Reiner Fuellmich Team Find Bombshell Evidence Of A Dossier Showing Conspiracy To “Deal With” Him
ELSA | APRIL 4
On Reiner’s first court appearance after the long Easter break, he and his legal team made what can easily be termed bombshell – that there has been a Dossier Reiner Fuellmich from the German state with the express purpose to take him out, notably out of any possibility of gaining a position in the political arena.
I understand the concerns of the German state. Here was someone with integrity and courage, with charisma and intelligence, with extensive experience plus shared leadership in a small German political party. Very appealing to many people fed up with mandates, loss of freedom of speech, mass immigration, and ever so much else. Here was a suitable leader.
Anyway, here is the Dossier, from bittel.tv. You can also find it on Roger Bittel’s Telegram channel:
👉 Dossier Deutsch (https://t.me/bitteltv/25826)
👉 further languages (https://t.me/bitteltv/25838)
👉 the full broadcast (https://t.me/bitteltv/25839)
All of the dossier is important. However, you may be most interested in the last section:
Report and recommendations for action regarding Reiner Fuellmich
Date: August 24, 2021
Author: B**
Subject: Comprehensive analysis and recommendations for dealing with Reiner Fuellmich
Included within this last section:
The awarding of or the possibility of obtaining politically exposed offices must be prevented by all means within the rule of law.
How is this to be done:
The initiation of criminal proceedings on the basis of the evidence collected against Reiner Fuellmich must be prepared. This includes cooperation with public prosecutors [bolding and italics mine] and the preparation of charges in the event of demonstrable violations of the law. Any necessary constructions must be weighed up and suitable third parties recruited [bolding and italics mine].
NOW HERE, THE FULL DOSSIER. I RECOMMEND READING IT.
http://www.bittel.tv / Broadcast from 2.4.2024
Dossier Reiner Fuellmich
Reiner Fuellmich, co-chairman and candidate for chancellor of the party “dieBasis”, is a German lawyer who has become known in particular for his involvement in various legal disputes and his public statements on various issues, including the measures and political decisions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. His views and legal activities have attracted both national and international attention and are the subject of controversy.
Professional career:
Reiner Fuellmich began his legal career after graduating from law school. He is licensed to practice law in Germany and in California, USA. Over many years, he has specialized in various areas of civil law and has been involved in several legal disputes, some of which have attracted considerable media attention.
Engagement against banks and corporations:
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, Fuellmich made a name for himself in particular through his involvement in cases against large banks and companies. These often involved consumer protection and claims for damages.
Read the rest of Elsa’s article here.
Rogues’ Gallery
Never forget that they’re a bunch of liars
By John Leake | Courageous Discourse™ | April 5, 2024
Maddow, Walensky, and Biden may plead ignorance, as they apparently don’t understand anything, but Fauci, Gates, and Bourla certainly knew they were lying. As Fauci himself noted in a November 2022 paper:
… non-systemic respiratory viruses such as influenza viruses, SARS-CoV-2, and RSV tend to have significantly shorter incubation periods (Table 1) and rapid courses of viral replication. They replicate predominantly in local mucosal tissue, without causing viremia, and do not significantly encounter the systemic immune system or the full force of adaptive immune responses, which take at least 5–7 days to mature, usually well after the peak of viral replication and onward transmission to others. …
Taking all of these factors into account, it is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines.
Fauci already knew this about influenza and coronaviruses before 2020, and it quickly became apparent that SARS-CoV-2 was no different in this respect.
Never forget this Rogues’ Gallery of liars and the lies they told the world in order to justify tyranny based on fraudulent assertions.
New hacking allegations against China aren’t what they seem
By Timur Fomenko | RT | April 5, 2024
In March, the UK, in conjunction with the US and other members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, accused China of engaging in a state-sponsored hacking campaign against them. In response to the alleged ‘attack’ they launched coordinated sanctions against a small group of hackers and their associated businesses.
The sanctions were particularly big news in Britain, where the government suddenly decided that Beijing had been behind a hack on the electoral commission three years ago. Notably, the country’s Conservative party-aligned newspapers all pushed this narrative in an aggressive fashion.
These accusations by the Five Eyes nations are not so much genuine concerns as they are a deliberate and opportunistic act of political theatre which, largely driven by the US, seeks to slander China for diplomatic and political gain. The sanctions, although narrow in scope and thus meaningless, are designed to try and send a message to and about China. It is essentially a fearmongering campaign, which seeks to both undermine Beijing’s engagement with other countries and serve domestic political purposes in the US.
The rhythm of US escalation and de-escalation with China
The US has an adept foreign policy whereby it intentionally chooses to escalate and de-escalate tensions with China at opportune moments, which is precisely why calls for “engagement” with Beijing coming from Washington D.C. cannot be trusted. The US does not change its goals or its policies, only its tactics in consideration of what suits it at that particular moment. Hence it has always alternated between overtures and deliberate provocations. It usually does so by having a certain report or development leaked to the media at an opportunistic time, in order to craft a particular narrative which mandates a certain set of reactions and policy responses.
To give some examples of such, the Trump administration played down tensions with China directly in 2019, even amidst the Hong Kong crisis, in order to secure a “trade deal” with Beijing. Once it got what it wanted by 2020, and the Covid-19 pandemic struck, it deliberately unleashed a full-on crusade against Beijing on every front. Similarly, the Biden administration came into office and then immediately upped tensions with China on the Xinjiang issue in order to damage China’s ties with Europe in a build-up to coordinated sanctions as a display of transatlantic unity.
After this was done, it then decided it wanted to “cool” things down for a bit and establish “guardrails” so the rhetoric guns went silent for a few months as Washington reached out to Beijing. Then, as the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics came, it took the “Xinjiang card” off the shelf again with a number of timed leaks and publications geared towards supporting a Winter Olympics boycott, as well as a sweeping ban on all Xinjiang goods under the premise of “forced labour” at that time.
What we see is that the US does not truly de-escalate with China, it “blows hot and cold” and essentially manipulates the media cycle to pursue its policy preferences as it sees fit. This means that major issues pertaining to China only tend to appear when there is an agenda serving it.
The newest phase
Now, the Biden administration has made a political design to escalate tensions with China by accusing it, in coordination with the Five Eyes, of state-backed hacking and cybercrime. The fact that the British government would sit on such an accusation for three years suggests both clear political purpose and timing. The question is, why? First, we are approaching a Presidential election in the US. It was always an inevitability that the administration would want to appear “tough” on China to prevent the issue from being used as an attack point by Biden’s rival, Donald Trump. As seen in 2020, an election year tends to become a year of very aggressive rhetoric and extreme theatrics.
Secondly, there is the goal of undermining China’s engagement with Europe. It has been publicly announced that Xi Jinping will visit a number of European countries in May, including France. As stated above, the US, with the support of the Five Eyes countries, actively seeks to damage Chinese diplomacy with Europe by weaponizing negative publicity in order to narrow political space for engagement.
What we see from this is that the US engages China on its own terms, but seeks to prevent those it deems as “allies” from doing the same, and thus resorts to psychological warfare through the manipulation of mass media.
In conclusion, when one sees these strategies being utilised, one recognises that the Western media has far less independence and impartiality than it claims to have, but is indirectly subject to the preferences of US policy. When the White House says “jump”, reporters ask, “how high?” and thus we see that a new propaganda campaign has been cultivated against Beijing, but of course, we should not be blind to the reality that there is no greater weaponisation of cyberspace and espionage in the world than the system created by the Five Eyes. And are we really going to pretend the CIA doesn’t hack anyone?
Sy Hersh: US Warning of Terrorist Attack in Russia Had ‘Urgent’ Mark, Didn’t Mention Crocus
Sputnik – 03.04.2024
WASHINGTON – The US warning about an imminent terrorist attack at a concert venue in Russia was marked “urgent,” but contrary to media reports did not identify Crocus City Hall as the target, Pulitzer Prize-winning US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh wrote in his new article, citing a US official familiar with the matter.
The CIA allegedly provided the warning to Russian intelligence before the concert at the Crocus City Hall marking it “urgent,” meaning that the data in it “was credible and near term,” Hersh quoted the official as saying.
“The highly secret report on the attack in Moscow was prepared by the Counterterrorism Center at CIA headquarters and delivered to the terrorism division of the Russian Federal Security Service located in the old KGB building in Moscow. Separate briefings were presented in person by the FBI officer at the embassy. This is an established relationship,” the official said.
The warning, however, did not mention Crocus City Hall near Moscow and only said that an attack was being planned at some “public gathering,” according to the official.
The information provided by the official is contrary to a Washington Post report published on Tuesday claiming that Crocus City Hall was specifically identified in the warning as the target of a terrorist attack.
On March 22, several armed men broke into Crocus City Hall, a major concert venue just outside Moscow, and started shooting at people. They also started a fire in one of the auditoriums, which was full of people ahead of a concert. The attack left 695 casualties, including 144 dead, according to the latest data from the Russian Emergencies Ministry.
The four main suspects in the case — all of them citizens of Tajikistan — tried to flee the scene in a car but were detained and charged with terrorism. Russian authorities believe the perpetrators planned to flee to Ukraine, where a safe haven had been arranged for them. An investigation is underway.
Later in March, The New York Times reported, citing European and US security officials, that the US intelligence agencies did not provide the Russian side with all the information they had about the threat of a terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall in the Moscow Region out of fear that Russian authorities might learn about their intelligence sources or methods of work.
Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) Director Alexander Bortnikov also said that the information transmitted by the United States on the preparation of a terrorist attack was of a general nature, and the Russian special services responded to it.
Samantha Power and the Power of a Word
BY DIANA JOHNSTONE • UNZ REVIEW • APRIL 3, 2024
Twenty-five years ago, NATO was bombing Serbia as the first performance in its new role. The collapse of the Soviet Union had deprived the military alliance of its initial official role of defending its member states from a theoretical communist threat. Under no threat and devoid of UN Security Council approval, NATO assumed the self-ordained role of virtuous defender of allegedly oppressed minorities by bombing what was left of largely dismantled Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999 on behalf of Albanian rebels in the Serbian province of Kosovo.
NATO’s air attacks on the Balkan nation were the practical application of a new post-Cold War doctrine. To succeed, this doctrine relied on Western media to report on crisis areas with the appropriate mixture of exaggerations, omissions and outright lies to justify NATO’s virtuous interventions. The military industrial complex could breathe easy and a new generation of journalists began successful careers eagerly spinning their reports to serve the new humanitarian war ideology.
None was more successful than Dublin-born Samantha Power, whose novice reports from Bosnia in the mid-1990s provided the basis for her 2002 book on “genocide” which “quickly became an international sensation, glowingly reviewed almost everywhere, a huge bestseller that won her a Pulitzer Prize and launched her career as a leading figure in human rights doctrine.” She has gone on from one top governmental post to another, a Washington star, urging the United States to intervene on moral grounds.
Samantha Power owes her remarkable success to her talent as a writer, her ambition, her striking presence, but not least to the man at the origins of the whole humanitarian war policy.
That was none other than Morton Isaac Abramowitz, a highly influential member of the foreign policy establishment and the main inventor of what would become the “R2P” (Responsibility to Protect) doctrine. The crucial policy contribution of Abramowitz is explained at the start of my 2002 book, Fools’ Crusade, as follows:[1]
As president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in the early 1990s, Abramowitz headed a project to develop a new U.S. foreign policy for the post-Cold War era. Rather than identifying “threats”, especially at a time when few threats could be seen, a successful new policy needed to combine promotion of U.S. interests with proclamation of U.S. “ideals”.
Theory and Practice
At the Carnegie Endowment in 1992, Abramowitz published the theory of the new U.S. “humanitarian intervention” policy as Self-Determination in the New World Order.
“The vision of a ‘new world order’ since 1990 has been a world with one superpower – the United States – in which the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle, disputes are settled peacefully, aggression is firmly met by collective resistance, and all people are justly treated.”
That sounds very nice. But put into practice, “collective resistance” means NATO, and “all people are treated justly” depends on Washington’s preferences. The new rules-based order was not to be confused with traditional international law, based on national sovereignty. Globalization was making national sovereignty outdated (except for the United States). “Ideals” make rules more flexible.
The sovereign nation is being broken down subtly by the pressures of economic globalization. It may also be undermined from within, by domestic insurgencies. In the post-Cold War world, the Carnegie Endowment study noted, “groups within states are staking claims to independence, greater autonomy, or the overthrow of an existing government, all in the name of self-determination”. […] In the future, the authors announced, “humanitarian intervention will become increasingly unavoidable”. The United States will have the final word as to when and how to intervene.
Abramowitz subsequently helped put his theory into practice in crumbling Yugoslavia. He was the eminence grise behind U.S. diplomats, steering the events leading to the “Kosovo war” that split the province of Kosovo off from Serbia. He was advisor to the Kosovo Albanian delegation at the imitation “peace negotiations” staged at Rambouillet to provide an excuse for the bombing of Serbia. The moderate Albanian Kosovo leader Ibrahim Rugova was replaced by the armed gangster, Hashim Thaci. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright set terms no Serbian leader could accept, demanding the right to station NATO troops over the entire country, with full impunity. The Serb side was then blamed for the failure, and NATO began to bomb on March 24, 1999.
Samantha Steals her Way into Bosnia
Back in 1992, fresh out of Yale, 22-year-old Samantha Power was given a position as intern in the office of Abramowitz at the Carnegie Endowment. As a proofreader, she quickly absorbed the new official doctrine. At that time, her boss was obsessed with the conflicts in Bosnia as implicating the future of NATO. Determined to get to Bosnia where the action was, Samantha stole stationery from the neighboring office of Foreign Policy magazine and forged a letter from the editor to the head of the UN Press Office, asking that the UN provide her, as Foreign Policy’s “Balkan correspondent,” with “all necessary access.”[2]
From that time on, her work functioned precisely to advance the new “humanitarian intervention” policy of her mentor, Morton Abramowitz. She recalls that his influence helped her get increasingly important assignments – most crucially, writing about the Srebrenica massacre for The Washington Post.
With the Srebrenica reports, the term “genocide” emerged as the power word that could give NATO its new mission.
The Western press corps based in Sarajevo tended to become emotionally involved with the Muslim side which was its principal news source. Missing from their dispatches were reports on Muslim massacres of Serbs villages or on the well-armed Islamic fighters who joined the Muslim side from Afghanistan and Arab countries, some of them settling permanently in Bosnia.
When Bosnian Serb forces captured the Muslim base at Srebrenica in July 1995, they evacuated women, children and the aged to safety, while men fled, fearing retaliation. Many were killed in unclear circumstances.
Without reference to such context, Western media focused on reports of a massacre of 8,000 male prisoners as a unique event which branded the Serbs as the guilty party in the three-sided civil war. With the Srebrenica reports, the term “genocide” emerged as the power word that could give NATO its new mission.
Calling Srebrenica “genocide” provided the argument for NATO bombing: if Serbs committed genocide in Bosnia, it implied that Serbs were genocidal and risked committing genocide in Kosovo unless NATO intervened. This theory was supported by wildly inaccurate accusations voiced by leading Western politicians during the bombing campaign.
That was the story that was sold to the public by politicians and the media. From the start, the Serb majority in Yugoslavia had been portrayed as invaders in their own country, with everyone else as victims. Thus was destroyed the last semi-socialist, nonaligned country in Europe.
The Kosovo war indeed combined U.S. “interests and ideals”. The ideals were preventing a genocide that never would have taken place (and also, incidentally, preventing a negotiation that could have settled the whole conflict as well). The interests included the immediate construction by the Americans of a giant U.S. military base on the territory of Kosovo, once Serbian forces were obliged to leave.
Genocide and R2P
Samantha Power’s 2002 book was subtitled “America in the Age of Genocide”. To speak of the present as an “age of genocide” is wildly melodramatic, but the purpose is to place virtuous America in the center of drastic moral demands. America must save the world from its genocidal self. “Genocide” was thereby promoted as the most potent pretext for U.S. military intervention – precisely by deploring its absence, both in Bosnia and more convincingly, in Rwanda. The Clinton administration was certainly not going to intervene in Rwanda, because the bloody chaos was in fact favoring the conquest of Rwanda by Paul Kagame and his army, which had invaded Rwanda from Uganda in 1990. Kagame was a favored client of the United States. There was no reason for Washington to interfere with Kagame’s victory.
But the “failure to stop genocide” was an appeal to the liberal conscience to intervene later on, whenever the U.S. was in need a powerful argument to get rid of a someone it wanted to get rid of. Moammer Gaddafi had been on the U.S.-UK hit list for decades, but had made concessions to gain reconciliation. But when Gaddafi’s usual fundamentalist Islamic opponents in Tripoli used the 2011 “Arab spring” to raise protests, the “threat of genocide” alarm was raised on their behalf. In Washington, action to stop Gaddafi from “committing genocide” was urged by Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power, while Bernard Henri Lévy raised the alarm in Paris. NATO rose to the challenge, destroyed the most economically successful country on the African continent and murdered its leader, creating a flood of refugees to Europe and other disasters. Most of the liberal left cheered.
Today it is widely recognized that the Irak war was based on deceit and ended in disaster. Other U.S. wars are mostly conceded to have been unfortunate mistakes. There are doubts about Libya, due mainly to the refugee flow. But the destruction of Yugoslavia, and in particular the 1999 “Kosovo war”, is still widely accepted in the West as what it was arranged to appear: NATO’s generous humanitarian intervention to prevent “genocide” by racist Serbs against the oppressed Albanian minority.
The distortions of the Bosnia conflict and the Kosovo war were precisely the practical application of the Abramowitz policy: promote minority rebellions to break down national sovereignty and change governments the U.S. doesn’t like, while supplying NATO with a new geographically unlimited mission of “humanitarian intervention”. Yugoslavia was the starting point of the whole aggressive post-Cold War U.S. policy as “single superpower” determining the world order, using the idealistic pretexts set out by Abramowitz. Young Samantha Power, who was very smart, got the point and ambitiously cheated her way into a supporting role as reporter in the Bosnia spectacle, which she eventually transformed into an astonishingly successful career.
I was in Kosovo on my own in months prior to the NATO bombardment and saw quite clearly that in that small province, the Serbs were a frightened minority while Albanians were already tasting their future triumph. There was absolutely no danger of a Serbian “genocide” of Albanians. But Western editors kept sending in ignorant young aspiring journalists, on the lookout for some “Serb atrocity” that could advance their budding career. Editors rejected any report that went in a different direction. It was at that time just plain impossible to publish an unbiased report. I know from experience.
Above all, breaking up Yugoslavia was an exercise in subsequent efforts to undermine the Russian Federation, by inciting the Federation’s ethnic minorities against the Russians. Ukraine was the crucial battering ram. I always used to think of Ukraine when studying the conflicts in the Krajina regions of Croatia and Bosnia, as both words have the same root (border land) and suffered from similar conflicts, notably in World War II. Western powers had revived the Nazi-supported Croatian nationalism against the Serbs to break up Yugoslavia. They would revive much more virulent Nazi-supported Ukrainian nationalism against Russian-speakers in Eastern Ukraine, in an effort to weaken and eventually even break up the Russian Federation.
And for the United States, the humanitarian “ideals” of supporting minorities would be compensated by the major strategic “interest” of eventually gaining control of Crimea, and with it, Russia’s main naval base in Sebastopol. Putin did what any Russian leader not brain-dead would have done: he headed off this disaster by mobilizing the Russian inhabitants of Crimea to vote to return to Russia, which they had never chosen to leave. This obvious act of self-determination is denounced in the West as an invasion.
The Ideological Backlash
Unfortunately, the blatantly tragic misuse of the “humanitarian intervention” or R2P doctrine in Libya has not managed to achieve its discredit. It is threatened now by the danger that it is changing sides in the very global conflicts it has stimulated.
The referendum in Crimea was a democratic measure of self-determination that fit the Abramowitz standards. The Russian “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine in 2022 was partially motivated by the sort of consideration featured in the Abramowitz doctrine: defense of the population of Donbas, under attack from an ultranationalist regime in Kiev. Of course, Western governments and media have simply totally ignored any Russia appeal to the ideals of human rights and self-determination, which they consider their own private property as self-declared unique “democracies”. Russia is classed as an “autocracy” whose interests must be malevolent and thus don’t count.
A greater threat to the West’s self-proclaimed monopoly on virtue is coming from Israel’s merciless attack on the people of Gaza. Most of the Global South and growing sections of Western populations are horrified by Israel’s destruction of hospitals, mass murder of children and efforts to starve the Palestinians. They see Israel, with full Western backing, committing Genocide – the real thing this time, out in the open, blatant and unrelenting.
The NATO war machine may have to conjure up a new set of moralizing pretexts for its aggressions.
Notes
[1] See Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions, Pluto Press, 2002, pp 9-10; Monthly Review 2003
[2] Here, with William Burns, Samantha Power discusses her new autobiography The Education of an Idealist and recalls her short term working for Abramowitz at the Carnegie Endowment. https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/09/13/samantha-power-on-education-of-idealist-event-7178
Understanding Washington’s Dirty Game Of Toying With Gaza Aid And Ceasefire
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | April 3, 2024
The US government can end the war in Gaza if it chooses and with a single phone call allow all the humanitarian aid that will prevent famine from gripping the starving Palestinian population living there. Instead, Washington has opted to play a dirty game of teasing the delivery of aid, leaking stories of tensions and an imminent ceasefire to the press, while only seeking to buy more time for the Zionists to carry out their ongoing genocide.
On November 10, last year, US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, issued a statement in which he stressed that “Far too many Palestinians have been killed. Far too many who have suffered these past weeks, and we want to do everything possible to prevent harm to them and to maximize the assistance that gets to them,” as he praised the temporary pause reached between the Palestinian resistance and the Zionist Entity. Following the end of the pause and prisoner swap, Blinken again appeared on the scene inside occupied Palestine. This time, giving the impression that the US government would force an end to the war, by the beginning of the New Year.
Then, on January 9, after failing to stop the Israeli onslaught in Gaza, the US Secretary of State issued another speech, this time from inside the Zionist Entity, declaring again that the Palestinian death toll was “far too high”. Both in November and January, these declarations by Antony Blinken, were widely interpreted to have been critical of the Israelis and indicated some level of frustration, or rhetoric change, when it comes to their Zionist allies.
When we also look at US President, Joe Biden, we have heard for months about the “frustration” of the American leader with his Israeli counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu. Reports have frequently been leaked to US media regarding unconfirmed events, which include Joe Biden hanging up a phone call with the Israeli Prime Minister in mid-January and the allegation that the US President called Netanyahu a “bad f***ing guy” in February. Events like the Israeli war cabinet member, Benny Gantz, traveling to Washington, allegedly without Netanyahu knowing, have also been held up as examples of the US-Israeli “strained relationship”.
Joe Biden said in late February that it looks like there’ll be a ceasefire the next Monday, causing false hope in the Gaza Strip at the time. Then, Axios released an article in which they made the claim that the US government was going to cut off arms supplies to the Zionist regime if they did not reach a temporary ceasefire in Gaza by mid-March. Then at the end of March, after having failed to place any pressure on the Israeli regime to even deliver sufficient food aid into Gaza, the Biden administration decided to quietly approve a multi-billion dollar weapons and fighter jet supply deal.
Another important point to note is the way the US government reacted to the Israeli threat to invade the southernmost city of Gaza, Rafah, claiming to set it as a hypothetical redline. Although the Biden administration would ultimately come forth and affirm that it would support an invasion of Rafah and wouldn’t set any red lines, the idea that Washington was holding the Zionist regime back from the invasion it had threatened – over the period of two months – was heavily pushed throughout Western media.
Then there is the US abstention from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution, that called for a two-week ceasefire. Again, the reaction to this was to interpret it as a “change”, or “shift”, in the US position on the war in Gaza, yet, when pressed on the issue the Biden administration claimed that the Security Council resolution – all of which are considered binding – was in fact the first UNSC resolution ever to be non-binding.
Even when it came to the shift in the rhetoric of American policy makers, to begin calling for a “ceasefire”, they did not “shift” their policy position in any way at all. In fact, they just shifted from using words like “temporary truce” and “pause”, to asking for a “six-week ceasefire”, so, in other words, a temporary truce or pause still. Then, when confronted with growing calls from the United Nations and the World Bank, regarding the issue of looming famine that is set to take hold over roughly half of Gaza’s population, the Biden administration began announcing its intention to build a port to transport aid. The details of such a port’s construction are still unclear and whether it will ever be implemented for the purpose of delivering vital aid or not is an open question.
It is high time that we call the US Biden administration out on its dirty games. Washington is in control of this war and has made the active decision to allow mass starvation in Gaza, clearly an Israeli tactic of war, it is only buying time for this policy of inflicting famine to take place. It is evident that the Zionist entity has no plan to dismantle Hamas in Gaza, in fact, it hasn’t even been able to dismantle any of the smaller groups belonging to the Palestinian resistance front in the besieged territory. So, instead, it inflicted the worst possible humanitarian crisis, a famine, along with the assassination of all security figures, members of popular committees set up locally to guard, collect and distribute aid, while attempting to make it impossible for the former civil administration to continue working in a post-war Gaza. This is also why the US has implemented a ban on funding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).
Why is the US playing this dirty game you may ask? There are two primary reasons: To quell domestic pressure to end the war and to deceive the axis of resistance into thinking that they are on the cusp of reaching a ceasefire. With the language change and by blaming Netanyahu for all the problems at hand, the US government has made the calculation that they can give the impression of an administration that is standing up to the Israeli regime. On the other hand, the US fears a regional war, which could explode in the event that no ceasefire is reached in Gaza, so they give the impression that there is some kind of in-fighting between them and the Zionist leadership. This is all theater and the US must be forced into a position where it is given an ultimatum: either you force an end to this war in Gaza, or there is a major escalation in the region. Nobody wants regional war, but regional war is inevitable if there is no ceasefire reached and the people of Gaza are gripped by one of the worst famines in recorded history.
180 days of genocide later, White House denies Israeli law violations
Al Mayadeen | April 3, 2024
Speaking to the press on April 2, a White House spokesperson said that the United States had looked into several actions by Israeli occupation forces in Gaza “in the past” and had not found “any incidents where the Israelis have violated international humanitarian law.”
This response came to a question asked by an Irish-born columnist for The Hill, Niall Stanage, to the White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby about how the US continues to send military aid to the Israeli occupation with no conditions.
Kirby was asked the same question by a journalist earlier, to which he responded by saying that the US has communicated American concerns to the Israeli occupation multiple times.
The journalist then labeled his answer as verbal commitment and not actual action, which he replied to by saying “I know, you want us to hang some sort of condition over their neck.”
Stanage also asked Kirby why the White House did not implement any conditions on “Israel’s” use of weapons.
He cited a presidential memorandum released on February 8, specifying that the administration’s policy was to “prevent arms transfers that risk facilitating or otherwise contributing to violations of human rights or international humanitarian law.”
Kirby claims no evidence of ‘deliberate’ Israeli attack on aid workers
Referring to the Israeli airstrike a day before targeting aid workers on their way to Gaza and killing seven of them, Stanage asked, “Is firing a missile at people delivering food and killing them not a violation of international humanitarian law?”
Kirby, in response, started off by admitting that “Israel” blatantly said that this attack was a “mistake” then moved on to argue that there is no evidence of this being a “deliberate strike” by saying, “Your question presumes, at this very early hour, that it was a deliberate strike, that they knew exactly what they were hitting, that they were hitting aid workers and did it on purpose, and there there’s no evidence of that.”
Kirby denies Israeli violations of International Humanitarian Law
In further attempts to defend “Israel”, Kirby claimed that there is no evidence of Israeli violations of international humanitarian law, despite several international organizations and official sources documenting such instances, saying, “I would remind you, sir, that we continue to look at incidents as they occur. The State Department has a process in place. And to date, as you and I are speaking, they have not found any incidents where the Israelis have violated international humanitarian law.”
“They have never violated international humanitarian law, ever, in the past five to six months?” Stanage asked.
“The State Department has looked at incidents in the past and has yet to determine if any of those incidents violate international humanitarian law,” Kirby replied.
Albanese: ‘International Humanitarian Law manipulated’
The UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in occupied Palestine, Francesca Albanese, announced in a statement to Al Mayadeen on March 27 that what is happening in Gaza is described as an “unprecedented war crime,” while strengthening her statement with the argument she used to present the genocide charges that “today have been integrated.”
Albanese clarified by saying she initially made a connection between “Israeli leaders’ statements and the soldiers’ actions on the ground.”
“I analyzed specific cases, and we found a lot that needed to be addressed and written in a way that did not fit into the ten-thousand-word report we submitted,” she added.
Similarly, Albanese emphasized to Al Mayadeen that she addressed specific cases that substantiate her analysis, highlighting how “international humanitarian law has been distorted and blatantly manipulated to justify genocidal violence,” adding that “The act of genocide is confirmed and was committed against the entire population, adults and minors, and the issue is not limited to the Israeli occupation raiding the Gaza Strip.”
The UN rapporteur also observed that “there are documented instances of violence, captured by Israeli soldiers themselves, perpetrated against Palestinian civilians. These include acts of humiliation, killings, massacres, and disregard for cultural and religious sanctuaries. These incidents unfolded in plain sight, and my role was to elevate their significance, categorizing them as genocide.”
Moscow responds to claims US warned it about possible terrorist attack target
RT | April 3, 2024
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has rejected the Washington Post’s claim that the US alerted Russia that the Crocus City concert hall could be attacked by terrorists two weeks before the tragedy, calling it completely false.
On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported, citing unnamed US officials, that Russian authorities had received an alert with a “high degree of specificity” that the popular venue could be targeted by the terrorists. According to the news outlet, the notice came one day before the US Embassy in Moscow warned Americans on March 7 to stay away from public gatherings for the following 48 hours because of the heightened threat.
Speaking at a press briefing on Wednesday, Zakharova dismissed the report, noting that Moscow had long grown “accustomed to American misinformation” as well as the Western media’s repeated attempts to retract their own assertions.
“I would really like… to receive factual material on this topic from the American side. That is, to whom and when did they give this information?” she added.
In the aftermath of the Crocus City massacre, the White House said that the US had shared data with Moscow about a potential terrorist attack. The head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Sergey Naryshkin, has confirmed this, but noted that “the information was too general and did not allow us to fully identify those who participated in this terrible crime.”
On March 22, a group of armed men stormed the venue, killing at least 144 people, including six children, and injuring over 500 others. The terrorist act was one of the deadliest in Russia since the early 2000s.
Russian law enforcement agencies arrested several suspects in the aftermath of the attack, including four suspected gunmen who were caught fleeing towards Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin has described the alleged culprits as radical Islamists, saying that a “window” was arranged for them on the Ukrainian border.
Moscow has suggested that the Ukrainian intelligence services may have been involved in the attack, a claim vehemently denied in Kiev. The US and its allies have insisted that the attack was orchestrated by Islamic State terrorists.
Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has pointed out that the West has been conspicuously obsessive in attempts to clear Ukraine of any suspicion that it could have been behind the terrorist plot. He has also called for patience until the investigation is over before jumping to any conclusions.
‘Shocking Cover-up’: DOJ Lawyers Committed Fraud in Vaccine Injury Case, CHD Attorney Alleges in Motion Filed Today
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | April 2, 2024
Rolf Hazlehurst, a Children’s Health Defense (CHD) staff attorney and father of a son with autism, today filed a motion in federal court alleging lawyers representing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) fraudulently concealed evidence that vaccines can cause autism.
In a motion filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Hazlehurst alleged that U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers who represented HHS in vaccine injury cases repeatedly defrauded the judicial system — from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) to the U.S. Supreme Court.
That fraud led to thousands of families of vaccine-injured children being denied the right to compensation and the right to have their cases heard, according to the motion.
“This motion makes very serious and well-substantiated allegations of a massive scheme of fraud on the courts,” said Kim Mack Rosenberg, CHD general counsel who also is of counsel to Hazlehurst in the federal case.
“The evidence submitted in support of the motion clearly shows that attorneys from the Department of Justice concealed and misrepresented highly relevant information from the special masters in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and the judges in the courts,” Mack Rosenberg told The Defender.
Hazlehurst’s son Yates regressed into autism after being vaccinated as an infant. In the early 2000s, his family and thousands of others filed cases seeking compensation for vaccine-induced autism through the NVICP.
The program consolidated all of the petitions into the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP) and selected six representative “test cases” — of which Yates’ was the second — as the basis for determining the outcome of the remaining 5,400 cases.
Unbeknownst at the time to the petitioners and the NVICP special masters, the DOJ’s star expert medical witness, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman informed DOJ attorneys during the ongoing omnibus proceedings that he had reversed his original opinion and determined that vaccines can and do cause autism in some cases.
In what Hazlehurst alleges was “a shocking cover-up,” instead of allowing Zimmerman to share his revised opinion, the DOJ attorneys relieved Zimmerman of his duties as a witness.
However, they continued to use excerpts from his unamended written opinion to make their case that vaccines did not cause autism — misrepresenting his position and committing “fraud on the court.”
According to the motion, the DOJ’s first act of fraud snowballed into a scheme of deception with far-reaching implications in which DOJ attorneys repeatedly misrepresented Zimmerman’s opinion and concealed other evidence that emerged during the test case hearings in the OAP in subsequent cases before multiple courts.
“As a result, thousands of cases in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding were denied compensation and the impact beyond the OAP is enormous,” Mack Rosenberg said. “This fraud affected the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program — especially the Omnibus Autism Proceeding — the Court of Federal Claims, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and even the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Hazlehurst said he is “asking the court to give this motion the serious attention it deserves.” He added, “At a minimum, the court should allow discovery and hold a hearing on this motion.”
Overturning a ruling due to fraud on the court is an extraordinary remedy reserved for extraordinary cases but according to Hazlehurst, “This motion we filed shows that this indeed is an extraordinary case.”
The DOJ has until April 30 to respond to the motion.
CHD CEO Mary Holland told The Defender, “Vaccines most definitely do cause autism, and the government has been lying about this reality for decades.”
Holland added:
“With others, I published a law review article in 2011 showing that the government absolutely knew that vaccines cause autism — and yet they have covered it up and lied about it since the inception of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
“How many hundreds of thousands of children and families would have been spared the heartaches and crushing financial burdens of autism had the government come clean?”
‘Exceptionally difficult’ to obtain compensation through NVICP
In the late 1980s, a substantial number of lawsuits for vaccine injuries related to Wyeth’s (now Pfizer) DPT vaccine, combined with “grossly insufficient compensation” for victims of vaccine injury, threatened the vaccine program’s viability.
In response, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which established the “vaccine court.” The law gave the pharmaceutical industry broad protection from liability and proposed to compensate vaccine-injured children through the new NVICP.
The NVICP originally was designed to be a “swift, flexible, and less adversarial alternative to the often costly and lengthy civil arena of traditional tort litigation.”
To receive compensation, parents file a claim with the program.
The Court of Federal Claims (which oversees the program) appoints “special masters” — typically lawyers who previously represented the U.S. government — to manage and decide the individual claims. Attorneys may represent the petitioners, and the DOJ represents HHS.
NVICP proceedings are more informal than a typical courtroom. Unlike regular court proceedings, petitioners in the “vaccine court” have no right to discovery.
If a petitioner files a claim for a vaccine covered under the program and listed on the Vaccine Injury Table — the list of known vaccine side effects associated with certain vaccines within set time frames — it is presumed that a vaccine caused the petitioner’s injury and the petitioner is eligible for compensation without proof of causation.
However, if a petitioner experiences an “off-table injury” — an injury not listed on the table or that didn’t happen in the recognized injury time frame — the petitioner must prove by “a preponderance of evidence” that the vaccine caused the injury. Evidence includes medical records and expert witness testimony.
Claims must be filed within three years of the first symptom or two years of death.
Petitioners must provide a medical theory of the cause, a sequence of cause and effect, and show a temporal relationship between vaccine and injury.
However, the NVICP does not specify the required volume and type of evidence, so meeting the “preponderance of evidence” standard is largely at the discretion of the special master.
Petitioners can appeal NVICP cases to the Court of Federal Claims, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is “exceptionally difficult” to obtain compensation within the NVICP, Hazlehurst told The Defender. The proceedings are often turned into drawn-out, contentious expert battles and the backlog of cases is substantial.
The Vaccine Act of 1986 is unjust for petitioners, Hazlehurst alleges. And that injustice reached its zenith with the OAP, when the DOJ perpetrated fraud right under the noses of the special masters, signaling the beginning of the fraud on the courts that continues to this day.
Hazlehurst told The Defender he hopes his motion will shed light on the damage inflicted by this law and that it will ultimately help end the autism epidemic.
“The Vaccine Act of 1986 is one of the fundamental causes of the autism epidemic,” Hazlehurst said. “Understanding why this is true, and how the United States Department of Justice perpetrated fraud upon the courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, is the key to ending the autism epidemic.”
A short history of the autism omnibus proceedings
By 2002, to address a “massive influx” of petitions alleging vaccine-induced autism, the Office of Special Masters combined over 5,000 claims into the OAP to determine whether vaccines cause autism and if so, under what conditions.
Initially, the NVICP planned to investigate causation issues and apply those general findings to individual cases. However, the program changed its strategy and instead selected six “test cases” by which it would examine the evidence for injuries caused by the measles mumps rubella (MMR) vaccine, thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCV), or a combination of both.
Then it would apply the findings of the test cases to other similar cases.
In doing so, Hazlehurst alleges, the court conflated general causation evidence with specific causation evidence from a few cases, without allowing for rules of discovery or evidence that would apply in an actual court.
This, Hazlehurst said, “was a recipe for disaster” as each test case was then used to determine the outcome for the remaining 5,000 cases.
Three cases — Cedillo v. HHS, Hazlehurst v. HHS and Poling v. HHS — are at the center of the alleged fraud by the DOJ.
Fraud #1: the Zimmerman testimony
Hearings for the first OAP test case, Cedillo v. HHS, began in 2007. Zimmerman had worked with the DOJ to prepare an expert report on behalf of HHS finding that Michelle Cedillo’s autism had likely not been caused by the MMR vaccine.
Zimmerman later wrote in a 2018 affidavit that he attended the Cedillo hearing and listened to the testimony of Dr. Marcel Kinsbourne, another world-renowned expert in pediatric neurology.
On that basis, Zimmerman stated, he decided to clarify his written expert opinion about Michelle Cedillo, concerned it would be taken out of context.
Zimmerman spoke with DOJ attorneys to clarify that his expert opinion in the Cedillo case “was not intended to be a blanket statement as to all children and all medical science,” according to the 2018 affidavit.
He specified that advances in science, medicine and his own clinical research had led him to believe there were exceptions in which vaccinations could cause autism.
He also referred the attorneys to a paper he published with colleagues in 2006, the Poling paper, describing the case of an unidentified child who suffered regressive autism following vaccine adverse reactions. The paper suggested a possible association between mitochondrial dysfunction, vaccinations and regressive autism.
After communicating this evidence to DOJ attorneys, the DOJ dismissed Zimmerman as a witness but continued to use his written opinion as general causation evidence.
The DOJ was also allowed to use that report, submitted in one test case, as general causation evidence in other test cases.
None of the petitioners in the test cases could cross-examine Zimmerman, because he was no longer a witness. This was only possible because the federal rules of evidence do not apply in NVICP proceedings.
Yates’ case, Hazlehurst v. HHS, was the second test case in the OAP. His treating neurologist, Dr. Jean-Ronel Corbier testified Yates’ autism was likely caused by a genetic predisposition combined with an environmental insult in the form of vaccinations administered when Yates was ill. (Yates was a patient of Zimmerman in 2002.)
Corbier’s theory of causation in Yates was similar to the theory developed by Zimmerman in the Poling paper and shared with DOJ attorneys.
Yet, despite knowing Zimmerman had concluded that in a subset of children like Yates, vaccines can cause autism, the DOJ “intentionally and fraudulently” misrepresented Zimmerman’s expert testimony in its closing statements in Yates’ case, Hazlehurst alleges.
DOJ attorneys selectively quoted Zimmerman’s expert report from the Cedillo case, telling the court that Zimmerman found there was “no sound evidence to support a causative relationship with exposure to both or either MMR and/or mercury,” when Zimmerman had explicitly told the DOJ that his opinion was the opposite, according to the affidavit.
Fraud #2: the Hannah Poling case
Three weeks after closing arguments in Yates’ case, the DOJ quietly conceded Hannah Poling’s case, which was on the verge of becoming the fourth test case.
Hannah regressed into autism over several months after being vaccinated against nine diseases at one doctor’s visit.
In 2003, Poling’s father, Jon, a physician and trained neurologist, and mother, Terry, an attorney and nurse, filed an autism petition against HHS under the NVICP for their daughter’s injuries.
Jon Poling was a co-author of the 2006 paper with Zimmerman that analyzed an unnamed child, later revealed as Hannah Poling, who had a mitochondrial disorder — a condition with which Yates was later diagnosed.
In 2007, just three weeks after the lead DOJ attorney misrepresented Zimmerman’s opinion during the hearing in Hazlehurst, the same DOJ attorney submitted a report to the special masters conceding that in the case of Poling v. HHS, Hannah’s “regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder” (i.e., regressive autism) was caused by a vaccine injury, based upon a preponderance of the evidence standard.
This was the same neurological diagnosis Zimmerman had made for Yates in 2002.
According to court documents, if HHS had not conceded Poling, Poling v. HHS would have been designated as a test case. However, because the DOJ conceded the case, it was taken out of the omnibus and the DOJ had the case records sealed —- although they were later leaked to the press and published in the Huffington Post in 2008.
In March 2008, Hannah’s parents moved to make the proceedings transparent and available to the public, but the DOJ opposed the motion and the NVICP deferred a ruling on the motion for 60 days.
During those 60 days, the DOJ filed amendments to its report conceding the Poling case. It retroactively changed the basis for compensation to say that Hannah had a “table injury.”
This meant that instead of conceding that the petitioners had proven with a preponderance of evidence that the vaccines caused her autism, they said she had a presumptive injury on the vaccine table, in which causation is presumed.
By conceding the Poling case, opposing the parents’ motion for complete transparency and changing the basis for compensation, the DOJ was able to conceal fraud and critical material evidence of how vaccines cause autism, according to Hazlehurst.
Fraud #3: appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court
On Feb. 12, 2009, the special masters denied compensation in the first three cases. They found the petitioners failed to establish causation between MMR or TCV vaccines and autism.
In Hazlehurst’s case, the NVICP explicitly relied on the portion of Zimmerman’s expert report that DOJ attorneys misrepresented.
The Hazlehursts appealed to the Court of Federal Claims and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, both of which upheld the special master’s decision — by relying on Zimmerman’s misrepresented opinion and knowingly fraudulent statements made by a DOJ attorney, according to Hazlehurst.
Those prior decisions directly influenced the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Bruesewitz v. Wyeth.
In that case, Wyeth, now Pfizer, argued that a decision favoring the Bruesewitz family — who was attempting to sue the company for their daughter’s vaccine injury — would lead to a “flood of frivolous lawsuits,” including by the families from the omnibus.
Amicus briefs from the American Academy of Pediatrics, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck and Sanofi Pasteur on behalf of Wyeth relied on Hazlehurst v. HHS and other OAP decisions that were based on the misrepresentation of Zimmerman’s testimony that there was “no scientific basis” that vaccines cause autism.
The Supreme Court ruled that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and the NVICP it created, preempt all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers by individuals seeking compensation for injury or death.
In oral arguments and in their written opinions, the justices explicitly cited the portions of the amicus briefs citing Hazlehurst v. HHS and other OAP rulings that relied on the DOJ misrepresentations in their rulings.
Since that ruling, the special masters have continued to rely on the DOJ’s fraudulent claims to deny compensation to families filing complaints in the NVICP.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., CHD chairman on leave, and Hazlehurst in September 2018 filed a complaint with the DOJ Office of Inspector General outlining what they then knew about the DOJ’s fraud during the OAP.
The DOJ Office of Professional Misconduct investigated and responded in a June 2019 letter that it found no wrongdoing.
In that letter, however, the Office of Professional Responsibility conceded the DOJ had in fact kept Zimmerman’s testimony while dismissing him as a witness in order to avoid creating the appearance that he had changed his opinion and to prevent the petitioners from cross-examining him, according to Hazlehurst.
The ‘fraud on the court’ doctrine
It has taken 17 years, Hazlehurst said, since the DOJ’s first alleged act of fraud upon the court, for him to gather all of the admissible evidence necessary to “connect the dots and reveal the DOJ’s web of deceit” to make this claim under the “fraud on the court” doctrine.
Under this doctrine, codified as Rule 60(d)(3) in the rules of the Court of Federal Claims, there is no time limit for the court to overturn a judgment made on the basis of fraud on the court.
The petitioner must demonstrate that there was fraud, intent to defraud and that the fraud affected more than one instance of litigation — putting the integrity of the judicial process at stake.
Hazlehurst alleges DOJ attorneys committed fraud by knowingly making false statements and offering evidence they knew to be false and that they did not take remedial action to disclose information they knew to be false and misleading to the court.
The special masters themselves have an obligation to consider all relevant evidence, but didn’t, in this case, Hazlehurst said. Instead, they ignored the contradictions in Zimmerman’s opinions and ignored the Poling evidence.
This is particularly problematic for NVICP cases, where petitioners can’t conduct meaningful discovery or cross-examination and the special masters’ oversight is the only meaningful safeguard to prevent the DOJ’s abuse of power, according to Hazlehurst.
“There is nothing fair about a government proceeding where the government controls the admissibility of evidence,” he said.
Hazlehurst said that by forcing people injured by vaccines into an administrative program, petitioners are deprived of the basic constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law. “It should be declared unconstitutional,” he said.
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
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.
Russia Reiterates Call on Int’l Organizations to Conduct Probe Into Bucha Events
Sputnik – 02.04.2024
Moscow reiterates its call that international organizations conduct an investigation into the events in the city of Bucha and reveal the names of the victims, the time and the reasons for their deaths, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Tuesday.
“Once again, we demand that international agencies stop covering up for the Kiev regime and ensure a thorough investigation that will finally reveal the names of the victims, the time and the cause of their death, the signs of the bodies having been moved from one place to another, and the individuals responsible for this terrifying crime by the Kiev authorities,” Zakharova said in a statement released by the Russian Foreign Ministry.
Russia has sent “multiple” requests to international organizations, including to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Tuerk, but they remained unanswered, Zakharova said, adding that this shows that the “organisers of this heinous act have things to hide.”
“The propaganda-driven disinformation campaign in Bucha came as a response to our goodwill gesture to withdraw troops from the Kiev and Chernigov regions which was made in the wake of progress at the Russian-Ukrainian talks in Istanbul on March 28, 2022. Clearly, the goal of this campaign was to disrupt the dialogue between the parties and to launch a package of pre-arranged Western sanctions on Russia at the behest of London,” Zakharova also said.
She added that Kiev intended to distract the international community’s attention “from its own crimes and inconsistencies” of the Bucha “provocation” and to spread a “fake theory” about the civilians allegedly killed by the Russian military among the public in Western countries.
Immediately after the start of Moscow’s special military operation in February 2022, Russia took control of the territory of the Kiev Region, including Bucha, a small city located northwest of Kiev. Following the Russian military withdrawing from the region, Ukrainian authorities accused Russia of numerous killings of civilians in Bucha and surrounding areas.
Moscow has denied its role in the killings of civilians and insists that the footage of the murdered local residents, which was distributed in the Western media, is nothing more than a staged provocation on the part of Ukraine to put pressure on the Western ruling circles in order to achieve their goals in the conflict with Russia.
Big Pharma designed WHO’s Global Health Policy from 2000-2009
Corruption and deception, not science, is the foundation of WHO health policy
By Judy Wilyman PhD | Vaccination Decisions | April 1, 2024
“The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth.” – George Orwell, 1984
The history of the GAVI alliance, a board that influences the direction and design of WHO’s global health policies, illustrates how these policies have been directly influenced by industry partners from 2000-2009, and not by an objective board selected by the WHO.
This direct influence was hidden from the public in 2009 when the alliance became known as the Gavi board. At this time its composition and function changed to hide the role that industry had played from 2000-2009 in changing the direction of global health policies to a new focus on vaccine production and global implementation.
History of the Gavi Board:
In 1998 the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) was established by the Head of the World Bank after a meeting with pharmaceutical companies and other agencies. The GAVI alliance was established on the advice of industry because the pharmaceutical companies were claiming that there was no incentive for them to provide vaccines to the developing countries.
This meeting led to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation providing the seed funding of $750 million in 1999 and governments then matched this figure to establish an alliance of private-public partnerships in 2000, to fund the vaccination programmes for all countries.
In 2000 the alliance was launched at the World Economic Forum (WEF), not the World Health Organisation (WHO), and it established a working party to work with the WHO to design the International Health Regulations (IHR), yet it was a body established outside of the WHO’s charter.
At this time all stakeholders in the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) were able to directly influence the design of the WHO’s Global Health Policies through this working party (2000-2009), including the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA). They could attend meetings and present information for policy development.
Other stakeholders in the GAVI at this time included the BMGF, the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The influence of these stakeholders led to a new focus on vaccine production and implementation in the WHO’s global health policies.
These global policies were presented to countries in the International Health Regulations (IHR) that came into force in June 2007.
This direct influence of all stakeholders changed in 2009 when the GAVI alliance became known as the GAVI board. Its composition was changed to include only four permanent board members – UNICEF, BMGF, the World Bank and WHO – and other partners would be on a part-time basis.
This change to only four permanent board members, one of which was now the WHO, hides the fact that from 2000-2009 all stakeholders were able to directly influence the design of WHO’s global health policies.
The first recorded meeting of the Gavi board on its website is in 2009. It describes the role of the Gavi board as ‘being responsible for strategic direction and policy-making, oversees the operations of the Vaccine Alliance and monitors programme implementation’ .
This alliance of partners, many of whom profit from vaccines, make donations to the Gavi board and still influence global health policies in a more indirect fashion.
The WHO’s IHR are currently being amended with strong influence from this corporate alliance. If the amendments are approved, the draconian directives implemented during the COVID ‘pandemic’ years, will become binding on every WHO member country, whenever the director of the WHO declares another pandemic. This is removing fundamental human rights and objective scientific evidence from global health policies.
It is time for Australians to make our voices heard to ensure that Australia exits the WHO and joins the World Council for Health to protect both human health and fundamental human rights in all public health policies.
[The information above can be referenced from Ch 3 of my PhD 2015]
Important Information:
- Here is the witness statement from ex-Qantas pilot, Captain Graham Hood, describing that lack of evidence for safety and efficacy that was used by the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and the Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, to mandate this mRNA genetically-engineered injection (called a ‘vaccine’) in the Australian population – Ex-Qantas Pilot, Graham Hood, provides a witness statement in the Australian parliament.
- Australian Medical Professional Society (AMPS) presents ‘Too Many Dead’ in Australia, but the Australian government will not investigate and the media does not report these facts.
- Study finds the Majority of Patients with Long COVID were Vaccinated
- Epidemic of Fraud
Featured Video
The Board For Peace – Whitewashing Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Inside Job? Inside What?
By Prof. Tony Hall | American Herald Tribune | July 28, 2016
The Kevin Barrett-Chomsky Dispute in Historical Perspective – Sixth part of the series titled “9/11 and the Zionist Question”
In his chapter on “Left Gatekeepers” and the “Shame of Noam Chomsky,” Barrie Zwicker refers to the the “New World Order” as the “diaboligarchy’s” directing agency. Less compelling is Zwicker’s reference to the “New World Order” as the “diaboligarchy’s” directing agency. To me this unfortunate choice of words is much too closely associated with the often crude and chauvinistic populism of Alex Jones and his Infowars media network. Many have come to see Jones’ lucrative media operation as a limited hangout set in place by handlers trying to hold the activities of the 9/11 Truth Movement within manageable constraints.
Due to the important findings over fifteen years of the citizens’ investigation into 9/11, the culprits most deeply implicated in the crime can be identified with much more specificity than an entity vaguely described as a “New World Order.” As Kevin Barrett and many others insist, the time has come to name the names of the probable culprits, Noam Chomsky prominent among them.
While Alex Jones ultimately serves the same masters as Chomsky, the former’s media product is often much closer to the mark of what is really going on than the content of Noam Chomsky’s more magisterial pronouncements. Jones goes at least part of the way into realities of the deep state politics of the twenty-first century. Chomsky, however, sacrificed his capacity to contribute cogently to sensible discourse on contemporary geopolitics by making himself a primary instrument of the most consequential deep state deception of recent times. As a leading agent of disinformation in the psychological trenches of the ongoing Global War of False Flag Terrorism, Chomsky has reduced himself to the level of skeptic pretender Michael Shermer. In the style of Shermer, the elder Chomsky has become an establishment TV professor readily available on Netflix. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
loongtip on Trump wanted to play peacemake… Coronistan on EU member to sue bloc over ‘su… 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…
Aletho News- UN experts alarmed by prosecution of students protesting ETH Zurich’s Israel-linked research ties
- Exposed – How the UAE Became Central to Gaza’s Concentration Camp Plot
- How South Korea’s gas ambitions sustain the occupation of Gaza
- “Leaked document” exposes US blueprint for total control over Gaza
- Trump wanted to play peacemaker, Netanyahu made sure he failed
- Idea of limited, fast strike on Iran misjudges our capabilities: IRGC
- US Military Buildup on Land, Air, and Sea Raises Fears of Imminent Attack on Iran – Expert
- Russia reiterates demand to Germany over Nazi crimes
- France and EU clash over UK missiles for Ukraine – Telegraph
- EU member to sue bloc over ‘suicidal’ ban on Russian gas
- If Americans Knew
- Israel to seek new security deal from US, official says
- Leaked “Board of Peace” Resolution Outlines U.S.-Led Plan to Rule Over Gaza
- Jonathan Greenblatt Rolls Out Plan to Activate Hispanic Evangelical Golems
- Violence against hundreds of Gazan remains to find one Israeli – Not a ceasefire Day 109
- 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
- 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 