms of US military assistance to Ukraine. The Ukrainian side is interacting with American partners with maximum openness, providing them full information about the use of technology,” the spokesman said, claiming that “further bureaucratization” of the process would only help Moscow.
Rep. Spartz sent a stern message to both the US President Joe Biden and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky earlier this week, telling them to take at least “three urgent action items” she believes would help “get the situation under control.” According to Spartz, Biden must “stop playing politics, have a clear strategy and align security assistance with our strategy.” Zelensky should “stop playing politics and theater,” and “start governing” instead “to better support his military and local governments.” The third point, related to establishing an oversight mechanism, has apparently irked Kiev the most.
“Congress has to establish proper oversight of critical infrastructure and delivery of weapons and aid,” Spartz stated.
Establishing an oversight mechanism into how money destined to help would be actually spent had been demanded by US politicians before. Back in May, for instance, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul delayed the passage of the behemoth $40 billion Ukraine bill, urging the creation of the oversight mechanism.
Uruguay Halts COVID-19 Vaccine for Kids Under 13, Judge Demands Officials Turn Over Pfizer Contracts
By Megan Redshaw | The Defender | July 8, 2022
Uruguay suspended COVID-19 vaccines for children under 13 after a judge on Thursday issued an injunction halting vaccinations in that age group until government officials turn over its contracts with Pfizer.
Uruguayan government officials and Pfizer were ordered on Wednesday to appear in court after judge Alejandro Recarey gave them 48 hours to present detailed information on Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine while the court considered an injunction request to halt COVID-19 vaccinations for children 5 and older.
The government said a confidentiality clause in the contract prevents it from producing the documents, The Washington Post reported.
According to ABC News, the judge received answers to 18 questions about the safety and chemical composition of COVID-19 vaccines, signed by Health Minister Daniel Salinas, but did not turn over the contracts.
It is unknown whether the answers provided by government officials adequately addressed the questions posed by the judge, who ultimately ordered an injunction based on what was provided.
Salinas, after the court’s ruling, strongly defended the government’s vaccination plan and criticized the judge for questioning the safety of vaccines.
Alvaro Delgado, the secretary of the presidency, said the halt is a threat to public health.
“We’re convinced that it’s crazy to suspend voluntary vaccination because it has a strong scientific backing,” Delgado said at a news conference.
Vaccinations for those older than 13 will continue, the Health Ministry said in a statement.
The government plans to appeal the decision, according to ABC News.
As The Defender reported Wednesday, judge Recarey of the Administrative Litigation Tribunal used his inquisitorial powers to demand the Uruguayan Ministry of Public Health, State Health Services Administration and the President’s Office submit all information regarding the contracts for the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines, including contractual information related to any clauses of civil indemnity or criminal impunity of the suppliers in the event of adverse effects.
The judge is seeking, among other things, to know whether there are clauses in the contracts that promised pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer civil and criminal immunity for adverse effects caused by their vaccines.
Judge Recarey posed a series of questions to government officials and Pfizer regarding the chemical composition, efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines, and required Pfizer to state whether it has “admitted, in any area, internal or external to it and its partners, the verification of adverse effects” of its COVID-19 vaccines in children.
© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Ontario stops showing COVID by vaccine status
By Mike Campbel | The Counter Signal | July 8, 2022
After months of off-brand COVID stats, Ontario’s official reporting database has stopped showing cases and hospitalizations based on vaccine status.
Now, why would they do that?
Well, the reason given is to prevent false impressions that the vaccine isn’t working:
“This data set reported the total number of patients in hospital by vaccination status without taking into consideration the number of people in Ontario who are vaccinated overall. Comparing groups using count data (such as the number of patients) is appropriate when the groups being compared are about the same size (i.e. around mid-2021). However, now that approximately 87% of eligible Ontarians are fully vaccinated (compared to 3% partially vaccinated and 10% unvaccinated) This comparison is no longer appropriate and may be misleading.”
In other words, they’re hiding behind the “base rate fallacy,” which occurs when categories with different population sizes are compared. For example, if there are 10x as many Americans as Canadians, comparing deaths needs to be done per 100,000 people to show a rate rather than the base numbers, wherein American death totals will be higher because of their larger population alone.
However, this reason for pulling the data appears to be a cop-out and is misleading.
At The Counter Signal, we’ve reported that the rates themselves have become unfavourable and disproportional for the vaccinated categories.
In Ontario, by April 5, those who had not received two doses of the COVID vaccine have a COVID death rate of 0.02 per capita, as did the fully vaccinated. However, those who had received booster shots had a COVID death rate of 0.03 per capita.
Additionally, those with a booster dose were also more likely to be infected with COVID-19 than any other group. Those with booster doses had 22.35 cases per capita, fully vaccinated had 15.47 cases per capita, and partially vaccinated or unvaccinated had 12.75 cases per capita.
As for Canada more broadly, during the week of April 10-17, 222 fully vaccinated individuals died from COVID compared to only one unvaccinated person (among the eligible population). 99% of COVID deaths were in vaccinated persons that week, a higher percentage than the 85-90% of eligible Canadians who’d been fully vaccinated.
That’s beyond base rate fallacy.
Moreover, between May 8 to 22 in Canada, the vaccinated with at least one booster population accounted for 82 per cent of new COVID deaths — despite making up only 48.6 per cent of the population.
The following two weeks were similar.
Between May 22 and June 5, the unvaccinated population in Canada (at 5+ years old) made up 10.7% of the eligible population in Canada yet only accounted for 8% of COVID deaths.
It appears we’ve gone from trusting the science to hiding it.
Vaxsplainers
German state media “debunks” eugyppius
eugyppius – July 6, 2022
I’m happy to report that my remarks on lower case rates in lesser-vaccinated East Germany, after being recycled by BILD, are now the subject of a long state media debunking in Tagesschau.
Why Are Case Rates Lower in the East? ask “science” reporter Anna Behrend and official state media “fact-finder” Pascal Siggelkow.
The nationwide seven-day incidence in Germany has been on the rise again for several weeks now. Health Minister Karl Lauterbach has already spoken of a summer Corona wave. But a look at the developments reveals that there are huge differences between the federal states:
While the incidences in Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein have already passed the threshold of 900, the numbers in Thuringia and Saxony are still under 400. In general, it’s remarkable that all the East German states – with the exception of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern – are significantly below the national average incidence of of 687.7. And this is despite the fact that Saxony, Brandenburg and Thuringia have some of the poorest vaccination rates. In conspiracy-theory circles, people are already fantasising about “negative efficacy”, especially with regard to booster vaccinations, saying that the figures amount to proof that the vaccines are ineffective. But is there really a causal connection between the vaccination rate and the incidence?
Before they get into that, Siggelkow and Behrend light the incense and cycle through the familiar vaccinator nostrums. “Vaccination protects against severe outcomes and death,” even though the rise of Omicron has led to a great many “breakthrough infections.” Mysterious “studies,” which are never further characterised, are said to show “that vaccinated people … are slightly less contagious,” although they have to concede that “there isn’t enough data to conclude this decisively.”
Then, when they’re reasonably sure most people have stopped reading, comes an uncomfortable admission. Case incidences, the cornerstone of Tagesschau Corona reporting since 2020, are of, uh, “limited significance”:
If the vaccination rate … is not the decisive factor … how is it that the number of new infections in the East is comparatively low right now? First of all, it must be said that the current infection figures are only of limited significance. “One must always also consider that incidences are calculated on the basis of reported laboratory results,” says [virologist Johannes] Knobloch. As before, only positive PCR tests count in the RKI statistics. Willingness to be tested and the accessibility of PCR tests therefore have a very large influence on the measured incidence. … “The number of unreported cases is probably higher than in all previous phases of the pandemic.”
According to experts, the incidence continues to indicate whether the wave of infection is rising or falling. Caution is advised, however, when making regional comparisons, as the testing strategies and also the number of tests differ greatly across states. Fewer tests mean that fewer infections are detected. A high proportion of positive tests … indicates a high number of unreported cases …
Ah, so they just have super high positivity rates in the East then? That’s the explanation?
Ha no:
But it’s not the case that Eastern states have uniquely high positive rates compared to the others. So different testing patterns alone cannot explain the current low incidence there either.
It wasn’t that long ago that all manner of respectable journalists, especially those working for Pravda operations like Tagesschau, wrote long think pieces on the “global menace” of “vaccine scepticism,” complete with histrionics about the lower vaccination rates in Eastern Europe causing “much higher infection figures.” Lazy Googling yields many typical items, such as this piece from MDR in November, lamenting that the “incidence among unvaccinated in Sachsen-Anhalt is significantly higher than among the vaccinated.” This at a time when the vaccinated were exempt from most testing, while many unvaccinated had to submit to daily antigen tests before they could even go to work.
Now that these games no longer favour the vaccinated, though, we’re allowed to wonder about things like positivity rates. These certainly matter, but – unbeknownst to our crack fact-checking team – they’ve become totally meaningless in the era of lateral flow testing, as a plurality of PCR tests in Germany are conducted to confirm a positive antigen result, and nobody has any idea what the true rate of testing might be.
Frustrated on this front, Siggelkow and Behrend look for other signs that infections might really be higher in the East, even though the official incidence is lower there. More and more, you have the feeling of a desperate grasping after straws:
If the true incidence were in fact higher, you would expect to see this in ICU admissions …
Yet the proportion of Covid patients in ICU is currently not conspicuously high in the East compared to the rest of Germany.
Foiled again!
So were most people in the low-incidence states already infected and now immune? Those who become infected with the coronavirus usually form antibodies against it. How long and how well these antibodies protect against a new infection with the virus has not yet been conclusively researched.
However, if we assume that there is at least some protection for a while, one conceivable reason for the low incidence in some states would be that more people have already come into contact with the virus there and are therefore less likely to be infected now.
… It’s not known precisely how much of the population in which states has already recovered from infection. If you take the number of new infections … since the beginning of the year as a rough approximation of the circulation of Omicron, you find no confirmation of the assumption that the population of the East has had greater contact with the virus. …
How confusing. Do Tagesschau no longer stand by their dire proclamations, uttered just this past winter, that lower vaccination rates were to be blame for higher infections in the East? Is their position now that the East never saw higher rates of infection at all, even though the vaccines definitely protect against infection? Also too, why have we abandoned so soon our thesis that the incidence is of “limited significance,” can only tell us when cases are going up or down, and says nothing about how many cases there actually are? I thought regional comparisons of case numbers were bad?
Way down at the bottom, when Behrend and Siggelkow are triply sure nobody is reading anymore, they toss out the possibility that cases might indeed be lower in the East – not because of the vaccines, but because the new Omicron variants haven’t gotten there yet:
One reason the nationwide incidences are rising so sharply in the first place is the Omicron subtypes BA.4 and BA.5, which experts consider more contagious than the previously known “sister variants.” BA.5 is now dominant … It’s of course possible that some states are more affected by the new variants than others, where these variants have not yet arrived.
If BA.5 infects the vaccinated preferentially, and vaccination rates vary substantially across regions, there will be many places where BA.5 never quite seems to have arrived. Perhaps aware of this close brush with crimethink, our braintrust wraps things up with some cleansing mantras:
What is certain, though, is that there is no scientifically sound reason to assume that a high vaccination rate could be partly responsible for a high incidence. On the contrary: Scientific data show instead that people infected with Omicron are less likely to infect others than the unvaccinated.
Every conspiracy theory must first be ignored, then denied, and finally debunked, before it becomes true.
Ukraine Crisis Highlights Concerns About Whether OPCW Still Has Any Global Relevance, Observers Say
Samizdat | July 6, 2022
The executive council of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) kicked off its hundredth session at The Hague on Tuesday. Last month, the global watchdog assured that it was “monitoring the situation” in Ukraine closely as far as the potential use of chemical weapons is concerned.
The OPCW’s lack of a coherent, objective and fair-minded response to recent crises centered around Syria and Russia demonstrates its politicization and domination by Western interests, and the longer the watchdog stays out of Ukraine, the better, former diplomats, geopolitical observers, and international legal experts have told Sputnik.
“In Ukraine the OPCW has fortunately not been pressed into action. This, I suspect, is because the US is satisfied with the situation as it is, with no need for the US itself to be drawn in, as would no doubt be the case if a chemical attack was fabricated,” Peter Ford, Britain’s former ambassador to Syria, said.
The veteran diplomat, who warned the British government against the folly of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and stressed that Western powers’ campaign to topple the Syrian government in the 2010s could open a “Pandora’s box” of endless crises, said the Syria case demonstrated clearly that the OPCW is no longer an independent, impartial agency.
“The Syria crisis proved without a shadow of a doubt that the Western powers have bent the OPCW to their own will, destroying in the process the organization’s credibility, probably irretrievably. This is a tragedy for world peace,” Ford stressed, referring to documented OPCW efforts to censor and smear agency whistleblowers who revealed that the watchdog’s report on the April 2018 chemical attack in Douma, Syria was doctored to implicate the Assad government.
In Ukraine, Ford fears, the international community can now only depend on “self-interested restraint on the part of the Pentagon in controlling its proxies rather than the deterrent power of a genuinely impartial international watchdog.”
Chemical Weapons Danger in Ukraine
Since the escalation of the crisis in Ukraine in February, Russia has sent the OPCW and its technical secretariat over two dozen notes warning of possible staged provocations by Ukrainian forces or radical nationalists involving chemical weapons. Last month, the agency assured the international community that it was “closely monitoring the situation in Ukraine” for chemical weapons use.
On Wednesday, Russian military indicated that it had information on plans by Kiev to stage a provocation in the Donetsk People’s Republic using chlorine gas to accuse Moscow on indiscriminate attacks targeting chemically hazardous objects.
Alessandro Bruno, a Toronto-based geopolitical analyst and political observer at Lombardi Letter, says that while the OPCW’s official mission and goals are “certainly worth pursuing,” the problem is the watchdog’s control by Western interests seeking to obfuscate the truth and objectivity in favor of politicized objectives.
“They seem to have targeted only specific sides in specific wars to suit specific aims, which typically are those of Western powers. There have been many efforts to manipulate these organizations by the dominant powers, particularly in the West,” Bruno said.
The scholar recalled instances of claims by the US and its allies about Russia’s use of chemical weapons, from the allegation that Russia poisoned pro-Western Ukrainian presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko in the mid-2000s, to the 2018 Novichok scandal in Britain, which “many thoughtful journalists have debunked,” to the Alexei Navalny “poisoning” saga of 2020, which doctors treating the opposition vlogger have debunked.
“Yet the accusations of chemical weapons that Russia used have persisted, even though they defied all logic. That’s the biggest issue with these organizations. They must be more neutral. Their headquarters must be in more neutral locations, because the fact that many of these organizations operate from Western capitals makes them more prone to Western media misinformation,” Bruno said.
The geopolitical analyst still fears that the West could use the pretext of ‘Russian chemical weapons use’ in Ukraine “to get more directly involved into the conflict and potentially trigger a much wider physical war.”
“So far, I think, some of the powers came to understand that making an accusation like that in this conflict would be riskier than the accusations they made in Syria and Iraq, Navalny and Yushchenko and so on, that this would have much bigger implications, that this would blow back against the West,” Bruno stressed.
Tool of US Interests
Christopher C. Black, an international criminal and human rights lawyer with 20 years of experience covering war crimes and international relations, echoed Bruno’s sentiments about the OPCW’s noble stated aims and their stark contrast with the body’s actual history, which “shows that [the watchdog] acts to serve the interests of the United States and its NATO and other allies.”
“We saw strong evidence of this when the USA tried to get rid of the Director General Jose Bustani of Brazil in 2002, when the United States was preparing its invasion of Iraq and John Bolton went to The Hague and threatened his family if he did not resign,” Black recalled, pointing to Bustani’s 2018 interview with The Intercept in which the former OPCW chief detailed the threats made against his children living in the United States.
“In August 2020, it was revealed through leaks from Austrian government sources that the OPCW and British claims that Novichok had been found in the blood of the Skripals allegedly poisoned in the UK were false, that in fact no such agent had been found in their blood at all. But the findings were suppressed and a false report issued to back the UK claims,” the lawyer added. “Similar results were seen regarding the alleged poisoning of Mr. Navalny. We can quickly understand what goes on behind the scenes at the OPCW,” Black said.
Black finds it unlikely that the chemical weapons watchdog will change “without a change in the balance of power in the world,” which is taking place, but whose effects on international organizations will be slow to appear.
In Ukraine, the lawyer fears, “We cannot expect any objective consideration of Kiev regime or NATO claims of Russia using chemical weapons in Ukraine for the reasons stated above, despite the fact that Russia has not used them, does not use them and will not use them. To the contrary we have a situation in which Kiev and NATO forces keep making false claims while themselves preparing chemical weapons attacks to be staged as false flag attacks to be blamed on Russia and when Russia asks the OPCW to investigate this, Russia is met with silence,” he said.
How OPCW Can Regain Credibility
Dr. Alfred De Zayas, a lawyer, writer and former independent expert on international order with the United Nations, similarly doubts the OPCW’s ability to reform in its current itteration, saying the agency “has long been instrumentalized to pursue the geopolitical interests of Western powers.”
The international legal expert is confident that agencies like the OPCW, the International Criminal Court and the Human Rights Council can regain their credibility by demonstrating impartiality. “This is possible if the BRICS countries become more vocal and more visible on the international scene. There is no reason why African, Asian and Latin American countries should dance to the tune of the ‘Washington consensus’,” De Zayas stressed.
In Ukraine, the OPCW’s assurance about “monitoring the situation” carries only a “purely propagandistic value,” and is “intended to charge and convict Russia even before there is any evidence of violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention,” the observer believes.
“If the OPCW investigates not only potential Russian war crimes, but also expands its investigation to potential chemical weapons violations and war crimes by Ukrainian forces and by foreign mercenaries, including US, UK, French, Georgian and others, then the OPCW might regain some credibility. That, however, would be ‘out of character’. It is not unlike the ICC, which in the eyes of many observers in the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Switzerland – has lost its little credibility and will have no authority unless and until it indicts Western politicians and bureaucrats including Tony Blair, George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Victoria Nuland, Barack Obama (the king of the drones), Donald Trump, Nikolas Sarkozy, etc.,” De Zayas concluded.
Featured Video
Death Spikes & Rising Cancer In Our Youth Explained
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Politicians lie
By Mazin Qumsiyeh | Popular Resistance | August 18, 2013
There is no way to say this truth nicely: Politicians lie. That includes Japanese, American, Egyptian, Israeli, and Palestinian politicians! Is there something more common sense than that? Yet, so many citizens around the world believe their own politicians or wistfully acknowledge lies but think it is part of the job needed to run things. They believe even when politicians contradict themselves blatantly. This phenomenon is rather remarkable. It is a dissonance and disconnect from reality that many seem oblivious to. It is very dangerous because it can lead to accepting rationales for going to war. These can be deadly wars that lead to millions of lives lost as happened in what was called World War 1 and WW2. Even when incredible and declassified evidence abound, politicians continue to lie and old mythologies refuse to die. Here are just a few of the countless lies told to us over the past few decades… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Turkish parliament to review Saudi-Pakistan defense pact next month
- DEATH SPIKES & RISING CANCER IN OUR YOUTH EXPLAINED
- Iran offers Trump deal before US election
- Merz regime wants ‘secret police’ – opposition
- Israeli settlers terrorize West Bank Palestinians with state-provided drones: Report
- They see them, then kill them: Israeli quadcopters track, deliberately target civilians in Gaza
- Debunked: Trump’s egregious UNGA claims on war against Iran crumble under scrutiny
- Europe was part of the infrastructure of US aggression against Iran: Deputy FM
- New evidence on the Bucha Massacre
- Italy and France debunk reports CIA issued ‘Russian drone threat’ warning
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
