Hamas: US Secretary of State is marketing illusions
Palestinian Information Center – August 23, 2024
“The US Secretary of State’s statements aim to market illusions, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu deliberately obstructs efforts to reach an agreement to end the war, by setting conditions that contradict what was previously agreed upon,” Hamas Political Bureau member Hossam Badran said in press statements on Thursday.
Badran considered the US Secretary of State’s statements about the Israeli approval of the amended proposal as “a kind of deception and marketing of illusions.”
The member of the Hamas Political Bureau confirmed during a TV interview that these statements clearly reflect the stubborn Israeli positions, as the proposals put forward by the US Secretary of State were not accepted by the Israeli authorities. On the contrary, Netanyahu has repeatedly announced his conditions and requirements that are in stark contrast to everything that was previously agreed upon, especially with regard to the July 2, 2024 paper.
Badran explained that the US Secretary of State appears to be speaking on behalf of Netanyahu, while all indications say that Netanyahu is the main obstacle to reaching any agreement, and this is confirmed by the statements of the Israeli army minister himself.
Asked about possible options to bridge the gaps in the negotiations, Badran said that the Palestinian demands have always been clear and specific, adding that “we agreed to the proposal presented on July 2, and that the mediators had pledged at the time that the Palestinian resistance’s approval of that paper would bring approval from the occupation,” explaining that if the US is serious about achieving a ceasefire or reaching an agreement, it must abide by what it had previously offered and agreed upon.
He further stressed that pressure must be directed towards Netanyahu, who refuses to abide by international demands calling for an end to the war.
Badran reiterated that “the US is not just a mediator in this conflict, but a real partner in the war against the Palestinian people,” saying that the US support for Israel goes beyond armament and funding, to include political, diplomatic and media support.
Badran stressed that the Palestinian resistance will not give Netanyahu the opportunity to manipulate through empty negotiation rounds, stressing that the resistance will continue to defend the Palestinian people with all its capabilities and abilities.
Rising anger in Germany in response to Nord Stream “revelations”
What role did the German authorities have in the bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline?
By Maike Gosch | August 19, 2024
Last week, a number of reports and articles about the Nord Stream pipeline explosion shook the media landscape and citizens in Germany and around the world. After a long period of astonishing silence surrounding this monstrous event, things now seem to be moving. Are we slowly getting closer to the truth in this affair? In any case, the reactions from all sides were fierce and showed once again just how divided the political landscape is in Germany and Europe.
After the news first made the rounds in several German media outlets on August 14, 2024 that German investigators had identified a Ukrainian diving instructor (funnily enough named Volodymyr Z.) who allegedly blew up Nord Stream and then unfortunately escaped arrest due to a lack of cooperation from Polish authorities, further explosive revelations from the Wall Street Journal followed on the same day.
According to the WSJ article, the attack was led by the then-Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian armed forces and current Ukrainian ambassador to the UK, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, with president Zelenskyy having initially given the operation the green light. Then the Dutch military intelligence service MIVD found out about it, informed the CIA and the latter in turn urged president Zelensky to stop the operation. He then ordered Zaluzhnyi to abort the operation, but the general ignored the order and went ahead with the plan. According to the WSJ, just days after the attack, which occurred on September 26, 2022, the CIA gave the German Foreign Ministry a detailed account of how the covert operation went down. The Ukrainian government has rejected this account.
Much of this report seems implausible, so I consider the article to be more of a “limited hangout” than a clarification of this terrorist attack on our industrial infrastructure.
“Limited hangout” is a term from the intelligence world for a common ploy used by intelligence professionals: when the truth is beginning to emerge or the public is becoming too suspicious and impatient, and they can no longer remain silent or rely on a contrived cover story to deceive the public, part of the truth is admitted — sometimes even voluntarily — while still withholding the essential and truly risky facts in the case. The public is supposed to be distracted from and engaged with the disclosed information, so that the pressure it exerts eases (at least for a while).
One day later, on August 15, 2024, the German newspaper Die Welt published an interview with the former head of the BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst or Federal Intelligence Service of Germany), August Hanning, which also caused quite a stir. Mr. Hanning says that the attack, if it was carried out by the Ukrainian side, could only have been possible with strong logistical support from Poland and that for him there must obviously have been an agreement between the highest leaders in Ukraine and Poland, naming president Zelenskyy and president Duda.
These statements sound more plausible, but it is surprising that Mr. Hanning begins by saying that only Ukraine and Poland had an interest in and the means of blowing up the pipelines, and that he doesn’t mention other possible perpetrators, such as the US, but also Great Britain or the Scandinavian neighbouring states. Interestingly, however, he takes a very clear stance on the classification of the attacks and comes to a very different conclusion from most voices in the German political landscape, which we will get to below:
There has been considerable damage to the pipelines. […] I once spoke to external experts from the operators and they put it at up to 20 to 30 billion euros. The huge damage caused by state terrorism must be clearly stated and I also expect the German government to make it clear that compensation must be demanded. Also from the operators. I believe that huge damage has been caused by the activities of Ukrainian and Polish government agencies.
This astonishing accumulation of news within a few days around the investigation, which has been ongoing for two years without any results so far, has led some to suspect that this is a controlled action directed against Zelenskyy and part of the public’s preparation for him losing the support of the West and being replaced.
“Thank you, Ukraine!”
The reactions to this explosive news were not long in coming and proved once again what a divided information landscape we find ourselves in.
The German conservative newspaper FAZ led the way. In an article that directly followed the WSJ’s “revelations”, Reinhard Müller explained that the pipeline had been a legitimate military target (according to the headline); the text formulates it somewhat more cautiously: “could be considered a legitimate target”. His arguments: it is owned by a Russian state-owned company and also contributed to Moscow’s war of aggression against Ukraine. He also makes an argument oft-heard from German commentators whose loyalties clearly lie with Ukraine: at the time the pipeline was blown up, it was no longer serving Germany’s energy supply. Of course, this raises the question: if it no longer served Germany’s (and Europe’s, for that matter) energy supply, how could it have contributed to Moscow’s war of aggression? But let’s leave that aside for the moment. And we will come to the ownership structure later in the text.
He is also of the opinion that if the Ukrainian president or another commander commissioned it, it could also be seen as an act of defense permissible under international law. Müller takes the opportunity, while he’s on the subject of steep theses on international law, to take a similarly idiosyncratic swipe at the German government’s critics of its stance in the Gaza war:
Here, Ukraine, with its back to the wall, gives little cause for concern in terms of the selection of targets, the treatment of prisoners of war and also the prosecution of war crimes and international observation. In such extreme situations, the value of the Western community’s value-based approach is proven. The end does not justify every means — this also applies to Israel, which is also in a struggle for survival. The commitment to human rights, even in the fight against those who do not care about them, makes the decisive difference. Any far-sighted government should also recognise that this is in its own best interests. Only those who fight under the flag of humanity will be able to live in peace with their neighbors at all times in the long term.
So again, because this may be misleading, his statement is: Ukraine and Israel respect human rights, unlike their opponents, and thus fight under the flag of humanity and now the Western community’s value-based approach shows its worth in that we support them in this noble fight (also against our own industrial infrastructure), because (only) in this way can we live in peace with our neighbors in the long term. I would like to award the prize for the most absurd take to Mr. Müller.
But please read the article in its entirety yourself, which also claims that all allies have a duty (!) to rush to the aid of the invaded Ukraine at any time, including with their own soldiers. In legal terms, one would speak of a “minority opinion”; I would like to use stronger words, but I’m trying to control myself so as not to further the division here.
A few days later, the FAZ reported that Germany would be cutting back on military aid for Ukraine and that, according to the German government’s current budgetary planning, no new money would be made available for this with immediate effect.
What initially appeared to be a possible reaction to the revelations and a concession to the large part of the population that is critical of the German government’s NATO course (because of the upcoming elections in some German states?), turns out on closer inspection to be a less major change in policy. This year everything will continue unchanged, next year military support is to be halved and then in 2027 it will shrink to less than a tenth of the current amount. However, most geopolitical analysts expect the war to end by 2025 at the latest. And after that, according to Christian Lindner’s plans, the support will no longer come from the federal budget, but will be financed from the proceeds (interest) of the Russian central bank assets frozen by the G7 states.
There were also comments from abroad that caused an uproar. Polish prime minister Donald Tusk, for example, commented the revelations in a tweet as follows:
To all the initiators and patrons of Nord Stream 1 and 2. The only thing you should do today about it is apologise and keep quiet.
The tweet went viral and has been viewed 2.6 million times so far, which is no wonder as it was provocative to the max and triggered correspondingly emotional reactions. So not only should we silently accept the blowing up of the pipelines; we should also be ashamed to have built and supported them in the first place.
But what seems like pure election advertising for the AfD and Sahra Wagenknecht’s new party, BSW, may also have other economic and geopolitical backgrounds:
Since the beginning of the Ukraine war, we have been wondering about the increasingly aggressive and militant rhetoric against Germany from our neighboring country and cannot shake off the feeling that the new favourite child of the US and Great Britain is finally trying to get back at its neighbour, which is often perceived as overpowering, with borrowed courage.
In general, Poland plays an interesting role in the whole Nord Stream pipeline affair, a role that has received very little attention to date. This is because Poland (not just Ukraine) also lost both leverage/pressure and considerable transit income through the construction and commissioning of the pipelines, which allowed Russian natural gas to be supplied directly to Germany and the rest of Europe. And they worked together with the US, Denmark and Norway on an alternative to gas supplies from Russia and also wanted to get back into the game as a transit country for gas supplies from other countries of origin to Germany and Europe. However, as long as Nord Stream 1 and then Nord Stream 2 were available, the economic prospects for these plans were poor. It is a strange coincidence that the Baltic Pipe, a natural gas pipeline from Denmark to Poland, was opened on September 27, 2022 (only one day after the Nord Stream pipelines were blown up).
But back to Germany, where other politicians and journalists made it clear that even a possible terrorist attack by Ukraine would not change their “Nibelungentreue” — a German expression meaning absolute loyalty. CDU politician Roderich Kiesewetter initially explained in a video interview with Die Welt that the operation of Nord Stream 1 and 2 did not generate any income for Russia, as no gas was flowing through them at the time of the attack (I assume in order to substantiate his otherwise unfounded suspicions of Russia as the perpetrator, more on that later).
He may be hoping for a poor memory on the part of the audience here, but I think most Germans who have studied the topic still have a good memory of the situation in the autumn of 2022 and know very well that Russia had only halted gas supplies through Nord Stream 1 for a short time due to problems with the sanctions and turbine maintenance. This may also have been an attempt by Russia to mitigate or avert the sanctions in exchange for the resumption of gas supplies, or it may have been an attempt by Russia to force the certification and opening of Nord Stream 2, which was ready for use at that time.
In any case, it is clear that Russia was expressly willing and also able to start supplying gas via Nord Stream 2 at any time and that this was blocked by the German government for political reasons (keyword: certification procedure) and that the pressure from the population in this direction grew considerably, especially in the period shortly before the blast (keyword: hot autumn, we remember).
Mr. Kiesewetter omits these connections here in order to give the impression that the pipelines were actually already irrelevant at the time of the blast, which unfortunately — in the interest of truth — many other commentators also claim. As with so many issues these days, one would like to see neutral fact checks, which unfortunately we rarely get.
When Mr. Kiesewetter goes on to say that many elements of the article do not seem very credible, I even agree with him, but then he tries several times in the course of the interview to cast suspicion on Russia and talk about a “false flag” operation, albeit without any indications, arguments or evidence, so who is the conspiracy theorist now?
In addition, he then says that no German property was damaged because the attack took place in international waters. The location of the attack is obviously irrelevant to the ownership status, but Mr. Kiesewetter certainly knows that. And Nord Stream 2 is indeed owned by Nord Stream 2 AG, which is wholly owned by Gazprom, which in turn is a state-owned company. However, Germany has invested around 3.9 billion euros in goods and services in Nord Stream 2. And the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, which was also damaged, is held by Nord Stream AG, of which only 51 percent is owned by Gazprom through its subsidiary Gazprom International Projects North 1 LLC, while the other 49 percent is held by German, Dutch and French companies from the energy infrastructure sector.
In this respect, both German and European property was destroyed. Furthermore, the ownership structure under civil law is not the decisive factor in classifying the destruction of important energy infrastructure as a threat to national security, as the issue is how important it is for Germany’s economy and population, and not who owns the pipelines under civil law. Of course, Mr. Kiesewetter knows all about that too, he is an experienced politician who has been in the political business for a long time. Finally, the sentence that caused the most uproar:
Besides, Ukraine is the attacked (sic!), the security of Ukraine, whether they destroyed it or not, is in our interest.
So, in plain language: Ukraine’s security is in our (i.e., Germany’s) interest, even if it jeopardises our security with such a massive attack.
Finally, Julian Röpcke, full-time editor at the Bild newspaper, in his spare time apparently something of a war correspondent for the Ukrainian army and, according to his own description, an “arms delivery ultra”: he reposted his own tweet from November 2023 (i.e., shortly after the attack) with the note “Due to current events”, in which he praised the destruction of the pipelines:
Just to make this clear again: If Ukraine attacked Nord Stream: thank you very much. It was a Russian infrastructure project that made us dependent on their gas. Thanks a lot for ending that dependency, no matter who did it.
In other words: “Thank you, Ukraine!” (paraphrasing the famous tweet by Polish politician Radek Sikorski, shortly after the attack itself).
Moving the goalpost
What the reactions also reveal is an exciting shift in terms and evaluations among representatives and supporters of the German government’s and the EU’s current Ukraine policy. When the rather unlikely thesis of Russia being the perpetrator was initially put forward, Ursula von der Leyen, for example, was still saying:
Any deliberate disruption of active European energy infrastructure is unacceptable & will lead to the strongest possible response.
In short, right after the attack, it was clear to everyone and was not disputed by anyone (except perhaps by the German Greens, but that is such an extreme position that I am leaving it out here) that this was a massive terrorist attack against the energy infrastructure of Russia, Germany and also Europe, which was supplied with energy via these pipelines. It was also largely undisputed that this constituted a “casus belli” under international law, i.e., it was tantamount to a declaration of war and should actually trigger a NATO defense case under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
But that’s yesterday news. Now that there is evidence that Ukraine was at least complicit in this act, the supporters sound very different: the pipelines were irrelevant (so why were they blown up at all?), the demolition was justified and Germany should be ashamed of having built them in the first place.
Storm of outrage
From other quarters, there was a lot of outrage about the news. Alice Weidel from the German right-wing AfD-Party commented the news as follows:
The economic damage to our country caused by the blasting of #Nordstream allegedly ordered by #Zelenskyy — and not #Putin, as we were led to believe — should be “billed” to #Ukraine. Any “aid payments” that burden the German taxpayer should be stopped.
Sahra Wagenknecht of the left-wing BSW (Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht or Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance) wrote):
Should German authorities have known in advance about the attack plan on Nord Stream 1 and 2, then we would have a scandal of the century in German politics.
Many private commentators were equally stunned:
Nobody deserves a government that allows critical infrastructure to be blown away with complete equanimity.
For some, angry comments were not enough and they wanted to see action. Opposition Cologne-based lawyer Markus Haintz, for example, filed charges against Kiesewetter with the Ellwangen public prosecutor’s office due to his comments regarding the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines in the Die Welt interview.
Laughter through the tears
Fortunately for the soul, there were also many funny and satirical reactions. Berlin-based AI artist and satirist Snicklink posted this video. But other X users also had fun with pictures and photos making fun of the — from their point of view — implausible descriptions in the WSJ article.
What’s next?
So far (at the time of writing this article) no German government representative has commented on the WSJ investigation or the Die Welt interview, which is incredible in itself. I assume there were some emergency meetings on the weekend where the line of communication is being discussed and we can expect a statement soon. We can look forward to seeing how they position themselves here.
Sahra Wagenknecht is now calling for a committee of inquiry in the German Parliament to investigate the role of the German government in connection with the attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines.
This seems urgently needed — because that would be the appropriate forum to shed light on all these issues. For as interesting and sometimes entertaining as the reactions and discussions in the regular and social media are, such a state affair cannot be solved by swarm intelligence.
This article first appeared in German on Nachdenkseiten.
The Cost of Kursk
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | August 20, 2024
The bold and surprising incursion across the border into the Kursk region of Russia has won Ukraine the temporary possession of several Russian villages and a few hundred square miles of Russian territory. But the strategically cheap Russian land may have been bought at a very costly price. The Ukrainian armed forces managed a lightning advance through largely undefended territory. But that territory is defended now, and the advance seems already to have been slowed. And though it seems to have lost momentum well short of its goals, Ukraine may still have to pay the full price.
Ukraine’s decision to take the war across the border may have been made out of the desperate realization that the war is lost. The Russian advance in Donbas is slow but inexorable. It moves forward at a horrible cost of Ukrainian lives, military equipment, and ammunition. It now threatens the city of Pokrovsk, a strategic location whose fall could cut off Ukraine’s ability to supply its forces in the east and facilitate Russia’s capture of Donbas.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his commander-in-chief, Oleksandr Syrsky, made the decision to take the best trained and best equipped troops the Ukrainian armed forces has and remove them from the Donbas front—where the real war is being fought and where they are being existentially missed—and send them into Kursk to win land that few in NATO think they have a hope of holding. What calculation makes sense of that strategic decision, unless Zelensky and Syrsky know that the end is near?
Perhaps the calculation was that Ukraine’s best troops could be sent to the Donbas front to defend against the Russian invasion or they could be sent to Kursk to invade Russia. In the first case, they would inevitably fail to halt the overwhelming Russian advance; in the second case, they might change the facts on the ground. In either scenario, Ukraine’s best troops will be defeated and their Western equipment lost, but in the first they will be killed while achieving nothing but a short delay in defeat. In the second, they will be killed with the hope of assisting military and political objectives.
The military objective may have been to create a crisis in Kursk that would force Russia to divert troops from Ukrainian territory to Russian territory and relieve the pressure on the Donbas front. The political objective may have been to seize Russian territory that could be bargained back in exchange for occupied Ukrainian territory and improve Ukraine’s position at a negotiating table at which Ukraine now realizes it has to take a seat, since there is no longer a hope that their political objectives can be won militarily.
Though Ukraine considered several options for some time, the risky decision may have been catalyzed, not only by national desperation, but also by personal desperation by Ukraine’s commander-in-chief. Sources familiar with the decision-making by Syrsky told The Economist that the general “was under pressure.” Russia was irreversibly on the offensive, Ukraine was running out of weapons and, even more seriously, out of people. Avdiivka had fallen, the Russian front was advancing, the Ukrainian front was crumbling and the pivotal hub of Pokrovsk was in danger. He was even hearing rumours that he “was on the verge of being dismissed.”
So Syrsky secretly set his plan. Ukraine would invade Russia at a place that was little defended because it was of little value. Russia would not expect it. Highly trained and well equipped and supported Ukrainian troops would advance quickly, seize territory, and perhaps even capture the Kursk nuclear power plant. Russia would be forced to divert troops from Ukraine, relieving the desperate situation in Donbas, and Ukraine would hold a better hand at the negotiating table. Russia would have to negotiate land to secure the return of their land and, especially, of a nuclear plant that would be hazardous to win back militarily.
But the advance ran out of momentum well short of the nuclear plant. Russia has moved in defenses without moving significant forces out of Ukraine, and Ukraine is now losing troops and equipment in Russia the way it is in Ukraine. Exposed troops, tanks, mobile air defense missile launchers and supply lines have come under massive air strikes.
If the Ukrainian offensive fails, the spectacular ephemeral gains will have come at a great cost. Costs could include more rapid and painful losses in Donbas, loss of the opportunity to negotiate an end to the war, and loss of trust when those negotiations are forced upon Ukraine.
The most immediate cost of diverting elite troops and Western equipment from Donbas to Kursk is the further deterioration and weakening of Ukraine’s defences along the Donbas front. Russia’s military is taking advantage of that costly decision. Though Ukraine had counted on the invasion pulling Russian troops out of Donbas, so far, that does not seem to have happened. The Ukrainian armed forces say that the “relatively small” number of Russian forces that have been drawn out of Ukraine is “not…enough to indicate any differences or weakening in… hostilities.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin says both that, far from relieving pressure on the Donbas front, “on the contrary,” Russian offensive operations will increase and that, far from expediting negotiations, the incursion into Russia has made negotiations less likely.
Both claims appear to be true. The Ukrainian General Staff reports that the number of Russian assaults in the area of Pokrovsk have roughly doubled since the Kursk offensive and that they are increasing every day. On August 19, as Russian forces advanced to within six miles of Pokrovsk, Ukraine ordered the evacuation of families with children.
As for negotiations, there is not only the possibility that the Ukrainian offensive could derail future negotiations but the actuality that it already has. The Washington Post reports that Russia and Ukraine had both “signaled their readiness to accept the arrangement in [a] lead-up to the summit” in Qatar that would have seen both sides agree to cease strikes on the other’s energy and power infrastructure. The negotiations would have been the first since the peace talks and grain deal in Istanbul in the first months of the war. There were “just minor details left to be worked out” when the Qatar talks “were derailed by Ukraine’s surprise incursion into Russia’s western Kursk region.” Russia has not completely killed the talks but has put them on pause.
Russian strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure have reduced Ukraine’s power by 50%. One Ukrainian official said that Ukraine has “one chance to get through this winter, and that’s if the Russians won’t launch any new attacks on the grid.” A very cold winter could be an additional painful cost of the Kursk offensive.
And, as if trust could be hurt any further, a final cost of the Kursk offensive could be the continued erosion of trust. Russia was already distrustful of talks of peace since the recent revelations that Germany, France, and Ukraine were just using the 2014-2015 Minsk process to lull Russia into a ceasefire with the promise of a peace settlement in order to buy time for the Ukrainian armed forces to build up for a military solution. That distrust has now been fed by the Kursk offensive. Recent statements by Zelensky about the preparedness of Ukraine to negotiate, and even to negotiate territory, may be seen by Russia, rightly or wrongly, as once again anesthetizing Russia with promises of peace while preparing for war. As The New York Times reports, “Even as Ukraine was signaling its readiness to talk, its military was preparing for one of its most daring attacks since Mr. Putin’s invasion began in February 2022.” The Times suggests that “[t]he flurry of Ukrainian talk about peace may have served in part as strategic deception, encouraging Russia’s leadership to see meekness and let down its guard.”
Barring a sudden reversal and a spectacular success, the Kursk offensive brings the risk of ephemeral gain at enormous cost. Those costs might include accelerated defeat in Donbas, a reduced likelihood of future negotiations, a lost opportunity for current negotiations, a very cold winter for Ukraine, and further loss of trust that erodes the chance for peace.
Russia Denies Germany Sharing Information on Nord Stream Attacks
Sputnik– 21.08.2024
MOSCOW – The German Foreign Ministry’s statements that Berlin is sharing information with Moscow on the Nord Stream terrorist attacks are a lie, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Wednesday.
Oleg Tyapkin, the director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Third European Department, said in an interview with Sputnik that Russia had officially filed a claim against Germany regarding the investigation into the Nord Stream bombing and is seeking to hold talks on Germany fulfilling its international obligations in the fight against terrorism. On Monday, German Foreign Ministry spokesperson Sebastian Fischer said that Berlin is exchanging data with Russia on the Nord Stream bombings, but is not providing information on the interim results of the investigation.
“They [the German authorities] do not provide the facts they have on this investigation to the Russian side, although they are obliged to do so. Russia insists on holding official bilateral consultations in accordance with the current regulations. They, by the way, are prescribed in the UN anti-terrorist conventions,” Zakharova told a briefing, adding that these statement on the exchange of information “are a lie.”
Germany responds to all Russia’s inquiries regarding the Nord Stream attacks with empty formal replies, the diplomat said, adding that not a single such document contains factual information.
Iran Hawks’ Hacking Claims Designed to Distract Americans, Set Stage for New Regional War
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 20.08.2024
After nearly a year of efforts to taunt, provoke and intimidate Iran into a full-on regional war in the Middle East amid the Gaza crisis, Iran hawks in Washington have turned to a new strategy, accusing Tehran of interfering in the upcoming US presidential election. A respected Middle Eastern affairs scholar explains what’s behind the new approach.
The FBI, the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence formally accused Iran of attempting to hack the Trump and Biden-Harris presidential campaigns on Monday.
The new allegations, which came weeks after a series of reports in US media citing “anonymous intelligence sources” claiming that Iran was plotting to assassinate Donald Trump, or to hack his presidential campaign, were not accompanied with any evidence.
“As the lead for threat response, the FBI has been tracking this activity, has been in contact with the victims, and will continue to investigate and gather information in order to pursue and disrupt the threat actors responsible. We will not tolerate foreign efforts to influence or interfere with our elections, including the targeting of American political campaigns,” the US intel agencies said in a joint statement.
Iran calmly rejected the US’s “unsubstantiated” and evidence-free claims.
“Such allegations are unsubstantiated and devoid of any standing. As we have previously announced, the Islamic Republic of Iran harbors neither the intention nor the motive to interference with the US presidential election,” the country’s permanent mission to the United Nations said in a statement.
“Should the US government genuinely believe in the validity of its claims, it should furnish us with the pertinent evidence – if any, to which we will respond accordingly,” the mission added.
Dangerous Distraction Action
“There is little doubt that the rhetoric itself has more impact than the substantiation of these accusations,” Dr. Mehmet Rakipoglu, a political scientist and international affairs observer and assistant professor at Turkiye’s Mardin Artuklu University, told Sputnik.
“Creating artificial agendas such as [the Iran hacking claims] intensifies hostilities between the parties involved. This accusation seems to be aimed at diverting attention from Israel’s actions in Gaza and refocusing it on the US election process,” Rakipoglu added, pointing out that Tel Aviv has been bogged down by accusations of engaging in genocide against Gaza’s civilian population, while proving unable to defeat Hamas militarily.
“It is already clear that the American public is deeply divided, regardless of whether there is an alleged Iranian attack. It is not Iran or any other external actor that is responsible for these divisions, but rather the US administrations themselves,” the academic said.
Rakipoglu stressed that, conveniently for the accusers, there’s virtually no way to verify the US intelligence agencies’ allegations, or conversely, prove that or Iran, or any other country, has interfered in the US election.
In some sense, the claims against Iran this election cycle are reminiscent of similar allegations made against Russia ahead of, during and following the 2016 vote, Rakipoglu said.
“While the US propagated a narrative of Russian interference during the 2016 elections, it continued to lose influence over time. It seems that the current accusation against Iran serves the same purpose as the allegations against Russian interference in 2016,” the observer said.
If that’s the case, it could signal a dangerous turn for Iran, and the Middle East in general. The 2016 Russian meddling allegations sparked a deep downturn in Russia-US relations, with the Russiagate conspiracy hounding Donald Trump throughout his term in office, blocking his ability to restore any semblance of normal ties with Moscow, and ultimately manufacturing consent among a substantial portion of the US electorate for the NATO-Russia proxy conflict in Ukraine which began in 2022.
Germany must provide full disclosure over Nord Stream bombings – Lavrov
RT | August 19, 2024
Germany must stop concealing facts about the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines and must provide full transparency over its investigation into the incident, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has insisted. Moscow has already filed an official complaint against Berlin’s probe into the bombings.
The Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, which were used to transport Russian natural gas to Germany and other parts of Western Europe, were sabotaged in September 2022 in a series of explosions under the Baltic Sea near the Danish island of Bornholm. The perpetrators have yet to be officially identified.
Moscow has accused Washington of orchestrating the attack, while Kiev has maintained that Russia blew up its own infrastructure. Sections of the Western media, meanwhile, have claimed that the sabotage was carried out by a “pro-Ukrainian group.”
In an interview with Izvestia published on Monday, Lavrov stressed that Germany, which has been investigating the incident, must “stop categorically refusing to present the facts that it couldn’t have failed to discover.”
He also suggested that when information formally requested by Russia is not presented officially, but instead appears in news articles, it raises “suspicions that all of this is staged” and that “the entire operation is designed to somehow divert public opinion” from the “true perpetrators, culprits, and clients [of the attack].”
Moscow will formally insist on a transparent international investigation into the bombings, Lavrov noted, claiming that it was “shameful” for Germany to “silently accept” that it had been deprived of a long-term energy supply crucial for its development as a country.
“Germany has swallowed it silently, without any comment,” Lavrov said.
Russian Foreign Ministry official Oleg Tyapkin told RIA Novosti that Moscow has officially filed a complaint with Berlin over its investigation into the Nord Stream bombings, and has “raised the issue of Germany and other affected countries fulfilling their obligation stemming from UN anti-terrorist conventions.”
He noted that the German authorities have issued a warrant for just one suspect in the attack, a Ukrainian citizen who is allegedly part of a group from the same country. Meanwhile, according to Tyapkin, German media have continued to suggest that the suspects may not even be connected to any particular country.
It appears likely that the German investigation “will be closed without identifying the true culprits behind the Nord Stream bombings,” Tyapkin stated, stressing that Russia would not accept this outcome.
What’s Really Happening with Mpox
The Mpox Emergency
By David Bell | Brownstone Institute | August 18, 2024
The World Health Organization (WHO) acted as expected this week and declared Mpox a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). So, a problem in a small number of African countries that has killed about the same number of people this year as die every four hours from tuberculosis has come to dominate international headlines. This is raising a lot of angst from some circles against the WHO.
While angst is warranted, it is mostly misdirected. The WHO and the IHR emergency committee they convened had little real power – they are simply following a script written by their sponsors. The African CDC, which declared an emergency a day earlier, is in a similar position. Mpox is a real disease and needs local and proportionate solutions. But the problem it is highlighting is much bigger than Mpox or the WHO, and understanding this is essential if we are to fix it.
Mpox, previously called Monkeypox, is caused by a virus thought to normally infect African rodents such as rats and squirrels. It fairly frequently passes to, and between, humans. In humans, its effects range from very mild illness to fever and muscle pains to severe illness with its characteristic skin rash, and sometimes death. Different variants, called ‘clades,’ produce slightly different symptoms. It is passed by close body contact including sexual activity, and the WHO declared a PHEIC two years ago for a clade that was mostly passed by men having sex with men.
The current outbreaks involve sexual transmission but also other close contact such as within households, expanding its potential for harm. Children are affected and suffer the most severe outcomes, perhaps due to issues of lower prior immunity and the effects of malnutrition and other illnesses.
Reality in DRC
The current PHEIC was mainly precipitated by the ongoing outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), though there are known outbreaks in nearby countries covering a number of clades. About 500 people have died from Mpox in DRC this year, over 80% of them under 15 years of age. In that same period, about 40,000 people in DRC, mostly children under 5 years, died from malaria. The malaria deaths were mainly due to lack of access to very basic commodities like diagnostic tests, antimalarial drugs, and insecticidal bed nets, as malaria control is chronically underfunded globally. Malaria is nearly always preventable or treatable if sufficiently resourced.
During this same period in which 500 people died from Mpox in DRC, hundreds of thousands also died in DRC and surrounding African countries from tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and the impacts of malnutrition and unsafe water. Tuberculosis alone kills about 1.3 million people globally each year, which is a rate about 1,500 times higher than Mpox in 2024.
The population of DRC is also facing increasing instability characterized by mass rape and massacres, in part due to a scramble by warlords to service the appetite of richer countries for the components of batteries. These in turn are needed to support the Green Agenda of Europe and North America. This is the context in which the people of DRC and nearby populations, which obviously should be the primary decision-makers regarding the Mpox outbreak, currently live.
An Industry Produces What It Is Paid for
For the WHO and the international public health industry, Mpox presents a very different picture. They now work for a pandemic industrial complex, built by private and political interests on the ashes of international public health. Forty years ago, Mpox would have been viewed in context, proportional to the diseases that are shortening overall life expectancy and the poverty and civil disorder that allows them to continue. The media would barely have mentioned the disease, as they were basing much of their coverage on impact and attempting to offer independent analysis.
Now the public health industry is dependent on emergencies. They have spent the past 20 years building agencies such as CEPI, inaugurated at the 2017 World Economic Forum meeting and solely focused on developing vaccines for pandemic, and on expanding capacity to detect and distinguish ever more viruses and variants. This is supported by the recently passed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).
While improving nutrition, sanitation, and living conditions provided the path to longer lifespans in Western countries, such measures sit poorly with a colonial approach to world affairs in which the wealth and dominance of some countries are seen as being dependent on the continued poverty of others. This requires a paradigm in which decision-making is in the hands of distant bureaucratic and corporate masters. Public health has an unfortunate history of supporting this, with restriction of local decision-making and the pushing of commodities as key interventions.
Thus, we now have thousands of public health functionaries, from the WHO to research institutes to non-government organizations, commercial companies, and private foundations, primarily dedicated to finding targets for Pharma, purloining public funding, and then developing and selling the cure. The entire newly minted pandemic agenda, demonstrated successfully through the Covid-19 response, is based on this approach. Justification for the salaries involved requires detection of outbreaks, an exaggeration of their likely impact, and the institution of a commodity-heavy and usually vaccine-based response.
The sponsors of this entire process – countries with large Pharma industries, Pharma investors, and Pharma companies themselves – have established power through media and political sponsorship to ensure the approach works. Evidence of the intent of the model and the harms it is wreaking can be effectively hidden from public view by a subservient media and publishing industry. But in DRC, people who have long suffered the exploitation of war and the mineral extractors, who replaced a particularly brutal colonial regime, must now also deal with the wealth extractors of Pharma.
Dealing with the Cause
While Mpox is concentrated in Africa, the effects of corrupted public health are global. Bird flu will likely follow the same course as Mpox in the near future. The army of researchers paid to find more outbreaks will do so. While the risk from pandemics is not significantly different than decades ago, there is an industry dependent on making you think otherwise.
As the Covid-19 playbook showed, this is about money and power on a scale only matched by similar fascist regimes of the past. Current efforts across Western countries to denigrate the concept of free speech, to criminalize dissent, and to institute health passports to control movement are not new and are in no way disconnected from the inevitability of the WHO declaring the Mpox PHEIC. We are not in the world we knew twenty years ago.
Poverty and the external forces that benefit from war, and the diseases these enable, will continue to hammer the people of DRC. If a mass vaccination campaign is instituted, which is highly likely, financial and human resources will be diverted from far greater threats. This is why decision-making must now be centralized far from the communities affected. Local priorities will never match those that expansion of the pandemic industry depends on.
In the West, we must move on from blaming the WHO and address the reality unfolding around us. Censorship is being promoted by journalists, courts are serving political agendas, and the very concept of nationhood, on which democracy depends, is being demonized. A fascist agenda is openly promoted by corporate clubs such as the World Economic Forum and echoed by the international institutions set up after the Second World War specifically to oppose it. If we cannot see this and if we do not refuse to participate, then we will have only ourselves to blame. We are voting for these governments and accepting obvious fraud, and we can choose not to do so.
For the people of DRC, children will continue to tragically die from Mpox, from malaria, and from all the diseases that ensure return on investment for distant companies making pharmaceuticals and batteries. They can ignore the pleading of the servants of the White Men of Davos who will wish to inject them, but they cannot ignore their poverty or the disinterest in their opinions. As with Covid-19, they will now become poorer because Google, the Guardian, and the WHO were bought a long time back, and now serve others.
The one real hope is that we ignore lies and empty pronouncements, refusing to bow to unfounded fear. In public health and in society, censorship protects falsehoods and dictates reflect greed for power. Once we refuse to accept either, we can begin to address the problems at the WHO and the inequity it is promoting. Until that time, we will live in this increasingly vicious circus.
David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.
US embassy played intelligence role in Yemen: Source to Al Mayadeen
Al Mayadeen | August 17, 2024
Confessions made by the US-Israeli spy network revealed Washington’s strategic goal of fragmenting Yemen geographically, sowing divisions, and creating instability in the country, a Yemeni source told Al Mayadeen on Saturday.
In mid-June, the Yemeni Security Forces in Sanaa uncovered a large espionage network operated by American and Israeli intelligence agencies. Officials revealed that the network had been active within various institutions in Yemen since 2015.
The source said that the confessions revealed significant infiltration into the former state leadership and parliament with an aim to influence its decisions and operations.
The confessions exposed “American conspiracies on the political level through reproducing crises and escalating them in Yemen.”
US turned previous Yemeni government into “a puppet”
The spy network admitted that Washington turned the previous Yemeni government into “a puppet under its control.” It also exposed the reality of the US conspiratorial role against the 2011 revolution.
According to the source, the network admitted that the aim was for the Yemeni national dialogue to be merely superficial, allowing Washington to push through its dangerous projects regarding the state structure and constitution.
If it were not for the role of the Ansar Allah movement, Yemen would be in a much worse situation today, the source stressed.
The spy network’s confessions further revealed that all the wars waged on Saada and the assassinations carried out were orchestrated by the United States, with local collaborators serving merely as tools. These efforts aimed to pressure Ansar Allah into accepting regionalization and division.
Washington behind aggression on Yemen
The confessions emphasized that Washington is behind the aggression against Yemen and that all efforts it presents under the guise of political peace initiatives are nothing more than conspiracies and plots within the same context.
In the same vein, one of the network’s members revealed that the so-called “democracy sector” within the US embassy worked to control the Supreme Elections Committee to determine who governs Yemen.
The US embassy’s “election program” played an intelligence role by recruiting party leaders interested in election-related matters, the spy indicated, adding that the embassy and other US intelligence agencies sought to obtain the voter registry of Yemeni citizens.
Another member of the spy network admitted that USAID projects, UN initiatives, and others presented under the guise of providing aid to Yemen, contain hidden and dangerous elements related to intelligence activities.
As part of the US-Israeli spy network’s confessions, a security source told Al Mayadeen in late June that the Cultural Attaché at the US embassy in Yemen targeted all segments of Yemeni society, through which cells were lured and recruited to collect information.
The source pointed out that the spy network’s confessions revealed that the US embassy was nothing more than a den of espionage and a tool for sabotage and that the Cultural Attaché at the US embassy in Yemen was linked to the US intelligence agency, the CIA.
On June 22, the Yemeni security services published extensive confessions from members of the US-Israeli espionage network, revealing that their operations were aimed at undermining Yemen’s economic sector by collecting data to support US presence and advance its agendas.
From Bangladesh to Pakistan: The Ripple Effects of Political Turmoil and Non-Democratic Influence in South Asia
By Abbas Hashemite – New Eastern Outlook – 18.08.2024
Political uncertainty looms large over the South Asian region. Governments in all the regional countries are suspicious about their future. A massive uprising in Bangladesh and the consequent ouster of the country’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajid has significantly impacted the neighboring countries. This inculcated fear among the governments of the neighboring countries. In Pakistan, the government was already facing public backlash due to the alleged sham elections. Moreover, the opposition supporters are also protesting against the incumbent government due to the incarceration of the Pakistan Tehreek E Insaf (PTI) government. The Bangladesh uprising has motivated the PTI youth to start a new campaign against the sitting government, which can lead to significant instability and chaos in the country.
Bangladesh’s Youth Uprising: Causes, Impact, and Speculations
For the first time in the history of Bangladesh, the youth of the country forced a sitting Prime Minister to resign and flee the country. Rising unemployment in the country, the job quota system, and inflation were among the prime reasons and motivations behind these student protests. However, there are speculations that a foreign hand is also involved in the ouster of Sheikh Hasina Wajid. Although Hasina’s rule is termed a fascist government, the country made significant strides under her government. She developed Bangladesh’s road and energy infrastructure. The road network during her rule expanded to 90000 km from a mere 50000 km in 2005.
Furthermore, she provided electricity to 90 percent of the country’s households. Industrialization also increased during her government. However, the reinstatement of the quota system by the High Court sparked massive student protests around the country due to a decline in job opportunities in the private sector.
The public sector appears attractive to most of the Bengali youth due to the job security and rapid increments. Reports suggest that annually, 400000 aspirants compete for 3000 civil services jobs in Bangladesh. However, analysts hold that these were not the prime reasons behind the ouster of Hasina Wajid. Her tilt towards China is deemed as the prime reason behind her ouster from the government. Nonetheless, the reasons behind her ouster could be debatable, but these protests have spread fear among most of the regional countries.
Regional Implications: The Influence of Bangladesh’s Crisis on Pakistan and Other South Asian Nations
People in India and Pakistan have accused their governments of rigging the 2024 elections. The Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) government already faces backlash from the majority public due to the alleged rigging in the recent elections. Almost all the opposition parties have accused the government of robbing their mandate. Numerous complaints about the issuance of bogus results by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) were reported after the 2024 elections. Moreover, the incarceration of the PTI leaders under the current government has also added to the chagrin of the incumbent PML-N government in Pakistan.
The country has observed different protests from opposition parties in recent months. The anti-government student protests in Bangladesh have inculcated a new spirit in the anti-government protests in Pakistan. On the other hand, the Pakistani government is scared of a new wave of protests by the opposition parties. The majority of the Pakistani youth stand with opposition parties. PTI’s youth wing has started a novel campaign to malign the government through public gatherings and protests. Pakistan’s religious political parties are also mounting pressure on the government over some religious and economic issues. This has increased the fear among the PML-N officials of a possible uprising against their government. To counter any possible uprising, the government of Pakistan has restricted internet in the country. The Pakistani government seems oblivious to the fact that the Bangladeshi government also used similar tactics to control anti-government protests. However, it further exacerbated the situation.
Navigating Political Turmoil: The Role of Non-Democratic Forces and the Need for Democratic Reforms in South Asia
Most of the citizens in Pakistan and regional countries see the anti-government protests in Bangladesh as a revolution, ignoring the realities behind these protests. In the previous few decades, most such protests, including the Arab Spring, led the countries into mere turmoil and chaos. The countries where leaders were forced to resign through protests led to military coups and political instability in the past. The consequences of Bangladesh’s so-called revolution are yet to be seen. The Bengali military has already intervened in the system by setting up an interim government in the country.
Furthermore, the fate of the country will be decided by the transparency of the upcoming elections. Such situations open the way for the non-democratic forces to intervene in the democratic system of the country. Bangladesh’s history is also a substantiation of this. Since the creation of the country in 1971, Bangladesh has been the victim of 29 military coups. This happened due to the increased role of the Bengali military in the creation of their country and their nexus with the Mukti Bahini. Pakistani youth should not overlook the significant influence of non-democratic forces in the country’s electoral and democratic process. Moreover, they should be cautious to prevent external forces, especially the United States and Israel, from exploiting their hostility towards the incumbent government. On the other hand, the sitting government should also promote democracy in the country to ensure political stability. The forceful suppression of dissent will lead to increased frustration against the government, which could prove detrimental to the stability of the country.
Dear Elon, 1,000ppm of carbon dioxide is safe, we breathe it every day
Elon is scratching for a reason to keep worrying about CO2
By Jo Nova | August 16, 2024
In the interview with Donald Trump, Elon Musk tried to argue that we ought be limiting carbon dioxide because we are too close to 1,000ppm where people get headaches. Not to put too fine a point on it, but we breath out air at 40,000 ppm fifteen times a minute for our entire lives. If 1,000 ppm gave us a headache or made us nauseous, we’d have to hold our breath every time we kissed someone.
@ElonMusk: The point I was making is that, even if CO2 did not cause global warming, it is uncomfortable to breathe air with >1000 ppm of CO2. Given that the outdoor ppm away from cities is now ~420 (lol), it is already getting close to 1000 ppm indoors in cities at times. You can buy a cheap CO2 monitor and measure this for yourself.
As the global base level of CO2 keeps increasing, it will cause air quality in cities to feel stuffy and unpleasant, resulting in drowsiness, poor concentration and eventually headaches and nausea. That would not be a good future.
And then he quotes CO2meter.com which, ahem, sells CO2 meters, and has an incentive to wildly overstate the problems with CO2, which they do.
CO2 is not the problem, the stale air and other pollutants cause headaches and sleepiness.
The point of CO2 meters is not so much to warn us about excessive CO2 levels, but to indicate how well the room is ventilated. CO2 levels are just an indicator for air quality. Air with higher CO2 levels usually also has higher levels of organic compounds, humidity, body odour, mold, chemicals from furniture and paint (like formaldehyde) and potentially viruses too. When people report headaches and nausea, the high CO2 levels are not the issue, it’s the bioeffluence that causes problems. When researchers do cognitive tests with pure CO2 added to clean air, performances don’t suffer. The stale air is the problem, not the CO2. (See Zhang, and Misra where they compared the cognitive effects from badly ventilated air and clean air with high CO2 levels up to 3,000ppm. Problems disappear when they use fresh air plus higher CO2.) Well ventilated rooms may also be cooler rooms, which might explain why results so often contradict each other.
Classrooms are at 1,000ppm “typically”
While outdoor air is 420ppm, indoor levels of CO2 are commonly 1,000ppm in classrooms every day, and can rise as high as 3,000ppm if all the windows are shut. The recognized occupational health and safety levels for long term working exposure are 5,000 ppm for 8 hours straight, five days a week. It’s no big deal.
The National Collaborative Centre for Environmental Health (Canada) measured school and buildings and advises that “Typically, in an occupied classroom situation, the recommended level of ventilation would correspond to a CO2 level of approximately 1000-1100 ppm“. Furthermore, they said the “lowest level at which a human health effect (i.e. acidosis) has been observed in humans is 7,000 ppm, and that only after several weeks of continuous exposure in a submarine environment”.
The occupational limits for CO2recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) are 5000 ppm (TLV-TWA) and 30,000 ppm (TLV-STEL), based on the direct effects on acidification of the blood. — via Marc Morano and Climate Depot
At NASA The Office of the Chief Health and Medicial Officer reports that a typical spacecraft works at around 3,000-7,000 ppm (or o.3-0.7% CO2). The recommended exposure is 5,000, and the permissible exposure limit is 10,000 ppm. Although the flight surgeons found levels of nearly 7,000 were safe and “didn’t affect performance”. On Apollo 13, CO2 levels rose to 20,000ppm. Sweating and shortness of breath became a problem above 30,000 ppm.
Submariners typically live with CO2 levels of 2,000- 5,000 ppm, and when a small sample of sailors was tested at 600, 2500 or 15,000 ppm, the researchers couldn’t find any difference in results from an 80 minute test on decision making. (Rodeheffer at al) Likewise another study at the Johnson Space Centre, people did cognition tests at 600, 1,200, 2,500 and 5,000ppm and there was no dose response effect. Results look rather random.
Lowther et al looked at 51 studies in 2021, and found nothing conclusive in terms of harms from CO2 below 5,000ppm. Most studies were confounded, results were conflicting. Teams of researchers are hunting to find another problem “due to CO2”. If there was a strong negative effect of CO2 it would have shown up by now. Instead CO2 is only associated with occasional headaches and nausea — probably because it is high in crowded rooms with little ventilation.
One large review in 2019 was described as showing CO2 affected people at levels as low as 1,000ppm, but the paper itself points at the confounding data and uses the words “possible” and “potential effects” and concludes “we need more studies.”
UPDATE: Commenters Alan Klein and Mr Farnham points out the safety limits for Australian coal miners (NSW) is 1.25% CO2 which is 12,500ppm, and that is for 8 hour shifts. Brief excursions up to 3% (30,000ppm) are acceptable. See comment #17 for more details.
REFERENCES
Lowther, Scott D., Sani Dimitroulopoulou, Kerry Foxall, Clive Shrubsole, Emily Cheek, Britta Gadeberg, and Ovnair Sepai. 2021. “Low Level Carbon Dioxide Indoors—A Pollution Indicator or a Pollutant? A Health-Based Perspective” Environments 8, no. 11: 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments8110125
Mishra AK, Schiavon S, Wargocki P, Tham KW. Respiratory performance of humans exposed to moderate levels of carbon dioxide. Indoor Air. 2021 Sep;31(5):1540-1552. doi: 10.1111/ina.12823. Epub 2021 May 15. PMID: 33991134.
Rodeheffer CD, Chabal S, Clarke JM, Fothergill DM. Acute Exposure to Low-to-Moderate Carbon Dioxide Levels and Submariner Decision Making. Aerosp
Zhang X, Wargocki P, Lian Z, Thyregod C. Effects of exposure to carbon dioxide and bioeffluents on perceived air quality, self-assessed acute health symptoms, and cognitive performance. Indoor Air. 2017 Jan;27(1):47-64. doi: 10.1111/ina.12284. Epub 2016 Mar 7. PMID: 26825447.
h/t to Willie Soon, Marc Morano and Climate Depot.
Health Officials Push Whooping Cough Vaccine Amid Uptick in Cases, But Scientists Say Shots Don’t Prevent Transmission
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.John-Michael Dumais | The Defender | August 14, 2024
Public health officials are urging families to get vaccinated against whooping cough, citing an uptick in cases, particularly among adolescents. However, critics say the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission and contains dangerous toxins that may harm human health.
Connecticut Department of Public Health Commissioner Manisha Juthani said that there were 111 confirmed cases of pertussis in the state so far in 2024 — nearly a 10-fold increase compared to 2023, NBC Connecticut reported this week.
Juthani told The Hour that public health officials are concerned the spread will increase when school begins in just a few weeks.
“We are raising attention to this, both to providers and to families,” she said, “so that theoretically, people can get back up to date on their vaccines before children potentially are going back to day care, are going back to school.”
Other states, including New York and Pennsylvania, have also seen an uptick in whooping cough cases this year, Newsweek reported in early June. Outside the U.S., the United Kingdom and Australia have also reported increases.
Whooping cough, also known as pertussis, is a highly infectious respiratory tract infection, according to the Mayo Clinic. Deaths from it are rare and typically occur in infants.
It’s caused by a bacteria called Bordetella pertussis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The CDC recommends that “everyone” — from babies as young as 2 months old to adults, particularly pregnant women — vaccinate against the illness by getting either a DTaP or Tdap vaccine, which also ostensibly protect against tetanus and diphtheria.
According to the CDC, the vaccine is “the best way to prevent whooping cough.”
Pertussis can be treated with antibiotics
However, Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist at Children’s Health Defense (CHD) told The Defender the pertussis vaccine may contribute to the spread of the infection — because it doesn’t prevent transmission.
“The pertussis vaccine is one of those that breaks the mold of what we think a vaccine is,” Jablonowski said. “Pertussis is probably the best case I can think of for a vaccine that does not prevent transmission.”
He added, “Every time there is a case of it, health officials will get on TV urging people to get vaccinated — wrongfully believing it will stop transmission.”
As The Defender recently reported, the CDC has been tracking changes in the prevalence of bacteria causing whooping cough for years.
Although the CDC’s whooping cough website still says the illness is caused by Bordetella pertussis, the most recent CDC data found that the Bordetella parapertussis type of whooping cough has significantly overtaken Bordetella pertussis in prevalence — and according to research published in Vaccines in March, the existing vaccines “scarcely provide protection” against this strain.
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., CHD chief scientific officer, told The Defender pertussis can be treated with antibiotics — “erythromycin and azithromycin are standard,” he said — and high doses of vitamin C.
The CDC’s website acknowledges whooping cough can be treated with antibiotics and fails to explain why the agency favors vaccination over antibiotics.
Pertussis vaccine may prevent herd immunity
Earlier this year, Jablonowski spoke on the poor efficacy and high-risk profile of the pertussis vaccine before Tennessee lawmakers as they weighed a bill to prohibit the state’s Department of Children Services from “requiring an immunization as a condition of adopting or overseeing a child in foster care if an individual or member of an individual’s household objects to immunization on the basis of religious or moral convictions.”
During March testimony before the Tennessee General Assembly Civil Justice Committee, Jablonowski cited scientific studies that debunk the notion that the vaccine is the best way to prevent whooping cough.
For instance, a 2016 review published in JAMA that reviewed more than 10,000 whooping cough cases found that more than half the cases in the five largest statewide outbreaks occurred in individuals who were partially or fully vaccinated against pertussis.
A 2019 review published in the Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society concluded that “all children who were primed by DTaP vaccines will be more susceptible to pertussis throughout their lifetimes, and there is no easy way to decrease this increased lifetime susceptibility.”
Another review, also published in 2019, concluded that pertussis vaccines “do not reduce the circulation of B. pertussis and do not exert any herd immunity effect.”
Jablonowski told lawmakers that not only does the pertussis vaccine not “exert” a herd immunity effect, but the vaccine “has a negative effective on herd immunity.”
He explained:
“A vaccinated person can asymptomatically carry and transmit the disease, and cannot then learn how to fight it naturally.
“If you accept that in order to achieve herd immunity 90% of the population needs to not retransmit the bacteria once exposed to it, then once you have vaccinated more than 10% of the population herd immunity becomes impossible, as the vaccinated citizens will be contracting and transmitting the disease.”
Jablonowski told The Defender the only two scenarios in which getting the vaccine might protect someone else is when it’s given during pregnancy or to a nursing mother.
According to the CDC, pregnant women should get the Tdap vaccine to provide their babies with the “best protection” from whooping cough, ideally between 27 and 36 weeks gestation. Protective antibodies pass from the pregnant woman’s body to the fetus, the agency said.
Researchers funded by the pharmaceutical company Sanofi — which sells pertussis vaccines — in 2022 published a statement saying that vaccination against pertussis during the second or early third trimester of pregnancy is “highly protective” against pertussis in young infants.
Both the CDC and Jablonowski said that vaccinating nursing mothers doesn’t appear to be effective in protecting babies from whooping cough.
A 2012 study conducted in a Houston area hospital found that giving postpartum moms the Tdap vaccine didn’t reduce the number of infections in babies when compared to prior years in which the hospital didn’t readily give the vaccine postpartum.
The hospital implemented a standing order that all new mothers get Tdap, Jablonowski said.
The researchers looked at health data from moms and babies 7.5 years before and almost 1.5 years after this standing order, he said. “Cases of infant pertussis practically doubled and the mortality rate practically tripled” after the standing order.
Vaccine contains aluminum and formaldehyde
Both of the two current formulations of the pertussis vaccine contain toxins known to harm human health, including aluminum and formaldehyde, Jablonowski told the lawmakers.
Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that can affect more than “200 important biological reactions” and cause “negative effects on [the] central nervous system,” according to a 2018 paper published in the Journal of Research in Medical Sciences.
Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen that is toxic to the respiratory system, central nervous system, optic nerve, kidney, liver, testicles and other body systems.
The pertussis vaccine, typically administered as part of combination vaccines like DTaP or Tdap, contains several other potentially harmful ingredients. These typically include inactivated B. pertussis toxin and several of its components, polysorbate 80, gluteraldehyde, 2-phenoxoyethanol and in some cases, trace amounts of mercury, according to the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC).
Some researchers suggest the chemically inactivated pertussis toxin in DTaP may retain some bioactivity, potentially inducing brain inflammation in certain individuals.
CDC didn’t follow up on 2012 report on adverse events following DTaP/Tdap vaccines
For the past 70 years, researchers have used the pertussis toxin in animal studies to purposefully trigger various physiological responses. Responses include heightened sensitivity to histamine, serotonin and endotoxins. Researchers also used the pertussis toxin to induce experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis.
The toxin’s ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier under certain conditions has long been a concern. This property makes brain inflammation, or encephalitis, and its potential for lasting neurological damage a particularly severe complication associated with both whooping cough infection and pertussis vaccination.
According to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), from 1990 to 2024, there were 190,994 injury reports following pertussis-containing vaccines, including 3,377 deaths, according to NVIC. Over 85% of these deaths occurred in children under age 3.
While this data includes pre-1996 reports, when the whole-cell pertussis portion of the DTP vaccine formulation was changed due to its serious side effects, it’s important to note that a significant portion would be related to the DTaP vaccine given its widespread use since 1996.
Over 6,000 claims for injuries from pertussis-containing vaccines were submitted to the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) as of Aug. 1, 2024. The cases include 872 deaths and over 5,000 serious injuries. Pertussis-containing vaccines comprise the highest number of VICP death claims and the second most compensated vaccine injury claims.
A 2012 study published in JAMA found an increased risk of febrile seizures in children 3-5 months old on the day of or day after receiving the first two doses of DTaP-containing vaccines.
The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) 2012 report, “Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality,” evaluated 26 reported adverse events following DTaP/Tdap vaccination. They included encephalopathy, encephalitis, chronic hives, autism, sudden infant death syndrome, arthritis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, diabetes mellitus, immune thrombocytopenic purpura, transverse myelitis and others.
For 24 of the 26 adverse events, the committee said there was not enough data either to support or reject vaccine-related causality, primarily due to a lack of adequate studies.
To date, the CDC has not conducted any additional studies in response to IOM’s recommendations, according to the authors of “Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak,” Hooker and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., CHD’s chairman on leave.
A 2017 study led by Dr. Anthony Mawson published in the Journal of Translational Science, compared the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children ages 6-12. The study found that while vaccinated children had fewer cases of chicken pox and pertussis, they had significantly higher rates of other health issues.
According to the study, vaccinated children were more likely to be diagnosed with allergic rhinitis, eczema and neurodevelopmental disorders. The vaccinated group also showed higher rates of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism, learning disabilities and chronic health problems.
Additionally, the study reported that vaccinated children had a higher incidence of pneumonia and ear infections compared to unvaccinated children.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Internal crisis shakes Balkan media network run by UK intel, leaked emails show
By Kit Klarenberg and Jovan Milovanović · The Grayzone · August 13, 2024
A prominent propaganda outlet in the Balkans, which is directly overseen by a British government agency that Reuters once labeled “an influential soft-power extension of UK foreign policy,” appears to be on the brink of collapse after a major schism between staff members and leadership.
Leaked emails reviewed by The Grayzone reveal a “deep crisis” has engulfed the Western-created and funded Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN), which threatens to tear the organization apart. A flagship propaganda platform in the arsenal of multiple Western governments and foundations, it has sought to reshape the restive region in favor of European and US interests, publishing many “products” in service of this goal. Now, the entire information warfare empire seems to be on shaky ground.
The emails, which were leaked in April, reveal that an internal “crisis” has erupted at BIRN. This disaster has largely been pinned on its Regional Director, Milka Domanovic, who oversees the organization’s “portfolio of regional projects.” In the emails, multiple nameless employees accuse her of a wide variety of grave failings, including “neglect of duties” and “inappropriate conduct.” Her alleged incompetence and “mismanagement” purportedly led the EU to demand a grant of 300,000 euros be returned. The authenticity of the emails has been confirmed by BIRN staffers.
A joint email sent by the complainants to the highest echelons of BIRN on April 17 accused Domanovic of encouraging “covert discussions” about staff performances, “pitting them against each other, often using such techniques as shaming them for problems in their absence.” What’s more, they claimed that “sensitive information” which was confidentially shared with higher-ups was “carelessly handled, leading to breaches.” In the document, the organization’s Regional Director stands accused of a “combative and threatening communication style,” and encouraging a workplace environment “rife with gossip”:
“A culture of silence pervades… leaving many of us cowering from the repercussions of voicing genuine concerns or dissent,” the staffers wrote.
Domanovic’s tenure, they say, “has been marred by an authoritarian stance towards colleagues [and] indecision, ineffectiveness, and delays, resulting in a cascade of missed opportunities, funds, and targets.” When issues come to a head, “the blame is often cast upon others,” they continued, adding that Domanovic has “cultivated an environment fraught with paranoia” and engages in “relentless and often pointless scrutiny of the work of many of us.”
The damning charges were leveled by a number of experienced internal sources, who have worked under different BIRN leaders, and claim to have never encountered such issues before. Per the emails, they chose to remain anonymous “due to a legitimate fear of retaliation” by Domanovic, who they claim favored “secrecy, backroom dealings, and a lack of accountability” over “speaking truth to power” internally while in the post.
The group wrote that if they were to reveal their identities, “our careers in BIRN would be over,” a claim which they said was “clearly” validated by the “recent, sudden departures of our colleagues.”
An email sent on April 24 by Domanovic to the group, with the organization’s entire governing “Assembly” cc’ed, suggests their anxieties were well-founded. Boldly declaring that she would not be “responding to an anonymous email,” she nevertheless went on to accuse its authors of working “to cause chaos inside of BIRN.” The Regional Director added that the organization’s board shared her “concerns about anonymous communication.”
“If these emails have indeed come from inside of BIRN, Assembly is deeply disappointed with the judgment of those who chose to air grievances in a way that is potentially damaging to the reputation, the workplace environment and the mission of BIRN.”
Attacking elites when their “incentives are not aligned with [Britain’s] objectives/values”
BIRN’s donor roll is a veritable rogue’s gallery of intelligence cutouts and regional Western embassies. Leaked documents show that British involvement extends well beyond merely funding the outlets, with its foreign intelligence services going as far as training the organization’s operatives, and even directing their activities through the so-called British Council (BC).
Veteran diplomat Harold Beeley described the British Council as one of London’s “principal international propaganda agencies,” alongside the BBC. More recently, Reuters dubbed BC “an influential soft-power extension of UK foreign policy.”
A leaked internal document reveals the British Council took control of BIRN under a Foreign Office project, supposedly aimed at “supporting greater media independence in the Western Balkans.” The state-sponsored operation also claims without any sense of irony that it aims to counter “media capture” in a region where the most well-resourced outlets are sponsored by Western governments.
Under the program’s auspices, journalists throughout the Balkans receive “training and mentoring,” and help “improving their engagement with citizens on issues of public interest; targeting online audiences through social media networks and tools, public outreach campaigns; development of social networks, maintenance of their online profiles, and on-the-job training [to] lead social media campaigns.”
More recently, the British Council mulled the creation of a “cutting edge tool for engaged citizens reporting” which would enable BIRN and other covertly British-backed outlets in the Balkans “to receive and respond on regular basis to leaks” and tips from locals, “pointing to the most pressing issues in local communities.” Notably, Milka Domanovic’s LinkedIn profile reveals that from 2019 – 2022, she was in charge of “research and design” of “the custom ‘engaged citizens reporting tool.’”
In other words, British intelligence effectively attempted to construct a pro-NATO Wikileaks knockoff with Domanovic’s assistance. Elsewhere, the leaked files state the BC project is “about disrupting the status quo, and enabling the media to hold government to account.” Past files from Britain’s Stabilisation Unit made clear that London’s support for news outlets in the Balkans is explicitly aimed at spreading London’s influence, often by advancing regime change.
“In contexts where elite incentives are not aligned with [Britain’s] objectives/values… an approach that seeks to hold elite politicians to account might be needed,” a leaked file notes.
“We can build relationships and alliances with those who share our objectives and values for reform…” it continues. “It is critical that the media have the capacity and freedom to hold political actors to account.”
The newly-leaked BC documents acknowledge the project’s mission was also designed to “challenge political interests” regionally, a prospect which they admit would be “highly contentious” and risk “generating backlash” against its advocates and journalists alike.
As such, the British Council took measures to “ensure that media outlets we work with have proportionate media defence strategies in place as part of our conflict sensitive approach… we will develop security and crisis management responses to ensure the safety, security and wellbeing of all our staff.” BC’s assets were therefore assured of their own protection in the event of blowback brought about by the meddling of their sponsors in London.
The leaked BIRN emails show a ferocious backlash has indeed erupted — but internally, directed towards the organization’s British-groomed chief, Milka Domanovic.
Apparent British government asset heads BIRN
In an email dated from this April 26, anonymous staffers lamented the “dismissive and authoritarian tone” of Domanovic as both “disrespectful and wholly inappropriate for someone occupying this position.” They reminded the Regional Director, and BIRN’s Assembly, that under the organization’s own rules and regulations, “the right to file complaints anonymously is explicitly protected.” In any event, they said they had raised their grievances directly with her “on numerous occasions and in various forums,” to no avail:
“Her continuous misguided conduct and contentious communications continue to try to dismiss and silence legitimate employee concerns… These developments, coupled with the growing anxiety and fear among staff concerning potential retaliation, informal interrogations by the Regional Director about who is ‘behind’ these letters, threats made by [Domanovic] among colleagues she deems ‘trusted’… underscore the urgent need for the Assembly’s immediate intervention, to mitigate the broadening crisis and determine damage control measures.”
It appears no action was taken to address Domanovic’s alleged misconduct. Given her background as a Chevening Scholar, the lack of accountability was unsurprising. Provided by the Foreign Office, these scholarships provide a vital mechanism for projecting British soft power abroad. Many Chevening scholars go on to occupy positions of power in their home countries.
An official BIRN profile of Domanovic states that Chevening placed her at Goldsmiths, University of London. There, she obtained a master’s degree not in journalism, but in “marketing and technology”. This experience reportedly “helped her improve her research and analytical skills, as well as discover new potential for successful media outreach.” While the leaked emails may suggest otherwise, such schooling was no doubt extremely helpful in constructing an “engaged citizens reporting tool” for the British, which she began work on immediately after graduation.
Indeed, another leaked document related to British infiltration of the former Yugoslavia explicitly state that the creation of a “pipeline” of female “defence and diplomacy” journalists in the region, via Chevening, is a core objective for London. It was forecast they would serve as pro-British “influencers in the Western Balkans” for the remainder of their careers. Documents described these media operatives as part of a wider effort to “[bring] female journalists to the forefront of the industry’s consciousness” in the region.
“The programme will include an outreach element with activities undertaken in universities to encourage women to consider journalism as a career. The UK could also lobby [local] media to reserve a percentage of entry-level roles for women. It will challenge gender stereotypes and open a gateway to areas previously occupied mostly by men in a high-visibility industry. It will also improve the perception of the UK with these participants.”
It should therefore come as little surprise that Domanovic, as an alumnus of Britain’s premiere overseas asset grooming operation, was quickly tapped to run BIRN once her Chevening scholarship ended. The privileges extended to her personally — and the significance of her British-directed mission — appear to have translated into near-total immunity from any repercussions for serial incompetence, or any of her other grave transgressions that employees say jeopardized the entire organization.
Rather than addressing staff concerns about her leadership, the BIRN Assembly explicitly sought to expose the whistleblowers, according to Montenegrin outlet Antena M. US-based Assembly member Robert Bierman dismissed their anxieties outright, offering them a personal review of their complaints – but only if they revealed their identities. That message came just three days after Domanovic reportedly warned her accusers of serious repercussions if they continued their remonstrations. Her main concern, she indicated, was stopping “further information leaks.”
BIRN and Domanovic were contacted for comment on the accusations, but have not responded.
Milka Domanovic remained BIRN’s Regional Director as of June 2024. The fate of her accusers is unknown.
Featured Video
Epidemic of fake videos
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Free Book
Vicious
Lies are Unbekoming | January 25, 2026
The waiting room is clean. The receptionist is polite. The forms ask reasonable questions. Nothing in the physical environment suggests danger. The magazines are current. The hand sanitizer dispenser works. Someone has chosen calming colors for the walls.
A pregnant woman sits in a chair designed for her comfort. She has been told to be here. Not ordered—no one orders. Recommended. Strongly recommended. Everyone does this. Her mother did this. Her friends did this. The women in her prenatal group compare notes about their appointments the way they compare notes about nursery furniture. Which provider did you choose? What tests have you had? The questions assume the answers. The answers assume the questions.
She will be offered things today. Offered is the word used. The offers will come with information sheets that list risks and benefits in tabular form. She will sign consent documents. Everything will be voluntary in the legal sense. No one will hold her down. No one will threaten her. She will choose, and her choices will feel like choices, and she will leave feeling she has done the responsible thing.
What she will not feel is the weight of what has been arranged before she arrived. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
loongtip on Vicious loongtip on EU turns to India for defense… Coronistan on Donald Trump Is No Peace … seversonebcfb985d9 on French court jails pro-Palesti… eddieb on Fourteen Incredible Facts Abou… Bill Francis on European leaders’ shift in the… seversonebcfb985d9 on Villains of Judea: Philip Esfo… loongtip on Report warns that ‘Jewish terr… Craig Nelms on New study shows that toxic gas… loongtip on A Funny Thing Happened on the… loongtip on EU free trade pact on hold as… John Edward Kendrick on Regime Change In Iran Is The F…
Aletho News- Spain Opens Probe Into Israeli Tourism Firms
- Epidemic of fake videos
- Craig Murray, Reporting from Venezuela
- Why Israel’s Drive to Destroy Iran is Ultimately about Palestine
- Trump and Iran, War or Negotiations?
- US pressure contributing to Israeli influence in Latin America: Experts
- China Rejects U.S. Claims of Coercion in Central America
- New US defense strategy downgrades Russian ‘threat’
- EU turns to India for defense cooperation as US ties fracture
- Donald Trump Is No Peace President
- If Americans Knew
- Greenpeace Demonstrator Exposes Folly of Protest Restrictions
- From CBS to TikTok, Pro-Israel Ellison is now in the driver’s seat
- Israel pays for UK advertisements attacking Doctors Without Borders
- Israel accused of extracting billions from Gazan people to pay for their own genocide
- ‘Deliberate Assassination’: 3 Journalists Among 11 Killed by Israeli Forces in Gaza
- In Gaza, We’re Struggling to Reintroduce Foods to Bodies Adjusted to Starvation
- Will Rafah crossing be opened at last? – Not a ceasefire Day 108
- Israeli drone strike kills two children collecting firewood in Gaza – Not a ceasefire Day 107
- Another Gaza baby freezes to death on Netanyahu’s watch – Not a ceasefire Day 106
- Oppose Israel’s Abuses While You Still Can
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study Affirms Rising CO2’s Greening Impact Across India – A Region With No Net Warming In 75 Years
- Germany’s Natural Gas Crisis Escalates … One Storage Site Near Empty …Government Silent
- Polar Colding…Antarctica Saw Its Coldest October In 44 Years!
- New Study: Sea Levels Rose 20 Times The Modern Rate During The Roman Warm Period
- As German Gas Storage Dips Dangerously Low…Shortage Hardly Avoidable
- New Study: Brazil’s Relative Sea Level Was 2+ Meters Higher And SSTs 3-4°C Warmer 6000 Years Ago
- Philosopher Schopenhauer: Climate Science Certainty Stems From Stupidity, Ignorance
- New Study: Species Extinction Rates Declining Since 1980 – ‘Climate Change Is Not An Important Threat’
- Denmark Places Climate Protection Above Animal Welfare, Poisoning And Culling Cows
- New Study: Greenland Was 3-7°C Warmer And Far Less Glaciated Than Today 6000-8000 Years Ago
Aletho News 