Rotten To The Core
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT | JULY 18, 2021
There has been a longstanding concern about blatant bias at the BBC, not least in matters of climate change. This certainly dates back at least to January 2006, when they held a seminar of “top scientific experts” to advise them on climate change. The BBC fought tooth and nail to conceal the identity of these experts, but it was subsequently discovered that they were not experts at all, but the usual collection of green lobbyists.
Ever since, the BBC’s coverage of global warming has been woefully one sided and at times inaccurate,
This year they have been publishing a monthly feature, Then and Now, purportedly showing how climate has been changing in a warming world.
One article looked at the recent drought in California, while another claimed that the Victoria Falls had dried up. Both implied that climate change was to blame, with the usual weasel words that while one weather event cannot be linked to climate change, “scientists” say that such events are likely to get worse with global warming.
However both stories omitted crucial information, which would have shown such claims to be nonsensical and untruthful.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56902340
California, for instance, has had droughts in the 20thC every bit as bad as the current one. Moreover the official data clearly shows megadroughts there were much worse for much of the last thousand years or so. In short, California is a land of drought. The modest amount of warming there since the Little Ice Age has altered nothing.
The BBC claims about the Victoria Falls were even more absurd. For a start, the Falls did not run dry; every dry season lake levels drop. As the Zambian side is at a higher elevation, the Falls there dry up, while continuing at the other end. This happens every year, but the BBC deceitfully misled readers by showing a split image comparing Jan 2019 with Dec 2019. In January every year water levels rise sharply, and Jan 2020 was no exception.
It is certainly true that there was a drought in the region in 2019, and water levels were lower than average. But the Zambesi River Authority say that there have been six occasions since 1914 when water levels were lower, the worst being in 1995.
Just as with California, the BBC have picked on a drought, but ignored all of the data showing that they are both natural events, with no evidence that droughts are getting more severe or common.
This sort of misreporting of the Victoria Falls is of extreme concern to Zambia’s tourist industry and local businesses, who are naturally worried that tourists may stop visiting if they think the Falls are no longer there.
Which brings us to the point of the story. I complained to the BBC that both stories were grossly misleading and omitted crucial information.
Complaints to the BBC go through three stages. The first response appears to be written by the office junior, who tries to fob you off with a few bland statements.
If you are unhappy, you can resubmit the complaint, which usually gets the same response, though dressed up in sciency sounding language.
Finally you can appeal to the Executive Complaints Unit.
As is usually the case, I effectively received the same reply at all three stages, viz:
- There was a drought
- “Scientists say” climate change is making droughts worse
None of the replies actually addressed my complaint, that the actual data shows droughts are not unusual or getting worse at either location.
The real issue here of course is that the BBC Complaints Dept is all in house, even the ECU. In effect the BBC is marking its own homework.
In theory it is possible to appeal to OFCOM. In practice however they have no obligation to investigate, and would only consider doing so for substantive cases.
Clearly BBC bias will never be addressed until they are subject to a fully independent process, just as the press is.
In the meantime, if Tim Davie is serious about cleaning the stables, he should start by taking his axe to the bloated, fourteen strong Environmental Dept, which is now clearly out of control.
Instances of bias and misinformation, such as these two, are now commonplace in their output, and they seem to believe that they don’t even have to pay lip service to editorial guidelines anymore.
Infections in the Vaccinated Overtake Those in the Unvaccinated For the First Time – But the Graph is Removed From the ZOE App Report
By Will Jones • Lockdown Sceptics • July 17, 2021
Health Secretary Sajid Javid has tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, despite being vaccinated – and he is far from alone. The latest ZOE data shows that, as of July 12th, infections in the vaccinated (with at least one dose) in the U.K. now outnumber those in the unvaccinated for the first time, as the former continue to surge while the latter plummet (see above). (Note that 68% of the population has had at least one vaccine dose, so there are still at this stage disproportionately more new infections in the unvaccinated, though on current trends that may soon change.)
At what point will the Government accept that these vaccines have limited efficacy in preventing infection and transmission, and thus the whole rationale of being vaccinated to protect others – vaccine passports, compulsory vaccination, and so on – is suspect?
The above graph was in yesterday’s report, so I downloaded today’s report (you can get it by signing up to the app and reporting your symptoms) to get the new update. I was dismayed to find the graph was gone. At the bottom, a note explains:
Removed incidence graph by vaccination status from the report as there are very few unvaccinated users in the infection survey, the Confidence Intervals are very wide and the trend for unvaccinated people is no longer representative.
Which I would say is very convenient, just as infections in the vaccinated became the majority. Perhaps ZOE should try to recruit some more unvaccinated people for its survey, so it can continue to report on this as well as have a control group for its vaccine data? That would seem the scientific thing to do, rather than just stop reporting it because it is suddenly “no longer representative”.
It’s doubly odd because Tim Spector, lead scientist on the ZOE app, made the decline among the unvaccinated a feature of his video this week. So the realisation that the trend is “no longer representative” appears to have been rather sudden, even invalidating the contents of a ZOE ‘data release‘ two days earlier.
It seems we will never know how the story ends, which is a shame and a missed opportunity for ZOE.
ZOE data continues to suggest the current Covid surge is peaking and possibly even beginning to decline in the U.K., at least outside England (see above). Yet this is at odds with the daily Covid reports from the Government, which show continued growth.
UK positive tests by date reported (HMG)
Why the discrepancy? Is it because the Government figures include all the lateral flow tests that schoolchildren are taking as they isolate? 839,100 children – 11.2% of the total pupil population, more than one in 10 – were absent from state schools for Covid-related reasons on July 8th. All of them will have been tested and this will be picking up asymptomatic or mild infections that would usually not be noticed. ZOE data is symptom based, with a confirmatory PCR test, so would not be affected by surges in lateral flow testing among schoolchildren picking up asymptomatic infections.
Whatever the explanation, one to watch.
Mental ‘virus’ or real, governments can’t just censor and imprison their way out of immunity debt
By Helen Buyniski | RT | July 16, 2021
Covid-fearing parents may think they’re doing their kids a favor by keeping them inside, masked and encased in a bubble of hand sanitizer. But as humans we need pathogens to function – literally and metaphorically.
Evolution, it turns out, isn’t stupid. There’s a reason our guts are swarming with bacteria, and while we’ve been taught to recoil at the very concept (especially after a year and a half of plague-talk in which bacteria are regularly brutally assaulted with jets of hand sanitizer for nothing more than existing), those microscopic creatures actually digest our food for us. If it weren’t for them, we’d starve.
The bacterial colonies that call us home also need to interact with one another, which means once in a while touching a doorknob (or even a subway pole) and not immediately dousing your microscopic hitchhikers in caustic death-juice; sneezing on public transit without having to worry you’ll be lynched; and letting your kid play in the mud with other kids. Their lives could depend on it, as several countries previously praised for their ability to control their citizens are being reminded.
Under Covid-19’s new abnormal, we think nothing of going weeks without seeing friends, months without seeing family, long periods without so much as touching another person, and are told that this is not only healthy – if you don’t do it, you could die! So we learn to run across the street when we spot an old friend coming in for a hug, and to almost preemptively say “no” when our kids ask if they can for once play with their friends in real life instead of through an endless series of screens.
Turns out this is a great way to guarantee future epidemics. New Zealand, a global media darling for its 26 (reported) Covid deaths, is experiencing a major spike in a normally non-threatening childhood illness, since – while kids remain all but unaffected by Covid-19 – the same doesn’t hold true for other common respiratory diseases. Nearly 1,000 cases of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) have been diagnosed in just five weeks in the country, more than half of the number usually reported in an entire 29-week winter, according to the Guardian, which quoted public health experts placing the blame squarely on the “immunity debt” incurred from the country’s prolonged, stringent Covid lockdowns. In other words, “two weeks to flatten the curve” was one thing, but 18 months later, the curve is flattening us.
This problem wasn’t exactly unknown to medical science, and NZ’s willingness to go down this path rather than, say, encourage residents to come out of their homes and behave like normal humans when the worst danger of Covid-19 had passed, speaks to a pattern of martyrdom and virtue signaling that President Jacinda Ardern has capitalized on expertly. Her government postponed elections, forced new arrivals into “quarantine camps” for a period of not less than two weeks even with negative test results (positive results, or worse a refusal to be tested, could have you locked up even longer), and has all but smothered the independent press. The economy imploded, posting its largest quarterly decline in history, and housing costs remained unmanageable for many.
Yet she and her party got a historic mandate to rule (in October’s delayed election, with unprecedented numbers of mail-in ballots, after Facebook shut down one of the opposing parties’ pages right before Election Day, and other asterisks that went unmentioned by the press as they dined on her fiance’s cooking during the vote count). Turns out democracy is a risk factor for Covid-19, too. Who knew?
The phenomenon of “immunity debt” translates well to information, and Wellington isn’t the only government long overdue for a reckoning regarding the censorship it’s been forcing down its citizens’ throats, supposedly in the name of protecting them from infectious bad ideas. Kiwis were already resigned to being shut out of the global conversation after the Christchurch mosque shooting made it OK – nay, expected! – for an emergency to require termination of non-approved communications – and 10-year prison sentences for anyone who wouldn’t comply and delete the wrongthink. For a “democratic” country to enact such censorship would have elicited screams if it had come from Trump’s America, but Ardern was doing it in the name of Safety. With literally no way to test the success of such measures other than an absurd “X number of days without another mass shooting,” the silencing campaign was preemptively declared a success and governments around the world signed on, elevating censorship to the chief crime (and protest)-fighting method. Object? What are you, a terrorist?
Applying analogous measures while the world panicked over Covid-19 was a no-brainer, and in many countries it has been effectively – if not literally – forbidden to question the official story of the virus’ arrival and spread, even though the World Health Organization and its national counterparts were changing that “official story” on a monthly, if not weekly basis. Context-free videos of people dropping to the ground and convulsing in China, even without an implication those people even had the virus, put the fear into the rest of the world and, by the time American news networks were getting caught rerunning footage of packed Italian hospitals as “Covid-hit New York City,” even dissenting voices had largely shied away from questioning the “facts” the government was putting out. Only in cases where the government was not pushing total fear was it acceptable to mock the orders one was given, because not wanting us to live in fear could only mean they didn’t really care about us.
With Trump safely out of the White House, though, the entire American power structure has presented a united front pushing the same stultifying and borderline-nonsensical message of fear on offer from Ardern. The Biden administration is no longer even covering up unconstitutional behaviors like “flagging misinformation” for Facebook to delete, and even the White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki seems to have been forced into arguing with herself as social media muffles all opposing voices. Pacified by deliveries of occasional helicopter money whose value is steadily declining – a fact they might understand if they hadn’t declared math racist – Americans have proudly stepped up to act as the guards in the narrative managers’ mental prison. Far from demanding more transparency from their government, Americans are demanding less, while dog piling on dissenters – aware at some basic level they’re being lied to but unwilling to admit who’s doing the lying.
New Zealand’s censorship may be more photogenic – certainly Ardern is easier on the eyes than the ever-stumbling gaffe-mummified Biden – but both countries are headed straight for a wall built up by years of unpaid epistemological “immunity debt.” One cannot simply stuff “offensive” ideas or “misinformation” down the pipes eternally unless one wants to experience a killer mental toilet backup. The more reality has diverged with whatever is believed by these increasingly-unhinged closed societies, the more of a mess that backup will leave. Neither country can afford such a meltdown, and both would be wise to start allowing reality to filter back into their media before it’s too late. That means ending knee-jerk social media censorship (which has been shown to make users more gullible when it comes to fake news, anyway), rolling back the ever-expanding definition of “hate speech,” and in general behaving like adults.
Instead, Wellington is trying to make “hate speech” itself a crime punishable by three years in prison, and continues to push absurd poll results in which “75% of New Zealanders feel like the country is heading in the right direction, and for the most part, Covid-19 is not impacting their future.” Washington is trying to take the Second Amendment away from its citizens even while still choking on the First. Meanwhile, over in the UK, the Johnson government is warning of an influenza “epidemic” even as citizens remain under lockdown from the last Covid wave. It’s hard to guess which of these three policies will fail first, but whichever one it is, I wouldn’t want to be in charge of the cleanup job.
Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Telegram
Covid-19 vaccines for children: hypothetical benefits to adults do not outweigh risks to children
By Elia Abi-Jaoude, Peter Doshi, and Claudina Michal-Teitelbaum | BMJ | July 13, 2021
As the majority of adults in multiple rich western countries have now received at least one dose of a covid-19 vaccine, the focus is turning to children. While there is wide recognition that children’s risk of severe covid-19 is low, many believe that mass vaccination of children may not just protect children from severe covid-19, but also prevent onward transmission, indirectly protecting vulnerable adults and helping end the pandemic. However, there are multiple assumptions that need to be examined when judging calls to vaccinate children against covid-19.
First, the disease in children is commonly mild, and serious sequelae remain rare. Despite “long covid” recently garnering increased attention, two large studies in children show that prolonged symptoms are uncommon and overall similar or milder in children testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to those with symptoms from other respiratory viruses. The US Centre for Disease Control (CDC) estimates put the infection fatality rate from covid-19 among children 0 to 17 years old at 20 per 1,000,000. Hospitalization rates are also very low, and have likely been overestimated. Furthermore, a large proportion of children have already been infected with SARS-CoV-2. The CDC estimates 42% of US children aged 5 to 17 years have been infected by March 2021. Given that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces a robust immune response in the majority of individuals, the implication is that the risks covid-19 poses to the pediatric population may be even lower than generally appreciated.
In the clinical trial underlying the authorization of Pfizer-BioNTech’s mRNA vaccine in children aged 12 to 15, of the close to 1000 children who received placebo, 16 tested positive for covid-19, compared to none in the fully vaccinated group. Given this low incidence, the fact that covid-19 is generally asymptomatic or mild in children, and the high rate of adverse events in those vaccinated (e.g. in Pfizer’s trial of 12-15 year olds, 3 in 4 kids had fatigue and headaches, around half had chills and muscle pain, and around 1 in 4 to 5 had a fever and joint pain), a comparison of quality-adjusted life-years in the trial would very much favour the placebo group. Potential benefits from the vaccine, including protection of children against severe covid-19 or long covid, or covid-19 months in the future, could affect this balance, but such benefits were not shown in the trial and remain hypothetical.
Even if one assumes protection against severe covid-19, given its very low incidence in children, an extremely high number would need to be vaccinated in order to prevent one severe case. Meanwhile, a large number of children with very low risk for severe disease would be exposed to vaccine risks, known and unknown. Thus far, Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine has been judged by Israel’s government as likely linked to symptomatic myocarditis, with an estimated incidence between 1 in 3000 to 1 in 6000 in men ages 16 to 24. Furthermore, the long term effects of gene-based vaccines, which involve novel vaccine platforms, remain essentially unknown.
In terms of the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from children to adults, this is also low and decreasing, though not negligible. School teachers are more likely to get SARS-CoV-2 from other adults than they are from their students. The contribution of schools to community transmission has been consistently low across jurisdictions. In addition, considering estimates that 42% of those aged 5 to 17 years in the US are now post-covid, this should only lower the risk of transmission from children. Add to this the fact that most adults in rich western countries have received at least one dose of covid-19 vaccine—around 80% of UK adults now have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, whether from past infection or from vaccination—and it seems the opportunities for children to be vectors of transmission to adults are dwindling.
Given all these considerations, the assertion that vaccinating children against SARS-CoV-2 will protect adults remains hypothetical. Even if we were to assume this protection does exist, the number of children that would need to be vaccinated to protect just one adult from a bout of severe covid-19—considering the low transmission rates, the high proportion of children already being post-covid, and most adults being vaccinated or post-covid—would be extraordinarily high. Moreover, this number would likely compare unfavourably to the number of children that would be harmed, including for rare serious events.
A separate, but crucial question is one of ethics. Should society be considering vaccinating children, subjecting them to any risk, not for the purpose of benefiting them but in order to protect adults? We believe the onus is on adults to protect themselves. In multiple jurisdictions around the world, the vast majority of adults, including those that are at high risk, have not been fully vaccinated against covid-19. If the goal is to protect adults, shouldn’t efforts be focused on ensuring adults are fully vaccinated rather than targeting children? Further, it is highly inequitable to be vaccinating very low risk children in wealthy countries while many vulnerable adults in low-income countries have not had any doses.
There is no need to rush to vaccinate children against covid-19—the vast majority stands little to benefit, and it is ethically dubious to pursue a hypothetical protection of adults while exposing children to harms, known and unknown. The risk/benefit consideration may be different in children at relatively higher risk of severe disease, such as those who are obese or immunocompromised. Otherwise, the focus should be on ensuring safe and effective vaccines are available for the adult populations which stand the most to benefit, especially those at high risk. In the meantime, there should be ongoing active evaluation of risks to youth, including research into risk factors for severe covid-19 and the impact of new variants, as well as ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and safety. There should also be ongoing evaluation of the protection afforded by infection-induced immunity relative to vaccine-induced immunity, especially in youth.
See also: Should we delay covid-19 vaccination in children?
Elia Abi-Jaoude, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, ON, Canada
Peter Doshi, Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore
Claudina Michal-Teitelbaum, Preventive Medicine, Independent Researcher, Lyon, France
Competing interests: PD has received travel funds from the European Respiratory Society (2012) and Uppsala Monitoring Center (2018); grants from the FDA (through University of Maryland M-CERSI; 2020), Laura and John Arnold Foundation (2017-22), American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (2015), Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (2014-16), Cochrane Methods Innovations Fund (2016-18), and UK National Institute for Health Research (2011-14); was an unpaid IMEDS steering committee member at the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA (2016-20), and is an editor at The BMJ. EAJ and CMT have no relevant financial conflicts of interest to declare. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect official policy or position of the University of Maryland or the University of Toronto.
Acknowledgment: The authors wish to thank Jennie Lavine for her comments on this article.
Not commissioned, peer reviewed.
Bill Gates’s stranglehold on the MSM: Part 2 – Britain
By Karen Harradine | The Conservative Woman | July 16, 2021
WITH an estimated fortune of $128.9billion, Bill Gates is the fourth richest man in the world, after Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Bernard Arnault and Elon Musk, according to Forbes.
He’s stepped back from the day-to-day running of Microsoft, the company he founded in 1975, and focuses on his so-called philanthropy through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (GF), and is best known for his worldwide vaccination and anti-malaria programmes.
Less widely known is that he has spent hundreds of millions bankrolling news outlets, in the process turning the GF into one of journalism’s main gatekeepers. According to Tim Schwab of Columbia Journalism Review, by last June more than $250million had gone to news operations including the BBC, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, the Guardian, the Financial Times, Univision, Medium, the Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, and the Center for Investigative Reporting; and to charitable organisations affiliated with news outlets, like the BBC’s Media Action and the New York Times’s Neediest Cases Fund.
As I reported in Part One of this investigation, most of this funding comes under the fine sounding GF heading of Global Policy and Advocacy, of which the BBC is a major beneficiary. Little wonder that there is little that is dispassionate about its reporting on Covid-19 vaccination or climate change.
It’s not just the BBC that the GF manipulates through these means. Between 2016 and 2020, the Financial Times received $2.3million from the GF, including $1.3million to fund ‘global health awareness’. The Guardian is another recipient of Mr Gates’s largesse. Like the BBC, it sports a ‘Global Development’ site, the common root being GF funding. Its claimed editorial independence is contradicted by its stated sole campaigning purpose to provide special focus on the Millennium Development Goals, eight targets set in 2000 by the United Nations Millennium Declaration. The Guardian has bought into this to the extent that it operates mainly as a deferential PR channel for both the UN and the GF.
The collaboration with the GF to ‘help focus the world’s attention on global development’ goes back 11 years. This is a sophisticated propaganda exercise to convince the public of the beneficial nature of Gates’s investments in a multitude of global development projects including vaccines and solutions for climate change. It helps ensure that any alternative narrative or critique is unlikely to see the light of day in any of the outlets to which he extends his munificence.
Since August 2011, the GF has given the Guardian $12.2million towards this, the latest grant being almost $2million last September. The Guardian has not only busily promoted the Millennium Development Goals, but also its spawn, the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, yet another dishonest scheme to take guilt money from Western taxpayers and give it to the world’s despots and dictators, all in the name of climate change.
Yet, as I have previously set out: ‘Very little information is available on exactly how the money is invested and who benefits from it. No information is offered to indicate if it has been cost-effective and beneficial to the economies and welfare of the 193 countries signed up to it.’
The British public have been drip-fed this propaganda for years through various GF-funded MSM mouthpieces such as the BBC. Yet it’s the economically fragile West which pays for the 2030 Agenda and its climate change ‘remedies’, draining it of even more of its resources while authoritarian regimes like China benefit financially and increase their dominance over the UN. The MSM barely protests.
The worry is that the GF has not only captured the Left-wing media in Britain: it has also made inroads into the so-called Centre and Right. The Telegraph accepted $3.4million from the GF in November 2017 to ‘raise awareness’ of global health issues. The London Evening Standard was awarded money in the same year too, receiving $20,000 to spread the GF propaganda on the ‘global health crisis’.
The growing financial dependence of the MSM on a combination of Government advertising and GF largesse has already put its impartiality in jeopardy. This is threatened further by the GF’s funding of a global network of young ‘journalists’. This project, called the International Centre of Journalists, has been given $20.4million to promote ‘public awareness’ around global health. Based in the US, the organisation finances activists to promote ‘better governments’ and make ‘communities safer and healthier’, amongst other woke ideals. Their 2020 annual review predictably emphasises the need to highlight racial injustice and climate change, and combat ‘disinformation’ about Covid-19.
As Robert Kennedy Junior says, Gates’s press bribes have paid off. ‘During the pandemic, bought and brain-dead news outlets have treated Bill Gates as a public health expert despite his lack of medical training or regulatory experience.’
Gates also funds an army of independent fact checkers including the Poynter Institute and Gannett which, Kennedy points out, use their platforms to silence detractors and to debunk as ‘false conspiracy theories’ and ‘misinformation’ charges that Gates has championed and invested in sinister endeavours like biometric chips, vaccine passports and satellite systems.
Yet all the evidence is available at a click of a mouse button. Last March, Gates began his vaccine passport campaign. The GF-funded Guardian and the BBC have unquestionably cheered on this digital slavery. In 2018, Gates gave a satellite start-up $1billion to build a system which broadcasts real-time videos globally. What better way to ensure that the little people are behaving themselves than by funding a satellite system to monitor us all? Despite the vehement denials of the GF funded ‘fact checkers’, Gates has built his Covid-19 vaccine factories, and seemingly now seeks a return on his investments.
Many lament the decline of journalistic standards in our New Dark Age. Of those responsible for turning a once-brilliant British media into an uncritical disseminator of propaganda, the GF must be placed centre stage. Now the MSM, like the Government, are often nothing more than useful idiots for the GF and its destructive policies, mindlessly chanting the GF narrative on development, climate change and Covid-19; and whose ‘solutions’ to these are destroying the free and prosperous West.
Don’t expect our MSM journalists to protest: they have long since been bought, paid for and brainwashed.
Compelling Case Against COVID ‘Vaccine’ Approval
By Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn | NOQ Report | July 16, 2021
When I read this headline, I connected to the current struggle by many medical experts urging FDA to hold off granting full approval to COVID vaccines: “US ranks last among 46 countries in trust in media.”
Here are some disturbing details. The United States ranks last in media trust — at 29% — among 92,000 news consumers surveyed in 46 countries, a report found. That’s worse than Poland, worse than the Philippines, worse than Peru and far worse that Finland that leads at 65%. We must use alternative news websites like this one and podcasts to get the truth.
There is no better reason for Americans to distrust mainstream and corporate social media than the combination of propaganda for COVID vaccines and holding back key information on what medical experts for several months have been doing in their fight against full approval of them. We are in a corrupt world of vaccine fanaticism.
This article lays out the case against granting full approval and why pro-approval shills use big media endlessly.
Understanding the Approval Battle
This is a classic battle between good and evil. On the good side are medical articles and petitions to FDA to stop the COVID vaccine public health disaster by better assuring safety. On the evil side are big drug companies and big media arguing that there is no time to waste. In their world view until full FDA approval happens many people will justify avoiding getting jabbed. That ignores medical freedom giving people the right to decide what medicine or vaccine to take.
What should greatly trouble Americans is that at least 7,000 deaths have been connected to COVID vaccines and about 500,000 injuries have also resulted. Sure, compared to millions of vaccinated people these number may not seem critically important. Unless you or your family have been negatively impacted. To see reality, you have to read the stories of the many thousands of people who have suffered terrible health impacts from being jabbed. Often very young people. None of these nightmares are covered by big media.
There are three things that pro approval articles stay away from mentioning or seriously analyzing that reveal gross bias and dishonesty.
- First, one word rarely seen in big media stories pushing for full FDA approval is the word “experimental” to describe currently used COVID vaccines allowed under an emergency use authorization.
- Second, the enormous number of frightful stories of serious health impacts from getting vaccinated are avoided like the proverbial plague. To see detailed stories, go to Health Impact News.
- Third, there is no mention of major medical reports and major petitions to FDA by very credible health experts that demand more serious studies by FDA of a multitude of safety issues and concerns.
All three of these should make Americans seriously doubt the integrity of the FDA and its supporters. All that pro-approval entities embrace is getting more people vaccinated and the dubious claim that artificial immunity obtained from vaccines gets all the credit for better looking COVID cases and deaths. Left out is acknowledgement of the benefits of natural immunity for about half the population obtained from being infected by the COVID virus without, in nearly all cases, any serious health harm.
Below I will briefly indicate what pro-approval people and media are saying. Then, more importantly, I will provide coverage of a number of very important reports and petitions by medical experts trying to inform the public why FDA should seriously examine many safety issues and concerns about the COVID vaccines before giving full approval. For about two months, big media has kept all these hidden from public view. Keep in mind that this aspect of the cancel culture is also aimed at preventing attention to the various early home/outpatient treatments to cure and prevent COVID infection. These are a legitimate alternative to vaccines. They are described in detail in Pandemic Blunder and a new review of ivermectin use.
Pro-Approval Propaganda
The most significant big media propaganda was a July 1 opinion article in the New York Times : “It’s Time for the F.D.A. to Fully Approve the mRNA Vaccines” by the biggest shill for approval Dr. Eric Topol of Scripps Research who has served on multiple FDA advisory committees.
Much more was not revealed about him and his objectivity. In 2016, Topol received $207 million from NIH in addition to other grants of $35 million and $17 million from NIH. In August 2020 he publicly criticized FDA’s emergency use authorization of hydroxychloroquine. He has had financial involvement in six companies, including Walgreens and Quest Diagnostics. He is Editor-in-Chief of Medscape, a publication that has not revealed all the disturbing facts about COVID vaccines, as given below.
Interestingly, in 2020 Topol revealed his “liberal” political position when he was big media’s go-to guy for months for “authoritative” medical objections to Trump’s program to rapidly produce COVID vaccines. His argument was that, if it is fast — that is, a crash program — it is suspect. In September, Topol led a campaign accusing FDA head Stephen Hahn of being a tool of Trump in the push for a vaccine, and calling upon him to resign.
Topol is pure “establishment.” Like Fauci, he is a physician that the public should not trust.
His current biggest claim or assertion is this: “vaccines have overwhelmingly been proved safe and effective by clinical trials, independent research and the experience of millions of people around the world who received them.” Understand this: a great many medical experts totally disagree with this. And if you choose to check out what I give below, so will you.
And here is the mainstay of approval proponents. “Some people… are waiting for full F.D.A. approval before they receive a shot. Others may not get immunized unless their employers require it, and many organizations —including, reportedly, the military —are waiting for the vaccines to be fully approved before instituting such mandates.” Meantime everywhere you look there is coercion to get the jab.
Here are views from two other pro approval shills: “Gigi Gronvall, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, said that while there should not be “political pressure” on the FDA, “I would be interested in knowing what the holdup is. It could have a big impact on people getting [vaccinated] if it is FDA approved,” she said. “I think it’s worth asking why it hasn’t happened yet.” You will get answers below.
Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, on the wrong side of all pandemic issues, was more direct. “1 out of 3 American adults still unvaccinated. Data is in. Vaccines are safe and effective. It’s time for full approval.” No, it is not. This guy has been wrong on all pandemic issues and is a favorite of Democrat media.
The position of approval advocates is explained by this: “A Kaiser Family Foundation poll in May found that about a third of unvaccinated people — 32 percent — said they would be more likely to get the shots if a vaccine received full approval. That was a higher percentage than those saying paid time off, a free ride to the vaccination site, or getting $100 from the state would make them more likely to get vaccinated.” I say that if more people became informed about what is given below, they would become even more disinclined.
A Yahoo news story invoked fear about the Delta variant and had this to say: “Now that the Delta coronavirus variant is posing a serious risk to unvaccinated Americans, some experts are calling for the Food and Drug Administration to fully approve the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, which are currently being used under emergency use authorization. Vaccine holdouts are potentially at great risk of contracting the Delta variant, which is quickly becoming dominant in the United States. But Americans who have received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines are extremely unlikely to get sick from Delta or any other coronavirus variant.” That last statement ignores considerable data about breakthrough infections in vaccinated people.
It also ignores some important new data on Delta. Here are the details: “A briefing from Public Health England (PHE) shows that as a hospital patient, you are six times more likely to die of the COVID Delta variant if you are fully vaccinated, than if you are not vaccinated at all. The information shows up for confirmed Delta cases from February 1, 2021, to June 7, 2021. Of 33,206 Delta variant cases admitted to the hospital, 19,573 were not vaccinated. Of those, 23 (or 0.1175%) died… Of the 1,785 patients who had both vaccine doses 14 days or more before admission, 12 (or 0.6722%) died. This death rate is 5.72 times higher than that for unvaccinated patients.”
Yahoo also said “billions of people worldwide have now been vaccinated without any complications, a sure sign… that they are ‘incredibly safe.’” That is a boldface lie. Hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries have resulted from vaccinations.
Recently Dr. Peter Marks, the vaccine chief at FDA said this: “But after hundreds of millions of vaccine doses administered around the world — and intense safety monitoring — few serious risks have been identified.” This is a lie. At the same time CDC reported to FDA a total of 704 serious adverse events among younger people age 12 to 25 through May 31, defined as death, life-threatening illness, hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization, permanent disability, congenital anomaly or birth defect. In fact, there were 14 reports of death and 216 cases of heart inflammation after first dose (age 12 to 94) and 573 (age 14 to 87) after second dose—also known as myocarditis or pericarditis.
Strong Case Against Approval
Now let’s get to the most important information, the case for full approval dissenters. Unlike the pro side, big media has successfully blocked public access to the following.
In early May the headline was “57 leading scientists, doctors, and public policy experts call for IMMEDIATE HALT to Covid vaccine programs.” A medical article was published with this title: “SARS-CoV-2 mass vaccination: Urgent questions on vaccine safety that demand answers from international health agencies, regulatory authorities, governments and vaccine developers.” This was the main perspective: “The lack of thorough testing in animals prior to clinical trials, and authorization based on safety data generated during trials that lasted less than 3.5 months, raise questions regarding the safety of these vaccines.”
This too was noted: “Despite calls for caution, the risks of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have been minimized or ignored by health organizations and government authorities. We appeal to the need for a pluralistic dialogue in the context of health policies, emphasizing critical questions that require urgent answers if we wish to avoid a global erosion of public confidence in science and public health.”
On the critical issue of vaccination for children this was emphasized: “There is a lack of scientific justification for subjecting healthy children to experimental vaccines, given that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that they have a 99.997% survival rate if infected with SARS-CoV-2. Not only is COVID-19 irrelevant as a threat to this age group, but there is no reliable evidence to support vaccine efficacy or effectiveness in this population or to rule out harmful side effects of these experimental vaccines. In this sense, when physicians advise patients on the elective administration of COVID-19 vaccination, there is a great need to better understand the benefits and risk of administration, particularly in understudied groups.”
This is how the report ends: “We are convinced that humanity deserves a deeper understanding of the risks than what is currently touted as the official position. An open scientific dialogue is urgent and indispensable to avoid erosion of public confidence in science and public health and to ensure that the WHO and national health authorities protect the interests of humanity during the current pandemic. Returning public health policy to evidence-based medicine, relying on a careful evaluation of the relevant scientific research, is urgent. It is imperative to follow the science.” If only Fauci would listen.
Instead, we get the usual garbage talk from him. Fauci said during a White House Covid-19 briefing recently that it would be “most unusual for the FDA to refuse full approval for coronavirus vaccines being used under emergency use authorization. You never want to get ahead of the FDA, but it would really be a most unusual situation not to see this … get full approval. I believe it’s going to happen.” He clearly is not paying any attention to the many experts fighting full approval.
In early June an urgent British report called for complete cessation of COVID vaccines in humans. The big conclusion was that the British regulatory agency like the FDA “has more than enough evidence … to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans. It is now apparent that these [vaccine] products in the blood stream are toxic to humans. An immediate halt to the vaccination programme is required whilst a full and independent safety analysis is undertaken to investigate the full extent of the harms, which [regulatory] suggest include thromboembolism, multisystem inflammatory disease, immune suppression, autoimmunity and anaphylaxis, as well as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE).”
Also, in early June a very important petition to FDA by 27 medical experts made these critical points in a published article: “Why we petitioned the FDA to refrain from fully approving any covid-19 vaccine this year.” “We are part of a group of clinicians, scientists, and patient advocates who have lodged a formal “Citizen Petition” with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), asking the agency to delay any consideration of a “full approval” of a covid-19 vaccine.
The message of our petition is “slow down and get the science right—there is no legitimate reason to hurry to grant a license to a coronavirus vaccine. We believe the existing evidence base—both pre- and post-authorization—is simply not mature enough at this point to adequately judge whether clinical benefits outweigh the risks in all populations.”
“The covid-19 vaccines in widespread use have emergency authorizations (EUA), not actual approvals, a crucial regulatory distinction that reflects major differences in the level of regulatory scrutiny and certainty about the risk-benefit balance.”
“We also call on FDA to require a more thorough assessment of spike proteins produced in-situ by the body following vaccination—including studies on their full biodistribution, pharmacokinetics, and tissue-specific toxicities. We ask the FDA to demand manufacturers complete proper biodistribution studies that would be expected of any new drug and request additional studies to better understand the implications of mRNA translation in distant tissues.
We call on data demonstrating a thorough investigation of all serious adverse events reported to pharmacovigilance systems, carried out by independent, impartial individuals, and for safety data from individuals receiving more than two vaccine doses, in consideration of plans for future booster shots. We ask the FDA to request necessary studies in specific populations, including those previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, pediatric subjects, and those with immunological or other underlying medical complexities. Given the nature of the novel vaccine platforms, our petition asks for experts in gene therapy to be included among the external committee advising the FDA.”
Here is a very important contribution by this petition which is the invalid reason to approve the COVID vaccines. “To bolster public confidence. Like mandates, approving a medical product in order to bolster public confidence is backward logic and is outside the FDA’s purview. Approving before substantial evidence that population-based evidence of clinical effectiveness is superior to harms may contribute to public wariness and hesitancy, not only about COVID-19vaccines, but other vaccines and public health authorities more broadly. An approval may bolster public confidence, but it is not a valid reason to approve.
A key signatory to this petition is the highly regarded Dr. Peter McCullough who said this: “US experts have expressed grave concerns over the safety of the mRNA and adenoviral COVID-19 vaccines. These products trick the body into an uncontrolled biologic frenzy and produce the dangerous Wuhan spike protein, which is the product of bioterrorism research from the Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China… the products are not sufficiently safe nor effective for full FDA approval. Many open, unanswered questions surrounding the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines must be answered before the FDA considers granting a full approval. “
Yet another petition to FDA was submitted in mid-May by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Dr. Meryl Nass, an esteemed medical expert, on behalf of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), asking the agency to immediately revoke the Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for COVID vaccines and to refrain from licensing [approving] them.
Two of the most respected pandemic experts, UCLA Geffen School of Medicine Dr. Joseph Lapado and Yale School of Public Health Dr. Harvey Risch wrote this in a key Wall Street Journal article: “Another reversal in thinking may be imminent. Some scientists have raised concerns that the safety risks of Covid-19 vaccines have been underestimated. But the politics of vaccination has relegated their concerns to the outskirts of scientific thinking—for now. The large clustering of certain adverse events immediately after vaccination is concerning, and the silence around these potential signals of harm reflects the politics surrounding Covid-19 vaccines. Stigmatizing such concerns is bad for scientific integrity and could harm patients,” they continued.
They also noted: “Prior research has shown that only a fraction of adverse events are reported, so the true number of cases is almost certainly higher. This tendency of underreporting is consistent with our clinical experience.” And most importantly, they noted: “the risks of a Covid-19 vaccine may outweigh the benefits for certain low-risk populations, such as children, young adults and people who have recovered from Covid-19.” The latter would have natural immunity.
And on that topic, they emphasized: “While you would never know it from listening to public-health officials, not a single published study has demonstrated that patients with a prior infection benefit from Covid-19 vaccination. That this isn’t readily acknowledged by the CDC or Anthony Fauci is an indication of how deeply entangled pandemic politics is in science.” The politics are pushing for approval. A sign of a corrupt system.
An impressive 2017 analysis found considerable evidence to reach this conclusion about the CDC system reporting ill impacts from vaccine use: “By far, the most dire failure of the VAERS system is the vast underreporting of vaccine adverse effects which leads to a dangerous false security in vaccine safety and an erroneous assumption that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.”
It found a congressional report that said: “Former FDA commissioner David A. Kessler has estimated that VAERS reports currently represent only a fraction of the serious adverse events.” Another important revelation: “The IOM [Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences} has been telling the CDC for over 23 years that they have inadequate information (and none at all in some cases) to advise on the causal relationship between vaccines and adverse events for a majority of adverse events reported.”
It also dug out data from a three-year study by a Harvard University medical practice group that found adverse vaccine impacts for 2.6 percent of jabs. CDC refused to use the Harvard system to update theirs. Indeed, a Harvard report criticized the CDC system and found “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” The Harvard data indicate a possible level of adverse events for the COVID vaccines of close to 3 million, far above official CDC data.
Additionally, a very strong, detailed analysis of vaccine safety has been done. Here is a big conclusion: “The number of previously healthy Americans killed by the vaccines so far appears to be over 25,000 and the number of Americans who have been significantly injured could well be over 1M.” Moreover, this too was said: “we can show causality for a variety of very serious neurological and cardiovascular events. Our methods include methods similar to what the FDA itself used to ascribe excess myocarditis events to the vaccine (i.e., showing an incidence rate significantly above baseline).
The analysis here raises serious issues that are impossible to ignore. The precautionary principle of medicine says that until more definitive analysis is available, we should assume the current analysis is correct. This means we should not mandate forced vaccinations for students or employees anywhere in the world until these issues are clearly resolved.”
Another important observation in this paper: “So the vaccine deaths are simply categorized as deaths from the virus.” If true, this is yet another big government lie. And most important: “If you believe early treatment works (which it does), nobody should get vaccinated. Lower risk, higher benefit from early treatment.” I agree. Add this nugget of reality: The incredible frontline doctor George Fareed “reports a ratio of 10:1 of vaccine side-effect visits to COVID visits in urgent care.”
Dr. Martin Makary, a public health expert at Johns Hopkins University who has spoken pandemic truth is urging his colleagues to “think twice” before recommending universal COVID-19 vaccination of healthy kids. Given the data in hand, “there’s no compelling case for it right now,” he wrote in MedPage. He has called for more thorough examination of the safety data. “We’ve converted now from being pro-vaccine to vaccine fanaticism,” he said. He has also stressed the importance of natural immunity and questioned the need for vaccination: “Several studies demonstrate that natural immunity should protect those who had Covid-19.” And, on all the hysteria about the delta variant Makary recently smartly observed: “I think it’s used to manipulate people to get vaccinated. I’m for vaccines, but this is turned into a tool to try and coax people into it.” In other words, coercion.
The great Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA vaccines and a truly honest, ethical expert has spoken out about the downside of the COVID vaccines. Here are some of his important points that support opposition to full approval of them. Early on, he advised FDA about potential health risks for them, but he was not taken seriously. Here are his statements from an extensive interview in early July.
On vaccine ill effects: “So we end up relying on really outdated, antiquated systems that have been set up a decade or more ago for the most part or some systems that are self-reported like V-safe at the CDC. But those typically capture 1 per cent of the events because they’re all self-reported.”
On rapid development of the vaccines: “My fear has been with rushing this through, we would end up with problems. How can you not end up with problems if you cut corners and rush these things, particularly the safety issues?”
On risk and obeying federal law: “if you’re going to be administering experimental products to patients, that falls under clinical research, and medical research. And so you have to follow the guidance for medical research. [in] the Common Rule [as] codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. The first clause, importantly, in the Common Rule, is there has to be complete disclosure of risk.” [But] we are not meeting the criteria for full disclosure of risk.”
On coercion to get vaccinated: “All of this messaging that the vaccine is safe, and all the peer pressure that’s happening around the vaccine is coercion. ‘We all have to get vaccinated so we will reach herd immunity.’ That’s the logic. The problem is that this is a fallacy. We have not even gathered the data to be able to calculate in these clinical trials what would give us herd immunity.”
On medical freedom: “You have the right to accept or not accept a vaccine product, particularly an experimental one. You make your own decision. I can’t advise you, in the end, neither can your physician completely advise you.”
Dr. Mercola wrote about Malone’s views and noted: “He believes the risks outweigh the benefits in children, teens and young adults, and that those who have recovered from natural SARS-CoV-2 infection should not get the injection.”
Bottom line: It should now be clear that there is more than enough reason to reject all the propaganda by big media backing the full approval of COVID vaccines. More reason than ever for people to reject getting the jab, especially if you have natural immunity or want to use early home/outpatient treatments that cure and prevent COVID infection. This is very relevant for the 50 percent of working age adults who have not taken any jab. And vaccinated people should think deeply about getting a booster shot.
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.
Covid – start at the beginning and question everything
By Abir Ballan | The Conservative Woman | July 15, 2021
ASKING questions is at the heart of science. Science is not an institution and not an authority. Science is never settled. It is forever evolving through conjecture and criticism. Questions form the basis of all scientific inquiry and scientific progress. Without challenging existing concepts – usually held by a majority – there is no knowledge creation. Censoring dissenting voices eliminates the mechanism of error correction and pushes humanity back into the dark ages.
From the beginning, lockdowns were a questionable public health tool, even described as ‘pro-contagion’ by Professor Ioannidis of Stanford University. As early as June 2020, papers showed that lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) had no effect on reducing deaths. We were all aware that lockdowns would have a terrible economic impact and a devastating human toll, especially in the developing world. We went along with this ‘cure’ because we were told it would save lives – it was necessary for two to three weeks to flatten the curve of infections and prevent healthcare system strain. Yet the goalposts kept shifting endlessly, moving towards a ZERO COVID world: a completely unrealistic and unachievable goal.
Is now the time to question absolutely everything?
The US Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organisation and ‘experts’ have flip-flopped multiple times. In February 2020, Anthony Fauci said: ‘In all the history of respiratory-born viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person.’ However, all the pandemic measures were based on the assumption that people who are healthy might be sick without knowing it. On June 8, 2020, Maria Van Kerkhove of the WHO stated that asymptomatic spread of SARS-CoV-2 is very rare. The next day she walked back her comment saying that studies, based on computer modelling not real-life data, show that asymptomatic spread is cause for concern. A systematic review and meta-analysis paper, published in 2020, falsified this assumption. Asymptomatic spread is simply not the main driver of disease. What should be of even less concern is transmission in the open air, likely to be below 0.1 per cent of all transmissions. Unfortunately, the CDC overestimated outdoor spread, claiming that it represented 10 per cent of transmissions. This exaggeration was used to justify futile outdoor mask mandates. They later admitted their error, too little, too late. Why are we still testing healthy people and locking populations indoors?
The CDC and the WHO confused the public with their contradictory social media recommendations about masks: ‘Masks don’t work in the community. Everyone should wear masks in the community. Everyone should wear two masks. Even if you are vaccinated you should still wear a mask. If you are vaccinated you can do without a mask.’ Behind the scenes, the CDC published a policy review in May 2020 stating, ‘We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission’. The WHO published an Interim guidance in June 2020 stating ‘At present, there is no direct evidence on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community’. Fauci’s leaked emails showed that he didn’t believe in the power of masks either. He said in February 2020 in his email to Sylvia Burwell, ‘The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.’ Why were masks mandated even when the data showed that they made no difference?
The WHO flip-flopped on the definition of herd immunity, which is the point at which an infectious disease stops being a cause for concern because most of the population is immune to it. They removed natural immunity from the definition and limited herd immunity to that reached via vaccination only. After this meddling caused an uproar, they went back again and included both forms of immunity as contributing to herd immunity. Furthermore, they changed their recommendations about the PCR test, first allowing very high cycle thresholds of 45 (which is the number of times the genetic material of the virus is multiplied until it is detected) and recommending that cases are diagnosed based on a positive PCR test, regardless of symptoms – previously unheard of in medicine. Patients are usually diagnosed with a disease if they are sick. Later the WHO rectified their stance, clarifying that the diagnosis of cases requires clinical symptoms and that high cycle thresholds lead to false positives. Why did the WHO make recommendations contrary to established medical practice for infectious diseases? The PCR test was not designed to diagnose infectiousness. It merely detects viral genetic material, dead or alive. Studies indicate that 25 cycles are enough to detect an infectious virus. How much have the false positive results affected the number of cases and in turn the number of deaths? How many deaths were wrongly attributed to COVID instead of other diseases?
Science doesn’t flip-flop like that. Politics does. Science has become politicised. We need to decouple science from politics. It is being manipulated to serve corporate and political agendas. Anyone criticising ‘The Science’ is silenced harshly. People are smart and if given accurate information they can make the right decisions for themselves and their communities. Unfortunately, people are being misinformed and terrified with non-stop death reports, apparently vanishing immunity and the threat of new variants. Fear is not good for us. It’s not good for our immunity, our health or our ability to think rationally. To calm the fear, we need to know that ‘cases’ are meaningless, deaths are overestimated and immunity – whether natural or vaccine-induced – Is long-lasting and can protect us from future variants. Variants are not unique to Covid. All respiratory viruses mutate. The variants are so minutely different from each other that our immune system will recognise them and protect us. It’s like your friend wearing a cap. Can you still recognise him? In the same way, your immune system also recognises the variants. How much longer should we let those variants haunt us?
Now is the time for error correction. Start at the beginning and question everything: lockdowns, asymptomatic transmission, mask mandates, claims about short-lived immunity and dreadful variants. Now is the time for a better solution.
Mark your calendar for The Question Everything: Lockdowns Summit, on July 17, 2021, where pre-eminent experts from science, social sciences, law and industry will evaluate the response to Covid-19.
Featured Video
AIDS Inc. by Gary Null (2007)
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Clash of Civilization, Iran Part II
By Jamal Kanj – Intifada-Palestine.com – January 14, 2011
Israel’s survival kit is: perpetuate conflict, insecurity to rationalize collective hate and finally playing victim.
Devoid of conflict, Israel implodes internally; without hate, Zionism loses its justification; and playing eternal victim to continue blackmailing the West. Absence of this holy trinity, Israel ceases to exist.
From its inception, the house of Zion has mastered exploiting adversarial powers to advance Israel’s cause. For instance, their influence over the Democratic Party in the US began with President Truman’s bid for 2nd term election in 1948.
Responding to strong opposition from Secretary of State General George Marshall and Department experts urging against recognition of Israel, President Truman replied: “I’m sorry gentlemen but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands [Jewish voters] who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of [voting] Arabs among my constituents”
Zionists influence over liberal American politics was matched with the doctrinal school of Conservative theoreticians aligning the Republican Party’s platform with Israel’s objectives. The Neoconservative Zionists, coined Zioncons, invented the “Clash of Civilization” concept to fight Israel’s wars. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- 12 Things Your Psychiatrist Was Trained Not to Tell You
- From Unipolar Universalism to Multipolar Civilizational Distinctiveness
- RSF military group defects, joins Sudanese army: State media
- Ireland goalkeeper refuses to play ‘Israel’ as squad weighs boycott
- China pushes back against US on Cuba, Iran
- Ukrainian Soldiers, Potential Mercenaries: Have Gun, Will Travel!
- Burnham’s UN debut… A masterclass in British disinformation
- Iran flights continue despite US aviation sanctions
- Global Tipping Points Lead the World Into a State of Entropy
- The day-after at the White House: USA and Xi Jinping
- If Americans Knew
- Israel forces Gazans to live in constant peril – Daily Update
- Deconstructing Netanyahu’s pants-on-fire UN rant – Daily Update
- Trump betrayed voters with his campaign lies and prioritized a foreign country once he took office
- Netanyahu calls Israel’s war in Gaza ‘opposite of genocide’ in UN speech to near-empty hall
- Settler Kidnappings: Torture, Sexual Abuse and Terrorisation of Palestinian Abductees as Israel Deepens Annexation of West Bank
- Gaza winter nears as 162,000 tents become unusable, raising fears of humanitarian crisis
- Netanyahu says, “It’s the opposite of genocide”; UN says Gaza economy is world’s ‘most severe crisis on record’ – Daily Update
- Israel’s US-Backed Assault on Gaza Has Created the ‘World’s Most Severe Economic Crisis on Record’: UN
- ‘Protecting U.S. Citizens’… From Israel
- ‘This is where I live now, the back of a truck’: a day in the life of a grandmother in Gaza
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
