The US Has Placed Itself In Charge Over Which Nations Get To Eat
By Caitlin Johnstone | October 17, 2021
The globally influential propaganda multiplier news agencies AP and AFP have both informed their readers that a “fugitive” has been extradited to the United States.
“Fugitive businessman close to Venezuela’s Maduro extradited to US,” reads the AFP headline.
“Alex Saab, a top fugitive close to Venezuela’s socialist government, has been put on a plane to the U.S. to face money laundering charges,” AP announced on Twitter.
You’d be forgiven for wondering what specifically makes this man a “fugitive”, and what that status has to do with his extradition to a foreign government whose laws should have no bearing on his life. The Colombian-born Venezuelan citizen Alex Saab, as it happens, is a “fugitive” from the US government’s self-appointed authority to decide which populations on our planet are permitted to have ready access to food. His crime is working to circumvent the crushing US sanctions which have been starving Venezuelan civilians to death by the tens of thousands.
Saab is being extradited from the African nation of Cabo Verde where he has been imprisoned since last year under pressure from the US government. In an article published this past May titled “Alex Saab v. The Empire: How the US Is Using Lawfare To Punish a Venezuelan Diplomat“, Roger D Harris explains how the US uses its domination of the international financial system to crush nations which disobey it and outlines the real reasons for Saab’s imprisonment, which has included torture and draconian living conditions. Harris writes:
Special Envoy and Ambassador to the African Union for Venezuela Alex Saab was on a humanitarian mission flying from Caracas to Iran to procure food and gasoline for the Venezuelan CLAP food assistance program. Saab was detained on a refueling stop in the African nation of Cabo Verde and has been held in custody ever since June 12, 2020.
Saab’s “crime” — according to the U.S. government, which ordered the imprisonment — was money laundering. That is, Saab conducted perfectly legal international trade. Still, his circumventing of the U.S. sanctions – which are designed to prevent relief to the Venezuelans – is considered by Washington to be money laundering.
After a two-year investigation into Saab’s transactions with Swiss banks, the Swiss government concluded on March 25 that there was no money laundering. Saab is being prosecuted because he is serving his country’s interest rather than that of the U.S.
News agencies like AP and AFP are well aware that Saab is being extradited not for breaking any actual law but for daring to transgress Washington’s unilateral sanctions. As FAIR’s Joe Emersberger wrote back in July:
Reuters (3/15/21, 3/18/21) has casually reported that Saab “faces extradition to the United States, which accuses him of violating US sanctions,” and that he has been “repeatedly named by the US State Department as an operator who helps Maduro arrange trade deals that Washington is seeking to block through sanctions.” A Reuters article (8/28/20) about Saab’s case in 2020 mentioned in passing that “the United States this month seized four cargoes of Iranian fuel bound for Venezuela, where fuel shortages are once again worsening.”
Critics of the US empire have had harsh words for the extradition.
“Biden, picking up Trump’s baton, has kidnapped Venezuelan diplomat Alex Saab for the crime of trying to feed Venezuelans in defiance of US sanctions designed to prevent that,” tweeted journalist Aaron Maté. “Venezuelans aren’t allowed to eat so long as the D.C. Mafia has marked their government for regime change.”
Yes indeed. The US government has appointed itself the authority to unilaterally decide which of the world’s populations get to eat and which do not, and to imprison anyone who tries to facilitate unauthorized eating in a US-sanctioned nation.
“The extradition of Venezuelan diplomat Alex Saab is a clear signal the Biden Administration has made no break with Trump’s all out assault on international law,” tweeted journalist Anya Parampil. “Also a worrying sign for the case of Julian Assange— another foreign citizen the US has essentially kidnapped and held hostage.”
This is true. It would seem that the primary difference between Assange’s case and Saab’s is that the US empire is working to extradite Assange because he transgressed its self-appointed authority over the world’s access to information, whereas Saab transgressed its self-appointed authority over the world’s access to food.
“The US rogue state just ripped up every international law, after imprisoning and now extraditing Venezuelan DIPLOMAT Alex Saab. Diplomatic immunity is dead; the US empire killed it. Now all foreign diplomats are fair game to be kidnapped and imprisoned, if Washington wants to,” tweeted journalist Ben Norton, adding, “The US accusations of ‘money laundering’ are absurd and politically motivated. The US claims anyone who violates its ILLEGAL sanctions is a ‘criminal’.”
Indeed, “money laundering” is a vague charge which basically just means trying to conceal the source or destination of money that is deemed to have been obtained illegally, and since the US government considers itself the arbiter of what financial transactions are lawful in nations it is sanctioning, it can apply that claim to anyone who tries to get around US sanctions financially.
The US government does not deny that its sanctions hurt Venezuelans by attacking the economy they rely on to feed themselves, in fact it has openly admitted that “sanctions, particularly on the state oil company in 2019, likely contributed to the steeper decline of the Venezuelan economy.”
The US government also does not deny that the starvation sanctions it has inflicted upon Iran are directed at its civilian population, with then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo openly admitting in 2019 that Washington’s economic warfare against that nation is designed to pressure Iranian civilians to “change the government,” i.e. make them so miserable that they wage a domestic uprising to topple Tehran.
The US government also does not deny that the starvation sanctions it has inflicted upon Syria are designed to hurt its civilian population, with current Secretary of State Tony Blinken reaffirming just this past Wednesday that it is the Biden administration’s policy to “oppose the reconstruction of Syria” as long as Assad remains in power. In other words the US will not allow Syria the funds to help rebuild itself from the devastating regime change proxy war the US and its allies waged against it, even as the UN reports that 60 percent of the nation’s population is close to starvation.
And of course there’s the US power alliance’s horrific blockade on Yemen which is murdering people by the hundreds of thousands via starvation and disease, with the UN reporting that a further 16 million people are “marching towards starvation.”
Starvation is the only kind of warfare where, because of the continual reframing of mass media propaganda, it is considered perfectly normal and acceptable to deliberately target a civilian population with deadly force.
The US empire is entirely open about the fact that it sees itself as the gatekeeper of the world’s food supply. If a population disobeys the empire its people will starve, and anyone who tries to obtain food for them will be arrested by US proxies and extradited to a US jail cell.
This is the imperialist’s vision of heaven on earth. A world where America’s stranglehold over global financial systems allows it to choke off entire populations if their governments disobey imperial decrees, without even firing a shot. A world where the PR nightmares of bombed civilians and destroyed nations are a thing of the past, where disobedient nations can simply be squeezed to death by modern siege warfare tactics while imperial propaganda firms like AP and AFP blame their starvation on their nation’s leaders.
That’s ultimate power right there. That’s total control. Having the world so bent to the will of the almighty dollar and the massive military force with which it is inextricably intertwined to such an extent that disobedience becomes impossible. That’s what’s being fought for in the slow motion third world war that the empire is waging against unabsorbed governments like Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Russia and China. And that’s why those unabsorbed governments are fast at work moving away from the dollar in response.
It should really go without saying, but a power structure that would openly starve civilians to death to ensure global domination is not the sort of power structure that humanity should want dominating the globe. The willingness to do such monstrous things exposes a depravity and a lack of wisdom which has no business determining what direction our world should take into the future.
I cannot do it anymore
In an open letter, an employee of German public broadcaster ARD is critical of one and a half years of Corona coverage: Ole Skambraks has worked as an editorial assistant and editor at the public broadcaster for 12 years.
BY OLE SKAMBRAKS | multipolar magazine | 14. Oktober 2021
I can no longer remain silent. I can no longer silently watch what has been going on for a year and a half now within my organization, a public service broadcaster. Things like “balance”, “social cohesion” and “diversity” in reporting are principles embedded in the statutes and media state contracts. Today, the exact opposite is happening. There is no true discourse and exchange in which all parts of society can come together and find common ground.
From the beginning, I felt that public service broadcasting should fill precisely this space: promote dialogue between advocates of measures and critics, between people who are afraid of the virus and people who are afraid of losing their basic rights, between vaccination supporters and vaccination sceptics. For the past year and a half, however, the space for discussion has narrowed considerably.
Scientists and experts who were respected and esteemed before Covid, who were given space in public discourse, are suddenly labelled cranks, tinfoil hat wearers or Covidiots. As an oft-cited example, consider Wolfgang Wodarg, a medical specialist in several fields, an epidemiologist and a long-time health politician. Until the Covid crisis, he was also on the board of Transparency International. In 2010, as Chair of the Council of Europe Health Committee, he exposed the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in the swine flu pandemic. At that time, he was granted the opportunity to express his opinion on public service broadcasting, but in times of Covid this is no longer possible. His voice has been replaced by that of so-called fact-checkers, who seek to discredit him.
Paralysing consensus
Instead of an open exchange of opinions, a “scientific consensus” was proclaimed, that must be defended. Anyone who doubts this and demands a multidimensional perspective on the pandemic, will reap indignation and scorn.
The same pattern is at work in the newsrooms. For the last one and a half years, I have no longer been working in the daily news business, which I am pleased about. In my current position, I am not involved in decisions about which topics are treated and how. Here, I describe my impressions from editorial conferences and an analysis of the reporting. For a long time I did not dare to leave the role of observer, the supposed consensus seemed too absolute and unanimous.
For a few months, I have been venturing out onto the ice, making some critical remarks here and there in conferences. This is often followed by a shocked silence, sometimes a “thank you for pointing it out” and every so often a lecture on why it is not true. This has never resulted in any reporting.
The result of one and a half years of Covid-19 is an unparalleled division in society. Public service broadcasting has played a major role in this. It is increasingly failing in its responsibility to build bridges between the camps and to promote exchange.
It is often argued that the critics are a small, negligible minority, which, for reasons of proportionality, cannot be accommodated to any great extent. This argument should have been retired at least with the Swiss referendum on Covid-19 measures. Despite the lack of free exchange of opinions in mass media in that country too, the votes cast went only 60:40 in favour of the government. (1) With a proportion of 40%, can you talk about a small minority? It also turned out that the Swiss Government had tied Covid-related financial support to the vote, which might have influenced some to tick “Yes” on the ballot.
The developments of the Covid crisis are taking place on so many levels, affecting all parts of society, and thus we clearly need more space for a free debate – certainly not less.
In this context, it is less revealing which topics are being discussed in public service media, than what is not being discussed. The reasons for this are many and need to be subject to honest internal scrutiny. It could be helpful to look at some titles published by the media scientist and former MDR broadcasting adviser Uwe Krüger, for example his book “Mainstream – Warum wir den Medien nicht mehr trauen” (“Mainstream — why we no longer trust the media”).
In any case, it takes courage to swim against the current in conferences where such topics are discussed. Often those who can put forward their arguments in the most eloquent way will get their message across but, if in doubt, the editorial team will decide, of course. Very early on, those critical of the Government’s Covid-19 measures were labelled right-wingers. Which editor will still dare to voice similar ideas?
Open questions
Thus the list of inconsistencies and open questions, which have gone largely unreported, is very long:
- Why do we know so little about “gain of function research” (which aims at making viruses more dangerous to humans)?
- Why does the new Infection Protection Act state that the basic right to bodily integrity and the inviolability of one’s home may be restricted henceforth – even without an epidemic situation?
- Why must people who have already had Covid-19 still get the jab, even though they are at least as well protected as those who are vaccinated?
- Why are we not talking about ”Event 201” and the global pandemic exercises held shortly before the spread of SARS-CoV-2 — at all, or only in the context of conspiracy theories? (2)
- Why was the internal document from the German Federal Ministry of the Interior — a document which was known to the media and in which the authorities were asked to create a “shock effect” to underscore the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on human society — not published in full and discussed publicly?
- Why is the study by Professor Ioannidis on survival rates (99.41% for people under 70) not featured in the headlines, while the fatally flawed, inflated figures produced by Imperial College were (in the spring of 2020, Neil Ferguson foresaw half a million Covid-19 deaths in the United Kingdom and more than 2 million in the United States)?
- Why does it say, in a document produced for the German Federal Ministry of Health, that Covid-19 patients stood for no more than 2% of the burden of hospitals during 2020?
- Why does Bremen have the by far the highest incidence (113 as at 04/10/21) and at, the same time, by far the highest vaccination rate in Germany (79%)?
- Why were payments of 4 million euro paid into a family account belonging to EU Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides, who was responsible for concluding the first EU vaccine contracts with pharmaceutical companies? (3)
- Why are people suffering severe vaccine injury not featured to the same extent as people with severe Covid-19 disease were in 2020? (4)
- Why is no one disturbed by the irregular way of counting “breakthrough infections” in vaccinated people? (5)
- Why does the Netherlands report clearly higher volumes of side effects of the Covid-19 vaccines than other countries?
- Why has the efficacy description of the Covid-19 vaccines published on the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut website been changed three times in the last few weeks? From “Covid-19 vaccines protect against infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus” (on 15 August 2021), via “Covid-19 vaccines protect against severe forms of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus” (on 7 September 2021), to, finally, “Covid-19 vaccines are indicated for active immunization to prevent the Covid-19 disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus” (on 27 September 2021). (6)
A couple of these points warrant a closer look.
“Gain of function” and “Lab leak”
As for “gain of function research” — research aiming at making viruses more dangerous, as was done at the Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, and financed by the United States — so far, I have not heard or read anything substantial. This type of research is done in so-called Biosafety Level 4 Laboratories, where work has been carried out for decades to see how animal viruses can be altered to make them dangerous to humans as well. So far, ARD and ZDF have given this topic a wide berth — despite the obvious need for a debate. One question worth exploring could be: Do we, as a society, want such research to be carried out?
There are numerous reports on the “lab leak theory” – the assumption that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a lab. It is worth noting that last year, this idea was immediately labelled a conspiracy myth. Alternative media investigating this were banned from social media such as YouTube and Twitter and the information was deleted. Scientists who supported this theory found themselves under massive attack. Today, the “lab leak theory” is at least as plausible as the bat transmission theory. The American investigative journalist Paul Thacker published the results of his meticulous research in the British Medical Journal. Commenting on this, Dr. Ingrid Mühlhauser, professor of health sciences at Hamburg University writes:
“Step by step, he [Thacker] reveals how members of an American lab group deliberately concocted a conspiracy theory to disguise their lab accident at Wuhan as a conspiracy theory. This myth is supported by respected journals such as The Lancet. Science journalists and fact-checker services accept the information without any reflection. Participating scientists keep mum, either out of fear, or to avoid running the risk of losing their standing or research grants. For more than a year now, Facebook has blocked posts that question the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. If the lab accident theory is confirmed, then ZDF and other media will have defended conspiracy theories.”
Ivermectin and alternatives to vaccination
For months now, it has been clear that effective and cheap treatments do exist for Covid-19, but their use is not allowed. The data on this is unequivocal. But the pseudoscientific disinformation campaigns against these medications are indicative of the state of medicine today. Hydroxychloroquine is a drug known for decades and used routinely against malaria and rheumatic disorders. Last year, the drug was suddenly deemed dangerous. The statement by then-President Donald Trump that hydroxychloroquine would be a “game changer” did the rest to discredit the medication. The political reasoning no longer allowed a scientific debate on HCQ.
In the spring, the catastrophic situation in India caused by the spread of the Delta variant was widely reported in the media (then still referred to as the Indian variant). But the fact that India rather quickly brought the situation under control, and that the use of Ivermectin in large states such as Uttar Pradesh had a decisive role in this, was not deemed newsworthy. (7)
Ivermectin was granted a temporary authorisation in the Czech Republic and Slovakia for treating Covid-19 patients. This was at least reported by the MDR, albeit with a negative slant.
In its report on possible medications, Bayerischer Rundfunk failed to even mention Ivermectin. As for hydroxychloroquine, only negative studies were cited, omitting all studies with positive results.
In the summer of 2020, lab tests showed that the molecule Clofoctol was also effective against SARS-CoV-2. Until 2005, the antibiotic drug was sold in France and Italy under the commercial names of Octofene and Gramplus. The French authorities repeatedly blocked the Pasteur Institute in Lille from launching a study with Covid-19 patients. At the beginning of September, after several attempts, the first patients were recruited.
Why are the health authorities taking such a strong stand against treatments, which have been available since the beginning of the pandemic? I would have liked to see some investigative research by the ARD here! It has been made clear that the new Covid vaccines could qualify for emergency use authorisation (EUA) only because there was no officially recognised treatment for SARS-CoV-2.
This is not about celebrating any one Covid miracle drug. My aim is to highlight facts which have not been given due consideration. From the outset, the message given in public discourse was that vaccination was the only way out. The WHO even went so far as to change the definition of “herd immunity”, implying that it can only be achieved by vaccination and no longer by previous infection, as was previously the case.
What about if the road chosen is a dead end?
Questions on vaccine efficacy
Data from countries with a particularly high vaccination rate show that infection with SARS-CoV-2 also in fully vaccinated people is more rule than exception. Dr. Kobi Haviv, Director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, reports that between 85% and 90% of severe cases in his intensive care unit are patients who have had two jabs. (8)
As regards Israel as a whole, the journal Science writes: “On 15 August, 514 Israelis were admitted to hospital with severe or critical Covid-19 disease … out of these 514 persons, 59% were fully vaccinated. Out of those vaccinated, 87% were 60 years or older.” Science quotes an Israeli government adviser, who explains: “One of the great stories coming out of Israel [is]: ‘The vaccines work, but not well enough’.”
It is also now evident that, with the Delta variant, vaccinated people carry (and spread) the same viral load as unvaccinated people.
What has this data situation brought about in Germany? — A lockdown specifically for unvaccinated people or, put somewhat euphemistically: the “2G rule”. In fact, society is being divided into two classes. Vaccinated people regain their freedom (as they do not risk endangering others), whereas unvaccinated people (who do risk endangering others) must undergo tests, and pay for them out of their pocket, and will no longer receive sick pay if quarantined. Moreover, employment bans and dismissals on the grounds of vaccination status are no longer out of the question, and health insurance funds may impose less favourable rates on the unvaccinated in the future. Why this pressure on unvaccinated people? This has no foundation in science and is damaging to our society.
Antibodies produced by vaccination wane after only a few months. A look at Israel shows that after the second jab, there will be a third for the whole population, and then a fourth as recently announced. Those who fail to get a booster shot after six months will lose their status as immune and thus their “Green Pass” (the digital Covid-19 pass introduced in Israel). In the United States, President Joe Biden is talking about Covid-19 booster shots every 5 months. Marion Pepper, immunologist at the University of Washington, questions this strategy, explaining to The New York Times that repeated stimulation of the innate immune response can lead to a phenomenon called “immune fatigue”.
It is a little discussed fact that natural infection allows a person to develop clearly stronger immunity. “Ultrapotent antibodies” or ”super immunity” have been found in people who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the last year. These antibodies react against more than 20 different mutations of the virus and remain for longer than antibodies acquired via vaccination.
After all, Health Minister Jens Spahn has now declared that proof of antibodies is also to be accepted. But to be officially recognized as immune you still have to be vaccinated. Who can understand this logic? A CNN interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of NIAID (under the NIH, the National Health Institutes) clearly illustrates the absurdity of the situation. People with natural immunity are still not a consideration in the minds of the politicians!
I know a physician who is desperately trying to get an answer from the health authorities and the RKI to this problem: One of her patients presents an IgG antibody titer value of 400 AU/ml — clearly more than many vaccinated people. As her Covid-19 infection occurred more than six months ago, she has lost her immune status. The answer was: “Give her the jab!” — which the physician will not do, considering the titer value.
A lack of basic journalistic understanding
The way out of the pandemic touted by our politicians and the media turns out to be a permanent vaccine subscription. Scientists advocating a different Covid approach are not able to reach out via public service media, as demonstrated again by the sometimes defamatory reporting on the video action #allesaufdentisch. Instead of discussing the content of the videos with the parties concerned, experts were sought out to discredit the campaign. By doing this, public service commit the very same error which they hold against #allesaufdentisch.
Der Spiegel journalist Anton Rainer opined in the SWR interview about the video action, that these are not interviews in a classical sense: “In principle you see two people agreeing with each other.” Listening to the reporting by my broadcaster gave me stomach pains, and I was very annoyed by the lack of basic journalistic understanding of the need to let those with opposing views have their say. (9) I made my concerns known to those concerned and the editorial team by email.
A typical comment in conferences is that a topic has “already been covered”. For example, when I brought up the high likelihood of underreporting of vaccine side effects. Yes, sure, the topic was discussed with in-house experts, who – no surprises here – concluded that there was no underreporting. “Opposing views” will be discussed here and there, but are rarely given a human face in such a way that broadcasters actually speak with people who hold critical views.
Critics under pressure
The most vocal critics must count on house searches, prosecution, account suspensions, transfers or dismissal, or even referral to psychiatric care. Even if they hold opinions you do not share — this has no place in a state subject to the rule of law.
In the United States, it is already being discussed whether criticising science should be labelled a hate crime. The Rockefeller Foundation has announced a grant of 13.5 million dollars to censor misinformation in the health field.
WDR television broadcasting director Jörg Schönenborn declared that “facts are facts and they hold true”. If that was so, how is it then possible that scientists behind closed doors argue incessantly and even strongly disagree on some quite basic issues? As long as we are not making that clear, any assumption of supposed objectivity will lead to a dead end. We can only hope to edge closer to “reality” – and that is only possible with open exchange of ideas and scientific knowledge.
What is happening now is no honest fight against “fake news”. Rather, we are left with the impression that any information, evidence, or discussion deviating from the official narrative is suppressed.
A recent example is the factual and scientifically transparent video by IT specialist Marcel Barz. By analysing raw data, Barz was able to establish that the actual figures on excess deaths, hospital occupancy rates as well as infections did not correspond to those gleaned from the media and politicians in the last year and a half. He also demonstrates how you can present a perfect image of a pandemic using such data, and explains why he feels this is dishonest. After three days and 145,000 views, the video was deleted from YouTube (and reinstated only Barz after objected, and many others protested). The stated reason: “medical misinformation”. This begs the question: Who decided this, and on what grounds?
The fact-checker from Volksverpetzer dismissed Marcel Barz as “fake”. The verdict by Correctiv was a bit milder (Barz has given a public and detailed reply). He is proved right by the document produced for the German Federal Ministry of Health, which shows that Covid-19-Patienten stood for no more than 2% of the hospital burden during 2020. Barz went to the press with his analysis but was ignored. In a functioning discourse, our media would invite him for a debate.
Covid-related content has been deleted countless times, as shown by journalist Laurie Clarke in The British Medical Journal. Facebook and similar media are private companies and are thus free to decide what may be published on their platforms. But in doing so, are they also allowed to steer the discourse?
Public service broadcasting could have an important balancing role, by offering an open exchange of opinion. Not so, unfortunately!
Digital vaccine passes and surveillance
The Gates and Rockefeller Foundations drafted and financed the WHO guidelines for digital vaccine passes. These passes are now being rolled out everywhere. Only with these passes will public life be possible – whether you want to take the tram, have a coffee or get medical treatment. An example from France shows that this digital pass will stay even after the pandemic ends. MP Emanuelle Ménard demanded the following addition to the legal text: The digital vaccine pass shall end when the virus spread no longer presents a level of danger which justifies its use. Her proposed amendment was rejected. Thus we are but a small step away from global population control or even a surveillance state via projects such as ID2020.
Australia is currently testing a facial recognition app, to ensure that people stay at home when in quarantine. In Israel, electronic wristbands are used for this purpose. In one Italian city, drones are being tested to measure the temperature of beachgoers, and in France, the law is changed to allow large-scale drone surveillance.
All these topics must be subject to intensive and critical scrutiny within our society. This is not happening to a sufficient extent in the reporting by our broadcasting organisations and, indeed, was not an election campaign issue.
Blinkered vision
The way in which public discourse has been curtailed is indicative of the “gatekeeper of information”. A current example comes from Jan Böhmermann, who demanded that virologists Hendrik Streeck and Professor Alexander S. Kekulé be deprived of their opportunity to speak out, claiming that they were not competent to do so.
Even though the two physicians have very impressive CVs, Böhmermann has thus narrowed the field of vision even more. So, now we cannot even listen to people who present their criticism of government policy wearing kid gloves?
Public discourse has been curtailed so much that Bayerischer Rundfunk has more than once refrained from broadcasting speeches by members of state parliaments who take a critical view of the measures during parliamentary debates.
Is that what the new understanding of democracy looks like in public service broadcasting? Alternative media platforms thrive first and foremost because the established platforms fail to do their job as a democratic corrective.
Something has gone wrong
For a long time, I could say with pride and joy that I work in public service broadcasting. ARD, ZDF and Deutschlandradio have generated outstanding research, formats, and content. The quality standards are extremely high and thousands of staff members are doing great work despite increasing cost pressure and savings targets. But with Covid-19, something has gone wrong. Suddenly, I have become aware of tunnel vision, blinkers and a supposed consensus which is no longer questioned. (10)
The Austrian broadcaster Servus TV is proof that another way is possible. In the programme “Corona-Quartett” / “Talk im Hanger 7” proponents and critics are given equal space. Why is that not possible in German television? (11) “You cannot let every crank take the stage”, is the quick retort. The false balance, giving serious and dubious opinions an equal chance to be heard, must be avoided. — A killer argument, which also happens to be unscientific. The basic principle of science is doubt, questioning, checking. If this does not happen, then science has become a religion.
Yes, there is actually a false balance. It is the blind spot in our heads, which no longer allows true debate. We are throwing around apparent facts, but can no longer listen to each other. Contempt replaces understanding, fighting the opposing view replaces tolerance. The basic values of our society are thrown overboard, just like that. Here we go: People who do not want to get the jab are crazy, there we go: “Shame on the sleeping sheep”.
While we are busy fighting, we fail to notice that the world around us is changing at breakneck speed. Virtually all areas of our lives are being transformed. How this develops is essentially determined by our capacity for cooperation, compassion and awareness of ourselves and our words and deeds. For our spiritual wellbeing, we would do well to open the space for debate – while being mindful, respectful and with understanding of different perspectives. (12)
Writing this, I feel like a heretic — someone who commits high treason and must reckon with being punished. Maybe this is not the case. Maybe I am not actually risking my job, and maybe freedom of opinion and pluralism are not under threat. I really hope so and I look forward to constructive exchange with my colleagues.
Ole Skambraks
ole.skambraks@protonmail.com
About the author: Ole Skambraks, born in 1979, studied Political Science and French at Queen Mary University in London, as well as Media Management at the ESCP Business School in Paris. He was a Moderator, Reporter and Writer at Radio France Internationale, Online Editor and Community Manager at cafebabel.com, Programme Manager of the MDR Sputnik morning show and Editor at WDR Funkhaus Europa / Cosmo. He is currently working as an Editor in Programme Management/Sound Design at SWR2.
Further information from the author
PS: For fact-checkers and people interested in a multi-perspective, here are the counter-positions to the points discussed in the text:
Prof. John Ioannidis
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/forscher-john-ioannidis-verharmlost-corona-und-provoziert-17290403.html
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-john-ioannidis/
Imperial College Modelling
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/10/07/covid-19-modelling-the-pandemic/
Gain of function research
https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/next-pandemic/nipah-virus
Hydroxychloroquin / Ivermectin
https://www.br.de/nachrichten/wissen/corona-malaria-mittel-hydroxychloroquin-bei-covid-19-unwirksam,RtghbZ4
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-therapeutics-2021.2
Immunity of the vaccinated
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.23.457229v1
Immunity of the recovered
https://science.orf.at/stories/3208411/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-de-DE
Vaccination breakthroughs / Pandemic of the non-vaccinated
https://www.spektrum.de/news/corona-impfung-wie-viele-geimpfte-liegen-im-krankenhaus/1921090#Echobox=1631206725
https://www.mdr.de/wissen/covid-corona-impfdurchbrueche-sind-selten-100.html
Pseudo-experts / Science Denial / PLURV-Principle
https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/82-Coronavirus-Update-Die-Lage-ist-ernst,podcastcoronavirus300.html#Argument
Notes:
(1) The exception was the coverage of the referendum, during which Swiss television was obliged to give both parties the same broadcasting slot.
(2) More Pandemic-Emergency exercises were “Clade X“ (2018), “Atlantic Storm“ (2005), “Global Mercury“ (2003) and “Dark Winter“ (2001). These exercises were always about information management.
(3) Panorama reported on the payments, but did not clearly portray Kyriakides’ role regarding the Corona vaccine contracts. Otherwise, the issue has not had much prominence in the media.
(4) For example, there was hardly any coverage on public radio of the British musician Eric Clapton, who developed violent reactions after vaccination and now regrets it.
(5) According to the RKI, a vaccination breakthrough is when a vaccinated person can show both a positive test and symptoms – for the unvaccinated, a positive test is sufficient. In this way, the unvaccinated are statistically more significant.
(6) Each under the heading “List of approved vaccines”; previous PEI website editions accessible via the Internet archive Wayback Machine.
(7) The WHO has even praised the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh for its corona policy, but without mentioning ivermectin. The vaccination rate in Uttar Pradesh is below 10 %.
(8) See also FDA meeting of 17 September 2021, at 5:47:25
(9) The fairest reporting comes from BR, although here too it was about and not with the makers. MDR offers a comprehensive and differentiated analysis on its media portal.
(10) I would not like to speak of an actual “unified opinion” of the public broadcasters. There have always been critical contributions and course corrections in reporting. But it is always a question of context, broadcasting time and scope how a topic is treated. My colleagues have also confirmed my observations.
(11) Fresh formats like ZDF’s “Auf der Couch” (On the Couch) give hope, even if I don’t think a Karina Reiß or a Wolfgang Wodarg will be taking a seat there any time soon.
Yahoo! News Informs the Stupid Peasants Why the US Needs to Go to War to Protect Taiwan
By Andrew Anglin | The Daily Stormer | October 14, 2021
Yahoo! News had this headline at the top on Thursday morning.
When you click the article, you get this different headline:
The actual appropriate headline for this article would be “A Baby’s First Guide to Why the US Must Initiate a World War in Order to Prevent Chinese Reunification.”
The article gives a quick, slanted and false outline of the situation which does not attempt to either:
- Explain the Chinese position on Taiwan, or
- Explain why Taiwan is important to “American interests.”
It then gives a series of quotes from supposed experts on what Joe Biden should do.
A firm commitment to defend Taiwan is the best way to prevent an invasion
“The United States needs to remove the ambiguity about whether it would come to Taiwan’s defense. Uncertainty about U.S. intentions raises the risk of war. … President Biden should declare that, though we will not support a Taiwanese declaration of independence from China, we will defend the island if it is attacked.” — Max Boot, Washington Post
The U.S. must accept it has nothing to gain from defending Taiwan
“Bluntly put, America should refuse to be drawn into a no-win war with Beijing. It needs to be said up front: there would be no palatable choice for Washington if China finally makes good on its decades-long threat to take Taiwan by force.” — Daniel L. Davis, defense priorities senior fellow, Guardian
The U.S. should maintain its noncommittal position as long as it can
“As a superpower, the United States should preserve flexibility in its global security relationships. It also is not even obvious that Taiwan’s body politic would welcome an explicit security guarantee from the United States.” — Therese Shaheen, National Review
Taiwan is too important to U.S. interests to let it be taken by the Chinese
“Abandoning Taiwan in the face of a Chinese military assault would be a monumental disaster. … The U.S. cannot afford to see a country that occupies vital strategic space in the Western Pacific subdued by Beijing.” — Hal Brands, Bloomberg
War with China would pose an existential threat to the U.S.
“Stumbling into a shooting war over Taiwan is akin to opening a Pandora’s box, and it would make the last 20 years of conflict in the Middle East look like an uneventful peacekeeping mission. A fight between Washington and Beijing could also escalate to the nuclear level, particularly if the Chinese Communist Party determines that the use of such weapons is the only thing standing in the way of a humiliating defeat.” — Daniel R. DePetris, NBC News
America has a duty to protect the free world from authoritarianism
“The United States and its allies have built and defended a rules-based system over the past 75 years that has produced unprecedented peace, prosperity, and freedom globally. I don’t want to trade that in for a world in which Americans stand by as revisionist autocracies like China gobble up neighbors by military force.” — Matthew Kroenig, Foreign Policy
The U.S. also has diplomatic tools to deter China from invading
“To further demonstrate U.S. resolve, Biden should tell Beijing that any more threats of force against Taiwan’s participation in the democracy summit will trigger immediate diplomatic recognition of Taiwan and an official statement of Washington’s new ‘One China, One Taiwan’ policy. Beijing must understand that war would mean instant Taiwan independence.” — Joseph Bosco, The Hill
The best way to defend Taiwan is through investment, not military threats
“Hyping the threat that China poses to Taiwan does Beijing’s work for it. Taiwan’s people need reasons for confidence in their own future, not just reminders of their vulnerabilities. If American policy makers want to help Taiwan, they will need to go beyond focusing on the military threat. They need to modernize the U.S.-Taiwan economic relationship, help Taiwan diversify its trade ties and provide platforms for Taiwan to earn dignity and respect on the world stage.” — Richard Bush, Bonnie Glaser and Ryan Hass, NPR
Some of those are funnier than others. The idea that a country that is force-vaccinating its population is less authoritarian than a country that is not doing that is actually so ridiculous that it borders on the deranged or outright insane.
But this is actually more anti-war material than you usually see anywhere on a mainstream website, so I guess good job with that, Yahoo!
But while they do include people saying “we really should probably think about whether or not we want to start a nuclear war,” what is lacking is a sober perspective.
Why is Taiwan even an issue?
Why are we even talking about this at all?
Not one single person in this entire media landscape will either:
- Outline, in real terms, how occupying Taiwan is in “the interests of America,” or
- Point out that no one will give that outline
You end up in a situation where no one even has any idea what we’re actually talking about.
How is it possible that we’ve reached the point where we’re considering a nuclear war over vague “strategic interests” that no one is able to explain in concrete terms?
Furthermore – and I hate to be the one to have to point this out – but things are tough all over.
America and the rest of the West have a lot, lot, lot of problems. We have very real economic, political and social problems that no one is offering any solutions to. So the idea that we’re talking about going to war to protect some fake country on the other side of the globe is simply inexplicable.
If I was allowed to offer a 200-word sound bite for that Yahoo! News article, it would be this:
Taiwan is a part of China, and the reasons the US occupied it originally are no longer relevant. Instead of continuing to support the fantasy of a democratic China under the guise of the myth of Taiwanese nationhood, the United States should open talks about reunification. China will be open to giving wide-ranging concessions in exchange for the opportunity at peaceful reunification, and this will allow the West to clear up various unrelated conflicts with China, including on matters of international trade. — Andrew Anglin, Hoax Watch
I am happy that some in the media are finally saying that what we are talking about here is a nuclear war. That’s a long way from where we were a couple years ago, when the State Department first started its saber-rattling under Donald Trump. The humiliation in Afghanistan seems to have sobered a few people up.
But the fact that this discussion still remains so very far outside of the real, in the realm of the viciously and confusingly abstract, speaks to the moronic nature of the American mind. These people are literally asking you to believe that every single person in the entire Western world supports the idea of an “independent and democratic Taiwan” being “strategically important to the United States and its allies” even while not one person among this unified chorus is capable of explaining what either of those concepts means.
The basic fact, which anyone who knows the history knows but which no one in the American media is willing to say (and it wouldn’t be printed if they were willing), is that Taiwan was set up as an alternative government to the CCP government of China. The American goal was to foster a “democracy” government in Taiwan, which would eventually rule all of China. To this day, the government of Taiwan officially claims that it is the legitimate government of the entirety of China. This is not a secret, and yet somehow, it remains totally unsaid, and instead we are told that “Taiwan” is some kind of independent country that “China” is trying to invade and conquer.
The fact that Taiwan is not a country, but a piece of China occupied by the United States, does not necessarily mean that we should just give it back to China. But any serious discussion about whether we should or should not give it back to China should start from the point of accurately defining what Taiwan is. Obviously, if it is accurately defined, that would lead a lot of people to grasp the Chinese perspective on the issue, and make China look much less villainous, which is why there is some kind of soft ban on properly defining Taiwan in the media.
I think it would be morally good to simply give Taiwan back to China. But geopolitics are not based around moral goodness, so it makes sense that because America currently maintains control of Taiwan, America would instead negotiate concessions from China as part of the reunification process. But because we live in this fantasy world, we can’t have that discussion, and instead it’s simply “should we go to war to protect Taiwanese independence?” – a stupid and nonsensical question.
America is not a serious country, and its fixation with censorship has ensured that there can never be any form of seriousness injected into any discussion. Instead of talking about actual reality, the media and the political class argue about fantasies with only abstract connection to physical realities.
This is what a “dying empire” looks like.
Why the Mainstream Media Remains Silent on the JFK Records Deadline
By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | October 13, 2021
With the October 26 deadline only two weeks from now on releasing the 60-year secret records of the CIA relating to the Kennedy assassination, the silence from the mainstream press is deafening. The great mainstream defenders of transparency and openness in government, at least when it comes foreign dictatorships, cannot bring themselves to openly advocate for the release of thousands of records relating to the JFK assassination that the CIA still insists on keeping secret.
Why the silence? I will explain the reason, but first please permit me to restate the prediction I have made regarding this matter.
I predict that within the next weeks, President Biden will grant a request by the CIA for continued secrecy of its assassination-related records. I predict that Biden will order the release of some of the records for appearance’s sake, but he will cite “national security” to justify continuing the secrecy of the vast majority of the records.
Why do I make this prediction? Because the reason that the CIA needed to keep these records secret 60 years ago still exists. That same reason was why it it needed to keep them secret during the 1990s, when the Assassination Records Review Board was enforcing the JFK Records Act of 1992, which mandated the release of all federal records relating to the assassination.
Further, that same reason obviously caused the CIA, despite the law’s mandate, to continue keeping its records secret for another 25 years after the JFK Records Act was enacted. When that deadline came due in 2017, that same reason obviously motivated the CIA to petition President Trump for another extension of time for secrecy, which Trump dutifully granted. That deadline comes due on October 26, 2021 — two weeks from now — and mark my words: The same reason will cause the CIA to request that Biden grant another extension of time for secrecy, which Biden, like Trump, will dutifully grant.
What is the reason that has caused the CIA to want to keep these thousands of records secret from the American people. The reason, I am more convinced than ever, is that the CIA knows that those remaining records constitute more pieces to the overall puzzle of criminal culpability on the part of the CIA in the regime-change operation that took place on November 22,1963.
After all, let’s face it: No matter what definition is put on that nebulous and meaningless term “national security,” there is no possibility that anything bad will happen to the United States if those 60-year-old secret records are released to the American people. The United States will not fall into the ocean. The supposed international communist conspiracy to take over the United States that was supposedly based in Moscow, Russia (yes, that Russia!) during the Cold War won’t be reinvigorated. Communist Cuba will not invade the United States. The dominoes near North Vietnam will not fall to the communists. North Korea will not come and get us.
President Biden just ordered the release of President Trump’s secret records relating to the January 6 Capitol protests. Why not the same decision with respect to those 60-year-old secret records of the CIA relating to the Kennedy assassination?
Why won’t the mainstream press call on Biden to enforce the JFK Records Act of 1992? They’re scared to do so. In a remarkably candid and direct statement made to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow in 2017, New York Senator Charles Schumer explained why they are scared: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer said to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
Schumer was referring to President Trump, but actually the admonition applies to everyone. The CIA, the Pentagon, the NSA, and the FBI — i.e., the entire intelligence community — has “six ways from Sunday at getting back” at anyone who takes it on, including newspaper owners, publishers, and editors.
Most people know about Operation Mockingbird, the top-secret operation of the CIA to acquire assets within the mainstream press to advance the CIA’s propaganda. Does anyone really think that the CIA would stop there in the quest to expand its power and influence?
Not a chance! For example, the entire national-security establishment would concentrate on acquiring, installing, and grooming assets in Congress, which sets the budgets. Does anyone think it’s just a coincidence that Congress gives the national-security establishment whatever it wants plus sometimes even more than what it wants? There is good reason why President Eisenhower planned to use the term “military-industrial-congressional” complex in his Farewell Address. No one can reasonably deny that Congress is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the national-security establishment.
But they obviously would not stop there. They would also be acquiring assets within the IRS, one of the most powerful and tyrannical agencies within the federal government. There isn’t anyone, including newspaper owners, publishers, and editors, who isn’t afraid of receiving an audit notice from the IRS.
And if it happens, no one would ever be able to prove that it originated with the CIA or the rest of the national-security establishment. It would just look like it was occurring at random. If any victim of an IRS audit accused the CIA or the rest of the national-security establishment of being behind the audit, they would be ready to hurl the infamous “conspiracy theorist” label at him.
What newspaper owner, publisher, or editor wants to take that chance? They all know that the national-security establishment frowns very seriously on any mainstream media outlet that even remotely suggests that the Kennedy assassination was a regime-change operation, no different in principle from those in Iran, Guatemala, Cuba, Congo, and Chile both before and after the Kennedy assassination. But they also do not want to take the chance of upsetting the CIA by simply calling on it to release its 60-year-old still-secret records relating to the assassination.
After all, everyone knows that if an entity is powerful enough to regime-change presidents and prime ministers, both foreign and domestic, with impunity, it can easily destroy any mainstream media executive who dares to buck the CIA on the assassination.
It’s just the way life works in a national-security state. It’s why the mainstream media is maintaining strict silence on the upcoming October 26 deadline on the release of those 60-year-old still-secret records of the CIA relating to the Kennedy assassination.
The figures that show the real risk of Covid vaccine in pregnancy
By Sally Beck | TCW Defending Freedom | October 12, 2021
SINCE February, the BBC have been urging pregnant women to take the Covid vaccination despite the fact that no manufacturer will complete a trial in expectant mothers before December this year. Instead, British health chiefs have relied on information from women in the US who accidentally found themselves pregnant after taking the Covid jab, and reported the results of their pregnancy to the V-safe app. V-safe is hosted by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) but it is not a scientific study.
This fact has been ignored, notably by Lucy Chappell, Professor in Obstetrics at King’s College London, and the BBC, to tell women it is safe to go ahead and get the jab.
If that were the case, there would be no related adverse reactions reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the drug company-funded government body collating information on Covid vaccination safety.
But it is there in black and white: miscarriages, stillbirths and one foetal death have been reported, 590 to date, 12 last week alone. Pfizer have one third more reports than AstraZeneca and Moderna, primarily because the AZ jab has been suspended for under-40s and the Moderna has been in use only since April, while the Pfizer has been available since December 2020. Women in their 30s were invited to receive the jab in May so those of child-bearing age have officially been receiving the vaccine for around four months.
The MHRA is not concerned about the figures and says: ‘The numbers of reports of miscarriage and stillbirth are low in relation to the number of pregnant women who have received Covid-19 vaccines to date (more than 92,000 up to end of August 2021) and how commonly these events occur in the UK outside of the pandemic. There is no pattern from the reports to suggest that any of the Covid-19 vaccines used in the UK, or any reactions to these vaccines, increase the risk of miscarriage or stillbirth.’ No further detail is provided so it is not possible to scrutinise the figures.
This sounds reassuring, but when American investigative journalist Jefferey Jaxen analysed a study by 21 authors analysing data from V-safe published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, he discovered they had manipulated the figures. He was not the only one and Dr Hong Sun PhD, from Dedalus Healthcare, Antwerp, Belgium, complained to the NEJM editor.
The published figures showed a rate of 12.6 per cent miscarriage in women 20 weeks pregnant and under, which is similar to pre-Covid figures and raises no red flags. They did not include 700 reports of miscarriage in women over 20 weeks pregnant. Once those figures were added, the miscarriage rate increased to 82 per cent.
As always, the devil is in the detail, and without additional detail from the MHRA or Big Pharma, it is impossible to tell whether British women should be worried.
Latest Yellow Card scheme figures are published below with 1,698 fatalities reported. That’s an increase of 66 deaths in the three weeks since we published the last figures from September 9.
Updated report published October 7, 2021
MHRA Yellow Card Reporting up to September 29, 2021
• Pfizer BioNTech: 22.5million people – 42.1m doses – Yellow Card reporting rate 1 in 189 people impacted
• Oxford/AstraZeneca: 24.9m people – 48.9m doses – Yellow Card reporting rate 1 in 106 people impacted
• Moderna: 1.4m people – 2.6m doses – Yellow Card reporting rate 1 in 84 people impacted
Overall, 1 in 132 people injected experiences and reports a Yellow Card Adverse Event. A significant proportion require urgent medical care, and the effects may be life-changing or long-lasting. The MHRA says as few as 10 per cent of reactions may be reported.
Reactions – 335,344 (Pfizer) + 830,818 (AZ) + 53,032 (Moderna) + 3,372 (Unknown) = 1,222,566
Reports – 118,970 (Pfizer) + 233,904 (AZ) + 16,582 (Moderna) + 1118 (Unknown) = 370,574 people impacted
Fatal – 552 (Pfizer) + 1097 (AZ) + 19 (Moderna) + 30 (Unknown) = 1,698
Blood Disorders – 11,342 (Pfizer) + 7474 (AZ) + 972 (Moderna) + 47 (Unknown) = 19,835
Anaphylaxis – 486 (Pfizer) + 820 (AZ) + 40 (Moderna) + 1 (Unknown) = 1,347
Acute Cardiac – 5,734 (Pfizer) + 9,474 (AZ) + 671 (Moderna) + 42 (Unknown) = 15,921
Pericarditis/Myocarditis (Heart inflammation) – 560 (Pfizer) + 288 (AZ) + 126 (Moderna) + 2 (Unknown) = 976
Infections – 7,902 (Pfizer) + 18,572 (AZ) + 883 (Moderna) + 96 (Unknown) = 27,453
Herpes – 1,666 (Pfizer) + 2,524 (AZ) + 93 (Moderna) + 15 (Unknown) = 4,298
Headaches & Migraines – 26,145 (Pfizer) + 92,289 (AZ) + 3610 (Moderna) + 266 (Unknown) = 122,310
Eye Disorders – 5,562 (Pfizer) + 14,044 (AZ) + 601 (Moderna) + 62 (Unknown) = 20,269
Blindness – 107 (Pfizer) + 292 (AZ) + 16 (Moderna) + 4 (Unknown) = 419
Deafness – 205 (Pfizer) + 372 (AZ) + 17 (Moderna) + 2 (Unknown) = 596
Spontaneous Abortions – 346 + 8 stillbirth/foetal death (Pfizer) + 207 + 3 stillbirth (AZ) + 35 + 1 foetal death (Moderna) + 2 (Unknown) = 590 + 12
Skin Disorders – 23,303 (Pfizer) + 51,098 (AZ) + 7,418 (Moderna) + 238 (Unknown) = 82,057
Psychiatric Disorders – 6,970 (Pfizer) + 17,425 (AZ) + 1,070 (Moderna) + 77 (Unknown) = 25,542
Facial Paralysis incl. Bell’s Palsy – 757 (Pfizer) + 913 (AZ) + 58 (Moderna) + 7 (Unknown) = 1,735
Strokes and CNS haemorrhages – 525 (Pfizer) + 2094 (AZ) + 19 (Moderna) + 10 (Unknown) = 2,648
Guillain-Barré Syndrome – 53 (Pfizer) + 428 (AZ) + 3 (Moderna) + 5 (Unknown) = 489
Nervous System Disorders – 57,975 (Pfizer) + 176,644 (AZ) + 8,321 (Moderna) + 633 (Unknown) = 243,573
BCG Scar Reactivation – 46 (Pfizer) + 35 (AZ) + 30 (Moderna) + 1 (Unknown) = 112
Respiratory Disorders – 14,352 (Pfizer) + 29,009 (AZ) + 1420 (Moderna) + 120 (Unknown) = 43,901
Pulmonary Embolism & Deep Vein Thrombosis – 618 (Pfizer) + 2,806 (AZ) + 23 (Moderna) + 20 (Unknown) = 3,467
Seizures – 789 (Pfizer) + 1,926 (AZ) + 140 (Moderna) + 12 (Unknown) = 2,867
Paralysis – 327 (Pfizer) + 786 (AZ) + 42 (Moderna) + 6 (Unknown) = 1,161
Nosebleeds – 782 (Pfizer) + 2242 (AZ) + 82 (Moderna) + 9 (Unknown) = 3,115
Dizziness – 9,123 (Pfizer) + 24,486 (AZ) + 1654 (Moderna) + 91 (Unknown) = 35,354
Renal/Urinary Disorders – 915 (Pfizer) + 2,590 (AZ) + 116 (Moderna) + 23 (Unknown) = 3,644
Vomiting – 3,609 (Pfizer) + 11,423 (AZ) + 657 (Moderna) + 42 (Unknown) = 15,731
Reproductive/Breast Disorders – 21,797 (Pfizer) + 18,593 (AZ) + 2893 (Moderna) + 149 (Unknown) = 43,432
Critics love Fauci’s new documentary, but audience hate it and accuse Rotten Tomatoes of ‘hiding’ low score
RT | October 11, 2021
Critics have almost universally praised the new documentary on Dr. Anthony Fauci, but audiences have seemingly hated it, even accusing review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes of trying to hide the movie’s unpopularity.
National Geographic’s ‘Fauci’ has been playing in select cinemas since September 10 and premiered on the Disney Plus streaming service last week. Trailers for the film focus heavily on Fauci and his work combating Covid-19, during which time he has become one of the more controversial figures in American politics.
The film, however, takes a positive look at Fauci and focuses more on tales about the health figure from his family, as well as public figures the infectious disease expert has worked with in the past, such as U2 frontman Bono and former President George W. Bush.
On Rotten Tomatoes, which aggregates reviews from selected critics and then gives a ‘rotten’ or ‘fresh’ score, the film holds a 91% positive rating, based on 30 positive reviews and three negative. The rating from audience members, however, was conspicuously missing from the website until Monday. As of Sunday, only one review, which was negative, had been posted despite the film being out for weeks.
The site was accused of ‘hiding’ the audience score in an effort to spin the movie’s increasingly negative coverage.
On Monday, an audience score did appear, and it showed valleys of difference in opinion from critics to the audience, with users awarding the film a 2% average from over 250 ratings (though it began with a 4% rating that has continually dropped). Despite the average now showing, there is still a lack of actual user reviews on the site, though many users may have chosen to simply drop a rating instead of writing a review.
“Two Americas,” writer Josh Jordan tweeted, including a screenshot of the ‘Tomatometer’ for ‘Fauci’ along with the recently-released comedy special from Dave Chappelle, which has been labeled transphobic by critics, but has been a popular title on Netflix. Critics on Rotten Tomatoes gave the movie a ‘rotten’ score of 33% while audiences awarded a near perfect score.
Fauci critics were quick to mock the film’s near-universal panning from audience members.
The Rotten Tomatoes score for ‘Fauci’ is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to negative reviews. On IMDB, the movie has a 1.5 rating from over 6000 users.
Trailers for the movie on YouTube haven’t fared much better. One posted by National Geographic has over 100,000 ‘dislikes’ and less than 8000 ‘likes’, as of this writing.
A Disney Plus trailer, on the other hand, has just over 1000 ‘likes’ and over 20,000 ‘dislikes’.
Rotten Tomatoes has been accused of bias in the past, and the company has often chalked up near-universal negative reactions from audiences to trolls’ review-bombing.
In 2019, the company disabled pre-release comments and removed their ‘Want to See’ function – which allowed ratings based on how excited users were for a film – in response to early backlash against franchise pictures accused by critics of going ‘woke’, such as ‘Star Wars: The Last Jedi’ and ‘Captain Marvel’.
Two years before that decision, debate around Rotten Tomatoes and the political influence the audience can have was still a heated debate. Outspoken liberal and comedian Amy Schumer claimed in 2017 that her comedy special ‘The Leather Special’ was review-bombed by the “alt-right” over her comments on Donald Trump and other Republicans (50% critic rating/4% audience). At the time, the site responded again by limiting user functions by removing a five-star system in favor of a positive or negative rating from audiences.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, conservative artists have often pointed to the fact that films aimed at right-leaning audiences often score much lower with critics than audiences as proof the company is more open to ‘certifying’ liberal critics than right-of-center or conservative ones.
Producer John Aglialoro blamed near-universal bad reviews from “hateful” critics on Rotten Tomatoes for his 2011 film ‘Atlas Shrugged: Part I’ struggling to find an audience in theaters (he would go on to produce two sequels covering the last two thirds of Ayn Rand’s influential novel).
Crossword clues and bullying – the influence of Australia’s pro-Israel lobby unveiled
Michael West Media | October 3, 2021
The intimidating power of Australia’s pro-Israel lobby limits what mainstream media outlets dare publish about Israel and forces self-censorship on editors and journalists alike, writes John Lyons in his latest book Dateline Jerusalem: Journalism’s toughest assignment. Kim Wingerei reports.
In 2019, Fairfax Media’s Sydney and Melbourne mastheads made an error. In the daily crossword section, the answer to the clue “Holy land” turned out not to be six letters starting with an I, as some would expect, but nine letters: Palestine. So affronted was the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) that they demanded an investigation.
Fairfax acceded, blamed the error on an external contractor and apologised to Colin Rubenstein, executive director of the AIJAC.
This is just one of many examples which John Lyons uses to illustrate the power of a lobby group so influential it can force changes to Government policy, hound journalists out of their jobs and pressure the ABC board to justify the appointment of foreign correspondents.
… there are only three people who can tell the editors of The Australian what they can or can’t use: Rupert Murdoch, Lachlan Murdoch and Colin Rubenstein. – John Lyons
John Lyons is an experienced journalist. Currently the head of investigative journalism at the ABC, his 40 years in the media include being editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, Middle East correspondent for The Australian and winning one of his three Walkley Awards for “Stone Cold Justice”, a Four Corner’s episode which exposed the human rights abuses in Israel military courts.
His earlier book Balcony over Jerusalem covered his six years of witnessing the tragedies and contradictions of a region which has suffered more armed conflict than any other since World War II.
In his latest book released this weekend (at 85 pages, it’s closer to essay size), Lyons focuses entirely on the Israel-Palestine conflict and specifically how pro-Israel lobbyists seek to control the narrative for the Australian audience.
He makes the point several times that the press in Israel is far more overtly critical of the policies of Israel’s Government than is the media in Australia, including how the regular flare-ups in the West Bank are covered.
To the AIJAC it’s a war of words. It is a battle to control how and what is said.
For example, Colin Rubenstein and his fellow lobbyists are particularly sensitive about using the word “occupation” in reference to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territories. But as the lieutenant colonel responsible for Israel’s army operations in the occupied territories quips:
If this is not occupied then the media has missed one of the biggest stories of our time, (Israel’s) withdrawal from the West Bank! – LC Eliezer Toledano, Israel Army
The pro-Israel lobby has even developed a special dictionary. The Global Language Dictionary was funded by The Israel Project to “guide politicians and journalists on the language to use to win support for settlement expansion.”
Merely using the word Palestine can land a journalist in trouble. Jennine Khalik, a Palestinian Australian and former journalist at The Australian recounts in the book how she was yelled at by a sub-editor for referring to a refugee and singer as coming from Palestine:
PALESTINE DOES NOT EXIST … Palestine is NOT a place … What kind of journalist are you, using the word Palestine?
For Jennine Khalik this was the last straw, she left the paper shortly after, following what had been a concerted campaign by the pro-Israel lobby, including diplomats from the Israel embassy questioning her editors about the appointment of “a Palestinian activist”.
In another example of the tactics used to control the narrative, Lyons refers to a story told by former The Age editor, Andrew Holden, where Colin Rubenstein and Mark Leibler – lawyer and well known leader of the Jewish business community – marched into his office and complained loudly about the paper’s coverage of the 2014 Gaza war.
Anyone who thinks that such a display by an esteemed member of the Australian community doesn’t have a chilling effect is kidding themselves. I have seen its effect in the years since in hesitancy on the part of editors and trepidation about any story which may show Israel in a negative light. – John Lyons
Lyons himself has also been subjected to threats and intimidation over the years for his reporting on Israel and Palestine. Like many who have dared to criticise the Israeli Government, he has been called an anti-semite, but also a “Goebbels” and “a Hamas smelly used tampon”.
It is a tactic he says is used persistently by those in Australia agitating for positive coverage of Israeli government actions.
I think the aim is to make journalists and editors decide that, even if they have a legitimate story that may criticise Israel it is simply not worth running, as it will cause more trouble than it’s worth. – John Lyons
As a result, most Australians don’t know much about the plight of the Palestinian people. They don’t know about the 101 permits that Palestinians need to obtain from Israel to be able to work and live in what they believe is their own land. They don’t know that Palestinians don’t enjoy free speech, freedom of movement or equality before the law.
In April 2021, Human Rights Watch (HRW) released its landmark report “A Threshold Crossed: Israel Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution”. It was largely ignored by mainstream media in Australia. “Including by my own organisation, the ABC,” says Lyons.
Abusive Israeli policies constitute crimes of apartheid, persecution
The pro-Israel lobby is so effective it has achieved the ultimate aim of information suppression – self-censorship.
John Lyons: Dateline Jerusalem: Journalism’s Toughest Assignment – now available from Monash University Publishing
Kim Wingerei is a businessman turned writer and commentator. He is passionate about free speech, human rights, democracy and the politics of change. Originally from Norway, Kim has lived in Australia for 30 years. Author of ‘Why Democracy is Broken – A Blueprint for Change’.
Doctor Says Physicians Are Being “Hunted” For Speaking Out by Press & Medical Boards
Dr Robert Malone branded a “terrorist” by Italian media
By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | October 7, 2021
Dr Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccines, says he was branded a “terrorist” by the media in Italy and warns that physicians who speak out are being “hunted via medical boards and the press.”
“I am going to speak bluntly,” tweeted Malone. “Physicians who speak out are being actively hunted via medical boards and the press. They are trying to deligitimize and pick us off one by one. This is not a conspiracy theory – this is a fact. Please wake up. This is happening globally.”
“I was labeled as a ‘terrorist’ in the Italian press when I was in Rome for the International COVID Summit. My crime? Advocating for early treatment of COVID-19 disease. I suggest that merits a bit of meditation,” he added.
Malone is one of many doctors who have been completely persecuted merely for discussing issues relating to COVID treatments and vaccine side-effects.
He has faced fierce opposition for his assertion that children shouldn’t be given COVID-19 vaccines and has also consistently highlighted concerns over links to myocarditis risk.
Those concerns are now being justified by Finland, Denmark and Sweden halting the Moderna jab for for younger males after reports of cardiovascular side effects.
Despite such concerns being regularly voiced by doctors, the Federation of State Medical Boards announced back in July that it would consider pulling medical licenses of doctors who traffic in “misinformation” about COVID.
In another stunning development, Malone’s IP address was blocked by the New England Journal of Medicine so he couldn’t read studies on their website.
The doctor said he was aware of how to get around the IP block, but called the move a “petty act.”
The War Against Ivermectin Intensifies
By Joel S. Hirschhorn | Principia Scientific | October 11, 2021
The unrelenting opposition to using ivermectin to treat and prevent COVID-19 is stronger than ever. This has resulted from a gigantic increase in demand for IVM by much of the public.
Despite big media tirades against IVM, the truth about its effectiveness (together with failure of COVID vaccines) has reached the public through many articles on alternative news websites and truth-tellers on countless podcasts. Its success has forced Big Pharma to create expensive copies of it.
And in my book Pandemic Blunder I made the case with data that using cheap, safe and effective generics like IVM and hydroxychloroquine would save 80 percent or more of COVID deaths. Esteemed physician Peter McCollough later said 85 percent. For the US, that means over 500,000 lives could have been saved, and globally over four million lives.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people worldwide have died from COVID vaccines, the failed solution to the pandemic.
Merck, a maker of IVM, is getting much positive press coverage for its forthcoming prescription oral antiviral (molnupiravir). It is designed to replace IVM that they cannot make big money from. FDA will soon give it emergency use authorization because of the emerging clarity that COVID vaccines do NOT work effectively or safely.
That the Washington Post says that what Merck has created is the “first covid-fighting pill” illustrates how awful big media has been in ignoring the proven benefits of the IVM and HCQ generics. And ignoring the many failures of COVID vaccines. In its October 2 front-page story on the new Merck pill, it did not even mention IVM or present any data showing IVM as proven even more effective than the new expensive drug tested on only hundreds of people for a short period.
In contrast, IVM has been used successfully on hundreds of thousands of people to treat and prevent COVID.
Speaking as someone who is using IVM as a prophylactic, here is what I have seen in recent times. Though getting a prescription for it is very difficult and stressful it can be done through a number of websites. But then the battle just begins. Many pharmacies, especially big chain ones, will not fill IVM prescriptions if there is any evidence that it is being used to fight COVID.
And then you will likely discover, as I did, that virtually no pharmacy (typically small community ones) that will fill such prescriptions has any IVM. That’s right. There is a national shortage of IVM because of huge demand in recent months and because US makers have not escalated production.
Probably, millions of vaccine resisters are using IVM, especially those resisting booster shots.
Can you still get it? Yes, and even without a prescription. It will have to come from India, with many makers of IVM. It can take many weeks to get it. But the cost is a tiny fraction of what US pharmacies have been charging when they did have it in stock. Rather than $4 or $5 for a 3 mg pill, you can buy 12 mg pills for way under $1 a pill.
But there is more to the IVM story.
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there is massive medical science data showing absolute reliable data that IVM is safe and effective for both treating and preventing COVID. This is what should be a bold large headline in newspapers if we had honest big media: IVM SAFE AND EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE TO COVID VACCINES.
But instead, there is a constant barrage of articles and statements from government agencies asserting IVM should not be used to fight COVID. They argue it is unsafe and ineffective. Both are lies aimed solely at protecting the mass vaccination effort and the profits of big drug companies. And now protecting the new Big Pharma market for antiviral pills.
FDA has issued very strong warnings against using IVM for COVID. Nothing it has said follows the true science and mountains of data supporting safe and effective IVM use. Like other IVM opponents, it has conflated personal IVM use with the use of IVM products designed for animals.
This is even more infuriating. Merck, despite being a maker of IVM discredited its use for COVID by irresponsibly stating, “We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.”
Clearly, Merck, Pfizer and other vaccine makers are developing their own oral antivirals to directly compete with the cheap and effective IVM. These antivirals, unlike cheap generic IVM, would be patented so expensive pills could be sold worldwide. They will find some ingenious ways to copy IVM but make enough changes to get patents.
Already, Merck has begun production of its new pill to be taken twice daily for five days. Even more significant: The US government has made an advance purchase of 1.7 million treatment courses for $1.2 billion! That is over $700 per treatment. So much more profitable than making IVM. Forget the billions of dollars spent on vaccines that are injuring and killing many people.
I am confident in predicting that as more and more bad news about the ineffectiveness and dangerous side effects of COVID vaccines become increasingly known to more of the public, the big drug companies will increasingly switch from vaccines to prescription antiviral medicines.
This is what smart corporate business strategic planning is all about. With Merck, it has already started. And FDA, CDC and NIH will go along with this strategic switch.
This will preserve a trillion-dollar market for pharmaceutical companies. How the government and public health establishment weasel word their switch from COVID vaccines to antiviral pills will be a marvelous magical trick to watch. Do you think that they will admit that millions of people worldwide have lost their health and lives from vaccine use? Of course not. Expensive antiviral pills will simply be sold as a better solution.
Be clear about the science explaining why IVM and HCQ have worked. They both (along with zinc) interfere at the earliest stage of COVID infection with viral replication. Stop infection in its tracks. They work as prophylactics for the same reason.
If you keep a modest amount of IVM and HCQ in your body (and take zinc, vitamins C and D, and quercetin) any virus that enters your body can be stopped before major viral replication. The new prescription medicines coming from Merck and other Big Pharma are designed to serve the same function as the cheap generics.
This is the big truth coming to fruition: All the emerging information on COVID vaccine ineffectiveness and dangerous and often lethal side effects is forcing a major strategic shift to antivirals.
Congressman Louie Gohmert has recently made a number of solid observations about IVM:
“Almost 4 billion doses of ivermectin have been prescribed for humans, not horses, over the past 40 years. In fact, the CDC recommends all refugees coming to the U.S. from the Middle East, Asia, North Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean receive this so-called dangerous horse medicine as a preemptive therapy.
Ivermectin is considered by the World Health Organization (WHO) to be an ‘essential medicine.’
The Department of Homeland Security’s ‘quick reference’ tool on COVID-19 mentioned how this life-saving drug reduced viral shedding duration in a clinical trial.”
“To date, there are at least 63 trials and 31 randomized controlled trials showing benefits to the use of ivermectin to fight COVID-19 prophylactically as well as for early and late-stage treatment. Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of many viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. It has strong anti-inflammatory properties and prevents transmission of COVID-19 when taken either before or after exposure to the virus.”
“Ivermectin also speeds up recovery and decreases hospitalization and mortality in COVID-19 patients. It has been FDA approved for decades and has very few and mild side effects. It has an average of 160 adverse events reported every year, which indicates ivermectin has a better safety record than several vitamins. In short, there is no humane, logical reason why it should not be widely used to fight against the China Virus should a patient and doctor decide it is appropriate to try in that patient’s case.”
And that small number of adverse events pales in comparison to hundreds of thousands for COVID vaccines.
A new, comprehensive report noted that 63 studies have confirmed the effectiveness of IVM in treating COVID-19. This is a great website to see positive IVM data.
And consider what former Director of Intellectual Property at Gilead Pharmaceuticals, Brian Remy, said about the necessity of implementing Ivermectin. “It is simple – use what works and is most effective – period. Ivermectin used in combination with other therapeutics is a no-brainer and should be the standard of care for COVID-19. Not only would this be good for business and help avoid the criticism and bad PR, and potential civil/criminal liability for censorship, scientific misconduct, etc. for misrepresentation of Ivermectin and other generics, but most importantly it would save countless lives and end the pandemic for good.” Amen.
Want even more positive facts? Consider the India experience. In India’s deadly second pandemic surge, Ivermectin obliterated their crisis. Within weeks after adopting IVM cases were down 90 percent. Those states with more aggressive IVM use were down more dramatically. Daily cases in Goa, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Delhi were down 95, 98, 99, and 99 percent, respectively.
And appreciate this: Dr. Kory and the FLCCC published a narrative review in May 2021, showing the massive effectiveness of IVM against COVID-19 in reducing death and cases. They concluded that it must be adopted globally immediately. Yet big media without respect for public health waged war against IVM. Now it is going crazy in support of the expensive Merck antiviral pill.
To sum up: The IVM story is far from over. We now have a pandemic of the vaccinated. From all over the world the fractions of people said to have died from COVID who were fully vaccinated are very high, often 80 percent. Many people with breakthrough COVID infections die.
Blame those deaths on the vaccines. Big media suppresses all the negative information on the vaccines and all the positive information on IVM.
This double whammy is pure evil. It is designed to pave the way for the new, expensive generation of antiviral pills once the medical and public health establishments backtrack from their vaccine advocacy and coercion.
About the author: Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors.
‘Superspreader of misinformation’: NYT corrects story that exaggerated child Covid-19 hospitalizations by over 90%
RT | October 8, 2021
The New York Times had to issue a doozy of a correction on an article by its Covid-19 reporter Apoorva Mandavilli, who somehow inflated the number of US children hospitalized with the virus to 14 times the actual level.
Mandavilli claimed in her article, published on Tuesday, that nearly 900,000 Covid-infected children had been hospitalized in the US since the pandemic began. As the Times admitted on Thursday, the available data shows that the correct figure from August 2020 to October 2021 was more than 63,000.
The inaccuracies didn’t stop there. The correction also noted that contrary to Mandavilli’s reporting, Sweden and Denmark haven’t begun offering single-dose vaccines to children. The newspaper added that the story misstated the timing of an upcoming FDA meeting regarding proposed use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in children as young as five years old.
The scale of the erroneous hospitalization figure was reminiscent of gaffes by President Joe Biden, such as saying 120 million Americans had died from Covid-19 and 150 million had been killed by gun violence. It’s not clear how the blunder occurred, but the mainstream media has been accused of hyping the severity of the pandemic. A hidden-camera investigation by Project Veritas in April purported to show a CNN technical director saying the outlet purposely stoked fears of Covid-19 to boost ratings.
Ironically, the Times itself has decried Covid-19 misinformation. For instance, the newspaper posted an article earlier this week vilifying Dr. Joseph Mercola as “the most influential spreader of coronavirus misinformation.” In August, the Times said ‘Russian disinformation’ was being spread to suggest that the Biden administration would impose a Covid-19 vaccine mandate. A month later, Biden ordered that healthcare facilities, federal contractors and businesses with more than 100 employees force their workers to be inoculated, taking the choice over getting the jab away from about 100 million Americans.
While the Times and other mainstream outlets have billed themselves as the arbiters of truth, Mandavilli’s error-laced article is only the latest in a long line of inaccurate reporting by the newspaper. For example, the newspaper falsely claimed that Russia had offered bounties on American troops in Afghanistan and that police officer Brian Sicknick was murdered by pro-Trump rioters at the US Capitol.
“The New York Times is a superspreader of misinformation,” said Christina Pushaw, press secretary for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
Mandavilli stirred anger among conservatives in May, when she said the theory that Covid-19 leaked from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology had “racist roots.” She later deleted her Twitter post, lamenting that the pushback to her remark had been “ridiculous.”
“Someday, we will stop talking about the lab-leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots,” Mandavilli said in the original tweet. “But alas, that day is not yet here.”
It’s not clear why the reporter was rooting for the lab leak theory to go away, as even chief White House medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci said it should be investigated after previously trying to squash the notion.
The Wall Street Journal had reported two days earlier that three scientists at the Wuhan lab had been hospitalized with Covid-19 symptoms in the fall of 2019, near the time when the first cases of the virus were reported in China.
The Times’ former lead reporter on Covid-19, Pulitzer Prize nominee Donald McNeil Jr., resigned under pressure in February after co-workers campaigned for his firing. His sin was responding to a high school student’s question about a classmate’s use of the N-word by repeating the slur when he asked for context on how it was used. He had worked for the newspaper since 1976.
FULL OF GAS
By Paul Robinson | IRRUSSIANALITY | October 8, 2021
It’s 20 degrees here in Ottawa. For October, that’s something of a heatwave, and it’s meant to stay this way for a week or so, well into the middle of the month. Beyond that, the weather guys say that we’re in for a generally warm autumn. No need for the winter tires just yet.
Europe, though, is said to be headed for a deep cold spell in the coming months. So good for us, bad for Europe – unless you like winter sports, of course, in which case it’s the other way around. But regardless of what weather you prefer, cold has consequences, one of which is that you have to turn the heating up, for which you need fuel. And in the modern post-coal world, that increasingly means burning natural gas.
Unfortunately, this is a bad time to do so, for the price of natural gas has shot up in recent months, as you can see from the chart below. This is a result of increased demand, reduced output from wind turbines, and a reduction in supplies as Europe’s main suppliers – Norway and Russia – fill up their own stocks before winter. This has apparently ‘all but wiped out stocks’ in the rest of Europe. The markets have responded with a binge of frenzied speculation, shoving natural gas prices up to unnaturally high levels.
Which is obviously Russia’s fault. Because, well … it’s bad, and it’s natural gas, and so Russia must be to blame. After all, we know that all those traders on the futures markets take their orders from the Kremlin.
To give example of the hysterical rhetoric floating around, CNBC ran this headline yesterday: ‘The US was right – Europe has become a “hostage” to Russia over energy, analysts warn.’ The following story then told readers that ‘Europe is now largely at Russia’s mercy when it comes to energy,’ citing analyst Timothy Ash (who regularly pops up on the pages of the Kyiv Post) denouncing Russia’s ‘energy blackmail’ and saying that:
‘Europe has now left itself hostage to Russia over energy supplies … [It’s] crystal clear that Russia has Europe (the EU and U.K.) in an energy headlock, and Europe (and the U.K.) are too weak to call it out and do anything about it … Europe is cowering as it fears [that] as it heads into winter Russia will further turn the screws (of energy pipelines off) and allow it to freeze until it gets its way and NS2 [North Stream 2] is certified.’
If I get this right, the logic is that Russia is deliberately withholding supplies from Europe in order to force Germany to complete the certification of the North Stream 2 pipeline linking Germany and Russia. Unfortunately, Ash fails to provide a shred of evidence for this claim, and it’s not as if the Russians are expressing any sort of concern that the certification may not happen, or that they are specifically targeting Germany.
In fact, there’s no evidence that Russia is blackmailing anybody. Russia’s president Vladimir Putin even sought to calm international markets by telling the Russian gas company Gazprom to keep sending supplies through Ukraine even though it would be cheaper to send them via alternative routes. It’s important to maintain Russia’s reputation as a reliable supplier of energy, he noted, adding that Russia would indeed increase supplies to Europe this year, with exports possibly reaching a record high.
Critics complain that Russia could be pumping more gas to Europe than it currently is. It is apparently true that the volume of deliveries has been down in the past couple of months, as Russia fills up its own stocks before what is expected to be a harsh winter. But, deliveries for 2021 as a whole are on par with last year and Russia is meeting all its contracts. Furthermore, as Ben Aris has pointed out, it’s not that easy for Russia to greatly increase the quantity of gas it supplies Europe via existing pipelines. This is because different gas fields serve different pipelines, with limited connections. The line going via Ukraine comes from fields that are already ‘maxed out’. Additional gas would have to come from the Yamal peninsula – i.e. via North Stream or North Stream 2. With the former already at capacity, that in essence means the latter. In other words, Aris concludes:
‘It is possible for Russia to send more gas west without using NS2 but it’s limited & most expensive option for Gazprom. By far easiest & cheapest option for both Gazprom & EU is to turn NS2 on. This would solve the current gas crisis.’
It seems to me that Russia’s critics need to decide what they want. For years, they’ve been complaining that Europe is buying too much Russian gas. Now, though, they’re complaining that the Russians won’t sell them more! The Russians sell you gas – that’s a sign that they’re out to get you. They won’t sell you gas – proof that they’ve got you!
Frankly, it makes no sense.
Besides which, people don’t sell you stuff unless you ask them to, which in business terms means signing a contract with them. Russia, as previously said, is fulfilling its contracts. What more is it meant to do? As German chancellor Angela Merkel pointed out this week, if European states haven’t signed up to buy Russian gas, they can’t really complain if they don’t get it. She said:
‘To my knowledge, there are no orders where Russia has said we won’t deliver it to you, especially not with regard to the pipeline in Ukraine. Russia can only deliver gas on the basis of contractual obligations, and not just only like that.’
Absolutely.
Of course, if Russia was exploiting the rising cost of gas by engaging in price gouging, there might still be some grounds for complaint. But that’s not the case. Russia prefers to lock its customers into long-term contracts. Anybody who had the good sense to sign such a contract with Gazprom a while back when prices were low will now be laughing: their supplies are guaranteed and they’ll be cheap. Germans, Hungarians, Serbs, and the like are probably feeling a bit smug right now. Others who preferred to gamble on the market, or to dump Russia for an alternative supplier such as American LNG will now have to pay the price. But that’s their fault not Russia’s. As Putin pointed out:
‘The practice of our European partners has confirmed it once more that they made mistakes. We talked to the European Commission’s previous lineup, and all its activity was aimed at phasing out of so-called long-term contracts. It was aimed at transition to spot gas trade. And as it turned out, it has become obvious today, that this practice is a mistake.’
None of this, unfortunately, has stopped the flood of stories blaming Russia for Europe’s gas crisis, a crisis that is in large part due to the latter’s own errors. To give a flavour, here’s some of the headlines in the American and British press this past 24 hours:
‘Don’t Fall For Putin or Orban as They Try to Exploit Europe’s Energy Crisis’ – Washington Post
‘As Europe Faces a Cold Winter, Putin Seizes on the Leverage From Russia’s Gas Output’ – The New York Times
‘Russia has the West over a barrel: Fury at “bullying” Putin for offering Europe more natural gas IF his Nord Stream 2 pipeline is approved.’ – Daily Mail
‘Gas price crisis: Is Putin using energy supply as a weapon and what is its new Nord Stream 2 pipeline?’ – Sky News
‘UK dubbed “Putin’s puppet” as “Soviet” Britain’s gas prices plummet after Russian offer’ – Daily Express
‘How “Sleepy Joe” handed Putin the bargaining chip he is using to hold Europe to ransom in gas crisis’ – Daily Mail
Now, I can understand why Western politicians would want to find a scapegoat for their own failings, but why does the press go along with this? Wasn’t there a time when the Fourth Estate prided itself on holding the powers that be at home to account? Apparently no more. Blaming Russia obviously sells more copy. As long as that remains the case, expect the pipelines of BS to keep on flowing profusely!
Uyghur Tribunal: US Lawfare at its Lowest
By Brian Berletic – New Eastern Outlook – 07.10.2021
The so-called “Uyghur Tribunal” is promoted across the Western media as an “independent” tribunal. AP claims that it seeks to lay out evidence that will “compel international action to tackle growing concerns about alleged abuses in Xinjiang.”
The tribunal – having no legal basis or enforcement mechanism – will clearly be used to help bolster calls for a boycott of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic games and may serve to help pressure nations around the globe to roll back ties with China and aid the US in imposing additional sanctions and boycotts.
An “Independent” Tribunal Funded by the US Government
Media platforms like the US State Department’s Radio Free Asia in articles have claimed the tribunal has “no state backing.” The abovementioned AP article only claims the tribunal “does not have UK government backing.”
Yet the Uyghur Tribunal’s official website, under a section titled, “About,” admits (emphasis added):
In June 2020 Dolkun Isa, President of the World Uyghur Congress formally requested that Sir Geoffrey Nice QC establish and chair an independent people’s tribunal to investigate ‘ongoing atrocities and possible Genocide’ against the Uyghurs, Kazakhs and other Turkic Muslim Populations.
It also claims on a second page about funding that:
A crowdfunder page has raised nearly £250 000, with an initial amount of around $115 000 dollars donated by the Uyghur diaspora through the World Uyghur Congress.
What isn’t mentioned is that the World Uyghur Congress, along with many of the supposed experts and witnesses providing statements during the supposed tribunal, are funded by the United States government through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
This includes the president of WUC himself, Dolkun Isa, who provided a statement on June 4, 2021. Other members of US NED-funded organizations participating in the so-called tribunal included Muetter Illiqud of the NED-funded Uyghur Transitional Justice Database (UTJD), Rushan Abbas and Julie Millsap of the NED-funded Campaign for Uyghurs, Bahram Sintash and Elise Anderson of the NED-funded Uyghur Human Rights Project and Laura Harth of Safeguard Defenders, formerly known as the NED-funded China Action organization.
WUC is listed by name along with the UHRP, Campaign for Uyghurs, and the Uyghur Refugee Relief Fund on the official US NED website under “Xinjiang/East Turkestan 2020.” On another NED page titled, “Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act Builds on Work of NED Grantees,” the Uyghur Transitional Justice Database Project is also listed as receiving money from the US funding arm.
Also participating in the supposed tribunal was Adrian Zenz of the US government-funded Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VOC), Shohret Hosur who works for the US State Department’s Radio Free Asia, Mihrigul Tursun who was awarded the NED-affiliated “Citizen Power Award in 2018, Sayragul Sauytbay who received the 2020 US State Department’s Women of Courage Award, and IPVM which is a video surveillance information service previously commissioned by the US government in regards to Chinese government surveillance programs in Xinjiang.
There was also Sean Robert who was a senior advisor to the USAID mission to Central Asia from 1998-2006 – the very region and time period Uyghur separatism was being organized from beyond China’s borders. Robert has been active in promoting US-funded propaganda regarding Xinjiang for years alongside other mainstays like Rushan Abbas and Louisa Greve.
Nearly every other “witness” brought before the so-called tribunal has a long-established history of participating in the US government-funded propaganda campaign aimed at China and its alleged abuses in Xinjiang. This includes Omir Bekali who was previously invited to testify in front of the US Congress in 2018, Asiye Abdulahed who claims to be the alleged source of the so-called “China Files,” Zumret Dawut whose allegations were used by former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in attacks aimed at China, and Tursunay Ziyawudun who spoke in front of Congress in 2021.
There were also Westerners representing corporate-funded think tanks long engaged in a propaganda war with China including Nathan Ruser of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), Darren Byler and Jessica Batke of “ChileFile” – a subsidiary of Asia Society funded by the Australian and Japanese governments as well as Open Society, and Charles Parton of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) funded by the US State Department, the EU, Canada, Qatar, the UK, Japan, Australia, as well as arms manufacturers like BAE, Airbus, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and General Dynamics.
Only a handful of participants appeared to be relatively new faces, perhaps drawn from lesser corners of the global Uyghur diaspora being cultivated by the US as a political weapon.
Tedious, Holes-Filled Testimony
The testimony itself was tedious and lengthy with a total of nearly 80 hours recorded and uploaded to the Uyghur Tribunal’s YouTube channel. However, spot checking any of the testimony reveals massive discrepancies.
For example, on the first day of hearings, Muetter Illiqud of the abovementioned US government-funded UTJD provided conflicting total numbers of Uyghurs allegedly interned as well as conflicting accounts regarding Chinese government restrictions on the number of children permitted in cities and in rural villages. Illiqud failed to explain the discrepancies and was invited by Geoffrey Nice, chair of the tribunal, to return in September with the discrepancies fixed.
Another alleged witness, Gulzire Alwuqanqizi who spoke with an NED-affiliated “ChinaAid” banner behind her, claimed in her written statement that she was forced to work in a factory for a month and a half (approximately 45 days) where she claims she made a total of 2,000 gloves. Yet in her spoken statement she claims she was never able to meet the daily quota of 20 gloves and instead made only 10-12. If that is true, she would have only produced at most 540 gloves. She was never asked to clarify this discrepancy.
Also in her written statement, she claims she was caught sending photos of the factory to her husband. She claims:
One day, I took a picture of the factory and sent it to him. From there it became public. Following this, I was interrogated, they asked the same questions they had always asked, all night long, but eventually they let me go.
Yet in her spoken statement, she claimed:
At the factory where we were producing the gloves, I sent a photo and as punishment I was put in something like a ditch, a 20 meter deep well. They threw some electric currents at me, they poured water on me, and kept me there for 24 hours.
No comment was made by the panel interviewing her regarding this glaring inconsistency either.
Another witness, Tursunay Ziyawudun, claimed in her written statement to have been detained upon entering China after living in Kazakhstan from 2011 to 2016.
She inferred that she was being asked questions about the US NED-funded World Uyghur Congress during an interrogation, and claimed:
I didn’t even know what World Uyghur Congresses were at that time. We don’t have access to this information in China.
Yet clearly, while living in Kazakhstan for 5 years prior to returning to China, she did have access to this information. It is yet another inconsistency left unchallenged by the so-called tribunal.
Out of about 80 hours of proceedings, there are always bound to be inconsistencies, yet when the panel observed these, it took no action at all, skipping past them, excusing them, or allowing witnesses to alter their claims at a later date to iron out obvious inconsistencies. All of this further calls into question the professionalism, objectivity, and integrity of the entire “tribunal.”
Of course, no one in the public will likely watch any of the testimony first hand, let alone cross examine the spoken statements with their written statements. The general public will instead rely on the Western media’s interpretations of the so-called tribunal consisting of cherry-picked highlights designed to prey on the public’s emotions.
The “Uyghur Tribunal” – a Bad Sequel to the “China Tribunal”
The so-called “Uyghur Tribunal” unfolds as a sort of sequel to the 2019 “China Tribunal.” The China Tribunal and the Uyghur Tribunal following it were both chaired by Geoffrey Nice and included Hamid Sabi, Nicholas Vetch, and Aarif Abraham as participants. Both were initiated and funded by US government-funded organizations.
While the WUC organized the Uyghur Tribunal, the so-called International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China (ETAC) was the organization behind the “China Tribunal.” ETAC’s own webpage does not disclose its funding, but provides a list of names on its “international advisory committee.” They include Louisa Greve who was part of the NED’s senior leadership for 24 years before shifting over to the NED-funded Uyghur Human Rights Project. Ethan Gutmann is also listed. His book, “The Slaughter,” regarding alleged human organ harvesting in China, was launched at an NED event in Washington D.C. There is also Benedict Rogers, an advisor to the NED-funded World Uyghur Congress.
In other words, both tribunals were not tribunals at all, but instead an exhibition put on by a US government-funded troupe of activists deeply invested in maligning China and helping advance US foreign policy objectives versus Beijing.
It is merely a larger, more elaborate version of a literal exhibition funded by the US government and organized by the World Uyghur Congress in Geneva Switzerland also this year. A September 2021 Reuters article titled, “China accuses Washington of ‘low political tricks’ over Uyghur exhibit,” would note:
A US-backed Uyghur photo exhibit of dozens of people who are missing or alleged to be held in camps in Xinjiang, China, opened in Switzerland on Thursday, prompting Beijing to issue a furious statement accusing Washington of “low political tricks”.
The article also claimed:
The United States gave a financial grant for the exhibit, which will later travel to Brussels and Berlin, the World Uyghur Congress told Reuters. Earlier this week, the US mission in Geneva displayed it at a diplomatic reception, according to sources who attended.
“We are committed to placing human rights at the center of our China policy, and we will continue to highlight the grave human rights abuses we see the PRC committing across China, in Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, and elsewhere,” a US mission spokesperson said, referring to the People’s Republic of China.
The US, guilty of the very worst crimes against humanity of the 21st century, only claims to put human rights at the center of its foreign policy when politically convenient. No mention is made of the US’ decades of supporting violent separatism in China including in Tibet and Xinjiang – creating the very real terrorism China’s security measures were put in place to combat.
No mention or note is made in articles about the “Uyghur Tribunal” regarding the constant use of the term “East Turkestan” instead of Xinjiang or the fact that most of the people speaking at the tribunal are separatists and at least partly responsible for the violence and instability that seized Xinjiang before Beijing intervened.
No mention is made about the constant presence of East Turkestan separatist flags in the backgrounds as witnesses provide testimony. At one point in the proceedings, pro-separatist Arslan Hidayat was seen interpreting for at least two witnesses. Hidayat has repeatedly called for Xinjiang to be ethnically cleansed of Han Chinese.
As China reacted to the violence the US fuelled – the US used accusations of human rights abuses to hamstring and undermine Chinese efforts to restore peace and stability. The US uses the sword of state-sponsored terrorism to strike at China, and the shield of feigned rights advocacy to defend US-sponsored separatists from justice.
The “Uyghur Tribunal” is merely the latest and perhaps grandest iteration of this strategy of striking and defending. The tribunal’s final “ruling” will be read in December 2021, just ahead of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics and a concerted US-led media campaign to call for the world’s boycott of the games. Beyond that, further sanctions could be leveled against China – all in the wake of a clearly US-engineered show tribunal dishonestly presented to the public as “justice” and “human rights advocacy.”
The harsh irony is that the US seeks to blunt China’s rise specifically so it can continue acting on the global stage with impunity, and continue carrying out the verified, very real campaign of death, destruction, and genocide it has led since the turn of the century.
Featured Video
Rewriting the risk? Inside the government’s vaccine safety messaging
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
“Davos Can Really Replace the UN”
Inside the book that maps the architecture behind global governance — from the Epstein files to the Pact for the Future
Lies are Unbekoming | April 1, 2026
On June 13, 2019, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum signed a partnership deal to “accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” That same evening, WEF president Börge Brende — Norway’s former Foreign Minister — had dinner with Jeffrey Epstein at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse. The Epstein files, released January 2026, contain an exchange between the two from the previous year. Epstein to Brende: “Davos can really replace the UN. C21, cyber, crypto . genetics… intl coordination.” Brende back to Epstein: “Exactly — we need a new global architecture. World Economic Forum (Davos) is uniquely positioned — public private.”
The next day, the UN General Assembly adopted the framework for restructuring global governance.
That sequence — the partnership signing, the Epstein dinner, the candid admission about replacing the UN with a public-private architecture, and then the formal adoption — opens Jacob Nordangård’s The Digital World Brain. Pages two and three. Footnoted to the UN resolution number, the Epstein files, and the General Assembly record.
I keep coming back to it because it captures what this book does that almost nothing else in the independent research space manages. I’ve followed Jacob’s work for years now and interviewed him about his research. Each book peels back another layer of the same institutional architecture, and each time I think he’s reached the limit of what can be documented, the next one goes further. Nordangård doesn’t speculate. He doesn’t editorialize much. He lays institutional actions next to each other in chronological order and lets the pattern announce itself. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- How I fell foul of the BBC thought police
- The End of NATO
- 37 days of war on Iran cost US staggering $42bln, tracker shows
- Baghdad tells Asian refiners, traders to begin loading Iraqi crude amid Iranian exemption
- Under fire, Moscow and Tehran close ranks
- Iran, US receive Pakistan-mediated plan for ceasefire then final deal
- Iran submits demands for end to war as mediators scramble ahead of Trump deadline
- Iran Threatens Retaliatory Strike on Stargate AI Project in UAE
- US sent ‘a lot’ of arms to Iranian protesters – Trump
- Barak Ravid Launders Deception To Allow Trump To Back Off Of His Power Plant Threat – Again
- If Americans Knew
- U.N. experts demand Israel release prominent Gaza doctor after reports of ‘severe torture’
- Israel’s Latest Genocide Is Against the Shias of Lebanon. Why Is the World Silent?
- How Eliot Cohen’s influence over U.S. war-making paved the way for Trump’s war crimes in Iran
- Israelis don’t pay for the weapons we ‘sell’ to them — US taxpayers do
- While Distancing from AIPAC, Most 2028 Democratic Hopefuls Are Still Embracing Israel
- A brief history of the Israeli nuclear program, the open secret at the heart of the Iran war
- Israeli Settlers Killed a Palestinian Farmer on His Own Land, in Front of His Father. Yes, Again
- The US-Israeli War on Science is an Assault on our Future
- 100+ International Law Experts Say US Strikes on Iran Violate UN Charter, Could Be War Crimes
- ‘Vile, Horrifying, Evil’: Trump Threatens to Bomb Nation of 90 Million People ‘Back to the Stone Ages’
- No Tricks Zone
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
Aletho News 