On Friday the Mail website reported on the heart attack suffered by US basketball player Bronny James, aged 18, on court. According to two UK doctors cited by the Mail and described as ‘leading experts’, the suggestion that this might be the result of a vaccine injury is a conspiracy theory. The article concedes that deaths from heart disease are at record levels and that Covid vaccines cause heart damage, but stiffly maintains that connecting these two facts is an error. The BBC chimes in with an article claiming ‘there is no evidence to support the implication vaccines might be involved’.
The basis of these claims is the suggestion that vaccine-induced myocarditis is so rare that it could not possibly be causing the huge rate of excess deaths from heart disease which amounts, according to the British Heart Foundation, to a massive 30,000 extra UK deaths per year when compared to pre-pandemic levels.
At the same time as Bronny James was suffering a heart attack and its aftermath, Swiss scientists finalised a scientific paper for publication entitled Sex specific differences in myocardial injury incidence after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 booster vaccination. This is a landmark study because it is a gold standard prospective study with a rigorous schedule of tests rather than an incomplete retrospective assessment of past events.
A total of 777 health care workers with a median age of 37 were tested for myocardial damage three days after Moderna booster vaccination and compared with the same number of controls. Forty (1 in 20) had elevated troponin levels indicative of damage to cardiac cells. These subjects (65 per cent of them women) had follow-up tests and 22 (1 in 35) were judged to have vaccine-induced myocardial injury. This careful study proves that myocardial injury has been massively underreported. The Mail reports that the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) had previously estimated a rate of just one in 666. Wrong by a factor of 20.
By no stretch of the imagination can myocardial injury be judged to be ‘extremely rare’ as the Mail suggests. Nor according to this detailed discussion by Dr John Campbell is this level of risk something any of us would consider taking on unless we faced imminent death as an alternative, which we don’t. For another discussion see this informative substack article.
Fortunately the short-term effects among those in the Swiss study did not include severe outcomes, but another prospective study completed in 2022 in Thailand on 314 high school students did find such severe effects. It is well known that myocarditis has both short-term and long-term outcomes. The elevated rate of excess deaths from heart disease in the general population does point to the need to ask questions, and asking does not amount to a conspiracy. The dismissal of these claims suggests there is an attempt to cover up on the part of the same doctors who coerced us to take the jabs and told us they were effective and safe.
Other causal factors for the steep rise in excess deaths from heart disease suggested by the Mail include the rise in typical ambulance response times to cardiac incidents from 30 to 90 minutes. Another suggestion widely touted was a supposed failure to prescribe statins during the pandemic; this disappeared when it was shown that statin prescriptions have not decreased.
If you want to know just how convoluted denial of responsibility can become, read a translation of an article from Sweden where a 30-year-old man died after receiving a booster jab. The government paid his family financial compensation but listed the event as the result of a medicine given in error. A paper analysing post-mortem results following Covid vaccination underlines the intentional obfuscation of this kind of doublespeak.
Behind this posturing and denial of responsibility lies something much darker with more chilling implications for public health. It is not just heart attacks that are up to levels never seen before. Ditto cancers, kidney injury, neurological injury, strokes, miscarriages, menstrual irregularities, stillbirths, cognitive decline and, crucially, unexplained deaths.
These statistics point to the need for probing questions of a different type. Are the vaccines or indeed Covid infection, which the balance of evidence suggests came from a biotech lab, causing generalised immune instability? How long is this going to go on and how bad will it get?
Sometimes you have to face up to extreme challenges in your personal life. Our responses to these crises define who we are and what we can become. This can require admitting to ourselves and others that we got it all wrong. Apology and humility build character and support honesty.
Crises can also engulf the whole of society. The casual dismissal of questions about vaccine safety shows we have arrived at just such a societal crisis: a crisis of health and truth whose dimensions appear to dwarf anything civilisation has had to face in our lifetimes. The beginnings of this crisis are not yet certain, but the turning point came when decision-makers in the pharmaceutical industry at the start of the pandemic decided it would be safe to unleash biotechnology on the general public. We are just at the beginning of this era. The World Health Organization 2030 Agenda predicts that we will all be subject to hundreds of novel vaccines within the decade.
Before the pandemic, biotechnology medicine was well known to be unsafe and inherently mutagenic (having the ability to cause a permanent change in an organism’s genes). Crucially it wasn’t so much what we knew, but what we didn’t know that constituted the colossal error of judgement, hubris, cruelty and greed. A single cell, the origin of life, contains 100trillion atoms organised into 42million protein molecules and 20,000 genes. Scientists have only a vague picture of how cells work. They have no idea how cells produce consciousness or how they join together (37.2trillion of them) to form a single human identity with amazing autonomic functions and immunity. Scientists don’t understand how intra-cellular transport and selection is managed. They have only a hazy comprehension of the role of electric fields, molecular shape, vibrational modes, so-called dark areas of our genome and multi-gene cooperative functions. Their knowledge can be described as a crude notion put together from a few isolated facts derived from a countable number of experiments.
What we do know for certain is the immense precision involved and the vulnerability of cells to minute edits to their structure. Cells work very hard to protect this precision: each one completes over 70,000 self-repairs every day. With this in mind, it is perfectly plain that those working in the field of gene therapy knew from previous failures and disasters just how potentially dangerous Covid vaccines could be. Some did warn their superiors who not only ignored them but set about telling the general public that biotechnology was completely safe and near 100 per cent infallible. This was not only a big lie but the crime of the century.
The new generation of biotech medicines are squarely aimed at editing the internal operation of cells, the control system that keeps our physiology and our life flying safely. It shouldn’t be a surprise that handicapping the pilot might crash the plane. The only surprise is that millions of crashed planes worldwide are being ignored. We are living in a very different world from the one we thought we inhabited. I hope we are not so daft that we stop asking questions on the advice of those manifestly profiting from the pandemic.
After reporting earlier that there have been 100,000 extra UK deaths from heart disease alone, the Mail concludes by claiming without evidence that the number of vaccine-related deaths in Britain pales in comparison to the estimated 230,000 lives that Covid inoculation has supposedly saved, a figure widely disputed, impossible to prove and believed to be wildly inflated. Even so, 2/5 are not odds that I would accept if I had to put my life up as collateral – would you?
Once you have told one lie, it is very hard to avoid telling more lies which can eventually become a world of untruth that eats away at your conscience and peace. This has become the fate of society during the pandemic. No one is participating more enthusiastically than the Fourth Estate. Every day, the mainstream media are claiming that excess deaths, which are running into millions worldwide, are normal or non-existent and have nothing to do with the obvious culprit. Governments are looking the other way and piously washing their hands of the matter like Pontius Pilate, while medical authorities are busying themselves hiding the data and refusing to carry out tests and autopsies.
Articles like those I have cited in the Daily Mail and the BBC (and there are many of them published every day) are not just bad journalism: they are part of an insidious promotion of drugs that are known to harm people. The articles are intended to quiet the concern of people worldwide who are waking up to the vaccines’ terrible side effects and complete ineffectiveness. The purpose is the inflation of the profits of a trillion-dollar industry which has proved itself callous and criminal, unfit to dominate public health policy as it does through revolving doors between regulators and industry insiders and through obscene advertising expenditure and gifts to medical professionals.
July 30, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
A major increase in spontaneous abortion among pregnant women was directly linked to the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine in Switzerland, according to a new analysis by statistician and Luzern University professor Dr. Konstantin Beck.
Beck, a former adviser to the German Minister of Health and the Swiss Parliament, analyzed publicly available Swiss and German data from scientific publications, health insurance companies and the Swiss Federal Office of Statistics (FOS).
He found that miscarriages and stillbirth rates in 2022 corresponded directly to COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant women in Switzerland nine months earlier.
And, he said, vaccine makers and public health officials either knew or could have known this information at the time, if they cared to look. Instead, they presented the information to the public in a way that obscured the risks.
Beck presented his groundbreaking research findings on Wednesday to Doctors for Covid Ethics.
Also, contrary to public statements by Swiss authorities that, “There is no relevant excess mortality among young people ” in Switzerland, Beck’s re-examination of the government’s own data reveals significant patterns of excess mortality among young people emerged in late 2021 and early 2022.
He said these findings show that during the COVID-19 pandemic, “We exposed the most vulnerable unnecessarily to new risks that outweigh by far the original pandemic risk.” And that “today, more and more heavy consequences of our Corona measures pop up in our official statistics, but only a few are interested to know [about them].”
“By analyzing the rollout of these vaccines, especially for pregnant women and their unborn, I found plain evidence from the very beginning that rethinking and postponing the vaccination strategy would have been imperative,” he said.
COVID shots led to ‘the baby gap’
Switzerland saw a historic drop in the rate of live births in 2022.
Every month that year, there were fewer births than there had been on average over the previous six years, for an overall reduction of 8.5% in the national birth rate, according to Beck’s analysis.
In some places, the drop was even more significant — Zurich had a 16.5 % drop in its birth rate.
The last comparable drop in births, 13%, Beck said, was during the 1914 mobilization of the Swiss Army at the start of World War I.
The 2022 plummet in birth rates came on the heels of a small “Corona baby boom” — a 3% spike in birth rates in 2021, that had followed the pandemic lockdown.
According to data compiled by analyst Raimund Hagemann, COVID-19 vaccination rates among Swiss women in 2021 and early 2022 corresponded very closely to the drop in birth rates nine months following vaccination.
Figure 1 (below), which adjusts the birth rate timeline by nine months to account for the time of pregnancy, shows this strong correlation between rates of vaccination and decline in the birth rate — the two numbers mirror one another.
Figure 1
Researchers have offered a few different hypotheses for this “baby gap,” which Beck evaluated.
Some proposed a behavioral explanation, hypothesizing that people changed their behavior out of fear associated with the pandemic itself or the associated economic uncertainty.
But Beck said this hypothesis did not match historical behavior patterns — the baby boom itself happened in the middle of World War II. And, it can’t account for the baby boom that followed the beginning of the pandemic, when public fear and unemployment were both at their height.
He also dismissed the hypothesis that COVID-19 infection reduced fertility. If that were the case, he said, there would not have been a 2021 spike in the birth rate following the first wave of infection in 2020, and there was no evidence of reduced fertility following the Omicron virus wave.
In fact, Beck said, there is no evidence of reduced fertility at all. On the contrary, the data show women were becoming pregnant at the same rates as before the pandemic.
Using German health insurance data — because Swiss data are not yet available — he showed the number of women seeking pregnancy tests and visiting doctors to be treated for pregnancy remained constant throughout 2021 and 2022.
There was even slight ongoing growth, and a spike related to the mini-baby boom of 2021.
That makes COVID-19 vaccine-induced spontaneous abortion the most plausible hypothesis for the drop in birth rates — because the same number of women were becoming pregnant, but fewer of them were carrying their pregnancies to term.
Supporting that claim, data from German health and Swiss insurers show that beginning in the fourth quarter of 2021, there are clear and significant increases in the number of pregnancy complications treated and in the length of hospital stays following birth — both of which had been trending downward for years.
German data also indicate that the number of stillbirths was up 20% in the fourth quarter of 2021.
Although data on stillbirths were not available for Switzerland, he said, there is no reason to believe that it would be substantively different.
‘Anyone who had read the leaflet, would have been informed’ of dangers
The vaccines’ impact on pregnancy was not simply a tragic and unanticipated outcome, because it was already evident in the vaccine manufacturers’ own data or lack thereof, Beck said.
Anyone who had “read a leaflet from the manufacturer,” he added, “would have been informed” that there were no pregnancy data, but that there were serious concerns about the possible effects of vaccines on infants.
The German version of the Moderna Spikevax warning said, essentially, “We have no clue what the risk is for pregnant women. There are no good controlled studies done. There is not enough data available,” Beck said.
The leaflet also recommended against vaccination for breastfeeding mothers, but strongly recommended it for pregnant women, Beck said.
“But isn’t pregnancy usually preceding breastfeeding?” he asked, “And what should you then do after giving birth to get rid of vaccination?”
On April 20, 2021, Pfizer sent its report regarding the mRNA vaccine and pregnancy to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), according to the Pfizer documents.
The following day, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published preliminary findings on COVID-19 vaccine safety in pregnant women based on an analysis of V-safe and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
On April 23, in a White House press conference, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky recommended pregnant women get vaccinated based on the findings of that paper.
The paper explicitly stated that researchers found no safety signals with respect to pregnancy or neonatal outcomes in the third trimester, but that it could make no conclusions about the first or second trimesters.
Given that the first and second trimesters are the highest risk periods for pregnancy, Beck said, the NEJM paper concedes the researchers didn’t know what additional risks the vaccines might pose to pregnant women at their most vulnerable time.
The paper also included an irrelevant comparison of the most frequent symptoms post-vaccine between pregnant and non-pregnant women, and used live birth as the only measure of the potential health effects on the newborn.
And perhaps most importantly, it explicitly stated that “The most frequently reported pregnancy related adverse events were spontaneous abortion.”
The paper reported 46 spontaneous abortions related to vaccination out of 104 total reported. That, Beck said, is a 73.1% increase in spontaneous abortion.
Making calculations based on that NEJM data, Beck found that the reported vaccination rate of 75% of pregnant women in Switzerland, 1 in 10 pregnancies ends in a miscarriage or stillbirth.
He concluded that alternative existing hypotheses can’t account for this phenomenon, and the vaccine-induced miscarriage hypothesis corresponds to both the manufacturer’s data and the relevant findings reported as the basis of the CDC’s campaign to vaccinate pregnant women.
125% spike in pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrest and stroke, and cerebral infarction among children ages 0-14
The presentation also raised a series of concerns about the impacts of COVID-19 vaccination on young people and how statistical manipulation can obscure those potential effects.
Based on several examples of how the health and mortality of young people worsened over the course of the vaccination period, Beck posed the question, “Why did we vaccinate children? I mean, they were not the target group of this virus.”
An examination of data from major health insurers, for example, showed that during 2020-2021, people ages 19-39 had the highest growth in healthcare costs, while they typically have the lowest costs, indicating a change in the health of that demographic.
Data on the frequency of pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrest and stroke, and cerebral infarction among children ages 0-14 showed a 125% spike in events. While the numbers were still small, they went from an average of 20 events per year over the several preceding years to a total of 45 events in 2021.
A second look at data analysis by the FOS, which had reported that there was no excess mortality for young people in 2022, raised red flags, Beck said.
Excess mortality measures the difference in reported deaths versus expected deaths in a given period. Baseline projections of excess mortality are typically based on previous averages.
Re-analyzing the FOS mortality data, but keeping the expected number of deaths in line with previous averages — which the FOS had not done — Beck found a 12% increase in overall excess mortality.
When he analyzed the excess mortality by age groups, Beck found that for young adults ages 20-39, there was a spike in excess mortality beyond normal expectations in late 2021 and in 2022. And for children ages 0-19, he identified a similar trend.
Excess mortality data, he said, can be easily hidden by widening confidence intervals for predictions, combining demographic groups with different health profiles or changing the baseline expected number of deaths to hide variation, which made it possible for Swiss officials to announce there was no excess mortality for young people.
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
July 30, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
Because if officials did, they might have to ‘confirm’ something that blows up all their bogus narratives.
In Part 1 of this article, I presented my iron-clad Covid maxim: “Officials never investigate that which they don’t want to confirm.”
One of the first Reader Comments this article generated was from the always-astute Substacker SimulationCommander:
“This goes for much more than Covid, too. Like the Nordstream bombings or cocaine in the White House. Then you can have the press parrot, “No evidence exists…”
And how, SC. This maxim does apply to every “taboo” subject that could/might detonate any false or bogus narrative. Alas, if I was going to list examples of every taboo topic that can’t be investigated (because inconvenient truths might be “confirmed”), I’d be writing until midnight.
This caveat stipulated, what follows are a few more Covid examples I think “confirm” my maxim that non-authorized conclusions cannot be “confirmed” … because they simply won’t be investigated. Or, if they are “investigated,” said investigation will itself be a scam, designed to protect the authorized conclusion.
Don’t perform autopsies.
Don’t investigate or follow-up on all the people listed on the VAERS data base.
Make sure medical personnel don’t go overboard inputting VAERS reports. (Make sure the VAERS system is capturing only a tiny percentage of the possible vaccine-injured).
Make sure the MSM doesn’t interview or investigate the claims of family members who possibly died or had vaccine injuries.
Don’t perform any statistical comparisons from previous years.
Don’t interview any doctors, nurses or hospital administrators who believe the “Covid protocols” were actually killing patients.
Don’t report it or investigate it.
Don’t question any life insurance companies or their actuary experts.
Don’t question any funeral home directors or coroners about any possible spike in deaths.
Don’t question any clergy that perform funeral services.
Don’t survey ambulance companies to see if they were/are responding to more emergency calls.
Don’t question florists to see if they were/are preparing more floral arrangements for funerals.
If some journalist or official must mention a spike in all-cause deaths, attribute these deaths to “long Covid” or “Covid that won’t go away” (even though the “vaccines” were supposed to prevent death in at least 95 percent of cases.)
Don’t seek to tally these incidents or compare them to previous years.
Censor the YouTube videos of hundreds of athletes collapsing while in competition.
Or: make sure said videos do NOT “go viral.”
Censor or “de-boost” the many thousands of headlines and stories that report on these incidents.
To reduce the length of this article, I refer readers to this article (“27 ways officials concealed evidence of early spread.”)
One mechanism that might suppress evidence of early virus spread would be to NOT perform any antibody studies of all naval personnel who were on a ship between November 2019 through March 2020.
(See end of this article for my latest “eureka!” observation/theory. This possibility is a stunner even to me.)
Don’t give research money to any college or “scientific” research organization that might perform studies on taboo topics that could de-bunk the authorized narratives.
If some awkward or embarrassing studies are performed, censor them … or produce a “counter-study” designed to discredit the previous inconvenient study/anecdotes.
Steer studies to researchers who will produce results that match the authorized narratives.
Note: This is the “carrot” approach: “We’ll pay you if you produce a good study for us!”
More yummy carrots: Pay news organizations (via advertising spends and “Excellence-in- Journalism” grants) that run stories that support the narrative.
The stick: Boycott, censor, de-platform the few media organizations that persist in challenging the authorized narratives. Try to shut these sites down or get their key dissenting journalists fired (Tucker Carlson, James O’Keefe, etc).
Or: Put dissidents or “dangerous extremists/traitors” in jail for the rest of their lives (Julian Assange).
Or: Force them to flee to Russia (Edward Snowden).
Use non-stop propaganda to encourage other vaccines: “Don’t forget to get your flu shot. It’s not too late to get your flu shot. Flu shots prevent the flu.”
More carrots: “$10 gift card at Publix for everyone who gets their flu shot … or Covid shot.”
More sticks: “We’ll fire you if you don’t get your shot.”
Carrot and stick at the same time: “You can now go to a Broadway play … If you’ve gotten your shots and can prove it to us.”
As I’ll soon report, the CDC and Navy actually tested 382 crew members (out of 4,800 crew members) of the USS Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier for antibodies. Blood for these antibody tests was collected from a “voluntary … convenience sample” on April 20-24, 2020.
The results showed that 60 to 62* percent of the Roosevelt crew members who got an antibody assay tested positive for antibodies (which provide antigen evidence of “prior infection.”)
*Note: Some sentences in this study say “62 percent” of crew members tested positive for antibodies, other sentences say “60 percent.”
Previously-reported PCR test results had suggested only 20 percent of Roosevelt crew members had been infected by the time this ship made it to port in Guam in late March, 2020.
In researching the “Roosevelt outbreak,” I learned there’d also been Covid outbreaks on a French aircraft carrier (the Charles de Gaulle) in the approximate same time period as the Roosevelt outbreak; there was also an outbreak on the USS Kidd missile destroyer.
The French aircraft carrier had about 1,800 crew members and 90 percent of these crew members were later tested for antibodies (for some odd reason, only 7.9 percent of Roosevelt crew members were tested for antibodies).
The de Gaulle antibody results were almost identical to the percentage of the Roosevelt study, showing that 60 to 65 percent of these sailors had been previously infected.
On the USS Kidd, which had 333 crew members, at least 41 percent of its crew members had been previously infected based on PCR and antibody results.
I believe the antibody results on the Roosevelt, Charles de Gaulle and Kidd are trying to tell us something about the real R-naught number of the novel coronavirus.
The R-naught number tries to quantify how contagious a particular virus is. It seeks to tell researchers how many people one infected person might later – directly or indirectly – infect.
An R-naught number over 2 means “virus” spread” is going to be significant. If this number is 3 or 4 (or more), Katie bar the door!
True, naval vessels constitute the worst possible “spread” environments, but, if nothing else, these antibody results tell us that the majority of people in any “congregate” and extended virus-spread environment will at some point contract this virus.
NOTE: If any person has relevant information about a potential “early outbreak” on the Roosevelt or any naval ship (and a possible cover-up of same), please email me at: wjricejunior@gmail.com
Another key take-away from my non-authorized research project is that only one of approximately 7,000 sailors on these three ships died from Covid (and this lone Covid victim was 41.)
In other words, the antibody studies show that of at least 4,000 or so sailors infected with this virus, only one infected person died (and details of this one fatality are sketchy and include odd elements).
This means the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) for sailors under the age of 41 on these three ships was 0.0000 percent.
I argue this finding – if widely publicized – would have slain the false narrative that Covid was a threat to young adults.
Upon deeper contemplation, I find it very interesting that no antibody studies were done of crew members of other ships that were at sea between December 2019 and March 2020.
Question: What if later antibody studies had been done of all naval crew members who had been at sea in these “pre-official Covid” months?
If this pro-active prevalence investigation (or “active surveillance” as Alex Berenson highlighted in a recent study about vaccine-caused heart issues) had been performed, I think researchers and the public might have found that 40 to 60 percent of crew members who served on every ship in any nation’s Navy might have also tested positive for Covid antibodies.
The reason more antibody studies weren’t performed is probably that no other “outbreaks” were publicly identified on any other ships.
However, the reason no or few possible early “cases” were identified on other ships is that no PCR tests were available on these others ships and no sailors were being tested with PCR tests before mid-March 2020.
So we got only “passive surveillance.” This, I argue, is why more early cases throughout the population weren’t identified. There were simply no PCR tests being given to people who may have been infected.
In my opinion, if these tests had been available and had been administered, PCR positive results would have started coming back “positive” just like they did on the other ships that did get these (then) scarce tests and started testing crew members.
Maybe more “PCR evidence” of early infections on more naval vessels would have prompted more later antibody studies of all the crew members of those ships (just like what happened on the Roosevelt, Kidd and de Gaulle).
With the exception of the outbreaks on these three ships, PCR and antibody testing didn’t happen. I suspect that wide-spread antibody testing of all naval vessels didn’t happen … for a reason.
Again: Don’t test for (or genuinely “investigate”) that which you don’t want to “confirm.” This strategy works every time!
July 30, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Covid-19 |
Leave a comment
Pensions etc. can’t be paid in future. More fear porn to push 7 very important narratives.
The NY Times ran a major story today to get in front of the depopulation narrative, it seems. Countries don’t actually need to depopulate to stop the world population from increasing. Depopulation is already here, happening organically. [By that I mean families are having fewer children in response to the strip mining of the middle classes everywhere.] I described the lack of a growing world population last February, here.
No doubt both depopulation and the aging of all our nations has sped up as a result of COVID vaccinations being forced on 2/3 of the world’s population.
Yes, forced. Illegally forced. By spewing lies at everyone about the vaccines’ benefits and harms, which governments, regulators and manufacturers knew were lies, by scaring the Bejesus out of people by lying about the severity of COVID, by threatening and sanctioning refusers, by exhorting the world to shun refusers, by demanding vaccine passports to participate in normal activities like shopping… the list goes on and on. The people who wrote, spread and repeated these lies are culpable of crimes against humanity.
But the COVID lies and the vaccine lies were only the beginning. Governments also lied about borders, about immigration, about unaccompanied children crossing borders, and most importantly about WHY all these bizarre policies were being hoisted on most of the developed and developing world. The NY Times has been front and center in carrying the dirty water—and amplifying it—for each of these criminal lies and the policies they buttressed.
Now the NYT is at it again.
I see many narratives that the NY Times may be trying to push with this piece:
ONE: Lack of intent. We did not create the COVID virus nor the vaccines with the intent to depopulate, because we actually need more young people as workers. Therefore, such claims make no sense, and must be dismissed in their entirety.
TWO: In fact, we knew the population was decreasing. It has been obvious for years. Why would we shoot our economies in the foot by depopulating? Don’t blame us. [Ignores the fact that by crashing our economies, the assets can be purchased on the cheap, while putting people and nations into a debt trap that will close in on them later as interest rates rise, or money gets tight, or using other schemes.]
THREE: The NYT provides the justification why pensions cannot be paid in full, and why retirement ages must increase.
FOUR: If we were in fact trying to depopulate, we would have aimed for the elderly. The fact that so many young people have myocarditis, sudden deaths, and that there are 40% more deaths in working age groups should be additional evidence that vaccine depopulation was accidental, not intentional.
FIVE: To justify crazy ‘immigration’ policies [the border is open, just wade across] the NYT reveals that with a younger group of workers entering the country, maybe we can pay your pension after all. Fingers crossed. So shut up about immigration if you want to retire.
SIX: All those unaccompanied minors crossing the border? Shut up, they will become our young workers in a few years, the ones that pay for your pensions. Stop asking what happened to them.
SEVEN: We could so easily fix this if it wasn’t for those right-wing populist movements nipping at the heels of our totalitarian one world governance project.
Excerpts follow.
The world’s demographics have already been transformed. Europe is shrinking. China is shrinking, with India, a much younger country, overtaking it this year as the world’s most populous nation.
But what we’ve seen so far is just the beginning.
The projections are reliable, and stark: By 2050, people age 65 and older will make up nearly 40 percent of the population in some parts of East Asia and Europe. That’s almost twice the share of older adults in Florida, America’s retirement capital. Extraordinary numbers of retirees will be dependent on a shrinking number of working-age people to support them.
In all of recorded history, no country has ever been as old as these nations are expected to get.
As a result, experts predict, things many wealthier countries take for granted — like pensions, retirement ages and strict immigration policies — will need overhauls to be sustainable. And today’s wealthier countries will almost inevitably make up a smaller share of global G.D.P., economists say….
As in many young countries, birth rates in Kenya have declined drastically in recent years. Women had an average of eight children 50 years ago, but only just over three last year. Demographically, Kenya looks something like South Korea in the mid-1970s, as its economy was beginning a historic rise, although its birth rate is declining somewhat more slowly. Much of South Asia and Africa have similar age structures…
there is evidence that sub-Saharan African countries’ fertility rates are dropping even faster than the U.N. projects… [Uh oh, what else have we done to them?]
The transformation of rich countries has only just begun. If these countries fail to prepare for a shrinking number of workers, they will face a gradual decline in well-being and economic power….
To cope, experts say, aging rich countries will need to rethink pensions, immigration policies and what life in old age looks like. [Do they mean what life in old age looks like, or do they mean enforced death in old age?]
Change will not come easy. More than a million people have taken to the streets in France to protest raising the retirement age to 64 from 62, highlighting the difficult politics of adjusting. Immigration fears have fueled support for right-wing candidates across aging countries in the West and East Asia.
“Much of the challenges at the global level are questions of distribution,” Dr. Myrskylä said. “So some places have too many old people. Some places have too many young people. It would of course make enormous sense to open the borders much more. And at the same time we see that’s incredibly difficult with the increasing right-wing populist movements.”…
“You can say with some kind of degree of confidence what the demographics will look like,” Mr. O’Keefe said. “What the society will look like depends enormously on policy choices and behavioral change.”
July 30, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, New York Times, United States |
Leave a comment
Last week it was reported that the Australian state of Victoria may be considering “permanent” facemask mandates to achieve “zero-Covid”.
Now, we don’t need to get into the personal liberty implications of such a law, or the near-infinite supply of evidence that masks don’t work to prevent the transmission of respiratory disease.
They don’t work, they never worked. Mandating them was a political move designed to make the fake Covid “pandemic” appear real, and their continued use is a symptom of brainwashing or a by-product of chronic virtue signaling.
The mask debate, such as it was, is over.
No, the only aspect of this development worth talking about is the “evidence” used to support the position – and trust me, the quotes are entirely justified.
The “study” which claims to demonstrate the benefits of permanent masking was published in the Medical Journal of Australia last week and titled “Consistent mask use and SARS‐CoV‐2 epidemiology: a simulation modelling study”.
“Simulation modelling study” is very much the key phrase there. For those who don’t know, “simulation modelling studies” involve feeding data into a computer programme, then asking it to form conclusions.
Clearly, they are only as reliable and useful as the data you use. In fact, you can very easily make them produce any result you want by feeding in the “right” (bad) data.
In this particular modelling study they started out by telling the computer that cloth masks reduce transmission by 53% and respirators reduced it by 80%:
Odds ratios for the relative risk of infection for people exposed to an infected person (wearing a mask v not wearing a mask) were set at 0.47 for cloth and surgical masks and 0.20 for respirators
Essentially, they told their computer that masks prevent disease… and then said “ok, computer, since you now know masks prevent disease – what would happen if everybody wore them all the time?”
The computer then told them – obviously – that nobody would get sick.
Because they made it logically impossible for it to say anything else.
But there’s a bit more to it.
The next layer of interest is where they got their input data from.
After all there have been dozens of studies done on masks over the years, 98% of which say masks don’t work.
So, did our guys choose a peer-reviewed real-time control trial relying on lab-tested double-blind results?
Perhaps one of the dozen or so such trials listed in our 40 facts article?
Did they maybe average the results of multiple studies?
No, they used a phone survey.
One phone survey.
This phone survey, published last year and conducted in late 2021.
In this *ahem* “scientific study”, they had people randomly call up those who had recently been tested for “Covid”, ask them “did you wear a mask?” and then published the conclusion – “masks reduce transmission by 53%” – as if they meant something.
Interestingly, if you scroll down to the “affiliations” section you can see that one of the authors is a Pfizer grant recipient.
Rather more troublingly – and for some reason not mentioned as a conflict of interest – is that the whole study was produced by the California Board of Public Health.
California had already had a mask mandate in place for almost a year before this “study” was even started.
What we have here is not “science” it’s a computer model based on the results of a subjective phone survey conducted by a government agency with a vested interest. It is entirely meaningless, and yet is published in journals and cited by “experts”, perhaps even used as the basis of introducing new laws.
This is how “The ScienceTM” works. And, although Covid has maybe opened many people’s eyes to this issue, it is far from unique to “Covid”. You are just as likely to find this kind of “research” published on any topic – especially those that serve a political purpose – and have been for years if not decades.
Stanford Professor of evidence-based medicine, John Ioannidis wrote a paper called “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”, and that was back in 2005.
This has nothing to do with the “pandemic”, and everything to do with the difference between science and “The Science”. So let’s examine that distinction.
“Science” is an approach to the world. A rational method for gathering information, testing new ideas and forming evidence-based conclusions.
“The Science” is a self-sustaining industry of academics who need jobs and owe favours.
An ongoing quid pro quo relationship between the researchers – who want honors and knighthoods and tenure and book deals and research grants and to be the popular talking head explaining complex ideas to the multitudes on television – and the corporations, governments and “charitable foundations” who have all of those things in their gift sacks.
This system doesn’t produce research intended to be read, it creates headlines for celebrities to tweet, links for “journalists” to embed, sources for other researchers to cite.
An illusion of solid substantiation that comes apart the moment you actually read the words, examine the methodology or analyse the data.
Self-reporting surveys, manipulated data, “modelling studies” that spit-out pre-ordained results. Affiliated-authors paid by the state or corporate interests to provide “evidence” that supports highly profitable or politically convenient assumptions.
This mask study is the perfect example of that.
Interlacing layers of nothing designed to create the impression of something.
That’s why they want you to trust it, rather than read it.
July 29, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular |
Leave a comment
More than 1,700 people have signed a petition calling for the retraction of the seminal scientific correspondence paper, “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” that claimed COVID-19 was “not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”
The paper — sometimes referred to as the “Proximal Origins” paper or the “Nature Medicine paper” — was published March 17, 2020, in Nature Medicine journal.
It was used by former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, former National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, and other federal public health officials in 2020 and beyond to dismiss the possibility of a lab leak.
Biosafety Now — a nongovernmental organization that “advocates for reducing numbers of high-level biocontainment laboratories and for strengthening biosafety, biosecurity, and biorisk management for research on pathogens” — on July 19 launched the petition, stating, “It is imperative that this clearly fraudulent and clearly damaging paper be removed from the scientific literature.”
Biosafety’s leadership team includes 27 experts in biomedicine, mathematics, public health, public policy, public advocacy, law and social science.
Fraudulent paper ‘played an influential role’ in driving official narrative
Bryce Nickels, Ph.D., co-founder of Biosafety Now and professor of genetics at Rutgers University, said the petition seeks “to expose a clear case of scientific fraud and misconduct that has had a major impact on public opinion and policy.”
Nickels told The Defender :
“The removal of ‘Proximal Origins’ from the scientific literature is the first step in a long process needed to repair the damage this paper has caused to public trust in science.”
According to the petition, “This paper played an influential role — indeed, the central role — in communicating the false narrative that science established that SARS-CoV-2 entered humans through natural spillover, and not through research-related spillover.”
The petition continues:
“Email messages and direct messages via the messaging program Slack among authors of the paper obtained under FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] or by the U.S. Congress and publicly released in full in July 2023 … show, incontrovertibly, that the authors did not believe the conclusions of the paper at the time the paper was written, at the time the paper was submitted for publication, and at the time the paper was published.”
The recently-released internal communications show the paper “was, and is, the product of scientific fraud and scientific misconduct,” the petition said.
Commenting on the petition, investigative journalist Paul Thacker said:
“The thing that’s really the most troubling, which is why it should be retracted … [is] the ghostwriting and the undue influence [of federal public health officials on the drafting of the paper], which we know from the emails by Francis Collins, by Anthony Fauci, and from Jeremy Farrar.”
Thacker — who noted that within only a few days the petition had already garnered more than 1,300 signatures and set the hashtag #RetractProximalOrigins trending on Twitter — told The Defender :
“These guys basically ordered up a piece of science — or some sort of publication — that they could then point to, which they all did afterwards, as definitive proof that this thing could not have come from the lab.
“The whole thing was orchestrated for political purposes. It has nothing to do with science.”
Little more than a ‘political piece of propaganda’
Thacker is a former fellow at the Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University whose investigative writing has appeared in The New York Times, The BMJ, the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Washington Post.
He explained that weeks prior to the paper’s publication, Kristian Andersen, Ph.D. — one of the co-authors of the “Proximal Origins” paper — emailed Fauci and Collins a draft of the manuscript, thanking them for their “advice and leadership” on the paper.
Andersen also invited Fauci and Collins to comment and offer suggestions about the paper — but neither are mentioned in the acknowledgments section of the final version published by Nature Medicine. According to Thacker:
“Both Collins and Fauci then promoted the Nature Medicine paper as evidence of ‘independent science’ pointing against a possible lab accident — Collins in a post for the NIH Director’s blog that alleged the study left ‘little room’ for argument in favor of a lab accident, and Anthony Fauci in a White House press briefing.
“In both cases, neither Collins nor Fauci disclosed their involvement in orchestrating Andersen’s study. This last March, Congress released further emails showing that Fauci helped to orchestrate the Nature Medicine paper.”
Thacker pointed out that the paper — which “has been called everything from ‘research paper’ to ‘analysis’ to ‘study’” — was “really just correspondence” that was later turned into a “political piece of propaganda that people could then reference, which they did.”
Describing the recent about-face regarding the paper’s importance, Thacker said:
“Now the editor-in-chief of Nature Medicine is saying, ‘Oh, well, it was just a viewpoint … like he’s trying to dismiss what it was when they [federal public officials] used it for completely different purposes. They used it as some definitive piece of scientific research that put to rest any idea this thing could have come from a lab.
“Then we find out internally that none of them who wrote it believed that in the first place. … Quite frankly, from the very beginning, none of the scientific evidence in any direction means anything about how this pandemic started. It’s always been the internal documents and the money that have mattered more.”
Thacker added, “This entire drama and discussion has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with corruption and a coverup.”
On July 25 Thacker tweeted:
Writers Curtis Schube and Gary Lawkowski in a July 24 op-ed for The Hill pointed out that when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention responded to the FOIA request to release Fauci’s “explosive” email showing his involvement with the Nature Medicine paper, the agency completely redacted the email.
Moreover, Thacker alleged that Andersen submitted false testimony at the July 11 hearing of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, which is investigating the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Andersen’s allegation that Fauci and Collins were provided the paper only after it had been “accepted” and was in “proof” is false, Thacker said. “Emails impeach this portion of Andersen’s testimony,” he added.
Thacker also pointed out that The Intercept last week published newly revealed documents showing Andersen and his co-author — Tulane virologist Robert Garry, Ph.D. — both lied to Congress during the House hearing. The alleged lies covered the fact that both had pending federal grants controlled by Fauci — money that could have been used to influence their positions on the lab-leak theory.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s latest book, “The Wuhan Cover-up: How US Health Officials Conspired with the Chinese Military to Hide the Origins of COVID-19,” is due out in September. The book is available now for preorder. Kennedy is the founder and chairman on leave from Children’s Health Defense.
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa. She holds a Ph.D. in Communication Studies from the University of Texas at Austin (2021), and a master’s degree in communication and leadership from Gonzaga University (2015). Her scholarship has been published in Health Communication. She has taught at various academic institutions in the United States and is fluent in Spanish.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
July 29, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Book Review, Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | CDC, Covid-19, United States |
Leave a comment
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
How has television been used as a vehicle of propaganda? What psychological techniques are deployed in media manipulation? What is the future of media? Join James for this important edition of The Corbett Report podcast on the past, present and future of television, media and brainwashing.
Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack / Download the mp4
For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.
DOCUMENTATION
July 29, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, Video |
Leave a comment
There has been a major eruption of fury because malaria has been found in mainland America in Texas and Florida. These are the same places where Bill Gates’s genetically modified mosquitoes have been released in their millions. This was part of an on-going programme funded by Gates for over ten years which is supposed to banish malaria from the world. It hasn’t.
The fun started when Twitter bloggers @TexasLindsay and @TheChiefNerd, among others, began to dig up not just the hype Gates has been promoting for more than ten years promising malaria eradication through genetic modification, but also the scientific concerns voiced at the time. Lo and behold, scientists suggested that the Gates programme would eventually lead to mutated mosquitoes which would promote the spread of malaria more effectively.
You will appreciate that this is relevant to the safety of genetic modification. As such, it was bound to raise the ire of tame ‘fact-checkers’. Associated Press weighed in on cue by splitting hairs. They noted that whilst the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ‘supported’ Oxitec (the company releasing modified mosquitoes in Florida and Texas) with money, that doesn’t actually quite fit the definition of ‘funding’ the particular work being done in the US. AP also pointed out that the Florida malaria cases occurred 280 miles away from the site of the experiments, as if mosquitoes can’t fly or ride the wind.
Whatever is going on here, it is not being controlled. A deep dive into the Twitter threads linked above will show you that the Gates mosquito programme has never achieved any of its promised results. No worries, though, Gates is not just funding genetic modification of mosquitoes but also has a bet each way with his malaria vaccines. A win-win investment strategy for the man with a deep interest in population control (and money).
Where could the modification of mosquitoes really be taking us?
I have previously discussed the known possibility of general system collapse following genetic modification and editing, and suggested that this might be related to the record levels of excess deaths in New Zealand. I have pointed out that genetic structures are highly complex, evidenced by the trillions of atomic placements and relationships involved.
There is another way to consider this. These placements and relationships are highly specific, precisely because they support the highly specific capabilities of human physiology and psychology as well as the general stability.
The long-standing notion that replacing or editing targeted genes will not undermine the other genetic characteristics of organisms that make them what they are and enable them to function as such is a belief rather than a matter of science. A belief that increasingly looks misguided and dangerous. Using mRNA vaccines, biotechnology has blundered into the genetic modification of what it is to be human.
As our newspapers characterise the unrest in France as the Brink of Total Anarchy, a sort of general system collapse of society, we might also contemplate what has changed in the last three years that has brought us to the brink? It is not a million miles away from biotechnology.
July 28, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Gates Foundation |
Leave a comment
Media coverage of the twentieth anniversary of the start of the Iraq War mostly portrayed the war as a blunder. There were systematic war crimes that have largely vanished into the memory hole, but permitting government officials to vaporize their victims paves the way to new atrocities.
On the eve of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, former First Lady Barbara Bush announced: “Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, what day it’s gonna happen? It’s not relevant, so why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?”
The Pentagon quickly institutionalized the Barbara Bush rule. Early in the Iraq war, Brig. Gen. Vince Brooks, asked about tracking civilian casualties, replied, “It just is not worth trying to characterize by numbers. And, frankly, if we are going to be honorable about our warfare, we are not out there trying to count up bodies.”
Congress, in 2003 legislation funding the Iraq War, required the Pentagon to “seek to identify families of non-combatant Iraqis who were killed or injured or whose homes were damaged during recent military operations, and to provide appropriate assistance.” The Pentagon ignored the provision. The Washington Post reported: “One Air Force general, asked why the military has not done such postwar accounting in the past, said it has been more cost-effective to pour resources into increasingly sophisticated weaponry and intelligence-gathering equipment.” Acquiring more lethal weapons trumped tallying the victims.
The media blackout on the death count begins
After the invasion progressed, Bush perennially proclaimed that the United States had given freedom to 25 million Iraqis. Thus, any Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. forces were both statistically and morally inconsequential. And the vast majority of the news coverage left out the asterisks.
A 2005 American University survey of hundreds of journalists who covered Iraq concluded:
Many media outlets have self-censored their reporting on the conflict in Iraq because of concern about public reaction to graphic images and details about the war.
Individual journalists commented:
- “In general, coverage downplayed civilian casualties and promoted a pro-U.S. viewpoint. No U.S. media show abuses by U.S. military carried out on regular basis.”
- “Friendly fire incidents were to show only injured Americans, and no reference made to possible mistakes involving civilians.”
- “The real damage of the war on the civilian population was uniformly omitted.”
The media almost always refused to publish photos incriminating the U.S. military. The Washington Post received a leak of thousands of pages of confidential records on the 2005 massacre by U.S. Marines at Haditha, including stunning photos taken immediately after the killings of 24 civilians (mostly women and children). Though the Post headlined its exclusive story, “Marines’ Photos Provide Graphic Evidence in Haditha Probe,” the reporter noted halfway through the article that “Post editors decided that most of the images are too graphic to publish.” The Post suppressed the evidence at the same time it continued deferentially reporting official denials that U.S. troops committed atrocities.
In 2006, the U.S. military imposed new restrictions on the media, decreeing that “Names, video, identifiable written/oral descriptions or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without service member’s prior written consent.” This effectively guaranteed that Americans would never see photos or film footage of the vast majority of American casualties. (Dead men sign no consent forms.) The news media did not publicly disclose or challenge the restrictions.
In 2007, two Apache helicopters targeted a group of men in Baghdad with 30 mm. cannons and killed up to 18 people. Video from the helicopter revealed one helicopter crew “laughing at some of the casualties, all of whom were civilians, including two Reuters journalists.” “Light ‘em all up. Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards,” one guy on the recording declared. Army Corporal Chelsea Manning leaked the video to Wikileaks, which disclosed it in 2010.
Wikileaks declared on Twitter: “Washington Post had Collateral Murder video for over a year but DID NOT RELEASE IT to the public.” Wikileaks also disclosed thousands of official documents exposing U.S. war crimes and abuses, tacitly damning American media outlets that chose to ignore or shroud atrocities.
A mid-2008 New York Times article noted that “After five years and more than 4,000 U.S. combat deaths, searches and interviews turned up fewer than a half-dozen graphic photographs of dead U.S. soldiers.” Veteran photographers who posted shots of wounded or dead U.S. soldiers were quickly booted out of Iraq.
The Times noted that Iraqi “detainees were widely photographed in the early years of the war, but the U.S. Defense Department, citing prisoners’ rights, has recently stopped that practice as well.” Privacy was the only “right” the Pentagon pretended to respect — since the vast majority of detainees received little or no due process.
The collateral damage of innocent dead civilians
As the number of Iraqi civilians killed by American forces rose, the U.S. military increasingly relied on boilerplate self-exonerations. In September 2007, after U.S. bombings killed enough women and children to produce a blip on the media radar, U.S. military spokesman Major Brad Leighton announced: “We regret when civilians are hurt or killed while coalition forces search to rid Iraq of terrorism.”
The vast majority of the American media recited whatever the Pentagon emitted in the first years of the Iraq war. This was exemplified in the coverage of the two U.S. assaults on Fallujah in 2004. The first attack was launched in April 2004 in retaliation for the killings of four contractors for Blackwater, a company that became renowned for killing innocent Iraqis.
Bush reportedly gave the order: “I want heads to roll.” He told Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez during a video conference:
If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell!… Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out!
U.S. forces quickly placed the entire city under siege. The British Guardian reported:
The US soldiers were going around telling people to leave by dusk or they would be killed, but then when people fled with whatever they could carry, they were stopped at the U.S. military checkpoint on the edge of town and not let out, trapped, watching the sun go down.
The city was blasted by artillery barrages, F–16 jets, and AC–130 Spectre planes, which pumped 4,000 rounds a minute into selected targets. Adam Kokesh, who fought in Fallujah as a Marine Corps sergeant, later commented:
During the siege of Fallujah, we changed rules of engagement more often than we changed our underwear. At one point, we imposed a curfew on the city, and were told to fire at anything that moved in the dark.
Rather than change the rules of engagement to limit civilian carnage, the Bush administration demonized media outlets that showed U.S. victims. On April 16, a few days after Kimmitt’s comment, Bush met British Prime Minister Tony Blair and proposed bombing Al Jazeera’s headquarters in Doha, Qatar (a staunch U.S. ally). Blair talked Bush out of attacking the television network offices. A British government official leaked the minutes of a meeting, creating a brief hubbub that was largely ignored within the United States.
Bush had previously talked to Blair in 2003 about attacking the Al Jazeera television transmitter in Baghdad. A few days/weeks later, the U.S. military killed one Al Jazeera journalist when it attacked the network’s headquarters in Baghdad, and several Al Jazeera employees were seized and detained for long periods of time.
The Bush administration decided to crush the city — but not until after Bush was safely reelected. Up to 50,000 civilians remained in Falluja at the time of the second U.S. assault. At a November 8, 2004, press conference, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared that “Innocent civilians in that city have all the guidance they need as to how they can avoid getting into trouble.” Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Myers said three days later that Fallujah “looks like a ghost town [because] the Iraqi government gave instructions to the citizens of Fallujah to stay indoors.”
Supposedly, Iraqi civilians would be safe even when American troops went house to house “clearing” insurgents out. However, three years later, during the trials for the killings elsewhere in Iraq, Marines continually invoked the Fallujah Rules of Engagement to justify their actions. Marine Corporal Justin Sharratt, who was indicted for murdering three civilians in Haditha (the charges were later dropped), explained in a 2007 interview with PBS:
For the push of Fallujah, there [were no civilians]. We were told before we went in that if it moved, it dies… About a month before we went into the city of Fallujah, we sent out flyers… We let the population know that we were coming in on this date, and if you were left in the city, you were going to die.
The interviewer asked: “Was the procedure for clearing a house in Fallujah different from other house clearing in Iraq?”
Sharratt replied: “Yes. The difference between clearing houses in Fallujah was that the entire city was deemed hostile. So every house we went into, we prepped with frags and we went in shooting.” Thus, the Marines were preemptively justified in killing everyone inside — no questions asked. Former congressman Duncan Hunter admitted in 2019, “I was an artillery officer, and we fired hundreds of rounds into Fallujah, killed probably hundreds of civilians … probably killed women and children.”
The U.S. attack left much of Fallujah looking like a lunar landscape, with near-total destruction as far as the eye could see. Yet, regardless of how many rows of houses the United States flattened in the city, accusations that the United States killed noncombatants were false by definition. Because the U.S. government refused to count civilian casualties, they did not exist. And anyone who claimed to count them was slandering the United States and aiding the terrorists.
Commas, not corpses
In September 2006, Bush was asked during a television interview about the ongoing strife in Iraq. He smiled and replied, “I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is — my point is, there’s a strong will for democracy.” To recognize the importance of civilian casualties would have marred his story about the conquest of Iraq as a historical triumph of democracy.
The Pentagon spent more money bribing Iraqi journalists than counting Iraqi victims. As long as there were enough cheerleaders in Iraq and on the home front, the bodies of U.S. victims did not exist — at least in the American media.
Pentagon contractors offered strategic advice on how to keep victims off the radar screen. In 2007, the RAND Corporation released “Misfortunes of War: Press and Public Reaction to Civilian Deaths in Wartime,” explaining how to best respond to bombing debacles. The study concluded that “the belief that the U.S. military is doing everything it can to minimize civilian casualties is the key to public support for U.S. military operations.”
The RAND report was more concerned about bad PR than dead children. RAND’s experts asserted that “Americans and the media are concerned about civilian casualties, and pay very close attention to the issue.” This is the charade that provides a democratic sanction for the U.S. government’s foreign killings.
In reality, most Americans are clueless about the foreign toll of their government’s policies. An early 2007 Associated Press poll found that Americans were well-informed about the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. But the same poll found that “the median estimate for Iraqi deaths was 9,890.” Actual fatalities were at least 15 times higher — and perhaps 60 times higher.
In December 2005, Bush said that 30,000 people “more or less” had been killed in Iraq since the 2003 U.S. invasion. In October 2006, a reporter asked him: “Do you stand by your figure, 30,000?” Bush replied, “You know, I stand by the figure.” The United Nations estimated that 34,000 civilians were killed in 2006 alone. Regardless, Bush “stood by” his estimate from the prior year. This was the Fallujah methodology on amphetamines: It was impermissible to recognize or admit the deaths of any Iraqis who perished in the 10 months after Bush publicly ordained the 30,000 number.
Iraq’s Health Minister estimated in November 2006 that “there had been 150,000 civilian deaths during the war so far.” The Iraqi Ministry of Health had kept track of morgue records but ceased its tabulation after arm-twisting from U.S. authorities.
It is folly to pay more attention to Pentagon denials than to piles of corpses and flattened villages. The greater the media’s dependency on government, the less credible press reports on official benevolent intentions become. When the official policy routinely results in killing innocent people, it will almost always also be official policy to deceive the American public about the killings. It is naive to expect a government that recklessly slays masses of civilians to honestly investigate itself and announce its guilt to the world.
Killing foreigners is no substitute for protecting Americans. Permitting governments to make their victims vanish profoundly corrupts democracy. Self-government is a mirage if Americans are denied information to judge killings committed in their name.
This article was originally published in the June 2023 edition of Future of Freedom.
July 28, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Iraq, United States |
Leave a comment
From the start of the vaccine rollout, I was adamant that I would not have it. It was rushed out too fast and I was wary of taking something that was being pushed so aggressively.
I was full of energy, ate healthy foods, did not smoke or drink and would wake up in the middle of the night for a five-mile run. I would cycle 15 miles and then go for a three-mile run, I loved life and was on no medications at all.
In July 2021 I got a job in a care setting and really enjoyed what I was doing. The management believed in the efficacy of the vaccine and made it known that they would like everyone who worked there to have the jab. I did tell them I did not want it and why, but the managers believed they worked and were mostly double jabbed themselves. Due to pressure and against my better judgement, I had a dose of Moderna on December 21, 2021.
Two weeks later my symptoms started. I had fatigue, nerve pain, ‘electric shocks’ in my legs and lower back pain. A month after the jab, I tested positive for Covid due to an outbreak at work and I had to take two weeks off as I was very ill. I know my body and knew something was not right. I contacted my GP in February and told him I thought my symptoms were an inflammatory response to the vaccine. He said he had never heard of any reaction like mine and he had personally vaccinated a few thousand people over the last year. He did the standard blood tests and when these came back normal he took no further action.
Over the next two months the nerve pain in my lower half got worse and I also developed paresthesia (a burning or prickling sensation). I got tinnitus in both ears and continuous brain fog. My back pain spread to my entire back and I was in so much pain I went to see an osteopath. She sent me for a lumbar spine MRI and this came back normal. I then saw a private neurologist who said he thought my symptoms were caused by the vaccine and catching Covid, and said I needed to see an NHS neurologist due to the tests needed. I saw a different GP and she made the referral with a waiting time of at least 8 months. I managed to get seen within a month by emailing the neurology secretary and explaining the severity of my situation. My spine MRI also came back normal, as did other blood tests that I have since had. The only thing my GP has done is prescribe Nortriptyline and Gabapentin to hide the nerve pain, but not to address it.
During these months I felt alone and had no idea where to go to get help or support. I wanted to heal and understand my symptoms, not hide them. I found a supplement list in April on a site called Real Not Rare and these cured my back pain within a week. They were anti-inflammatory supplements. I still had brain fog. I was able to work but I was getting worse and the fatigue was relentless. In October I was taken to hospital with tachycardia and low blood pressure during a 12-hour shift at work. I kept looking online for others like me and then found UK CV Family. This group has been a lifesaver. I met others like myself and was not alone any more. I discovered that the gaslighting was now a normal thing and that the range of adverse events were not rare, indeed in some cases they were downright debilitating to an extent I had not realised. Through this group I discovered the Frontline Critical Care Covid Alliance (FLCCC) and a UK-based doctor who was willing to listen to me and help me.
The drugs he gave me have cleared my brain fog in four days and are now starting to help with my nerve pain. For the first time since this whole nightmare started I can see some light at the end of the tunnel. I have some hope that I can maybe heal from all of this. As well as feeling better I have met some great people in the group and have met up with some of them to have a meal and a chat. To be able to connect with others in the same situation is an amazing thing and makes a big difference. We all feel ignored, dismissed and pushed to one side when needing treatment. All we want is to be heard, believed and to get the early treatment we need to be able to heal effectively. Delays in proper treatment are causing people to develop illnesses that are not curable, treatable or that will cause them a long-term diminished quality of life.
Looking back over the past year I consider myself lucky. I am still able to work although I have had to take six weeks off sick. I can still function to a high level and am aware that so many others cannot. I do not know if any other symptoms will crop up or if things will ever get worse but I will deal with that if they arise. I wish I had trusted my instincts and not had this experimental medical therapy, because it is not a vaccine by any stretch of the imagination. I would like others to hear my story and think before they have this or another booster. Adverse events are real and when they happen you are mostly left to figure things out yourself. The NHS has no idea how to help us. We have to help ourselves. With the help of the UKCV Family I am able to do this and also to take part in helping and supporting others. It’s a great community to have come out of so much suffering.
The UK CV family support group that Ali refers to can be contacted here https://www.ukcvfamily.org
July 28, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, UK |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
Aletho News 