DOJ Asks Court to Toss Whistleblower Lawsuit Alleging Pfizer Defrauded U.S. Government
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | March 14, 2024
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on Tuesday asked to intervene in a lawsuit alleging Pfizer committed fraud during clinical trials for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.
The DOJ simultaneously asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed by whistleblower Brook Jackson, against Pfizer.
“The United States should not be required to expend resources on a case that is inconsistent with its public health policy,” the DOJ said in its motion to dismiss.
Jackson told The Defender the DOJ’s motion was “expected” and “will clarify the standards for good cause being applied” regarding the U.S. government’s justification for “allowing Pfizer to commit fraud on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration” (FDA).
“This fraud has undoubtedly cost American taxpayers billions of dollars and has led to an untold number of injuries from the COVID-19 countermeasure, including permanent disability and death among my fellow citizens,” Jackson said.
Jackson is a former employee of the Ventavia Research Group, an independent lab that conducted some of the clinical trials for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.
In January 2021, she sued Pfizer, Ventavia and ICON plc, another Pfizer contractor, alleging the companies committed numerous violations of the False Claims Act during the trials.
In September 2022, Jackson filed an amended complaint, which was dismissed in April 2023. She subsequently filed a second amended complaint in October 2023, prompting the DOJ to claim it “has good cause to intervene and is entitled to dismissal” of the case.
Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for April 17 before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division.
Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical industry executive with 25 years of experience in pharmaceutical research and development, told The Defender, “The case alleges that Pfizer committed fraud in order to get the contract for COVID-19 vaccines from the U.S. government while knowingly delivering a defective product.”
“The fraud that Jackson describes … has not been disputed by Pfizer,” Latypova said.
Robert Barnes, one of the lawyers representing Jackson, spoke at a March 8 presentation of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, where he said, “Any and every form of fraud they could commit, they did,” referring to Pfizer.
“[Jackson] discovered it, uncovered it and went through the appropriate internal review protocols and assumed that people would correct the defects,” Barnes said. “And instead of that occurring, she was summarily fired.”
‘Pfizer lied in order to get paid’
The DOJ’s motion to dismiss states that Jackson “alleged that defendants violated the protocol for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial at three study sites in Texas and that defendant Pfizer misrepresented the safety and efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).”
Jackson filed her lawsuit under the False Claims Act, which allows the government or a party suing on its behalf, such as Jackson, to attempt to recover money for false claims made by parties in an attempt to secure payment from the government.
Those parties, such as Pfizer-BioNTech, can be held liable under the act if they knowingly made a false claim or used a false record or statement to secure payment.
According to the DOJ’s filing, the False Claims Act “requires the United States to notify the court whether it will intervene in the qui tam action or decline to take over the action,” following “a period of investigation.” A qui tam action refers to any legal case where a private citizen initiates legal action on behalf of a state.
The government may choose whether to intervene in qui tam cases. If it does, it may then proceed with the lawsuit instead of the citizen who originally filed the claim — known as a “relator.”
The government may subsequently opt to settle the case or to file a motion to dismiss, which the DOJ did.
The DOJ claims the U.S. “has good cause to intervene for the purpose of dismissal” based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent in a June 2023 ruling, United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources Inc., et al., that said the government may intervene and move to dismiss a False Claims Act case at any time in the life of the case.
The DOJ further claimed that the U.S. government has good cause to intervene in the case because it has access to the same clinical trial data, adverse event data and other scientific research Jackson refers to in her complaint.
To support the DOJ’s claims, the motion cites a Jan. 5, 2024, JAMA editorial authored by FDA Commissioner Robert Califf and the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Peter Marks, claiming that:
“Contrary to a wealth of misinformation available on social media and the internet, data from various studies indicate that since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic tens of millions of lives were saved by vaccination.”
The DOJ also argued that, if the case is allowed to continue, the discovery process and ongoing legal proceedings “will impose a significant burden on FDA, HHS [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services], and DOJ.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s Polansky ruling, Jackson said:
“The government came in at the very last moment and did what they’re doing in this case, trying to get rid of it.
“So, it went all the way to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ruled that based on the False Claims Act, the government has the ultimate authority to do whatever it wants to do in a sense. But again, having to show … good cause.”
Latypova said that once a case is filed under the False Claims Act, “it immediately goes under seal for an initial 60 days.” After this, “The government has 60 days to decide whether to intervene in the case or not. They could have intervened and dismissed or they could have declined to intervene and not dismiss.”
According to Jackson, “In February 2022, after keeping the case sealed and investigating the allegations for nearly 14 months, the government chose not to intervene but did not move to dismiss either. The case was then unsealed, allowing me to proceed with the action on my own, acting on behalf of the U.S.”
“The Justice Department waited until the last minute before the first round of dismissal hearings before the judge, and they made a very rare intervention, but not a full intervention,” Barnes said. “They attempted that and it partially worked,” he added, referring to the initial April 2023 dismissal of Jackson’s lawsuit.
Barnes added:
“We succeeded in getting the judge to reconsider his ruling, and he reinstated the fraud and the inducement claim, because that’s what the claim is fundamentally about — that Pfizer lied in order to get paid. They lied about what they were delivering. They said what they were delivering was safe. It wasn’t.”
Barnes said that under the U.S. government’s contract with Pfizer, the U.S. was “not paying for a therapeutic, they were not paying for a diagnostic, they were paying for something that would inoculate. And of course, this never did.”
According to Latypova, by waiting until now to file a motion to intervene, based on the Polansky ruling, the government opted to wait until “after they had an opportunity to get as many shots in as many arms as they possibly could.”
“This is the second time the DOJ is planning to intervene and to ask the court to dismiss the second amended complaint from Brook,” Latypova said. “This clearly points to the U.S. government’s desire to not investigate the clinical trial fraud for COVID-19 vaccines,” she said.
Jackson said the DOJ still must show good cause, noting that a motion to dismiss “must be done in good faith and they must provide good cause — this is key, and why I am confident that these motions will be denied,” she said.
“The government must show … why they have a reasonable argument that it is more likely than not that the downsides to the case exceed the upsides,” Barnes said. “In a multi-billion-dollar case, what’s that argument going to be from the Justice Department?”
Discovery could show government covered up vaccine adverse events
If the DOJ’s motion to dismiss fails, the process of discovery will proceed and that may reveal more evidence of a possible government cover-up.
“We believe discovery will show the government wasn’t conducting any meaningful investigation at all,” Barnes said. “It was lying to Brook Jackson, it was lying to her counsel, and more importantly, to a certain degree, it was lying to the court.”
“What was really occurring all along is that the Justice Department was deliberately slow-rolling the case for the benefit of Pfizer,” Barnes added.
“We’re going to ask to potentially receive some discovery in what that 14 months of government investigation looked like and why they chose to keep it under seal so long and at that point, dismiss … We want to know why,” Jackson said.
As for what discovery may reveal, Latypova said she is “quite certain” that “it would confirm all allegations of fraud that have been observed by Brook — violations of the clinical trial protocol, unblinding, lack of proper informed consent, manipulation of data, hiding adverse events from the vaccines, and more.”
“I hope that the discovery would also produce unredacted contracts between the Department of Defense and Pfizer,” Latypova added.
The opportunity to file a second amended complaint also allowed more evidence to be incorporated into the case, Jackson said, as the previous complaint only allowed her to “claim what I knew as of September 2020.”
“We found out more about the approval process through the FDA’s release of the clinical trial documents. As more people came forward, as science evolved, we learned more,” Jackson said.
According to Latypova, this new information includes preclinical studies from Pfizer and Moderna, human adverse event data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and other databases, and “reports and published studies from thousands of physicians and injured people.”
“The data is overwhelming, showing severe damage caused by these products,” Latypova said. “The documentation also demonstrates that the manufacturers knew that the product is extremely dangerous … Yet, they lied about the product’s safety, efficacy and manufacturing quality and took billions of dollars in taxpayers’ money.”
According to Barnes, constitutional issues will also be at play if the lawsuit proceeds. This includes “whether or not impermissible First Amendment issues are motivating the Justice Department in pursuing this case, a case that might embarrass the current administration that was in bed with Pfizer as to this vaccine.”
“It’s been four years of fighting a system that I thought was on our side,” Jackson said. “We’ve lost sight of what, or rather who, the government serves. It’s the people.”
“I’ll remind the powers-that-be in Washington once again that according to the U.S. Constitution, the government’s job is to protect and serve the people. We are the sole interest, and we demand vindication.”
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
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.
USAID’s “Disinformation Primer:” Documents Reveal Censorship Promotion Across Sectors
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | March 15, 2024
The authorities in the US are once again caught red-handed promoting censorship, this time via the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
USAID is normally used by the US government to spread its influence around the world, but now, according to documents from a case against the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC), the agency also actively participates in analyzing and spreading various censorship methods.
The lawsuit in question was filed by America First Legal (AFL), alleging that the State Department, via GEC, engages with private media to advance what the non-profit believes is government/private sector censorship and propaganda collusion.
Now, USAID’s controversial activities have also been exposed thanks to the lawsuit, which revealed that one of the agency’s bureaus, the Center on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG) has come up with a “Disinformation Primer” – a 97-page document marked as being “for internal use only.”
The Disinformation Primer – in fact, a censorship primer, to sum up the Foundation for Freedom Online watchdog’s interpretation of the strategy – was “up and running” only one month after Joe Biden got sworn in, in February 2021.
The extensive “primer” seeks to exert influence on how private tech, but also media companies can increase the level of existing censorship; the already existing engagement with private entities is at the same time commended by USAID.
Other targets, more in line with USAID’s overall activities, include foreign governments, specifically education departments, and funding sources. Inevitably, more “partners” are NGOs, non-profits, and think tanks, often themselves with ties to the government.
Some of the censorship techniques that USAID likes and recommends are Advertiser Outreach, which is designed to cut off media and accounts on social platforms from ad revenue, if their speech is what’s known as “disfavored” (by those in power).
Another is propping up legacy media as these outlets steadily lose trust, with things like “prebunking” and the Redirect Method, developed by Google, which “relies on advertising using an online advertising platform such as Google AdWords, targeting tools and algorithms to combat online radicalization that comes from the spread and threat of dangerous, misleading information.”
One striking quote from the document is that gaming sites and gamers should be prevented from forming “interpretations of the world that differ from ‘mainstream’ sources.”
Worth noting is that this censorship, propaganda and indoctrination “handbook” – aimed at curtailing citizens’ freedom of expression and thought – was made using taxpayer money.
Patriot Missile Systems Too Complex and Expensive to Be Sent to Ukraine Without US Chaperones
Sputnik – 15.03.2024
While more and more US-supplied weapon systems are taken out by Russian forces in the Ukrainian conflict, the Pentagon vehemently denies the presence of US military personnel in Ukraine who may be operating and maintaining this hardware.
Though a spokesperson for the Pentagon told Russian media that there are no US personnel in Ukraine servicing Patriot missile launchers or some other US hardware, retired US Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, a former analyst for the US Department of Defense, did not seem convinced by these claims.
“I think the US government is lying, by omission and also directly, on this question of US servicemen operating or maintaining equipment, specifically the Patriot system, in Ukraine,” Kwiatkowski told Sputnik.
“Given the vulnerability and the expense and the limited number of these systems, I find it difficult to believe that the US contractors and US operators are not involved and monitoring day-to-day activities in each of these areas of operation,” she said. “Maintenance of these systems requires over a year of training, and I expect major maintenance is being monitored and done by US contractors and servicemen.”
Noting that the Patriot missile systems supplied to Kiev were provided by Germany and the US, along with “some missiles and parts from the Netherlands,” the former analyst speculated that “contracted US support connected directly to those countries may also be in the country,” thus “providing deniability for the Pentagon.”
Kwiatkowski also brought up the recent affair involving a leaked call between German military officers discussing attacks against Russian territory, who mentioned “somewhat humorously the large number of people aiding the fight in Ukraine who have ‘an American accent’.”
She pointed out that the CIA that has been “heavily involved in Ukraine” since long before 2022, “often serves as a vehicle with which to take on experts from the US military via direct hiring, temporary assignment, or via the contracted use of skilled retirees from the US active duty military and reserve forces.”
Kwiatkowski added that, considering the cost of the Patriot systems and their missiles, along with the “extensive training required for all aspects of this expensive system,” it would seem that the predictions made last year about the transfer of these weapons being “largely a political statement of support rather than a significant system of air defense for Ukrainian cities” were correct.
Confusion reigns between “indemnity” and “immunity”
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | March 12, 2024
We sporadically hear of vaccine injury cases in the UK being contemplated or even launched against covid vaccine manufacturers. We also frequently hear people say that “the covid vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued as they have an indemnity”.
It is very important that this be clarified. An indemnity is not the same as immunity.
In the USA manufacturers have immunity (which can potentially be attacked under certain circumstances – such as in the presence of fraud) imposed by a law known as “The PREP Act”. Immunity is a legal shield. The law simply provides that “these manufacturers shall not have any civil liability”.
But in the UK the manufacturers do not have such immunity. What they have – in their contracts with the UK government – is an indemnity. An indemnity is an agreement that one party shall cover the losses of the other.
In this case it provides that the UK government will pay any damages which the manufacturers are liable to pay to claimants if they are sued. But it doesn’t stop anyone actually suing the manufacturers – it just means that any damages awarded are actually paid by the government (and ultimately by the beleaguered taxpayers). In exchange for this, the government gets to control and direct the defence to any claim – as well as paying the legal bills!
This has a number of implications including these:
- If the government is “on the hook” it may well either directly or indirectly pressure the judicial system so that these cases are impeded in some way. We can hope this is not the case, but experience of other legal cases over the past few years suggests this might be naive.
- If the government sees many claims incoming they may try to “pick off” some more obvious ones and put a “line in the sand”, setting quite a high bar for claimants in an attempt to limit the size of the eventual claims.
- On the other hand, if they see a huge number of claims, they may choose to “fight to the death”.
- One other scenario is that they eventually decide they were duped and they then just tell the manufacturers they are no longer honouring the indemnity.
It is also important to recognise that in the UK Parliament makes, amends, and annuls laws at will. There is nothing – except politics – to stop them just going to the manufacturers and threatening to change the law so as to hold them responsible for claims, and that they will make them easier for claimants (perhaps by extending the “limitation period” – normally 3 years – by which a claim has to be lodged or else it become time-barred). This could, for example, be used as leverage to get the manufacturers to set up schemes of compensation.
Generally speaking, retroactive changes to laws are considered undesirable as they could make companies reluctant to do business in a particular country, since companies prefer legal certainty before committing capital; in this case however it is possible that the political imperative becomes so great that the government is effectively forced into ensuring that the injured receive proper recompense and that the manufacturer – not the taxpayer – foots the bill.
Gatwick Airport Tesla Fire Cover Up
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | March 14, 2024
Looks like another EV fire is being covered up:
As Geoff points out, there is very little mention of this on the internet, other than the Express. I have located a couple of photos. Fortunately the fire was containable in an outside car park, which would not have been the case in a multi-storey:
https://uknip.co.uk/news/uk/sussex/gatwick-airport-car-park-scene-of-overnight-blaze/
https://twitter.com/GeoffBuysCars/status/1768220704279773374/photo/1
It is strange by the way that Bedfordshire Fire Service don’t seem to have yet published their report into the Luton Airport fire last October, or even provided any updates since the first few days.
One wonders what they are trying to hide!
Culture Warriors Spread Disinfo on ‘Haitian Cannibals’
By Patrick Macfarlane | The Libertarian Institute | March 14, 2024
In the first few years of the 2020s, the world witnessed a revolution in the dissemination of atrocity propaganda. Thanks to the proliferation of social media, smartphone ownership, and artificial intelligence, atrocity claims can now be manufactured, disseminated, and, thankfully, debunked in real time.
Although technology may be evolving, lies do not change much.
During World War I, the British claimed Germans boiled the corpses of their war dead to make fat and glycerin for munitions. More recently, we’ve seen accusations of industrial organ harvesting in Xinjiang, China and claims that Hamas “beheaded babies” in Israel. A key element of these atrocity stories, and many like them, is their over-the-top cartoonization of violence.
Amidst violent political upheaval in Haiti, a narrative has emerged that Haitian society is devolving into widespread cannibalism. A video even emerged purporting to show popular opposition figure, Jimmy “Barbeque” Cherizier, cutting the flesh off a burning corpse and eating it.
This propagandistic narrative comes at a crucial juncture where Western powers have for three years failed to drum up yet another foreign military intervention in this ill-fated nation.
After the assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moise in 2021, Haiti was ruled by U.S.-installed President Ariel Henry. Many Haitians viewed Henry as an American puppet leader. Because Henry was unable to stabilize the country, the United States pushed the United Nations to deploy a peace keeping force to his nation.
Two weeks ago, Henry left Haiti for Kenya, attempting to secure Joe Biden’s long-desired UN security deployment. In his absence, Haiti’s organized opposition united under the leadership of Jimmy “Barbeque” Cherizier. The united opposition launched an armed revolution that dragged Haiti further into discord, albeit with the goal of creating a truly independent and prosperous country. Unable to safely return to Port-au-Prince, Henry resigned on Tuesday.
Last Saturday, reports began to circulate that Haiti was under siege by cannibal gangs. However, the claims were not reported by mainstream outlets. Instead, they were made on X (formerly Twitter) by popular culture war influencers. These influencers used these reports to sow fear that the unrest will spread to the United States through immigration. With 10.4 million views as of this writing, Malaysian national Ian Miles Cheong circulated the first and most viewed Haiti cannibalism report. The report was furthered, among others, by Dom Lucre, Jake Shields, Tim Pool, and Libs of Tiktok.
Given his position as the wealthiest man in the world and the owner of X, Elon Musk has an effect, intended or not, of legitimizing the information he interacts with on the platform. As is the case with Cheong’s cannibalism report, the information might not be reliable. Nevertheless, Musk drove a number of his 176.3 million followers to Cheong’s post by replying to it.
So, just what was the problem with Cheong’s report? He doesn’t have a source.
On Tuesday, Cheong posted a screenshot of an email he ostensibly received from NBC Reporter David Ingram asking where he got his information.
In the email, Ingram asks Cheong if his cannibalism claim originates from the “unnamed source” referred to by a Daily Express U.S. article. Cheong ridiculed the question, saying, “I just received a request for comment from NBC News asking me to prove cannibalism exists in Haiti. I wish I was making this up.”
Despite Cheong’s mockery, Ingram’s question was legitimate. Cheong made a specific claim in his post. He did not claim “cannibalism exists in Haiti.” He claimed “cannibal gangs are besieging the national palace in Port-au-Prince.”
While Ingram did not link to the article in his email, he was likely referring to this March 5 piece, which states:
… a journalist on the ground told Daily Express US that cannibalism has been witnessed on the streets as the violence reaches “unprecedented” levels… Speaking anonymously, they said: “Haiti is living in a total chaotic situation right now. It is total chaos everywhere, especially in the capital where I am right now”… Following the interview, the journalist said via message: “Cannibalism is not widespread, but definitely an indication of the worsening situation. It definitely happens on a few occasions.”
If Cheong did indeed source his report from the Daily Express U.S. piece, the original claim is dubious. The source is hearsay; the anonymous reporter was told by alleged witnesses that they observed cannibalism. The reporter then told the Daily Express U.S. that cannibalism “definitely happens on a few occasions.” He did not say that he had personally witnessed cannibalism, neither did he allege a specific incident where cannibalism took place.
Furthermore, Cheong mischaracterized the Daily Express report. Cheong’s initial tweet claimed “Cannibal gangs are besieging the national palace in Port-au-Prince.” Cheong transformed the report from “cannibalism definitely happens on a few occasions,” to “cannibal gangs are besieging the national palace[.]”
Another popular culture war influencer, Dom Lucore, subsequently circulated a video of a Haitian gangster eating burnt flesh from a charred human corpse. Lucore claimed the man in the video was opposition leader Jimmy “Barbeque” Cherizier.
Despite being corrected by Dan Cohen, a journalist who personally filmed a documentary featuring Cherizier, Lucore doubled down on the claim.
Although the video probably does depict a Haitian gangster eating human flesh, it is clearly not Jimmy Cherizier. Further, the video is several years old and not connected in any way to what is occurring on the ground in Haiti right now. There is no evidence to suggest that Hatians are eating each other en masse or that criminal gangs are using cannibalism as a weapon of terror.
Does cannibalism exist in Haiti? Apparently, in isolated incidents, yes. But cannibalism has existed there for hundreds of years.
Americans are understandably concerned about illegal immigration. However, they fail to appreciate that this false story supports the case for U.S.-led intervention in Haiti, something the Biden administration has desired for years. A foreign invasion of Haiti would further traumatize the Haitian people and certainly increase the amount of refugees seeking asylum in the United States. As with our prior interventions in Haiti, American taxpayers would be forced to foot the bill.
The CIA Admits Its Long-Time Presence in Ukraine
By Brad Pearce | The Libertarian Institute | March 13, 2024
On February 25, The New York Times published an article titled “The Spy War: How the CIA Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin.” This report was not the result of any leak, but was clearly authorized from the highest level: the CIA brought reporters in to tell the story. Though many spoke on the condition of anonymity to “discuss intelligence matters and sensitive diplomacy,” they do not even create the pretense that this is a story that the CIA doesn’t want the public to know. The clear purpose, stated almost explicitly near the end of the article, is to guilt the Republicans in Congress into supporting Ukraine aid, with the argument that we are “in too deep” and cannot abandon them like our erstwhile allies in Afghanistan. The impact of the article was muted and it was barely discussed outside of those critical of Ukraine aid, because neither the CIA nor the Times seem to have realized the implications of these admissions: it shows that the post-Maidan government of Ukraine pro-actively made itself the base of a hostile conspiracy against Russia.
The short summary of what The New York Times presents is that after the U.S.-backed “Maidan Revolution” in Ukraine in 2014, the newly appointed spymaster went to the intelligence headquarters to find that all of the files had been destroyed when the previous government left. He immediately called the CIA and MI6 to form an alliance to counter Russia. They created a specialized anti-Russia division, staffed exclusively by people born after the fall of the USSR (at that time, no older than 23) and began training them in spying on and sabotaging Russia. The Ukrainian intelligence agents were anti-Russia zealots who expressed a hatred of all Russian speakers, not simply opposition to Putin’s regime or Russian imperialism. The CIA were unable to control their proteges, who carried out violent missions against Russia and the allied “People’s Republics.” This is described as an American “beachhead” against Russia in Ukraine. Since the February 2022 invasion, the CIA has been involved in acts of war against Russia from a network of U.S.-funded bases across Ukraine.
We haven’t heard any of the normal pontificating about “operational security” and “sources and methods” since this was released. The CIA wants us to read this investigation, and the government isn’t pretending otherwise. Besides the transparent purpose—that it should guilt people into funding Ukraine—there are a few other theories as to why this was released. The first would be that it is a “limited hangout,” meaning they are admitting this much in the hopes people don’t look further into it. The next is that it is what some call “pre-bunking,” which is to say that they know a scandalous story is coming out and this is to get ahead of it. But it takes at least a few weeks to produce a story of this size, if not a couple of months, so it would be really risky to release this hoping it would come out before other information that they could not control the release of; the Times claims to have conducted over 200 interviews with only two authors. The other possibility is that it signifies a coming break up between the CIA and Ukrainian intelligence, which is possible, given that The New York Times published another article titled, “Mutual Frustrations Arise in US-Ukraine Alliance,” which described the relationship in terms clearly meant to invoke a troubled marriage. However, the most likely answer is the simplest: they are proud of what they have done, and think by telling the world it will encourage more funding.
By publishing this in The New York Times, the idea that the CIA was highly active in an anti-Russian conspiracy operating in Ukraine is another thing that has moved from the realm of “conspiracy theory” to “of course it’s true, and here’s why that’s a good thing.” But for all of this, there has been very little discourse about the story, and most of that has been from skeptics of arming Ukraine. It did not have the impact that they wanted, but it seems to have not had impact at all. The supporters of Ukraine throughout the media do not have anything to say about this specific Times article, despite that publication being the gate-keeper of respectable discourse and usually once it prints something it can be discussed everywhere. If this was a ploy to get more funding, it doesn’t seem to have worked.
What both the CIA and The New York Times failed to understand about their story is that it reinforces many of Russia’s key points. The most important of which is that we have constantly been told that Russia presents a threat to all of its neighbors and that Finland and Poland need to be afraid (though they certainly don’t act like it) and that if Russia isn’t stopped in Ukraine they will roll their tanks into Brussels. It doesn’t seem anyone actually believes this, but they say it. The Times exposed a different story, which shows that, as Russia has said, Ukraine was a unique situation for a variety of reasons. Per the Times, it is true that an anti-Russia spy conspiracy was centered in Ukraine, by people who hate all Russian speakers. It’s obvious to a reader that these are drastically irresponsible people driven by ethnic hatred-—towards the people who inhabit a region they want us to help them reconquer and rule. It is a different question if any of what we learn in this article “justifies” a large military invasion which has caused enormous human suffering on both sides, but the CIA has chosen to admit that post-Maidan Ukraine went to great efforts to pose a threat to Russia. This shows that there is no reason to believe Russia poses a threat to any neighbors who would choose to pursue a policy of peace and good relations. I suppose it is no surprise that they would admit everything we are meant to believe about the war is a lie, but expect us to support their war anyway.
Nord Stream Sues Insurance Companies in London Court – Reports
Sputnik – 12.03.2024
The operator of Nord Stream gas pipelines has sued its insurers in a London court for 400 million euros ($436 million) for their refusal to cover damages following the explosions, the Financial Times reported, citing court documents.
The operator reportedly sued Lloyd’s of London and Arch Insurance companies in February.
The Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines, built to deliver gas under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany, were hit by explosions in September 2022. Nord Stream’s operator, Nord Stream AG, said that the damage was unprecedented, and it was impossible to estimate the time repairs might take.
Russia considers the explosions of the two pipelines an act of international terrorism. There are no official results of the investigation yet, but Pulitzer Prize-winning US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published a report in February 2023, alleging that the explosions had been organized by the United States with the support of Norway. Washington has denied any involvement in the incident.
To date, none of the Western countries involved in the subsequent investigation – Sweden, Denmark, and Germany – have presented explanations of what happened or named a culprit. Moreover, Sweden announced on February 7 that it would drop its investigation into explosions.
US Intel Debunks Biden, Admits Russia ‘Doesn’t Want Direct Military Conflict’ With NATO
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 12.03.2024
US and NATO officials have spent months claiming that Russia has plans to attack bloc countries and calling on the West to prepare for a costly, decades-long confrontation with Moscow. President Putin squashed these allegations in December, calling them “complete nonsense.”
Russia “almost certainly” doesn’t want to go to war with the US or NATO. That’s the view of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in its Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community report.
“Russia almost certainly does not want a direct military conflict with US and NATO forces and will continue asymmetric activity below what it calculates to be the threshold of military conflict globally. President Vladimir Putin probably believes that Russia has blunted Ukrainian efforts to retake significant territory, that his approach to winning the war is paying off, and that Western and US support to Ukraine is finite, particularly in light of the Israel-HAMAS war,” the assessment, presented to US officials in early February but released publicly only on Monday, indicated.
The ODNI listed off all its usual claims about the tools the US expects Russia to use to advance its global interests, ranging “from using energy to try to coerce cooperation and weaken Western unity on Ukraine” (it’s worth recalling here that it was the US, not Russia, which blew up the Nord Stream pipeline network) “to military and security intimidation, malign influence, cyber operations, espionage, and subterfuge,” tools Washington itself has used repeatedly throughout its unipolar moment since 1991.
The report admitted that despite “enormous damage at home and abroad” resulting from the proxy war with NATO in Ukraine, Russia “remains a resilient and capable adversary across a wide range of domains and seeks to project and defend its interests globally and to undermine the United States and the West.”
Kissinger’s Nightmare
The report highlighted deep US concerns about the prospects of enhanced Russian-Chinese cooperation – an eventuality which gurus of US foreign policy like Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski spent their careers warning about and seeking to avoid by dividing the Eurasian mega powers.
“Moscow’s deep economic engagement with Beijing provides Russia with a major market for its energy and commodities, greater protection from future sanctions, and a stronger partner in opposing the United States. China is by far Russia’s most important trading partner with bilateral trade reaching more than $220 billion in 2023, already surpassing their total 2022 volume by 15 percent,” the document indicated.
On the economic front, the ODNI expects Russia’s GDP to record “modest growth” this year (the IMF expects a 2.6 percent bump in Russia’s GDP – up from 1.5 percent projected last fall), and says the country’s economic ties with non-Western countries will continue to strengthen.
“Moscow has successfully diverted most of its seaborne oil exports and probably is selling significant volumes above the G7-led crude oil and refined product price caps, which came into effect in December 2022 and February 2023, respectively – in part because Russia is increasing its use of non-Western options to facilitate diversion of most of its seaborne oil exports and because global oil prices increased last year,” the report said.
On top of that, US intelligence expects Moscow to maintain “significant energy leverage,” even in Europe, where it remained the second-largest supplier of liquefied natural gas through the first half of 2023 despite Brussels’ self-defeating restrictions.
Assuring that the NATO proxy war in Ukraine has “incurred major, lasting costs for Russia,” the ODNI nonetheless admitted that the defensive strategy Moscow took in the face of Kiev’s summer counteroffensive “plays to Russia’s strategic military advantages and is increasingly shifting the momentum in Moscow’s favor.” Russia’s defense sector is engaged in “significantly ramping up production of a panoply of long-range strike weapons, artillery munitions, and other capabilities that will allow it to sustain a long high-intensity war if necessary. Meanwhile, Moscow has made continual incremental battlefield gains since late 2023, and is benefitting from uncertainties about the future of Western military assistance,” the report said.
Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are listed as the four major state actors “engaging in competitive behavior that directly threatens US national security,” with China specifically listed as a power which “vies to surpass the United States in comprehensive national power and secure deference to its preferences from its neighbors and from countries around the world, while Russia directly threatens the United States in an attempt to assert leverage regionally and globally.”
Iran is listed as a threat to “US interests, allies, and influence in the Middle East” and a nation which “intends to entrench its emergent status as a regional power while minimizing threats… and the risk of direct military conflict.” As for the DPRK, the ODNI expects North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to “continue to pursue nuclear and conventional military capabilities that threaten the United States and its allies,” with strengthening economic, diplomatic and defense ties with China and Russia expected to help Pyongyang achieve “international acceptance” of the DPRK’s status as a nuclear power.
The ODNI report’s section on Russia, and specifically the passage admitting Moscow’s lack of desire to wage a shooting war against US and NATO runs contrary to months of claims by officials ranging from President Biden to NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg to a host of US and European media that if Russia is “allowed to win in Ukraine,” its next target will be bloc countries.
“We can’t let Putin win,” Biden warned in December 2023, while urging Congress to approve his $61 billion in proposed new aid for Ukraine. “If Putin takes Ukraine, he won’t stop there… He’s going to keep going. He’s made that pretty clear. If Putin attacks a NATO ally – well, we’ve committed as a NATO member that we’d defend every inch of NATO territory. Then we’ll have something that we don’t seek and that we don’t have today: American troops fighting Russian troops,” Biden claimed.
“It’s complete nonsense – and I think that President Biden understands that,” Putin retorted. “Russia has no reason, no interest – no geopolitical interest, neither economic, political nor military – to fight with NATO countries,” he said.
But even after the ODNI assessment was published for internal use in February, US and NATO officials continued with the “aggressive Russia” narrative.
Last month, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg urged the West to “prepare ourselves for a confrontation that could last decades,” and claimed that “if Putin wins in Ukraine, there is no guarantee that Russian aggression will not spread to other countries.”
In his interview with Tucker Carlson last month, Putin said it was “absolutely out of the question” for Russia to attack NATO members unless they began aggression first. “We have no interest in Poland, Latvia or anywhere else. Why would we do that? We simply don’t have any interest,” Putin said.
The ODNI report finally admits what Russia has been saying all along. The question is: why now?
New calls for inquiry into Climate Change Committee
Net Zero Watch | March 11, 2024
Campaign group Net Zero Watch is again calling for an inquiry into the Climate Change Committee (CCC), the Government’s official advisers on decarbonisation. The move follows revelations at the weekend that the organisation’s chief executive, Chris Stark, had tried to use obfuscation to “kill” questions over the adequacy of its energy system model, rather than addressing them directly. This behaviour put Stark in direct breach of the Nolan standards for public officeholders.
The scandal, published in the Sunday Telegraph, is just the latest of a series of controversies that have dogged the CCC since its inception.
-
In 2013, it was revealed that CCC chairman Lord Deben had a conflict of interest, retaining his position as chairman of a company involved in windfarm installations after his appointment. He had told the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee that he would divest himself of all such interests if appointed.
-
In 2019, it was revealed that Lord Deben’s family company was still taking large sums of money from businesses working in the environmental sphere.
-
In 2023, it was revealed that those payments to Lord Deben’s company were not properly disclosed in the Register of Interests.
-
In 2021, it was revealed that the CCC had used spurious weather data in their modelling, thus enabling them to reduce the capacity of electricity generation and storage equipment apparently required.
-
It was also revealed that the CCC used spurious figures for the cost of electric vehicles, thus reducing the apparent costs.
-
The CCC tried to hide its model from public scrutiny, spending tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayer’s money fighting a lawful Freedom of Information request.
-
More recently, the CCC admitted that its electricity system modelling is inadequate. The resulting understatement of costs is as much as tens of billions of pounds per year.
-
It has also been revealed that the CCC “waves away” most of the cost problem, simply by assuming extraordinary cost reductions in future. With current technology, the cost of Net Zero will be hundreds of billions of pounds higher.
Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:
The list of scandals at the Climate Change Committee seems to be endless, but Parliamentarians seem to want to let them get away with it. If the House of Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Committee again fails to launch an inquiry into the governance of the CCC, and in particular Chris Stark’s management and the adequacy of the modelling that underpinned the 2019 Net Zero report, it will look very bad.
Featured Video
Israeli Military Medics Are Training On Dead Americans
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
On ‘conflict’, ‘peace’ and ‘genocide’: Time for new language on Palestine
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | June 12, 2021
On 25 May, famous US actor Mark Ruffalo tweeted an apology for suggesting that Israel is committing “genocide” in Gaza.
“I have reflected and wanted to apologise for posts during the recent Israel/Hamas fighting that suggested Israel is committing ‘genocide’,” Ruffalo wrote, adding: “It’s not accurate, it’s inflammatory, disrespectful and is being used to justify anti-Semitism, here and abroad. Now is the time to avoid hyperbole.”
But were Ruffalo’s earlier assessments, indeed, “not accurate, inflammatory and disrespectful”? And does equating Israel’s war on besieged, impoverished Gaza with genocide fit into the classification of “hyperbole”? … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Intelligence Agency Investigating CIA Whistleblower Allegations, Official Confirms
- AIPAC Favorite Ed Gallrein Wants to Bring Back the Draft
- A decade of lies: The US-funded biolab denial saga
- Mainstream US media complicit in selling Gaza genocide, sweeping new analysis finds
- US Overseas Biolabs Probe Aims to Rein in ‘Deep State’ Bureaucracy
- ‘Death to Arabs’: Settler mobs storm Jerusalem’s Muslim, Christian quarters for ‘Flag March’
- China’s position on Iran, Hormuz remains unchanged
- Israeli Military Medics Are Training On Dead Americans
- SCOTT RITTER: Russia Retaliation on Europe No Longer In Doubt
- Guatemala Admits U.S. Pressure Over Cuban Doctors
- If Americans Knew
- We Can’t Curb Nuclear Proliferation If We Don’t Acknowledge Israel’s Nukes
- 43,000 people in Gaza suffered life-changing injuries since October 2023: WHO
- Israel’s 7 October narrative under fresh scrutiny after army accused of deleting footage
- Ex-CENTCOM chief headlines lavish Israeli-American Council gala
- Israel’s 7 October rape hoax gets a 300-page reboot
- Chants of ‘death to Arabs,’ calls for destruction of Al-Aqsa Mosque in racist Jerusalem Day march
- What Fuels My Revolutionary Optimism This Nakba Day
- Gaza elders who survived the Nakba reflect on being displaced by Israel again, 78 years later
- Israel (with US assistance) perpetuates the Nakba; Palestinians remain resilient – Daily Update
- Microsoft fires head of Israeli subsidiary and other managers over surveillance of Palestinians
- No Tricks Zone
- German Expert: “No Climate Crisis” …”Warming Generally Better For Humanity”
- New Paleo Research: Modern ‘Climate Change’ Has Had No Apparent Impact On Precipitation Patterns
- 90% Subsidized… Bielefeld Germany’s €7 Million Hydrogen Garbage Truck Fleet Sits Idle
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
Aletho News 