Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Right to Be Let Alone: When the Government Wants to Know All Your Business

By John & Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute | March 7, 2023

There was a time when the census was just a head count.

That is no longer the case.

The American Community Survey (ACS), sent to about 3.5 million homes every year, is the byproduct of a government that believes it has the right to know all of your personal business.

If you haven’t already received an ACS, it’s just a matter of time.

A far cry from the traditional census, which is limited to ascertaining the number of persons living in each dwelling, their ages and ethnicities, the ownership of the dwelling and telephone numbers, the ACS contains some of the most detailed and intrusive questions ever put forth in a census questionnaire.

At 28 pages (with an additional 16-page instruction packet), these questions concern matters that the government simply has no business knowing, including questions relating to respondents’ bathing habits, home utility costs, fertility, marital history, work commute, mortgage, and health insurance, among other highly personal and private matters.

For instance, the ACS asks how many persons live in your home, along with their names and detailed information about them such as their relationship to you, marital status, race and their physical, mental and emotional problems, etc. The survey also asks how many bedrooms and bathrooms you have in your house, along with the fuel used to heat your home, the cost of electricity, what type of mortgage you have and monthly mortgage payments, property taxes and so on.

And then the survey drills down even deeper.

The survey demands to know how many days you were sick last year, how many automobiles you own and the number of miles driven, whether you have trouble getting up the stairs, and what time you leave for work every morning, along with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. And the survey demands that you violate the privacy of others by supplying the names and addresses of your friends, relatives and employer.

The questionnaire also demands that you give other information on the people in your home, such as their educational levels, how many years of school were completed, what languages they speak and when they last worked at a job, among other things.

Individuals who receive the ACS must complete it or be subject to monetary penalties.

Although no reports have surfaced of individuals actually being penalized for refusing to answer the survey, the potential fines that can be levied for refusing to participate in the ACS are staggering. For every question not answered, there is a $100 fine. And for every intentionally false response to a question, the fine is $500. Therefore, if a person representing a two-person household refused to fill out any questions or simply answered nonsensically, the total fines could range from upwards of $10,000 and $50,000 for noncompliance.

While some of the ACS’ questions may seem fairly routine, the real danger is in not knowing why the information is needed, how it will be used by the government or with whom it will be shared.

In an age when the government has significant technological resources at its disposal to not only carry out warrantless surveillance on American citizens but also to harvest and mine that data for its own dubious purposes, whether it be crime-mapping or profiling based on whatever criteria the government wants to use to target and segregate the populace, the potential for abuse is grave.

As such, the ACS qualifies as a government program whose purpose, while sold to the public as routine and benign, raises significant constitutional concerns.

The Rutherford Institute has received hundreds of inquiries from individuals who have received the ACS and are not comfortable sharing such private, intimate details with the government or are unsettled by the aggressive tactics utilized by Census Bureau agents seeking to compel responses to ACS questions.

Those who want to better understand their rights in respect to the ACS may want to take a look at Rutherford’s Q&A resource on the topic.

Bottom line: there are significant and legitimate questions concerning the authority of the government to require, under threat of prosecution and penalty, that persons answer questions posed by the ACS.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that citizens have no obligation to answer questions posed by the government and are free to refuse to do so—a principle that could be applied to questions posed by ACS agents—the question of a person’s right to refuse has not yet been decided by a court.

Until the courts take up the challenge, if you receive notice that you have been targeted to respond to the ACS and you desire to assert your right of privacy, you can voice those objections and your intent not to respond to the ACS by writing a letter to the Census Bureau. The Rutherford Institute has developed a form letter that you may use in standing up against the government’s attempt to force you to disclose personal information.

If you are contacted by Census Bureau employees, either by telephone or in person, demanding your response, you can assert your rights by politely, but firmly, informing the employee that you believe the ACS is an improper invasion of your privacy, that you do not intend to respond and that they should not attempt to contact you again. Be sure to document any interactions you have with Bureau representatives for your own files.

If you believe you are being unduly harassed by a Census Bureau employee, either by telephone or in person, it is in your best interest to carefully document the time, place and manner of the incidents and file a complaint with the U.S. Census Bureau.

Remember, nothing is ever as simple or as straightforward as the government claims.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, any attempt by the government to encroach upon the citizenry’s privacy rights or establish a system by which the populace can be targeted, tracked and singled out must be met with extreme caution.

While government agents can approach, speak to and even question citizens without violating the Fourth Amendment, Americans should jealously guard what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis referred to as the constitutional “right to be let alone.”

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

March 8, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Anatomy of the sinister Covid Project – Part 4

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

This is the fourth part of a series in which Paula Jardine examines how the Covid vaccine programme was conceived by US defence planners nearly 20 years ago as a 21st century ‘Manhattan Project’ for biodefence. You can read Part 1 here, Part 2 here and Part 3 here.

Bill Frist was the 2003-2007 US Senate majority leader who championed the USA’s biodefence projects and promoted the concept of a ‘Manhattan Project’ against a pandemic, described in Parts 1, 2 and 3 of this series. He was also the politician who sponsored the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) Act of December 2005 as soon as the World Health Organisation’s International Health Regulations had been amended to include a provision enabling WHO to declare Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEIC). Critically it was this Act that established indemnity for the manufacturers of therapeutics, vaccines or diagnostics released during the course of a public health emergency against any and all harm caused. 

Also working to influence US national biosecurity policy was Dr Robert Kadlec, described in Part 3. Working with him, and principally under the auspices of the Johns Hopkins Centre for Health Security (founded by Dr Tara O’Toole in 1998) were other participants in Operation Dark Winter,  the code name for a senior-level situational simulation conducted on June 22-23, 2001, designed to wargame a covert and widespread smallpox bio-terrorist attack on the United States. These biosecurity hawks included O’Toole and Tom Inglesby of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies (CCBS).

When O’Toole was nominated some years later to serve in the Department of Homeland Security in 2009, critics warned of her paranoia. Microbiologist Dr Richard Ebright, one of the scientists who, in May 2021, called for a full and unrestricted international forensic investigation into the origins of Covid-19, said it was a disastrous nomination:

‘O’Toole supported every flawed decision and counterproductive policy on biodefense, biosafety, and biosecurity during the Bush Administration. [She] is as out of touch with reality, and as paranoiac, as former Vice President Cheney . . . It would be hard to think of a person less well suited for the position . . . She was the single most extreme person, either in or out of government, advocating for a massive biodefense expansion and relaxation of provisions for safety and security’. Dr Ebright concluded: ‘She makes Dr Strangelove look sane.’

It was Kadlec who formed the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense in 2014 and began the planning his Manhattan Project in earnest. Those involved with him in this commission included Tom Ridge, the first Homeland Security Secretary, Donna Shalala, a former Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, Dr Margaret Hamburg, a former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner, Scooter Libby,  formerly of Project for a New American Century (PNAC), William Karesh, the vice president of EcoHealth Alliance and an adviser to the WHO on reforms to the International Health Regulations (IHR), and Kenneth Wainstein, now the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis.

The Commission’s National Blueprint for Biodefense published in2015 called for major ‘reform’. Consider it the blueprint for Kadlec’s Manhattan Project, for the CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations) strategy and for the subsequent changes to the WHO IHR required to make the plan work.

The list of the BioDefense Commissions ‘we must’ demands follows:

· revolutionise the development of Medical Countermeasures (MCM, which are vaccines and therapeutics) for emerging infectious diseases;

· fully fund and incentivise the MCM enterprise;

· remove bureaucratic hurdles to MCM innovation;

· develop a system for environmental detection that leverages the ingenuity of industry and meets the growing threat;

· overhaul the Select Agent Program (which oversees the possession, use and transfer of risky biological agents and toxins) to enable a secure system that simultaneously encourages participation by the scientific community;

· help lead the international community toward the establishment of a fully functional and agile global public health response apparatus.

Three years later in May 2018 when Johns Hopkins ran Clade X, a table top simulation around a novel parainfluenza virus, O’Toole was involved once again. Johns Hopkins CHS also co-hosted with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation the better-known coronavirus simulation Event 201 in October 2019.

It was during a Clade X discussion on manufacturing capacity sufficient to end the fictitious pandemic through vaccination that O’Toole said: ‘Industry are more than willing to help but vaccines are very specific creatures that are difficult to turn to new purposes. We’re going to have to go to innovative manufacturing methods that will require a lot of leniency from the FDA and the understanding of the American people that we’re doing things on an emergency basis so every box in terms of safety and risk assessment may not be checked. But the vaccine is the only way forward.’ [My emphasis]

This was clear advocacy for vaccines as the exit strategy for the Clade X novel parainfluenza virus pandemic, and later once the Covid pandemic was underway, was to be the only exit offered to lockdown.

Today, O’Toole is an executive vice-president of the CIA spin-off venture capital firm In-Q-Tel in charge of a strategic initiative called BiologyNext. In April 2020 in a presentation to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) she said:

‘The bio-revolution is really founded on several core technologies that I’m going to simplify greatly. But it is all about being able to read, write, and edit the code of life. One of the most important recognitions of the past century in science, at least, is that life is written in code. And as Jason Kelly of Ginkgo Bioworks has put it: Biology is essentially programmable . . .

‘Ron Weiss, who is a synthetic biologist, predicted in 2014 that an RNA-based delivery method that allowed you to use RNA as a kind of platform to deliver new bits and pieces inside the cell would be a game-changing inflection point in synthetic biology. And the Covid-19 pandemic is giving us a chance to test that out. You may know that one of the vaccines that is coming on very quickly is made by Moderna. And it is a messenger RNA-based vaccine. So if that works, Ron Weiss’s prediction may come true.’ [My emphasis]

In August 2019 Kadlec’s department ran yet another table-top simulation, the Crimson Contagion. It simulated the impact of and response to the arrival in the US of an avian flu from China. It was a scoping exercise to identify legal authorities, US federal government funding resources and manufacturing capabilities for vaccines. It concluded that $10billion would be required to respond to a novel pandemic influenza strain.

A month later on September 19, 2019, President Trump signed the Executive Order on Modernizing Influenza Vaccines which launched the Manhattan Project by directing various US government departments and the US Department of Defense to propose a plan and a budget within 120 days – by January 17, 2020, to be precise.

Anthony Fauci’s diary, released following a freedom of information request, notes a teleconference concerning the ‘Global pandemic’ taking place on January 15, 2020, a date at which a global pandemic existed only in some people’s imaginations.

On January 23, 2020, after the Moderna vaccine announcement in Davos, Fauci had a conference call with Dr Richard Hatchett, CEPI’s CEO, and the following day, a Saturday, he had a senior leadership update with Dr Kadlec in advance of a meeting with Stephane Bancel of Moderna on Monday January 27. Perhaps Kadlec, Hatchett and Bancel were amongst the unnamed people on Fauci’s January 15 conference call.

On January 30, 2020, when the WHO declared a SARS CoV2 Public Health Emergency of International Concern, just 7,818 patients were said to be sick with Covid, of whom only 82 were outside China. As far as Kadlec was concerned, this was now a shooting war.

Following CEPI’s announcement in Davos on January 23, US-based manufacturers Innovio Pharmaceuticals were miraculously ready to begin developing a Covid vaccine, and Moderna already had its funding to begin manufacturing the first batch of the vaccine co-owned and co-developed with Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for use in a human clinical trial.

The legislation that he and Frist had shepherded through Congress between 2003 and 2005 had concentrated power in the hands of the US Health and Human Services Secretary (and the US Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response) during public health emergencies.

The basic goals of the architects had been achieved. These, the American investigative paralegal Katherine Watt has argued, were to set up legal conditions in which all governing power in the United States would be automatically transferred from the citizens and the three constitutional branches into the hands of one person, the Health and Human Services Secretary, ‘effective at the moment the HHS Secretary himself declared a public health emergency, legally transforming free citizens into enslaved subjects’.

The HHS Secretary Alex Azar, to whom ASPR’s Kadlec reported, was the senior legal counsel at HHS when the PREP Act was passed in 2005. Azar co-operatively declared a public health emergency on January 30, 2020, backdating it to January 27.

He then made a PREP Act declaration on February 4, enhancing liability protection for any person or firm involved in developing countermeasures, including Innovio and Moderna.

The announcement said: ‘The world is facing an unprecedented pandemic. To effectively respond, there must be a more consistent pathway for Covered Persons to manufacture, distribute, administer or use Covered Countermeasures across the nation and the world.’

HHS Secretary determinations are unreviewable by the US courts.

Further research by Katherine Watt into another PREP Act declaration for medical countermeasures by Azar in March 2020 shows it effectively sidestepped the Nuremberg Code by stipulating that the ‘use’ of any counter measures ‘shall not be considered to constitute a clinical investigation’ while also removing the right to informed consent. As there is, by decree, no clinical trial, there are no stopping conditions for the use of said countermeasures.

It is startling how Dr Kadlec and his few associates have, over a period of more than 20 years, managed to orchestrate an undemocratic and unethical bio-security coup with global reach.

The Manhattan Project was renamed Operation WarpSpeed when it was launched in May 2020. The involvement of the US Federal Government which through the NIAID owns the patent for the spike protein used in the vaccines, and its Department of Defense that ran and financed Operation WarpSpeed, arguably elevates this War on Microbes Manhattan Project to an unprecedented bioweapon attack on humanity using an under-tested novel injectable pharmaceutical.

Paula Jardine is a writer/researcher who has just completed the graduate diploma in law at ULaw. She has a history degree from the University of Toronto and a journalism degree from the University of King’s College in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

March 7, 2023 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Dmitry Medvedev Is Right: The Global South Is Rising Up Against Neo-Colonialism

By Andrew Korybko | March 7, 2023

Former Russian President and incumbent Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev published a piece on the ruling party’s website about how the Global South is rising up against neo-colonialism. It’s in Russian but can easily be read using Google Translate. This influential official made some observations in support of his assessment such as Argentina’s recent scrapping of a pact with the UK and France’s military retreat from Africa, the latter of which is extremely meaningful.

The Ukrainian Conflict can therefore be seen in hindsight not just as the NATO-Russian proxy war that it’s since morphed into, but also as tipping point in terms of the Global South’s relations with the US-led West’s Golden Billion. Developing countries were inspired by President Vladimir Putin’s Global Revolutionary Manifesto and the damage Russia dealt to unipolarity over the past year to finally rise up against their former colonizers to fully break free from the latter’s modern-day shackles.

The New Cold War is therefore truly leading to the trifurcation of International Relations between the Golden Billion, the Sino-Russo Entente, and the Global South, the last-mentioned of which is much more closely aligned with the second than with the first. The objective national interests of many Global South states like India are most effectively advanced by adroitly balancing between those other two blocs, but all of them have a worldview that’s a lot closer to Russia and China’s multipolar one than to the US’.

There’s still a long way to go before neo-colonialism is dealt the death blow that it deserves, and this indirect form of hegemony can always be revived in different manifestations sometime in the future, but the trend that Medvedev touched upon is a pivotal one that’s radically reshaping International Relations. The Global South’s perspective of the global systemic transition aligns with the Sino-Russo Entente’s, not the Golden Billion’s, which therefore greatly complicates the latter’s plans.

This explains why no Global South state has followed the US in imposing illegal sanctions against Russia, which in turn prompted the New York Times to recently admit that those sanctions failed just like the US’ efforts to “isolate” Russia did too. The Golden Billion took for granted that its neo-colonial levers of influence over the Global South were still powerful enough to enable that bloc to indirectly control those countries’ foreign policies, which was obviously a completely mistaken assessment.

It could only have been made by those ideologically driven liberalglobalists that control the West and are convinced of their own “supremacy”. No rational actor, after all, would have ever made this assumption prior to provoking Russia into commencing its special operation last year. Matters of such importance like the expected stance of dozens of countries towards the most geostrategically significant conflict since World War II should never be left to chance by policymakers.

By making assumptions about how they’d react instead of taking action in advance to ensure their support for its proxy war, the Golden Billion committed a major mistake that accelerated the global systemic transition to multipolarity. Not only that, but instead of simply accepting their sovereign decision not to sanction and “isolate” Russia, the West made another major mistake by attempting to punish them for their pragmatic policies and thus reminding everyone about neo-colonialism.

This inadvertently served the purpose of reinforcing Russia’s framing of its proxy war with NATO as a struggle for sovereignty in the face of that armed bloc’s pressure that it unilaterally concedes on its objective national interests. The Global South states felt similar such pressure from the West, which their comparatively freer media reported on, thus leading to grassroots support for their leaders’ brave defiance of those demands to change their stance towards that conflict as well as Russia’s role within it.

While most of the Global South isn’t against the Golden Billion per se, it’s also no longer content with tolerating that bloc’s neo-colonialism, hence why these states are rising up in opposition to those practices. They sensed that the present moment is an historic one after Russia’s special operation exposed the limits of Western influence over the developing world, following which they rightly judged that now is the perfect time to break the Golden Billion’s remaining shackles and free themselves in full.

March 7, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Congressional memo: Virologists drafted article against the lab leak theory on behalf of Wellcome Trust, NIH

By Emily Kopp | U.S. Right To Know | March 5, 2023

Virologists who worked to squelch consideration of a lab origin of COVID-19 in early 2020 worked in tandem with leaders in scientific research funding, according to their private emails.

Leaders of the National Institutes of Health in the United States and the Wellcome Trust in the United Kingdom played an undisclosed role in persuading virologists to write an influential article asserting a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, according to a memo released Sunday by investigators with the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.

By mid-February 2020, social media sites in the West and in China buzzed with speculation about a possible connection between the emerging novel coronavirus pandemic and labs specializing in coronaviruses at its epicenter.

The “lab leak theory” cast suspicion not only on the Wuhan Institute of Virology and its neighboring labs, but also on their esteemed funders and collaborators in the West.

March 2020 paper in Nature Medicine titled “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” assured the public that the virus’ genome demonstrated an origin in wildlife. Hundreds of news organizations cited the article to assert that the lab leak theory was a “conspiracy theory.”

But the new congressional memo shows that the lead author of the article told the scientific journal that the writing had been “prompted” by then-Wellcome Trust Director Jeremy Farrar, leader of NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony Fauci, and NIH Director Francis Collins.

The virologists met with Farrar, Fauci and Collins in a private teleconference on February 1, 2020, emails released under the Freedom of Information Act have shown — a meeting some scientists have criticized as improper.

“There has been a lot of speculation, fear mongering, and conspiracies put forward in this space,” acknowledged lead author Kristian Andersen in a February 12 email, according to the new memo.

“Prompted by Jeremy Farrah [sic], Tony Fauci, and Francis Collins, Eddie Holmes, Andrew Rambaut, Bob Garry, Ian Lipkin, and myself have been working through much of the (primarily) genetic data to provide agnostic and scientifically informed hypothesis around the origin of the virus,” continued Andersen, a virologist with Scripps Research.

The involvement of heavyweights in scientific funding in the article was not disclosed to the public.

NIH funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan that strengthened SARS-related viruses, an NIH letter confirmed in 2021. Emails exchanged by Collins and Fauci and a private meeting between Fauci and a gain-of-function virologist in February 2020 suggests they were concerned about this connection in the days prior to the article being drafted.

While Wellcome is among the world’s largest philanthropies, a link between Wellcome and the lab complex in Wuhan has not been established. A spokesperson for Wellcome did not respond to a request for comment.

Farrar — who was recently appointed as chief scientist of the World Health Organization — shepherded the paper and made small edits to the article, the new congressional memo shows.

Farrar asked Andersen to change the sentence “it is unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of an existing SARS-related coronavirus.” He suggested changing “unlikely” to “improbable.” Andersen agreed.

Farrar said he would push Nature to publish the article. Its sister publication Nature Medicine would eventually publish the manuscript a few weeks later. Parent company Springer Nature did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The involvement of Collins, Fauci and Farrar in the article was not disclosed until it was made apparent in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in June 2021, 15 months after the article had first made its enormous impact.

The virologists have given shifting explanations of the purpose of the article, the new memo also shows.

When hoping to demonstrate their integrity to the journal, Andersen said discussion of the evidence had been “agnostic.”

However when speaking to gain-of-function virologists who did not want to give credence to the possibility of a lab origin at all, the authors assured them that their purpose was to demonstrate the lab leak theory was outlandish from the jump.

“Our main work over the past couple of weeks has been to disprove any type of lab theory,” Andersen wrote in an email on February 8, 2020.

NIH’s office of the director, NIAID and the Wellcome Trust did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

“The SARS-CoV-2 sequence was released in mid-January 2020 and by February scientists were trying to tell us where it came from. Actually, where it didn’t come from. That was premature by any call,” said virologist Simon Wain Hobson, an emeritus professor at the Institut Pasteur, who was not involved in the article. “Arguments of authority don’t wash. Data counts. Science needs time.”

The virologists’ article was cited by Fauci and the mainstream media to push back on claims that SARS-CoV-2 was a bioweapon among hawkish politicians in the U.S. But the new congressional memo also shows that the virologists were motivated at least in part by concerns about discussion of the possibility among regular Chinese citizens.

‘Pre-adapted’

The virologists behind the “proximal origin” article have strongly denounced accusations they were improperly swayed by the participation of influential funders of scientific research. They have asserted that they seriously considered the lab leak theory but that evidence accumulated in favor of a natural origin, assuaging their earlier concerns about the Wuhan lab.

However the congressional memo raises new questions about the idea that the virologists ever seriously considered the lab leak theory.

Columbia University virologist Ian Lipkin wrote on February 11, 2020, that an early draft of the article “does not eliminate the possibility of inadvertent release following adaptation through selection in culture at the institute in Wuhan,” citing a “nightmare of circumstantial evidence” at the Wuhan lab.

The new congressional memo shows for the first time that Holmes wrote on February 11, 2020, that he agreed with Lipkin’s assessment, even after he had drafted the first version of the article that would dispel the lab leak theory.

Holmes also said he had concerns about how quickly the virus had emerged in humans, apparently without detection in a likely zoonotic reservoir, in contrast to the SARS epidemic.

“It is indeed striking that this virus is so closely related to SARS yet is behaving so differently. Seems to have been pre-adapted for human spread since the get go,” Holmes said.

The “proximal origin” article nodded to the fact that SARS-CoV-2 appeared pre-adapted to humans.

But scientists who have stated that SARS-CoV-2 appeared pre-adapted to humans in more straightforward terms, and who left open the possibility that the adaptation had occurred in the lab, have received fierce backlash.

The pangolin data

Questions about the integrity of the impactful “proximal origin” article first swirled nearly two years ago.

A series of emails released under FOIA in 2021 and 2022 demonstrated that the authors had expressed private concerns about a lab origin before doing a public about-face.

“Andersen wrote on January 31, 2020, that he, Holmes and Tulane University virologist Robert Garry found that “the genome looks inconsistent with natural evolution.”

Garry wrote on February 2, 2020, that he could not understand how SARS-CoV-2 could have emerged naturally after comparing its genome to a highly similar virus at the Wuhan Institute of Virology: “I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature. Do the alignment of the spikes at the amino acid level … stunning.”

Yet the “proximal origin” article asserted that any lab origin theory was implausible.

Congressional Republicans have sought answers about whether the private teleconference with powerful funders of scientific research on February 1, 2020, had an improper influence.

The virologists have rebutted that claim in part by pointing to the emergence of data in China describing coronavirus data suggesting a highly similar receptor binding domain in pangolins around the same time they were drafting the article.

Pangolins are highly trafficked in China, though rarely sold live in wet markets.

But the new congressional memo suggests that Andersen, the article’s lead author, did not find that the pangolin data alone provided sufficient evidence in favor of a natural origin.

“The newly available pangolin sequences do not elucidate the origin of SARS-CoV-2 or refute a lab origin,” Andersen said in an email on February 21, 2020. “[T]here is no evidence on present data that the pangolin CoVs are directly related to the COVID-19 epidemic.”

Congressional investigators state in the memo that given the pangolin data was apparently not the compelling evidence in favor of a natural origin theory, the factor that likely pushed the scientists toward the natural origin theory was undue influence by Collins, Fauci and Farrar.

“The pangolin data was not the compelling factor,” the memo reads. “To this day, the only known intervening event was the February 1 conference call with Dr. Fauci.”

Meanwhile, Stanley Perlman, a University of Iowa virologist who edited one of the papers describing the pangolin coronavirus data, said that the new congressional memo has not changed his stance in favor of a natural origin. However the publication did issue a correction stating that pangolins were an unlikely intermediate host in 2021.

The committee also asserts that Andersen’s private statements contradict assertions made by a lawyer for Scripps Research in an August 2021 letter.

Asked about the apparent discrepancies, a Republican aide responded that “the select subcommittee is continuing to evaluate all available evidence, including whether or not Dr. Andersen was truthful to the committee.”

Asked whether the scientists scrutinized in the memo, including Fauci, would be called to testify, the aide said that “the select subcommittee previously requested their testimony and those plans have not changed.”

Despite the scrutiny that has fallen on Fauci — President Joe Biden’s former chief medical adviser — Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chair Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, said in a Face the Nation interview Sunday that the investigation would seek to work in bipartisan fashion.

“I just want to get to facts,” Wenstrup said. “There’s going to be some moments, I’m sure, of some emotions flaring. The last three years have been tough on everybody.”

March 7, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Spain Asks US to Remove Soil Contaminated With Radiation After Accident in 1966

Sputnik – 06.03.2023

MADRID – The Spanish Foreign Ministry has submitted a formal request to the United States for the removal of soil that was contaminated with radiation 57 years ago in the province of Almeria, a Spanish newspaper reported on Monday, citing sources.

In 1966, land near the town of Palomares was contaminated with plutonium-239 after a US B-52 bomber with thermonuclear bombs on board collided with a KC-135 tanker aircraft. As a result of the plane crash, seven people were killed and four thermonuclear bombs were lost.

The Spanish government reminded the US of a political commitment that Madrid and Washington had signed in October 2015 on the removal of the contaminated soil to the Nevada desert, the report noted.

So far, a total of 50,000 cubic meters of contaminated soil has been scattered across several plots of land covering about 40 hectares (98,8 acres), which were fenced off in 2007 due to high levels of radiation, the report added.

During the Cold War, the US Air Force had been carrying out Operation Chrome Dome. It included the continuous presence in the air of strategic bombers with nuclear weapons, which were ready to strike predetermined targets on the territory of the USSR. However, the accident in Spain caused a serious diplomatic crisis and led to the cessation of US nuclear bombers’ flights over Europe and the Mediterranean. However, such flights were finally stopped only in 1968 when another nuclear accident occurred over the Thule base in Greenland.

March 6, 2023 Posted by | Environmentalism, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Canada has blood on its hands: Ottawa’s role in the Syria war exposed

By Steven Sahiounie | Free West Media | March 6, 2023

While most Canadians would prefer to think of themselves as free of constraint from U.S. foreign policy, still history will show that most often Canada’s foreign policy is a mirror image of the U.S.

Canada has blood on its hands in Syria. Canadian intelligence would have provided its government with the facts concerning the Syrian uprising in Deraa in March 2011. That information would have allowed the Canadian government to determine whether to support the U.S.-NATO attack on Syria for regime change or to stand on its own two feet and stay out of nation-building in the Middle East. Instead, the Canadian government knowingly hung on to the apron strings of their southern neighbor and followed the leader into destroying a nation, and deliberately preventing its recovery when the conflict was over.

The conflict in Syria has been described as a popular uprising that was crushed, or as a civil war. The Syrian conflict is neither. It was a CIA-engineered plan for regime change directed by U.S. President Obama. Later, the EU and Canada supported the U.S.-NATO attack on Syria because the EU and Canada usually follow the lead of the U.S. unquestioningly.

The U.S. plan failed because of overestimating the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood’s support in Syria. The majority of the Syrian population are Sunni Muslims, but they are overwhelmingly secular in terms of governance. Had the population supported the Free Syrian Army, which was the foot soldiers of Obama, the regime change might have been successful. But, most Syrians rejected the notion of chopping off the heads of their neighbors to effect a change in government. The majority of Syrians reject Radical Islam, which is a political ideology hiding behind a religion. They prefer a secular government that protects religious rights for all, given the fact, there are 18 different sects in Syria.

The conflict in Syria has ended with the country having been split into 3 sections. The main section covers 75% of the territory in the hands of the central government in Damascus, while the northeast corner is under the occupation of the U.S. military partnership with the Kurds, and the last remaining terrorist-controlled area is in the tiny enclave of Idlib.

The Kurdish section was not involved in the recent earthquake, and they support themselves by selling stolen oil from the oil wells guarded by the U.S. military which President Trump ordered, and President Biden has ordered to remain occupied. When the U.S. troops leave Syria, the Kurds will reunite with the central government. The U.S. occupation is the only thing keeping them separate.

The country has been prevented from recovery due to the U.S.-EU sanctions which prevent any materials from being shipped to Syria. Canadian companies, and individuals, have not sent machines, materials, or other recovery supplies for fear of being penalized by the U.S. Treasury Department. Humanitarian supplies are supposed to be exempt, except there is a time-consuming and costly procedure to get an exemption approved, and most firms and individuals are not willing to seek approval.

On February 9 the U.S. Treasury Department issued General License 23 which waives the sanctions for humanitarian supplies only for 180 days in the wake of the 7.8 earthquakes. Canadian companies and individuals could send supplies to Damascus, but they must be sent through an NGO and not the Syrian government.

Humanitarian aid was sent to Idlib from the UN, crossing the Turkish border at Bab al Hawa. International aid agencies and charities have arrived in Idlib from Turkey. When the Canadian government states they are supporting humanitarian efforts inside Syria, they are referring strictly to the one small province of Idlib, under the command of Al Qaeda terrorists who call themselves Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

Canada has taken in over 25,000 Syrian refugees. While this has been seen as a humanitarian act, it is also a political tool. From the outset of the conflict in 2011, refugee camps were established on the border of Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon. Refugees sleeping in tents in bad weather demonstrate on western media that Syria was not safe to live in, and not politically correct. Some of the refugees left Syria because they were politically opposed to the government in Damascus. Those refugees mainly numbered among the followers of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a global terrorist organization, whose goal is to establish an Islamic government everywhere. However, most of the refugees were escaping violence caused by the conflict. Houses were destroyed by both the terrorists and the Syrian Arab Army (SAA). In many cases, it was the terrorists who attacked homes and civilians. In response to the terrorists’ attacks, the SAA responded likewise attacking terrorist positions which were located in civilian homes.

Both Turkey and Jordan were allied with the U.S. foreign policy under Obama and were playing supporting roles to the CIA program Timber Sycamore which supported Radical Islamic terrorists fighting the government in Damascus. Both Turkey and Jordan had offices that supplied weapons, cash, and training to the terrorists fighting in Syria. The refugee camps in both countries served as a haven for the families of the terrorists fighting in Syria, in which the UN and other international aid agencies would be feeding and caring for the basic needs of the refugees in the camps.

By 2016, Canada had spent over $1 billion in humanitarian, development, and security assistance in the Syria crisis. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced 2016 Canada’s new strategy for the Syrian crisis. His new strategy was to keep following the Americans, and he tried to reframe his government’s involvement as humanitarian.

Over the years, Canada has been accused of being a lap dog for the U.S. While most Canadians would prefer to think of themselves as free of constraint from U.S. foreign policy, still history will show that most often Canada’s foreign policy is a mirror image of the U.S. Many would say that is because the U.S. policy is in the best interest of Canada, and not a dictated position. U.S. President Obama used the Israeli paper “A Clean Break” as the road map for regime change in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria. He was trying to create a ‘New Middle East’. His plan failed in each country, but succeeded in destroying much of each country, and killing thousands. Obama used the Muslim Brotherhood as his partner on the ground in each of the countries. Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria resisted the Muslim Brotherhood and fought back to remain secular governments even though the full weight of U.S.-EU-NATO resources was thrown at the project.

By April 2017, Trudeau was still hanging on to the Obama regime change project in Syria. However, by then President Trump had been elected to office, and he shut the CIA operation in Syria down. Trudeau attended a G7 meeting and was talking up Syria with UK Prime Minister May and French President Hollande. They were anticipating directions from U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson concerning the future of the U.S. regime change program in Syria.

They would later find that Trump was not in favor of the Obama plan, and it was his wish to leave Syria, but in 2019 he was prevented from a troop withdrawal from Syria by the U.S. State Department headed by Mike Pompeo, who said the U.S. troops needed to remain to prevent the Syrian government from access to their oil. This is why Syrian homes have 30 minutes of electricity 3 times per day now.

According to the U.S. government, and their Canadian followers, if you keep the Syrian people without electricity, without gasoline, and without heating fuel in winter, they will rise and complete the Obama regime change plan. That strategy is both immoral and unethical. It is also illegal under international law to steal a nation’s resources.

The Muslim Brotherhood is very well established in Canada and had connections at the highest levels in the Canadian government. In February 2015, the standing senate committee on national security and defense met in Ottawa to study and report on security threats facing Canada.

In the meeting of senators, an excerpt from the memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood was shown as evidence.

“The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers.”

The Muslim Brotherhood had successfully entered into the Obama administration and key U.S. official positions. The group had done the same in Canada.

In the Ottawa meeting, it was stated that in June 2012, a delegation of Islamist leaders linked to the Muslim Brotherhood operating in Canada had met with Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews. The delegation was led by Hussein Hamdani, an adviser to the Department of Public Safety, as a member of the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security.

Hamdani was in a conflict-of-interest position in his role as an adviser on national security matters since he has been associated with organizations whose charitable status has been revoked by the Canada Revenue Agency due to their involvement in the financing of international terrorism.

Senator Beyak spoke at the meeting and said, “They declare themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood, and as Senator Lang pointed out, their plans are very clear.”

This demonstrates the deep understanding of the Canadian government of the deadly nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, its involvement in Canada, its government, and its link to the conflict in Syria, which was part of the Obama plan.

How Canada plays into the hands of radical Islamists

The Canadian government is capable of determining whether the U.S. foreign policy and never-ending wars abroad are in the best interest of Canada.

The Canadian government had understood from U.S. intelligence that the Obama plan to destroy Syria was based on using the Muslim Brotherhood, and the political ideology known as Radical Islam, as the foot soldiers inside Syria. The Canadian government understood that the Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated Canadian society and was involved with the Canadian government at the highest levels. The threat to Canada was known, but the decision was made to blindly follow Washington’s dirty war in Syria.

U.S. President Obama is the main villain in this story, but Canada was capable of standing firm against plans to use Radical Islamic terrorists to change governments abroad.

Canada has supported humanitarian aid to Idlib, but not the rest of the country. Idlib is the last remaining terrorist-controlled province in Syria. It is an olive-growing region with no industry or resources outside of the production of olives. It was chosen as the headquarters of the Al Qaeda branch in Syria (Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) because it sits on the Turkish border. Turkey, following the U.S. directives, supplied the terrorists with all resources needed including tanks and anti-tank missiles which have even been used to bring down a plane.

Canada does not supply any aid to Syria other than Idlib, which represents 2% of the total area of the country. Aleppo, Damascus, Latakia, Hama, Homs, and all other areas in Syria have never received even a loaf of bread from either the U.S. or Canada. However, the UN does supply some food to certain areas outside of Idlib. Funds for the UN World Food Program are in part from U.S. and Canadian donations. Even now, since the 7.8 magnitude quake occurred on February 6, Canada continues to only recognize the 3 million persons in the so-called “The Islamic Republic of Idlib” as Syria. The other 20 million in Syria get nothing, even though Latakia alone has 820 dead, 142,000 homeless due to the quake, and 102 collapsed buildings.

From the U.S.-Canada foreign policy on Syria point of view: Idlib must be maintained as a separate viable ‘state’, free of Damascus. The U.S.-Canada policy is to ignore the government in Damascus and pretend that Idlib is Syria. The Al Qaeda terrorists are thus rewarded by the west for their participation in regime change, which was the Obama policy that Canada signed up to.

Last month, David Pugliese of the Ottawa Citizen published an article detailing the Canadian special forces’ participation in a controversial 20-member U.S. military team dubbed Talon Anvil in 2015, which has been accused of killing scores of innocent people in Iraq and Syria.

“In December 2021 the New York Times revealed that Talon Anvil was responsible for launching tens of thousands of bombs and missiles against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq but in the process had killed hundreds of civilians. The reckless actions of the Talon Anvil team, which operated from 2014 to 2019, alarmed members in the U.S. military and even the CIA, the newspaper reported.”

“Independent investigators and human rights groups have estimated that at least 7,000 civilians were killed by coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.”

Last month, Canada announced it would take back 23 of its citizens who have been held in Islamic State camps in northeast Syria, under the control of the Kurds who are partners of the U.S. military there. The group includes six women, 13 infants, and four men.

This would be the largest repatriation for Canada after the Islamic State caliphate was destroyed in 2019.

More than 42,400 foreign citizens, most of them children, have been held in life-threatening conditions in IS prison camps across Syria, Human Rights Watch says.

Canadian intelligence was well aware of who in Canada was following Radical Islam, and who had left to fight in Syria before the founding of ISIS. They were also following events on the ground in Syria while Canadians and other foreigners were fighting the Syrian government, and who among them had made the transition to joining ISIS once the U.S.-sponsored FSA had disbanded.

In 1998, Richard N. Haass wrote “Sanctions: too much of a bad thing.” In his expert analysis, it was proven that U.S. sanctions do not work in big projects, such as regime change in Syria. He further proved that innocent people suffer under sanctions, and they were immoral and unethical. The sanctions against Syria must be lifted and allow citizens to rebuild their lives and allow foreign governments to donate and invest in the rebuilding of the country.

Aid should be allowed to enter Syria in all locations, from Idlib to Deraa, and all in between. All Syrian citizens should have the right to receive help. Planes with aid should be allowed to land in Damascus, Aleppo, and Latakia and shipping containers should arrive in the port of Latakia.

The international community should be putting pressure on the terrorists in Idlib to lay down their arms or arrange to leave the country. They are holding 3 million civilians as human shields. The freedom of those civilians should be a priority to western nations such as Canada.

The President of Turkey, Tayyip Recip Erdogan, has already voiced his wish to repair his relationship with Damascus. Canada and other peace-loving western nations should be supporting his negotiations with Damascus. Washington has told Erdogan not to talk with President Assad, but Canada could show some backbone and defy Washington by showing support for Erdogan’s peace initiative.

Canada should re-open their Embassy in Damascus. With diplomats and humanitarian experts available on the ground, this would be a positive and constructive action that would truly show the Syrian people that Canada cares.

Finally, Canada should identify the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Care should be taken by all future Canadian governments to study plans in Washington that assume Canadian support. The Canadian government, supported by its intelligence agency, is capable of determining whether the U.S. foreign policy and never-ending wars abroad are in the best interest of Canada. Taking the high road is sometimes a lonely road, but lives and nations might be saved.

March 6, 2023 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Scientists have struggled to explain the Apollo findings

BY PETER YIM | MARCH 5, 2023

COVID-19 is the story of how governments around the “developed” world corralled their populations into the acceptance of novel, draconian measures to combat a virus. The most extraordinary of these measures was the mandating of experimental “vaccines” to large segments of the population. The vaccines were relentlessly promoted as “safe and effective” by public health authorities notwithstanding reports of tens of thousands of deaths attributed to the vaccines. In COVID-19, “science” was exposed as propaganda of the US and other governments.

The question is, how did this happen? How did science, the intellectual centerpiece of western civilization, get reduced to a cheap dictatorial tool?

Part of the answer may lie in Project Apollo; the US program that purportedly successfully mounted manned expeditions to the moon.

There is strong, independent confirmation of successful expeditions to the moon. Retro-reflectors placed on the surface of the moon in the Apollo 11, 14 and 15 missions have been detected at diverse observatories. However, the question of whether these missions to the moon were manned, is much more contentious. Imagery from the “missions” is unconvincing. Also, the inability of the US government to provide technical background to the missions raises doubts.

The most objective evidence provided by the US government of its claim to have reached the moon with manned spaceflight is a collection of specimens purportedly gathered from the surface of the moon. The collection includes 842 pounds of rocks and dust from the six missions. Studies have not explicitly tested whether the samples were truly from the moon. However, hundreds, if not thousands, of studies have been performed using these samples. The volume of studies alone implies the authenticity of the the samples.

A closer look at these studies, however, finds that scientists struggled to reconcile findings from the moon specimens with fundamental scientific principles. Some of the problematic observations were:

  1. One Moon rock has a crystal structure that is typical of rocks formed on the Earth. Development of an explanatory model is ongoing. Investigators suggest the possibility that the particular rock arrived from the Earth as a meteor.
  2. Certain meteorites found on the Earth resemble moon rocks. The similarity gave rise to the theory of lunar meteorites by which rocks arrive at the Earth after ejection from the lunar surface.
  3. Extraordinary similarity between Moon rocks and Earth’s silicate crust and mantle. Development of a model to explain this similarity is ongoing.
  4. Moon rocks exhibit magnetization although the Moon lacks a magnetic field. Development of explanatory models is ongoing.

In sum, scientific analysis of samples purportedly obtained from the Moon do not confirm the success of Project Apollo to place a man on the Moon. The belief that manned Moon missions were successful is really only based on the credibility of the US government.

March 5, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Challenging Net Zero with Science: Lindzen-Happer Paper Released

Net Zero Plans Are Dangerous and Unsupported by Science and the Scientific Method

CO2 Coalition | February 23, 2023

Net Zero initiatives of governments and private organizations are scientifically invalid and will lead to worldwide impoverishment and starvation if implemented, according to a paper published by the CO2 Coalition.

The 46-page paper details how the objectives of Net Zero to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and the emissions of greenhouse gases are based on analytical methods that violate fundamental tenets of the scientific method which originated more than 300 years ago.

“Reliable scientific knowledge is determined by the scientific method, where theoretical predictions are validated by observations or rejected by failing to do so,” say the paper’s authors – two renowned physicists and a geologist of more than 40 years.

“Agreement with observations is the measure of scientific truth,” continues the paper. “Scientific progress proceeds by the interplay of theory and observation. Theory explains observations and makes predictions of what will be observed in the future. Observations anchor understanding and weed out theories that don’t work.”

The paper predicts global starvation if fossil fuels are eliminated. At risk in coming decades would be half of the world’s 8.5 billion to 10 billion people who are fed by crops grown with fertilizers derived from fossil fuels. Listed as an example of Net Zero’s potential consequences is the economic and social calamity of Sri Lanka which had banned the use of fertilizers and pesticides made from fossil fuels.

“The recent experience in Sri Lanka provides a red alert. The world has just witnessed the collapse of the once bountiful agricultural sector of Sri Lanka as a result of government restrictions on mineral fertilizer,” the paper says.

The paper says that 600 million years of geological evidence shows that CO2 levels are near a record low and that atmospheric increases of the gas follow warming periods rather than precede them.

These data “are good enough to demolish the argument that atmospheric CO2 concentrations control Earth’s climate and the theory that fossil fuels and CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming. They will not.”

The paper’s authors are Dr. William Happer, Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University; Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Gregory Wrightstone, a geologist and executive director of the CO2 Coalition.

The paper says Net Zero regulations and actions are scientifically invalid because they:

  • Fabricate data or omit data that contradict their conclusions. Net Zero proponents regularly report that extreme weather is more severe and frequent because of climate change while the evidence shows no increase – and, in some cases, a decrease – in such events.
  • Rely on computer models that do not work. An analysis of 102 computer models used by Net Zero proponents found that 101 of them had failed to match real-world observations. “Simply stated, the (computer) model essential to every government Net Zero regulation, action and the trillions of dollars subsidizing renewables and electric cars, trucks, home heating, appliances and many other products do not work,” said the paper.
  • Rely on findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that are government opinions, not science. The paper says that the conclusions of IPCC scientists that contradict the narrative of catastrophic global warming from fossil fuels are rewritten by government bureaucrats for public reports to support the false narrative of Net Zero proponents.
  • Omit the extraordinary social benefits of CO2 and fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide, including that from the burning of fossil fuels, serves as plant food that increases crop production and enables the feeding of more people. CO2, as well as the greenhouse gases of methane and nitrous oxide, help to keep Earth at temperatures conducive to life; without them, people would suffer. Fossil fuels are economical and abundant sources of energy necessary for modern societies and are critical feedstocks for fertilizers and pesticides that support the lives of billions of people.
  • Omit the disastrous consequences of reducing fossil fuels and CO2 emissions to Net Zero. “It cannot be overemphasized that eliminating fossil fuels and implementing Net Zero policies and actions mean the elimination of fossil fuel-derived nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides that will result in about half the world’s population not having enough food to eat,” says the paper.
  • Reject the science that demonstrates there is no risk of catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO2. “We are not aware of any reliable science that supports the National Climate Assessment’s or others’ theory that fossil fuels and CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming,” said the paper’s authors, “We have written extensively on this issue for decades.”

The Arlington-based CO2 Coalition is a nonprofit organization of more than 100 scientists and researchers engaged in educating the public and policymakers on the benefits of carbon dioxide and on the role of the gas in climate dynamics.

You may download a printable version of Challenging Net Zero with Science here.

March 4, 2023 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Why you must halt the jabs now – my letter to New Zealand’s PM

THIS is an open letter to New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins

By Guy Hatchard | TCW Defending Freedom | March 2, 2023

Mr Hipkins

Two publications by the Ministry of Health itself present evidence that within the government there is knowledge that the Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccine cannot be regarded as safe and effective. Therefore, from now on, there is no credible legal defence that the government can advance to cover its failure to openly inform individuals and the public at large of the inherent health risks of Covid vaccines.

Until now the government’s public announcements, including your own under the previous administration, relied on the argument that the government is following the science’ and monitoring international Covid journal publishing. This was never credible, but allowed room for a fanciful defence (certainly a weak argument) of accident, ignorance, misapprehension, or misdirection’ in any possible legal case brought under criminal or civil law. This can no longer be the case.

Firstly, a paper was published on February 3 2023 in the Lancet authored by our own Ministry of Health, Adverse Events Following the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine (Pfizer-BioNtech) in Aotearoa New Zealand. The paper reveals there is a statistically significant association between Pfizer mRNA vaccination and both myocarditis and acute kidney injury (AKI). The study examined the comprehensive medical records of four million NZers. There were 1,778 more cases of AKI than predicted from historical pre-pandemic rates, an alarming rate of one case for every 2,200 vaccinations. In addition to AKI and myocarditis, researchers also found elevated rates of blood clots and platelet damage.

Secondly, information concerning mortality in 2021, 2022, and 2023 correlated with vaccination status has been released by Health New Zealand following a Freedom of Information (OIA) request. The figures are signed off by Astrid Koornneef, Interim Director of Prevention, National Public Health Service.

The released figures include all NZ registered deaths by month. The figures show that for the last six months of 2022, 80 per cent of all people dying in New Zealand had received Pfizer mRNA booster shots. Yet, according to official government figures updated 14 February 2023, only 73.2 per cent of those eligible (18+ years) have received a booster. In other words, booster recipients are disproportionately represented among registered all-cause deaths. For more analysis refer here.

These two data sets certainly point towards serious risks associated with Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccination and stand in need of further investigation. The first investigated outcomes only within 21 days of Covid vaccination, the second indicates serious effects persist in the general population past 21 days. Taken together these point to a need for analysis of the causes of the current high rates of hospital admissions and deaths with reference to vaccination status.

Despite the ongoing need for more investigation, the results are sufficiently concerning according to ordinary standards of vaccine risk assessment to require an immediate halt to vaccine administration. This has not happened. Instead your Minister of Health, Ayesha Verrall, has announced a new booster shot for everyone over 30. Verrall did not reveal the concerning new safety data to the public. Instead, she has urged people to receive the vaccine as a priority.

Findings of this type are not unique to New Zealand: increasingly publications in learned journals are highlighting concerns about Covid vaccine safety. There is much academic debate in progress which has received little or no coverage in New Zealand media. Your government appears to share the burden of responsibility for a lack of balanced coverage in NZ mainstream media.

There appears to be a misapprehension among NZ health professionals concerning the reliability of biotechnology vaccine manufacturing standards. Data points to huge variability in safety by vaccine batch. The following chart records serious vaccine injury and death by batch number in the USA sourced from publicly available VAERS data sets. You can see that the number of injuries varies hugely by batch. A few injury numbers are similar to those recorded following flu vaccination, but most batches lead to injury volumes considerably higher, up to 14 times higher.

As early as January 18 2021 Orange County California medical authorities flagged an unusually high pattern of injury and death associated with a single batch they had been administering. Pfizer should have immediately alerted New Zealand authorities to such anomalies. They probably had a contractual obligation to do so. Now that it has become a matter of public comment, it should not be possible to continue to assert Covid vaccine safety. NZ has a code of Good Manufacturing Process for pharmaceuticals. This includes a requirement for uniformity of pharmaceutical medicine contents and action. Apparently, Pfizer Covid vaccines do not meet our code.

The scientific evidence concerning the lack of Covid vaccine safety has not reduced the stitched-up action of government intelligence services, the police, and Te Punaha Matatini’s [a research centre] Disinformation Project in coordination with media and social media to monitor and reduce the reach of those raising pertinent questions. As you know, under the Prime Minister’s office there is interagency co-ordination for mis/disinformation monitoring and response. This involves multiple government departments. If these programmes and participants are not fully informed of the legitimacy of concerns about Covid vaccine safety, this amounts to misdirection and possibly harassment on the part of the Prime Minister’s office itself.

I and many others believe New Zealand has struggled to define its relationship with unregulated global influences in the modern era. There is much scope for commercial and geopolitical misdirection even via established channels of medical, military, and political cooperation. We need to be more alert as a nation to our own sovereign and economic interests especially when we consider health and the legal protections that have been afforded to multinational interests like Pfizer and others.

You are newly appointed to a position of power and influence. You have stated that you intend to reconsider the policies followed under your predecessor. It was therefore very surprising to find your Minister of Health doubling down on vaccine requirements against the weight of her own department’s findings. I urge you to look into this very thoroughly. As a lawyer, you must realise that going against the weight of safety evidence is very much a betrayal of the trust the public has placed in the government.

I hope you will announce a revision and retraction of Covid response policies in the light of the new evidence that is being published. Apparently New Zealand has acquired 1.7million doses of Pfizer bi-valent vaccines. Why? Have you considered returning them as not fit for purpose? The weight of evidence points in that direction, evidence that is accumulating by the week in learned journals.

It seems clear that we have passed a point where policy mistakes can be described as accidental. If continued, they will appear to be deliberate. The public stands in need of an honest explanation. It may take courage to speak out, but doing so will be a mark of integrity and genuine concern for health and safety.

Yours sincerely

Guy Hatchard PhD

March 4, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

These 5 institutions allowed great harm to be inflicted on the world

All 5 are supposed to “search for the truth,” but increasingly seek to conceal important truths.

By Bill Rice, Jr. | March 3, 2023

The writer who publishes the Eugyppius Substack recently posted a scathing criticism of “academia.

This essay got me thinking about all the institutions in the world that now seem to be completely captured; more specifically, all the institutions that are supposed to exist to “search for the truth” and now clearly exists to conceal truths and advance untruths.

At the top of this list are these five institutions:

Journalism organizations

I think tens of millions of Americans would agree with me that mainstream or corporate news organizations should not be trusted to provide fair and balanced coverage of the issues most important to the public.

As I have pointed out in other articles, it’s virtually impossible to find any serious articles that question any of the “authorized” Covid narratives. Not only does the establishment press push and endorse bogus or dubious storylines, they censor and attack people who are skeptical of official pronouncements.

Genuine journalists would be skeptical of the pronouncements of powerful figures and should always “search for the truth.” The fact this objective no longer applies in corporate newsrooms has tremendous and detrimental implications for society … today and in the future.

Scientists, science organizations and public health organizations

Those who practice real science are also supposed to make their living “searching for the truth.” By nature, a “scientist” should question, challenge and test accepted theories to see if they are, in fact, true.

Again, thanks to Covid, tens of millions of Americans are now beginning to question whether the majority of credentialed “scientists” are actually performing this vital task.

Many people now believe that scientists are unwilling to debunk false or dubious scientific theories. Instead, many (government-funded) scientists argue that the “science is settled” when it’s clearly not. Just like the corporate journalists, these scientists inflict further harm on society by attacking, censoring, bullying and cancelling their colleagues who do perform this vital role.

In short, they effectively prevent superior science from informing public policy.

For millions of citizens, the difference between false and correct science can be the difference between life and death. Millions of additional citizens are forced to needlessly endure life-altering pain and suffering as a result of “accepted” science that is wrong.

I would argue that journalism and science are the two most important professions and institutions in the world as the public needs to be able to discern what is true and what is not true if correct or wise policies are to be pursued.

Policies based on incorrect premises have the potential to cause harm to virtually every citizen on the planet. The fact “science” now seems to be corrupted – and is no longer  interested in “searching for the truth” – constitutes one of the gravest and most ominous developments of our times.

Academia

As Eugyppius reinforces with his provocative essay, “academia” is another institution that is supposed to exist to “search for the truth.”

Euggypius focuses on the shortcomings of college academics. Again, I think all would agree that college is the place we send our children so they can increase their knowledge of important subjects. As all the great philosophers tell us, the quest for knowledge is found through a search for the truth.

However, what if large expanses of the “knowledge” these professors are imparting to students is dubious or wrong? What if, just like so many scientists and journalists, these academics are concealing real truths and intentionally or unintentionally spreading dangerous non-truths?

If this is the case, our college system is “educating” our future leaders by promulgating bogus or dubious “accepted truths.” Even worse, they are preventing the spread of ideas that could save lives and improve the quality of life of the world’s citizens.

Of course, it should be noted that the majority of “science” performed in today’s world comes from scientists who work for colleges.

Colleges are also supposed to teach and develop critical-thinking skills in students. However, it seems increasingly obvious that the vast majority of academics lack the ability to think critically. This, or many academics seem more interested in promoting their personal agendas instead of questioning what is true and what is false or uncertain.

In the past, colleges did seem to have many professors who valued a search for the truth. Today, the groupthink among college professors and administrators is approaching 100 percent.

All colleges celebrate “diversity,” but they recoil against diversity of thought and scholarship. In reality, they are afraid of genuine debate or, more specifically, any campus voices that push back against their dogma.

As these academics influence tens of millions of students who are supposed to become “future leaders,” the long-term detrimental effects of this “indoctrination” are impossible to calculate (but frightening to ponder).

Agencies or officials of government

Certain employees who work in government are also supposed to seek the truth and expose individuals and organizations that are perpetrating untruths (fraud).

Members of Congress have oversight over every government department or agency that is allocated taxpayer dollars. If government agencies and officials are concealing truths that could harm countless citizens, it’s Congress’s job to expose this.

Yet again, I’m sure tens of millions of Americans would agree with me that senators and representatives have abdicated this responsibility. They effectively allow fraudulent and Unconstitutional edicts and “emergency orders” to control the lives of every citizen in the country.

Prosecutors are also government employees. No one would deny that it is the job of prosecutors to “search for the truth” (find the real facts) and bring criminal charges against individuals who are harming others by promoting untruths and/or violating the law or Constitution.

The third branch of government, the Judiciary, must also be questioned as judges at all levels have the power to control what cases can (and cannot) be tried in a court of law.

Once a criminal or civil case is placed on the docket, the same judges have the power to influence how these cases are tried. By not approving important prosecutions or lawsuits or by hamstringing the efforts of advocates to fully present their arguments, judges can also “conceal the truth.”

Elected representatives and government prosecutors (and too many judges) seem to have increasingly made an intentional decision to not perform their oversight or regulation duties, which effectively conceals the truth from the public.

Trial lawyers and plaintiff law firms 

Trial lawyers are another important professional class as attorneys can file lawsuits on behalf of clients who have been injured or harmed by the actions of defendants. Lawsuits are also filed by family members of those who may have died as a results of defendant actions.

Significantly, trial lawyers can demand testimony under oath and compel defendants to turn over important evidence or documents (discovery). They can cross-exam witnesses who may be lying, which allows a jury to determine whose testimony is or isn’t believable.

While this “search for the truth” can and has been abused with lawsuits that lack merit, the ability of any injured or harmed citizen to seek redress for wrongs is a vital component of our system of justice.

In the Covid era, it’s already clear that the plaintiff’s trial bar (with a few exceptions) is not going to represent clients who have suffered deaths, medical harm or financial damages (or citizens whose civil liberties have been violated by ignoring the language include in the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution).

If injuries have occurred, the legal proceedings that would document these “truth” are not taking place (again, with a few exceptions). By not filing lawsuits on the behalf of tens of millions of citizens who suffered some form of harm, the trial lawyers are, in effect, concealing the truth.

SUMMARY

Our society includes at least five key institutions or professions whose most important function is to seek the truth. All five of these institutions are supposed to expose untruths, especially those which have the potential to produce great harm among the citizenry.

As I see it, all five institutions are now “captured” and – at least as it involves Covid subjects –  are more interested in concealing truths that challenge the authorized narratives.

In a recent article, I tried to identify how the “madness” of our Covid times actually came to pass. That article focussed on pivotal events of the last few years.

However, a deeper treatment of the “how” question would highlight the important role played by the above-cited institutions and professions. It took many years for all of these institutions to become largely or completely “captured,” but the fact this happened also explains how so much harm was inflicted on legions of victims who have not received any form of justice.

I’ll conclude this essay with the same sentence I wrote in a July 2020 Covid article published by uncoverDC.com.

When a genuine search for the truth is increasingly viewed as taboo or off-limits, the prognosis for a nation we all want to see survive and prosper is probably bleak.

March 3, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Why it matters who created Covid

By Guy Hatchard | TCW Defending Freedom | March 3, 2023

There has been renewed discussion of the origin of Covid in the media. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, the US Department of Energy has come down firmly on the side of a laboratory origin of Covid-19 from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. On Fox News, the former director of US National Intelligence John Ratcliffe commented: ‘The idea that Covid-19 has a natural origin has always been at odds with our intelligence . . . it is due to a lab leak. From the beginning scientists have not been able to explain why there is a furin cleavage site within the genetic make up of Covid-19 . . . This is something that happens when scientists insert a snippet of manipulated material into viruses.’

UK commentator Piers Morgan responded: ‘I think that the truth is that science, by its very nature, will evolve with facts. And so you have to give them some leeway for that . . . So I do think in the future, we’ve got to examine the science. You’ve got to listen to all ranges of opinions, and people have got to stop being cancelled on social media for raising concerns, which now look like they were absolutely right.’

US Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson went further in a 20-minute excoriation of the Biden administration’s Covid policy. Carlson wanted to know: has the administration’s policy to fund biotechnology research in China changed? (Watch Carlson here, begins at 3 minutes).

Some, including late-night talk-show host Stephen Colbert, have accused the DoE of lacking sufficient qualifications to decide on the lab leak theory, saying: ‘Stay in your lane’. (Is Colbert even vaguely qualified himself?) In fact as the authoritative Washington Post reports the DoE employed highly qualified and skilled scientists (including members of the Energy Department’s Z-Division, which since the 1960s has been involved in secretive investigations of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons threats by U.S. adversaries, including China and Russia), who undertook detailed scientific assessment of genetic evidence and classified information. After the dust of misinformation had cleared the DoE’s conclusion that there was a lab leak was inevitable.

It was the job of the FBI to investigate how the truth was being manipulated and they have also come out firmly and publicly on the side of the lab leak theory (it’s not a theory, there is overwhelming evidence). Early in 2021, a highly qualified geneticist friend wrote to me that he and many of his colleagues were sure that Covid was engineered in a lab because of its highly unusual genetic structure, but he added the codicil: please don’t mention my name. This was going on all over the world in differing forms. Some of them were verging on the corrupt.

All this information is in the public domain, but still the BBC published two dismissive articles on its home page on Wednesday. One covered the FBI announcement, but said the FBI conclusion was not backed by any evidence. The other was an explainer article entitled ‘Covid origin: Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory is so disputed‘. A more blatant attempt to muddy the waters of truth could not be imagined. The article forgot to discuss the genetic evidence which clearly points to gene-edited inserts in the virus genome.

But you might ask, why would anyone in government or science seek to hide the truth from the public? Good question. The answer possibly lies in the murky history of military involvement in genetics and the pandemic. You might recall conspiracy theories circulating since the discovery of DNA and gene editing in the 20th century. According to these ideas, military powers were supposedly going to invent weapons that would target specific ethnic groups and win wars because their genetically different opponents were all going to fall down dead, felled by a man-made virus.

In truth, all humans share so much DNA that any genetic weapon is going to affect everyone worldwide including you and me. Remember that military planners are not geneticists, but like almost everyone else on the planet, they are very susceptible to genetic fantasies. They believed wrongly that anything might be possible for genetic science. Whether their motivations were offensive or defensive was irrelevant. To counter any potential offensive weapon from the other side, they were going to have to first create possible offensive weapons, before trying to design a defensive counter. Sound familiar? Gain of function research to weaponise viruses in order to design a vaccine?

The problem we now know is that, as reported in this study, no lab is ever going to be secure. The history of recombinant DNA biotech labs contains a long list of unintended leaks and accidents. The result has been a pandemic whose final outcome still remains unknown. The military, governments, pharmaceutical companies, and scientists from a number of countries are very busy trying to hide their involvement, telling us that all this is just a natural disaster. This amounts to a giant geopolitical cover-up. The US, China, Britain and France, all of whom were involved in the creation and funding of the Wuhan Virology Laboratory, are paying for favourable comments from their media and anyone else who is corrupt enough to shill for them.

As a last resort, some people are arguing that the origin of Covid is irrelevant. It isn’t. The lab origin of Covid should bring us all together. Whether we think Covid is the main threat or the vaccine is, they both came from a biotech lab carrying out genetic experiments. We can safely forget about the geopolitical arguments explaining who was to blame: China or the USA, and instead shout loudly from the rooftops that biotech experiments have got to stop.

Research shows biotech interventions are inherently mutagenic, they have led to permanent degradation of genetic function and consequently health, as this alarming recent assessment of the Pfizer and Moderna bivalent vaccine shows (the same vaccine our government has announced it will give to everyone over 30 in New Zealand). So don’t think that by taking the latest vaccine you are helping society. The mRNA vaccines pose a danger to everyone in the world, all cultures, all races, religious or agnostic, left or right. We share DNA and we have a common interest to protect ourselves from scientists, media, and governments who are putting financial interests and political objectives ahead of the safety of the entire 8billion population of the world.

We are going through an unprecedented societal upheaval. It increasingly appears to be man-made. The repeated political mantra ‘Trust the Science’ has proven to be mere political demagoguery, devoid of real scientific content. Keeping a steady head, carefully shifting through the evidence, and applying caution are needed now. The evidence is out: with confidence we know that Covid and Covid vaccines came from laboratories whose operation is inherently dangerous. They have already killed millions, and want to be given carte blanche to do whatever they wish. Time to call a halt. For more information go to https://GLOBE.GLOBAL

March 3, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment