This is the second in a series of edited extracts of James Delingpole’s recent podcast with Dr Mike Yeadon (PhD in respiratory pharmacology, co-founded a biotech company and conducted research at Pfizer) to discuss the evil WEF, their own faith journeys, ‘Gollum-class AI’ and more. You can listen to the full podcast here.
Before their emergency authorisation, Dr Yeadon warned the European Medicines Agency that these gene-based vaccines were not safe. Since then he has come to believe in a sinister agenda behind their determined rollout. What follows is the part of the podcast where James questions him on this. Mike explains rational drug design and how he saw obvious ‘designed-in’ toxicities in the mRNA and DNA Covid ‘vaccines’.
JAMES DELINGPOLE: How do you persuade me that these vaccines, which were, due to the miracle of modern medical science, rolled out very quickly to deal with an unprecedented, hitherto unknown viral . . . variation on a virus, possibly leaked from a biolab, that these vaccines were actually part of a global depopulation programme?
DR MICHAEL YEADON: How would I persuade you that that’s what they were for? Well, [if] you are thinking of someone like, for example, Boris Johnson [might have been], I don’t believe for a moment he was any part of the plan, but at some point, he knew something . . .
JD: Yeah. Yeah.
MY: I don’t think very many people know, even on the perpetrators’ side . . . that these injections are designed to kill people. But I bet Boris Johnson had no idea that they were designed to injure people . . . I think very few people would have thought this will be, you know, a depopulation event. If you’re asking, ‘Mike, in a few sentences persuade me that there’s something . . .’
JD: Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
MY: So, I would say, I’d point out to people that drugs, pharmaceuticals, are designed. They don’t just fall out of the sky. So unless you extract them from a plant, they’re synthetic, someone has to design them. You don’t just grab a handful of atoms and hope it does something. You do what’s called intelligent or rational drug design. You think about what you’re trying to accomplish. And, you [will] know, from hundreds or thousands of examples in the past, what kind of chemical structures would potentially allow that objective to be met. So if it’s an oral drug, you don’t pick something that’s a thousand molecular weight because high molecular weight drugs don’t tend to be absorbed.
There are some rules. About the size, about the kind of chemical structures, about the charges on them and so on. You use all of these skills and knowledge, various databases, and you try to design a molecule to do what you want. And you try to combine a synthesis of a test drug – a prototype and a test and you iterate between the two, trying to get closer and closer to the objective. Sometimes you get to select a clinical candidate and sometimes not.
I point all of that out to say that this so-called rational drug design is what I did for over 30 years. And I was reasonably good at it. You learn generalities and then some specialities and so on. So when I look at the structure of something, I can often see intent in that structure, because I put myself in the mind of the designer. What were they trying to accomplish, looking at the structure?
When I apply those rational drug design skills that I have, and I look at the vaccines, I can see three or four obvious designed-in toxicities that cannot possibly be there by accident, because people like me would have been designing them. So although people say, ‘Oh, you’ve never worked in vaccines,’ no, I didn’t. [But] these are not vaccines. You know, in no way are they typical. So if I’d had 25 years’ experience in traditional vaccines, it would be of no use, folks, because these are not like that. What they’re much more like are the kind of molecules I worked in. They are larger, these are macromolecules. I tended to work in smaller molecules, but the design principles are the same. What did you want to accomplish? What kind of structures, formulations, requirements and ‘must not haves’ would have to be there? When I look at the vaccines, I can name two of them because they’re so easy that other people can get them too. So the first is that they have a genetic code for a piece of protein that we’ve all come to know and love called spike protein, which is at least allegedly the sticking out spike bit on the surface of these floating things that look like mines, you see them on your TV and the media, those spike proteins.
JD: And we saw them at the Olympics opening ceremony before that.
MY: In 2012. It’s astonishing. You cannot miss it. If you watch that opening ceremony, there it is, a copy of coronavirus. Anyway, here’s the point, I ask people this question: what is it about your immune system that means that you play nice with yourself most of your life and your immune system doesn’t attack you, and yet under certain circumstances, your body absolutely goes to war and unleashes all weapons it’s got against something? I say it’s recognition of self.
So your immune system, when you were being developed as a foetus, all of the components of your body were being introduced to the components of your immune system, which are being formed by some, like, random selection at binding sites. And basically it was like, ‘This is James, this is James, this is James – don’t attack it.’ So by the time you were born, you had a very powerful immune system that would attack anything that wasn’t James, but which leaves James or ‘self’ alone. So when you’re injected with something that made your cells manufacture a non-self protein – because that’s what a viral protein is – guess what your immune system did to every single cell in your body that took that diabolical stuff up and made non-self protein – I’m afraid the answer is autoimmune lethal attack.
I’ve spoken to at least ten immunologists and I’ve put it to them, and they’ve gone, ‘Yeah, you’re right.’ I said, ‘Could I be wrong?’ No, it’s immunology 101. That’s how your immune system fundamentally plays nice with you, except when you get some circumstances, like developing cancer sometimes, you can destroy cancer cells, because they start to make different proteins than normal, and they’re recognised as non-self, and you can often kill them. It’s called immune surveillance, you do it every day, your body kills off single cell cancers, or potentially single cell cancers. Every day, your clever immune system goes, ‘That shouldn’t be here.’ They leap on it and kill it.
So if you take an injection, whatever it is a third of a ml, bang it in your shoulder, hundreds of billions of particles float around your body. Wherever they land, if they were taken up and that cell started to grind out non-self protein, I’m afraid your immune system recognises non-self is in the offing and it absolutely goes to war. And that is by design. It cannot but happen that way.
So the moment I saw it – actually, that was not the first thought, at first, I thought, ‘Oh, you’re expressing a dangerous protein, this spike protein is toxic,’ and it is. But after a little while, I thought it wouldn’t make any difference what protein it is. If it’s not you, if it’s going to trigger autoimmunity. So that’s the first thing I’ll tell you.
All of these gene-based so-called vaccines are dangerous. Please don’t take any of them. So if they tell you there’s a flying Ebola and you must take this mRNA vaccine, please do not take it. Because if it encodes a piece of the alleged Ebola, flying Ebola, it will kill you. Your immune system will recognise what you’ve just made, when you copy that instruction, it will recognise that it is not belonging to your body, and it will kill the cell that’s making it.
Now, what I’ve just told you fits perfectly with the observed pathology, because this stuff randomly landed up in various tissues. If it landed in your heart, you might get pericarditis or myocarditis. If it landed anywhere in your neurological system, you could get various neurological conditions. If it landed in the back of your eyes, you could go blind. Your pregnant uterus: miscarriage. And so on, you know, kidney failure. So, I think there’s lots of pathologies. I think there are several. But I think this one is one that always occurs. And it maps exactly on to why you’ve got just a tremendous range of anatomically different conditions. You know, why aren’t people inquisitive about that? How could . . . so, for example, if you take an overdose of paracetamol, I can assure you, you don’t end up with, I don’t know, your heart generally doesn’t stop beating. What happens is your liver is killed, because your liver converts it from a not very nice substance into a really very toxic substance. And if you take large doses, you end up, I think it’s centrilobular necrosis. It kills your liver. If you take lower doses over decades, it kills your kidneys through glomerular foot process loss, something like that. So it’s quite unusual to take a single substance that has produced 1,200 different side-effects that vary. One person would get blood clots in their brain, and someone else would lose their baby.
What I’ve just explained fits perfectly. Now, it may not be perfectly correct, but all that I have said is true. Anyone who’s had even the first introduction to immunology will recognise this self/non-self dichotomy is at the heart of how your immune system works. So that’s the first thing. That is unequivocal evidence that all four companies designed . . . conspired to produce something that your body . . . would lead your body to kill itself.
The second part is, at least in the case of the Moderna and Pfizer products, they are wrapped in what are called lipid nanoparticles. They’re quite funky. They essentially mimic the fatty outer coating of yourself. Your body is divided into tiny compartments called cells. They’re so small you need a microscope to see them. But, you know, that’s what they are. They’re like little bubbles or balloons, and they’re surrounded by a lipid bilayer – that’s its cell membrane. And it allows itself to regulate what’s inside compared with outside. So lipid nanoparticles look a bit like that. And so they just, in a stealthy fashion, go all the way around your body and slide into various cells. And if you didn’t have something like that, your body would recognise and destroy the foreign genetic information. I mean, it’s not surprising. Your genetic inheritance is the thing that you would want to preserve, right? If you’re going to have offspring, you don’t want your own genetic inheritance to be coloured by foreign DNA and RNA. And so we’ve got extraordinarily good systems designed to stop foreign DNA and RNA entering our cells.
But if you coat it in this lipid that makes it look like a cell, you probably don’t notice it, by analogy you miss it, it goes past in the corner of your eye and you don’t notice. But you might think, ‘Well, that’s not evidence of depopulation.’ Ah, but I’ve got a factoid for you, James. People who work in formulations, it’s a special area, you know, formulation, R&D [research and development] is itself a discipline. It’s difficult to know how to make the right salts of a particular drug, and people become good at this stuff over decades of formulation R&D, process R&D. These departments were as big as my department, it’s that difficult.
I happened to come across a piece of literature that was ten years old at the time of rolling out these vaccines that told us that lipid nanoparticle wrapped macromolecules – big molecules – preferentially accumulate in various organs, including the ovaries. So we knew for certain that if you wrapped the Moderna and Pfizer jabs in this stuff and then injected it into girls and women, it would accumulate in their ovaries.
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that’s what it’s doing. Well, why would you do that if you were trying to produce immunity to a respiratory virus? And the answer is you wouldn’t. Would you do this if you were trying to harm their fertility? Yes, you would. Especially if you combine the two things I’ve said. Because if a girl or a woman’s ovaries expresses this non-self protein, her own immune system will destroy her ovaries. So I guessed in 2020 – and we have it in writing – that there was a risk of reduction in live babies. And I’m afraid I’ve not followed the field, because I’m not competent to do it properly. But I followed some demographers who are competent to do it, and it looks pretty awful, that between 10 per cent and 20 per cent reductions in live births everywhere – everywhere we look that there’s been intensive injections. So yeah, so on the first part, your immune system will kill you. On the second part, it will damage and potentially render you infertile. And there’s no excuse for either of those things. There were well known hazards of doing the two things they did.
If someone would like to write to me and tell me why I’m wrong, I would love to be wrong. But I’ve been saying it for three years, and no one has pointed out why I’m wrong.
The 23-year-old mystery over who was responsible for scuppering the so-called peace deal outlined by then US President Bill Clinton has been revealed in newly-released declassified documents from the Israeli state archive. The documents show that it was the Israelis who rejected the “Clinton Parameters” which led ultimately to the breakdown of the “Peace Process”. They were uncovered by Professor Norman Finkelstein.
The US academic is the author of several major books, including Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel is Coming to an End. Finkelstein, along with many others, has long disputed the Israeli claim that the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), Yasser Arafat was responsible for spoiling the deal.
In fact, casting blame on the Palestinians for failed negotiations has been a stock in trade of Israeli propaganda since the creation of the apartheid state, and it was no different in 2000 when Clinton launched his failed bid to strike a deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Finkelstein recollected his own position on the matter before revealing details of the Israeli documents which exposed the intransigence of the occupation state that led to the breakdown of Clinton’s peace deal. He said that he had tried to obtain the documents for decades without any success, while speculating about their content.
The basis of a resolution between Israel and Palestine has been unambiguous since 1967, said the American professor, and are based on various UN Resolutions and international law. “However, on the core issues, the Clinton Parameters amended the international consensus such that all the concessions would have to come from the Palestinian side and none from Israel. Contrary to international law, a portion of the Palestinian West Bank, including much of East Jerusalem, would be forfeited to Israel; a portion of the Israeli settlements inside the Palestinian West Bank would be annexed to Israel; and only a token portion of Palestinian refugees would be permitted to exercise their [legitimate] right of return to Israel.”
According to Finkelstein’s account of the negotiations, the Palestinian team did not reject the Clinton Parameters but, rather, expressed in a detailed, professional memo reservations about them. The Israeli side likewise expressed reservations. In January 2001, Clinton formally announced that both sides had accepted his parameters “with some reservations.” However, when this round of negotiations collapsed at the end of January, both the Americans and Israelis blamed Arafat for the collapse.
“Clinton lied-and so did everyone else,” said Finkelstein, recounting the decade long campaign to pin the blame on Arafat. The documents from the Israeli state archive — “Response of the Government of Israel to the ideas raised by President Clinton regarding the outline of a Framework Agreement on Permanent Status” —show explicitly that Israeli reservations about the Clinton Parameters fell outside the plan that he presented.
The documents expose Israel’s refusal to concede territory to the Palestinians: “The permanent territorial arrangements would have to include annexation that exceeds the numerical territorial scope indicated by the President… The President’s ideas regarding the Old City and Har Habayit [in East Jerusalem] are different from Israel’s position… In the field of security, the Presidential ideas differ from the Israeli ones with regard to the Palestinian police and security force, the mandate of the international force and the monitoring of the non-militarisation of Palestine [etc.].”
Clinton was called upon to remove any ambiguities in his parameters over the “Right of Return of the refugees”; that is, “any entry of refugees to Israel shall be a matter of sole sovereign Israeli discretion.” Every single Israeli demand exceeded not only what the occupation state was entitled to under international law but also what was offered in the Clinton parameters.
Israel’s culpability for the breakdown of the peace process is just one of many revelations that have come to light following the release of documents from its state archives. Last week, details of how Israel poisoned Palestinian land was uncovered and before that state documents exposed massacres carried out by Israeli forces against Palestinian Christians and Muslims.
In 1996, journalist Gary Webb wrote a series of articles that forced a long-overdue investigation of a very dark chapter of recent U.S. foreign policy — the Reagan-Bush administration’s protection of cocaine traffickers who operated under the cover of the Nicaraguan contra war in the 1980s.
For his brave reporting at the San Jose Mercury News, Webb paid a high price. He was attacked by journalistic colleagues at the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the American Journalism Review and even the Nation magazine. Under this media pressure, his editor Jerry Ceppos sold out the story and demoted Webb, causing him to quit the Mercury News. Even Webb’s marriage broke up.
On Friday, Dec. 10, Gary Webb, 49, died of an apparent suicide, a gunshot wound to the head.
Whatever the details of Webb’s death, American history owes him a huge debt.
Though denigrated by much of the national news media, Webb’s contra-cocaine series prompted internal investigations by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department, probes that confirmed that scores of contra units and contra-connected individuals were implicated in the drug trade. The probes also showed that the Reagan-Bush administration frustrated investigations into those crimes for geopolitical reasons.
Failed Media
Unintentionally, Webb also exposed the cowardice and unprofessional behavior that had become the new trademarks of the major U.S. news media by the mid-1990s. The big news outlets were always hot on the trail of some titillating scandal — the O.J. Simpson case or the Monica Lewinsky scandal — but the major media could no longer grapple with serious crimes of state.
Even after the CIA’s inspector general issued his findings in 1998, the major newspapers could not muster the talent or the courage to explain those extraordinary government admissions to the American people. Nor did the big newspapers apologize for their unfair treatment of Gary Webb. Foreshadowing the media incompetence that would fail to challenge George W. Bush’s case for war with Iraq five years later, the major news organizations effectively hid the CIA’s confession from the American people.
The New York Times and the Washington Post never got much past the CIA’s “executive summary,” which tried to put the best spin on Inspector General Frederick Hitz’s findings. The Los Angeles Times never even wrote a story after the final volume of the CIA’s report was published, though Webb’s initial story had focused on contra-connected cocaine shipments to South-Central Los Angeles.
The Los Angeles Times’ cover-up has now continued after Webb’s death. In a harsh obituary about Webb, the Times reporter, who called to interview me, ignored my comments about the debt the nation owed Webb and the importance of the CIA’s inspector general findings. Instead of using Webb’s death as an opportunity to finally get the story straight, the Times acted as if there never had been an official investigation confirming many of Webb’s allegations. [Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 2004.]
By maintaining the contra-cocaine cover-up — even after the CIA’s had admitted the facts — the big newspapers seemed to have understood that they could avoid any consequences for their egregious behavior in the 1990s or for their negligence toward the contra-cocaine issue when it first surfaced in the 1980s. After all, the conservative news media — the chief competitor to the mainstream press — isn’t going to demand a reexamination of the crimes of the Reagan-Bush years.
That means that only a few minor media outlets, like our own Consortiumnews.com, will go back over the facts now, just as only a few of us addressed the significance of the government admissions in the late 1990s. I compiled and explained the findings of the CIA/Justice investigations in my 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & “Project Truth.”
Contra-Cocaine Case
Lost History, which took its name from a series at this Web site, also describes how the contra-cocaine story first reached the public in a story that Brian Barger and I wrote for the Associated Press in December 1985. Though the big newspapers pooh-poohed our discovery, Sen. John Kerry followed up our story with his own groundbreaking investigation. For his efforts, Kerry also encountered media ridicule. Newsweek dubbed the Massachusetts senator a “randy conspiracy buff.” [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Kerry’s Contra-Cocaine Chapter.”]
So when Gary Webb revived the contra-cocaine issue in August 1996 with a 20,000-word three-part series entitled “Dark Alliance,” editors at major newspapers already had a powerful self-interest to slap down a story that they had disparaged for the past decade.
The challenge to their earlier judgments was doubly painful because the Mercury-News’ sophisticated Web site ensured that Webb’s series made a big splash on the Internet, which was just emerging as a threat to the traditional news media. Also, the African-American community was furious at the possibility that U.S. government policies had contributed to the crack-cocaine epidemic.
In other words, the mostly white, male editors at the major newspapers saw their preeminence in judging news challenged by an upstart regional newspaper, the Internet and common American citizens who also happened to be black. So, even as the CIA was prepared to conduct a relatively thorough and honest investigation, the major newspapers seemed more eager to protect their reputations and their turf.
Without doubt, Webb’s series had its limitations. It primarily tracked one West Coast network of contra-cocaine traffickers from the early-to-mid 1980s. Webb connected that cocaine to an early “crack” production network that supplied Los Angeles street gangs, the Crips and the Bloods, leading to Webb’s conclusion that contra cocaine fueled the early crack epidemic that devastated Los Angeles and other U.S. cities.
Counterattack
When black leaders began demanding a full investigation of these charges, the Washington media joined the political Establishment in circling the wagons. It fell to Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s right-wing Washington Times to begin the counterattack against Webb’s series. The Washington Times turned to some former CIA officials, who participated in the contra war, to refute the drug charges.
But — in a pattern that would repeat itself on other issues in the following years — the Washington Post and other mainstream newspapers quickly lined up behind the conservative news media. On Oct. 4, 1996, the Washington Post published a front-page article knocking down Webb’s story.
The Post’s approach was twofold: first, it presented the contra-cocaine allegations as old news — “even CIA personnel testified to Congress they knew that those covert operations involved drug traffickers,” the Post reported — and second, the Post minimized the importance of the one contra smuggling channel that Webb had highlighted — that it had not “played a major role in the emergence of crack.” A Post side-bar story dismissed African-Americans as prone to “conspiracy fears.”
Soon, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times joined in the piling on of Gary Webb. The big newspapers made much of the CIA’s internal reviews in 1987 and 1988 that supposedly cleared the spy agency of a role in contra-cocaine smuggling.
But the CIA’s decade-old cover-up began to crack on Oct. 24, 1996, when CIA Inspector General Hitz conceded before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the first CIA probe had lasted only 12 days, the second only three days. He promised a more thorough review.
Mocking Webb
Meanwhile, however, Gary Webb became the target of outright media ridicule. Influential Post media critic Howard Kurtz mocked Webb for saying in a book proposal that he would explore the possibility that the contra war was primarily a business to its participants. “Oliver Stone, check your voice mail,” Kurtz chortled. [Washington Post, Oct. 28, 1996]
Webb’s suspicion was not unfounded, however. Indeed, White House aide Oliver North’s emissary Rob Owen had made the same point a decade earlier, in a March 17, 1986, message about the contra leadership. “Few of the so-called leaders of the movement … really care about the boys in the field,” Owen wrote. “THIS WAR HAS BECOME A BUSINESS TO MANY OF THEM.” [Capitalization in the original.]
Nevertheless, the pillorying of Gary Webb was on, in earnest. The ridicule also had a predictable effect on the executives of the Mercury-News. By early 1997, executive editor Jerry Ceppos was in retreat.
On May 11, 1997, Ceppos published a front-page column saying the series “fell short of my standards.” He criticized the stories because they “strongly implied CIA knowledge” of contra connections to U.S. drug dealers who were manufacturing crack-cocaine. “We did not have proof that top CIA officials knew of the relationship.”
The big newspapers celebrated Ceppos’s retreat as vindication of their own dismissal of the contra-cocaine stories. Ceppos next pulled the plug on the Mercury-News’ continuing contra-cocaine investigation and reassigned Webb to a small office in Cupertino, California, far from his family. Webb resigned the paper in disgrace.
For undercutting Webb and the other reporters working on the contra investigation, Ceppos was lauded by the American Journalism Review and was given the 1997 national “Ethics in Journalism Award” by the Society of Professional Journalists. While Ceppos won raves, Webb watched his career collapse and his marriage break up.
Probes Advance
Still, Gary Webb had set in motion internal government investigations that would bring to the surface long-hidden facts about how the Reagan-Bush administration had conducted the contra war. The CIA’s defensive line against the contra-cocaine allegations began to break when the spy agency published Volume One of Hitz’s findings on Jan. 29, 1998.
Despite a largely exculpatory press release, Hitz’s Volume One admitted that not only were many of Webb’s allegations true but that he actually understated the seriousness of the contra-drug crimes and the CIA’s knowledge. Hitz acknowledged that cocaine smugglers played a significant early role in the Nicaraguan contra movement and that the CIA intervened to block an image-threatening 1984 federal investigation into a San Francisco-based drug ring with suspected ties to the contras. [For details, see Robert Parry’s Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & “Project Truth”]
On May 7, 1998, another disclosure from the government investigation shook the CIA’s weakening defenses. Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, introduced into the Congressional Record a Feb. 11, 1982, letter of understanding between the CIA and the Justice Department. The letter, which had been sought by CIA Director William Casey, freed the CIA from legal requirements that it must report drug smuggling by CIA assets, a provision that covered both the Nicaraguan contras and Afghan rebels who were fighting a Soviet-supported regime in Afghanistan.
Justice Report
Another crack in the defensive wall opened when the Justice Department released a report by its inspector general, Michael Bromwich. Given the hostile climate surrounding Webb’s series, Bromwich’s report opened with criticism of Webb. But, like the CIA’s Volume One, the contents revealed new details about government wrongdoing.
According to evidence cited by the report, the Reagan-Bush administration knew almost from the outset of the contra war that cocaine traffickers permeated the paramilitary operation. The administration also did next to nothing to expose or stop the criminal activities. The report revealed example after example of leads not followed, corroborated witnesses disparaged, official law-enforcement investigations sabotaged, and even the CIA facilitating the work of drug traffickers.
The Bromwich report showed that the contras and their supporters ran several parallel drug-smuggling operations, not just the one at the center of Webb’s series. The report also found that the CIA shared little of its information about contra drugs with law-enforcement agencies and on three occasions disrupted cocaine-trafficking investigations that threatened the contras.
Though depicting a more widespread contra-drug operation than Webb had understood, the Justice report also provided some important corroboration about a Nicaraguan drug smuggler, Norwin Meneses, who was a key figure in Webb’s series. Bromwich cited U.S. government informants who supplied detailed information about Meneses’s operation and his financial assistance to the contras.
For instance, Renato Pena, a money-and-drug courier for Meneses, said that in the early 1980s, the CIA allowed the contras to fly drugs into the United States, sell them and keep the proceeds. Pena, who also was the northern California representative for the CIA-backed FDN contra army, said the drug trafficking was forced on the contras by the inadequate levels of U.S. government assistance.
The Justice report also disclosed repeated examples of the CIA and U.S. embassies in Central America discouraging Drug Enforcement Administration investigations, including one into alleged contra-cocaine shipments moving through the airport in El Salvador. In an understated conclusion, Inspector General Bromwich wrote: “We have no doubt that the CIA and the U.S. Embassy were not anxious for the DEA to pursue its investigation at the airport.”
CIA’s Volume Two
Despite the remarkable admissions in the body of these reports, the big newspapers showed no inclination to read beyond the press releases and executive summaries. By fall 1998, official Washington was obsessed with the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, which made it easier to ignore even more stunning disclosures in the CIA’s Volume Two.
In Volume Two, published Oct. 8, 1998, CIA Inspector General Hitz identified more than 50 contras and contra-related entities implicated in the drug trade. He also detailed how the Reagan-Bush administration had protected these drug operations and frustrated federal investigations, which had threatened to expose the crimes in the mid-1980s. Hitz even published evidence that drug trafficking and money laundering tracked into Reagan’s National Security Council where Oliver North oversaw the contra operations.
Hitz revealed, too, that the CIA placed an admitted drug money launderer in charge of the Southern Front contras in Costa Rica. Also, according to Hitz’s evidence, the second-in-command of contra forces on the Northern Front in Honduras had escaped from a Colombian prison where he was serving time for drug trafficking
In Volume Two, the CIA’s defense against Webb’s series had shrunk to a tiny fig leaf: that the CIA did not conspire with the contras to raise money through cocaine trafficking. But Hitz made clear that the contra war took precedence over law enforcement and that the CIA withheld evidence of contra crimes from the Justice Department, the Congress and even the CIA’s own analytical division.
Hitz found in CIA files evidence that the spy agency knew from the first days of the contra war that its new clients were involved in the cocaine trade. According to a September 1981 cable to CIA headquarters, one of the early contra groups, known as ADREN, had decided to use drug trafficking as a financing mechanism. Two ADREN members made the first delivery of drugs to Miami in July 1981, the CIA cable reported.
ADREN’s leaders included Enrique Bermudez, who emerged as the top contra military commander in the 1980s. Webb’s series had identified Bermudez as giving the green light to contra fundraising by drug trafficker Meneses. Hitz’s report added that that the CIA had another Nicaraguan witness who implicated Bermudez in the drug trade in 1988.
Priorities
Besides tracing the evidence of contra-drug trafficking through the decade-long contra war, the inspector general interviewed senior CIA officers who acknowledged that they were aware of the contra-drug problem but didn’t want its exposure to undermine the struggle to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government.
According to Hitz, the CIA had “one overriding priority: to oust the Sandinista government. … [CIA officers] were determined that the various difficulties they encountered not be allowed to prevent effective implementation of the contra program.” One CIA field officer explained, “The focus was to get the job done, get the support and win the war.”
Hitz also recounted complaints from CIA analysts that CIA operations officers handling the contra war hid evidence of contra-drug trafficking even from the CIA’s analytical division. Because of the withheld evidence, the CIA analysts incorrectly concluded in the mid-1980s that “only a handful of contras might have been involved in drug trafficking.” That false assessment was passed on to Congress and the major news organizations — serving as an important basis for denouncing Gary Webb and his series in 1996.
Though Hitz’s report was an extraordinary admission of institutional guilt by the CIA, it passed almost unnoticed by the big newspapers.
Two days after Hitz’s report was posted at the CIA’s Internet site, the New York Times did a brief article that continued to deride Webb’s work, while acknowledging that the contra-drug problem may indeed have been worse than earlier understood. Several weeks later, the Washington Post weighed in with a similarly superficial article. The Los Angeles Times never published a story on the release of the CIA’s Volume Two.
Consequences
To this day, no editor or reporter who missed the contra-drug story has been punished for his or her negligence. Indeed, many of them are now top executives at their news organizations. On the other hand, Gary Webb’s career never recovered.
At Webb’s death, however, it should be noted that his great gift to American history was that he — along with angry African-American citizens — forced the government to admit some of the worst crimes ever condoned by any American administration: the protection of drug smuggling into the United States as part of a covert war against a country, Nicaragua, that represented no real threat to Americans.
The truth was ugly. Certainly the major news organizations would have come under criticism themselves if they had done their job and laid out this troubling story to the American people. Conservative defenders of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush would have been sure to howl in protest.
But the real tragedy of Webb’s historic gift — and of his life cut short — is that because of the major news media’s callowness and cowardice, this dark chapter of the Reagan-Bush era remains largely unknown to the American people.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It’s also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth.’
A physician e-mail from Medscape highlighted a paper by Sun et al on the dropping age of gender dysphoria in publicly available data. If gender dysphoria was an organic psychiatric illness, it would have steady epidemiological parameters. The enormous campaign for transgender acceptance, hypersexuality, and pornography introduced into schools appears to be working. As the data show, gender dysphoria is still largely a post-pubertal issue, however, the curves are reaching down to the pre-pubertal age groups.
Sun C, Xie H, Metsutnan V, et al The mean age of gender dysphoria diagnosis is decreasing General Psychiatry 2023;36:e100972. doi: 10.1136/gpsych-2022-100972
The authors readily acknowledge that social engineering of “gender fluidity” into the use of pronouns, school pornography, and social media campaigns is having an influence. Parents should pay attention to this trend. There is a clear attempt to create psychopathology in younger age groups were it did not exist in years before.
Dr. David Kelly did not commit suicide on Harrowdown Hill in Oxfordshire 20 years ago. He was murdered. We all know that by now, or at least we should know that by now. But the real question is: why was he murdered. Was it really about sexed-up dossiers and 45 minute claims? Or were there even darker secrets to be concealed? As old hands of The Corbett Report will know by now, the rabbit hole goes deep, and today we go even further into the rabbit hole of David Kelly’s death.
For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.
Let me begin this article with an AP Fact Check. According to the AP (A Bill Gates-tied mosquito project is not responsible for recent US malaria cases | AP News) the cases of malaria that have recently popped up in the United States were NOT related to Bill Gates, his funding of “mosquito research” related disease prevention (Gates-Funded World Mosquito Program Engages in Gain-of-Function Research – The American Spectator – USA News and Politics), or Oxitec’s (another Gates supported company) release of genetically modified mosquitoes for the past several years in Florida where the outbreaks occurred (see the previous two articles). The AP has noted that the Gates foundation does fund malaria work and GMO mosquitoes but states it’s funding for Oxitec’s genetically altered mosquitoes that are being released in Florida (where those mosquitoes are released) does not include any modifications related to malaria and so they could not be the cause.
The AP really did it’s homework here and also requested comment from Oxitec and noted they said it was “scientifically impossible” that they had anything to do with this coincidence. Apparently the gene editing in the Oxitec mosquitoes (that Gates has nothing to do with) is about fighting Dengue fever and Zika virus and they also only release male genetically altered mosquitoes so clearly none of this could have anything to do with the mosquitoes being worked on elsewhere that vaccinate against malaria (though these mosquitoes do exist as you can see in this story from NPR – Why mosquitoes were the vaccinators in a new malaria vaccine trial : Goats and Soda : NPR). Just in case anyone has any further doubts, the AP even talked to an entomologist at the Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory at the University of Florida and he said that the Oxitec mosquitoes “have nothing at all to do with malaria, and it’s absurd to claim otherwise.
Now that you are all aware of Bill Gates and his support for genetically altered mosquitoes to “fight disease”, and the malaria vaccine mosquitoes, I want to share a few important points.
First – did you know that “they” have developed a mechanism to vaccinate people through mosquitoes? As noted in the above, mosquitoes that act as flying syringes for malaria vaccines are a real thing. I have no evidence that they have been released anywhere but you do not spend the money to develop a product like this if you do not plan to use it. That leads to the question, how does Bill Gates plan to get informed consent from people potentially vaccinated by flying syringes? Will the mosquitoes carry legal documents with them with side effect lists and a spot to sign before they bite you? Or perhaps he simply does not care about informed consent… who knows?
The second issue I see is that it appears that the guy funding mosquito work all over the place is the only one that actually knows what is being funded and where. I ask this sincerely, but how do we the people know which GMO mosquitoes are biting us and how do we know the impact of the mosquitoes’ edited genes on the person bitten? This matters because if the mosquitoes’ bites can transfer enough material into the person that was bitten’s body to vaccinate how do we know the impact of these gene modifications more generally? Maybe there is no impact but has anyone studied it or are we just going to play God with genetics and hope it doesn’t have consequences?
I also feel I’d be remiss to point out that the fact check and everything else about this story requires that we trust what “they” are telling us. I’m not suggesting Oxitec or Gates would ever lie but can we agree that they qualify as interested parties? Or that we have not seen too many random cases of malaria popping up in the US typically?
From a scientific and evidentiary perspective I can certainly agree that we do not have evidence to prove that Gates or Oxitec had anything to do with the malaria cases. That said, isn’t it sad that the “conspiracy theories” being bandied about the internet that the AP is attempting to debunk hold ANY credibility? The trust for our public health system and people that claim to champion it is destroyed. For my part I admit I cannot prove any relationship exists but I completely understand why people would ask the question. Further, I think we all need to use this as an opportunity to draw focus on the idea that people like Gates and our federal government ARE creating numerous other means of vaccinating people that would either completely ignore informed consent laws/regulations or that would circumvent it. Mosquito borne vaccines, transmissible vaccines through the food supply (I’ve written about this extensively but here’s another article – Researchers aim to develop edible plant-based mRNA vaccines (news-medical.net), and even vaccines that are absorbed when you breathe (mentioned briefly in this article published by NIH – Development and Delivery Systems of mRNA Vaccines – PMC (nih.gov) are all being created and all are transmissible without informed consent.
Trust in public health has been destroyed for good reason. We now need accountability and reform to begin what will be a decades long process of rebuilding.
This past March marked the 20th anniversary of the US and UK-led invasion of Iraq. The war, launched on the false pretext of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s alleged cooperation with al-Qaeda, claimed up to a million lives, and brought Iraq to the precipice of failed state status.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has returned to the limelight to defend his decision to join the US’s Iraq invasion of 2003, and to offer his opinions on the crises facing the world today.
“It’s always difficult to go back with hindsight. But I always say to people there are many things we would have done different. But I still think that ultimately, in the Middle East, the removal of Saddam Hussein was an important thing to do,” Blair said, speaking to Japanese media in an interview published Saturday.
The politician, who now heads the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, a Gulf sheikdom, US State Department, World Economic Forum and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation-funded non-profit, did not elaborate on why removing the Iraqi leader – which destroyed Iraq and destabilized the Middle East – was so important.
In hindsight, his comments are reminiscent of former Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright’s infamous 1997 60 Minutes Interview, in which Albright said that the “price” of half a million Iraqi children dying as a result of Western sanctions against Baghdad was “worth it.”
‘Important Opinions’
Blair, 70, also offered his opinion on world affairs, including the NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine, and China’s significance in a shifting world order.
Blair, apparently unfamiliar with Russia’s nuclear doctrine, claimed that Beijing’s close relationship with Moscow played a key role in preventing Russia from using nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
“Although there are many problems connected with China’s support of Russia, the one benefit of that close relationship, which you can see in China’s insistence that Russia does not use nuclear weapons, is I think China does not believe it is in its interest at all for this to slide towards a global conflict,” he said.
The terms of Russia’s 2020 nuclear doctrine actually strictly prohibit the use of nuclear weapons – tactical or strategic, unless the country is attacked using weapons of mass destruction, or faces a conventional attack so severe that its very existence is deemed to be at risk.
Blair, who met with Putin in the 2000s during his tenure as PM, suggested that while the Russian president was once more open to cooperation with the West, “the Putin of today only understands the language of strength.” He “and any future Russian leader knows Ukraine is entitled to protect its sovereignty, and so is the rest of Eastern Europe,” Blair said.
The politician also dismissed China’s 12-point Ukraine peace plan, saying it was “obviously not going to be acceptable to the Ukrainians,” but added that China could play an “important” role if a “sensible, negotiated solution” could be hammered out. Blair did not elaborate on which specific points in China’s peace plan, such as ‘respecting the sovereignty of all countries’, ‘ceasing hostilities’, or ‘not pursuing security at the expense of others’, would be unacceptable to Kiev.
Blair believes the “big geopolitical questions of the 21st century” will revolve around China and its relationship with the West, and urged Western countries to “stay engaged” with the Asian giant, while also taking a ‘peace through strength’ approach toward Beijing. “They’ve got to be under no doubt at all that we’re strong enough to deal with whatever comes because that will be the deterrent for anything rash,” he said.
He also pointed to the West’s failure to engage the countries of the Global South, saying that the lethargic and bureaucratic negotiations process on infrastructure development projects has allowed China to “get an enormous position in these countries.”
Tony Blair became US President George W. Bush’s closest ally during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and before that sent British troops to assist in the 2001 US-led invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Blair has faced accusations of war crimes, with activists and prominent figures including Desmond Tutu, British playwright Harold Pinter, Indian Author Arundhati Roy, British human rights lawyer Geoffrey Bindman and former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad calling for him and Bush to be dragged before the International Criminal Court.
In 2017, former Iraqi general Abdulwaheed Shannan Al Rabbat filed a case against Blair in a London court charging him with the “crime of aggression” against Iraq. The court ruled that “although there was a crime of aggression under customary international law, there was no such crime as a crime of aggression under the law of England and Wales.”
It has been approximately a year since Russia realized there can be no negotiations with the Kiev regime, with President Vladimir Putin recently revealing why this is the case. However, even then, Moscow had a sliver of hope this might change and that rationality of some sort might spring up in Kiev. Unfortunately, this proved to be nothing more than a reverie, as the Neo-Nazi junta clearly demonstrated it’s no more than a loose cannon.
Speaking of ISIS, it should also be noted that the Kiev regime used its tactics within Russia, specifically against prominent public figures. This includes not only Russian intellectuals (journalists, writers, philosophers, etc), but also their children, as demonstrated by the terrorist attack that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin. Then there was the case of Vladlen Tatarsky, a prominent military blogger and journalist who was killed in a terrorist attack that could’ve killed dozens of other innocent people. This was followed by another terrorist attack that targeted writer Zakhar Prilepin, another eminent public figure in Russia, in addition to numerous other attacks.
After the Neo-Nazi junta’s top officials pledged they will continue killing Russians, Moscow decided it has had enough of them, realizing its realpolitik approach and patience were clearly seen as weaknesses. Russian intelligence services and the military “took their gloves off” and started treating the said officials as legitimate targets. This includes top-ranking officers of the Kiev regime forces, various special services and sabotage units connected to the SBU and GUR (military intelligence), all of which have grossly violated the rules of conventional warfare. The Kremlin authorized its services to neutralize them after these services organized the aforementioned terrorist and sabotage attacks.
The recent disappearance of top-ranking Neo-Nazi junta officials can either be explained by a looming mutiny among its forces or perhaps even by the fact they might have been neutralized by Moscow. The well-coordinated work of all Russian intelligence services and the military made it possible to quickly identify the whereabouts of the Kiev regime’s military and special services leadership. The information acquired through ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) platforms could have easily been confirmed by undercover intelligence and special forces assets in Ukraine itself. The data would then be relayed to the VKS (Russian Aerospace Forces), which most likely launched high-precision retaliatory strikes on the designated targets, which, at this point, include the Commander-in-Chief of the Neo-Nazi junta forces General Valery Zaluzhny and GUR chief Kirill Budanov.
Russia’s retribution for escalating attacks has been swift and decisive, with disastrous consequences for the Neo-Nazi junta, prompting even NATO itself to increase pressure on Moscow in order to alleviate some of it from Kiev. The Kremlin is not only targeting hostile military infrastructure and facilities now, but also the decision-making centers in order to minimize the likelihood of further bloodshed. While Moscow initially demonstrated its willingness to completely adhere to all norms of international law during the hostilities and even gave Kiev a chance to end the conflict through negotiations and thus avoid senseless killing, the Neo-Nazi junta rejected this in the most disgraceful manner possible. Patience and rationality were met with mass terror and rabid Russophobia. Simply put, Moscow was left with no other choice but to protect its people by achieving all the targets of the SMO.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
The unprecedented range and extent of Covid vaccine injury is not open to argument. Yellow Card reporting, which the Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency say represents just 10 per cent of the true number of reactions, reveals that medical staff and victims have reported half a million adverse events and nearly 2,600 fatalities.
The most common issues following vaccination are low blood platelets (immune thrombocytopenia), heart inflammation (myocarditis), blood clots in the body and brain, (thrombosis and cerebral venous thrombosis) and Guillain-Barré syndrome, where the body attacks its nerves and can cause paralysis.
More than one thousand peer-reviewed research papers have documented and explained the connection between injury and the novel Covid gene therapy; 228 of those papers involve myocarditis, 150 thrombosis, 116 thrombocytopenia, 61 cerebral venous thrombosis, and 43 Guillain-Barré syndrome.
According to the American Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), who have received 35,302 reports of deaths, the Covid vaccine has led to more death reports than any other vaccine in history. The weight of evidence is startling but many doctors still deny Covid-19 vaccines can cause disability or death.
Despite such unprecedented numbers, our national medicines monitors continue to diminish vaccine injury. Last month the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) published this 51-page report on the Covid-19 vaccine programme for healthcare professionals which still describes vaccine injury as rare or of little significance. With no official recognition, there is no government investment into research to understand the pathology of vaccine injury, and no treatment trials to help the millions of vaccine injured.
Former scaffolder Alex Mitchell, 59, from Glasgow, nearly died of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) officially caused by the AstraZeneca vaccine which he received on March 20, 2021. He developed blood clots so severe that his left leg was amputated above the knee. A range of medication controls his continuing clotting problems, but Alex, who has been called a liar, conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer, despite his official diagnosis and £120,000 compensation payment, has found more help to deal with his ongoing health issues through social media than he has through the NHS.
He said: ‘Supplements were recommended by someone who contacted me on Twitter who has a degree in chemistry and biology. My energy and the fatigue that us vaccine-injured suffer from has improved since I started taking them six months ago.
‘The other things that help are acupuncture and red light therapy. They reduce inflammation, and the severe muscle spasms I was experiencing, which felt like someone had taken a cattle prod to my heel bone, have almost stopped.’
A few dedicated doctors are listening and are raising funds for independent research. One is the US organisation Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) founded by a number of doctors including Dr Pierre Kory, and Children’s Health Defence Europe, who held a conference with Dr Meryl Nass last month to discuss vaccine injury.
FLCCC is at the forefront of developing protocols to help the vaccine injured. It is spearheaded by Professor Paul E Marik, formerly chair of pulmonary and critical care at the Eastern Virginia Medical School. He talks regularly to practitioners from all over the world via phone or Zoom who share their clinical experiences. Nothing is added to the FLCCC protocols without a high degree of investigation and scientific reference. Their current vaccine injury protocol has more than 700 scientific references.
Their natural healing regime includes the enzyme nattokinase and aspirin to dissolve blood clots; the anti-inflammatory supplement resveratrol; the mineral magnesium which regulates blood pressure, blood sugar, and is needed for good muscle and nerve function; omega-3 fatty acids which regulate blood clotting; energy boosting co-enzyme Q (CoQ10); the sleep-regulating hormone melatonin; bromelain, the pain-reducing enzyme found in pineapple; the plant chemical berberine which helps strengthen heartbeat, and the brain-nourishing amino acid N-acetylcysteine (NAC).
It has had mixed results but one group called ZeroSpike hope they have made a major breakthrough. ZeroSpike was put together by Fabio Zoffi, a tech entrepreneur, who three years ago formed Federazione Rinascimento Italia (FRI), a civil society of Italian doctors, lawyers, scientists, professionals, and entrepreneurs, horrified by the draconian Covid response.
He contacted Dr Loretta Bolgan, a doctor of chemistry and pharmaceutical technology, and asked her to investigate the Sars-CoV-2 virus and the new mRNA vaccine technology. Once the team discovered that the Covid vaccines and the virus both contained the spike protein, Zoffi asked them to develop a way to get rid of it.
The spike contributes to cardiovascular, brain, and blood clotting problems, and can cause autoimmune conditions, cell deformation and cell fusion damage. It can cross the blood-brain barrier causing memory loss and brain fog, can trigger a stroke or cause other neurological issues.
Manufacturers said the injected spike would clear itself naturally but information from the respected pathologist Professor Arne Burkhardt in Germany, who died recently, and from a freedom of information request from Pfizer’s nonclinical evaluation report submitted to the Australian Department of Health, shows it does not and that it can damage major organs, including the ovaries, liver, spleen and adrenal glands.
The team of ten focused on the food supplement NAC which specifically helped the condition which the vaccine injured and those with long Covid describe as brain fog. Studies showed that NAC denaturated (removed) between 12 per cent and 15 per cent of the Covid spike protein.
NAC is derived from the amino acid L-cysteine and helps replenish glutathione levels in the body and can help to improve brain function. Glutathione is produced by the liver and helps with immune system function, as well as tissue building and repair, vital to help the injured recover. The team then used quantum physics to turbo charge – augment – the NAC molecule, which made a huge difference. In the lab (in vitro), they claim it removed 99.8 per cent of extracellular spike, although there are no traditional double-blind placebo-controlled trials to support the claim.
To prove it, the team developed a urine test which showed how much spike was being excreted. Women’s health specialist Dr Tina Peers told the audience at the Better Way conference in Bath this month: ‘If you check someone’s urine before they take augmented-NAC there aren’t the end products of the denaturation, but by day eight of taking it, they found that the urine was full of denatured spike protein.’
Health practitioners with no financial interest in the product are calling it a ‘game-changer’. Pulmonary and critical care specialist Dr Pierre Kory told the Better Way audience: ‘I integrated it into my practice two months ago. Not everybody responds but some testimonials are really earth-shattering.’
Scott Marsland, a registered nurse (RN) since 1997 and a family nurse practitioner (FRP-C) since 2014, is a partner with Dr Kory in a Covid treatment practice in Syracuse, New York. They have treated more than 2,000 Covid, long Covid or vaccine injured patients in the last 14 months.
Marsland is impressed with A-NAC. He said: ‘I have treated 72 patients with it and 75 per cent have noted benefit. Three had adverse responses of mild to severe rash, but that fully resolved quickly.
‘I had a patient with mental health issues, including anxiety and depression. After taking it, he said, “I’m sleeping like a baby. A cloud has lifted.” Another, who suffered spinal injury after a car crash, had very poor respiratory status preventing the operation. Within a week she reported her lungs were stronger than in the last three years. A young patient with 5/10 chest pain reported after three days the pain was measuring 2/10.’
Dr Peers was herself injured by two AstraZeneca vaccines. She said: ‘I had a tremor in my hand, I had dormant mast-cell activation syndrome (MCAS) which flared, my face was puffy, my eyes were swollen. It affected my immune system.’
She began taking augmented NAC more than two months ago and developed a rash, like Marsland’s patients. She said: ‘After a few days I had a detox reaction and developed eczema on my face. It lasted about 48 hours but now my tremor has gone, the rash has gone and my MCAS is under control again.’
In Italy, a country hit by some of the most brutal Covid measures including a ‘no jab, no job’ policy which lasted for 18 months, ZeroSpike have helped more than 10,000 patients. Internationally, they have treated a total of 20,000 patients and say that none has come back with any complaints. Patients will generally complain if they experience negative events.
Can this new treatment give people abandoned by their governments hope? Will the medical establishment engage with this research and its findings? With countries such as Canada already making a move to ban all natural supplements like A-NAC, there will be a huge battle for recognition. But as Alex Mitchell says, ‘They’ll stop us accessing successful treatments over my dead body.’
I am an accomplished interdisciplinary scientist and physicist, and a former tenured Full Professor of physics and lead scientist, originally at the University of Ottawa.
I have written over 30 scientific reports relevant to COVID, starting April 18, 2020 for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (ocla.ca/covid), and recently for a new non-profit corporation (correlation‑canada.org/research). Presently, all my work and interviews about COVID are documented on my website created to circumvent the barrage of censorship.
In addition to critical reviews of published science, the main data that my collaborators and I analyse is all‑cause mortality.
All-cause mortality by time (day, week, month, year, period), by jurisdiction (country, state, province, county), and by individual characteristics of the deceased (age, sex, race, living accomodations) is the most reliable data for detecting and epidemiologically characterizing events causing death, and for gauging the population-level impact of any surge or collapse in deaths from any cause.
Such data is not susceptible to reporting bias or to any bias in attributing causes of death. We have used it to detect and characterize seasonality, heat waves, earthquakes, economic collapses, wars, population aging, long-term societal development, and societal assaults such as those occurring in the COVID period, in many countries around the world, and over recent history, 1900-present.
Interestingly, none of the post-second-world-war Centers-for-Disease-Control-and-Prevention-promoted (CDC‑promoted) viral respiratory disease pandemics (1957-58, “H2N2”; 1968, “H3N2”; 2009, “H1N1 again”) can be detected in the all‑cause mortality of any country. Unlike all the other causes of death that are known to affect mortality, these so‑called pandemics did not cause any detectable increase in mortality, anywhere.
The large 1918 mortality event, which was recruited to be a textbook viral respiratory disease pandemic (“H1N1”), occurred prior to the inventions of antibiotics and the electron microscope, under horrific post-war public-sanitation and economic-stress conditions. The 1918 deaths have been proven by histopathology of preserved lung tissue to have been caused by bacterial pneumonia. This is shown in several independent and non-contested published studies.
My first report analysing all-cause mortality was published on June 2, 2020, at censorship-prone Research Gate, and was entitled “All-cause mortality during COVID-19 – No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response”. It showed that hot spots of sudden surges in all‑cause mortality occurred only in specific locations in the Northern-hemisphere Western World, which were synchronous with the March 11, 2020 declaration of a pandemic. Such synchronicity is impossible within the presumed framework of a spreading viral respiratory disease, with or without airplanes, because the calculated time from seeding to mortality surge is highly dependent on local societal circumstances, by several months to years. I attributed the excess deaths to aggressive measures and hospital treatment protocols known to have been applied suddenly at that time in those localities.
The work was pursued in greater depth with collaborators for several years and continues. We have shown repeatedly that excess mortality most often refused to cross national borders and inter-state lines. The invisible virus targets the poor and disabled and carries a passport. It also never kills until governments impose socio-economic and care-structure transformations on vulnerable groups within the domestic population.
Here are my conclusions, from our detailed studies of all-cause mortality in the COVID period, in combination with socio-economic and vaccine-rollout data:
If there had been no pandemic propaganda or coercion, and governments and the medical establishment had simply gone on with business as usual, then there would not have been any excess mortality
There was no pandemic causing excess mortality
Measures caused excess mortality
COVID-19 vaccination caused excess mortality
Regarding the vaccines, we quantified many instances in which a rapid rollout of a dose in the imposed vaccine schedule was synchronous with an otherwise unexpected peak in all-cause mortality, at times in the seasonal cycle and of magnitudes that have not previously been seen in the historic record of mortality.
In this way, we showed that the vaccination campaign in India caused the deaths of 3.7 million fragile residents. In Western countries, we quantified the average all-ages rate of death to be 1 death for every 2000 injections, to increase exponentially with age (doubling every additional 5 years of age), and to be as large as 1 death for every 100 injections for those 80 years and older. We estimated that the vaccines had killed 13 million worldwide.
If one accepts my above-numbered conclusions, and the analyses that we have performed, then there are several implications about how one perceives reality regarding what actually did and did not occur.
First, whereas epidemics of fatal infections are very real in care homes, in hospitals, and with degenerate living conditions, the viral respiratory pandemic risk promoted by the USA‑led “pandemic response” industry is not a thing. It is most likely fabricated and maintained for ulterior motives, other than saving humanity.
Second, in addition to natural events (heat waves, earthquakes, extended large-scale droughts), significant events that negatively affect mortality are large assaults against domestic populations, affecting vulnerable residents, such as:
sudden devastating economic deterioration (the Great Depression, the dust bowl, the dissolution of the Soviet Union),
war (including social-class restructuring),
imperial or economic occupation and exploitation (including large-scale exploitative land use), and
the well-documented measures and destruction applied during the COVID period.
Otherwise, in a stable society, mortality is extremely robust and is not subject to large rapid changes. There is no empirical evidence that large changes in mortality can be induced by sudden appearances of new pathogens. In the contemporary era of the dominant human species, humanity is its worst enemy, not nature.
Third, coercive measures imposed to reduce the risk of transmission (such as distancing, direction arrows, lockdown, isolation, quarantine, Plexiglas barriers, face shields and face masks, elbow bumps, etc.) are palpably unscientific; and the underlying concern itself regarding “spread” was not ever warranted and is irrational, since there is no evidence in reliable mortality data that there ever was a particularly virulent pathogen.
In fact, the very notion of “spread” during the COVID period is rigorously disproved by the temporal and spatial variations of excess all-cause mortality, everywhere that it is sufficiently quantified, worldwide. For example, the presumed virus that killed 1.3 million poor and disabled residents of the USA did not cross the more-than-thousand-kilometer land border with Canada, despite continuous and intense economic exchanges. Likewise, the presumed virus that caused synchronous mortality hotspots in March-April-May 2020 (such as in New York, Madrid region, London, Stockholm, and northern Italy) did not spread beyond those hotspots.
Interestingly, in this regard, the historical seasonal variations (12 month period) in all-cause mortality, known for more than 100 years, are inverted in the northern and southern global hemispheres, and show no evidence of “spread” whatsoever. Instead, these patterns, in a given hemisphere, show synchronous increases and decreases of mortality across the entire hemisphere. Would the “spreading” causal agent(s) always take exactly 6 months to cross into the other hemisphere, where it again causes mortality changes that are synchronous across the hemisphere? Many epidemiologists have long-ago concluded that person-to-person “contact” spreading of respiratory diseases cannot explain and is disproved by the seasonal patterns of all-cause mortality. Why the CDC et al. are not systematically ridiculed in this regard is beyond this scientist’s comprehension.
Instead, outside of extremely poor living conditions, we should look to the body of work produced by Professor Sheldon Cohen and co‑authors (USA) who established that two dominant factors control whether intentionally challenged college students become infected and the severity of the respiratory illness when they are infected:
degree of experienced psychological stress
degree of social isolation
The negative impact of experienced psychological stress on the immune system is a large current and established area of scientific study, dutifully ignored by vaccine interests, and we now know that the said impact is dramatically larger in elderly individuals, where nutrition (gut biome ecology) is an important co-factor.
Of course, I do not mean that causal agents do not exist, such as bacteria, which can cause pneumonia; nor that there are not dangerous environmental concentrations of such causal agents in proximity to fragile individuals, such as in hospitals and on clinicians’ hands, notoriously.
Fourth, since our conclusion is that there is no evidence that there was any particularly virulent pathogen causing excess mortality, the debate about gain-of-function research and an escaped bioweapon is irrelevant.
I do not mean that the Department of Defence (DoD) does not fund gain-of-function and bioweapon research (abroad, in particular), I do not mean that there are not many US patents for genetically modified microbial organisms having potential military applications, and I do not mean that there have not previously been impactful escapes or releases of bioweapon vectors and pathogens. For example, the Lyme disease controversy in the USA may be an example of a bioweapon leak (see Kris Newby’s 2019 book “Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons”).
Generally, for obvious reasons, any pathogen that is extremely virulent will not also be extremely contagious. There are billions of years of cumulative evolutionary pressures against the existence of any such pathogen, and that result will be deeply encoded into all lifeforms.
Furthermore, it would be suicidal for any regime to vehemently seek to create such a pathogen. Bioweapons are intended to be delivered to specific target areas, except in the science fiction wherein immunity from a bioweapon that is both extremely virulent and extremely contagious can be reliably delivered to one’s own population and soldiers.
In my view, if anything COVID is close to being a bioweapon, it is the military capacity to massively, and repeatedly, rollout individual injections, which are physical vectors for whichever substances the regime wishes to selectively inject into chosen populations, while imposing complete compliance down to one’s own body, under the cover of protecting public health.
This is the same regime that practices wars of complete nation destruction and societal annihilation, under the cover of spreading democracy and women’s rights. And I do not mean China.
Fifth, again, since our conclusion is that there is no evidence that there was any particularly virulent pathogen causing excess mortality, there was no need for any special treatment protocols, beyond the usual thoughtful, case-by-case, diagnostics followed by the clinician’s chosen best approach.
Instead, vicious new protocols killed patients in hotspots that applied those protocols in the first months of the declared pandemic.
This was followed in many states by imposed coercive societal measures, which were contrary to individual health: fear, panic, paranoia, induced psychological stress, social isolation, self-victimization, loss of work and volunteer activity, loss of social status, loss of employment, business bankruptcy, loss of usefulness, loss of caretakers, loss of venues and mobility, suppression of freedom of expression, etc.
Only the professional class did better, comfortably working from home, close to family, while being catered to by an army of specialised home-delivery services.
Unfortunately, the medical establishment did not limit itself to assaulting and isolating vulnerable patients in hospitals and care facilities. It also systematically withdrew normal care, and attacked physicians who refused to do so.
In virtually the entire Western World, antibiotic prescriptions were cut and maintained low by approximately 50% of the pre-COVID rates. This would have had devastating effects in the USA, in particular, where:
the CDC’s own statistics, based on death certificates, has approximately 50% of the million or so deaths associated with COVID having bacterial pneumonia as a listed comorbidity (there was a massive epidemic of bacterial pneumonia in the USA, which no one talked about)
the Southern poor states historically have much higher antibiotic prescription rates (this implies high susceptibility to bacterial pneumonia)
excess mortality during the COVID period is very strongly correlated (r = +0.86) — in fact proportional to — state-wise poverty
Sixth, since our conclusion is that there is no evidence that there was any particularly virulent pathogen causing excess mortality, there was no public-health reason to develop and deploy vaccines; not even if one accepted the tenuous proposition that any vaccine has ever been effective against a presumed viral respiratory disease.
Add to this that all vaccines are intrinsically dangerous and our above-described vaccine-dose fatality rate quantifications, and we must recognize that the vaccines contributed significantly to excess mortality everywhere that they were imposed.
In conclusion, the excess mortality was not caused by any particularly virulent new pathogen. COVID so-called response in-effect was a massive multi-pronged state and iatrogenic attack against populations, and against societal support structures, which caused all the excess mortality, in every jurisdiction.
It is only natural now to ask “what drove this?”, “who benefited?” and “which groups sustained permanent structural disadvantages?”
In my view, the COVID assault can only be understood in the symbiotic contexts of geopolitics and large-scale social-class transformations. Dominance and exploitation are the drivers. The failing USA-centered global hegemony and its machinations create dangerous conditions for virtually everyone.
On 30 August 2008, Italy and Libya signed their Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership, ending their awkward past of feuding and diplomatic tensions over Italy’s colonisation of Libya from 1911 to 1943. Libya was seeking compensation, recognition of suffering of its people and, above all, an apology. Rome, as is the case with all former colonial powers, tried for years to close the matter without offering anything. The treaty, a success for Libya, might have ended the political and diplomatic struggle over the colonial past, but it will not wipe it out from history and people’s memories.
The idea of invading Libya came during the colonial rush that saw major colonial powers like France, United Kingdom and others divide the dying Ottoman Empire possessions in North Africa, the Middle East and southern Europe itself. Libya was part of that empire, very close to Italy across the Mediterranean Sea and, above all, Libyans lacked effective means to fight back after the Ottoman military garrison left the country.
The rise to power of the Republican Fascist Party, led by Benito Mussolini in 1922, gave the occupation of Libya another nostalgic dimension as the fascists strongly believed in the deceptive idea that modern Italy was the rightful heir to the Roman Empire and, therefore, they were responsible for recovering the possessions of the bygone empire. Another reason that made Libya more attractive to fascist Italy is the fact that Italy, united just 50 years earlier, became overcrowded and its farmers, particularly in the south, were eager to own land of which Libya has plenty. Mussolini used to call Libya the “fourth shore of Rome”.
Italians thought that the taking over of Libya would not be more than a few days’ sea trip and the entire country would be conquered. However, once the first amphibious forces tried to land on Tripoli shores in 1911, they were faced with stiff resistance from the locals, who rushed to defend their country with the little means they had.
As the invaders increased their numbers and widened their presence, the resistance shifted to new tactics, using the guerrilla tactics of hit-and-run. Outnumbered and out-gunned, the Libyans, mostly nomads and shepherds, figured out that direct confrontation with one of the most modern armies at the time was suicidal and destructive.
Instead of facing the Italian army directly, they waged rather small battles, mostly at night time. Benefitting from their detailed knowledge of the land and its geography, the Mujahidin, as they were called, managed to make life really difficult for the Italian army wherever it went. Facing a ghost enemy fighting on horseback, the Italian army started to use unheard of methods of war, scoring many firsts.
For instance, Italy was the first country to use air war and Libya became the first country to be bombed from the air. An Italian pilot named Lieutenant Giulio Gavotti, in a letter to his father, described how he threw the first bomb at an Arab [Libyan] camp in November 1911, just a month into the invasion. The young pilot wrote “today I have decided to try to throw bombs from the aeroplane”, before pointing out that it was “the first time that we [Italian army] will try this and if I succeed, I will be really pleased to be the first person to do it.”
Pilot Gavotti, indeed, succeeded in throwing the first ever bomb from an aeroplane, ushering in the age of air war for the first time in the history of mankind. He wrote “and after a little while, I can see a small dark cloud in the middle of the encampment” in Ain Zara, today a town, but at the time just an oasis south-east of Tripoli. Ain Zara became the first place on earth to be bombed from the air. The Italian pilot did not realise what he had just done and had no idea what his bomb had done to people, mostly civilians, below. He returned to base, overwhelmed by his success in hitting “the target” and went straight to report to General Caneva that he just registered his name in history as the first person to bomb a target from the air. Carlo Caneva was the first Italian commander to announce that “Tripoli will be Italian”, as his forces launched the first attacks on Libya. He led the earlier brutal stages of the invasion before being replaced later by another, crueler General Rodolfo Graziani in 1930.
In the same year, the Italian army scored another world first when Benito Mussolini authorised, for the first time, the use of sulphur mustard to subdue Libyans. Bombing formations of fighters and civilian villages suspected of supporting the Mujahidin from the air but, this time, using poisonous gas, besides explosives.
In the 1920s, Libyan resistance intensified, particularly in eastern Libya with the rise of Omar Al-Mukhtar, a septuagenarian who suffered old age and chronic back pain, who became the national leader of the Mujahidin against fascist Italian occupation.
This forced General Graziani to revert to using collective punishment against entire civilian communities by forcing them into concentration camps across Eastern Libya. At one point, there were some 16 different camps in the Sirte desert and further east in which thousands of civilians including women, children, the elderly and young men were forced to live with their animals in desert plots surrounded by barbed wire and guarded, around the clock, by armed soldiers.
Despite this brutality, Al-Mukhtar and his colleagues fought for 20 years, until he was captured on 11 September 1931, after suffering an injury in a village called Slonta, south of Al-Bayda town in Libya’s eastern Green Mountain region.
After a quick trial, he was sentenced to death by hanging on 16 September. Hundreds of civilians, including women and children were forced to watch as Al-Mukhtar was hanged in Suluq concentration camp, one of the most infamous, south-west of Benghazi. By staging such a gruesome show, the Italian authorities wanted to terrify Libyans who might think of following in his footsteps and fight them.
Modern Libya, before the NATO invasion of 2011, used to commemorate 16 of September as a national day of mourning to remember Al-Mukhtar and remind younger generations of what happened in Libya, decades before. New Libya, however, has forgotten the mourning day, while fascist concentration camps are never really mentioned outside academic circles.
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 