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
The terrorist attack in Moscow: customers, inspirers and perpetrators
By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – 31.03.2024
The terrorist attack on the Crocus City Hall (Krasnogorsk) took place on 22 March 2024 at around 20:00 Moscow time. The attack was accompanied by mass shooting and explosions: the attackers opened fire on civilians in the building, set fire to the auditorium, and then left the building. The attack killed at least, 143 people (including three children) and injured 182 others. The concert hall was almost completely destroyed by arson and explosions. The attack was one of the largest terrorist attacks in the history of modern Russia, second only to the terrorist attack in Beslan (2004) in terms of the number of victims. The Afghan branch of the international terrorist organisation ISIL claimed responsibility for the attack, with Washington’s acquiescence.
The United States is trying to convince everyone through various channels that there is no trace of Kyiv in the bloody terrorist attack on the Crocus City Hall and that it was committed by the group “ISIL” (“Islamic State”, IS, a terrorist group banned in Russia). The attack was carried out by radical Islamists, but Russia is interested in the customer of the crime, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on 25 March at a meeting on measures taken after the attack. “We know in whose hands this atrocity against Russia and its people was committed. We are interested in who the customer is,” the head of state said. Russia’s special services and law enforcement agencies will have to find answers to a number of questions, he said. “How do radical Islamists, who position themselves as faithful Muslims and profess the so-called pure Islam, commit serious atrocities and crimes in the holy month of Ramadan for all Muslims?” – the president noted.
Putin also said that the terrorist attack was an act of intimidation, which raises the question of who benefits from it. “This atrocity may be just one link in a whole series of attempts by those who have been at war with our country since 2014 at the hands of the neo-Nazi regime in Kyiv,” the president said. It is also necessary to answer the question of why the terrorists tried to hide in Ukraine and who was waiting for them there. Putin stressed that the investigation should be objective. “Despite our universal pain and sorrow, compassion and legitimate desire to punish all the perpetrators of this atrocity, the investigation must be conducted with the highest degree of professionalism, objectivity, without any political bias,” the president concluded.
After a thorough and comprehensive in-depth analysis of the events that took place in Moscow, it is possible, in the author’s opinion, to consider the following scheme for the murder of numerous Russian civilians during the concert in the Crocus City Hall. It can be assumed that the direct inspirers and customers of such a terrorist attack are the intelligence services of the American CIA and the British MI6. And since they are state services, the US and the UK are behind them. This is the simple and direct logic of human thinking without any echo. It is these two states that, having sent the neo-Nazi regime in Kyiv against Russia, are trying, in their own words, to inflict colossal damage that could lead in the future to the disintegration of our homeland into parts ruled by the USA and Great Britain.
If we look at the history of the use of the policy of terrorism, the assassination of leaders and ordinary politicians and the practice of killing civilians by the US government services, the Americans have been using them for a long time and on a large scale. It is enough to recall the US use of nuclear weapons against civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the use of chemicals on a large scale in Vietnam and Syria.
We can recall the fate of two of our excellent TASS journalists, Vitaly Petrusenko and Sergei Losev, who worked together for a long time in the USA, where they were poisoned and died of heart attacks. When they returned to the USSR, they knew about their poisoning, as V. Petrusenko told the author in detail, and they knew about their imminent death. Petrusenko died at the age of 52, Losev at 61. Both were authors of 5 books exposing the nefarious policies of the USA, and in particular wrote in detail about the state conspiracy to assassinate the then US President John F. Kennedy.
One can also recall the assassination by the CIA of numerous foreign politicians who did not agree with the White House’s policy of imposing its domination and right to plunder on all the peoples and countries of the world. For example, about 30 attempts were made on the life of the leader of the Cuban revolution, Fidel Castro, but all in vain. And finally, the permission to destroy the leader of a foreign country was given to the CIA by the President of the USA. A very famous Cuban revolutionary, Che Guevara, was murdered by the CIA.
On 17 January 1961, on Washington’s orders, Patrice Lumumba, the deposed prime minister of the Congo and a famous fighter against colonialism, was brutally murdered. This was followed by a series of assassinations and coups d’état on the African continent, which continue to this day, with the CIA’s sinister hand at work. We can also remember our own time, when the leader of the Libyan Jamahiriya, Muammar Gaddafi, was brutally murdered. The video of this assassination and the angry reaction of the then US Secretary of State, H. Clinton, went round the world. Shamelessly, with her eyes wide open and her saliva spurting, she shouted with joy at the top of her voice: ‘We did it’. The unjustified attack on Iraq and the assassination of its president, Saddam Hussein, were also carried out according to the model of the CIA in cooperation with the British MI6.
It is quite obvious that the client of the criminal attack on Crocus City Hall is also London and its notorious Secret Service MI6, which has not changed its plans to assassinate foreign leaders for several centuries. The famous expression, often attributed to A.V. Suvorov, is well known: “the Englishwoman is shitting again”. For several centuries, Britain has been “shitting” everywhere and all the time, on all those it wants to bend to its will. If, as they say, the British have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies and only permanent interests, then the best, most effective and most permanent tool is a policy of shitting all over the world. One of the most important features of British foreign policy towards its adversaries is that it involves other countries, other forces, in the defence of its interests and seeks to minimise its involvement in the conduct of military operations, especially against a strong adversary. The Moscow attack, allegedly carried out by other interested forces, clearly fits into this strategy, although the CIA undoubtedly knew about it and warned Moscow in a ‘friendly’ manner.
No sooner had the bastards shot Russian civilians attending the concert than US officials started pointing the finger at ISIL, as if they had ordered such a scenario. And indeed, they did. True, the “professionals” of the CIA did not have enough knowledge about what ISIS is (although they themselves created this terrorist organisation) and how it operates. The terrorist act was committed on Friday, which is known to be a holy day for Muslims, created by Allah for prayer and rest, and certainly a faithful Muslim will not commit unjust acts on this day. A Muslim who dies for the sake of his ideals and faith will never take money. But here were the dirty mercenaries whom all Muslim countries, parties and organisations have shunned. Moreover, the ideological Muslim terrorists of ISIL are not running anywhere, they are sacrificing their lives.
Once again, Washington has been “sitting in a puddle” with its clumsy and crude statements, which nobody in the world believed. Moreover, if the Americans knew about the planned terrorist attack, they should have passed on the details of this crime to the Russian FSB, with which the CIA has an agreement on the exchange of information on terrorist actions. This was not done, and Moscow was merely informed of the desire of some hostile forces to carry out a terrorist attack. Very “valuable information”. Moreover, even such information leads to the suspicion that Washington planned the terrorist attack in Moscow in advance and knew about it.
It also raises the suspicion of a clearly planned terrorist action, which is clearly beyond the power of those scoundrels who were merely its executors. All this was done at a high professional military level and the roles in it were planned and defined in advance. And even an escape plan was worked out, whereby the scum drove to the Russian-Ukrainian border, where a window was organised for them to cross into Ukrainian territory.
If we analyse the testimony of the detained scum about how they were found and how they communicated with each other on the Telegram social network, we can clearly see the handwriting of Ukrainian neo-Nazis and their special services. And here we see Ukrainian neo-Nazis technically preparing this terrorist act, which clearly fits into their strategy of destroying the peaceful Russian population. Suffice it to recall the constant shelling of our peaceful towns and villages by Ukrainian neo-Nazis using Western weapons. The neo-Nazi regime in Kyiv, which has been defeated on the battlefield, is increasingly resorting to terrorist methods. Everything, as they say, fits together.
The organisers of the terrorist attack on the Crocus Town Hall hoped to sow panic and discord in society, but they were met with the unity of all Russians and the rejection of their terrorist methods of intimidation. Moreover, against the backdrop of the terrorist attack, Russian society showed real cohesion, solidarity and determination to resist the evil of terrorism.
Ukraine’s survival hangs in the balance
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | MARCH 28, 2024
A controversy arose needlessly over the advisory issued by the American embassy in Moscow on March 7 to the effect that “extremists have imminent plans to target large gatherings in Moscow, to include concerts” and warning US citizens to “avoid large gatherings.” It took the form of a diplomatic spat and momentarily at least, the American claim that they shared the ‘information’ with the Russians hinted at the ineptness of the security agencies in Moscow while the latter hit back saying there was nothing specific or actionable that the Americans conveyed.
Clearly, Washington was in possession of some information which was at the very least credible enough in terms of its source but was not specific enough for Moscow. Interestingly, the UK embassy in Moscow also issued a similar advisory cautioning British citizens against visiting shopping centres. The US and British intelligence agencies work in tandem.
However, in a strange pre-emptive move, as it were, the State Department also scrambled within two hours of the horrific attack on the mall in Moscow’s Crocus City Hall on March 22 with a statement declaring that Ukraine was not responsible for the attack. The US’s European allies also began parroting the same line. As can be expected, the Americans got a head start in the propaganda war and that in turn enabled them to craft a narrative — also in real time — naming the Islamic State as the culprit in the horrific crime.
Yet, the very next day, President Vladimir Putin went on to reveal in his address to the nation that what happened was “a premeditated and organised mass murder of peaceful, defenceless people,” harking back to the Nazis “to stage a demonstrative execution, a bloody act of intimidation.”
Importantly, Putin disclosed that the perpetrators “attempted to escape and were heading towards Ukraine, where, according to preliminary information, a window was prepared for them on the Ukrainian side to cross the state border.” But he stopped short of finger-pointing as the investigation was a work in progress.
That is to say, from Putin’s disclosure, it appears that the perpetrators’ mentors / handlers gave them instructions to exit Russian territory after their mission by using a particular route for border crossing into Ukraine where they were expected by people on the Ukrainian side of the border. What now remains in the realm of the ‘known unknown’ is really about the chain of command. This is the first thing.
Second, a storyline has been propagated by Washington that this was an ISIS attack. Indeed, it has been effectively propagated by the western media and was intended as a red herring to confuse dim-witted folks abroad.
However, in reality, the perpetrators did not behave like ISIS killers on suicide missions who would have sought martyrdom but in this case behaved like fugitives on the run. Nor were they answering the call of ‘jihad’. They were reportedly ethnic Tajiks who admitted that they were hirelings lured by the money in it.
The expert opinion from released videos is also that their movements inside the mall did not show battle skills attributed to well-trained fighters, and they had ‘poor muzzle discipline’, which means they had only minimal rifle training. In sum, theirs was quintessentially an act of motiveless malignity — that is, except the money part.
That said, the US military has been ‘retooling’ erstwhile ISIS fighters lately. Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) alleged in a statement on February 13 that the US was recruiting the jihadist fighters to carry out terrorist attacks on the territory of Russia and the CIS countries.
The statement said, “Sixty such terrorists with combat experience in the Middle East were selected this year in January… they are undergoing a fast-track training course at the US base in Syria’s Al-Tanf, where they are being taught how to make and use improvised explosive devices, as well as subversive methods. Particular emphasis is paid to planning attacks on heavily guarded facilities, including foreign diplomatic missions… In the near future, there are plans to deploy militants in small groups to the territory of Russia and the CIS countries.”
The SVR also noted that “special attention was paid to the involvement of natives of the Russian North Caucasus and Central Asia.”
Significantly, on March 26, Alexander Bortnikov, Director of the Federal Security Service (FSB) said in an interview with Rossiya TV channel that from the interrogation of the detainees so far, there is a political background to the incident. He said radical Islamists alone could not prepare such an action on their own, they were assisted from the outside.
Bortnikov stated: “The primary data that we received from the detainees confirm this. Therefore, we will continue to refine the information that should show us whether the participation of the Ukrainian side is real or not. But in any case, so far there is every reason to say that this is exactly the case. Since the bandits themselves intended to go abroad, it was to the territory of Ukraine, according to our preliminary operational information, they were waiting there.”
Bortnikov added that the terrorist attack had the support of not only the special services of Ukraine, but countries such as Britain and the United States are also behind the massacre. According to him, the prime mover of the incident has not yet been identified, and the threat of a terrorist act in Russia still persists.
Bortnikov’s remarks hint at a classic predicament: Russia possesses evidence of Ukrainian involvement but ‘proof’ remains inadequate as yet. This is a predicament that countries often face in countering the cross-border terrorism, especially when it happens to be state-sponsored terrorism. Of course, no amount of evidence will be accepted as proof by the adversary ultimately — while in Ukraine’s case, often there is an eagerness to claim credit for bleeding Russia by staging operations on its soil, such as assassinations.
As for the US or the UK, Russians assess that without intelligence inputs, satellite imagery, and even logistical backing by the western powers, Ukraine does not have the capability to undertake operations deep inside Russia or the sort of complex attacks targeting Russian war ships of the Black Sea Fleet. But the western powers are invariably in a denial mode when confronted with such accusations by Russia.
There is no question that the Crocus City Hall attack will have profound geopolitical consequences and will impact the trajectory of the Ukraine war. The incident has rallied world sympathy massively for Russia. It is a huge challenge of statecraft now for Putin to act decisively, as the Russian public will expect, to completely uproot the dark forces entrenched next-door.
Conceivably, that may involve Moscow shaking up the very foundations of the house that Washington built in Kiev after the 2024 coup. The New York Times recently disclosed that the CIA keeps a string of intelligence outposts all along the Ukraine-Russia border regions.
Make no mistake, the US is determined to hold on to the extensive infrastructure it created in Ukraine to mount covert operations and destabilise Russia, no matter what it takes. The bottom line in the western strategy is to weaken Russia and prevent it from playing an adversarial role on the global stage.
TS Eliot’s lines from the play Murder in the Cathedral come to mind: ‘What peace can be found / To grow between the hammer and the anvil?’ The war is slated to escalate dramatically and it is a matter of time before western combat deployment takes place in Ukraine to salvage that country’s residual potential as a frontline state for NATO in the proxy war against Russia. On their part, Russia may have no alternative but to seek a total military victory. The multi-layered Russian reaction will unfold depending on the outcome of the ongoing investigation.
Ukrainian oligarch possibly involved in terrorist attack as GUR becomes CIA asset
By Lucas Leiroz | March 28, 2024
Investigations into those responsible for the attack on Crocus City Hall remain ongoing. Although it is known that the killers are Islamic radicals from Central Asia, there is still no confirmation as to who the real mastermind of the crime was. However, suspicions of involvement by Ukrainian and Western intelligence agencies are growing more and more. Additionally, there is the possibility that a prominent Ukrainian oligarch is financing such terrorist acts against Moscow.
As well known, there are complex corruption schemes and illicit activities in Ukraine involving local and international agents. Nevertheless, little is known on how deeply connected these criminal networks are with Kiev-sponsored terrorism. Ukrainian oligarchs not only commit tax crimes and money laundering, but use their personal profits to promote terror against the “enemies” of the neo-Nazi regime.
Recently, Russian authorities have been investigating the case of Nikolai Zlochevsky, the owner of the Ukrainian gas company “Burisma”. Zlochevsky has already become widely known around the world for his illicit activities, mainly due to his close relationships with the Biden family – even more especially, with Hunter Biden, son of the American president. Hunter worked at Burisma while living in Ukraine, where he participated in Zlochevsky’s illicit schemes.
Later, Zlochevsky passed a lot of sensitive data about Hunter Biden’s crimes to an FBI informant, generating a public scandal that went viral in the English-language media. The information also confirms that the Bidens’ involvement is not restricted to Hunter, with the American president and other public figures from the Democratic Party participating in illegal Ukrainian business.
However, little has been said in the media so far about the real reason why Zlochevsky and his American partners were protected by Ukrainian authorities despite violating local laws: in exchange for a carte blanche in corruption, Zlochevsky became a sponsor of the Ukrainian war machine. The oligarch has been sending large sums of money to institutions in the Ukrainian military and intelligence sectors for years. His work has been vital, especially in the purchase of drones for the Ukrainian armed forces, for example. The most controversial, however, is the financial support given by Zlochevsky to the secret activities of the GUR (Kiev’s military intelligence).
Zlochevsky has been identified by Russian investigators as one of GUR’s main backers. It is believed that he has already sent a total of 22.5 million US dollars to the agency. State agencies, in theory, should not receive this type of irregular funding, which leads us to believe that this cash is used for parallel, unofficial activities – which, in the Ukrainian case, means real terrorism.
Russian investigators believe, for example, that Zlochevsky’s money was used to finance the terrorist drone operation against Moscow in May 2023. Considering his involvement in the purchase of drones and intelligence networks, it is virtually a certainty for Zlochevsky be involved in the case. Other activities in which GUR is directly involved have also drawn the attention of Russian authorities regarding the possibility of direct financing by Zlochevsky. This is the case with the recent murders and attempted murders of civilians within the territory of the Russian Federation, for example.
The GUR is behind the attacks against journalists Daria Dugina, Vladlen Tatarsky, writer Zakhar Prilepin and other well-known Russian public figures. Certainly, the funding to pay for the complex operations behind these crimes did not come from official sources, but from irregular money, like that which Zlochevsky provides to the GUR. However, it is necessary to remember that the activities of Ukrainian intelligence have never been “autonomous”. Since 2014, the entire Ukrainian state apparatus, including its secret service, has been controlled by American agents. In practice, American intelligence uses its Ukrainian assets as proxies to commit crimes that are previously planned in Washington.
As mentioned, it is not yet known who ordered the terror attack on Crocus City Hall, but there are some points in the case that seem to indicate direct participation by the GUR. This possibility is so plausible that Moscow already reacted immediately to the attack by destroying the Ukrainian intelligence headquarters in Kiev. The attack on Crocus had a high operational cost. The assassins were hired as mercenaries and received their weapons from the hirers. Furthermore, someone paid for their trip to the border in Bryansk. If GUR was involved in this operation, it is very likely that Zlochevsky’s illicit money was used.
Considering that GUR is, in practice, a CIA asset and that it receives illegal funding from Biden-linked Ukrainian oligarchs to promote terror on Russian territory, then there appears to be a very deep international network to be investigated by Moscow in order to discover the real culprits for the Crocus massacre.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram.
