Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

‘Criminal’: Confidential EU Documents Reveal Thousands of Deaths From Pfizer-BioNTech Shots

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 23, 2023

Documents released by BioNTech to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) reveal tens of thousands of serious adverse events and thousands of deaths among people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The documents, dated Aug. 18, 2022, and marked “confidential,” show that cumulatively, during the clinical trials and post-marketing period up to June 18, 2022, a total of 4,964,106 adverse events were recorded. The documents included an appendix with further details about the specifics about the identified adverse events.

Among children under age 17, 189 deaths and thousands of serious adverse events were reported.

The documents present data collected between Dec. 19, 2021, and June 18, 2022 (the “PSUR #3 period”), in addition to cumulative data on adverse events and deaths that occurred among those who received the vaccine during clinical trials and during the post-marketing period, beginning December 2020 up until June 18, 2022.

During this time, Pfizer-BioNTech said it identified almost no safety signals and claimed the vaccine demonstrated over 91% “efficacy.”

Remarking on the documents, Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., senior director of science and research for Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender :

“These adverse event reports are ‘off the charts,’ with myocarditis reports at over 10,000 and pericarditis reports at over 9,000.

“Historically, we know that this would be an under-ascertainment of the actual numbers. It is criminal for the EMA to keep this vaccine on the market.”

According to an analysis by commentator and author Daniel Horowitz, the percentage of adverse events classified as serious was “well above the standard for safety signals usually pegged at 15%,” and women reported adverse events at three times the rate of men.

Sixty percent of cases were reported with either “outcome unknown” or “not recovered,” suggesting many of the injuries “were not transient,” Horowitz said.

The highest number of cases occurred in the 31-50 age group, of which 92% did not have any comorbidities, making it very likely it was the vaccine causing “such widespread, sudden injury.”

There were 3,280 fatalities among vaccine recipients in the combined cumulative period including the clinical trials and post-marketing, up to July 18, 2022.

According to Horowitz, the documents “show that Pfizer knew about a sickening level of injury early on,” yet continued to distribute its COVID-19 vaccine.

The documents are not part of the ongoing court-ordered release of the so-called “Pfizer documents” in the U.S., but according to Horowitz, are pharmacovigilance documents requested by the EMA, the EU’s drug regulator.

The documents were made available to an Austrian science and politics blog, TKP, following “a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request from an anonymous reader.” They were subsequently published on March 4. However, once published, no European English-language media outlet appears to have reported on them.

As a result, they remained under the radar until recently, when several independent English-language bloggers discovered and published the documents.

Thousands of pediatric serious adverse events and deaths

The main Pfizer-BioNTech document revealed 9,605 adverse events (3,735 serious) during the PSUR #3 and 25 cases during the clinical trials among children ages 11 and younger. These included 20 fatalities, in children as young as 5 years old.

Causes of these fatalities included dyspnea, cardiac arrest, cardio-respiratory arrest, pyrexia and myocarditis, though “all events were assessed as unrelated” to the vaccine.

In one example listed in the document, an 11-year-old boy died of acute respiratory failure two days after the first dose of the vaccine. In another case, a 6-year-old girl died seven days following her initial dose of complications that included renal impairment, epilepsy, apnea, seizure and “sudden death.”

The document lists another case, that of a 6-year-old boy whose listed causes of death are myocarditis, cardio-respiratory arrest and COVID-19. He died seven days after the first dose of the vaccine, and although autopsy results were “pending,” “the reporter concluded that the death ‘had nothing to do’ with the administration of BNT162b2 [the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine] and was due to natural causes.”

For children ages 12-17, the document listed 21,945 adverse eventss (19,558 serious) in the post-marketing period and 15 cases during clinical trials. A total of 169 deaths were recorded, with listed causes including dyspnea, pyrexia, cardiac arrest, myocarditis, cardiac failure, seizure and shock.

Nevertheless, the document states “No new significant safety information was identified based on the review of the cases reported in the overall paediatric population.”

‘No safety signals’ despites deaths, injuries of pregnant women and newborns

Pregnant and lactating women also were significantly affected. There were 3,642 post-authorization adverse events and 697 clinical trial adverse events in this population, including spontaneous abortion, fetal death, postpartum hemorrhage, premature separation of the placenta, premature labor or delivery, live birth with congenital anomalies and stillbirths.

Nevertheless, the documentation again states, “There were no safety signals regarding use in pregnant/lactating women that emerged from the review of these cases or the medical literature,” despite two key admissions elsewhere in the documentation.

In one instance, the document stated, “The safety profile of the vaccine in pregnant and/or breastfeeding women was not studied in the pivotal clinical trial and the maternal clinical trial was terminated early due to participant recruitment difficulties.”

And in another instance, Pfizer-BioNTech identified the following as “missing information”:

“Use in pregnancy and while breastfeeding; Use in immunocompromised patients; Use in frail patients with co-morbidities … Use in patients with autoimmune or inflammatory disorders; Interaction with other vaccines; Long term safety data.”

Pfizer-BioNTech stated a “commitment” to track “pregnancy outcome[s] in clinical trials.”

Myocarditis and pericarditis deaths among children, young adults

A notable discrepancy appears in terms of reported cases of myocarditis in the clinical trials as compared to the post-marketing period — one myocarditis case (0.15% of all cases) is listed for the clinical trial period, while 5,422 cases (1.1% of all cases) and 5,458 serious events were reported in the PSUR #3 period.

Of these, 87 cases were fatal and 1,608 were listed as “not resolved.” Among children and young adults, 48 cases were reported for those between the ages of 5 and 11 (two deaths), 366 among 12-15-year-olds (three deaths), 345 among 16-17-year-olds and 968 among 18-24-year-olds (four deaths).

In one instance, an 11-year-old girl developed myocarditis two days after her first dose and subsequently died, with the listed causes of death including myocarditis, respiratory failure, acute cardiac failure and cardio-respiratory arrest.

Separately, a 13-year-old boy developed myocarditis five days after his second dose, and subsequently died of myocarditis, cardiac arrest, multiple organ dysfunction syndromeventricular tachycardia and renal failure.

A 13-year-old girl with no medical history developed myocarditis six days after her first dose and also later died.

In the case of a 19-year-old male who developed myocarditis three days after his third dose and who eventually died, an autopsy “revealed extensive necrosis of the left ventricular myocardium (myocardial necrosis); myocarditis/fulminant myocarditis.”

And a 26-year-old male who also took the flu vaccine developed myocarditis four days after his third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, and subsequently died. The listed causes of death included myocarditis, arrhythmia, inflammation and left ventricular dysfunction. Autopsy results “showed myocarditis.”

Similarly, while no cases of pericarditis were recorded during the clinical trial, 4,156 were recorded during the PSUR #3 period, including 4,164 serious adverse events and 19 fatalities. This included 30 cases among 5-11-year-olds, 118 cases among 12-15-year-olds, 106 cases among 16-17-year-olds, 479 cases among 18-24-year-olds (and one death), and 417 cases among 25-29-year-olds, again including one death.

In one example, a 22-year-old male developed pericarditis 31 days after his second dose and eventually died of pericarditis and other causes, including multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, pericardial masspericardial effusionmalignant pericardial mesothelioma and right ventricular failure.

Numerous other cardiovascular adverse events were recorded, totaling 32,712 cases during the PSUR #3 period (496 fatal) and 27 during the clinical trials (two fatal — with none of the events listed as “related” to vaccination).

Causes of death included in this category include arrhythmia, cardiac failure and acute cardiac failure, cardiogenic shock, coronary artery disease, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and tachycardia.

Nevertheless, “No new significant safety information was identified.”

Many ‘very severe and very rare’ adverse events identified

The 393-page confidential Pfizer document shows that Pfizer observed more than 10,000 categories of diagnosis, many “very severe and very rare,” Horowitz wrote.

These include 73,542 cases of 264 categories of vascular disorders from the shots, many of which “are rare conditions,” hundreds of categories of nervous system disorders, totaling 696,508 cases and 61,518 adverse events from well over 100 categories of eye disorders, “which is unusual for a vaccine injury,” according to Horowitz.

In addition, “there were over 47,000 ear disorders, including almost 16,000 cases of tinnitus,” “roughly 225,000 cases of skin and tissue disorders,” “roughly 190,000 cases of respiratory disorders” and “over 178,000 cases of reproductive or breast disorders, including disorders you wouldn’t expect, such as 506 cases of erectile dysfunction.”

“Over 100,000 blood and lymphatic disorders, for both of which there’s a wealth of literature linking them to the spike protein” were indicated, as well as “almost 127,000 cardiac disorders, running the gamut of about 270 categories of heart damage, including many rare disorders, in addition to myocarditis.”

There were also “3,711 cases of tumors — benign and malignant,” and “there were over 77,000 psychiatric disorders observed.”

“What is so jarring is that there are hundreds of very rare neurological disorders that reflect something so systemically wrong with the shots, a reality that was clearly of no concern to the manufacturers and regulators alike,” Horowitz wrote, referencing 68 listed cases of a rare diagnosis, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy.

In another example, the “Pharma Files” Substack identified 3,092 neoplasms, noting that ”malignant neoplasms means cancer.”

Pfizer-BioNTech usually identified ‘no safety signal’ despite thousands of deaths

Numerous deaths and serious adverse events were recorded for a wide range of other conditions:

  • Stroke: 3,091 cases and 3,532 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 314 fatalities, and 19 cases during the clinical trial (one death).

The document stated, “Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis … and Cerebrovascular Accident/Stroke were evaluated as signals during the reporting period and were not determined to be risks causally associated with the vaccine … No additional safety signals … have emerged based on the review of these cases.”

  • Respiratory: 2,199 cases and 1,873 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 363 fatalities, and 33 cases during the clinical trial (four deaths). Serious adverse events included cardio-respiratory arrest, pneumonia, respiratory failure, acute respiratory failure, hypoxia and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Yet, “No safety signals have emerged based on the review of these cases.”
  • Bell’s palsy: 733 cases were reported during PSUR #3, in addition to 1,428 cases of facial paralysis. Six cases were fatal, with all victims over age 60. One additional case of Bell’s palsy, in a 75-year-old female from the U.S., was recorded in the clinical trial but was deemed “not related” to her vaccination. Again, “No new significant safety information was identified.”
  • Neurological: 5,111 cases and 4,973 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 67 fatalities, and 15 cases during the clinical trial. Once more, “No safety signals have emerged based on the review of these cases.”
  • Immune-mediated/autoimmune adverse events: 11,726 cases and 8,445 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 133 fatalities, and 19 cases during the clinical trial. Serious adverse events included thrombocytopeniainterstitial lung disease, cerebral hemorrhage, encephalitis, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, renal failure, pneumonia and pulmonary embolism. Yet, “No new safety signals have emerged.”
  • Multisystem inflammatory syndrome: 207 cases and 210 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 56 deaths, with 35 involving the elderly. In addition, 38 cases were reported in children. Nevertheless, “No new safety signals have emerged based on a review of these cases [or] literature.”

Pfizer-BioNTech stated a “commitment” for “closely monitoring multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and in adults … and reporting of new cases.”

  • Thromboembolic adverse events: 6,102 cases and 6,724 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 265 fatalities, and 17 cases during the clinical trial (one death). Serious adverse events included pulmonary embolism, thrombosis and deep vein thrombosis. Again, “No safety signals have emerged based on the review of these cases.”

Elsewhere in the document, the case of a 14-year-old male who died of peripheral swelling after getting the COVID-19 vaccine was mentioned, with no additional details.

In another example, a 67-year-old male “with a history of diabetes and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura” suffered chest and gastrointestinal discomfort less than 30 minutes after receiving his third dose of the vaccine. A diagnosis of anaphylaxis was made, while an electrocardiogram showed “signs of a myocardial infarction.” He later sustained cardiac arrest and died 12 days following his vaccination.

Moreover, 204 fatalities (and 24,077 cases) of vaccination failure, 81 deaths from “vaccination stress,” 24 deaths (and 1,402 cases) of suspected vaccination failure, two deaths from glomerulonephritis and nephrotic syndrome, two deaths (1,326 cases) from “medication error” and 166 deaths from “other” adverse events — mostly pyrexia — were recorded.

Pfizer-BioNTech and EMA: ‘nothing to see here’

Pfizer and BioNTech claimed that the overall efficacy of their COVID-19 vaccine for the PSUR #3 period was 91.3% — and 100% for some populations.

Moreover, only one safety signal was definitively identified: hearing loss, with Pfizer-BioNTech committing to perform a “safety evaluation of tinnitus and hearing loss.”

Two other conditions, myocarditis and pericarditis, were determined to be an “important identified risk,” while irritability was determined to be an “identified risk (not important).”

“A statement regarding the reporting rates of myocarditis and pericarditis after primary series and booster doses” was added to their vaccine’s European product label.

Labeling was changed for Guillain-Barré syndrome, but in Japan. The document stated:

“Although not considered by definition a regulatory action taken for safety reasons because it does not significantly impact the benefit risk balance of use of the product in authorised populations, due to the receipt of spontaneous reports of Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) after vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines including BNT162b2 … Japan has required class changes to include GBS in the important precautions section of the Japan package insert.”

Despite the large number of deaths and serious adverse events, Pfizer and BioNTech wrote, “Based on the available safety and efficacy/effectiveness data from the reporting interval for BNT162b2, the overall benefit-risk profile of BNT162b2 remains favorable” and that “no further changes … or additional risk minimization activities are warranted.”

The EMA appears to have agreed with this conclusion. In its “assessment report,” its Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) wrote that “The benefit-risk balance for the use of Comirnaty in its authorized indication remains unchanged.”

“The PRAC considers that the risk-benefit balance of medicinal products containing tozinameran (Comirnaty) remains unchanged and therefore recommends the maintenance of the marketing authorisation(s),” the PRAC added.

However, Horowitz argues that the documents “show that Pfizer knew about a sickening level of injury early on,” yet continued to distribute its COVID-19 vaccine.

Earlier this month, BioNTech was sued in Germany by a woman alleging injuries from the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The lawsuit demands at least 150,000 euro ($161,500) in damages for bodily harm and unspecified compensation for material damages.


Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

June 23, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

What It’s Like to Live in an Informational No Man’s Land

BY DAVID THUNDER | THE FREEDOM BLOG | JUNE 17, 2023

One of the remarkable features of these Covid years is the amount of misleading and downright false information emitted by “official” sources, most notably public health authorities, government-appointed regulators, and mainstream media. A part of me hankers after the times when I could trust my government and media in a time of crisis. But if I am honest with myself, I have to admit that I’d prefer to live uncomfortably in the truth than comfortably in a fantasy built for me by someone who does not have my best interests at heart.

As somone who turned on a daily basis to the website of the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention for updates on the Covid outbreak in February and March 2020, I was especially shocked and disappointed by the abysmal failure of authoritative bodies to impartially report the evidence bearing on masking, vaccinations, lockdowns, PCR testing, and other aspects of pandemic policy. My whole faith in the political, media, and scientific establishment, limited as it was, was shaken to the core.

We have been betrayed by the people charged with sharing the best available data and information with us in a time of crisis. We have been lied to and deceived about matters of life and death, such as the risk-benefit tradeoffs of the Covid vaccines, not only by the pharmaceutical industry, but by the people who occupy leading positions of public authority in our society.

Our politicians have sold us “solutions” to Covid that were far, far worse than the disease, and have generally refused to admit to their mistakes, even when they saw the comparative success of regimes like Sweden and Florida that went a very different direction.

Among the more egregious falsehoods that were either stated or implied by official authorities, and uncritically echoed by mainstream media, are the following:

  1. the notion that community masking was supported by strong scientific evidence. It never was (here is the latest Cochrane review of evidence for mask efficacy).
  2. the idea that it was critical that young and health people get vaccinated, if not for themselves, then for the sake of “granny and granddad.” This idea was empirically baseless, since we did not have any good evidence to show that these vaccines prevented transmission at the time these claims were made.
  3. the idea that toddlers and young children and teenagers with no serious health issues could benefit from receiving a Covid vaccine. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that children’s risk from Covid is significant enough to warrant their exposure to a vaccine that has sparked a significant number of adverse events and whose long-term risks to children are still not well understood.
  4. the idea that sheltering in place for months on end would effectively stop a respiratory virus from spreading through the community, rather than just deferring the inevitable and inflicting enormous social and human costs in the meantime. This was a dangerous and revolutionary proposition that had no strong empirical evidence to support it.
  5. The idea that a person who tested positive in a PCR test, but had absolutely no clinical symptoms of Covid-related disease, should count as a Covid “case” or that the death of such a person was a “Covid” death.

I could go on, and talk about the use of a handful of cases of infant hospitalisation to push vaccines on children, the unnecessary and counterproductive closure of schools, the US government’s active role in encouraging private social media companies, behind the scenes, to censor their critics, or the infamous Hancock files, which uncover the UK’s Health Secretary Matt Hancock’s plan to “scare the pants off everyone” with his announcement of the next “variant” of Covid-19.

Thoughtful citizens who notice these betrayals now have strong grounds for distrusting “official” sources to tell them the truth, or present the facts in a non-manipulative, impartial manner. For me, and many others, the old idea that you could depend on your government to inform you of the latest science or tell you the threat level of a disease is now dead in the water.

Put simply, we now live in an informational No Man’s Land, in which every man must fend for himself, to the best of his ability, without the backing of an impressive Official Source to do his thinking for him.

We each have to scrape together whatever information we can from unofficial sources that have gotten important things right and are not defending the indefensible: coerced vaccination, vaccine-based segregation, involuntary population-wide lockdowns, etc.

It puts many of us in the peculiar position of placing more weight on the words and recommendations of individual journalists and scientists whose character and intellect we trust, than the pronouncements of national governments, official regulators, or international bodies like the World Health Organisation.

Living in an informational No Man’s Land is demanding because you can’t just skip over to the CDC website to resolve your doubts. And it is uncomfortable because you do not enjoy anything like the level of faith the average citizen has in “Science” and “Officialdom.” You are sort of at sea, and you cling to whatever bits of information and insight you can scavenge from sources that are not living off the proceeds of vaccine sales or paid by governments to launch sophisticated campaigns of psychological warfare against their own citizens.

The painful truth is that official “experts” and government ministers have played god with our lives and repeatedly given dangerous and scientifically baseless advice.

Under these circumstances, those who do their own independent research, rather than uncritically swallowing whatever “official authorities” tell them, are not the “cranks” and “conspiracy theorists” they are being made out to be, but citizens who actually understand the predicament they find themselves in, and have the courage to think for themselves, even when it draws down ridicule, censorship, and alienation from “respectable” society.

June 23, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

DID A VACCINE EXPERIMENT ON U.S. SOLDIERS CAUSE THE “SPANISH FLU” ?

The 1918-19 bacterial vaccine experiment may have killed 50-100 million people

By Kevin Barry, President | First Freedoms, Inc. | November 7, 2018

Part 1 of a 5 part series

The “Spanish Flu” killed an estimated 50-100 million people during a pandemic 1918-19. What if the story  we have been told about this pandemic isn’t true? What if, instead, the killer infection was neither the flu nor Spanish in origin? Newly analyzed documents reveal that the “Spanish Flu” may have been a military vaccine experiment gone awry. In looking back on the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I, we need to delve deeper to solve this mystery.

Summary

  • The reason modern technology has not been able to pinpoint the killer influenza strain from this pandemic is because influenza was not the killer.
  • More soldiers died during WWI from disease than from bullets.
  • The pandemic was not flu. An estimated 95% (or higher) of the deaths were caused by bacterial pneumonia, not influenza/a virus.
  • The pandemic was not Spanish.The first cases of bacterial pneumonia in 1918 trace back to a military base in Fort Riley, Kansas.
  • From January 21 – June 4, 1918, an experimental bacterial meningitis vaccine cultured in horses by the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in New York was injected into soldiers at Fort Riley.
  • During the remainder of 1918 as those soldiers – often living and traveling under poor sanitary conditions – were sent to Europe to fight, they spread bacteria at every stop between Kansas and the frontline trenches in France.
  • One study describes soldiers “with active infections (who) were aerosolizing the bacteria that colonized their noses and throats, while others—often, in the same “breathing spaces”—were profoundly susceptible to invasion of and rapid spread through their lungs by their own or others’ colonizing bacteria.” (1)
  • The “Spanish Flu” attacked healthy people in their prime. Bacterial pneumonia attacks people in their prime. Flu attacks the young, old and immunocompromised.
  • When WW1 ended on November 11, 1918, soldiers returned to their home countries and colonial outposts, spreading the killer bacterial pneumonia worldwide.
  • During WW1, the Rockefeller Institute also sent the antimeningococcic serum to England, France, Belgium, Italy and other countries, helping spread the epidemic worldwide.

During the pandemic of 1918-19, the so-called “Spanish Flu” killed 50-100 million people, including many soldiers. Many people do not realize that disease killed far more soldiers on all sides than machine guns or mustard gas or anything else typically associated with WWI.

I have a personal connection to the Spanish Flu. Among those killed by disease in 1918-19 are members of both of my parents’ families. On my father’s side, his grandmother Sadie Hoyt died from pneumonia in 1918. Sadie was a Chief Yeoman in the Navy. Her death left my grandmother Rosemary and her sister Anita to be raised by their aunt. Sadie’s sister Marian also joined the Navy. She died from “the influenza” in 1919. On my mother’s side, two of her father’s sisters died in childhood. All of the family members who died lived in New York City. I suspect many American families, and many families worldwide, were impacted in similar ways by the mysterious Spanish Flu.

In 1918, “influenza” or flu was a catchall term for disease of unknown origin. It didn’t carry the specific meaning it does today. It meant some mystery disease which dropped out of the sky. In fact, influenza is from the Medieval Latin “influential” in an astrological sense, meaning a visitation under the influence of the stars.

WHY IS WHAT HAPPENED 100 YEARS AGO IMPORTANT NOW?

Between 1900-1920, there were enormous efforts underway in the industrialized world to build a better society. I will use New York as an example to discuss three major changes to society which occured in NY during that time and their impact on mortality from infectious diseases.

1.    Clean Water and Sanitation

In the late 19th century through the early 20th century, New York built an extraordinary system to bring clean water to the city from the Catskills, a system still in use today. New York City also built over 6000 miles of sewer to take away and treat waste, which protects the drinking water. The World Health Organization acknowledges the importance of clean water and sanitation in combating infectious diseases. (2)

2.    Electricity

In the late 19th century through the early 20th century, New York built a power grid and wired the city so power was available in every home. Electricity allows for refrigeration. Refrigeration is an unsung hero as a public health benefit. When food is refrigerated from farm to table, the public is protected from potential infectious diseases. Cheap renewable energy is important for many reasons, including combating infectious diseases.

3.     Pharmaceutical

In the late 19th century through the early 20th century, New York became the home of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (now Rockefeller University). The Institute is where the modern pharmaceutical industry was born. The Institute pioneered many of the approaches the pharmaceutical industry uses today, including the preparation of vaccine serums, for better or worse. The vaccine used in the Fort Riley experiment on soldiers was made in horses.

US Mortality Rates data from the turn of the 20th century to 1965 clearly indicates that clean water, flushing toilets, effective sewer systems and refrigerated foods all combined to effectively reduce mortality from infectious diseases BEFORE vaccines for those diseases became available.

Have doctors and the pharmaceutical manufacturers taken credit for reducing mortality from infectious disease which rightfully belongs to sandhogs, plumbers, electricians and engineers?

If hubris at the Rockefeller Institute in 1918 led to a pandemic disease which killed millions of people, what lessons can we learn and apply to 2018?

THE DISEASE WAS NOT SPANISH

While watching an episode of American Experience on PBS a few months ago, I was surprised to hear that the first cases of “Spanish Flu” occurred at Fort Riley, Kansas in 1918. I thought, how is it possible this historically important event could be so badly misnamed 100 years ago and never corrected?

Why “Spanish”? Spain was one of a few countries not involved in World War I. Most of the countries involved in the war censored their press. Free from censorship concerns, the earliest press reports of people dying from disease in large numbers came from Spain. The warring countries did not want to additionally frighten the troops, so they were content to scapegoat Spain. Soldiers on all sides would be asked to cross no man’s land into machine gun fire, which was frightening enough without knowing that the trenches were a disease breeding ground.

One hundred years later, it’s long past time to drop “Spanish” from all discussion of this pandemic. If the flu started at a United States military base in Kansas, then the disease could and should be more aptly named. In order to prevent future disasters, the US (and the rest of the world) must take a hard look at what really caused the pandemic.

It is possible that one of the reasons the Spanish Flu has never been corrected is that it helps disguise the origin of the pandemic. If the origin of the pandemic involved a vaccine experiment on US soldiers, then the US may prefer calling it Spanish Flu instead of The Fort Riley Bacteria of 1918, or something similar. The Spanish Flu started at the location this experimental bacterial vaccine was given making it the prime suspect as the source of the bacterial infections which killed so many.

It would be much more difficult to maintain the marketing mantra of “vaccines save lives” if a vaccine experiment originating in the United States during the years of primitive manufacturing caused the deaths of  50-100 million people.

“Vaccines save lives … except we may have killed 50-100 million people in 1918-19” is a far less effective sales slogan than the overly simplistic “vaccines save lives.”

THE DISEASE WHICH KILLED SO MANY WAS NOT FLU OR A VIRUS.  IT WAS BACTERIAL.

During the mid-2000’s there was much talk about “pandemic preparedness”. Influenza vaccine manufacturers in the United States received billions of taxpayer dollars to develop vaccines to make sure that we don’t have another lethal pandemic “flu”, like the one in 1918-19.

Capitalizing on the “flu” part of Spanish flu helped vaccine manufacturers procure billion dollar checks from governments, even though scientists knew at the time that bacterial pneumonia was the real killer. It is not my opinion that bacterial pneumonia was the real killer – thousands of autopsies confirm this fact.  According to a 2008 National Institute of Health paper, bacterial pneumonia was the killer in a minimum of 92.7% of the 1918-19 autopsies reviewed.  It is likely higher than 92.7%. The researchers looked at more than 9000 autopsies, and “there were no negative (bacterial) lung culture results”.

“… In the 68 higher-quality autopsy series, in which the possibility of unreported negative cultures could be excluded, 92.7% of autopsy lung cultures were positive for ≥1 bacterium. … in one study of approximately 9000 subjects who were followed from clinical presentation with influenza to resolution or autopsy, researchers obtained, with sterile technique, cultures of either pneumococci or streptococci from 164 of 167 lung tissue samples. There were 89 pure cultures of pneumococci; 19 cultures from which only streptococci were recovered; 34 that yielded mixtures of pneumococci and/or streptococci; 22 that yielded a mixture of pneumococci, streptococci, and other organisms (prominently pneumococci and nonhemolytic streptococci); and 3 that yielded nonhemolytic streptococci alone. There were no negative lung culture results.” (3)

Pneumococci or streptococci were found in “164 of (the) 167 lung tissue samples” autopsied. That is 98.2%. Bacteria was the killer.

WHERE DID THE SPANISH FLU BACTERIAL PNEUMONIA OF 1918-19 ORIGINATE?

When the United States declared war in April 1917, the fledgling Pharmaceutical industry had something they had never had before – a large supply of human test subjects in the form of the US military’s first draft.  Pre-war in 1917, the US Army was 286,000 men. Post-war in 1920, the US army disbanded, and had 296,000 men. During the war years 1918-19, the US Army ballooned to 6,000,000 men, with 2,000,000 men being sent overseas. The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research took advantage of this new pool of human guinea pigs to conduct vaccine experiments.

A REPORT ON ANTIMENINGITIS VACCINATION AND OBSERVATIONS ON AGGLUTININS IN THE BLOOD OF CHRONIC MENINGOCOCCUS CARRIERS
Frederick L. Gates

From the Base Hospital, Fort Riley, Kansas, and The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York.
Received 1918 Jul 20

(Author note:  Please read the Fort Riley paper in its entirety so you can appreciate the carelessness of the experiments conducted on these troops.)

Between January 21st and June 4th of 1918, Dr. Gates reports on an experiment where soldiers were given 3 doses of a bacterial meningitis vaccine. Those conducting the experiment on the soldiers were just spitballing dosages of a vaccine serum made in horses.

The vaccination regime was designed to be 3 doses.  4,792 men received the first dose, but only 4,257 got the 2nd dose (down 11%), and only 3702 received all three doses (down 22.7%). A total of 1,090 men were not there for the 3rd dose. What happened to these soldiers? Were they shipped East by train from Kansas to board a ship to Europe? Were they in the Fort Riley hospital? Dr. Gates’ report doesn’t tell us.

An article accompanying the American Experience broadcast I watched sheds some light on where these 1,090 men might be. Gates began his experiments in January 1918. By March of that year, “100 men a day” were entering the infirmary at Fort Riley. Are some of these the men missing from Dr. Gates’ report – the ones who did not get the 2nd or 3rd dose?

“… Shortly before breakfast on Monday, March 11, the first domino would fall signaling the commencement of the first wave of the 1918 influenza. Company cook Albert Gitchell reported to the camp infirmary with complaints of a “bad cold.” Right behind him came Corporal Lee W. Drake voicing similar complaints. By noon, camp surgeon Edward R. Schreiner had over 100 sick men on his hands, all apparently suffering from the same malady…” (5)

Gates does report that several of the men in the experiment had flu-like symptoms: coughs, vomiting and diarrhea after receiving the vaccine. These symptoms are a disaster for men living in barracks, travelling on trains to the Atlantic coast, sailing to Europe, and living and fighting  in trenches. The unsanitary conditions at each step of the journey are an ideal environment for a contagious disease like bacterial pneumonia to spread.

From Dr. Gates’ report:

“Reactions.– … Several cases of looseness of the bowels or transient diarrhea were noted. This symptom had not been encountered before. Careful inquiry in individual cases often elicited the information that men who complained of the effects of vaccination
were suffering from mild coryza, bronchitis, etc., at the time of injection.”

“Sometimes the reaction was initiated by a chill or chilly sensation, and a number of men complained of fever or feverish sensations during the following night. Next in frequency came nausea (occasionally vomiting), dizziness, and general “aches and pains” in the joints and muscles, which in a few instances were especially localized in the neck or lumbar region, causing stiff neck or stiff back. A few injections were followed by diarrhea. The reactions, therefore, occasionally simulated the onset of epidemic meningitis and several vaccinated men were sent as suspects to the Base Hospital for diagnosis.”(4)

According to Gates, they injected random dosages of an experimental bacterial meningitis vaccine into soldiers. Afterwards, some of the soldiers had symptoms which “simulated” meningitis, but Dr. Gates advances the fantastical claim that it wasn’t actual meningitis.

The soldiers developed flu-like symptoms. Bacterial meningitis, then and now, is known to mimic flu-like symptoms. (6) Perhaps the similarity of early symptoms of bacterial meningitis and bacterial pneumonia to symptoms of flu is why the vaccine experiments at Fort Riley have been able to escape scrutiny as a potential cause of the Spanish Flu for 100 years and counting.

HOW DID THE “SPANISH FLU” SPREAD SO WIDELY SO QUICKLY?

There is an element of a perfect storm in how the Gates bacteria spread. WWI ended only 10 months after the first injections. Unfortunately for the 50-100 million who died, those soldiers injected with horse-infused bacteria moved quickly during those 10 months.

An article from 2008 on the CDC’s website describes how sick WWI soldiers could pass along the bacteria to others by becoming “cloud adults”.

“Finally, for brief periods and to varying degrees, affected hosts became “cloud adults” who increased the aerosolization of colonizing strains of bacteria, particularly pneumococci, hemolytic streptococci, H. influenzae, and S. aureus. For several days during local epidemics—particularly in crowded settings such as hospital wards, military camps, troop ships, and mines (and trenches)—some persons were immunologically susceptible to, infected with, or recovering from infections with influenza virus. Persons with active infections were aerosolizing the bacteria that colonized their noses and throats, while others—often, in the same “breathing spaces”—were profoundly susceptible to invasion of and rapid spread through their lungs by their own or others’ colonizing bacteria.” (1)

Three times in his report on the Fort Riley vaccine experiment, Dr. Gates states that some soldiers had a “severe reaction” indicating “an unusual individual susceptibility to the vaccine”. While the vaccine made many sick, it only killed those who were susceptible to it. Those who became sick and survived became “cloud adults” who spread the bacteria to others, which created more cloud adults, spreading to others where it killed the susceptible, repeating the cycle until there were no longer wartime unsanitary conditions, and there were no longer millions of soldiers to experiment on.

The toll on US troops was enormous and it is well documented. Dr. Carol Byerly describes how the “influenza” travelled like wildfire through the US military.  (substitute “bacteria” for Dr. Byerly’s “influenza” or “virus”):

“… Fourteen of the largest training camps had reported influenza outbreaks in March, April, or May, and some of the infected troops carried the virus with them aboard ships to France … As soldiers in the trenches became sick, the military evacuated them from the front lines and replaced them with healthy men. This process continuously brought the virus into contact with new hosts—young, healthy soldiers in which it could adapt, reproduce, and become extremely virulent without danger of burning out.

… Before any travel ban could be imposed, a contingent of replacement troops departed Camp Devens (outside of Boston) for Camp Upton, Long Island, the Army’s debarkation point for France, and took influenza with them. Medical officers at Upton said it arrived “abruptly” on September 13, 1918, with 38 hospital admissions, followed by 86 the next day, and 193 the next. Hospital admissions peaked on October 4 with 483, and within 40 days, Camp Upton sent 6,131 men to the hospital for influenza. Some developed pneumonia so quickly that physicians diagnosed it simply by observing the patient rather than listening to the lungs…. ” (7)

The United States was not the only country in possession of the Rockefeller Institute’s  experimental bacterial vaccine. A 1919 report from the Institute states: “Reference should be made that before the United States entered the war (in April 1917) the Institute had resumed the preparation of antimeningococcic serum, in order to meet the requests of England, France, Belgium Italy and other countries.” The same report states: “In order to meet the suddenly increased demand for the curative serums worked out at the Institute, a special stable for horses was quickly erected …” (8)

An experimental antimeningoccic serum made in horses and injected into soldiers who would be entering the cramped and unsanitary living conditions of war … what could possibly go wrong?

Is the bacterial serum made in horses at the Rockefeller Institute which was injected into US soldiers and distributed to numerous other countries responsible for the 50-100 million people killed by bacterial lung infections in 1918-19? The Institute says it distributed the bacterial serum to England, France, Belgium, Italy and other countries during WWI. Not enough is known about how these countries experimented on their soldiers. I hope independent researchers will take an honest look at these questions.

THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS

I do not believe that anyone involved in these vaccine experiments was trying to harm anyone. Some will see the name Rockefeller and yell. “Illuminati!” or “culling the herd!” I do not believe that’s what happened. I believe standard medical hubris is responsible – doctors “playing God”, thinking they can tame nature without creating unanticipated problems. With medical hubris, I do not think the situation has changed materially over the past 100 years.

WHAT NOW?

The vaccine industry is always looking for human test subjects. They have the most success when they are able to find populations who are not in a position to refuse. Soldiers (9), infants, the disabled, prisoners, those in developing nations – anyone not in a position to refuse.

Vaccine experimentation on vulnerable populations is not an issue of the past. Watch this video clip of Dr. Stanley Plotkin where he describes using experimental vaccines on orphans, the mentally retarded, prisoners, and those under colonial rule. The deposition was in January 2018. The hubris of the medical community is the same or worse now than it was 100 years ago. Watch as Dr. Plotkin admits to writing, “The question is whether we are to have experiments performed on fully functioning adults and on children who are potentially contributors to society or to perform initial studies in children and adults who are human in form but not in social potential.” Please watch the horrifying video clip.  (10)

In part because the global community is well aware of medical hubris and well aware of the poor record of medical ethics, the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights developed international standards regarding the right to informed consent to preventative medical procedures like vaccination. The international community is well aware that the pharmaceutical industry makes mistakes and is always on the lookout for human test subjects. The Declaration states that individuals have the human right to consent to any preventative medical intervention like vaccination.

Article 3 – Human dignity and human rights

1. Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected.
2. The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.

Article 6 – Consent

1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice. (11)

Clean water, sanitation, flushing toilets, refrigerated foods and healthy diets have done and still do far more to protect humanity from infectious diseases than any vaccine program. Doctor and the vaccine industry have usurped credit which rightfully belongs to plumbers, electricians, sandhogs, engineers and city planners.

For these reasons, policy makers at all levels of government should protect the human rights and individual liberties of individuals to opt out of vaccine programs via exemptions. The hubris of the medical community will never go away. Policy makers need to know that vaccines like all medical interventions are not infallible. Vaccines are not magic. We all have different susceptibility to disease. Human beings are not one size fits all.

In 1918-19, the vaccine industry experimented on soldiers, likely with disastrous results. In 2018, the vaccine industry experiments on infants every day. The vaccine schedule has never been tested as it is given. The results of the experiment are in: 1 in 7 American children is in some form of special education and over 50% have some form of chronic illness. (12)

In 1918-19, there was no safety follow up after vaccines were delivered. In 2018, there is virtually no safety follow up after a vaccine is delivered. Who exactly gave you that flu shot at Rite Aid? Do you have the cell number of the store employee if something goes wrong?

1n 1918-19, there was no liability to the manufacturer for injuries or death caused by vaccines. In 2018, there is no liability for vaccine manufacturers for injuries or death caused by vaccines, which was formalized in 1986. (13)

In 1918-19, there was no independent investigative follow up challenging the official story that “Spanish Flu” was some mystery illness which dropped from the sky. I suspect that many of those at the Rockefeller Institute knew what happened, and that many of the doctors who administered the vaccines to the troops knew what happened, but those people are long dead. In 2018, the Pharmaceutical industry is the largest campaign donor to politicians and the largest advertiser in all forms of media, so not much has changed over 100 years. This story will likely be ignored by mainstream media because their salaries are paid by pharmaceutical advertising.

The next time you hear someone say “vaccines save lives” please remember that the true story of the cost/benefit of vaccines is much more complicated than their three word slogan. Also remember that vaccines may have killed 50-100 million people in 1918-19. If true, those costs greatly outweighed any benefit, especially considering that plumbers, electricians, sandhogs and engineers did, and continue to do, the real work which reduces mortality from disease.

Vaccines are not magic. (14) Human rights and bioethics are critically important. Policy makers should understand the history of medical hubris and protect individual and parental human rights as described in the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights.

——

Kevin Barry is the President of First Freedoms, Inc. a 501.c.3.  He is a former federal attorney, a rep at the UN HQ in New York and the author of Vaccine Whistleblower: Exposing Autism Research Fraud at the CDC. Please support our work at http://www.firstfreedoms.org

Please direct media inquiries to kb151@protonmail.com

References

1. Deaths from Bacterial Pneumonia during 1918–19 Influenza Pandemic
John F. Brundage* and G. Dennis Shanks†
Author affiliations: *Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA; †Australian Army Malaria Institute, Enoggera, Queensland, Australia
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/14/8/07-1313_article

2. World Health Organization: Unsafe drinking water, sanitation and waste management 
http://www.who.int/sustainable-development/cities/health-risks/water-sanitation/en/

3. J Infect Dis. 2008 Oct 1; 198(7): 962–970. Predominant Role of Bacterial Pneumonia as a Cause of Death in Pandemic Influenza: Implications for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness
David M. MorensJeffery K. Taubenberger, and Anthony S. Fauci
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2599911/

4. PDF of Fort Riley Study (1918)

Click to access 449.pdf

5. American Experience, “The First Wave”, PBS
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/influenza-first-wave/

6. Mayo Clinic: Meningitis
www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/meningitis/symptoms-causes/syc-20350508

7. Public Health Rep. 2010; 125(Suppl 3): 82–91.
The U.S. Military and the Influenza Pandemic of 1918–1919
Carol R. Byerly, PhD
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862337/

8. Rockefeller Institute pamphlet PDF (1919)
https://digitalcommons.rockefeller.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=rockefeller-institute-descriptive-pamphlet

9. Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans’ Health?  Lessons Spanning Half a Century,  A Staff Report Prepared for the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, United States Senate, December 1994  
https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=438835

10. Dr. Stanley Plotkin: vaccine experiments on orphans, the mentally retarded, and others (January 2018)

11. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (19 October 2005)
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

12. CDC Offers New Stats On Disability Prevalence

CDC Offers New Stats On Disability Prevalence

13. 1986 Vaccine Injury Compensation Act
https://worldmercuryproject.org/news/childhood-vaccine-injury-act-protect/

14. “How New York City’s Health Department Makes Serums and Vaccines for the United States Army,” see Slide 7
Popular Science
, December 1917

Courtesy Smithsonian Libraries, National Museum of American History
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/fromdnatobeer/exhibition-living-factories.html

June 23, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

THE WOMAN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE U.S. COVID RESPONSE

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | June 15, 2023

Looking at the COVID pandemic as a military-run operation puts public laws and documents into light while painting a different picture of the whole was really in charge of the US response. Was this martial law?

June 23, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Insight? No, the Sunday Times falls for US Covid propaganda

By Paula Jardine | TCW Defending Freedom | June 21, 2023

In simpler times, a dichotomy was understood to exist whereby our newspapers of record printed The Truth while those on the other side regurgitated state propaganda. It is of course a conceit, as the complicity of our mass media in pushing the party line on Covid-19 over the last three years demonstrates, but it’s one of which all journalists, and especially those in the business of conducting investigations, should be ever mindful or they risk being bamboozled.

On June 10, a headline in the Sunday Times promised to inform its readers ‘What really went on inside the Wuhan Lab weeks before Covid erupted’The lengthy story was by Jonathan Calvert and George Arbuthnott, editor and deputy editor of ‘the renowned Insight investigative team’.

Insight said they had ‘reviewed hundreds of documents, including previously confidential reports, internal memos, scientific papers and email correspondence that has been obtained through sources or by freedom of information campaigners in the three years since the pandemic started. We also interviewed the US State Department investigators – including experts on China, emerging pandemic threats, and biowarfare – who conducted the first significant US inquiry into the origins of the Covid-19 outbreak’.

The facts presented by the Insight team are accurate as far as they go: the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) received funding in 2009 from the US non-profit organisation EcoHealth Alliance and was collecting bat coronaviruses to identify pandemic potential viruses as part of a programme called PREDICT. https://p2.predict.global/ WIV received more money from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) via EcoHealth Alliance in 2014 to continue its bat coronavirus research. The American Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) refused to fund an EcoHealth Alliance proposal called DEFUSE in 2018, part of which proposed genetically engineering bat coronaviruses to see if they could be made more infectious to humans by adding what is called a ‘furin cleavage’ gene.

What the Sunday Times does not make clear is that the PREDICT programme in which EcoHealth Alliance was a partner was launched by the US government Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2009. It continued work started by the US military in the early 1960s to support military preparedness by identifying infectious diseases which might trouble US forces abroad. Under PREDICT this research was in effect rebranded as civilian work by identifying pandemic potential viruses which threatened to jump from animals to humans. To use the terminology of the Cold War, EcoHealth Alliance was acting as a ‘cut-out’ – a front – for the CIA-linked USAID. Nor does the Sunday Times make clear that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), then headed by Dr Anthony Fauci, funded the DEFUSE programme rejected by DARPA, or that Dr Ralph Baric, a coronavirus expert at the University of North Carolina and WIV collaborator, who they note had himself been mixing genes from different pathogens to make chimeric viruses, wrote the gain-of-function section of the proposal.

If the meaning of ‘insight’ is to gain an accurate and a deep understanding of something, these details are more than incidental. Deep understanding requires sceptical interrogation of both the source material and the purpose behind the production of material such as ‘previously confidential reports’. It is here that things start to go awry for the Sunday Times.

Most quotes in the story are attributed to anonymous US ‘sources’ linked to a 2020 US State Department investigation into Covid-19’s origins. The reader is expected to accept their credibility at face value because they come from ‘our’ side. The only two on-record sources linked to the investigation are scientists Dr Richard Ebright, a longstanding critic of gain-of-function research, and Dr Steven Quay, the CEO of a biotechnology company.

It’s unclear who else the Sunday Times interviewed but amongst those involved in the State Department investigation was David Asher of the Hudson Institute, which is the ‘fiscal sponsor’ of the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense established by Dr Robert Kadlec in 2014 when he was a mere lobbyist for the vaccine manufacturer Emergent Biosolutions. Kadlec is the principal architect of 21st century US biosecurity policy. The Commission produced the draft blueprint for Kadlec’s revamped National Biodefense Policy which was adopted by President Trump in 2018. 

The investigation was set up when the State Department was led by the China hawk, Mike Pompeo, who favoured a more robust foreign policy which treated China as a dangerous strategic competitor for global hegemony. His department began exploring an alternative explanation for the emergence of Covid-19 from the natural spillover notoriously articulated in the 2020 ‘proximal origin’ paper. The far-from-disinterested parties, Dr Anthony Fauci, Sir Jeremy Farrar, then director of the UK Wellcome Trust and now WHO chief scientist, Dr Ralph Baric and Dr Peter Daszak, the chief executive of Ecohealth Alliance, were all involved in an email chain with the authors discussing the natural spillover framing in advance of the paper’s publication. 

In January 2021, days before the end of Donald Trump’s Presidency, Secretary of State Pompeo issued a press release ‘sharing new information concerning the activities inside China’s government laboratories in 2019’  and demanding the World Health Organization investigate the origins of Covid-19 which he was suggesting arose from Chinese military bioweapon research at the WIV.

The US ‘had reason to believe’, said Pompeo, that several WIV researchers became sick in the autumn of 2019 and had ‘symptoms consistent with both Covid-19 and common seasonal illnesses’. He then said the WIV was studying RaTG13, the bat coronavirus which was most similar to SARS-CoV-2, while conducting possible ‘gain-of-function’ experiments to enhance transmissibility or lethality. Pompeo omitted to mention that the US government had outsourced all this bat-related research to WIV before sensationally claiming that WIV, despite claiming to be a civilian research institution, had secret links to the Chinese military and had been doing research for them since 2017. He accused China of behaving irresponsibly by withholding ‘vital information that scientists need to protect the world from this deadly virus, and the next one’.

The State Department investigation Pompeo initiated didn’t die with the Trump administration. The work was continued by someone the Sunday Times article mentions in passing as responsible for the US vaccine development programme, Dr Robert Kadlec.

After his tenure as Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response ended, Dr Bob was hired once again by his old friend Senator Richard Burr to work for the GOP minority on the Senate HELP Committee. Burr had in fact recommended Kadlec to President Trump for the role of Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), an office within Health and Human Services, the pulpit from which he was finally able to fulfil his ambitions for his vaccine ‘Manhattan Project’.

Kadlec’s account ‘Muddy Waters: The origins of Covid-19 report’ was published in April 2023. It is straight out of the playbook of Britain’s favourite fictional civil servant Sir Humphrey Appleby, who pithily observed: ‘Clarification is not to clarify things. It’s to put oneself in the clear.’

The report, co-authored by Dr Bob Foster, a former chief scientist for Medical Systems Integration at Fort Detrick, the US Army Medical Research Centre, runs to 300 pages and contains 1,570 citations. Kadlec, who was once a weapons inspector deployed to Iraq to find non-existent biological weapons of mass destruction, is up to his old tricks again. The thesis put forward is the long version of the January 15, 2021, Pompeo press release. They contend that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in the autumn of 2019, that it had leaked from the WIV lab and that because a People’s Liberation Army vaccine specialist, Zhou Yusen, a decorated military scientist, filed a patent for a vaccine in February 2020, China must have known about the leak in November. They deduce from all this that China’s military was secretly working with the WIV to develop simultaneously a bioweapon and a vaccine.

For all the material they say they reviewed, the Sunday Times writers unquestioningly retell the account given in Muddy Waters: ‘The investigators believe the Chinese military had taken an interest in developing a vaccine for the (corona)viruses so they could be used as potential bioweapons. If a country could inoculate its population against its own secret virus, it might have a weapon to shift the balance of world power.’

It’s beyond the scope of a brief article to rebut the entire document, but let me give you the flavour of it using two pieces of evidence put forward in the Muddy Waters report.

According to the report: ‘On November 25, 2019, a 25-year-old Welsh teacher in Wuhan fell ill with flu-like symptoms. The teacher developed pneumonia on December 6, 2019 and was hospitalised. On January 16, 2020, the hospital informed the teacher by letter that he had been infected by the novel coronavirus.’

The citation for this is a March 4 2020 Daily Mail interview with the teacher, Connor Reed, who lived to tell the tale. When he felt ill, Reed took a taxi to Zhongnan University Hospital because he wanted to see a British doctor and ‘there are plenty of foreign doctors there, studying’. He was diagnosed with pneumonia and sent home that evening with antibiotics which he says he didn’t take, preferring instead to use Tiger Balm. It’s a far cry from most people’s understanding of ‘hospitalised’.

The evidence for a lab leak is just as dodgy. The Sunday Times reported that the investigators believed that researchers working in the WIV coronavirus lab became sick in the second week of November. They say an investigator told them: ‘We were rock-solid confident that this was likely Covid-19 because they were working on advanced coronavirus research in the laboratory of Dr Shi. They’re trained biologists in their thirties and forties. Thirty-five-year-old scientists don’t get very sick with influenza.’

The citation in Muddy Waters for the story about the sick WIV researchers leads to Josh Rogin, foreign policy reporter for the Washington Post, who says that his information came from secret intelligence gathered by the US Government.

Current discussions of Covid’s origin proffer two explanations: a bioweapon accidentally released from an unsafe laboratory versus a naturally occurring spillover from animal to humans. Neither explanation can account for why Moderna, a company with close links to the US government which has been generously funded by the US government agencies DARPA and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), began making contractual preparations for its coronavirus vaccine in May 2019 when it asked Merck to give up the exclusivity provision in its 2015 Master Collaboration Agreement with respect to a ‘specific set of respiratory infections’. Nor can it account for the fact that Moderna’s prototype coronavirus vaccine was sent to Baric for animal testing on December 16, 2019, two weeks before the Chinese reported a ‘pneumonia of unknown origin’. The binary nature of the origin discussions obscures other possibilities, such as the one suggested by the Iranians in March 2020 and thereafter ignored, that Covid-19 was an American bioweapon, a scenario under which it’s plausible that the researchers at WIV were intentionally set up to take the blame.

As for the Sunday Times, on this occasion it has conveyed no insight, only American propaganda designed to muddy the waters, not clarify them.

June 22, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

How Elites Weaponised the ‘Precautionary Principle’ Against an Unsuspecting Public

BY DR GARY SIDLEY | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | JUNE 22, 2023

In everyday life, it only makes sense to initiate a new action if we are reasonably confident it will not result in more harms than benefits. The importance of this notion is amplified manyfold when it is powerful actors – politicians and their public health experts – forcing the change on their citizens. The precautionary principle (PP) in its original form endorsed this important rule and complemented the Hippocratic oath of our medical doctors to ‘first do no harm’. Yet throughout the Covid event we have witnessed a total disregard for this principle with the imposition of a series of non-evidenced restrictions, driven more by ideology than science, where the resulting collateral damage has dwarfed any benefits. One stark example – the focus of this article – has been the forced masking of people in community settings, a practice that continues in many areas of healthcare today.

The precautionary principle initially emerged in the 1970s primarily in response to growing concerns about industrial pollution from toxic chemicals. The central premise was a reasonable one: in situations of uncertainty, innovation – such as the introduction of a novel process or intervention – should only proceed if there was no reasonable likelihood of serious unforeseen harms. In effect, in situations where traditional science had not yet investigated the potential for collateral damage from a new way of doing things, the PP put the burden of proof on the innovators to demonstrate that their novel project would not cause harm. If applied to the specific issue of mass-masking during the Covid era, the experts at SAGE (and all the other multi-disciplinary groups, such as the Royal Society, Independent SAGE and DELVE, who pushed for legislation to compel us all to cover our faces) should have produced persuasive evidence that masks do no harm before making their recommendations.

Instead, those pushing the pro-mask narrative often resorted to tropes and appeals to common sense: “It’s only a mask”; “It’s not much to ask, a small inconvenience”; “If it helps a little at the margins, it’s worth it”; “What harm can it do?”

In early summer 2020, our public health experts would have recognised the validity of two assertions. First, that the scientific evidence that masks significantly reduce viral transmission was – at best – weak and contradictory. Second, that the mass-masking of healthy people across the Western world had never before been undertaken and, therefore, the potential unintended harms of such a policy were largely unknown. Under these circumstances, the original PP would have emphatically advised, “when in doubt, do nothing“: do not encourage or recommend the wearing of masks, and – most definitely – do not even contemplate mandating them.

If only, if only.

If only our public health experts had heeded this sensible precautionary message:

  • We would not have stunted the social and emotional development of countless numbers of our young children, many being rendered unable to recognise facial expressions;
  • We would not have contributed to the inflated levels of fear in the population, fear that discouraged hospital attendances, exacerbated loneliness, and thereby increased the number of non-Covid excess deaths;
  • We would not have re-traumatised many victims of historical physical and sexual abuse, for whom the sight and feel of masks triggered disturbing flashbacks;
  • We would not have excluded the hard-of-hearing (one in six of the population) from full social engagement with their fellow humans;
  • We would not have polluted our environment with swathes of non-recyclable plastic and contaminated our waterways with potentially poisonous chemicals.

So why did Professor Chris Whitty (the Chief Medical Officer) and his band of academic advisors disregard the precautionary principle?

Paradoxically, the experts who pushed the pro-mask narrative often deployed a corrupted version of the PP to justify their stance. Over the past three decades, the PP concept has evolved – some might suggest it has been hijacked – and is now commonly taken to mean something very different. The re-writing of the PP gained impetus in 1992 at a United Nations General Assembly meeting where global leaders asserted (Principle 15) that: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” Further re-interpretations of the PP followed, culminating in the European Commission, in 2022, espousing the benefits of adopting the “Innovation Principle” in which “the regulatory framework supports and enables the implementation of new out-of-the-box solutions to societal problems”. This revision of the original PP has – inevitably – encroached into the public health sphere, where large pharmaceutical companies welcome the freedom to deliver their ‘innovative’ new drugs to the general population unencumbered by a pre-requisite to demonstrate that their products will lead to more benefits than harms.

The major consequence of this corruption of the PP is this: if powerful, state-funded world ‘experts’ assert that we are facing an existential threat – be it from climate change, environmental pollution or a novel virus – their recommended interventions should be implemented unless opponents of the proposed actions can prove that the likely collateral damage will significantly outweigh the claimed positive outcomes. The burden of proof no longer resides with the innovators. World governments can now impose top-down restrictions on their citizens and (so long as they claim to be acting for ‘the greater good’ or be doing the ‘socially responsible’ thing) the onus is on others to prove beyond doubt that their policies are counterproductive.

Throughout the Covid event those experts beseeching us all to wear face coverings have often relied, to various degrees, upon this warped version of the PP to support their stance. Arguably the most extreme example of an ideologically-driven imposition is pro-mask crusader Professor Trish Greenhalgh, who not only pre-emptively assumes no harms of mass-masking, but also believes that the search for evidence may be “the enemy of good policy”.

So rather than the obligation to carry out a thorough cost-benefit analysis prior to compelling us all to wear masks in community settings, our paternalistic policymakers were – with the help of the corrupted precautionary principle – allowed to fob us off with dubious claims of an existential threat, appeals to altruism and meaningless platitudes like “it’s better to be safe than sorry”.

Dr. Gary Sidley is a retired NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist and a co-founder of Smile Free, a campaign group opposed to mask mandates.

June 22, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Protecting the Secrets of the Dark Side

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | June 21, 2023

Given that the United States is a national-security state, it stands to reason that most, if not all, of its secrets relate to its dark-side activities, including the planning and carrying out of state-sponsored assassinations of political leaders. Woe to the person who discloses any of these dark-side activities, for he or she will be branded a spy, a traitor, and a hater of America and will be treated accordingly.

Let’s imagine a reasonable hypothetical. Let’s suppose that the CIA plots the assassination of Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel, on the ground that he is a communist and, therefore, a grave threat to U.S. “national security.” The plan, which is termed Operation Liberty, calls for an ambush involving a team of expert marksmen who intend to shoot Díaz-Canel from high-story buildings as he is riding in a parade in downtown Havana. The plot entails framing a fierce anti-communist, pro-U.S. fanatic for the crime, who will himself be quickly killed after the president’s assassination. All the planning and training has been completed. The date of the assassination is set for January 1, 2024, the anniversary date of the Cuban revolution.

Let’s now assume that a CIA official happens to get wind of Operation Liberty. Troubled by a crisis of conscience, the official decides to secretly warn Díaz-Canel and the Cuban regime of the CIA’s assassination plot. On January 1, Díaz-Canel fails to take the fateful ride. Instead, Cuban officials bust up the assassination plot and arrest all the people who are involved in it. The suspects are put on trial, convicted, and sentenced to serve long jail sentences.

After a fierce investigation, CIA officials discover the identity of the CIA official who disclosed Operation Liberty to the Cubans. It is not difficult to imagine what comes next. The official is charged with violations of the old 1917 Espionage Act and with betraying the CIA by disclosing its national-security state secrets to an official enemy of the United States.

When the official is brought to trial, the prosecutor will condemn him or her as an evil traitor, a spy, a betrayer of American secrets, and an America-hater. The federal judge in the case will not permit the official to explain his or her reasons for what he or she did. Such reasons will be considered to be irrelevant. All that matters will be the fact that the official endangered “national security” by revealing national-security-state dark-side secrets to the enemy.

The official will be easily convicted. At sentencing, the federal judge will brand the official as a traitorous disgrace to the United States, one who betrayed his oath to preserve the dark-side secrets of the national-security establishment. The judge will then follow the CIA’s recommendation by meting out the highest possible jail sentence to the malefactor. The official will be sent to a maximum-security federal prison.

While this scenario is entirely hypothetical, there is no doubt whatsoever that this is precisely what would unfold if this were to actually happen. And yet, it provides a perfect demonstration of how the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state has warped and perverted the morals and values of the American people.

The CIA’s plot to assassinate Díaz-Canel is murder, pure and simple. The fact that it is a governmental entity that is plotting to commit the murder does not remove it from the category of murder. Neither does calling the murder a “state-sponsored assassination.”

What about that CIA official who has moral objections to murder, including murders committed by the national-security establishment? Tough luck. Those moral objections are irrelevant in a national-security state. The only thing that matters is what the national-security establishment thinks. If the CIA determines that someone is a threat to “national security,” that is the end of the story. The CIA is the decider, not the person who has moral qualms against state-sponsored assassinations. The latter must keep his mouth shut and simply let the assassination happen.

Thus, under our form of government, the person who saves the life of a person by disclosing to him a secret CIA plot to assassinate him is considered to be a bad person — a traitor — a betrayer of America’s secrets — a person who hates his or her country. The good people — the patriots — are considered to be those who plot the murder of those people who are deemed to be threats to “national security.”

In other words, in the Bizarro World of a national-security state, state-sponsored murderers are good patriots who we are expected to honor, glorify, and praise. Those who oppose or foil the assassination plots of the national-security state are considered to be evil traitors who we are expected to hate, vilify, and condemn.

June 21, 2023 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Settling in to the reputation economy

BY EL GATO MALO | BAD CATTITUDE | JUNE 21, 2023

the retail B2C aspect of the information economy is dying.

the reputation economy is rising to take its place.

this is going to be one of the pivotal meta-trends of the next several years and it is already well underway. it’s been taking root for years and like many such exponentially driven processes of social contagion, it’s “little by little then all at once” as that which seemed subtle suddenly comes to raucous and unmistakable bloom.

and we are about to see the full flower of this phenomenon.

but what does that mean?

the 90’s ushered in a radical change in information. that which was once hard to access and hard to share become so plentiful and cheap that it has now flipped over into “hard to avoid” and “hard to assess.”

in 1990, real time news and stock prices and commentary were the province of a very select few. now it’s baseline expectation for people on budget airline flights.

that which was once the currency of a small elite is now in ubiquitous circulation. this has dramatically changed the manner in which it is not only consumed, but provided.

the sheer volume of information has become overwhelming, and its stridence and pandering qualities have been accentuated as 10,000 memes fight for each eyeball that not so long ago had only 3 or 4 to choose from.

not only does this make keeping up with it near impossible, it also means that the power to control and slant it has become a sort of commanding heights in this new economy:

control what people see and you can control what they believe. shape the message, shape the society.

and not everyone in this ecosystem has your best interests at heart.

this gave rise to a vast public private partnership of media and government, an ugly and unconstitutional alliance of both convenience and need arising from both exigency and opportunity.

the information age has been death for big media.

ratings and revenues have collapsed as oligopoly eroded and information broke free.

this freedom posed a clear and present danger to government (especially bureaucratic permanent government) narrative and control and so the two were forced together in a sort of “you scratch my back and i’ll scratch yours” codependency of access, promotion, censorship, and message hegemony. everyone from media to educational institutions and crony corporatist business interests and has fawningly fallen in line with what can only be described as lockstep systems of legal plunder underpinned by invented ethics to defend and glorify them.

but this has broken the information economy and the falsehoods, manipulation, and egregious thumbs upon the scales of the public agora have grown so blatant that the center is shifting and this is about to gather the momentum that will make it decisive.

no one trusts this “information” anymore. the media lies. the government lies. the technology companies lie.

and that truth is plain.

they are still unearthing new forms of embedded censorship on twitter even now. it’s the literal core of the software and embedded at who knows how many levels. the whole system appears to have been built not so much for information sharing as for informational suppression. facebook is an an engine of ideological manipulation. google buries search results and amplifies others for ideological and political ends.

this is not distortion, manipulation has become the signal. and you can see why. this passel of pernicious plunderers will not be able to withstand even rudimentary scrutiny. they are in deep, deep trouble if information gets free. and they know it.

and this is why they will use every lever within their power from draconian EU regulations to claims of misinformation and manipulation projected upon others to mask their own malfeasance to the vilification of the very change that might supplant their systems of control. make no mistake: this sudden surge of “AI fear” is not a coincidence.

this is planned and planful.

and it’s working. (or, at least, some purported polls are being trotted out to claim that it is.) but can these polls be trusted? are they accurate or fair? or are they just another failure of the information economy as it devolves to something more akin to propaganda?

it’s hard to know. this is the struggle of the hall of mirrors created by the dissolution of trust in information. it all becomes a black box and past a certain point, you simply cannot take anything at face value and one must begin to always assess the intent of the stakeholders speaking because one thing is manifestly clear:

this is exactly what those who have the most to lose would like to have you believe about a technology that could demolish their dominance and grant vast new vistas of access to unfettered information and perhaps more important knowledge extraction to the public.

this breaks the search engine monopoly on determining “what the internet is.” today, if google decides you do not exist, you vanish. if they decide you are top of the pile, you are. but AI driven systems change this and (if allowed to function unfettered) will make access to “what is” a truly general and democratized phenomenon.

no wonder they want to make you leery of it.

it stands to gut them like trout.

this democratization of knowledge generation poses an existential threat to their current regimes and so they must fight its emergence tooth and claw.

but this is not safety.

this is censorship.

the goal is to scare the demos into demanding “regulation” that will be used to once more establish the regimes of suppression upon which the modern public private plunder machine sets its foundations. they want to be in charge of what you can know and what information may spread.

and they are getting increasingly desperate because the worm here is turning, memes and messages are spreading in manners they do not like, and this is not only destroying the totalitarian power of their cultures of cancellation but inverting them. “experts” are being annihilated by “amateurs” and those who seek to dictate are finding themselves dictated to instead.

and this is a very good thing.

we the people have become “we the market” and are escaping the baleful glare of the gaslights with which so many have for so long been blinded. we are coming once more to know our own minds through the simple expedient of losing our fear to speak and realizing the the pervasive puppetshow of purported public opinion was a hoax, a fugazi fellowship of false narrative that never actually existed. and this is killing the B2C information economy because none of the folks who have firehosed phony zeitgeist at an unsuspecting public are trusted anymore.

now it’s about reputation.

and that changes everything.

“the internet remembers” is a powerful concept. it creates a real track record. if you want to play out here in the modern square, you need to speak, take views, add information. but doing so generates receipts and we can go back and look at how everyone did. it’s not like the bad old days where you can just flip sides and play the “shaggy defense” of “wasn’t me” who said that. now when you change jerseys, everyone knows. even when you try to hide it. the old tricks do not work with this new dog.

now imagine how much easier uncensored AI would make assessing such things. instant on track records for everyone.

that will be seismic.

once, what you said 5 years ago was forgotten. but no longer. not even when you delete the tweets. the internet remembers. and reputation is all.

the simple fact is that information has become overly prolific. it has become tinsel. and AI is in the process of making this 1000 times worse by making the cost of producing content asymptotically indistinguishable from 0.

as this intersects with manipulation, it drops the value of most kinds of information to naught and quite possibly into the negatives. all the value has moved to interpretation and curation.

but AI is also the solution to this as it can cut through the noise and find signal.

this is why they so desperately want to control it: if you are allowed access to the vast engines of interpretive power, what might you learn? what might you create? perhaps most important, who might you cut out of the value chain?

AI poses dire threats to the credentialed classes. lawyers, doctors, lower level and possibly soon higher level coders. lots of people with expensive educations, credentials and licensure that grants guild privilege (and assures guild level profit protection) and that stymies innovation and affordable access are at massive schumpeterian risk.

and these people are connected.

they will use the machinery of government and media to fight the encroachment that threatens their fiefdoms and frees the rest of us.

and this is a fight we must make sure they lose.

and it’s why we must resist the calls to “regulate AI” and instead demand that it be free.

those telling you it must not be are the same ones telling you that they must get to decide what is and is not “misinformation” while being the largest purveyors of falsehood on earth.

do you really want another round of that?

what could constitute a worse choice than leaping from the frying pan of mistrust of technology companies into the fire of government regulation?

you seriously want to place your faith in them?

this battle to free information must be waged not just in the political realm but in the personal.

consumer sovereignty is a decisive force and we the people may vote with these, our wallets and in so doing we may bring this to heel.

we are nothing like powerless, we are only being gaslit into thinking that we are.

and as we find our footing and seek to support those who earn our trust and shun those who violate it, we have flipped cancel culture upon its misbegotten head.

it was not long ago that companies could have brazened out a stunt like this and shamed the public into tacit if not overt acceptance.

but no more.

they got hit where it hurts and the top beer brand in america was hamstrung because the people running it lost their reputation.

and now they are floundering and scrambling and want a mulligan to “what you’ve always loved about us,” but it’s not that easy, is it?

everyone remembers. does anyone believe this is sincere as opposed to reactive? do you trust them again? is the non-apology apology tour compelling?

because i will bet they never get this back.

because they do not understand.

they’re cooked because they do not understand reputation. they still want to manipulate you using clumsy tools.

it’s just sad.

one of my interesting discoveries in the last couple years is that the conventional wisdom on much of PR is wrong. it does not stand up in practice.

you should never apologize for doing what you feel was right or justified. that just gets you pilloried and proves you craven and unprincipled. being shamed into repudiating your own ethics or belief is the worst of all worlds. who could respect such a person? they have no morals, just malleable allegiance.

on the other hand, when you make a mistake and realize it, you should step up and proactively say so and explain what you misapprehended and what changed your mind. i’ve blown it on data. no one bats 1.000. folks told me “ignore it. let it fade. people will forget.” instead, i chose to trust you. i placed faith in your discernment, fairness, and understanding. and when i did, a funny thing happened: instead of the “ha, see that cat doesn’t know what he’s saying!” i got comments sections full of “thank you.” and “this is why we’ll keep trusting you.”

funny how that works. why, it’s almost as if trust is a two way street…

it’s kind of obvious once you step back and look at it. no one claiming to be infallible is trustworthy. that’s impossible. worse, it’s a self-defeating demand. if you require it, you’re placing yourself in the hands of the most malicious sort of people.

this is what makes the reputation economy hum. not projected perfection: reality. plausibility. humility. principle. honor. honesty.

strive for truth and even when you fail, people will trust you. a good batting average presented in good faith vastly trumps a perfect one presented in falsity.

people are sick and tired of being lied to, spun, and manipulated.

the age of honesty and honor is coming.

because we will make it so.

vote with your dollars and vote with your attention.

support those who earn your trust and who trust you in return. spurn those taking you for granted or for fools or for dupes.

consumer sovereignty is the tool by which societal sovereignty may be retaken.

this will be irrepressible and irresistible.

and this is going to be fun.

society was always ours and not theirs.

remember that, and the rest will follow.

Subs

June 21, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Peter Hotez’s War Against Science

Compassionate approaches for dealing with those who promote falsehoods and silence the truth

A Midwestern Doctor | June 18, 2023

Peter Hotez is well-known for receiving millions for vaccine development and being a militant defender of the narrative who maliciously attacks anyone who challenges him but refuses to ever debate anyone who disagrees with him.

This became a big problem because prior to COVID-19 the media paraded him around to advocate for mass censorship of anyone who questioned vaccines. His publicity campaign then paved the way for the mass censorship we saw over the last few years (which likely cost millions of lives during the pandemic since everyone who questioned the dysfunctional pandemic response online was silenced).

After the initial objective was achieved, Peter Hotez pivoted to calling for the government to target and silence anyone who questioned the vaccine narrative. He justified these fascist demands with his lies that anyone who questioned the vaccines were mass murders and engaged in a war against science.

Recently, Hotez (who always hurls inflammatory allegations) picked a fight with Joe Rogan and the unprecedented public response exposed Hotez’s grift to the entire world. Many in turn assumed Hotez’s refusal to debate vaccine misinformation (in return for a massive donation being given to a charity of Hotez’s choice) meant all of Hotez’s claims about helping the poor were nothing more than a grift.

Because of the damage Hotez has done to the world, I’ve dug into his background and discovered many concerning things about his character, how he sees himself and his past conduct. One of the most concerning things is that he was one of the mad virologists who was complicit in the GoF research on the SARS coronavirus which led to the lab leak that gave us COVID-19. Even more unbelievable, at the same time he did this, he had a massive grant from the NIH to develop a SARS vaccine for a SARS lab leak, a vaccine he has since developed and brought to market.

This is all hard to believe, so I did my best to both cover just who Hotez is in detail here and provide helpful perspectives on how to we can compassionately but effectively deal with difficult people like Hotez.

Read it here.

June 20, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

Declassified files expose British role in NATO’s Gladio terror armies

By Kit KLARENBERG | THE GRAYZONE | JUNE 19, 2023

Newly declassified British Foreign Office files have added disturbing details to the history of Operation Gladio. The covert operation was uncovered in 1990, when the public learned that the CIA, MI6 and NATO trained and directed an underground army of fascist paramilitary units across Europe, deploying its assets to undermine political opponents, including through false flag terror attacks.

Among them was a young Silvio Berlusconi, the media oligarch who served as Italian Prime Minister in four separate governments between 1994 and 2011. Listed as a member of the P2, the secret Cold War-era cabal of political elites devoted to Gladio’s aims, Berlusconi undoubtedly took some weighty secrets to the grave when he died this June 12th.

It is almost impossible to believe that inconvenient truths were not weeded from Britain’s documentary record on Operation Gladio prior to declassification. Nonetheless, the recently released material is highly illuminating. Covering a fraught twelve month period after the first public disclosure of Gladio’s existence, the papers illustrate how London’s foreign intelligence apparatus kept a keen eye on the continent as events unfolded.

The papers not only shed fresh light on the conspiracy, they underline Gladio’s relevance as British intelligence joins its America counterparts in contemporary plots involving secret partisan forces from Syria to Ukraine.

Various passages dotted across the tranche strongly suggest the British knew much more than they publicly admitted about egregious criminal deeds, including the attempted overthrow of an allied Italian government and the kidnap and murder of its leader.

A ‘clandestine resistance network’ goes to work

Gladio consisted of a constellation of “stay behind” anti-communist partisan armies whose ostensible mission was to fend off the Red Army in the event of Soviet invasion. In reality, these forces committed countless violent and criminal acts as part of a “strategy of tension” designed to discredit the left and justify a security state clampdown.

As Vincenzo Vinciguerra, a Gladio operative jailed for life in 1984 for a car bombing in Italy that killed three police officers and injured two, explained:

“You were supposed to attack civilians, women, children, innocent people from outside the political arena. The reason was simple, force the public to turn to the state and ask for greater security… People would willingly trade their freedom for the security of being able to walk the streets, go on trains or enter a bank. This was the political logic behind the bombings. They remain unpunished because the state cannot condemn itself.”

The scandal triggered in Western capitals by the exposure of Gladio dominated mainstream headlines for months. The European parliament responded by passing a resolution condemning the existence of a “clandestine parallel intelligence and armed operations organization [which] escaped all democratic controls, may have interfered illegally in the internal political affairs of member states [and] have at their disposal independent arsenals and military resources… thereby jeopardizing the democratic structures of the countries in which they are operating.”

The resolution called for independent judicial and parliamentary investigations into Gladio in every European state. But aside from inquiries in Belgium, Italy, and Switzerland, nothing of substance materialized. What’s more, investigators heavily redacted their findings while avoiding having them translated them into English. This may help explain why the historic scandal has been largely forgotten.

In this context, the newly declassified documents may be one of the most valuable primary sources to date offering new insights into the origins and internal workings of NATO’s secret terror militias in Italy.

Take for example an aide-mémoire (see it here) prepared by Francesco Fulci, Italy’s permanent representative to the UN, which was shared at a “super-restricted” November 6th 1990 meeting of the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s principal political decision-making body, then forwarded to senior British officials at home and abroad.

Based on a note provided by Rome’s then-premier Giulio Andreotti to “the Head of the Italian Parliamentary Commission investigating terrorist incidents,” the aide-mémoire begins by noting that following World War II, Western intelligence agencies devised “unconventional means of defence, by creating in their territories a hidden network of resistance aimed at operating, in case of enemy occupation, through information gathering, sabotage, propaganda and guerrilla warfare.”

According to the aide-mémoire, authorities in Rome began laying the foundations of such an organization in 1951. Four years later, Italian Military Intelligence (SIFAR) and “a corresponding allied service” – a reference to the CIA – then formally agreed on the organization and the activities of a “post-occupation clandestine network”:

“[Gladio] was; formed by agents active in the territory who, by virtue of their age, sex and activities, could reasonably avoid eventual deportation and-imprisonment by the foreign occupiers; easy to manage even from a command structure outside the occupied territory; at a top secret level and hence subdivided into ‘cells’ so as to minimize any possible damage caused by defections, accidents or network penetration.”

The “clandestine resistance network” was subdivided into separate branches, covering information operations, sabotage, propaganda, radio communications, cypher, reception and evacuation of people and equipment. Each of these structures was to operate autonomously, “with liaison and coordination ensured by an external base.”

SIFAR established a dedicated, secret section to recruit and train Gladio operatives. Meanwhile, it maintained five “ready deployment guerrilla units in areas of special interest” across Italy which awaited activation on a continuous basis.

“Operational materials”, including a wide variety of explosives, weapons – such as mortars, hand grenades, guns and knives – and ammunition were stashed in 139 secret underground caches across the country. In April 1972, “to improve security,” these arsenals were exhumed, and moved to offices of the Carabinieri, Rome’s military police, near the original sites.

Only 127 of the weapons storehouses were officially recovered. The aide-mémoir states that at least two “were very likely taken away by unknown persons” at the time they were buried, in October 1964. Who these operatives were and what they did with their stolen arms is left to the imagination.

British involvement in the coup effort

Fulci was eventually quizzed by attendees of the North Atlantic Council summit “as to whether Gladio had deviated from its proper objectives.” In other words, beyond operating strictly as a “stay behind” force, to be activated in the event of Soviet invasion. While “he could not add to what was in the aide-mémoire,” Fulci confirmed “weapons used in some terrorist incidents had come from stores established by Gladio.”

This may reflect the fact that political violence was one of Gladio’s “proper objectives.” A June 1959 SIFAR report unearthed by historian Daniele Ganser confirms guerrilla action against “domestic threats” was hardwired into the operation from its inception. In the Italian context, this entailed systematically terrorizing the left.

As the Italian Communist party surged in polls ahead of the country’s 1948 election, the CIA pumped money into the coffers of the Christian Democrats and an attendant anti-communist propaganda campaign. The cloak-and-dagger effort was so successful in preventing the outbreak of a left-wing government in Rome that Langley secretly intervened in every one of Rome’s elections for at least the next 24 years.

Yet the covert CIA operations were insufficient to prevent Italians from occasionally electing the wrong governments. The 1963 general election saw the Christian Democrats prevail again, this time under the leadership of left-leaning politician Aldo Moro, who sought to construct a coalition with the Socialists and Democratic Socialists. Over the next year, protracted disputes erupted between these parties over what form their administration would take.

In the meantime, SIFAR and CIA black ops specialists such as William Harvey, known as “America’s James Bond,” cooked up a plot to prevent that government from taking office. Known as “Piano Solo,” it dispatched Gladio operatives for a false flag assassination attempt on Moro that would deliberately fail.

According to the plan, the kidnapper was expected to claim they were ordered to kill Moro by communists, thereby justifying the violent seizure of multiple political party and newspaper headquarters, along with the imprisonment of troublesome leftists at the Gladio chapter’s secret headquarters in Sardinia. The plan was ultimately aborted, though it remained on the table throughout 1964.

Moro became Prime Minister without incident and governed until June 1968. Piano Solo fell under official investigation four years later, yet the results were not published until the public first learned of Gladio’s existence. Though the findings omitted any reference to Britain’s role in the planned coup, the newly released documents strongly suggest London’s involvement. (Read them here).

Italy’s then-President Francesco Cossiga requested the ministry hand over “details of UK stay behind measures in 1964,” according to a detailed February 1991 Foreign Office memo on recent developments in the scandal.

Cossiga apparently made this enquiry as a result of a judge “whose investigations into unsolved terrorist attacks first brought Operation Gladio to light,” and who took the “unprecedented step” of demanding the president testify about the conspiracy under oath. By this point, Cossiga had admitted learning of the “stay behind” force while serving as a junior Defense Minister in 1966.

His Foreign Office query strongly suggests British intelligence played a role in Piano Solo, and that the Italian President was well-aware of the plot.

Doomed Italian PM Aldo Moro’s photo while in captivity of the Red Brigades

“One or more of Moro’s kidnappers was secretly in touch with the security apparatus”

On March 16th 1978, a unit of the leftist militant Red Brigades kidnapped Moro. He was on his way to a high-level meeting where he planned to give his blessing there to a new coalition government that relied on communist support, when the kidnappers violently extracted him from his convoy. Five of Moro’s bodyguards were murdered in the process.

After almost two months in captivity, when it became clear the government would neither negotiate with the Red Brigades nor release any of its jailed members in return for Moro, the kidnappers executed the former Italian Prime Minister. His bullet-riddled corpse was left in a car trunk to rot, and for authorities to find.

Moro’s murder has inspired widespread and well-founded suspicions that Gladio operatives infiltrated the Red Brigades to push the group to commit excessively violent acts in order to foment popular demand for a right-wing law-and-order regime. More than perhaps any other incident, his killing fulfilled the objectives of the security state’s strategy of tension.

Whether or not Moro was a casualty of Gladio, a declassified November 5th 1990 Foreign Office memo authored by Britain’s then-ambassador to Rome, John Ashton, makes it clear that London knew much more about the case than has ever been disclosed publicly by any official source. (Read the full Ashton note here).

“There is circumstantial evidence one or more of Moro’s kidnappers was secretly in touch with the security apparatus at the time; and that the latter deliberately neglected to follow up leads which might have led to the kidnappers and saved Moro’s life,” Ashton declared.

What’s more, according to the British diplomat, the presidential crisis committee responsible for attempting to rescue Moro was part of the notorious P2 – the “subversive Masonic lodge” composed of political elites loyal to Gladio.

According to Ashton, P2 was just one of many “mysterious right wing forces” striving “by terrorism and street violence to provoke a repressive backlash against Italy’s democratic institutions” under the “strategy of tension.” And President Cossiga was completely unaware it had infiltrated his crisis committee.

In April 1981, magistrates in Milan raided the villa of Licio Gelli, an Italian financier and self-identified fascist who founded P2. There, they uncovered a list of 2,500 members which read like a “Who’s Who” of Italian politicians, bankers, spooks, financiers, industrialists, and senior law enforcement and military officials. Among the cabal’s most  prominent members was Silvio Berlusconi.

Future Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s P2 file

Moro’s “historic compromise,” under which the communists “made possible Andreotti’s government”, would be the party’s “final step before their own entry into government.” Ashton stated that this development “was anathema to P2,” which was “then in virtual control of [Italy’s] security apparatus,” and also to many non-P2 establishment politicians, and also to the US,” and sought to “eliminate once and for all any possibility that the Communist Party… might achieve national power.”

Ashton acknowledged “circumstantial evidence” of “US support for P2.” In reality, P2 founder Gelli was so well-connected to Washington’s national security and intelligence apparatus, the CIA’s Rome station had explicitly charged him with establishing an anti-communist parallel government in Rome.

Subsequent investigations showed how Henry Kissinger helped oversee the recruitment of 400 high-ranking Italian and NATO officers as P2 operatives in 1969. The US was so grateful for Gelli’s anti-communist purge that it made him a guest of honor at the inauguration ceremonies of US Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.

Ashton concluded his revealing note by noting the truth about Washington’s involvement in Rome’s bloodspattered “Years of Lead” would “probably never be known.” The full extent of Britain’s involvement in terrorist attacks, government overthrows, destabilization campaigns and other heinous skullduggery under the aegis of Operation Gladio, not merely in Italy but throughout Europe, will almost certainly remain a secret as well, and by design.

It was not until 1993 that the public learned how the US and British gifted munitions to Gladio operatives to foment bloody acts of terror across Italy. As Francesco Fulci told his NATO friends at the “super-restricted” meeting, Washington and London supplied the perpetrators of mass casualty attacks including the 1980 bombing of Bologna Centrale railway station, which killed 85 people and wounded over 200.

Those responsible for these hideous crimes have eluded justice in almost every case. Several of the Bologna massacre’s chief suspects, including committed fascist and confirmed MI6 asset Robert Fiore, escaped to London. Britain refused to extradite him and his co-conspirators despite their convictions in absentia for violent crimes.

The extensive experience British intelligence obtained in Operation Gladio raises questions about the lessons the MI6 has applied to current covert operations in theaters of conflict. As The Grayzone revealed in November 2022, British military and intelligence veterans have trained and sponsored a secret partisan terror army in eastern Ukraine to carry out acts of sabotage in Crimea and other majority-Russian areas. The plan called for the training of cells of ideologically dedicated Ukrainians to “shoot, move, communicate, survive.”

June 20, 2023 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Illegal Occupation, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘Undeniable proof’ uncovered that Zionist agents targeted Jews in Iraq

MEMO | June 19, 2023

A distinguished Israeli-British historian and Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford has uncovered “undeniable proof” that Zionist agents were responsible for targeting the Jewish community in Iraq, pushing them to flee and settle in Israel. Prof. Avi Shlaim has made the claim in his autobiography, which details his childhood as an Iraqi Jew and subsequent exile in Israel. Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew was published last week. A review of the memoir appeared on Saturday in the Spectator magazine, detailing Shlaim’s shocking claim.

Why Arab Jews left Iraq and other countries in the Middle East to move to Israel after more than 2,000 years of living in relative peace and harmony with their Arab Muslim neighbours has been a controversial issue for decades. Events surrounding the creation of the Zionist state of Israel sparked an influx of Jews to historic Palestine. A combination of pull factors such as the belief in the notion of the “ingathering of the exiles” and “making aliyah” accounted for the migration of many Arab Jews.

Israel and supporters of the apartheid state, however, insist that it was the persecution of Arab Jews that pushed them out of their countries of birth. It is a claim that has long been contested. Israel carried out several false flag operations in the Middle East to “persuade” Jews to move to the new state. The most infamous of these was the “Lavon Affair”, during which Egyptian Jews were recruited by Israeli military intelligence to plant bombs inside British and American civilian targets, including churches and libraries.

From 1950 through to 1951 Israeli spy agency Mossad is also said to have orchestrated five bomb attacks on Jewish targets in an operation known as Ali Baba, to drum up fear amongst and hostility towards Iraqi Jews. As the mood darkened, more than 120,000 Jews — 95 per cent of the Jewish population in Iraq — left for Israel via an airlift known as Operation Ezra and Nehemiah.

While the role of Mossad is underplayed by Israel, Shlaim’s account disputes this view. The Oxford professor was born in Baghdad in 1945 and belonged to a prosperous and distinguished Jewish family that enjoyed a comfortable life in the city. According to his memoir, their lives took a drastic turn for the worse when a series of bombings rocked the Iraqi Jewish community in 1950. Faced with increasing danger, Shlaim’s family made the difficult decision to flee to Israel, leaving behind their luxurious lifestyle and struggling to adapt to a new and diminished existence.

Shlaim contends that the Zionist project dealt a severe blow to the position of Jews in Arab lands. In the memoir he argues that the Eurocentric Zionist movement and the state of Israel intensified divisions between Arabs and Jews, Israelis and Palestinians, Hebrew and Arabic, and Judaism and Islam. Furthermore, divisive pro-Israel forces worked actively to erase what Shlaim describes as an ancient heritage of “pluralism, religious tolerance, cosmopolitanism and coexistence. Above all, Zionism has discouraged us from seeing each other as fellow human beings.”

Shlaim discusses how Mizrahi Jews, like himself, who originated in the Middle East, faced discrimination from Ashkenazi Jews, who came from Europe. Mizrahi Israelis remain among some of the poorest communities in Israel, living in developing towns and underprivileged neighbourhoods.

See Also:

There is no parity between ethnic cleansing in Palestine and Jews’ exodus from Arab states

June 20, 2023 Posted by | Book Review, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

BIG GUY, BIG PLANS

We Are Change | June 15, 2023

THIS DELEGADATION WILL GET IT FIXED FAST!

We Are Change | June 18, 2023

June 20, 2023 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment