Recently the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee expressed concern that some wayward Republican’s might need some “education” on the dire global consequences if Russia wins the war in Ukraine. Sounding somewhat desperate representative Michael McCaul told CNN’s Dana Bush on “State of the Union” last Sunday that, “We have to educate our members. I don’t think they quite understand what’s at stake.”
He went on to claim that a Russian win would lead to China attacking Taiwan. The implication is that Russia and China will start attacking their neighbors if the West doesn’t step in to stop Russia and teach Putin a lesson.
This sounds eerily familiar. If you are of a certain age you may recall that the Pentagon insisted that if we didn’t invade Vietnam back in the 60’s and stop the commies the domino’s would start to fall as the Soviet Union and China would be emboldened to wage war across the globe.
So did the Pentagon’s dire predictions come true?
In a word: NO!
The warmongers were spreading the exact same propaganda back in the 50’s and 60’s to get a good, lucrative shooting war going just like the neocons, Democrat and Republican, are doing today.
According to a British Medical Journal study in 2008 the Vietnam War resulted in a combined death toll of an estimated 3,812,000 human beings. US Military personnel made up just over 58,000 of the dead. But just as horrifying, if not more so, were the mangled, mutilated, maimed human beings shot, burned, blown up, traumatized and poisoned who had the misfortune to survive their injuries.
There is no way to know for sure, but estimates are at least double the deaths or over 7.5 Million wounded. We’re not even taking into account the billions wasted on needless war. And what did we get for all that sacrifice?
Vietnam went full commie after we left. Did the world end as we know it? No. Please understand I’m not trying to gloss over the horrific carnage caused by Communist regimes. The Soviets under Stalin murdered over 20 million of their citizens and Mao’s China over 30 million.
The point is the Vietnam War was a senseless, needless war that was promoted by breathless, hyperventilating propogandist’s just like the neocons today promoting war with Russia in Ukraine. The false flag Gulf of Tonkin attack on US Naval vessels (which never happened) was the excuse to invade Vietnam. Russia has tried to warn the West that a false flag event in Ukraine is likely. Will we ever learn?
Everyone is asking the question: Why can’t people see the obvious? Why can’t people believe what is going on and stand up and do something about it?
And we have heard a lot of possibilities in response, from mass psychosis to 5G affecting the brain, to totalitarian brainwashing, to raw fear of death and illness, to the loss of critical thinking skills.
All, or most of these things may certainly be in place, but there is possibly not a “one reason” answer to the question. I for one have seen people utterly terrified of the “virus,” as well as people not at all afraid of the disease, but with no interest in going against authority in a stable and structured culture (so they think).
I’ve seen people who have no clue there is any resistance to the mandates and if there is, it is coming from hillbillies living out of touch with reality. Even the “New World” Google definition of “psychosis” includes an example:
[psychotic people] may be worried that the government is trying to harm them and their loved ones.”
That includes you and me, folks. Welcome to the loony bin.
I saw a post from a long-time Facebook friend the other day: “Well, it finally got me, after 3 years staying indoors and away from people, two Covid vaccines and three boosters, I finally got Covid. It is horrible! I can’t stop coughing, I have a fever, and every time I swallow I feel like I am swallowing glass.”
The post is followed with dozens of sympathetic responses: “Got it too! Hang in there!”“Prayers for you, five shots later I have the same thing.” On and on.
What is it with these people? Have they REALLY not heard at least a rumour that the vaccines MIGHT be unsafe, MIGHT not be effective? Really?
I sincerely can’t answer that question. Maybe they really haven’t heard even a rumour of truth, which opens up a whole new discussion. And then if they have heard something why hasn’t it at least gotten them curious, or cautious, at least a little bit?
And you would think that if this person were proudly exclaiming their misfortune in getting whacked with the bug after being so careful to do everything to avoid it, they would put two and two together and not be so proud of their ineffable stupidity.
I almost posted my flippant response: “Well, thank god you got all those shots!” But I refrained because I knew the irony of my comment would be lost, eliciting the reply, “I know!! I would probably be dead if I hadn’t!!” They can ALWAYS say that… ignoring completely that everyone on that side of the hill said, from day one, “You will not get Covid if you take these shots.”
“Oh, oh, oh… that’s ok they said that, they just didn’t know. You know, they didn’t know EVERYTHING about the shots, they had to move so fast to save humanity,” so say the little lambs.
How come if they readily make that as an excuse when it comes to efficacy, why can’t they present that same explanation regarding the purported safety of the vaccine? “Oh, I know thousands are dying, but, you know, they didn’t know EVERYTHING about the shots at first… blah, blah, blah, baa, baa, baa” Selective logic.
Maybe it is because they have not died, or been horribly compromised, other than the “not so bad” glass shards in their throat and suffering a 104 temperature for a week. “At least I’m not dead.” I wonder if when they actually DO die from the vaccine-induced failure of their immune system, they will say, right before their last breath, “Well, at least I didn’t die of COVID… dying from the vaccine is just the price we have to pay to keep from dying of this wicked virus.”
I met a guy the other day who told me he contracted Bell’s palsy right after taking the fourth jab. He treated it like you would treat a sore arm after a shot. “Oh, that’s nothing.” Really? “At least I didn’t die.” And why would that even be an acceptable possibility after taking a vaccine for something (Covid) that would probably be less invasive than Bell’s palsy? What weird logic reasoning, “spooky science.”
More than likely these people are embarrassed to admit their decisions were totally ludicrous and irrational. They have to make up some reason for their actions. “Oh, I drank that glass of arsenic that burned out my stomach lining and put me on my death bed (only a few more hours to live!), because I had some parasites in my stomach. Those bastards are dead for sure, at least I didn’t die from THAT.”
Although this may be a possibility, it would have to be an unconscious realization. And it would have to be dependent on the supposition that at least their unconscious was aware of the truth. I never get the impression that people’s egos are so big that they have to consciously make up a story to save face. It may come to that for some people. But right now I really do not think the realization that they are fools is conscious.
People are always making stuff up to rationalize their irrationality in making stupid decisions. Many people make up stuff to keep themselves from looking stupid, or feeling stupid. The key here is that these rationalizations are compelled unconsciously.
Otherwise we (those of us who do this) would be liars. And most people are not chronic liars (I might be an unconscious liar at times, but I don’t think I am too often a conscious one). As for this Covid stuff, the unconscious reason to make up stories that fit our actions could be largely to avoid an inconvenience.
Most people who do this probably are mortified (unconsciously at the moment) they have done something so preposterously stupid as to allow an injection into their body for no good reason (and honestly, there never was a good reason). I do think when the truth really hits the mainstream they will get angry and blame everyone who was lying to them, maybe not, but if they do, this will be horribly inconvenient.
They will then have to scream and yell at everyone responsible, politicians, doctors, friends and family, etc. That’s a lot of work and a lot of energy. Since this awareness is not wholly conscious yet, why not just go along with it all (the illusion). Accept SOME inconveniences like a bad case of SOMETHING causing symptoms—what they conveniently call Covid, or the flu, or whatever else it might be.
Another inconvenient truth they would have to accept is that all us “anti-vaxxers” were right, and all their sheep friends were wrong. That is very inconvenient.
Their whole world will come crashing down, and that is the most inconvenient event imaginable. Much easier to just continue to play along, until there is no choice but to accept the truth, which is for the most part pretty dark, and, of course, quite inconvenient.
Replacing fossil fuel with hydrogen seems like an ideal solution to make transportation environmentally friendly and to provide a backup for intermittent energy sources like solar and wind. But how environmentally friendly is hydrogen really? And how sustainable is it, given that hydrogen fuel cells rely on supply of rare metals like platinum and iridium? In this video, we have collected all the relevant numbers for you.
Turns out that the possibility of COVID originating from a lab leak was not a conspiracy theory after all.
“Experts” dictated many inexcusable and destructive protocols during the pandemic, from pushing ineffective mask mandates to promoting lockdowns and school closures.
But one of their most sinister actions was the almost immediate attempt to shut down debate over the lab leak hypothesis.
This likely emanated from the wrong people noticing the bizarre coincidence of a novel coronavirus beginning to spread in Wuhan, just a few miles away from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a research lab dedicated to studying viruses and how they spread.
Republican Senator Tom Cotton was one of the first prominent individuals to suggest the lab could have been partially responsible. Former President Donald Trump did as well.
That meant that politically motivated “experts” and media outlets such as the Washington Post immediately rushed to label any discussion of the hypothesis as a debunked conspiracy theory.
However, over the past year and a half, the discussion finally shifted towards taking the possibility seriously. That shift has even more abruptly accelerated in recent days.
The Interceptjust published newly unredacted emails showing that the same “experts” who had attempted to undermine competing narratives, actually believed it was probable the virus came from the lab.
Scientists like Dr. Fauci, the UK’s Jeremy Farrar, and multiple others repeatedly sent each other messages during the early days of the pandemic suggesting that they harbored substantial doubts about the possibilities of a natural origin.
However, when they realized the implications of that possibility, they rapidly and dramatically switched positions.
Lab Leak Was Initially Deemed Possible
Naturally Dr. Fauci was one of the ringleaders of the early discussions.
When one expert, Kristian Anderson explained that there was a possibility that the virus had been “engineered,” he leapt into action.
Fauci was so concerned that he believed this information might need to be reported to the FBI and MI5
“He should do this very quickly and if everyone agrees with this concern, they should report it to the appropriate authorities. I would imagine that in the USA this would be the FBI and in the UK it would be MI5,” he wrote.
International experts quickly organized a conference call to discuss, and Fauci famously emailed one of his top employees, Hugh Auchincloss, that he would urgently need to speak with him.
“It is essential that we speak this AM. Keep your cell phone on. … You will have tasks today that must be done,” Fauci said.
During a recent deposition, he gave quite an unsatisfactory explanation for the motivations in that email.
He claimed in one answer that he “wanted to be briefed on the scope of what our collaborations were and the kind of work that we were funding in China. I wanted to know what the nature of that work was.”
Except, of course, that doesn’t explain what “tasks” said employee would be required to complete. Explaining the scope of their work and connection to the Wuhan lab would explain why it was “essential” to speak. But what tasks were so imperative that Auchincloss “must” do?
Fauci is, of course, no stranger to deflection when it comes to full and complete explanations for his behavior or statements.
Multiple “experts” on that conference call repeated in writing that they believed the lab leak required strong consideration.
One was described as being “70:30” or “60:40” in favor of an “accidental-release.” Another said he essentially couldn’t imagine the virus occurring naturally.
“I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature. … it’s stunning.”
Many of those involved then collaborated to write an article just over a month later. It was famously published in Nature, and stated that those who signed didn’t believe “any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”
That article was released quickly, despite the concerns, thanks in large part to Fauci.
One of the other scientists involved in the email chain, Dutch scientist Ron Fouchier, had suggested waiting for more information to emerge before taking a public position.
But Fauci was more concerned about protecting reputations, egos, money and his organization. So he pushed for immediate action.
“I agree that we really cannot take Ron’s suggestion about waiting,” Fauci emailed. “Like all of us, I do not know how this evolved, but given the concerns of so many people and the threat of further distortions on social media, it is essential that we move quickly.”
Jeremy Farrar concurred, replying, “Critical that responsible, respected scientists and agencies get ahead of the science and the narrative of this and are not reacting to reports which could be very damaging.”
Self-Protection
Farrar implying that it could be “very damaging” if the lab leak hypothesis was deemed credible is likely the explaination for the rapid mobilization.
Experts didn’t want the wrong people, or those in the media, to seriously consider the possibility that the lab could have potentially “engineered” the virus in some capacity.
Another email from Fouchier was even more obvious.
Lab leak discussion “would unnecessarily distract top researchers from their active duties and do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular,” Fouchier said.
The emails make it clear that no one involved really had a definitive answer either way.
But instead of telling the truth about their uncertainty while acknowledging the need for more information, they moved to quickly shut down debate.
Informing the public about the possibility of the lab leak may have led to additional government oversight, or in a more catastrophic outcome, awareness that scientific research may have gone too far, resulting in a loss of funding.
So with no further justification, they rapidly coalesced and organized into “debunking” the lab leak as a “conspiracy theory” spokesmen in order to ensure that the proper channels closed ranks around their perspective.
And how right they were. Media outlets and “fact checkers” rushed to label anyone who discussed the lab leak hypothesis. They fanatically defended Fauci and patronizingly dismissed legitimate concerns.
All to protect themselves and their field.
The Intercept quoted Sergei Pond, a virologist from Temple University, on these unredacted emails. He pointed out that they show how poorly conducted their process was, once they determined that it could be damaging for their profession.
“It started out being a fairly careful discussion, with anomalies being aired out and people saying multiple times that there is simply not enough data to resolve this,” he said. “But at some point, I think there was such strong pressure that they went from ‘Let’s just wait to get more data’ to ‘Let’s publish something that has a very strong opinion favoring one explanation over another without acquiring any new data.’”
David Relman, another expert professor of microbiology, immunology, and medicine at Stanford University, agreed.
“When I first saw it in March 2020, the paper read to me as a conclusion in search of an argument,” he said. “Among its many problems, it failed to consider in a serious fashion the possibility of an unwitting and unrecognized accidental leak during aggressive efforts to grow coronaviruses from bat and other field samples. It also assumed that researchers in Wuhan have told the world about every virus and every sequence that was in their laboratories in 2019. But these [unredacted emails] actually provide evidence that the authors considered a few additional lab-associated scenarios, early in their discussions. But then they rushed to judgment, and the lab scenarios fell out of favor.”
Par for the course
Multiple investigations have suggested that COVID was “most likely” due to a lab leak, yet many of those involved in these initial discussions have refused to take responsibility.
Their dismissals shaped the national and international conversation for months, if not years. Yet they were intentionally misleading, as is now almost universally acknowledged.
In particular, Anthony Fauci is guilty of revisionist history, as he so often has been.
The emails clearly show his intention was always to protect his profession, his agency and the scientific community by shutting down debate.
Yet recently he’s claimed to have an “open mind” about the lab leak.
“I have a completely open mind about that, despite people saying that I don’t,” Fauci told Meet the Press.
He made this laughable assertion despite the truth; he didn’t approve of the open discussions taking place daily on social media.
This would be the same social media he claims he never uses.
“I don’t have a Twitter account. I have never had a Twitter account. I don’t intend on having a Twitter account. And I have had nothing to do with Twitter,” Fauci told Neil Cavuto recently.
Intellectually honest people with nothing to hide would have apologized, admitted why they had misgivings, and worked to regain the public’s trust.
But as has been publicly displayed over the past few years, there are evidently few intellectually honest people in the fields of epidemiology or virology.
The unredacted emails reveal what should have been obvious from the beginning. The lab leak was the possible, if not likely explanation for the start of the pandemic.
Yet politics and self-protection took over, and open debate was crushed by the expert-media industrial complex.
Like so many other aspects of COVID debates, Fauci did his best to ensure that he, his methods and his allies were never questioned.
U.S. Involvement in Wuhan Lab Wasn’t Properly Monitored
Fauci’s rush to discredit the lab leak hypothesis was also due in part to what he likely learned from Auchincloss. Namely, the fact that hundreds of thousands of dollars of grant money from the U.S. government had been sent to the Wuhan lab.
And not just by the U.S. government, but agencies he was directly involved with.
The National Institutes of Health, under former leaders like Dr. Francis Collins and Fauci, gave grant money to the EcoHealth Alliance, a “scientific research” group that works to prevent the outbreak of emerging diseases.
EcoHealth received this money ostensibly to study how best to identify and control pandemics. They then redirected funds to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where bat viruses were being studied.
The same Wuhan Institute of Virology which may possibly be the source of the pandemic.
NIH Didn’t Ensure Lab Compliance With Requirements
The Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Health and Human Services recently conducted an audit of NIH and EcoHealth and found that they failed to ensure compliance with grant requirements.
“Despite identifying potential risks associated with research being performed under the EcoHealth awards, we found that NIH did not effectively monitor or take timely action to address EcoHealth’s compliance with some requirements,” the report read.
Essentially, NIH sent grant money to EcoHealth Alliance with certain limitations on what kind of research it could fund. EcoHealth then sent money to the Wuhan lab, which was conducting risky experiments, and neither the agency or the company effectively monitored the work that was actually being performed.
If that sounds like a major problem, that’s because it is.
Although the investigators said that the lab did cooperate for a time, after the start of the pandemic, they immediately stopped.
“Although WIV cooperated with EcoHealth’s monitoring for several years, WIV’s lack of cooperation following the COVID 19 outbreak limited EcoHealth’s ability to monitor its subrecipient,” it read.
In a stunning turn of events, after the initial outbreak that they may have played a role in starting, the Wuhan lab declined to cooperate with efforts to uncover what happened.
Who could have possibly predicted that? Certainly not those in charge of NIH who distributed grant money and then essentially turned a blind eye to what it was used on afterwards.
Massive Mistakes
The importance of this inexcusable decision making can’t be overstated.
The U.S. government essentially handed over taxpayer money to the Wuhan lab, with little knowledge of how it was being used.
And then scientists involved in funding and advancing this research used their credentials and status to label anyone who pointed out the connection.
Anthony Fauci, Francis Collins, Peter Daszak and an international community of experts organized to write a paper claiming to debunk the lab leak, all while being fully aware that the lab had been experimenting with little oversight or accountability.
Their emails show that they had been reliably informed that the virus could have been “engineered,” and that it seemed impossible for it to have occurred naturally.
NIH had little to no awareness of how their grant money was being used, yet its leaders collaborated with the company who could not or would not give them answers.
While it’s extremely disturbing, it’s not remotely surprising.
At this point, it’d be more of a surprise if an investigation uncovered that they had actually been telling the truth.
The CDC recently codified International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes for Covid-19 vaccine status. ICD codes are extensively used in medical records, medical insurance data and health research to classify precisely disease states as well as injuries from exogenous agents such as accidents, medication and medical device injuries, toxic chemicals, etc. Vaccination status is not a disease or an injury state, yet CDC has rationalized creating ICD codes for it. The coding is set to become effective on April 1, 2023.
As described by Dr. Robert Malone, “The ICD classification system is run by the World Health Organization, not the US government.” The vaccine status ICD codes were developed by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) some nine months ago, and CDC is implementing them.
The coding scheme, Z28.xxx, includes both vaccination status and possible reasons for the status. However, there does not appear to be a code for “fully vaccinated,” only for various states of “not fully vaccinated.”
The code Z28.0 means “immunization not carried out because of contraindication.” Z28.1 means “immunization not carried out because of patient decision for reasons of belief or group pressure.”
Z28.2 means “immunization not carried out because of patient decision for other and unspecified reason.”
Z28.8 means “immunization not carried out for other reason” which because of code Z28.2 must refer to reasons not attributable to patient decisions.
Finally, Z28.39 means “other underimmunization status,” including “Delinquent immunization status” and “Lapsed immunization schedule status.”
However, a potential contradiction arises because code Z28.310 means “unvaccinated for COVID-19.”
In order to reconcile this, the Z28 codes in the previous paragraph must refer to vaccines other than for Covid-19. The only other Covid-19 code is Z28.311 which means “partially vaccinated for COVID-19,” where “partial” refers to the CDC definition for “fully vaccinated” at the time when the patient visits the health-care provider who records the vaccination status in the medical chart.
It is apparent that the details of reasons for patient choices for vaccine status are not specified in codes for Covid-19 vaccines, but the CDC has some two months to fix this. There are no specific codes yet for “refused to divulge COVID-19 vaccination status” or “unknown COVID-19 vaccination status,” but these codes are likely to be added at some point.
What is the usage for which this information is planned? There is certainly a public health rationale for agencies to be able to monitor population vaccination status. Personal health information is routinely analyzed by public health agencies, insurance companies and health researchers, but in anonymized and grouped formats. The identifiable information is recorded in the databases, however HIPAA and other laws strictly protect identifiable health information and regulate how such information may be used for analyses.
In theory, vaccination status could be no different. Medical records already know your age, gender and race, where you reside, about your obesity, diabetes, your smoking and alcohol usage and your HIV status. Some of this information could be stigmatizing if released publicly, but at present there are no politicized or other circumstances to force unwanted choices on members of the public based on this compiled personal information.
Imagine, however, that one day, government agents are pounding on your door at 6am, telling you that you are required to take smoking cessation medications, under penalty of forced residence in a “smoking-cessation hotel” until you submit to the government’s requirement.
The medications have built-in transmitters that are activated when exposed to stomach acid, so taking them is recorded. After all, 500,000 Americans die every year from smoking-related diseases and their end-of-life medical care is an expense for which the government no longer wants to pay. Your smoking is economically hurting the medical care that grandma needs. Or something.
But Covid-19 and its vaccination are different. The Covid vaccines and their boosters were created under emergency-use authorization (EUA) protocols and are not fully licensed. The Biologics License Application (BLA) versions, e.g., Comirnaty, are not generally available in the US. This licensing chicanery has not gone unnoticed by the American public and a substantial fraction of people find the vaccines controversial.
Many people have seen their multiple-vaccinated friends and relatives get Covid, some multiple times. Many have also seen friends and relatives harmed by the vaccines, and most people know of the incessant daily deaths of healthy athletes, deaths discussed as caused by “coincidence.” People have seen the vaccines touted as solutions to the pandemic, yet utterly fail across the population to suppress transmission of the infection.
And, people have been bombarded with daily narratives for two solid years that the vaccines are “safe and effective” and that they must be taken, and that unvaccinated people are “bad,” “selfish,” demonized as doing damage to society, and should be shunned.
That is, personal vaccination status today is the most stigmatizing personal data of modern times, surpassing having AIDS. As such, any government compilation must be “bulletproof” against hacking and misuse. As well, the government must be trusted to maintain the data for use only as other personal medical data have been used.
Given the two-plus years of massive government propaganda about the vaccines, about their adverse effects, about Covid, about early Covid treatment, and the government collusion with social media companies in suppression of valid dissenting medical and scientific opinions and data, there is no empirical reason to support trusting the government with such sensitive, stigmatizing data.
There is no reason to believe that the government will not release the status information to insurance companies or other companies doing large business with the American public. Further, there is no recourse should the government actually release such confidential data. Thus, nothing may stop such companies from restricting activities based on the stigmatized data. For example, public travel could be blocked; bank accounts could be blocked; purchasing could be blocked.
The free pursuit of happiness is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence. The government cannot lawfully interfere with normal transactions of everyday life. But private companies working at the government’s behest, with government-supplied personal status information, could very well do it.
As has been seen from the FOIA documents, hundreds of government employees have spent the pandemic years doing exactly this unconstitutional behavior in getting social media companies to suppress Americans’ freedom of speech.
Furthermore, there is now no rational government interest in compiling vaccination status at all. At a time when vaccination was generally thought (incorrectly) to reduce Covid-19 transmission across the population, there might have been a rationale for doing so.
However, on August 11, 2022, the CDC stated publicly that the Covid-19 vaccines do not work as a public health measure to control virus transmission. They said, “Receipt of a primary series alone, in the absence of being up to date with vaccination* through receipt of all recommended booster doses, provides minimal protection against infection and transmission (3,6).” “Being up to date with vaccination provides a transient period of increased protection against infection and transmission after the most recent dose, although protection can wane over time.”
The fact that such benefit is “transient” and wanes implies that after some short period, boosters fail to reduce risk of transmission and thus that vaccine mandates are invalid.
The only government interest in mandating Covid vaccines, and thus in compiling personal information about vaccination status, is that the vaccines reduce transmission. They don’t.
Secondly, the CDC’s August 11th policy guidance does not distinguish between vaccinated and unvaccinated people in any way for any policy. There is thus no compelling government purpose in defining people as vaccinated or unvaccinated. It would be like the government compiling personal information on hair color, except that hair color is not stigmatizing and vaccination status is extremely stigmatizing.
The government itself—through the CDC—has determined that vaccination status is not of policy importance. There can thus be no compelling interest for the government to forcibly collect this information against the wishes of the population, even were it not stigmatizing. So much more so after the government has spent the last two years publicly demonizing unvaccinated people for their rational and legitimate personal health choices.
Harvey Risch, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a physician and a Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine. His main research interests are in cancer etiology, prevention and early diagnosis, and in epidemiologic methods.
The American Bar Association will vote on February 6 whether to promote a newly created definition of antisemitism that has been used “consistently (and nearly exclusively) not to fight antisemitism, but rather to defend Israel and harm Palestinians
This has been done “at the cost of undermining and dangerously chilling fundamental rights of free speech, freedom of assembly and protest, and academic freedom
“The ABA’s embrace of the definition would legitimize this infringement on core democratic rights as well as undermine the ABA’s own ability to engage on issues related to Palestinian rights…”
For 20 years, Israel and its partisans have worked to embed a newly fabricated, Israel-centric definition of antisemitism in governments and institutions around the world. The latest iteration is known as the IHRA definition.
Now there is an effort to push the American Bar Association to promote this definition to “federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments in the United States.”
At its upcoming national meeting (which begins on February 1), delegates will be voting on resolution 514 on Monday, February 6.
Numerous groups have written letters opposing the ABA’s use of this definition, pointing out that it would be used against Palestinian rights, would infringe on freedom of speech, and would interfere with academic freedom.
Juan Thomas, Chair
Mark Schickman, Senior Advisor
Paula Shapiro, Director ABA Section on Civil Rights and Social Justice
Hon. Benes Z. Aldana (Ret.), Chair
Skip Harsch, Director
Ann Breen-Greco ABA Commission on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Twanda Turner-Hawkins, Chair
Selina Thomas, Director ABA Coalition on Racial and Ethnic Justice
Priya Purandare, Executive Director
Navdeep Singh, Interim Policy Director
Wendy Shiba, Past President, ABA Delegate National Asian Pacific American Bar Association
James L. Schwartz, Chair
Richard M. Leslie, Chair-Elect
Jack Young, Delegate Senior Lawyers Division
Marcos Rios, Chair
David Schwartz, Chair-Elect
Michelle Jacobson, Policy Officer ABA International Law Section
This is what opponents of Palestinian rights enable:
You might argue that to say the world is warming is an obvious fact. ‘But,’ as Sherlock Holmes remarked to Dr Watson*, ‘there is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.’
The meteorological fraternity tell us that as emissions keep growing the temperature of our earth will keep rising. Some of the effects, they say, can be seen in extreme weather such as floods, droughts and storms. However, research has shown the apparent escalation of this kind of event is far more likely to be due to a greater facility for reporting every incident over the last fifty years. Even more doubt lies in the fact that we have been widely recording weather details for about 150 of the 11,000 years since the last ice age. Any claims of records being broken can refer only to that brief period.
Assessing the rate of global warming, then, and any decision as to whether there is a climate ‘emergency’, rests almost entirely on measurement of the global temperature. This is always given as a difference relative to a previous period, and not only to tenths of a degree (which is how it is measured at every recording station), but to hundredths of a degree.
The UK Met Office’s global temperature for 2021 was 0.76 ± 0.04 deg C above the 1961-1990 average. The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said the year was about 1.11 ± 0.13 deg C warmer than the 1850-1900 average. First worrying thought: why was such a precise measurement prefaced by that word ‘about’?
The Met Office’s figure for 2022 was 0.80 ± 0.04 °C above the 1961-1990 average and 1.16 ± 0.08 °C above the pre-industrial 1850-1900 average. The World Meteorological Organisation uses six international data sets to provide an authoritative assessment of global temperature change. They report that ‘2022 was about 1.15 (1.02 to 1.27) °C above the pre-industrial (1850-1900) levels’. There’s that curious word again.
The climatologists claim to be measuring the temperature of the earth, over land and sea, night and day, for a whole year, and giving us the result to a second place of decimals, with a tolerance of only a few hundredths of a degree Celsius. That is unbelievable.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) website does admit that ‘the concept of an average temperature for the entire globe . . . may seem like nonsense’. It certainly does. It would be difficult to measure the average temperature of a small garden for a whole year to that level of accuracy, unless there were thermometers recording maximum and minimum every day in each square metre.
Why is it always a difference measurement? The NOAA website explains: ‘Because [the scientists’] goal is to track changes in temperature, measurements are converted from absolute temperature readings to temperature anomalies – the difference between the observed temperature and the long-term average temperature for each location and date.’
Subsequent paragraphs shed more light on the data, and are worth quoting at length (my italics). ‘Across inaccessible areas that have few measurements, scientists use surrounding temperatures and other information to estimate the missing values . . . climatologists average data from individual stations with data from other stations in the area. When combining observations, the values for each station are mathematically weighted to account for the fraction of the averaging area they represent.’
Those four words ‘estimate’, ‘average’, ‘combining’ and ‘weighted’ all cast serious doubts on the final two places of decimals. Then there is the obvious question: how well are the recording stations covering the land and sea areas of the earth?
For measurements taken on the earth’s surface, the WMO says there are ‘well over 10,000 manned and automatic surface weather stations . . . 7,000 ships, 100 moored and 1,000 drifting buoys’.
The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia confirms that its global temperature series (CRUTEM5.0) uses data from only 8,000 of the land-based weather stations because the others ‘did not have sufficient data to estimate a 1961-1990 mean’.
The land area of the earth is 148,300,000 km2. The 8,000 recording stations would therefore each represent a huge 18,500 km2 chunk of the earth’s land surface. But they are not uniformly spread. According to the CRU, ‘coverage is denser over the more populated parts of the world, particularly the United States, southern Canada, Europe and Japan. Coverage is sparsest over the interior of the South American and African continents and over Antarctica’.
The sea area of the earth is 361,700,000 km2. The number of ships and buoys (8,100) means that each represents around 44,600 km2 of the sea surface, and even then the accuracy of the data largely depends on where the ships (moving steadily) and buoys (drifting slowly) happen to be. Additionally, the buoys and ships are measuring sea water temperatures, not that of the air over the sea: how exactly are pre-industrial temperatures of the sea calculated for comparison?
Every year several very well-known climatological and scientific institutions tell us the earth’s annual average global temperature. The world waits anxiously for their pronouncements. But even the first decimal place is doubtful, let alone the second. The accuracy has been generated solely by way of mathematics: first the average of each station’s daily maximum and minimum is calculated, then the weekly and monthly average which is converted to an anomaly for the station, mathematical weighting is carried out if necessary, estimations added for missing values, and only then is the final annual figure achieved for that particular station over the last twelve months.
(The process is actually even more complex: see, for instance, NASA’s ‘Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records’.)
Presumably all the station annual average figures, around 16,000 for both land and sea for the whole world, are then added and a grand average figure is produced. It is that final averaging that can produce as many decimal points as you want. But by then it is meaningless.
For such a vast area of land and sea, and over such a long period of time, it is surely impossible to determine a sensible average temperature, let alone one given with such apparent accuracy. They must be right, we are supposed to think, because they are given to the nearest hundredth of a degree Celsius.
The Met Office has already forecast this year’s (2023’s)global average temperature to be between 1.08 °C and 1.32°C (with a central estimate of 1.20 °C) above the average for the pre-industrial period (1850-1900). Here are the two decimal places again, with a tolerance of a fifth of a degree Celsius, for a year that has hardly started.
All these supposedly carefully measured temperatures are surely open to some considerable doubt, but unfortunately they are treated as the ultimate and unequivocal proof of rapid climate change.
If these figures are indeed of dubious authenticity, and if bouts of extreme weather may or may not indicate any change in our climate, then how much do we really know for certain?
The CDC and FDA have sounded an alarm of an increased risk of strokes for over 65’s after their mRNA booster shot. Still no transparency with the data as the public forced yet again to take the word of agencies with rapidly waning integrity and trust.
We are in the final week of Covid Vaccine Victim Awareness month. If you knew about this campaign, consider yourself well informed. As you know, raising awareness of the most pressing issues of our time is extremely challenging.
It is hard enough trying to inform people about the WHO’s power grab, or Covid injection risks, or safe, effective treatments like Ivermectin. Indeed, the video I shared last week about the husband who smuggled ivermectin to his wife in a chocolate bar has already been removed by YouTube, who apparently deemed this first-hand account as ‘medical misinformation’. Fortunately, you can still view it here.
All that is hard enough. But perhaps the greatest challenge of all is getting governments, medical establishments and Big Pharma to acknowledge one of the most marginalised groups in society today: the men, women and children harmed by the Covid-19 injections, and their bereaved.
Could this be because those supposedly best placed to help them are the ones with everything to lose by doing so?
Governments are failing to acknowledge the vaccine injured properly because to do so would be political suicide. Having pushed and pressured and bullied people into taking the jabs, any administration that then admits it has harmed its own people will have to face severe consequences.
Big Pharma won’t acknowledge them, not least because they are a direct threat to their bottom line.
Most hospitals, universities and other research establishments and clinical care settings won’t acknowledge them because they don’t want to risk losing their funding from, you guessed it, Big Pharma and government.
Doctors won’t acknowledge them because the pain of participating in the biggest crime in medical history may be too much to bear and that, having taken the shots themselves, they may realise that they may have put themselves and their families at risk of injury too.
As if that’s bad enough, many vaccine-injured people are being ostracised by their own families and communities.
Thus abandoned, the vaccine injured have been left to fend for themselves.
In the last two years, the injured have resorted to funding their own investigations into finding treatments that work. They have come together to form support groups – groups like UK CV Family, Vaccine, Injured, Bereaved UK and React 19. These groups collate their own research, reach out to doctors and politicians and government committees, asking again and again for help.
But there’s a problem here. They are in pain, exhausted, and beset by strange combinations of symptoms that are both debilitating and at times, terrifying. You need energy, vigour and stamina to fight government and its corporate sponsors – and for those injured, this is in short supply. Despite that, they fight. With dignity and grace, they keep going.
Last week, vaccine injured people and the bereaved travelled to London for a peaceful rally to raise awareness of vaccine injury. They gathered outside BBC Broadcasting House, then walked in a memorial procession through the streets to 10 Downing Street.
I imagine that for many, to make a trip like that cost them a lot. I imagine that many went home and have been in bed ever since, trying to recover from the mammoth effort it took just to be there, holding a white rose, taking space in a public place to show the world we are real, not rare, and we need your help.
Here is a powerful video that was put together by someone called Alice the Journalist. It opens with speeches, then moves to the procession, as people made their way to Downing Street. Watch the faces of passers-by in the film, from about 4:20 in: their expressions of shock and sadness are telling. You can almost see the penny start to drop for these people.
We know that vaccine injury is real, not rare – but those of us who know this, need to spread the word as much as we can. Because the more visible it becomes, the more it intrudes into public conversation, the harder it’s going to be for governments to ignore.
I try not to write about anyone who has died because if it was my family member I would not want to read any speculations about their death. However, in this case I feel that justice has not been given a chance and therefore it needs highlighting.
The tragic story begins on 10 May 2020. Stephanie Warriner, who had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) attended Toronto hospital because she was struggling to breath.
This is where the first piece of anti-science takes place. A population whipped up into a frenzy about Covid is on high-alert. They have been convinced that touching a parcel which hasn’t been quarantined for at least 72 hours, is likely to be riddled with the new virus and will cause them to die. Therefore, anyone with a cough is a walking weapon.
Due to Stephanie’s cough she was assumed to be COVID positive – anti-science mistake no.1. She was therefore placed in the Covid ward. Later, after testing it was found that she was in fact negative.
After a night in hospital, Stephanie left the Covid ward to go and get some food. Sitting in the hospital lobby she committed the terrible anti-science crime of wearing her mask around her neck.
Anti-science mistake no.2. People have been told that useless masks will stop people transmitting a virus. There’s no need to go into the science of it but let’s put it this way, an asbestos removal man doesn’t wear a loose piece of cloth to stop him getting lung cancer.
This was in 2020, before vaccines, so people couldn’t release their pent up fear by getting aggressive with the vaccine hesitant. Instead this pressure-release valve was opened up on the maskless.
At 6.38 a.m. a nurse and a security guard approach Stephanie and are seen talking to her. Another security guard and another member of staff are close behind. Remember Stephanie has her mask on her chin so is extremely dangerous, four people are required.
In the video, it seems like the nurse is angrily telling Stephanie something, to which Stephanie stands up, gently pushes the nurse and tries to walk off. The nurse then bundles her against a wall and the security guard assists.
At this point, the CCTV operator turns the camera away from the scene. Moments later, at 6:41, the video captures a motionless Stephanie being wheeled away from the scene by the pair that bundled her into the wall. Her feet drag along the floor showing that she is clearly unconscious.
As CBC News reports, much of this information has been subject to a publication ban until now. The reason being that the case has now been quashed and the Crown won’t appeal.
That’s despite the available video footage, two security staff who testified the accused placed weight on her upper body while she was held chest down, a forensic pathologist who testified Warriner would still be alive had she not been restrained that day — and revelations one of the guards admitted he falsely claimed Warriner threw the first punch.
Toronto criminal lawyer, Frank Addario, said “to see a judge decide to quash a case in this way is rare”. ”It’s not common for a judge to screen out a case before it’s set for trial… The system is set up so after a preliminary inquiry, the cases are generally sent on to trial because the bar to get a case sent on to trial is very low.”
There was no CCTV footage of the incident because the guard in charge of the camera “panicked” and “got really anxious”, so panned away.
The nurse claimed she took Warriner to the wall “as a last resort, after extensive efforts to verbally de-escalate an aggressive patient”. However, the nurse’s supervisor testified that he felt her actions were wrong.
Two eye witnesses said that 125-pound Stephanie was held down by her upper body despite training and policies warning not to. Both guards claimed this was because Stephanie repeatedly assaulted the nurse but during an internal investigation this turned out to be false. The guard said Stephanie punched the nurse’s face and was kicking but after being confronted with footage he sobbed “I’m sorry. I would have never said the things I said in there if I knew there was a video”. Got to love genuine remorse.
A coroner’s report would conclude Warriner died from a brain injury resulting from a lack of oxygen “due to restraint asphyxia following struggle and exertion,” with her underlying lung disease a possible factor.
Disgusting behaviour.
Tragically, Stephanie lost her life because of anti-science. Anti-science, together with fear, made people believe that the world would end if a piece of cloth was not worn on one’s face correctly. It also gave the power-hungry an excuse to target people who were just minding their own business.
And it seems anti-science is playing its part in the justice system as well. Whilst we don’t know all of the facts that made the Judge quash the case, the CBC article hints at this not being normal. The Judge even noted that “there is evidence that death could have been the culmination of the factors he [the forensic pathologist] described”.
Anti-science killed a lot of people over the last few years and this is just one, tragic and specific example of that.
Fortunately, with enough data analysis and push back, the anti-science was shown for what it truly was. Otherwise, tragic stories, such as Stephanie’s, would still be happening today (maybe they still are but hopefully to a lesser extent).
Food, Corbett noted a week earlier on his Substack, has been leveraged throughout human history as a “powerful tool of control.”
But it’s not too late to “start formulating our own plans for counteracting this agenda” of control, Corbett said.
What’s the first step? Look closely at who’s behind the agenda.
According to Corbett:
“In order to truly do something to derail the runaway train that is the Great Food Reset, we must first understand it. And in order to understand it, we have to know something about the people behind this agenda.”
Corbett provided an information-packed rundown of the groups and individuals he believes are the drivers — historically and today — of the Great Food Reset.
“From the beginning of the so-called ‘Green Revolution’ to the so-called ‘Gene Revolution,’ the Rockefellers have been there,” Corbett said, “helping to move things along with their ‘philanthropic’ donations.”
Corbett cited the Rockefellers’ recent work in Africa, which operates under the name Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. The alliance’s stated goal — to “elevate the single African voice” — “sounds nice and fuzzy, until you learn that 200 organizations have come together to denounce the alliance and its activities,” Corbett said.
Corbett said the 200 critics of the alliance “claim that the group has not only ‘unequivocally failed in its mission,’ but has actually ‘harmed broader efforts to support African farmers.’”
Bill Gates
Corbett pointed out that Bill Gates, Sr., in 2009, admitted he had looked to the Rockefeller Foundation as an example to follow when he helped his son set up the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — so it comes as “no surprise” that Bill Gates is heavily invested in the Great Food Reset.
Gates is “literally invested” in the food reset through his financing of the fake meat industry, Corbett said.
“Miraculously, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust was able to divest itself of its Beyond Meat stock right before the shares tanked in 2019,” Corbett said, adding, “The Gateses must be super-shrewd investors!”
Corbett also noted that Gates invested millions into “hacking your microbiome” to reengineer humans’ gut bacteria.
“Gee, I wonder why someone who’s so obsessed with completely reengineering the food supply and making us dependent on the lab-grown synthetic food substitutes he funds would be buying up farmland?” Corbett said.
Among other goals, the WEF wants more people to eat more insects.
“[Klaus] Schwab’s desire to get humans off of traditional sources of protein and nutrients is very much a part of that Great Reset plan,” Corbett said.
“The fat cats are now unwinding after their hard week at Davos,” Corbett said. “You can bet they’re not snacking down on cricket croquette or mealmoth flambé . . . though they may expect you to.”
Moreover, the EAT Forum, he said, also works with “nearly 40 city governments in Europe, Africa, Asia, North America, South America and Australia, and helps the Gates-funded United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) create updated dietary guidelines.”
“The whole document is couched in the bland bureaucratic doublespeak of ‘equity,’ ‘inclusion’ and ‘sustainability,’” Corbett said. “But, if you know how to read between the lines, it isn’t hard to understand what the report is really saying.”
“USAID’s ‘leverage’ over developing countries — specifically referenced no less than 125 times — gives an insight into the Kissingerian food-as-a-weapon mentality that is the very basis of USAID and its mission,” Corbett said.
He added:
“The entire enterprise reeks of a neocolonial landgrab masquerading as ‘philanthropy’ — the kind of territorial taking that people in Africa and elsewhere have been warning about for decades.”
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa. She holds a Ph.D. in Communication Studies from the University of Texas at Austin (2021), and a master’s degree in communication and leadership from Gonzaga University (2015). Her scholarship has been published in Health Communication. She has taught at various academic institutions in the United States and is fluent in Spanish.
I’m increasingly alarmed at how all the UK’s major political parties are committed to the Net Zero policy. If implemented, it will have appalling consequences for the economy and for most people, few of whom understand the quite simple issues involved. I have therefore put together a ‘briefing document’ which marshals three arguments that I hope may contribute to curtailing the policy before it’s too late.
1. It’sunachievable. Many vehicles and machines (used for example in agriculture, heavy transportation, commercial shipping and aviation, mining and construction) and products (eg concrete, steel, plastics, fertiliser, pharmaceuticals, lubricants, paints, adhesives and asphalt) essential to our lives and wellbeing require the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives, and there are no easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives. The complex engineering, reliability and cost challenges of establishing a Net Zero grid and the vast scale of what’s involved (immense amounts of material and space are required because the ‘energy density’ of wind and sun is so low) make it most unlikely that the UK could generate sufficient renewable electricity for current needs, let alone for the mandated electric vehicles and heat pumps. In any case, the UK doesn’t have enough technical managers, engineers, electricians, plumbers, mechanics and other tradespeople (probably over a million) to do the many tasks that would be essential to achieve Net Zero.
2. It would be socially and economicallydisastrous because: (a) the UK’s all-renewable energy project doesn’t include a fully costed engineering plan for the provision of comprehensive grid-scale back-up when there’s little or no wind or sun, so millions of people, especially the poor and vulnerable, would be put at serious personal risk (including death) from electricity blackouts; (b) our crippled economy would be tipped deeper into decline by enormous additional costs and energy unavailability, further blighting our poor industrial productivity; (c) China essentially controls the supply of materials (in particular so-called rare earths) needed for renewables, so the UK would increase its already dangerous dependence on it, putting our energy and overall security at serious risk, and (d) the vast mining and mineral processing operations required for renewables would have appalling environmental and human consequences affecting in particular fragile ecosystems and some of the world’s poorest people – not least as a result of Chinese human rights abuses.
3. Above all, it’spointless. Most major non-Western countries – the source of more than 75 per cent of CO2 emissions and home to 84 per cent of humanity – don’t regard emissions reduction as a priority and, either exempt from or ignoring any obligation to reduce their emissions, are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security. As a result, global emissions are increasing and will continue to increase for the foreseeable future whatever the UK (the source of less than 1 per cent of global emissions) may or may not do. It therefore makes absolutely no sense for Britain to pursue this unachievable and disastrous policy.
By Mazin Qumsiyeh | Popular Resistance | August 18, 2013
There is no way to say this truth nicely: Politicians lie. That includes Japanese, American, Egyptian, Israeli, and Palestinian politicians! Is there something more common sense than that? Yet, so many citizens around the world believe their own politicians or wistfully acknowledge lies but think it is part of the job needed to run things. They believe even when politicians contradict themselves blatantly. This phenomenon is rather remarkable. It is a dissonance and disconnect from reality that many seem oblivious to. It is very dangerous because it can lead to accepting rationales for going to war. These can be deadly wars that lead to millions of lives lost as happened in what was called World War 1 and WW2. Even when incredible and declassified evidence abound, politicians continue to lie and old mythologies refuse to die. Here are just a few of the countless lies told to us over the past few decades… continue
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
