Japanese professor Masanori Fukushima is a distinguished expert and author who has published articles on biomedical research and translation medicine. He is the director and chairman of the Translational Research Center for Medical Innovation and the Foundation for Biomedical Research and Innovation at Kobe. Masanori has over three decades of experience as an oncologist and to top it off, he is Professor Emeritus at Kyoto University.
In a heated meeting with officials, the Professor gave his opinion on the dangers of Covid vaccines and how science has been supressed:
Given the wide range of adverse events, billions of lives could ultimately be in danger.
First, the vaccine was scientifically misconceived. So, in 2020 I immediately translated the Chinese guidelines as soon as they arrived from China, to use the steroids as appropriately as possible. So I announced it. But I had no ears to hear me.
However, the Japanese doctors are excellent so I soon realised that the steroids needed to be used immediately and I released the guidelines around June, after which the death rate dropped dramatically. Before the vaccine. So anyone inciting this vaccine without any academic acumen is to be condemned.
The harm caused by vaccines is now a worldwide problem. Here is an article recently published, shall we read it? Given the large number of people who have received vaccinations and given the wide range of adverse events, billions of lives could ultimately be in danger.
We urge public health agencies to acknowledge or substantiate the issues raised in this document that are relevant to public health. Recognise them and act accordingly. Also ensure that all individuals make their own decisions on the matter. Medical assistance using this information as a contributing factor in their decision making.
We encourage you to make your own healthcare decisions. I have translated the full text of this document and distributed it, so please read it carefully.
And one more thing: half of them died of cardiovascular and heart problems after vaccination. I’m sure you know this all too well. Alpha, Beta, Gamma…what idiocy…a bunch of incompetent scholars who cannot be called scholars…a total disregard for science and medicine.
This should never happen again. We are a country of science and technology, aren’t we? What the hell…by ignoring science and medicine you are somehow letting the healthcare system collapse. In fact, look at how many sudden cardiovascular deaths there are.
Everyone who has received this vaccine and whose blood pressure has risen is because of the vaccine. Nearly 2,000 people died…but I think this number is much higher. Most of them fall asleep crying. Don’t overlook written reports if anything is found in an autopsy. What are you doing? You can’t help but want to hide it. This is a case of drug harm.
Mr. Kawada suffered greatly. Therefore, we will eradicate drug harm risks at all costs. This country has learned its lesson about drug harm and has become a country that will never suffer drug harm again.
But you forcefully ignore it and you spend trillions of Yen importing vaccines for this country and inciting the population, so it’s not good at all. Last year I thought it would be a problem if this vaccine spread and I decided it was delusional to think a vaccine would fix the pandemic. In professional magazines the misunderstanding has finally come to light and now it is understood how dangerous it is.
Wrap the mRNA into nanoparticles. Every cell engulfs its and the cells transform. This is what I know now. The mechanism is clear. Immediately dissolve the evaluation committee and investigate all cases. This is the conclusion. An investigation into all cases.
And all those who have fallen ill after being vaccinated should not delay informing their medical institution. Don’t be slow. Not sure what will happen. Cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disease, susceptibility to infection and on coming to the brain the nanoparticles are absorbed by the brain. A stupid scientist would say, “they can’t cross the blood barrier, so it’s okay”. I mean I’m not a fool.
It can suppress natural immunity. That’s why it didn’t spread in Japan at first because they had IGa (salivary immunoglobulin A) in their saliva and they have his kind of resistance to the coronavirus. However, due to vaccination, natural immunity has been suppressed.
This is what happened. I don’t think it will subside at all. It will spread more and more. Most people already have post-vaccination infections. The people who have the disease right now are not the ones who haven’t been vaccinate but the ones who have been vaccinated.
The data presented by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare speak for themselves. I delivered them all.
Please answer tomorrow. Report it properly to the newspapers and the press and to all of them.
However, now the danger is being reported all over the world.
So many of us watching the Parliamentary Vaccine Safety Petition Debate on October 24, 2022 were left exasperated and deeply contemplating exactly what it will take to penetrate the corridors of power with valid representations of reality.
During the debate, incredibly well researched critical thinking and common sense was championed by courageous MPs as detailed previously in TCW. The debate transcript is available here, demonstrating how even the most sceptical of observers heard 90 minutes of evidence outlining a clearly urgent need for thorough review of vaccine safety.
The debate concluded with the Government saying that there were no plans to specifically investigate the petition relating to the safety of the Covid vaccine as requested that it was the ‘duty of government to ensure that the prescribed medication interventions of its response to coronavirus are safe.’
Instead, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Care, Dr Caroline Johnson, stated that a ‘module’ of the UK Covid-19 Public Inquiry would, at a non-urgent time in the future, consider evidence to ‘understand the impact of the pandemic and the response,and any lessons to be learned’.
Conservative MP Elliot Colburn, moving the motion on behalf of the Petitions Committee, even declared that it would be ‘a waste of taxpayers’ money’ for the Government to launch a public inquiry into vaccine safety. His opening statement was a surprising way to show compassion for the 470,000 people who have experienced a Yellow Card worthy adverse event, including 2,330 deaths, following Covid-19 vaccination.
The presumptive overtone of the debate was of accepting blind trust in the ‘approved experts’, despite the overwhelming evidence presented to the contrary. This I have examined in a full, detailed critical exploration of the debate which you can read here.
As we await the second reading of the Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payments Bill tomorrow, a thorough statement by statement review of the debate, exploring the mounting evidence of grave concern, is warranted.
We need to stop andreally look at the sentences that whizz over our heads and fall into our consciousness as presumed truth. In this essay, I ask where is the definitive evidence for these and many other assertions – see below – liberally reeled off by the Petition’s antagonists during the debate commentary? And if the supportive evidence is not forthcoming, we really need to ask why has this narrative been so robustly constructed?
· ‘All vaccines used in the UK Covid-19 vaccine programme are safe’ – Dr Caroline Johnson MP
· ‘The proof is that they work, they are saving lives and they protect us and others’ – Elliot Colburn MP
· ‘Vaccination is the best course of action, because the danger of injury from coronavirus significantly outweighs the chance of harm from vaccines’ – Steven Bonnar MP
I also delve into vital topics raised including the Yellow Card adverse event reporting data, whistle-blower persecution, misinformation and censorship, vaccinating children, pregnant women, the elderly and healthcare workers, and the vast emerging global evidence of harms including excess deaths.
Was this a debate? Or more accurately, a very well utilised opportunity for valuable demonstrations of cognitive dissonance and serious concerns to be placed on public record? The incredibly revealing discourse did nothing to quell concerns, rather it amplified and galvanised awareness of the vast chasm between the official narrative line and the real world, based on true lived experience.
In the full essay, I report on Dr June Raine’s response to a question put to her at a lecture for the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in July 2022. The enquirer asked the Chief Executive of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency how the MHRA looked into the weighing up of harms and benefits from overlapping of Phase I, II and III vaccine trials. Spoiler alert: MHRA appears to have not gone back to examine this . . .
Those adversely affected, and many families grieving for those who died after taking the ‘vaccine’, are continually met with disbelief. Many people report feeling left unsupported by medics and the government, relying on family, friends and those healthcare professionals with enough integrity to pick up the pieces, whilst waiting for those in power to shift out of vaccine injury denial.
We have recently been informed that ‘vaccine’ effectiveness in preventing transmission was never fully studied, a key theme of coercion and informed consent decision-making upturned.
As the booster programme and flu vaccine co-administration continues unabated, the concept of regulatory capture and the influence of Big Pharma are subjects of paramount importance to study. With Pfizer roughly quadrupling their vaccine price to $110 – $130 per dose, and with liability indemnity, the outcome of vaccine administration and safety becomes a matter of conscience.
With that explored in my evidenced rebuttal, it surely takes a certain type of naivety or perhaps arrogance to still state that vaccines are ‘safe and effective’. As the Alliance for Natural Health has put it, the narrative around the safety of Covid shots is cracking. Here they set out the basis for launching a legal action campaign.
Holding the line of accountability are courageous individuals and independent media outlets reporting real world consequences, with integrity, in the face of complete obfuscation from the official authoritative bodies who appear to have completely neglected their duty of care to the public at large.
Despite Elliot Colburn MP feeling ‘lambasted by colleagues’ during the debate, perhaps it was a karmic twist of events considering his introductory tone. He may have experienced a taster of what it is like to be vaccine-injured and seeking help, and for medical professionals in dire conflict as their obliged professional position, duty of care and real-life opinion collide.
‘First do no harm’ is the cornerstone of medical ethics and professional practice, to be patient advocate and respecting the right for an individual to make an autonomous decision about their own health.
In this unprecedented situation, as a society, it is vital to listen to those who have much more to lose than gain by sharing their experience and carefully considered perspective. Whether that be career-jeopardising expert opinion, ridicule-eliciting personal suffering or just applied common sense.
In any case, the situation demands more than debate. It is a matter for swift medical, scientific, regulatory and legal duty of care action with the utmost urgency applied. And if that is not the view, then surely critical thinking has fully given way to authoritarian filtered scientism, ‘the improper use of science or scientific claims’, an incredibly dangerous and precarious position for all UK citizens.
The herbicide Paraquat has now been linked to increased risk of developing Parkinson’s Disease. Newly uncovered documents show that the manufacturers of Paraquat knew of these risks years ago. With the U.S. one of the few large countries still using this toxic chemical many are asking where is the EPA?
Two weeks ago, NBC News posted a long and disturbing article about “What Covid taught scientists and the public about the flu.” It’s basically as bad as you can imagine. It taught them that “Flu transmission can be stopped” and thus that “Nonpharmaceutical interventions work,” that “Flu can spread via aerosols,” that “‘Long flu’ may be a risk,” that “Asymptomatic flu infections may be underappreciated” and that “People want to test – and they’re good at it.” In short, scientists have learned that if an excess of hygiene hysteria can be stirred up over one unremarkable virus, it can be stirred up over another, and there’s every reason to hope for a new pandemic party in the near future.
A great part of the article is written around the statements of an obscure virologist named Seema Lakdawala, who specialises in influenza and is eager to see Covidian approaches applied to her field:
Before Covid, experts put limited stock in so-called nonpharmaceutical — that is, nonvaccination — strategies for preventing flu transmission. While behaviors such as hand-washing, wearing masks and air filtration were considered good ideas, they weren’t believed to move the needle significantly in stopping the spread.
“Prior to the pandemic, we were very focused on promoting vaccination as the primary way to decrease transmission of flu,” said Seema Lakdawala, an associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Emory University in Atlanta. “Now what we realize is that, yes, vaccinations are really important, but additional measures can really bring down the public health burden of influenza.”
Before 2020, she said there had been a handful of studies attempting to measure how well these interventions work, but they were inconclusive. “Coming out of the Covid-19 pandemic, we now have conclusive evidence that mitigation strategies like masking, social distancing and staying home when you are ill can drastically impact the transmission of influenza viruses,” she said.
It also features Linsey Marr, an engineering professor at Virginia Tech who has spent most of the pandemic whining about airborne transmission and masks; and also recurrent plague chronicle villain Akiko Iwasaki, who is brought in to raise concerns about Long Flu:
“Covid is definitely not alone in having these long-term consequences, even after a mild infection,” she said. After the flu, it’s not unheard of to experience symptoms, especially lingering fatigue and brain fog.
According to Iwasaki, seasonal flu is less likely to cause lasting symptoms than pandemic flu strains like the 2009 H1N1 virus, but more research is needed to say for sure.
She said that for the 2009 pandemic flu and “even the 1918 flu, there are a lot of stories about people developing psychosis or neurological diseases over a long period.” …
If you start testing everyone for influenza, you’ll soon count hundreds of thousands of influenza deaths. From there, it’s a short leap to paranoia about asymptomatic transmission, followed by closures and vaccine mandates during every worse-than-average flu season. Arguments that the young and healthy should be spared these burdens, as they are little risk of dying from flu, will be shot out of the sky by vague appeals to Long Influenza.
All of this is downstream of the massive overreaction to Corona. Rather than admitting their mistake and backing down, the public health establishment spent two years progressively lowering the standards of acceptable risk to justify their ruinous measures. Perversely, this has positioned them to demand equally catastrophic containment measures in response to literally any other virus, which is precisely what they’re trying to do now. Whole careers and research programmes, after all, hang in the balance.
People like Iwasaki, the journalists who print her statements, and the politicians who pay attention to her research, all represent a grave, long-term danger to basic human well-being. This is particularly the case in countries like Italy and Germany, where older populations are far more susceptible both to media propaganda and to virus hysteria.
I don’t think the pandemicists will get their way any time soon. We’ve entered a refractory period, marked by an unacknowledged exhaustion with the virologists and their assorted snake oils, but the danger is far from over. These people will lurk underground in their institutions for years until the next opportunity presents itself. They know as well as I do that all the exotic fundraising pathogens they dine out on are no serious risk to humanity; and that, realistically, seasonal influenza is their best chance at another panic.
As western countries are floating the theory that Russia could escalate its conflict with Ukraine to a nuclear war, many western governments continue to turn a blind eye to Israel’s own nuclear weapons capabilities. Luckily, many countries around the world do not subscribe to this endemic western hypocrisy.
‘The Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction’ was held between November 14-18, with the sole purpose of creating new standards of accountability that, as should have always been the case, be applied equally to all Middle Eastern countries.
The debate regarding nuclear weapons in the Middle East could not possibly be any more pertinent or urgent. International observers rightly note that the period following the Russia-Ukraine war is likely to accelerate the quest for nuclear weapons throughout the world. Considering the seemingly perpetual state of conflict in the Middle East, the region is likely to witness nuclear rivalry as well.
For years, Arab and other countries attempted to raise the issue that accountability regarding the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons cannot be confined to states that are perceived to be enemies of Israel and the West.
The latest of these efforts was a United Nations resolution that called on Israel to dispose of its nuclear weapons, and to place its nuclear facilities under the monitoring of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Resolution number A/C.1/77/L.2, which was drafted by Egypt with the support of other Arab countries, passed with an initial vote of 152-5. Unsurprisingly, among the five countries that voted against the draft were the United States, Canada and, of course, Israel itself.
US and Canadian blind support of Tel Aviv notwithstanding, what compels Washington and Ottawa to vote against a draft entitled: “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”? Keeping in mind the successive right-wing extremist governments that have ruled over Israel for many years, Washington must understand that the risk of using nuclear weapons under the guise of fending off an ‘existential threat’ is a real possibility.
Since its inception, Israel has resorted to, and utilised the phrase ‘existential threat’ countless times. Various Arab governments, later Iran and even individual Palestinian resistance movements were accused of endangering Israel’s very existence. Even the non-violent Palestinian civil society-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement was accused by then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2015 of being an existential threat to Israel. Netanyahu claimed that the boycott movement was “not connected to our actions; it is connected to our very existence.”
This should worry everyone, not just in the Middle East, but the whole world. A country with such hyped sensitivity about imagined ‘existential threats’ should not be allowed to acquire the kind of weapons that could destroy the entire Middle East, several times over.
Some may argue that Israel’s nuclear arsenal was intrinsically linked to real fears resulting from its historical conflict with the Arabs. However, this is not the case. As soon as Israel finalised its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their historic homeland, and long before any serious Arab or Palestinian resistance was carried out in response, Israel was already on the lookout for nuclear weapons.
As early as 1949, the Israeli army had found uranium deposits in the Negev Desert, leading to the establishment, in 1952, of the very secretive Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC).
In 1955, the US government sold Israel a nuclear research reactor. But that was not enough. Eager to become a full nuclear power, Tel Aviv resorted to Paris in 1957. The latter became a major partner in Israel’s sinister nuclear activities when it helped the Israeli government construct a clandestine nuclear reactor near Dimona in the Negev Desert.
The father of the Israeli nuclear program at the time was none other than Shimon Peres who, ironically, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994. The Dimona Nuclear Reactor is now named ‘Shimon Peres Nuclear Research Centre-Negev’.
With no international monitoring whatsoever, thus with zero legal accountability, Israel’s nuclear quest continues until this day. In 1963, Israel purchased 100 tons of uranium ore from Argentina, and it is strongly believed that, during the October 1973 Israel-Arab war, Israel “came close to making a nuclear preemptive strike”, according to Richard Sale, writing in United Press International (UPI).
Currently, Israel is believed to have “enough fissionable material to fabricate 60-300 nuclear weapons,” according to former US Army Officer, Edwin S. Cochran.
Estimates vary, but the facts about Israel’s weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) are hardly contested. Israel itself practices what is known as ‘deliberate ambiguity’, as to send a message to its enemies of its lethal power, without revealing anything that may hold it accountable to international inspection.
What we know about Israel’s nuclear weapons has been made possible partly because of the bravery of a former Israeli nuclear technician, Mordechai Vanunu, a whistleblower who was held in solitary confinement for a decade due to his courage in exposing Israel’s darkest secrets.
Still, Israel refuses to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), endorsed by 191 countries.
Israeli leaders adhere to what is known as the ‘Begin Doctrine’, in reference to Menachem Begin, the rightwing Israeli Prime Minister who invaded Lebanon in 1982, resulting in the killing of thousands. The doctrine is formulated around the idea that, while Israel gives itself the right to own nuclear weapons, its enemies in the Middle East must not. This belief continues to direct Israeli actions to this day.
The US support for Israel is not confined to ensuring the latter has ‘military edge’ over its neighbours in terms of traditional weapons, but to also ensure Israel remains the region’s only superpower, even if that entails escaping international accountability for the development of WMDs.
The collective efforts by Arab and other countries at the UNGA to create a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons are welcomed initiatives. It behoves everyone, Washington included, to join the rest of the world in finally forcing Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, a first but critical step towards long-delayed accountability.
Yesterday, I conducted the first interview for our new podcast, The CounterJab with Dr. Peter McCullough and John Leake. For those who are not familiar with “the sweet science,” a counterjab is a jab punch thrown in reply to an opponent’s punch. In informal British English, the word jab became (at some point in history) commonly used to refer to vaccine injections.
Nowadays it seems that so much of our opposition of assorted authoritarians, monopolists, gangsters, frauds, villains, and humbugs are united in their common advocacy of “the jab.” And so Dr. McCullough and I intend to reply with our own series of counterjabs.
I thought it poetic and appropriate that our first guest for bringing this project into the world is the obstetrician and gynocologist, Dr. James Thorp. With over forty years of clinical practice, taking care of unborn babies and their mothers is his life’s mission. What he told me in the course of our conversation (soon to be released as an audio-visual podcast episode) was probably the most disturbing thing I’ve ever heard in my life. In summation:
1). The cursory animal studies for the novel mRNA vaccines yielded an array of birth defects.
2). Pregnant women were excluded from the cursory human trials conducted in 2020.
About halfway into the interview, I received a text from my friend and fellow investigative reporter, Mary Beth Pfeiffer, alerting me to her latest post on RESCUE Substack with Michael Capuzzo. I highly recommend reading “The Missing Babies of Europe.” The results of her investigation are consistent with Dr. Thorp’s exposition of the grave dangers of the mRNA vaccines for fetuses and their mothers.
Canadian Retailer Lambasted for Ad Promoting Assisted Suicide
Samizdat – November 29, 2022
A clip promoting the “beauty” of euthanasia sparked outrage online, as Canada plans to expand the application of medical assistance in dying (MAID) next year.
Retailer Simons has shocked Canada by releasing a commercial dubbed “All Is Beauty” supporting assisted suicide. The clip features a woman named Jennyfer Hatch who opted to end her life in October – reports suggest she suffered from Ehlers Danlos syndrome.
Many users called the ad “dystopian”, with some warning that Canadian authorities would force it onto people who are too poor to pay their medical bills.
The controversy regarding euthanasia regulations escalated in 2021 when Canada adopted bill c-7, making several crucial changes to the procedure’s requirements: the new law erased a safeguard that stipulated that people seeking assisted suicide need have a terminal illness, making their death reasonably foreseeable.
Starting next year, Canada will allow individuals suffering from mental illness to ask for euthanasia too.
Since the beginning of Russia’s military offensive in Ukraine, the US, EU, and their allies have provided Kiev with $126 billion worth of aid, a number almost equal to the country’s entire GDP. Moreover, millions of Ukrainians have found refuge in the EU, where they were given housing, food, work permits, and emotional support. The scope is huge, even by Western standards. Considering that the bloc has been funding Kiev while coping with an economic and energy crisis of its own, the assistance is perhaps especially notable.
Kiev bases its endless funding requests on the collapse of its economy, due to the war, and its need to “resist Russian aggression.” But is the aid reaching its intended destination?
While Ukraine has undergone a general mobilization affecting all men under the age of 60, many former and current high-ranking officials, politicians, businessmen, and oligarchs have moved to safety abroad – mainly to the EU. … continue
Victims of a multi-billion-pound phishing scandal have told TCW Defending Freedom how their lives were devastated by fraudsters after apparently finding themselves on a ‘suckers list’ which caused them to agree to take part in an experimental drug trial.
The criminals trapped their victims by sending them messages made possible by a website called iNHSpoof. It seems the perpetrators sent multiple messages to millions of Britons telling them that they had an appointment for what was described as a ‘safe and effective vaccine’ which would protect them from a deadly new virus.
Little did the millions who fell for the scam know that the so-called ‘vaccine’ was, in fact, a gene therapy which had been cobbled together in a matter of days, and the virus it was supposed to protect them from was no more dangerous than a bad seasonal flu.
Incredible though it may seem, the victims were then told they needed to download an app which allowed the criminals to dictate their movements.
Susan Sunbeam of Ilford was typical of those who were duped. ‘It all seemed very convincing,’ she said. ‘I saw people on the BBC who I believed to be experts telling me that I would probably die if I did not keep my appointment. I have recently developed a tingling in my right arm but I’m sure it’s nothing.’
Another victim was Ivor Gumble from Birkenhead: ‘I suspected that it might be a scam but my boss said I would lose sick pay if I did not have the jab and became ill.’
Many of those who made money out of the scandal worked for the NHS. A doctor, who asked not to be named, said that he too felt like a victim despite earning thousands of pounds from injecting people with the barely tested concoction. ‘Yes, it’s true that my practice contacted our clients on multiple occasions. It is true that we did not properly investigate the product. I admit that we did not tell people of the possible adverse reactions and we did make shedloads of money from the scam, but everyone was doing it. If we hadn’t taken part somebody else would have jumped in. Unbelievably the people who fell for it the first time kept coming back for more, so what could we do?’
TCW has also discovered that the iNHSpoof scandal allowed the alleged criminal masterminds to channel billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to their friends by giving them contracts for useless ‘protective equipment’ and building so-called Testing Centres which offered visitors a fraudulent and potentially dangerous polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test.
The iNHSpoof scam has ruined the economy and is expected ultimately to cost the British taxpayer trillions of pounds. Chief Inspector Hugh Tavistock (He/Him) of the Metropolitan Police said that they were aware of the fraud. However, the Met later issued a statement saying: ‘At this moment in time the Force is preoccupied by an increasing number of reports of Hate Crimes directed towards our friends in the Trans community. We must weigh our priorities and we feel the we cannot allow those who say hurtful words to go unpunished.’
Germany has found itself reaping the consequences of the crisis in Ukraine, facing skyrocketing energy and food costs, recession and the danger of permanent deindustrialization as Washington and Brussels continue to call for more and more sanctions against Russian energy to try to “punish” Moscow for its military operation in Ukraine.
The United States and its allies have spent the entire period since 2014 preparing for a confrontation with Russia in Ukraine, Oskar Lafontaine, a veteran German statesman with over forty years of political experience under his belt, has said.
“Of course, I also mean the conflict in Ukraine, which began with the Maidan putsch in Kiev in 2014. Since then, the US and its Western vassals have been arming Ukraine and systematically preparing it for confrontation with Russia. Ukraine thus became a de facto, if not de jure, member of NATO. This backstory has been studiously ignored by Western politicians and the mainstream media,” Lafontaine told Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten in an interview published Sunday.
“For more than 100 years, it has been the declared aim of US policy to prevent German business and technology from merging with Russian raw materials at all cost. It is perfectly clear that, if you take this history into account, we are dealing with a US proxy war against Russia which has been prepared for a long time,” Lafontaine said.
Crop of Spineless Leaders
Lafontaine, who has worked under Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, Helmut Kohl and Gerhard Schroder, and served as president of the Bundesrat, minister president of Saarland, minister of finance, and leader of Die Linke and the SPD, blasted the current crop of German and European leaders for going along with policies which have brought Berlin to the brink of disaster.
“It is unforgivable that the SPD in particular betrayed the legacy of Willy Brandt and his policy of détente, and did not even seriously insist on compliance with the Minsk Agreements,” the politician said, referring to the 2015 peace agreements meant to restore peace to the Donbass.
Lafontaine slammed the German government over its limp-wristed response to the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, which he characterized as a “declaration of war on Germany.” It was “pathetic and cowardly” of the federal government to try to “sweep incident under the carpet,” despite evidence that “the USA either carried out the attack directly or greenlit it,” the politician said.
“It was a hostile act against the Federal Republic, and not only against us, and once again makes clear that we must free ourselves from American tutelage,” Lafontaine stressed. The politician pressed his country’s leaders to force the removal of all US military bases and nuclear weapons from German soil, and called for the creation of a European security architecture with France, separate from NATO, which he called an “obsolete” alliance that acts as a “tool to enforce the US’s claim to remain the sole power in the world.”
Lafontaine admitted that freeing Germany from Washington’s grip wouldn’t be easy, but stressed that he can’t see “any alternative” to such a radical step. “If we and other European countries continue to remain under US tutelage, they will push us over a cliff to protect their own interests,” he said.
“To use a hackneyed expression: We are experiencing the birth pangs of the transitional phase from a unipolar to a multipolar world order. And the question arises whether we will have a place of our own in this new world order, or be drawn into Washington’s conflicts with Moscow and Beijing as American vassals,” the politician emphasized.
Recalling his decades of experience in politics, Lafontaine lamented in decades past, German leaders, “at least in some conflicts, had German interests in mind, and did not throw them overboard in anticipatory obedience” to Washington. “You need to have a backbone when you are the head of a country. The image of Chancellor Scholz standing like a schoolboy next to President Biden when he announced that nothing would come of Nord Stream 2 was humiliating.”
Ukraine Disaster
Asked whether he believed Washington has achieved its aims in Ukraine, Lafontaine said that the answer was both “yes and no,” with the principle successes being the ruined relations between Russia and the European Union, and the “sidelining” of Berlin and Brussels “as the US’s potential geostrategic and economic rivals, for the time being.”
“They are setting the policies of EU states even more than before the Ukraine conflict (thanks also to compliant politicians in Berlin and Brussels). They can also sell their dirty fracking-derived gas, and the US defense industry is doing great business,” the politician said.
“On the other hand, they have not succeeded in ‘ruining Russia’, as [German Foreign Minister Annalena] Baerbock put it… overthrowing [Vladimir] Putin and installing a puppet government in Moscow to get better access to Russian raw materials, as was the case in [Boris] Yeltsin’s time,” Lafontaine said.
“And I have the impression that Washington has now realized that they are biting on granite here. Despite massive arms deliveries to Ukraine and the dispatch of numerous ‘military advisors’, Russia, which is a nuclear power, cannot be defeated militarily. In addition, Western sanctions are proving to be a boomerang: they hurt Western states more than Russia and will cause deindustrialization, unemployment and poverty. Working people in Europe are paying the price for the world power ambitions of a mad elite in Washington and the cowardice of European leaders,” Lafontaine concluded.
In September, the University of California (“UC”) mandated bivalent COVID-19 boosters for the 2022-2023 academic year for all faculty, staff, and students, in effect shifting its policy from fully vaccinated to up-to-date and suggesting that boosters will be required in perpetuity. We the undersigned, eleven members of the UC faculty from several campuses, sent the following letter to university administrators calling on them to reverse this new mandate. To date, we have received no response. In addition, we sent the letter to nine UC student newspapers for publication as an Op-Ed. The Op-Ed editors from two of these newspapers, the Daily Bruin (UCLA) and the Daily Cal (UC-Berkeley) initially agreed enthusiastically to publish the letter. However, they subsequently withdrew their decision to publish, we presume in the face of pressure from higher up to censor us.
We write to register deep dismay over UC’s September 22, 2022 memorandum mandating a fall 2022 COVID-19 booster for all students, staff, and faculty. Our concerns are driven by the scientific information on the virus and on the vaccines that we have now accumulated nearly three years into the outbreak.
Our concerns in brief:
First, University of California Office of the President justified the original mandate on the assumption that vaccination would protect against COVID-19 infection and prevent transmission. We now know it does neither, a fact acknowledged by the CDC, the FDA, the HHS, the WHO, health ministries and medical researchers around the world, and now, by Pfizer itself. Moreover, more than 150 peer-reviewed studies demonstrate that natural immunity acquired by recovering from a COVID-19 infection is equal to if not superior to vaccination, and that paradoxically, over time, COVID-19 shots increase rather than decreasethe risk of contracting and spreading the virus. One May 2022 article in the high-impact British Medical Journalhas warned that “mandatory vaccine policies are scientifically questionable and are likely to cause more societal harm than good.” The CDC has “recommended” and not mandated the new booster. The University’s decision to mandate boosters at this time is therefore not in accordance with CDC guidelines. Moreover, the CDC recently greatly relaxed its COVI-19 guidelines and no longer recommends making distinctions based on a person’s vaccination status.
Second, mounting evidence demonstrates serious risks associated with vaccination, especially for healthy males 18-39, where risks may outweigh benefits. A Florida Department of Health analysis of mortality following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, to cite one study, reported an 84 percent increase in death for men 18-39within 28 days of vaccination. Also, well documented is the elevated risk of myocarditis, pericarditis, and emergency cardiovascular events among those under 40, a demographic that includes the vast majority of our student body and large portions of staff and faculty. The Florida study also showed that males over 60 had a 10 percent increased risk of cardiac-related death in the same 28-day period, and that non-mRNA vaccines did not have those increased risks in any population. Multiple data sources show that young healthy people who contract COVID-19 have a recovery rate of 99.995 percent.
In March 2022, a court order compelled Pfizer to release 55,000 pages of internal reports on vaccine effectiveness and side effects. Among the 1,246 different adverse effects in Pfizer’s own documents were cardiac arrest, deep vein thrombosis, immune-mediated hepatitis, myocarditis, brain stem embolism and thrombosis, interstitial lung disease, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, liver injury, and multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Another study by medical researchers, including one of our colleagues at UCSF, found that 22,000-30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29 must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent just one COVID-19 hospitalization, and that “booster mandates may cause a net expected harm: per COVID-19 hospitalization prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity.”
Data from CDC’s official Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) released on July 15, 2022, show 1,350,950 reports of adverse eventsfor all age groups following COVID-19 vaccines, including 29,635 deaths and 246,676 serious injuries. It is well documented that fewer than one percent of all vaccine-associated adverse events are ever reported to the CDC’s VAERS. This means that actual morbidity or mortality is many times greater, as pointed out, among other sources, by a recent HHS-funded Harvard Medical School vaccine injury study. Another study published by UCLA Professors Sander Greenland and Patrick Whelan and others in the high-impact journal Vaccine in September, 2022 lamented the lack of “full transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data” and called for a harm-benefit analysis of the vaccines.
Third, while we are not against vaccination for those who chose it, we are deeply concerned about the coercive nature of this medical procedure. Any medical treatment must be an individual choice and should be made in consultation with one’s physician. Never before in medical history has an entire population been required to receive a vaccine approved only for emergency use, for which there are no long-term data, and without informed consent, that, as a matter of law and ethics, requires that no one be coerced into a medical treatment. The shift in UC policy from fully vaccinated to up-to-date signals anticipation of an open-ended process of continuous vaccinations and boosters that goes far beyond addressing a temporary emergency.
The LAUSD (among others) suspended its vaccine mandate for students (but not staff) in September 2022, after a Superior Court judge ruled that the school district did not have the authority to mandate vaccination. The State of California has not mandated boosters for anyone except health workers. Nationwide, the trend is toward eliminating all mandates. The rate of hospitalizations is radically down and COVID-19 related deaths now appear to be about on par with annual deaths from the flu. In contrast, “excess,” sudden, unexpected unexplained deaths have skyrocketed since the rollout of the experimental vaccines. Even Bill Gates, who helped finance and promote the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, has now acknowledged: “We didn’t understand that it’s a fairly low fatality rate and that it’s a disease mainly in the elderly, kind of like flu.”
If UC leadership continues to insist on this ill-advised action, are they ready to accept full personal responsibility and legal liability for the multitude of harms certain to result?
Carole H. Browner
Professor of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Science
University of California, Los Angeles
William I. Robinson
Distinguished Professor of Sociology
University of California, Santa Barbara
Roberto Strongman
Associate Professor of Black Studies
University of California, Santa Barbara
Arvind Thomas
Associate Professor of English
University of California, Los Angeles
Anton Van Der Ven
Professor of Engineering
University of California, Santa Barbara
Hugo Loaiciga
Professor of Geography
University of California, Santa Barbara
Aaron Kheriaty, MD
Former Professor, School of Medicine
Former Director of Medical Ethics Program
University of California, Irvine
Gabriel Vorobiof
Associate Professor of Medicine
University of California, Los Angeles
Lazlo Boros
Assistant Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics, Endocrinology and Metabolism (retired)
University of California, Los Angeles
Patrick Whelan
Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics
University of California, Los Angeles
Dr. Aditi Bhargava, Ob/Gyn, Reproductive Sciences
Professor Emeritus, School of Medicine
University of California, San Francisco
A recently declassified CIA document prepared in 1983, and released on 20 January 2017, shows that the United States had at the time encouraged Saddam Hussein to attack Syria, which would have led to a vicious conflict between the two countries, thus draining their resources.
The report, which was then prepared by CIA officer Graham Fuller, indicates that the US tried adamantly to convince Saddam to attack Syria under any pretense available, in order to get the two most powerful countries in the Arab East to destroy each other, turning their attention away from the Arab-Israeli conflict. … 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
Aletho News 