The Iranian mission to the UN has accused Israel of ‘lawlessness,’ after the newly retired head of Mossad implied that his agency had been behind an explosion at an Iranian nuclear facility and the killing of a key scientist.
The comments made by Yossi Cohen in his bombshell TV interview midweek reflected a long-running pattern of “criminal” sabotage by Israel against Tehran, Shahrokh Nazemi, a spokesman for Iran’s mission to the UN, told the AP news agency on Saturday.
“This lawlessness has reached a point when the former official of this regime is shamelessly and blatantly threatening our nuclear scientists with death,” Nazemi said, insisting that “this madness must not be tolerated.”
During his interview, Cohen, who was the director of Mossad from 2016 until last week, stated: “We say very clearly [to Iran]: we won’t let you get nuclear weapons. What don’t you understand?”
The former spymaster suggested Mossad played a role in the blast at Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility last July and the assassination of the country’s top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, in November.
Cohen stopped short of directly confessing to both incidents, but bragged that the facility didn’t “look like it used to” after the explosion crippled its centrifuges. He also confirmed that Fakhrizadeh had been a target for intelligence-gathering by Mossad “for many years” because Israel was “most troubled” by his work.
Tehran had blamed Israel for those incidents as well as another explosion at Natanz this April.
Nazemi insisted the Jewish state had actually been making attempts to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program for more than a decade – since a 2010 cyberattack that destroyed centrifuges to enrich uranium at the same site.
On 25 May, famous US actor Mark Ruffalo tweeted an apology for suggesting that Israel is committing “genocide” in Gaza.
“I have reflected and wanted to apologise for posts during the recent Israel/Hamas fighting that suggested Israel is committing ‘genocide’,” Ruffalo wrote, adding: “It’s not accurate, it’s inflammatory, disrespectful and is being used to justify anti-Semitism, here and abroad. Now is the time to avoid hyperbole.”
But were Ruffalo’s earlier assessments, indeed, “not accurate, inflammatory and disrespectful”? And does equating Israel’s war on besieged, impoverished Gaza with genocide fit into the classification of “hyperbole”?
To avoid pointless social media spats, one only needs to reference the “United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”. According to Article 2 of the 1948 Convention, the legal definition of genocide is: “Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”
In its depiction of Israel’s latest war on Gaza, the Geneva-based human rights group, Euro-Med Monitor, reported: “The Israeli forces directly targeted 31 extended families. In 21 cases, the homes of these families were bombed while their residents were inside. These raids resulted in the killing of 98 civilians, including 44 children and 28 women. Among the victims were a man and his wife and children, mothers and their children, or child siblings. There were seven mothers who were killed along with four or three of their children. The bombing of these homes and buildings came without any warning despite the Israeli forces’ knowledge that civilians were inside.”
As of 28 May, 254 Palestinians in Gaza were killed, and 1,948 were wounded in the latest 11-day Israeli onslaught, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. Though tragic, this number is relatively small compared with the casualties of previous wars. For example, in the 51-day Israeli war on Gaza in the summer of 2014, over 2,200 Palestinians were killed, and over 17,000 were wounded. Similarly, entire families, like the 21-member Abu Jame family in Khan Younis, also perished. Is this not genocide? The same logic can be applied to the killings of over 300 unarmed protesters at the fence separating besieged Gaza from Israel between March 2018 and December 2019. Moreover, the besiegement and utter isolation of over two million Palestinians in Gaza since 2006-2007, which has resulted in numerous tragedies, is an act of collective punishment that also deserves the designation of genocide.
One does not need to be a legal expert to identify the many elements of genocide in Israel’s violent behaviour, let alone language, against Palestinians. There is a clear, undeniable relationship between Israel’s violent political discourse and equally violent action on the ground. Potentially Israel’s next Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who has served the role of defence minister, in July 2013 stated: “I’ve killed lots of Arabs in my life – and there’s no problem with that.”
With this context in mind, and regardless of why Ruffalo found it necessary to back-track on his moral position, Israel is an unrepentant human rights violator that continues to carry out an active policy of genocide and ethnic cleansing against the native, indigenous inhabitants of Palestine.
Language matters, and in this particular “conflict”, it matters most, because Israel has, for long, managed to escape any accountability for its actions, due to its success in misrepresenting facts and the overall truth about itself. Thanks to its many allies and supporters in mainstream media and academia, Tel Aviv has rebranded itself from being a military occupier and an apartheid regime to an “oasis of democracy“, in fact, “the only democracy in the Middle East”.
This article will not attempt to challenge the entirety of the misconstrued mainstream media’s depiction of Israel. Volumes are required for that, and Israeli Professor Ilan Pappé’s Ten Myths about Israel is an important starting point. However, this article will attempt to present some basic definitions that must enter the Palestine-Israel lexicon, as a prerequisite to developing a fairer understanding of what is happening on the ground.
A military occupation – not a ‘conflict’
Quite often, mainstream Western media refers to the situation in Palestine and Israel as a “conflict“, and to the various specific elements of this so-called conflict as a “dispute“. For example, the “Palestinian-Israeli conflict” and the “disputed city of East Jerusalem”.
What should be an obvious truth, is that besieged, occupied people do not engage in a “conflict” with their occupiers. Moreover, a “dispute” happens when two parties have equally compelling claims to any issue. When Palestinian families of East Jerusalem are being forced out of their homes which are, in turn, handed over to Jewish extremists, there is no “dispute” involved. The extremists are thieves, and the Palestinians are victims. This is not a matter of opinion. The international community itself says so.
“Conflict” is a generic term. Aside from absolving the aggressor – in this case, Israel – it leaves all matters open to interpretation. Since US audiences are indoctrinated to love Israel and hate Arabs and Muslims, siding with Israel in its “conflict” with the latter becomes the only rational option.
Israel has sustained a military occupation of 22 per cent of the total size of historic Palestine since June 1967. The remainder of the Palestinian homeland was already usurped, using extreme violence, state-sanctioned apartheid, and, as Pappé puts it, “incremental genocide” decades earlier.
From the perspective of international law, the term “military occupation”, “occupied East Jerusalem”, “illegal Jewish settlements”, and so forth, have never been “disputed”. They are simply facts, even if Washington has decided to ignore international law, and even if mainstream US media has chosen to manipulate the terminology to present Israel as a victim, not the aggressor.
‘Process’ without ‘peace’
The term “peace process” was coined by US diplomats decades ago. It was put to use throughout the mid and late 1970s when, then-US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger laboured to broker a deal between Egypt and Israel in the hope of fragmenting the Arab political front and, eventually, sidelining Cairo entirely from the “Arab-Israeli conflict”.
Kissinger’s logic proved vital for Israel as the “process” did not aim to achieve justice according to fixed criteria that has been delineated by the United Nations for years. There was no frame of reference anymore. If any existed, it was Washington’s political priorities that, historically, almost entirely overlapped with Israel’s priorities. Despite the obvious US bias, the US bestowed upon itself the undeserving title of “the honest peace broker“.
This approach was used successfully in the write-up to the Camp David Accords in 1978. One of the accords’ greatest achievements is that the so-called “Arab-Israeli conflict” was replaced with the so-called “Palestinian-Israeli conflict”.
Now, tried and true, the “peace process” was used again in 1993, resulting in the Oslo Accords. For nearly three decades, the US continued to tout its self-proclaimed credentials as a peacemaker, despite the fact that it pumped – and continues to do so – $3-4 billion of annual, mostly military, aid to Israel.
On the other hand, the Palestinians have little to show. No peace was achieved; no justice was obtained; not an inch of Palestinian land was returned and not a single Palestinian refugee was allowed to return home. However, US and European officials and a massive media apparatus continued to talk of a “peace process” with little regard to the fact that the “peace process” has brought nothing but war and destruction for Palestine, and allowed Israel to continue its illegal appropriation and colonisation of Palestinian land.
Resistance, national liberation – not ‘terrorism’ and ‘state-building’
The “peace process” introduced more than death, mayhem and normalisation of land theft in Palestine. It also wrought its own language, which remains in effect to this day. According to the new lexicon, Palestinians are divided into “moderates” and “extremists”. The “moderates” believe in the US-led “peace process”, “peace negotiations” and are ready to make “painful compromises” in order to obtain the coveted “peace”. On the other hand, the “extremists” are the “Iran-backed“, politically “radical” bunch that use “terrorism” to satisfy their “dark” political agendas.
But is this the case? Since the signing of the Oslo Accords, many sectors of Palestinian society, including Muslims and Christians, Islamists and secularists and, notably, socialists, resisted the unwarranted political “compromises” undertaken by their leadership, which they perceived to be a betrayal of Palestinians’ basic rights. Meanwhile, the “moderates” have largely ruled over Palestinians with no democratic mandate. This small but powerful group introduced a culture of political and financial corruption, unprecedented in Palestine. They applied torture against Palestinian political dissidents whenever it suited them. Not only did Washington say little to criticise the “moderate” Palestinian Authority (PA)’s dismal human rights record, but it also applauded it for its crackdown on those who “incite violence” and their “terrorist infrastructure”.
A term such as “resistance” – muqawama – was slowly but carefully extricated from the Palestinian national discourse. The term “liberation”, too, was perceived to be confrontational and hostile. Instead, such concepts as “state-building” – championed by former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and others – began taking hold. The fact that Palestine was still an occupied country and that “state-building” can only be achieved once “liberation” was first secured, did not seem to matter to the “donor countries”. The priorities of these countries – mainly US allies who adhered to the US political agenda in the Middle East – was to maintain the illusion of the “peace process” and to ensure “security coordination” between PA police and the Israeli army carried on, unabated.
The so-called “security coordination”, of course, refers to the US-funded joint Israeli-PA efforts at cracking down on Palestinian resistance, apprehending Palestinian political dissidents and ensuring the safety of the illegal Jewish settlements, or colonies, in the occupied West Bank.
War and, yes, genocide in Gaza – not ‘Israel-Hamas conflict’
The word “democracy” was constantly featured in the new Oslo language. Of course, it was not intended to serve its actual meaning. Instead, it was the icing on the cake of making the illusion of the “peace process” perfect. This was obvious, at least to most Palestinians. It also became obvious to the whole world in January 2006, when the Palestinian faction Fatah, which has monopolised the PA since its inception in 1994, lost the popular vote to the Islamic faction, Hamas.
Hamas, and other Palestinian factions, have rejected – and continue to reject – the Oslo Accords. Their participation in the legislative elections in 2006 took many by surprise, as the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) was itself a product of Oslo. Their victory in the elections, which was classified as democratic and transparent by international monitoring groups, threw a wrench in the US-Israeli-PA political calculations.
Lo and behold, the group that has long been perceived by Israel and its allies as “extremist” and “terrorist” became the potential leaders of Palestine! The Oslo spin doctors had to go into overdrive in order for them to thwart Palestinian democracy and ensure a successful return to the status quo, even if this meant that Palestine is represented by unelected, undemocratic leaders. Sadly, this has been the case for nearly 15 years.
Meanwhile, Hamas’s stronghold, the Gaza Strip, had to be taught a lesson, thus the siege imposed on the impoverished region for nearly 15 years. The siege on Gaza has little to do with Hamas’s rockets or Israel’s “security” needs, the right to “defend itself” and its supposedly “justifiable” desire to destroy Gaza’s “terrorist infrastructure”. While, indeed, Hamas’s popularity in Gaza is unmatched anywhere else in Palestine, Fatah, too, has a powerful constituency there. Moreover, the Palestinian resistance in the strip is not championed by Hamas alone, but also by other ideological and political groups, for example, the Islamic Jihad, the socialist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and other socialist and secular groups.
Misrepresenting the “conflict” as a “war” between Israel and Hamas is crucial to Israeli propaganda, which has succeeded in equating Hamas with militant groups throughout the Middle East and even Afghanistan. But Hamas is not Daesh, Al-Qaeda or the Taliban. In fact, none of these groups is similar, anyway. Hamas is a Palestinian Islamic nationalist movement that operates within a largely Palestinian political context. An excellent book on Hamas is the recently published volume by Dr Daud Abdullah, Engaging the World. Abdullah’s book rightly presents Hamas as a rational political actor, rooted in its ideological convictions, yet flexible and pragmatic in its ability to adapt to national, regional and international geopolitical changes.
But what does Israel have to gain from mischaracterising the Palestinian resistance in Gaza? Aside from satisfying its propaganda campaign of erroneously linking Hamas to other anti-US groups, it also dehumanises the Palestinian people entirely and presents Israel as a partner in the US global so-called “war on terror”. Israeli neofascist and ultranationalist politicians then become the saviours of humanity, their violent racist language is forgiven and their active “genocide” is seen as an act of “self-defence” or, at best, a mere state of “conflict”.
The oppressor as the victim
According to the strange logic of mainstream media, Palestinians are rarely “killed” by Israeli soldiers, but rather “die” in “clashes” resulting from various “disputes”. Israel does not “colonise” Palestinian land; it merely “annexes”, “appropriates” and “captures”, and so on. What has been taking place in the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood in occupied East Jerusalem, for example, is not outright property theft, leading to ethnic cleansing, but rather a “property dispute”.
The list goes on and on.
In truth, language has always been a part of Zionist colonialism, long before the state of Israel was itself constructed from the ruins of Palestinian homes and villages in 1948. Palestine, according to the Zionists, was “a land with no people” for “a people with no land”. These colonists were never “illegal settlers” but “Jewish returnees” to their “ancestral homeland”, who, through hard work and perseverance, managed to “make the desert bloom”, and, in order to defend themselves against the “hordes of Arabs”, they needed to build an “invincible army”.
It will not be easy to deconstruct the seemingly endless edifice of lies, half-truths and intentional misrepresentations of Zionist Israeli colonialism in Palestine. Yet, there can be no alternative to this feat because, without proper, accurate and courageous understanding and depiction of Israeli settler colonialism and Palestinian resistance to it, Israel will continue to oppress Palestinians while presenting itself as the victim.
Early in the pandemic, I had been furiously writing articles about lockdowns. My phone rang with a call from a man named Dr. Rajeev Venkayya. He is the head of a vaccine company but introduced himself as former head of pandemic policy for the Gates Foundation.
Now I was listening.
I did not know it then, but I’ve since learned from Michael Lewis’s (mostly terrible) book The Premonition that Venkayya was, in fact, the founding father of lockdowns. While working for George W. Bush’s White House in 2005, he headed a bioterrorism study group. From his perch of influence – serving an apocalyptic president — he was the driving force for a dramatic change in U.S. policy during pandemics.
He literally unleashed hell.
That was 15 years ago. At the time, I wrote about the changes I was witnessing, worrying that new White House guidelines (never voted on by Congress) allowed the government to put Americans in quarantine while closing their schools, businesses, and churches shuttered, all in the name of disease containment.
I never believed it would happen in real life; surely there would be public revolt. Little did I know, we were in for a wild ride…
The Man Who Lit the Match
Last year, Venkayya and I had a 30-minute conversation; actually, it was mostly an argument. He was convinced that lockdown was the only way to deal with a virus. I countered that it was wrecking rights, destroying businesses, and disturbing public health. He said it was our only choice because we had to wait for a vaccine. I spoke about natural immunity, which he called brutal. So on it went.
The more interesting question I had at the time was why this certified Big Shot was wasting his time trying to convince a poor scribbler like me. What possible reason could there be?
The answer, I now realized, is that from February to April 2020, I was one of the few people (along with a team of researchers) who openly and aggressively opposed what was happening.
There was a hint of insecurity and even fear in Venkayya’s voice. He saw the awesome thing he had unleashed all over the world and was anxious to tamp down any hint of opposition. He was trying to silence me. He and others were determined to crush all dissent.
This is how it has been for the better part of the last 15 months, with social media and YouTube deleting videos that dissent from lockdowns. It’s been censorship from the beginning.
For all the problems with Lewis’s book, and there are plenty, he gets this whole backstory right. Bush came to his bioterrorism people and demanded some huge plan to deal with some imagined calamity. When Bush saw the conventional plan — make a threat assessment, distribute therapeutics, work toward a vaccine — he was furious.
“This is bulls**t,” the president yelled. “We need a whole-of-society plan. What are you going to do about foreign borders? And travel? And commerce?”
Hey, if the president wants a plan, he’ll get a plan. “We want to use all instruments of national power to confront this threat,” Venkayya reports having told colleagues. “We were going to invent pandemic planning.”
This was October 2005, the birth of the lockdown idea.
Dr. Venkayya began to fish around for people who could come up with the domestic equivalent of Operation Desert Storm to deal with a new virus. He found no serious epidemiologists to help. They were too smart to buy into it. He eventually bumped into the real lockdown innovator working at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico.
Cranks, Computers, and Cooties
His name was Robert Glass, a computer scientist with no medical training, much less knowledge, about viruses. Glass, in turn, was inspired by a science fair project that his 14-year-old daughter was working on.
She theorized (like the cooties game from grade school) that if school kids could space themselves out more or even not be at school at all, they would stop making each other sick. Glass ran with the idea and banged out a model of disease control based on stay-at-home orders, travel restrictions, business closures, and forced human separation.
Crazy right? No one in public health agreed with him but like any classic crank, this convinced Glass even more. I asked myself, “Why didn’t these epidemiologists figure it out?” They didn’t figure it out because they didn’t have tools that were focused on the problem. They had tools to understand the movement of infectious diseases without the purpose of trying to stop them.
Genius, right? Glass imagined himself to be smarter than 100 years of experience in public health. One guy with a fancy computer would solve everything! Well, he managed to convince some people, including another person hanging around the White House named Carter Mecher, who became Glass’s apostle.
Please consider the following quotation from Dr. Mecher in Lewis’s book: “If you got everyone and locked each of them in their own room and didn’t let them talk to anyone, you would not have any disease.”
At last, an intellectual has a plan to abolish disease — and human life as we know it too! As preposterous and terrifying as this is — a whole society not only in jail but solitary confinement — it sums up the whole of Mecher’s view of disease. It’s also completely wrong.
Pathogens are part of our world; they are generated by human contact. We pass them onto each other as the price for civilization, but we also evolved immune systems to deal with them. That’s 9th-grade biology, but Mecher didn’t have a clue.
Fanatics Win the Day
Jump forward to March 12, 2020. Who exercised the major influence over the decision to close schools, even though it was known at that time that SARS-CoV-2 posed almost no risk to people under the age of 20? There was even evidence that they did not spread COVID-19 to adults in any serious way.
Didn’t matter. Mecher’s models — developed with Glass and others — kept spitting out a conclusion that shutting down schools would drop virus transmission by 80%. I’ve read his memos from this period — some of them still not public — and what you observe is not science but ideological fanaticism in play.
Based on the timestamp and length of the emails, he was clearly not sleeping much. Essentially he was Lenin on the eve of the Bolshevik Revolution. How did he get his way?
There were three key elements: public fear, media and expert acquiescence, and the baked-in reality that school closures had been part of “pandemic planning” for the better part of 15 years. Essentially, the lockdowners, over the course of 15 years, had worn out the opposition. Lavish funding, attrition of wisdom within public health, and ideological fanaticism prevailed.
Figuring out how our expectations for normal life were so violently foiled, how our happy lives were brutally crushed, will consume serious intellectuals for many years. But at least we now have a first draft of history.
As with almost every revolution in history, a small minority of crazy people with a cause prevailed over the humane rationality of multitudes. When people catch on, the fires of vengeance will burn very hot.
The task now is to rebuild a civilized life that is no longer so fragile as to allow insane people to lay waste to all that humanity has worked so hard to build.
Jeffrey Tucker is the Chief Liberty Officer of Liberty.me. He’s also the author of Bourbon for Breakfast and the recently released Bit By Bit: How P2P is Freeing the World.
The Informed Consent Action Network went from reporting the news, to being the news last week after releasing 3,000 pages of Toni Fauci emails to the public. Here’s a breakdown of some of the most incriminating correspondence we’ve uncovered so far.
If the Aztecs seem unrecognisably alien to the modern mind, it may be that the modern mind does not recognise itself in the Aztecs. We cannot understand the Aztecs because we do not want to understand ourselves’ – John Gray, The Soul of the Marionette
‘After his priests sacrificed a dozen children, believing that the survival of the universe depended on them, Montezuma would kneel before flickering firelight and pray for vision, for truth.’
When Montezuma allowed Cortes into the shrine to witness scenes no European had ever seen, Cortes was disgusted. He declared the Aztec idols ‘not gods, but evil things . . . devils’. Montezuma was defiant: ‘We hold them to be very good. They give us health and rain and crops and weather, fertility and all the victories we desire. So we are bound to worship them and sacrifice to them . . . Say nothing more against them.’
On June 3 the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) approved the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ in children aged 12-15. According to the BMJ,only eight children are recorded in the official Covid fatalities data, all with known serious pre-existing conditions.
If we ‘vaccinate’ the 5 million 12-15-year-olds in this country dozens, potentially hundreds, will die as a direct result. All this for an illness which poses no threat to them and for which there is not a single example in the entire world of a child passing Covid to a teacher in the classroom environment.
To which gods are we sacrificing these children? The god of ‘Health Security’? Aztecs selected the children to sacrifice. Ours will come randomly from the population. Does that make it any better? Are we absolved because it is a function of our naivety? What superstition has enthralled our population that we would re-enact the rituals of a long-dead civilisation? The superstition that the vaccine is some sort of panacea? Can anyone reading this believe I have just typed this paragraph?
We have all been deceived by the politicians, the media and the pharmaceutical companies. The legerdemain is the confounding of absolute and relative risk in the minds of the population. Like all great cons the deception is in plain sight but the mark doesn’t want to see it. In my view one of the reasons may be because we are dealing with maths and it’s not immediately easy to understand. When the maths isn’t straightforward we find ourselves back in 5th period on a Friday afternoon and we just switch off. I’m going to set myself up for a massive fall by attempting to simplify the hated maths and expose the con:
In a world where I have £1 and you have £2, in ‘relative’ terms you are 100 per cent better off than me but in ‘absolute’ terms neither of us is rich. ‘Relative’ matters in the sample of me and you, ‘absolute’ when we live in the real world population.
The pharmaceutical companies claim about 95 per cent efficacy for their vaccines. However they are quoting relative not absolute efficacy. It’s the same principle as the simple example above, just like in the real world where your having one pound more than me is largely irrelevant. If you take a vaccine with about 1 per cent absolute efficacy, you are not much more protected than me. Both these numbers are taken from the actual clinical trial submissions of the pharmaceutical companies.
Now if I stand to make billions (trillions?) which number do I want you to focus on? The 95 per cent or the 1 per cent? Deception is as old as the earliest life forms. The difference here is that the con is being run on the entire planet, and we’re all the marks.
Back to John Gray: ‘Civilisation and barbarism are not different kinds of society. They are found – intertwined – whenever human beings come together.’ This is true whether the civilisation be Aztec or Covidian. A future historian may compare the superstition of the Aztec to those of the Covidian. The ridiculous masks, the ineffective lockdowns, the cult-like obedience to authority. It’s almost too perfect that Aztec nobility identified themselves by walking with a flower held under the nose.
Human beings are the only species that kills in pursuit of utopias, the most absurd of which is that we can exist outside nature, controlling the position of every molecule in the universe or every virus on the planet. A utopia where we face no risk upon leaving our homes. This is no less a delusion than the magical thinking employed by the Aztecs. Almost the entire population of the West has been deceived into the worship of a false god which demands human sacrifice. Five hundred years after child sacrifice ended in Mexico, does Boris Johnson want to be known as the Montezuma of the 21st century?
There is plenty the conspirators still do not want you to know. And their lackies in the media will continue to help them, as I demonstrated in my piece on Ian Birrell earlier. Here are some things that we should not forget as the people who created this mess attempt to control the current narrative. We can’t let them get away with it, because too much is at stake.
1. Why was there a coverup of Covid’s origin in the first place? The obvious reason that comes to mind is to protect Fauci and Daszak from exposure as the funders of Gain of Function (GOF) research in China, while there was a ban on such research here. But there were waivers given out, presumably by Fauci’s NIAID, because Ralph Baric put it in writing that he had one. So this is not simply about outsourcing research that could not be done in the US at the time, because Baric or Menachery could have done it.
Interestingly, according to a recovered email to Fauci from his deputy Hugh Auchincloss, no coronavirus research had been through the PPP (GOF) committee to receive a waiver. Baric, however, thought he had one. What made him think that? Fauci?
2. A huge question that no one asks in the media, is what precisely were the US and China doing, working collaboratively and closely on studies that made organisms more virulent and more infectious. We used to call such experiments biological warfare research. After the Biological Weapons Convention banned biowarfare research, we started calling it “biodefense” and then after awhile it got a new name, “gain of function.”
3. This research was also supported by multiple other countries. Just look at the end of the relevant published coronavirus papers and see who funded each one. Check on the collaborators. If memory serves, they included the EU, Australia and Japan, among others. A lot of tax dollars from many countries went to fund this. Were these countries all trying to look over each others’ shoulders, to see what everyone else was doing vis a vis enhancing virulence? Or, were tax dollars being used by international elites working together to develop a weapon or two that could be unleashed upon the world? Those international elites certainly did a lot of practicing for a pandemic, with Event 201 and the rest. Did you notice how George Gao, head of China’s CDC, was at Event 201? And someone from Mastercard? European elites?
4. If the research did not have offensive applications, we could say this was just an example of international scientific collegiality. But this was biological warfare research. I don’t care who says it was vaccine research. That is always going to be the first excuse proffered. Maybe a vaccine was the goal. But come on. Coronaviruses cause colds in humans, and they cause SARS. That’s it. Supposedly SARS came from bats. The US has never had a bat-borne epizootic. We have extremely rare cases of rabies–that’s it for the bat-borne disease problem. SARS disappeared after 2003, except for labs. So why would the NIAID fund research on a SARS vaccine?
5. As soon as a furin cleavage site was added for inhanced infectivity, this became biological warfare research. It is still unclear exactly what else was added to SARS-CoV-2, besides the ability to attach to the human ACE-2 receptor. But the ability to stimulate massive autoimmunity/cytokine storm and initiate thrombosis may have been added as well.
In short, they are just saying “Look, there was a drought, so go away!”
You will have noticed that they have not actually answered any of the points I made.
Needless to say, I have now resubmitted my complaint, as follows:
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for your response, but it does not address my complaint.
You state that there was a drought in the region 2019, but this is not in dispute. According to the Zimbabwe Tourism Office in December 2019:
Historical data provided by the Zambezi River Authority, who monitors the water level flows in the region daily, provide evidence that the annual mean water levels of the river have in fact been lower in at least six prior examples of a period spanning 1914 to the current date period.
Whilst Zimbabwe has indeed experienced an extensive drought over the course of this year, the water levels of the Zambezi and indeed the flow levels over Victoria Falls, have remained above those recorded over the drought period of 95 / 96.
In other words, such droughts are common, and the 2019 one was not as bad as that of 1995/96. They are normal meteorological events, and nothing to do with climate change, as you claim.
To recap, your report states:
In our monthly feature, Then and Now, we reveal some of the ways that planet Earth has been changing against the backdrop of a warming world. Here, we look at the effects of global heating on Victoria Falls,
In 2019, however, Victoria Falls was silenced. In a drought described as the worst in a century, the flow of the Zambezi was reduced to a relative trickle and the Falls ran dry.
A single extreme weather event cannot, in isolation, be viewed as a consequence of climate change.
But the region is recording a sequence of extreme droughts that reflect what climate modellers have predicted will occur as a result of an increase in greenhouse gases in the world’s atmosphere as a result of human activity.
As already noted, there was nothing unusual about the 2019 drought, nor have you provided any evidence that extreme droughts are increasing in the region. The predictions of computer modellers are therefore irrelevant.
It is therefore misleading and inaccurate to claim that this perfectly common event is an “effect of global heating”.
Also your claim that it was the worst drought in a century is also false, as we know 1995/96 was much worse.
Moreover you grossly mislead readers with your image of the Falls supposedly drying up. This is something that happens every year between October and December.
Again according to Zimbabwe Tourism:
The seasonal rise and fall of the Zambezi River changes the look of Victoria Falls on a daily basis. The western side of the falls is lower than the eastern side and therefore carries the most water all year round. This fluctuation is less noticeable at Devil’s cataract and the Main Falls. From Livingstone Islands onwards, this ebb and flow becomes more apparent and at low water, this portion of the Falls dries up almost completely.
Although water levels are low during dry season, it is inaccurate for you to claim:
The flow of the Zambezi was reduced to a relative trickle and the Falls ran dry
There was still plentiful water at the time of year, it is simply that the eastern end is at a higher elevation that the water stops flowing over.
Worse still your image contrasts January 2019 with December 2018, with the caption “how the falls have changed over time”. But the two months are totally different in terms of water levels. As already noted, December always sees low lake levels, coinciding with the dry rock face you show.
According to Lonely Planet:
Every single year the Eastern Cataract of the Victoria Falls exposes a dry rock face, normally between the months of October to December,” explains Wilma Griffith, a marketing executive at the Wild Horizons Lookout Café, a restaurant overlooking the Batoka Gorge. “Historical figures show that on or around 14 November the river is at its lowest and then gradually starts to rise again around 14 December, once the localised rains start having an impact on the Zambezi.”
November and December are the end of spring and the beginning of summer in the southern hemisphere, but it can take time for the post-winter rainfall in the DRC and Angola to travel downstream to Victoria Falls, and eventually to in the Indian Ocean.
The correct comparison should have been between December 2018 and December 2019. Instead your readers are left with the false impression that the drying up from January 2019 and December 2019 was not a natural event that occurs every year, but something to do with climate change.
To summarise:
You have claimed that the “drying up” of the Victoria Falls in December 2019 was the effect of “global heating”.
You also erroneously claim that the 2019 drought was the worst in a century
You dishonestly publish a flagrantly misleading comparison of photos of the Falls, comparing the dry season in December 2019 with the wet season in January 2019.
But you fail to disclose:
There have been many worse droughts there in the past
The drought of 1995/96 was much worse
The aforesaid “drying up” is a normal annual event, which occurs every dry season because the eastern side of the falls is at a higher elevation, and not because the river dries up to a trickle.
The Falls were back in full spate by January 2020, just as they are every year as a result of spring rainfall, and just as they were a year previously.
There is no evidence whatsoever that climate change, which you ludicrously label global heating, has had any impact whatsoever on the Victoria Falls.
Whenever some foreign regime that is independent of the U.S. Empire goes after dissenters, U.S. officials trot out the First Amendment to show how different the United States is. Here, people are free to criticize government officials without fear of being put in jail or otherwise punished for exercising their free speech rights, they proudly point out.
However, what goes unexplained in such pious proclamations is why so many leading executives in big American companies remain silent when it comes to America’s foreign wars, foreign interventions, coups, alliances with dictators, torture, mass secret surveillance, indefinite detention, denial of due process, Gitmo, state-sponsored assassinations, and other dark-side activities of the U.S. national-security establishment.
The reason is that every one of those executives knows that federal officials are able to retaliate against them in indirect ways for criticizing their policies and operations. Such indirect methods of retaliation can consist of IRS audits, regulatory harassment, denial of applications for mergers and acquisitions, non-renewal of radio and television licenses, and even the threat of disclosure of personal secrets acquired through secret surveillance of emails and telephone records.
A good example of free speech nullification involved President Lyndon Johnson, soon after he became president after the assassination of President Kennedy. Johnson’s indirect nullification of the First Amendment is set forth in Robert Caro’s book The Passage of Power.
Prior to the assassination, a Dallas reporter named Margaret Mayer had begun investigating Johnson’s radio and television stations in Austin. On the evening of Saturday, January 4, 1964, Johnson telephoned her paper’s managing editor and spoke directly about what he was prepared to do if the paper didn’t stop Mayer’s investigation.
Johnson mentioned by name the paper’s publisher and board owner, its president, and the president of radio and television stations owned by the paper. He then made it clear that he was prepared to use all the powers at his disposal against them if they didn’t stop Mayer’s investigation, including IRS audits, both personal and business, as well as non-renewal of FCC licenses for the radio and television stations.
Johnson demanded a response by the next morning. The next morning — Sunday morning —the editor telephoned the president and said, “We’ll take care of the thing tomorrow” and assured Johnson that his role would be kept secret. Mayer’s investigation was shut down.
Caro provides another example, one involving not just a reporter but rather an entire newspaper, which had been critical of Johnson before the assassination. Johnson set out to stop the criticism.
The paper’s president also served as president of a local bank that was trying to merge with another Texas bank. Such mergers require federal approval. Both the Federal Reserve and the Justice Department opposed the merger. Using presidential aide Jack Valenti as an intermediary, Johnson told the paper that if it wanted the merger to go through, it would have to cease criticizing him. According to Caro, the paper became a supporter of Johnson, even endorsing him in the 1964 race. Johnson overruled the Fed and Justice and ordered the approval of the merger.
Caro provides another example of this phenomenon, one involving a Washington, D.C., correspondent for a Texas newspaper. The reporter had been critical of Johnson. Johnson telephoned the paper’s owner and mentioned Fort Worth’s Carswell Air Force Base as well as the recent decision to close the Fort Worth Army Depot. He also mentioned a project to make the Trinity River navigable for barges from the Gulf of Mexico to Fort Worth.
The paper squeezed out the reporter. Carswell remained in operation and ended up playing a big role in Johnson’s war in Vietnam. Johnson also made sure that one billion dollars in federal money went to the Trinity River project, although the project was never finished.
Today, it is hard to believe that a president, the Pentagon, the CIA, or the NSA would make these types of direct threats to any U.S. company or its executives. But they don’t have to. Everyone knows what can happen to them if they decide to publicly criticize the sordid, dark-side activities of the national-security establishment. Discretion is the better part of valor, which has to be one big reason why most executives choose to remain silent.
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education.
For years, the anti-corruption probe Lava Jato was hailed as the dawn of a new Brazil, in which democracy and the rule of law reigned supreme. Now, it’s clear it was a shameful set-up – with the US involved every step of the way.
On June 7, a coalition of Democratic lawmakers wrote to US Attorney General Merrick Garland requesting answers about the role of the Department of Justice (DoJ) in Operation Car Wash (Lava Jato in Portuguese), the grand Brazilian anti-corruption investigation launched in 2014 that ignominiously collapsed in February this year.
Noting it to be a “matter of public record” that DoJ representatives supported Brazilian prosecutors involved in the operation, they stated that an agreement was “evidently” reached between Brazilian and US authorities providing for a “substantial share” of the fines rendered from prosecuting Brazilian companies under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to be given to the very prosecutors and judges involved in Lava Jato, and to fund the creation of a “private foundation in Brazil totally administered and controlled by the same Brazilian prosecutors.”
The lawmakers concluded, “We are particularly concerned that the income produced from the enforcement of important US legislation dedicated to fighting corruption, could have ended up going to ends not entirely consistent with democracy, rule of law, equal justice under the law, and due process – not to mention Brazilian legal and constitutional requirements.”
That Washington was involved in Lava Jato, which saw more than 1,000 warrants issued, 429 people indicted and 159 convicted, and numerous high-profile business leaders and politicians – most notoriously Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, president between 2003 and 2010 – jailed, had been clear since 2016, when US federal courts levied record fines against state energy company Petrobras.
However, this suspect element of the probe was completely ignored by Western news outlets, as were clear indications from its inception that prosecutions were being pursued on dubious, if not non-existent, grounds.
For instance, Lula’s July 2017 conviction for money laundering and corruption charges was based entirely on the coerced testimony of a sole individual – and in his sentencing, presiding judge Sergio Moro failed to define a specific crime of which the former president was guilty, basing the verdict purely on his own “conviction” that Lula had done “something.”
As a result, Lula was precluded from running for the presidency in 2018, paving the way for the election of Jair Bolsonaro, who subsequently appointed Moro as minister of justice and public security. It was a move enthusiastically received both within and without Brazil, for his crusading efforts had made him something of a media sensation – in 2016, he was named one of Time Magazine’s “100 most influential people,” despite local news outlets that same year having exposed his illegal wiretapping of Lula’s defense team.
It was not until June 2019 that the judge’s mainstream fortunes finally took a turn for the worse, when journalist Glenn Greenwald began publishing a series of articles based on leaked Telegram conversations between individuals involved in Lava Jato.
The communications showed that Moro had provided insider information to prosecutors, helped direct their legal actions, briefed them on their media strategy, and requested that operations be launched against relatives of witnesses, to ensure convictions were secured. In November that year, Lula was finally released from prison after 580 days.
More recent leaks have revealed that the Lava Jato team conducted scores of secret, illegal meetings with FBI operatives throughout the seven-year probe. However, Moro’s ties to US state agencies have been a matter of public record since 2010, when WikiLeaks published a State Department telegram related to a week-long US Embassy-sponsored course laid on for judges, police, and prosecutors in Rio de Janeiro.
The document notes that many attendees expressed an interest in receiving further training from the DoJ on prosecuting money laundering cases, and were keen to collaborate with Washington in this field, contrary to Brasilia’s official position, under the auspices of the “fight against terrorism.”
Moro wasn’t a passive presence at the event, leading a talk on the “15 most common issues” he encountered in Brazilian money laundering cases. The telegram goes on to outline a dedicated program, “Projeto Pontes” (Bridges Project), to “bring together US and Brazilian law enforcement in different venues” and “build on our relationships and exchange best practices.”
The following month, Brasil Wirerecords that he and prosecutor Karine Moreno-Taxman – who was then based in the US Embassy in Brazil, and helped select participants for the week-long training course – were both present at the Brazilian Federal Police Agents Association’s fourth congress in the north-eastern city of Fortaleza. Moro was lead speaker in a panel discussion on corruption and organized crime arguing for changes in the law and more judicial autonomy in investigating crimes against public administration.
Moreno-Taxman then led a panel of her own, which viewed from a present-day perspective gives every appearance of setting out a clear blueprint for the subsequent Operation Lava Jato. For one, she proposed that Brazilian authorities maintain an informal system of collaboration with their US counterparts, circumventing formal cooperation structures as set out in international treaties.
Another key suggestion was manipulating public opinion in prosecutions of high-profile figures to engender loathing of those under investigation. “Society needs to feel that that person really abused the job and demand that he be convicted,” Moreno-Taxman is reported to have said, a message she’d been propounding across Brazil at a variety of US-sponsored events for two years by that point. It seems likely these lobbying efforts formed part of “Projeto Pontes.”
When Lava Jato collapsed earlier this year, further leaked Telegram conversations exposed how prosecutors cheered Moro’s decision to incarcerate Lula on April 5, 2018, as it prevented a Supreme Court vote that would have allowed defendants to be spared jail pending appeal. The operation’s chief, Deltan Dallagnol, dubbed the news “a gift” from the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Had that motion been successful, Lula would have been free to run for president that year – and victory seemed assured, for he was polling 20 points ahead of Bolsonaro.
Today, polling for the 2022 general election places him in much the same position – perhaps unsurprisingly, given that during his initial seven-year spell in office, Brazil’s economy became the world’s eighth-largest, more than 20 million were raised out of acute poverty, and annual economic growth reached up to seven percent. As Lava Jato is estimated to have damaged foreign investment to the tune of $33 billion and wiped out 4.4 million jobs, a great many Brazilians will be hoping Lula makes a triumphant return to the Palacio da Alvorada.
Seemingly undeterred by the operation’s unceremonious unravelling, at a June 3 White House press conference a nameless “senior administration official” revealed that “components of the intelligence community,” includingthe director of national intelligence and CIA, would be fundamental in “establishing the fight against corruption as a core US national security interest.”
“We’re just going to be looking at all of the tools in our disposal to make sure that we identify corruption where it’s happening and take appropriate policy responses,” the official said.
It’s unclear whether an “appropriate policy response” will entail the covert selection and grooming of a fresh anti-corruption taskforce in another foreign country, although legal apparatchiks overseas would do well to think twice before accepting clandestine offers of fame and fortune in return for fitting up troublesome political figures for crimes they didn’t commit. The once-celebrated Moro is now utterly disgraced, and under investigation for seven separate counts of felony judicial bias. Still, the mainstream media seems oblivious, and that’s the main thing.
Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions.
We write this brief clarion call to the FDA of the United States and the citizenry, in the hopes that we could call for a time-out as to the drive for an EUA of COVID-19 vaccines in children (up to 11 years old). We think this is a catastrophic mistake that will endanger the lives of our children particularly given that the proper safety data would not have been yet collected to determine the safety (short and long-term effects). We call for a hard stop in the process to grant this EUA given the US’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is moving fast to consider an EUA in this age group of children. There are reports that the meeting could consider ages as low as 2 years old. But the data is not developed or complete enough and especially lacking as to safety, with regards to these vaccines.
We do agree that the underlying body of evidence is not sufficiently mature enough to allow for an optimal adjudication of the benefits versus harms of this vaccine in children. We see absolutely no benefit of these vaccines (no COVID vaccine in children), even if there was data, because there is no risk to children. It is that simple a risk-management decision for parents. Why put a foreign substance into your child (a newly developed platform) that confers no benefit to them, none, and has possible severe harms? The threshold for granting an EUA has not been met in these children. This is not an ‘emergency’ for these children and with such low risk of bad outcomes, they can be allowed to develop much more-broad based and robust long-lasting ‘natural exposure’ immunity. It would be an abuse of the EUA process by the FDA to grant this.
We call for natural exposure immunity in children and they would be effectively immune potentially life-long and it is not a case of ‘would’ their immunity be lasting, when we have evidence that immunity from natural exposure to respiratory virus is so durable and long-lasting that it can last for 100 years. “These studies reveal that survivors of the 1918 influenza pandemic possess highly functional, virus-neutralizing antibodies to this uniquely virulent virus, and that humans can sustain circulating B memory cells to viruses for many decades after exposure – well into the tenth decade of life”. So why risk a foreign substance that we do not know how it behaves safety wise and long-term? Why? You trust the government agencies to advise you? After what has transpired for COVID the last 1.5 years? Where they were flat wrong on every aspect of COVID from lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates, social distancing, and masking in general.
We thus petition the FDA openly here to stop this move to EUA (and pull it if they move prematurely) for we think it is very hasty and rash given the vanishingly small risk to children of severe sequela or death from COVID-19, and the alarming reports of harms of the COVID vaccines in adults and teens (see CDC’s VAERS vaccine adverse reporting system). These reports range from mild adverse effects to anaphylaxis, blood clotting, bleeding disorders, and up to death. We are not calling for a pause, we are calling for a hard stop. There is absolutely no sound justification to rush to grant an EUA for this age-group. No good reason.
The health and well-being of our children remain our priority always. COVID has thankfully spared our children and has not been damaging as we see yearly with seasonal influenza. We know based on settled global data, that children are at exceedingly low risk (near zero and we will say statistical zero) of acquiring the SAR-CoV-2 infection in the first place (less expression of ACE 2 receptors in nasal epithelia and possible cross-protection from prior common cold coronaviruses), spreading it to other children, spreading it to adults, taking it home, of getting severely ill, or of dying from COVID disease.
We thus find that the aggressive push by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the NIH, and the CDC as well as television medical experts to vaccinate our children is very reckless, dangerous, and without the required exclusion of harm. We as parents and scientists find it reprehensible and very unsafe. They have failed to prosecute their case as to why children are to be offered this vaccination. We are for vaccination once properly developed, but there is no benefit with these vaccines and only the potential for downsides. There is even concern over recent statements by the CDC about rising teen hospitalizations among unvaccinated teens whereby the CDC apparently used duplicitous data and graphs that are contrary to its own data. Thus, CDC is using misleading statements to drive fear in parents to vaccinate their teens, when such young persons carry extremely low risks of COVID illness.
Furthermore, the existing vaccines are under EUA and this indicates that they are investigational and experimental, and as such have not met the stringent regulatory assessment (proper methods, appropriate duration of follow-up to allow safety assessment) that a vaccine must go through to attain full BLA regulatory approval. They have not undergone the appropriate animal testing and safety testing that is needed so as to exclude harm. We have looked for this data and cannot find any. We find this very concerning and to subject children to this type of risky vaccine is unacceptable and grossly reckless and irresponsible by all involved.
They have no liability as are indemnified and this is very unfair to the vaccinee (children) and parents for there is no risk by the vaccine developers and FDA etc. We have called on them to accept risk and to remove liability exemption from the table. They have thus far refused but we feel they must be held accountable and accept risk, people like Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins of the NIH, Dr. Walensky of the CDC, the FDA, the CDC, and all of the vaccine development companies who subject children to these vaccines. If any children are harmed or die due to the vaccine, these people must have liability, seeing that if they say to vaccinate our children, then the vaccine must be safe. We question the benefits versus risks as well as all of the research methods questions that are worrisome and outstanding. Why not wait to 2022/2023 when data is supposed to be complete? At least two years of full data (not partial or interim) on safety. They talk about safety yet provide no safety results, and are rushing to vaccinate children. This makes no sense and is very dangerous should there be risks.
We have also learnt that COVID-19 is as much a vascular illness as it is a respiratory illness and we are seeing that many of the catastrophic symptoms have one thing in common, this being an impairment and damage to blood circulation. Researchers discovered that the SARS-CoV-2 virus infects the endothelial cells that line the inside of blood vessels. There is damage to the glycocalyx and endothelial layer and this is potentially dangerous. “The concept that’s emerging is that this is not a respiratory illness alone, this is a respiratory illness to start with, but it is actually a vascular illness that kills people through its involvement of the vasculature”. It has been shown that SARS-CoV-2 can directly infect engineered human blood vessel organoids in vitro (in the laboratory).
We are witnessing thousands of cases of adverse effects e.g. bleeding disorders, blood clotting, and deaths, that are occurring near immediately post vaccination and this close temporal relationship has led us to believe that the vaccine’s content is precipitating this. The adverse effects are being logged into the CDC’s VAERS database as well as the European adverse event database, as mentioned, and we have learnt that the reporting which is voluntary, captures roughly 1% of the events, at least in the VAERS database. This suggests elevated under-reporting.
We are calling for a stop in the administration of these vaccines in children (as part of a study or any EUA) until the safety issues are clarified yet we see no reason to vaccinate children. We are calling for a full moratorium against vaccinating them. There is no safety data nor evidence of support in the need to vaccinate children. Our main concern remains that the safety analysis for these vaccines have not been done and the required time to follow-up for this vaccine to ascertain its safety was limited to a median of 2 months in the initial trials. This is public knowledge and this is very concerning.
In December 2020, Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist, warned the FDA that mRNA vaccines could cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways NOT assessed in safety trials. Whelan stated: “Is it possible the spike protein itself causes the tissue damage associated with Covid-19? Nuovo et al (in press) have shown that in 13/13 brains from patients with fatal COVID-19, pseudovirions (spike, envelope, and membrane proteins) without viral RNA are present in the endothelia of cerebral micro-vessels.
Whelan further reports that “ACE-2 receptor expression is highest in the microvasculature of the brain and subcutaneous fat, and to a lesser degree in the liver, kidney, and heart. They have further demonstrated that the coronavirus replicates almost exclusively in the septal capillary endothelial cells of the lungs and the nasopharynx, and that viral lysis and immune destruction of those cells releases viral capsid proteins (or pseudo-virions) that travel through the circulation and bind to ACE- 2 receptors in these other parts of the body leading to mannan-binding lectin complement pathway activation that not only damages the microvascular endothelium but also induces the production of many pro-inflammatory cytokines. Meinhardt et al. (Nature Neuroscience 2020, in press) show that the spike protein in brain endothelial cells is associated with formation of microthrombi (clots), and like Magro et al. do not find viral RNA in brain endothelium. In other words, viral proteins appear to cause tissue damage without actively replicating virus”. This implies that the spike, on its very own, could act like a pathogen, causing devastating morbidity and fatality.
Dr. Bryam Bridle, a world-renowned virologist stated, “we made a big mistake, we did not realize it until now, we thought the spike protein was a great target antigen, but we never knew the spike protein itself was a potential toxin. By vaccinating people, we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.” “It was a grave mistake to believe the spike protein would not escape into the blood circulation, according to Bridle. “Now, we have clear-cut evidence that the vaccines that make the cells in our deltoid muscles manufacture this protein — that the vaccine itself, plus the protein — gets into blood circulation,” he said. Bridle said the scientific community para “has discovered the spike protein, on its own, is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation”.
Recent FOIA animal data from Japan shows that it (lipid nanoparticles/mRNA/spike) accumulates in various organs in very elevated concentrations. As mentioned, if the protein gets into the blood stream, it can potentially circulate in the blood systemically and potentially accumulate in tissues such as the spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands, and ovaries. What we speculated on is now borne out by this biodistribution data. The biodistribution data alarmingly shows that and suggests potentially then that the spike proteins in humans does not (and will not) stay in the injection site and can travel throughout the body. This is a major development. This requires urgent acute examination for clarification. Is the FDA cognizant of this data as they push to vaccinate our children? We urgently need Moderna, Pfzier, J & J, and AstraZeneca to provide the biodistribution data and study of the sequela when mRNA undergoes translation in distant cells and tissues. The case has indeed been built that the lipid nanoparticles and thus the constituent mRNA and resulting spike that is translated, is likely ending up in distant tissue it usually would not end up in. With possible catastrophic outcomes of clotting, bleeding, and immune system attack (NK lymphocytes etc.).
This additional piece to the puzzle as to explaining why we are seeing these problematic adverse events and deaths post-vaccination, in terms of whether the spike protein moves from the injection site, is also backed up by a very recent publication that reported on 13 young healthcare workers (in CID/Ogata et al.) who received the Moderna vaccine. Researchers found detectable levels of SARS-CoV-2 protein in 11 of the 13 participants one day after the first vaccination. “Spike protein was detectable in three of 13 participants an average of 15 days after the first injection… for one individual (Participant #8), a spike was detected at day 29”, circulating in the blood. While nascent, this warrants urgent clarification.
With this emerging knowledge that no doubt needs clarification, if any of it is true, then we have a potential disaster in the making for our children. Why? Why has the FDA disregarded the emerging evidence of the spike being potentially deleterious especially to the endothelium of the vasculature?
We raise a hypothesis that children have limited ACE 2receptors in their nasal epithelia and this confers protection from serious illness and we have seen that they are largely immune from COVID sequelae. But by vaccinating into the deltoid muscle (shoulder), and knowing now that the spike and vaccine (lipid nanoparticles) are finding their way to distant parts of the systemic circulation including crossing the blood-brain barrier, then the implications could be very serious in terms of blood clots and bleeding, etc. We would be essentially causing disease at levels seen in adults and not normally seen in children, to now emerge in children due to the vaccination push. We would be bypassing a natural protective barrier (limited ACE 2 in nasal epithelia) with potentially severe life-threatening consequences, if this bares out. This makes no sense and is highly dangerous.
Doctors have begun to raise concerns for they see across the world, a sort of recklessness and derangement with regards to the vaccination of children. How come Dr. Fauci does not know this about the spike protein? Or the troubling biodistribution data? Or has not considered this risk? Why not? Is something other than science at play here? Where is the safety data that the FDA is considering? Is there any collection of safety data by the vaccine manufacturers? We are raising very troubling questions. As such, given all that we have raised, we call for a hard stop and no issuance of an EUA by the FDA for children up to 11 years old. They must not be subjected to these vaccines. There are just too many unknowns and their baseline risk is low and the possible vaccine harms are potentially very high.
I end by calling on POTUS Trump to stand up now and say NO to vaccinating our children. I call on POTUS Biden to do the same. I call on the Prime Minister of Canada, UK, Australia, India, France, Italy etc. and all global leaders to do the same. I call on Caribbean governments, South American, African, European, and Asian governments to do the same. All global governments to not subject our children to these potentially harmful vaccines. There is no justification to vaccinating our children with these vaccines. There is no benefit and only possible downsides that could leave them with 70 to 80 years of disability or even death. COVID has spared them, say thank God and leave them alone!
Contact
Paul E. Alexander, PhD … email: elias98_99@yahoo.com
Howard Tenenbaum, DDS, PhD … email: hctkbt822@gmail.com
The Pentagon gave $39 million to a charity that funded controversial coronavirus research at a Chinese lab accused of being the source for Covid-19, federal data reveals. The news comes as the charity’s chief, British-born scientist Dr. Peter Daszak, was exposed in an alleged conflict of interest and back-room campaign to discredit lab leak theories.
The charity, EcoHealth Alliance (EHA), has come under intense scrutiny after it emerged that it had been using federal grants to fund research into coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.
The U.S. nonprofit, set up to research new diseases, has also partly funded deeply controversial ‘gain of function‘ experiments, where dangerous viruses are made more infectious to study their effect on human cells.
A political storm broke when former president Donald Trump canceled a $3.7 million grant to the charity last year amid claims that Covid-19 was created in, or leaked from, the Wuhan lab funded by EHA.
But federal grant data assembled by independent researchers shows that the charity has received more than $123 million from the government – from 2017 to 2020 – and that one of its biggest funders is the Department of Defense, funneling almost $39 million to the organization since 2013.
Exactly how much of that money went toward research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology is unknown.
Federal grant data assembled by independent researchers shows that the charity has received more than $123 million from the government – and that one of its biggest funders is the Department of Defense, funneling almost $39million to the organization since 2013.
Grants from the Pentagon included $6,491,025 from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) from 2017 to 2020 with the description: ‘Understanding the risk of bat-borne zoonotic disease emergence in Western Asia.‘
The grant was categorized as ‘scientific research – combating weapons of mass destruction.‘
The majority of the DoD funding came from the DTRA, a military branch with a mission to ‘counter and deter weapons of mass destruction and improvised threat networks.’
EHA also received $64.7 million from the US Agency for International Development (USAID), $13 million from Health and Human Services, which includes the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control, $2.3 million from the Department of Homeland Security, and $2.6 million from the National Science Foundation.
A government funding figure of $3.4 million was widely reported, after White House chief medical advisor Anthony Fauci was questioned in a Senate hearing on how much money the National Institutes of Health sent to the Wuhan lab via its grants to EcoHealth Alliance in 2019.
But the total grant figures including Pentagon funding dwarf that number.
Researchers James Baratta and Mariamne Everett assembled grant filings from US government agencies to EHA, which were published on popular science site Independent Science News in December.
The site found EHA’s declaration of its vast military funding is nestled deep in the ‘Privacy Policy’ section of its website, under the title ‘EcoHealth Alliance Policy Regarding Conflict of Interest in Research’.
In the disclosure EHA says it is ‘the recipient of various grant awards from federal agencies including the National Institute of Health, the National Science Foundation, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the US Agency for International Development and the Department of Defense.‘
It does not disclose the size of its DoD funding.
In 2014 the Obama administration outlawed gain of function research, such as the experiments funded by EHA, after concerns were raised among scientists that it could lead to a global pandemic from a genetically enhanced virus escaping a lab.
But EHA reportedly continued to legally fund the practice, using a loophole that allowed for the research in cases ‘urgently necessary to protect the public health or national security.‘
One notable EHA ‘policy advisor’ is David Franz, a former commander at the principal US government biowarfare and biodefense facility Fort Detrick.
Franz was an official in the United Nations Special Commission which inspected for bioweapons in Iraq.
The charity’s head, Daszak, has been accused of orchestrating a behind-the-scenes ‘bullying’ campaign to ensure the blame for covid-19 did not fall on the Wuhan lab he funded.
The 55-year-old worked closely with the lab’s so-called ‘bat woman,’ Shi Zhengli, in their studies of coronaviruses.
In February 2020 Daszak persuaded more than two dozen other scientists to sign off on a letter he had written to highly respected medical journal The Lancet, that was seen as so influential that it cowed most experts into refusing even to consider that the virus could have been man-made and escaped from the Wuhan institute.
Former high-level Clinton administration staffer Jamie Metzl, who now sits on the World Health Organization’s advisory committee on human genome editing, told DailyMail.com that the Lancet letter ‘was scientific propaganda and a form of thuggery and intimidation.‘
Freedom of Information Act disclosures revealed Daszak tried to distance his charity from the letter to make it appear it was coming from ‘a community supporting our colleagues.‘
The charity chief told his fellow signatories in an email that the letter would not be sent under the EcoHealth logo ‘and will not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person.‘
The joint letter, published in the journal on February 19 last year, praised the Chinese ‘who continue to save lives and protect global health during the challenge of the Covid-19 outbreak‘ and added ‘We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin.‘
Despite his close connections to the Chinese lab, Daszak was also picked by the World Health Organization (WHO) to be part of its 13-member team that was tasked with finding the cause of the pandemic which began in Wuhan, a city of some 11 million people in Central China.
Metzl told DailyMail.com the appointment was a ‘massive and outrageous conflict of interest,‘ allowing a man who had significant financial and reputational stakes in discrediting lab leak theories to investigate those theories.
Prominent scientists have criticized the WHO probe, which dismissed lab leak theories, as lackluster and incomplete.
In a Freedom of Information disclosure of Fauci’s emails obtained by Buzzfeed last month, Daszak thanked the White House doctor for pushing back on the theory that covid-19 was man made.
‘I just wanted to say a personal thank you on behalf of our staff and collaborators, for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-19 from a bat-to-human spillover, not a lab release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology,‘ Daszak wrote in April 2020.
Fauci says the emails have been taken out of context.
EHA’s most recent financial statements filed with the IRS say that around 90 per cent of its funding comes from government sources.
The 2019 report says Daszak was paid a total $410,801 for the year, including $311,815 base pay, $42,250 bonus, $24,500 deferred compensation and $32,236 nontaxable benefits.
ACROSS the globe, official public health policy during the COVID-19 pandemic has been underpinned by the concern that people without disease symptoms may transmit the virus. This has led to recommendations such as universal mask-wearing, social distancing, mass testing, stay at home orders and school and business closures.
The concern that SARS-CoV-2 could be spread by people without symptoms originally came from a single case report. It was alleged that an asymptomatic woman from China had spread the virus to 16 other contacts in Germany. Later reports showed that, at the time of contact, this woman was taking medication for flu-like symptoms, invalidating the evidence provided for the theory of asymptomatic transmission. As with other common respiratory viruses, SARS-CoV-2 spreads by being exhaled, coughed or sneezed into the air. The largest droplets fall quickly and settle on the ground whilst the most lightweight particles, known as aerosols, may remain suspended in the air for days. Once the virus is present in the environment, it spreads by finding its way into the respiratory tract of new hosts in a large enough quantity (known as the ‘viral load’ or ‘infectious dose’) to infect them. The theory of fomite transmission (touching contaminated surfaces and then touching the face) is not supported by scientific evidence.
The most significant risk factor for Covid-19 disease is advanced age and the presence of underlying health issues such as cardiovascular disease, obesity and type 2 diabetes. Both factors contribute to a frail immune system. In addition to the health status of the exposed person, the environment in which exposure occurs also affects the probability of that person falling ill. Infectious aerosols remain suspended for longer in cold, dry air. Hence respiratory viruses transmit most efficiently during colder seasons. People spend more time indoors during cold weather, where poor ventilation leads to higher concentrations of infectious aerosols remaining in the air. Spending time in crowded indoor spaces also increases the risk of transmission. Furthermore, lack of exposure to the sun in colder weather results in lower Vitamin D levels, and greater susceptibility to illness if infected.
Infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus causes some individuals to become ill with Covid-19. Many people have had previous exposure to other related coronaviruses. These individuals develop mild or no symptoms following infection with SARS-CoV2, most likely due to protection conferred by this exposure. Cross-immunity has been demonstrated in multiple studies.
People presenting with symptoms of Covid-19 are almost exclusively responsible for transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Serious infection usually results from frequent exposure to high doses of SARS-CoV-2, such as health care workers caring for sick Covid-19 patients in hospitals or nursing homes and people living in the same household.
A person showing no symptoms of Covid-19 may test positive for SARS-CoV-2 on a PCR test, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they are infectious. There are four ways in which this can happen:
● The test may give a false positive result due to several faults in the testing process or in the test itself (the person is not infected);
● The person may have recovered from Covid-19 in the last three months (the person is not currently infected but dead debris of the virus are being picked up by the test);
● The person may be pre-symptomatic, i.e, the person is infected but still in the early stages of the disease and has not yet developed symptoms;
● The person may be asymptomatic, i.e. the person is infected but has pre-existing immunity and will never develop symptoms.
In asymptomatic individuals, the viral load is typically very low and the infectious period is also short in duration. They may still exhale virus particles, which another person may encounter. However, the overall likelihood of transmitting the disease to others is negligible. Thus asymptomatic cases are not the major drivers of epidemics. As Dr Anthony Fauci of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases stated in March 2020: ‘In all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person.’
A recent study shows the minimal effect of asymptomatic transmission within the same household. One thousand asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals led to seven new infections, while 1000 symptomatic individuals led to 180 new infections. The real impact of asymptomatic transmission is likely to be even smaller than this figure because the study combines asymptomatic and presymptomatic individuals. The risk of asymptomatic spread outdoors would be even more insignificant.
The recently debunked theory of asymptomatic transmission as an important driver of outbreaks has been responsible for healthy people being considered to be walking biohazards. The testing, quarantining and masking of healthy people is not supported by scientific evidence and is therefore unethical. Masks, for example, do not protect anyone from contracting the virus. The size of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is 1/10,000 mm and can easily pass through medical or cloth masks with each inhalation and exhalation. According to a review of the literature published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States, ‘We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility.’ Empirical evidence from (otherwise similar) masked vs unmasked states, regions and countries has also failed to demonstrate any beneficial effect.
A sensible recommendation is to ask sick individuals to stay at home until they are recovered, which may last for about eight days. This age-old commonsense practice would have saved the world incredible collateral damage. Instead of wasting resources by focusing on the healthy, it’s time to shift our attention to the vulnerable to improve their prognosis and survival. This strategy involves three key components: prevention (Vitamin D supplementation, healthy lifestyle, avoiding crowded indoor places during the peak of outbreaks and safe and efficacious vaccination), early treatment of symptoms in the high-risk group and effective treatment protocols in the event of hospitalisation.
This article was written for and first published by PANDA, pandata.orga group of multi-disciplinary professionals which promotes open science and rational debate, replacing flawed science with good science and aims at retrieving liberty and prosperity from the clutches of a dystopian ‘new normal’. It is republished by kind permission.
On February 13, 1960, France carried out its first nuclear test in Algeria’s southern Reggane region. According to official statistics, 17 nuclear tests were carried out in total over the next 6 years. The area remains affected, and local scientists say that radioactive contamination has caused genetic mutations and irreversibly changed the region.
There are no official statistics on the number of victims. The only figures can be found in the records kept by the French representative of the local church, which lists 42,000 victims of nuclear tests. Three years ago, the French Ministry of Defense issued a statement, putting the number at 27,000 people. The victims include French soldiers as well as local Algerians who lived in the surrounding areas. … 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
