Michael Capuzzo, a New York Times best-selling author, has just published an article titled “The Drug That Cracked Covid”. The 15-page article chronicles the gargantuan struggle being waged by frontline doctors on all continents to get ivermectin approved as a Covid-19 treatment, as well as the tireless efforts by reporters, media outlets and social media companies to thwart them.
Because of ivermectin, Capuzzo says, there are “hundreds of thousands, actually millions, of people around the world, from Uttar Pradesh in India to Peru to Brazil, who are living and not dying.” Yet media outlets have done all they can to “debunk” the notion that ivermectin may serve as an effective, easily accessible and affordable treatment for Covid-19. They have parroted the arguments laid out by health regulators around the world that there just isn’t enough evidence to justify its use.
For his part, Capuzzo, as a reporter, “saw with [his] own eyes the other side [of the story]” that has gone unreported, of the many patients in the US whose lives have been saved by ivermectin and of five of the doctors that have led the battle to save lives around the world, Paul Marik, Umberto Meduri, José Iglesias, Pierre Kory and Joe Varon. These are all highly decorated doctors. Through their leadership of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, they have already enhanced our treatment of Covid-19 by discovering and promoting the use of Corticoid steroids against the virus. But their calls for ivermectin to also be used have met with a wall of resistance from healthcare regulators and a wall of silence from media outlets.
“I really wish the world could see both sides,” Capuzzo laments. But unfortunately most reporters are not interested in telling the other side of the story. Even if they were, their publishers would probably refuse to publish it.
That may explain why Capuzzo, a six-time Pulitzer-nominated journalist best known for his New York Times-bestselling nonfiction books Close to Shore and Murder Room, ended up publishing his article on ivermectin in Mountain Home, a monthly local magazine for the of the Pennsylvania mountains and New York Finger Lakes region, of which Capuzzo’s wife is the editor. It’s also the reason why I decided to dedicate today’s post to Capuzzo’s article. Put simply, as many people as possible –particularly journalists — need to read his story.
As Capuzzo himself says, “I don’t know of a bigger story in the world.”
Total News Blackout
On December 8 2020, FLCCC member Dr Pierre Kory gave nine minutes of impassioned testimony to the US Homeland Security Committee Meeting on the potent anti-viral, anti-inflammatory benefits of ivermectin. A total of 9 million people (myself included) saw the video on YouTube before it was taken down by YouTube’s owner, Google. As Capuzzo exhaustively lays out, both traditional and social media have gone to extraordinary lengths to keep people in the dark about ivermectin. So effective has this been that even in some of the countries that have benefited most from its use (such as Mexico and Argentina) many people are completely unaware of its existence. And this is no surprise given how little information is actually seeping out into the public arena.
A news blackout by the world’s leading media came down on Ivermectin like an iron curtain. Reporters who trumpeted the COVID-19 terror in India and Brazil didn’t report that Ivermectin was crushing the P-1 variant in the Brazilian rain forest and killing COVID-19 and all variants in India. That Ivermectin was saving tens of thousands of lives in South America wasn’t news, but mocking the continent’s peasants for taking horse paste was. Journalists denied the world knowledge of the most effective life-saving therapies in the pandemic, Kory said, especially among the elderly, people of color, and the poor, while wringing their hands at the tragedy of their disparate rates of death.
Three days after Kory’s testimony, an Associated Press “fact-check reporter” interviewed Kory “for twenty minutes in which I recounted all of the existing trials evidence (over fifteen randomized and multiple observational trials) all showing dramatic benefits of Ivermectin,” he said. Then she wrote: “AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. There’s no evidence Ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19.” Like many critics, she didn’t explore the Ivermectin data or evidence in any detail, but merely dismissed its “insufficient evidence,” quoting instead the lack of a recommendation by the NIH or WHO. To describe the real evidence in any detail would put the AP and public health agencies in the difficult position of explaining how the lives of thousands of poor people in developing countries don’t count in these matters.
Not just in media but in social media, Ivermectin has inspired a strange new form of Western and pharmaceutical imperialism. On January 12, 2021, the Brazilian Ministry of Health tweeted to its 1.2 million followers not to wait with COVID-19 until it’s too late but “go to a Health Unit and request early treatment,” only to have Twitter take down the official public health pronouncement of the sovereign fifth largest nation in the world for “spreading misleading and potentially harmful information.” (Early treatment is code for Ivermectin.) On January 31, the Slovak Ministry of Health announced its decision on Facebook to allow use of Ivermectin, causing Facebook to take down that post and removed the entire page it was on, the Ivermectin for MDs Team, with 10,200 members from more than 100 countries.
In Argentina, Professor and doctor Hector Carvallo, whose prophylactic studies are renowned by other researchers, says all his scientific documentation for Ivermectin is quickly scrubbed from the Internet. “I am afraid,” he wrote to Marik and his colleagues, “we have affected the most sensitive organ on humans: the wallet…” As Kory’s testimony was climbing toward nine million views, YouTube, owned by Google, erased his official Senate testimony, saying it endangered the community. Kory’s biggest voice was silenced.
“The Most Powerful Entity on Earth”
Malcom X once called the media “the most powerful entity on the earth.” They have, he said, “the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of masses”. Today, that power is now infused with the power of the world’s biggest tech and social media companies. Together social and traditional media have the power to make a medicine that has saved possibly millions of lives during the current pandemic disappear from the conversation. When it is covered, it’s almost always in a negative light. Some media organizations, including the NY Times, have even prefaced mention of the word “ivermectin” — a medicine that has done so much good over its 40-year lifespan that its creators were awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2015 — with the word “controversial.”
Undeterred, many front-line doctors have tried to persuade their respective health regulators of the unparalleled efficacy and safety of ivermectin as a covid treatment. They include Dr. Tess Lawrie, a prominent independent medical researcher who, as Capuzzo reports, evaluates the safety and efficacy of drugs for the WHO and the National Health Service to set international clinical practice guidelines:
“[She] read all twenty-seven of the Ivermectin studies Kory cited. The resulting evidence is consistent and unequivocal,” she announced, and sent a rapid meta-analysis, an epidemiolocal statistical multi-study review considered the highest form of medical evidence, to the director of the NHS, members of parliament, and a video to Prime Minister Boris Johnson with “the good news… that we now have solid evidence of an effective treatment for COVID-19…” and Ivermectin should immediately “be adopted globally and systematically for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.”
Ignored by British leaders and media, Lawrie convened the day-long streaming BIRD conference—British Ivermectin Recommendation Development—with more than sixty researchers and doctors from the U.S., Canada, Mexico, England, Ireland, Belgium, Argentina, South Africa, Botswana, Nigeria, Australia, and Japan. They evaluated the drug using the full “evidence-to-decision framework” that is “the gold standard tool for developing clinical practice guidelines” used by the WHO, and reached the conclusion that Ivermectin should blanket the world.
“Most of all you can trust me because I am also a medical doctor, first and foremost,” Lawrie told the prime minster, “with a moral duty to help people, to do no harm, and to save lives. Please may we start saving lives now.” She heard nothing back.
Ivermectin’s benefits were also corroborated by Dr. Andrew Hill, a renowned University of Liverpool pharmacologist and independent medical researcher, and the senior World Health Organization/UNITAID investigator of potential treatments for COVID-19. Hill’s team of twenty-three researchers in twenty-three countries had reported that, after nine months of looking for a COVID-19 treatment and finding nothing but failures like Remdesivir— “we kissed a lot of frogs”— Ivermectin was the only thing that worked against COVID-19, and its safety and efficacy were astonishing—“blindingly positive,” Hill said, and “transformative.” Ivermectin, the WHO researcher concluded, reduced COVID-19 mortality by 81 percent.
Why All the Foot Dragging?
Yet most health regulators and governments continue to drag their feet. More evidence is needed, they say. All the while, doctors in most countries around the world have no early outpatient medicines to draw upon in their struggle against the worst pandemic in century. Drawing on his own experience, Capuzzo describes the absence of treatments for COVID-19 as a global crisis:
When my daughter Grace, a vice president at a New York advertising agency, came
down with COVID-19 recently, she was quarantined in a “COVID hotel” in Times Square with homeless people and quarantining travelers. The locks on her room door were removed. Nurses prowled the halls to keep her in her room and wake her up every night to check her
vitals—not to treat her, because there is no approved treatment for COVID-19; only, if her oxygen plummeted, to move her to the hospital, where there is only a single eective approved treatment for COVID-19, steroids that may keep the lungs from failing.
There are three possible explanations for health regulators’ refusal to allow the use of a highly promising, well-tolerated off-label medicine such as ivermectin:
As a generic, ivermectin is cheap and widely available, which means there would be a lot less money to be made by Big Pharma if it became the go-to early-stage treatment against covid.
Other pharmaceutical companies are developing their own novel treatments for Covid-19 which would have to compete directly with ivermectin. They include ivermectin’s original manufacturer, Merck, which has an antiviral compound, molnupiravir, in Phase 3 clinical trials for COVID-19. That might explain the company’s recent statement claiming that there is “no scientific basis whatsoever for a potential therapeutic effect of ivermectin against COVID-19.
If approved as a covid-19 treatment, ivermectin could even threaten the emergency use authorisation granted to covid-19 vaccines. One of the basic conditions for the emergency use authorisation granted to the vaccines currently being used against covid is that there are no alternative treatments available for the disease. As such, if ivermectin or some other promising medicine such as fluvoxamine were approved as an effective early treatment for Covid-19, the vaccines could be stripped of authorisation.
This may explain why affordable, readily available and minimally toxic drugs are not repurposed for use against Covid despite the growing mountains of evidence supporting their efficacy.
Ivermectin has already been approved as a covid-19 treatment in more than 20 countries. They include Mexico where the mayor of Mexico City, Claudia Scheinbaum, recently said that the medicine had reduced hospitalisations by as much as 76%. As of last week, 135,000 of the city’s residents had been treated with the medicine. The government of India — the world’s second most populous country and one of the world’s biggest manufacturers of medicines — has also recommended the use of ivermectin as an early outpatient treatment against covid-19, in direct contravention of WHO’s own advice.
Dr Vikas P. Sukhatme, the dean of Emory School of Medicine, recently wrote in a column for the Times of India that deploying drugs such as ivermectin and fluvoxamine in India is likely to “rapidly reduce the number of COVID-19 patients, reduce the number requiring hospitalization, supplemental oxygen and intensive care and improve outcomes in hospitalized patients.”
Four weeks after the government included ivermectin and budesonide among its early treatment guidelines, the country has recorded its lowest case count in 40 days.
In many of India’s regions the case numbers are plunging in almost vertical fashion. In the capital Delhi, as in Mexico City, hospitalisations have plummeted. In the space of 10 days ICU occupancy fell from 99% to 70%. Deaths are also falling. The test positivity ratio slumped from 35% to 5% in just one month.
One of the outliers of this trend is the state of Tamil Nadu, where cases are still rising steeply. This may have something to do with the fact that the state’s newly elected governor, MK Stalin, decided to exclude ivermectin from the region’s treatment protocol in favor of Remdesivir. The result? Soaring cases. Late last week, Stalin reversed course once again and readopted ivermectin.
For the moment deaths in India remain extremely high. And there are concerns that the numbers are being under-reported. Yet they may also begin to fall in the coming days. In all of the countries that have used ivermectin widely, fatalities are the last thing to fall, after case numbers and hospitalizations. Of course, there’s no way of definitively proving that these rapid falloffs are due to the use of ivermectin. Correlation, even as consistent as this, is not causation. Other factors such as strict lockdowns and travel restrictions no doubt also play a part.
But a clear pattern across nations and territories has formed that strongly supports ivermectin’s purported efficacy. And that efficacy has been amply demonstrated in three meta-analyses.
India’s decision to adopt ivermectin, including as a prophylaxis in some states, is already a potential game-changer. As I wrote three weeks ago, if case numbers, hospitalizations and fatalities fall in India as precipitously as they have in other countries that have adopted ivermectin, it could even become a watershed moment. But for that to happen, the news must reach enough eyes and ears. And for that to happen, reporters must, as Capuzzo says, begin to do their job and report both sides of this vital story.
The following article will tackle the phenomenon of racism inside the Israeli society. It will critically analyze the ideology that sustains racism inside the social fabric of Israeli society.
Despite the fact that the manifestation of racism in Israel is distinct and apparent against Mizrahi Jews, Ethiopian Jews, African refugees and foreign workers, nevertheless, this research article will concentrate on racism that is practiced against the indigenous Palestinian Arabs. Other types will be tackled in a future research article.
Consequently, the following research article will not review aspects and history of Zionist racism against the indigenous Palestinian citizens of Israel, but will be a critical exploration of the reasons and motives that stand behind the phenomenon of Zionist racism.
Definitions of Racism
Racism is, historically, a concept that was developed by Europeans five centuries ago. It has been defined, in various ways, by a number of scholars. Their definitions were neither uniform nor comprehensive.
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, racism is,
… the belief that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others. The term is also applied to political, economic, or legal institutions and systems that engage in or perpetuate discrimination on the basis of race or otherwise reinforce racial inequalities in wealth and income, education, health care, civil rights, and other areas…[1]
Moreover, “… the false notion that “white” people were inherently smarter, more capable, and more human than nonwhite people became accepted worldwide. This categorization of people became a justification for European colonization and subsequent enslavement of people from Africa…”[2]
In reality, racism, is a human-manufactured concept that lacks any genuine scientific basis. Furthermore, this concept has been imbibed by the capitalist ruling class to become part of its ruling ideology. According to the leftist Haitian revolutionary, Jan Makandal, racism has a social class dimension. It is
… a system of behaviors regulating in a very oppressive manner the fundamentally antagonistic class relation … for the reproduction of the whole society, in the interest of the dominant classes. Racism is all about class relations and class antagonism. Some ideological behaviors [traditions, customs] do transcend different modes of production and have adapted to the existing mode of production.[3]
The Ruling Zionist Ideology
In their book, “The German Ideology – Theses on Feuerbach”, Karl Marx and Frederic Engels analyzed the ideology of the capitalist ruling classes. They asserted that,
[t]he ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.[4]
The bourgeois settler colonial consciousness has been the ruling idea since the establishment of the Zionist colonial project. Through the process of ruling, this settler colonial ideology inculcated inside the social fabric of Zionist society. It spread out to all socio-economic segments of the Zionist settler society. All segments have been affected by it. This settler colonial ideology affected all social classes, including the Jewish working class. As a result, Through the process of racist ideological indoctrination, Jewish workers, have developed false consciousness.
Israeli Jewish workers harbor racist hatred towards Palestinian Arab workers. They do not sympathize with Palestinian Arab workers who are discriminated against, receive lesser wages than the Jewish workers and are more exploited by the Zionist settler bourgeoisie. They also do not see any common interests with the Palestinian Arab workers.
The Zoomorphic Bigotry of Zionist Leaders
As Jewish supremacy becomes entrenched at the highest levels of power and in the collective consciousness of the Israeli masses, their racist leaders voiced it out by means of racial slurs.
In an attempt to dehumanize the indigenous Palestinians, their racial slurs utilized a combination of names of wild animals and insects. The following is only a segment of the racial slurs that were used by Zionist politicians.
After the failure of the Camp David talks with Yasser Arafat, Ehud Barak, the ex-Prime Minister of Israel, described the Palestinians as “… crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more.”[5]
While discussing the resumption of peace talks in a radio interview in 2013, Jewish Home MK and deputy defense minister Eli Ben Dahan described the Palestinians in the following terms. “To me, they are like animals, they aren’t human.”[6]
Likud Member of Knesset Oren Hazan, called the Palestinians “dogs”, “terrorists” and beasts.[7]
Other Zionist leaders have a long history of comparing Palestinians to animals. In a speech to the Zionist parliament, Likud Prime Minister Menachem Begin described the Palestinians as “beasts walking on two legs”.[8]
In a speech to Jewish settlers, Zionist Prime Minister Yitshaq Shamir, remarked, that “The Palestinians would be crushed like grasshoppers … heads smashed against the boulders and walls.”[9]
Ex-Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army, Raphael Eitan, depicted the Palestinians after colonial settlement as follows. “When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.”[10]
In a speech to the Knesset, Likud minister and leader of the largest settler lobbying group, Yehiel Hazan, declared that “The Arabs are worms. You find them everywhere like worms, underground as well as above… “[11]
The ex-Minister of Justice and one of the leaders of the settler “Jewish Home” party, Ayelet Shaked, depicted, the Palestinians on her Facebook page as “little snakes”.[12] During the 2019 election campaign, ex-Minister Shaked “… released a controversial ad depicting herself as a model in a perfume commercial, spraying herself with scent labelled “Fascism.” At the end she says to the camera, “To me, it smells like democracy.”[13]
Minister of Culture and Sports Miri Regev “… is also known for fueling racism and violence against Palestinians and African refugees. In 2012, she helped incite a wave of anti-African violence, including assaults and arson attacks, targeting people from countries like Sudan and Eritrea, telling an angry mob that asylum seekers “are a cancer in our body.” The same year, she told an interviewer, “I’m happy to be a fascist.” …”[14]
It should be pointed out that an evaluation, very close to a prediction, was voiced out in 2016 by former prime minister and defense minister Ehud Barak. During an Israeli TV interview in 2016, Barak declared that Israel has been “infected by the seeds of fascism … What has happened is a hostile takeover of the Israeli government by dangerous elements. And it’s just the beginning. Barak added “This government needs to be brought down before it brings all of us down,”. He concluded by saying that “Life-sustaining Zionism and the seeds of fascism cannot live together”.[15]
On Feb. 9th, 2016, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the construction site of the barrier on the eastern border. During that tour, Netanyahu stated that:
“At the end, in the State of Israel, as I see it, there will be a fence that spans it all … I’ll be told, ‘this is what you want, to protect the villa?’ The answer is yes. Will we surround all of the State of Israel with fences and barriers? The answer is yes. In the area that we live in, we must defend ourselves against the wild beasts.”[16]
In September 2011, Dov Lior, the chief rabbi of settlements in Hebron and Kiryat Arba and head of the West Bank setter rabbis’ council, told a conference that Arabs are “wolves”, “savages” and “evil camel riders.”[17]
It should be pointed out that Zionist settler colonialists `are motivated by a colonialist superiority complex towards the indigenous Palestinians as well as towards the surrounding indigenous Arab nations. Zionist settler colonialists have always depicted their Zionist settler entity as being the “only democracy in the Middle East”. When comparing the Zionist entity with the surrounding Arabs, some Zionist leaders went as far as depicting their entity as a “prosperous modern villa in the jungle”.
In 1996, Ehud Barak, the Zionist Labor Party leader, gave a speech, as foreign minister, to Jewish communal leaders in St. Louis, the United States. His speech included the following “innovative” comparison between Israel and the surrounding Arab world.
“The dreams and aspirations of many in the Arab world have not changed. We still live in a modern and prosperous villa in the middle of the jungle, a place where different laws prevail. No hope for those who cannot defend themselves and no mercy for the weak.”[18]
Barak’s depiction of the surrounding Arab world as a jungle “… has inescapable colonialist undertones… the jungle — a loaded concept, not a scientific designation — represents the limits of European ability to impose order, and thus to make sense of their surroundings…”[19]
Of course, this “jungle” is populated by Arabs whom he regards as predators, beasts and ferocious animals that pose a threat to the Jewish “villa”. Barak did not elaborate why such a “modern and prosperous villa” has developed an apartheid-like colony with an illegal separation wall. He neither explained why this assumed “civilized villa” still commits a number of war crimes such as: torture of Palestinian detainees, assassination of Palestinian leaders, administrative incarceration without trial for Palestinian activists, expropriation of Palestinian-owned land, ethnic cleansing, settler colonialism, national oppression of the indigenous Palestinians, plunder of Palestinian natural resources, massacres of Egyptians, Palestinians and Lebanese, and ongoing aggressive wars against the Arab residents of this “jungle”. So, could we truly and logically consider this aggressive war mongering entity “a villa in the jungle”? or is it in reality nothing but a despicable settler colonial entity that could not but develop its compatible Zionistans.
Moreover, another pretender is Zionist ex-president of Israel and Likud leader Moshe Katsav, who compared the Palestinians with Jews, then pointed out the differences as including the following:
“There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies? Not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbours here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy.”[20]
Katsav’s moral convictions were put on test when he was convicted, on December 30, 2010, by an Israeli court of law, of two counts of rape, sexual harassment and obstruction of justice. Katsav was sentenced to seven years in prison. On 7 December 2011, Katsav arrived at Maasiyahu Prison in Ramleh to begin serving his seven-year sentence. He was released from prison, under restrictive conditions, on 21 December 2016, having served five years of his sentence.[21]
In their attempt to appear tough on “security” affairs, Zionist politicians indulged in a “zoomorphic bigotry”[22], in which they depicted the Palestinians with animal and insect names. This animalization of Zionist narrative is very typical of colonial settlers who aim at the dehumanization of the indigenous Palestinian population, a step Zionist settlers deemed necessary for covering up their plunder and for justifying the war crimes they have committed against the indigenous Palestinians.
Consequently, an ingrained racist frame of mind and a clear racist consciousness could be found among segments of Israeli Jews. Such racist way of thinking is typical of white settler societies like colonized French Algeria, Apartheid South Africa, the United States, Australia, and Canada. The following is a brief review of racism among Israeli Jews that was openly expressed in national polls.
Israeli Polls and Racism
In the period 2001-2016, numerous public polls on ethnic cleansing were held in Israel. In a total of thirteen polls, Israeli Jewish citizens openly expressed their support for the removal of Palestinian Arab citizens outside Israel. The percentage of Jewish support for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians ranged between 40 percent of the respondents in 2006 to 75 percent in 2015. In the year 2006, a total of “… 40 percent believed that the State should encourage Arabs to emigrate from the country.”[23], while in the year 2015, a total of “… [t]hree-quarters want[ed] the government to prepare a practical plan to encourage Muslim Arab-Israelis to emigrate…”[24]
The distribution of Jewish citizens support for ethnic cleansing ranged between 40-48 percent of the Jewish respondents in five polls and between 50-66 percent of the Jewish respondents in six other polls. In 2006 a total of “…40 percent believe[d] that the State should encourage Arabs to emigrate from the country.”[25], while in 2016 “… 48 per cent of Jewish respondents said Arabs should be removed from Israel…”[26]
Racist Israeli Laws
In 2017, 156 racist laws were presented to the Knesset, out of them 25 were enacted as laws while the rest are still in the process of being prepared for legislation.[27]
According to another source, “[t]here are more than 50 laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel. directly or indirectly, based solely on their ethnicity, rendering them second- or third-class citizens in their own homeland.”[28]
In an attempt to uphold a “… permanent Jewish control of the majority of the land… the Israeli cabinet, in a vote of 17-2, recommended the adoption of a new bill to restrict access to ‘state land’ to Jews only…”[29]
This bill “… was formulated as a response to a High Court decision on 8 March 2000, which upheld the right of Adel and Iman Qaadan, a Palestinian couple from Baqa al-Gharbiyya in the Galilee, to lease a plot of land and build a home in the nearby Jewish “lookout” settlement of Katzir.”
Zionist law-makers assume that once racism and racist practices get regulated by a law, it automatically becomes legitimate, justifiable and acceptable. However, these racist laws allow the state of Israel to slowly drift into an “Apartheid political system” that exists on the ground but still fiercely denied by Zionist apologetics.
This bill actually “… resembles, in principle, South Africa’s 1950 Group Areas Act, under which the vast bulk of the country was reserved for White ownership and occupation…”[30] However, the Israeli government’s endorsement of the bill was in reality the provision of a “… legal backing to a situation that has existed in practice since the establishment of the state.”
Ex-Israeli minister and member of Knesset Shulamit Aloni depicted this law as racist. She added that “[b]y the right of our might, we are acting as a racist nation. South Africa, as well, was white and democratic…”[31]
In 2013, far-right member of Knesset Bezalel Smotrich[32] presented a new law to the Ministerial Committee on Legislation which allowed small Jewish villages of 600 families to set up acceptance boards. This law empowers acceptance boards to bar Palestinian Arab citizens from moving in under the “claim that his or her lifestyle is incompatible with life in the village.”[33]
In January 2021, the Israeli parliament, passed “… a controversial bill declaring that only Jews have the right of self-determination in the country. [T]he bill is unashamedly majoritarian and illiberal…”[34] Moreover, the Hebrew language was declared to be the sole official language and Arabic was relegated to an inferior status.
In accordance with article II of the 1973 “International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid”, apartheid is defined as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”[36]
All settler colonialist projects pursue exclusive and segregationist policies towards the indigenous peoples. One manifestation of these policies is the setting up of apartheid-like structures that exclude the indigenous peoples and keep them outside the settler colonialist demographic perimeters. A number of examples can be cited here. The American settler colonialists set up the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)[37], and the Canadian settler colonialists set up the “Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada”[38], while the South African settler colonialists set up the “Native Affairs Department”[39] or Bureau of Bantu Affairs.
Being a settler colonialist project, the Zionist regime has its own departments of “Arab affairs”. In 1948, Ben-Gurion appointed Bichur Shitreet, a Mizrahi Jew, as ‘Minister for Minorities Affairs’. But in 1949, he dismissed him and imposed a colonial military government on the Palestinian residential areas, then appointed himself as Defence Minister in charge of “Arab affairs”.
Moreover, each Israeli ministry has its own Department of Arab Affairs. Even the Zionist army has its “Druze Battalion” which is exclusively for Palestinian Druze and is called the “Battalion for Minorities” or the Herev Battalion.[40]
The Israeli trade union, the Histadrut, began to accept Palestinian Arab citizens as members only in 1958. Palestinian Arab workers were kept segregated inside the “Arab Department”. Later on, and in an attempt to integrate the Palestinian workers, the Histadrut set up the ‘Department of Assimilation’ so as to assimilate the Arab workers inside the Histadrut.[41]
In April 5, 2016, Voice of Israel Radio, reported that “… when possible maternity wards [in Israeli hospitals] separate between Jews and Arabs.” This fact was reiterated by Member of Knesset Betzalel Smotrich, who added that “it is only natural that my wife will not want to be next to someone who just gave birth to a baby who in 20 years’ time may try to kill her baby.”[42]
Zionist apartheid could, also, be found inside the colonized West Bank. One example that could be cited is that of Brian Walt, an ex-South African Jewish Rabbi. In 2012 Rabbi Brian Walt, the founding executive director of Rabbis for Human Rights-North America, led a delegation of American civil rights leaders to the colonized West Bank. While visiting the West Bank city of Hebron, “… Michael Manikin, a leader with the Israeli human rights group “Breaking the Silence”, gestured to Shuhada Street, the street our group was about to walk down, and told us it was a “sterile street” — a street forbidden to Palestinians. Only Jews and other tourists were permitted to walk down the street.”[43]
Upon hearing this, Rabbi Brian Walt reported: “I was horrified. My heart beat fast as tears rolled down my face. As a child growing up in Apartheid South Africa, I was intimately familiar with separate beaches, buses, cabs, entrances to post offices and public benches with “Whites Only” signs. But even in Apartheid South Africa, there were no “sterile streets” that only white people could walk on.”[44]
It is worthwhile to bring out a remark by the editor-in-chief of the Sunday Times of South Africa, Mondli Makhanya, a member of another delegation who concluded his visit to the colonized West Bank in 2009 by remarking, “When you observe from afar you know that things are bad, but you do not know how bad. Nothing can prepare you for the evil we have seen here. In a certain sense, it is worse, worse, worse than everything we endured. The level of the apartheid, the racism and the brutality are worse than the worst period of apartheid.”[45]
The Development of the Zionistan Solution
Through segregation, racist laws and military orders, Zionist settlers were provided, by the Zionist colonial administration, with a number of tools, to help them to dominate the indigenous Palestinians. Indigenous land and water resources were expropriated for the exclusive benefit of Jewish settler colons. Indigenous Palestinians were severely exploited, enormously oppressed and collectively punished for struggling to regain their national rights.
Consequently, these Zionist-ruled Palestinian areas inside the West Bank were described by various terms such as: ‘self-rule areas’, ‘autonomous areas’, ‘Palestinian Cantons’, and Palestinian ‘Bantustans’. However, these terms cannot be regarded but as misnomers. They are inadequate and, at the same time, they reveal a lack of a concise term to precisely describe these political entities. Therefore, I decided to call them “Zionistans”, a name that was coined by me to describe the Apartheid-like entity that was developed by Israeli settler colonialists. This new concept is more suitable for their colonial nature and can adequately describe their settler Apartheid-like features.
Consequently, a Zionistan could be defined as: a territory set aside by Israel as a racially segregated entity that was developed specifically for the indigenous Palestinians. These Zionistans were actually designated as: Area-A, Area-B, and Area-C. Then Hebron was subdivided into Area H-1 and Area-H-2. All Zionistans were given partial municipal independence and zero sovereignty. They were made to have full politico-economic subordination to Israel.
Concluding Remarks
Within the sea of fragmentation, disintegration and manufactured political chaos that was developed by Western imperialism, the leaders of the Zionist settler colonialist state developed the concept of the “Jewish State”, that was later ‘upgraded’ to the slogan of the “Jewish Democratic State”. Zionist and imperialist strategists planned the Middle East region to become conducive for the growth of sectarian, weak and waring entities. Inside this conglomeration of waring entities, the vicious Zionist sectarian entity was supposed to dominate them politically, economically and militarily. Moreover, this narrow Jewish sectarian state would look to outside observers, as a normal sectarian entity situated among a sea of sectarian entities. Therefore, it was extremely important to destroy the national state of Syria and Iraq, a step that preceded sectarianism and was necessary for its founding.
In conjunction with that colonial target, Western imperialism launched in 2011 its counter-revolution in Iraq and Syria. They brought into occupied Iraq a collection of bands of Muslim thugs, killers, rapists, robbers and pyromaniacs that were picked from various Muslim and Arab societies. Members of these criminal bands were trained by the CIA, the Mossad, the secret services of Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. A well-developed plan of destruction was provided to them and they began their diabolical destruction of the state structures and institutions of Iraq and Syria. They hoped that once the unifying state structures were dismantled, sovereignty would disappear and disintegration would appear. Only in this conducive environment can the Zionist sectarian entity thrive and prosper.
But, due to Israel’s ongoing colonial Zionistan project, the slogan of the Jewish State began to erode then it transformed itself into the Jewish Democratic State, a kind of Jewish fallacy. This metamorphosis was eloquently expressed by the American writer Richard Silverstein.
“The “Jewish” gave “democracy” a knockout, smashing it to the canvas. Israelis want more and more Jewish and less and less democracy. From now on don’t say Jewish democracy. There’s no such thing, of course. There cannot be. From now on say Jewish state, only Jewish, for Jews alone. Democracy – sure, why not. But for Jews only.” [46]
Finally, the Zionist capitalist regime of settler colonialism is the cardinal source of racism in Israel. Capitalist colonialist racism incorporates all layers, segments, and classes of Israeli society: secularist, religious, Ashkenazi’s and Afro-Asians, Zionist left and Zionist right, kibbutz members, workers, bourgeoisie, settlers, military, civilians, and politicians.
Dr. Zuhair Sabbagh is a retired professor of sociology who use to work at Birzeit University in the colonized West Bank. He is a resident of Nazareth, Israel. He holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Manchester and is author of a number of books and research articles.
[7] Deger, Allison, “Israeli lawmaker calls Palestinians visiting relatives in Israeli prison ‘beasts’ and ‘human scum’ ”, http://mondoweiss.net, 26-12-2017
[8] Quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the Beasts”, New Statesman, 25 June 1982. As reproduced by Yahoo/Answers, “what do you think of these quotes from Israelis about Palestinians?”, https://answers.yahoo.com. Retrieved on: 17-2-2021
[9] As quoted by the New York Times, April 1, 1988. Reproduced by Yahoo/Answers, “what do you think of these quotes from Israelis about Palestinians?”, https://answers.yahoo.com. Retrieved on: 17-2-2021
[10] Yahoo/Answers, “what do you think of these quotes from Israelis about Palestinians?”, https://answers.yahoo.com. Retrieved on: 17-2-2021
[15] Channel 10, as quoted by Haaretz, “Israel Has Been Infected by the Seeds of Fascism, Says ex-Prime Minister Ehud Barak”, http://www.haaretz.com, 20-5-2016
[20] Katsav, Moshe, as reported by The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001. Quoted by Israel Forum, “Israeli quotations about Palestinians”, www.israelforum.com, Copyright 2010
[32] Bezalel Smotrich is ideologically affiliated with the late Meir Kahana who called for the ethnic cleansing of all Palestinian Arabs. Smotrich, along with Atamar Gvier another Kahanist, are currently members of the Netanyahu coalition camp. They both support the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian Arabs (ZS).
The first major battle between the United States Army and the People’s Army of Vietnam occurred in 1965 in the Ia Drang Valley. The US Army’s 7th Cavalry helicoptered into Central Vietnam to search for enemy forces. This led to a major battle that was hailed as a great victory because far more Vietnamese were killed. This was the first in a series of Pyrrhic victories for the United States. A Pyrrhic Victory is term from Roman times that refers to battles that inflict such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat.
A sea change is underway. Ten years ago, it was heresy to propose that a ketogenic (a.k.a low carb high fat) diet was in any way healthier than the low fat high carb diet supported by public health authorities. It was branded a “gimmick” diet. In some places, doctors who prescribed it to their patients risked having their medical licenses revoked.
The German physicist Max Planck is often misquoted as having said that “science advances one funeral at a time”. Well, the man who gave birth to the low fat high carb dogma, Ancel Keys, died in 2004. His first generation of acolytes have now joined him in oblivion. The men (they were with very few exceptions all men) who created the current dietary guidelines back in the late 70’s and early 80’s are also gone, after having presided over a massive explosion in the number of people suffering from obesity and type 2 diabetes.
The newer generations of nutrition researchers do not appear to be as wedded to the old dogma. This is visible in the increasing number of studies being published on a ketogenic diet. Some of these are even appearing in the most prestigious and conservative nutrition journals.
One such study was recently published in Advances in Nutrition, a journal owned by the American Society for Nutrition. It was a systematic review looking at randomized trials of a ketogenic diet as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, which is the most common cause of dementia. We’re going to get to that study in a minute, but first, a little detour.
There is some evidence to support the notion that dementia can in part be caused by a high carbohydrate diet. An observational study was published back in 2012 in The Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease in which 937 elderly people were followed for four years. The median age at the start of the study was 80 years, and at the beginning, all the participants were asked to fill in a diet questionnaire and were also evaluated for cognitive function. Four years later, 200 of the 937 participants had developed some level of cognitive impairment.
When the researchers correlated this with dietary carbohydrate intake, they found that the quartile with the highest intake had an 89% increased relative risk of developing cognitive impairment during the four years of follow-up, as compared to the group with the lowest intake. And that’s after adjusting for known confounders like gender, BMI, co-morbidities, and APOE4 status (APOE4 is a gene variant that is strongly associated with increased risk of Alzheimer disease). The difference was statistically significant (p-value 0.004).
The quartile with the highest fat intake, on the other hand, had a 56% decreased relative risk of cognitive impairment as compared to the quartile with the lowest fat intake (p-value 0.03).
Interestingly, the differences between the quartiles in terms of carbohydrate and fat consumption weren’t actually that big. The highest quartile in terms of carbohydrate consumption was getting more than 58% of calories from carbohydrates, while the lowest quartile was getting less than 47%. Not a huge difference. The same was true for fat intake. The quartile with the highest fat intake was getting more than 35% of calories from fat, while the quartile with the lowest fat intake was getting les than 27%. This would seem to suggest that even relatively modest differences in consumption of carbohydrates and fats can have big effects on cognitive function over time, and that an even bigger reduction in relative carbohydrate intake might have achieved an even bigger reduction in risk of cognitive impairment.
Of course, this was an observational study, and although the results are suggestive, it can’t prove the existence of a cause and effect relationship between carbohydrate/fat intake and dementia. The results could have been caused by residual confounders that the researchers were not able to adjust for. For proof of a cause-effect relationship you need randomized controlled trials. Which is where the recent systematic review published in Advances in Nutrition comes in. As mentioned earlier, it was looking at the randomized trials that exist of a ketogenic diet as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment.
Ten trials were identified, with a total of only 456 participants, which really shows how under-researched this area is. And things get worse. Only three of the trials, with a total of only 47 participants, were actually testing a ketogenic diet (i.e. a diet in which carbohydrates are restricted to the point where the body significantly increases production of ketone bodies). The rest were testing supplements containing medium chain triglycerides (MCT’s), which the body preferentially converts to ketones. From my perspective, these are two very different interventions. A ketogenic diet has many different effects on our metabolism, and I am inclined to believe that the beneficial effects come primarily from the reduction in carbohydrates and insulin, not from the increase in ketones.
Taking an MCT containing supplement is obviously not the same thing as following a ketogenic diet. The seven studies of ketogenic supplements were, with only one exception, either funded by companies that sell supplements, or they failed to disclose their funding (which means they were probably funded by companies that sell supplements). Most of these studies were never registered at clinicaltrials.gov, and of the ones that were, this was done after the trials were already underway, which is highly suspect behaviour, because it means the researchers could know wether the trials were going well or not before they let the world know about them. In other words, it’s possible they were simultaneously running other trials that weren’t going so well, and that were therefore never posted on clinicaltrials.gov, which could lead to massive publication bias.
The three small studies of a ketogenic diet compared it with the traditionally recommended low fat high carb diet. One of the three ran for twelve weeks, while the other two ran for six weeks, so these were short term interventions. In terms of outcomes, there were improvements in some of the cognitive functions tested, but not in others. Overall, the results really don’t tell us anything useful, as you would expect from tiny trials run for short periods of time.
The seven studies of MCT supplements appeared to show some benefit in terms of cognitive function in Alzheimer patients, although the fact that these were mostly industry funded studies, that weren’t pre-registered at clinicaltrials.gov, makes the results hard to trust. Strangely, the systematic review only reports whether there was a “benefit” or not, but not what the size of the benefit was, or whether it was statistically or clinically significant. This feels like a rather weird omission in a systematic review. So I decided to look up the two biggest trials, with 152 and 131 participants respectively. According to the systematic review, the first showed an “improvement” in ADAS-Cog (a test of cognitive function used in Alzheimer’s disease) and MMSE (a test for dementia), while the second showed an “improvement” in ADAS-Cog .
When we look at the first of these trials, we find that the difference between the group getting MCT and the placebo group at 104 days (the longest follow-up) was less than one point on the 70 point ADAS-Cog scale. One point on a 70 point scale is not a noticeable difference. Additionally, the difference wasn’t statistically significant. In other words, there was no clinically meaningful or statistically significant difference between the groups on ADAS-Cog. If we move on to MMSE, we find no difference whatsoever between the groups. Yet this study is reported as being “positive” in the systematic review. Odd.
When I moved on and looked at the second of these trials, I immediately realized that it was just a duplicate report of the same study, with a few new analyzes of the same data set. Researchers often do this, to maximize the number of publications they can get out of one data set (since career success in research is largely determined by number of publications). How the authors of the systematic review didn’t realize this is beyond me.
So basically, one negative study was reported as two positive studies in the systematic review. And these were the two “big” studies, supposedly representing 62% of the participants in the systematic review. All the other studies were much smaller.
This weirdness really makes me wonder about the motives of the authors of the systematic review. No conflicts of interest were reported, and they reported receiving no specific funding to carry out the review. But seriously, they went through all this data in detail and didn’t realize that they were looking at the same data set twice! And then, to top it off, Advances in Nutrition, the fourth highest ranked nutrition journal, went ahead and published it, no questions asked!
This really speaks to the poor state of nutrition research more than anything else, and to the low added value provided by the process of peer review. If peer review was the rigorous process that the general public thinks it is, this nonsense would have been noticed and called out, and the article wouldn’t have been published.
What can we conclude?
Athough I am a strong proponent of a ketogenic diet as an effective therapy for metabolic syndrome, obesity and type 2 diabetes, and therefore think it’s likely that it also has beneficial effects in terms of preventing or delaying dementia (which is far more common in people suffering from these diseases), the evidence that exists today cannot prove that that is the case. Nor does the current evidence support the use of MCT supplements as a way to treat or prevent dementia.
Joining me today is Dr. Hodkinson, here to discuss the dangers of the COVID-19 vaccines, the possibility of infertility, and the very real concerns about the vaccine-induced spike proteins and what new scientific research is clearly suggesting about their risks to your health.
Vaccines could cause “mass male infertility”, Anthony Fauci is a “dead man walking” and the inquest into the pandemic will leave “blood in the gutter” with reputations torn to shreds for their sheer “idiocy”.
“When the history of this madness is written, reputations will be slaughtered and there will be blood in the gutter“
Dr Roger Hodkinson says there is “sufficient evidence in the literature” to show the spike protein expresses in the placenta and the testes – and could kill unborn babies in current pregnancies and permanently stop men having children.
He also said no one should listen to the likes of Prince Harry advocating the jab because he has “nothing between his ears”.
Dr Hodkinson is a pathologist by training, with a wealth of knowledge in infectious disease, virology and evidence-based medicine, who was educated at Cambridge University and University College Hospital Medical School in London, before moving to Canada in 1970 and training at the University of British Columbia.
He came to notoriety for his speech to the Edmonton City Council on November 13 last year regarding their vote on extending mandatory mask orders, saying the response to Covid was “the biggest hoax perpetrated on an unsuspecting public”.
And now, despite describing the vaccines as “incredibly smart theories”, Dr Hodkinson has issued another impassioned plea, calling for a halt to the rollout in order to carry out further investigations.
He said:
“I’m a serious evidence-based career pathologist who has done everything in pathology at national and provincial levels and I take evidence-based science very, very seriously. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, I’m not an anti-vaxxer, I’m none of the above. But when I see certain things in the literature that could – underlined – have serious potential long-term sequelae, I think it’s my duty to stand up and blow the whistle and say ‘hey, stop the train, have you seen this? It needs to be looked at. I hope it’s wrong but show me the data’.
The data I’m talking about is well-described in the literature, that of the significant expression of the ACE 2 receptor in both the placenta and the testes. And more importantly, in the testes it’s the cells that actually produce the spermatozoa, the precursors, called spermatogonia. Clearly there is an excess of spike protein circulating as a result of an unexpected surge in some people who get the vaccine.
And that circulation takes the spike protein everywhere, including the placenta of women who happen to be pregnant at the time, which is a one-time hit for that particular pregnancy, probably not for subsequent ones. But there is also potential for a hit on the testes, which of course is not a one-time hit, it could be a permanent hit.
In a world where we know that sperm counts have dropped 40 per cent over the last 10 or 20 years – a massive unexplained drop in sperm counts – we don’t need some additional hits on male fertility.
There have been disturbing reports, to be verified, of increased miscarriages following vaccination. I’m concerned about that for sure but I’m more concerned of the potential of male infertility which could be permanent. A lot of this is could, maybe etc, etc, it’s merely appropriate caution given the scientific literature.
You cannot test for fertility in a trial that lasts six months. Last time I checked, pregnancy lasts nine months. And in order to test for sequential pregnancies and the need for longer-term fertility studies, it cannot be done outside of a two-to-four years window, which is the normal time frame for a new vaccine trial.”
Over the past few days, Health Secretary Matt Hancock has described as “great news” the fact that all aged 32 and over can now book their Covid vaccine, repeating the mantra that it is both safe and effective. And the call to vaccinate children is growing louder, with Hancock saying last week: “I’ve been closely following the results from the clinical studies from Pfizer that show that the vaccine is safe and effective among children between the ages of 12 and 18.”
Dr Hodkinson said:
“It is absolutely outrageous. Look, children are not dying of this condition, at least in my own province, there have been no deaths under 19 recorded at all. It is the same internationally.
Children are not dying of this condition first of all, they are not even suffering from this condition. The vast majority just brush it off without even knowing they’ve got it. So it’s not a problem for children. And if it’s therefore not any more of a problem than a trivial cold for children, then why in God’s name are we subjecting them to an untested vaccine? It is not an emergency, it is not needed and it has potential complications on fertility and therefore it’s utterly reckless.
It could be described as the single event in medical malpractice in medical history, because there is no informed consent. For them to say a single word with four letters without any qualifiers at all, to say that this is safe is a massive distortion of not just the English language but makes you extremely culpable in court, if they weren’t protected by statute for being sued as bureaucrats and politicians. Any individual physician who did that would be hauled before his college before he could spit for failure of informed consent.
Vaccinating children is absolutely obscene – obscene. They are not at threat and you are putting them at risk.”
The level of coercion, however, is also on the increase. The NHS app has now morphed into a Vaccine Passport and there are discussions taking place this week – including with football’s Premier League – to introduce them at domestic level. Royal Ascot could be used as a pilot for the scheme.
Nevertheless, Prince Harry, who moved to America for more privacy but who has bathed in the limelight ever since, appeared at a Vax Live event calling for people to get the jab.
Dr Hodkinson said:
“If he had anything between the ears he might be worth listening to. Who cares what film stars and royalty say about this? They are all congenital idiots in my opinion.”
“Let me just paint the big picture here for the contrast between vaccinations and other forms of therapies. If in fact this is an emergency as they claim, which I contest, but let’s take their word for it, they are using it to vaccinate people without an appropriately tested vaccine. If you accept that a potentially dangerous vaccine, for which there is growing evidence of danger, contrast that with the prohibition of physicians to prescribe ivermectin, or vitamin D for that matter.
Here we have individual physicians relating to their individual patients who are traditionally expected to give a judgment for the patient to decide in full consent. But ivermectin has, on paper, enormous evidence of effectiveness, while at the same time, in contrast to the vaccine, shown to be incredibly safe, billions of doses over many years of use.
So here we have an agent that, OK it may not be effective, we accept that, it’s still an uncertainty to a certain degree, but it may work and it is safe. So you can’t have it both ways. If you’re saying you’re vaccinating people because it’s an emergency, you should take the dogs off physicians to allow them to decide individually if an agent is potentially effective and should be used because it is safe. You can’t have it both ways.”
Dr Hodkinson does not believe many of the theories out there and says what is happening is nothing more than politicians refusing to admit that they are wrong. He said:
“They are constantly trapped in a mistake of their own making in which they cannot admit they were wrong and therefore they double down on it. It’s nothing more than that and they can’t fess up. And so they want to wrestle this to the ground – zero Covid and all that idiocy that from a scientific perspective is ludicrous. It cannot conceivably happen.
This virus is everywhere. It’s in an aerosol in every aisle in every foodstore whether you are walking past someone or not. It’s the roulette game of life, you may get it, you may not. And if you get it and you’re under 65 and you’re otherwise well, it’s going to be nothing more than the regular flu, except for a small number of people who sadly are going to get a severe infection and some of them will die. It is really tragic and I’m not being callous saying this but it happens every single year with the flu. In fact children die of the flu every year.
There is a greater risk of a teacher driving to school and dying of a head-on collision than there is of a teacher dying of Covid that she thinks she might have caught in the school. So do we take cars off the road? No we don’t do we. We live with the risk of a head-on collision every time we pass a car on the road. It’s part of the risk of everyday life. These Governments want to control every single risk of life. And this is merely one example.
I do not think this is some big internationally coordinated conspiracy by the great resetters, not at all. Are they taking huge advantage of it? Unquestionably. And despicably so. But as to why it is being maintained, I think you have to look at a number of factors. The first way it is being maintained is because of asymptomatic testing showing a huge number of false positives, certainly when you start getting up to cycle thresholds above 35, the vast majority, 90 per cent, are false positives.
That drives a graph in the morning paper that supports the hysteria in the population because they haven’t got any information to counter what’s going on. And the politicians use those graphs to double down on the idiocy that’s already underway.
It’s now morphed from lockdowns into vaccines and then it will morph again into vaccine passports, all in lockstep. But the second reason the hysteria in continuing is the ruthlessly efficient international censorship of the three usual sources of information for the general public outside of Government and that is individual politicians, who have been kicked out of their party, at least in Canada, for daring to speak up, the journalists, mainstream media is corrupt internationally, at least in Canada, they have been bribed into silence by money being chucked at them by the bucketload – you don’t bite the hand that feeds you. But more importantly physicians, who are the most respected and best source for the general public for anything that is relevant to this issue.
Listen, I’m in the game here and you cannot imagine how petrified – I’m using that word advisedly – how petrified physicians are in this country of their regulatory bodies, so-called colleges of physicians and surgeons. They have the ability to take away your livelihood by a click of the finger.
It’s like the star chamber of the middle ages, you’re guilty until proven innocent, you have to fund your own defence and they have a history of winning or bankrupting you along the way. So the typical physician shuts up.
It’s not just the colleges who may censor you, it’s the institutions in which you work who can deny you privileges. At least with the college there is the chance to contest the decision. With institutions that award you privileges to operate for example, they have a hotline directly to the ministries and it wouldn’t be recorded, it would just be “get this guy” click. And you’re done. You’re done. You don’t operate any more.
But this is the classic situation of politicians honouring that most important principle in politics – never apologise, you simply morph it into something else and you move on. They got themselves into this hole immediately because of that idiot at Imperial College London, Neil Ferguson, who’s not a physician or an epidemiologist, he is a theoretical physicist, he was notoriously wrong by an order of magnitude in his predictions from previous epidemics and no one internationally did due diligence on his latest idiocy based upon largely the things that were going on with the elderly in Milan.
They all assumed it was Armageddon coming. With the speed of modern communication the media picked that up, the media gorges on crises and that basically landed on every premier and prime ministers desk the next morning with the demand of their No2 that something must be done that is visible that I’m doing something because Armageddon is coming.
So they did all this stupid stuff for which there is no evidence in the medical literature whatsoever for effectiveness and when it was shown not to be working they simply doubled down on it, again and again. It’s the classic situation as I said of politics playing medicine, which is an extraordinarily dangerous game.
But I don’t think it [the virus] was an intentional leak by the lab in Wuhan, it’s certainly a consequence of Gain of Function research that Anthony Fauci directly funded. It’s a made-in-USA virus. So they dug themselves into this hole and rather than admitting it and apologising and getting back to normal like they are in Florida quite effectively, most jurisdictions are simply doubling down on the idiocy and hoping it will go away because it always does in the summer when the sun comes up and we all start making vitamin D again.
But they will claim they rattled it to the ground because the cases were dropping. The classic fallacy trap is of course that just because B follows A doesn’t mean that A caused B and they will claim credit for the disappearance over the summer.
That is why we are in this ongoing mess is because they didn’t put their big pants on and say ‘I was wrong’ and just doubled down on it.
Look at Fauci, if one mask doesn’t work, well maybe two or three or perhaps 10. If you wear 10 I guarantee you will not get Covid because you will actually be dead of hypoxia. Let me tell you explicitly: masks don’t work. Period. Period. Nothing works. Nothing could work. Nothing did work. And nothing will work. It should be life as normal with personal responsibility used to control it in the usual way.“
The Government has admitted for the first time that Sellafield ‘is a source of plutonium contamination’ across the country. Public Health Minister Melanie Johnson has revealed that a study funded by the Department of Health discovered that the closer a child lived to Sellafield, the higher the levels of plutonium found in their teeth.
Johnson said: ‘Analysis indicated that concentrations of plutonium… decreased with increasing distance from the west Cumbrian coast and its Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing plant – suggesting this plant is a source of plutonium contamination in the wider population.’ Johnson claimed the levels of plutonium are so minute that there is no health risk to the public. But this is disputed by scientists, MPs and environmental campaigners who have called for an immediate inquiry into how one of the world’s most dangerous materials has been allowed to continue to contaminate children’s teeth. There have long been claims of clusters of childhood leukaemia around Sellafield.
In the late 1990s researchers collected more than 3,000 molars extracted from young teenagers across the country during dental treatment and analysed them. To their surprise they found traces of plutonium in all the teeth including those from children in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Alarmingly, they discovered that those living closer to Sellafield had more than twice the amount of those living 140 miles away.
Plutonium is a man-made radioactive material and the only source of it in Britain is from Sellafield. The plant, which reprocesses nuclear fuel from reactors, still discharges plutonium into the Irish Sea.
The original research was carried out in 1997 by Professor Nick Priest who was working for the UK Atomic Energy Authority. At the time the conclusions of the research received little attention because the study concluded that the contamination levels were so minuscule they were thought to pose an ‘insignificant’ health risk.
But earlier this year the Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters, looking at health risks posed by radioactive materials, examined Priest’s study. Some of the committee’s members have now cast doubt on the conclusions that plutonium in children’s teeth posed no health risk. Professor Eric Wright, of Dundee University Medical School, is one of the country’s leading experts on blood disorders and a member of the committee. He believes that the tiny specks of plutonium in children’s teeth caused by Sellafield radioactive pollution might lead to some people falling ill with cancer.
He said: ‘There are genuine concerns that the risks from internal emitters of radiation are more hazardous [than previously thought]. The real question is by how much. Is it two or three times more risky… or more than a hundred?’
Wright believes that, while the plutonium contamination is unlikely to pose a health risk to much of the British population, it might be a problem for some individuals.
He said: ‘If somebody has a bad collection of genes which means their body cannot deal with small levels of internal radioactive material, then there could be an issue.’
Wright’s comments, coming on top of the admission from the Health Minister, have led to calls for an independent inquiry. Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Norman Baker said: ‘[This] stinks of a cover-up. They have known for six years that Sellafield has contaminated the population with plutonium but done nothing. Yet the plant continues to discharge plutonium into the Irish Sea. It shows the wanton disregard the nuclear industry has for public health and there needs to be an independent inquiry.’
Janine Allis-Smith of the campaign group Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment said: ‘There is no safe amount of plutonium. The plant must be closed down immediately.’
More than 60 years ago, American military chiefs were closer than previously known to dropping atomic bombs on China over a relatively minor crisis with the renegade territory of Taiwan. The new revelations came from veteran whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg who worked as a nuclear weapons strategist at the Rand Corporation and at the Pentagon during the 1950s and 60s.
Ellsberg was the source of the famous Pentagon Papers which he leaked 50 years ago exposing the official U.S. lies about its criminal involvement in the Vietnam War during the 1960s and 70s.
Now at the age of 90, Daniel Ellsberg has dropped another media bombshell – that the Pentagon was ready to attack China and its major cities with nuclear weapons in 1958. The details were published by the New York Times. But it is perturbing that the shocking revelations barely caused a ripple in the U.S. media. There were no editorials condemning the plan which indicates a complacency among the U.S. media bordering on acquiescence towards such criminal action. This complacency is deeply alarming given the present dangers of war stemming from Washington’s provocations towards China and Russia.
It seems incredible that such a monstrous crime in 1958 was being considered fresh from the memory of the horror perpetrated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese cities razed by two U.S. atomic bombs in August 1945 causing the deaths of at least 200,000 mainly civilians. If the Americans had gone ahead with the plan some 13 years later to attack China the death toll would have been in the millions.
Ellsberg, who could face prosecution under the U.S. Espionage Act similar to contemporary whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, said he was motivated to make his latest revelations because of the imminent risk of war from escalating tensions between China and the United States over Taiwan and other issues. Six decades on, it is notable how the same tensions exist. This is because Washington continues to meddle in China’s internal sovereign affairs, making Taiwan a pawn in its imperialist game. It is the U.S. that is stoking the hostility by reneging on its One China policy which has up to now nominally recognized Beijing’s territorial claim to Taiwan.
In 1958, before the One China policy was adopted in 1979, the U.S. sided with Taiwan in China’s civil war between the Communists and Nationalists led by Chiang kai-shek whose forces fled to the island after their defeat on the mainland in 1949. Rather than accepting the outcome of the civil war, the U.S. continued to support Chiang and his Kuomintang regime. Taiwan became a renegade island territory which has existed in large part due to American military support. This is part of the “strategic ambiguity” adopted by Washington even though since 1979 the United States officially recognizes Beijing’s authority over Taiwan. “Strategic duplicity” would be a more accurate term.
Successive American administrations under Obama, Trump and now Biden have moved significantly to undermine the One China policy and to show increasing support for Taiwan’s would-be declaration of independence. If such a move were to take place, China has vowed to use military force to assert control over the territory. That would no doubt lead to war with the United States. Pentagon chiefs have already said in recent months that a war could happen within five years. And from the way relations are rapidly deteriorating between Washington and Beijing – the latest provocation due to Biden’s insinuation this week that the Covid-19 pandemic may have originated from a Chinese virology laboratory in Wuhan – it is not hard to envisage how tensions could erupt into a full-blown war.
Ellsberg’s concern is that the willingness by Washington to use nuclear weapons in 1958 against China is still extant today. That should be a concern for the whole world. Unlike in 1958, China is now a formidable nuclear power and there is no doubt it would retaliate leading to a nuclear conflagration. Nevertheless, there is a delusion among some American planners that they can win from a pre-emptive strike. The United States is alone among major nuclear powers in not explicitly renounced a first-strike policy.
What is also perplexing is the United States is the only county to have used nuclear weapons of mass destruction in war yet it continues to officially justify that blatant crime as a necessary means to end the Pacific War against Japan. The sense of entitlement and impunity is appalling.
Furthermore, the willingness in 1958 to use nuclear weapons against China was not the only time such an abominable plan was drawn up. There have been several occasions, including:
In 1949, Washington formulated Operation Dropshot which planned to drop 300 atomic weapons on 100 cities and towns across the Soviet Union. This was rationalized as a response in the event that the Soviet Union expanded its allegiance among Western European and Asian nations.
In 1950 and 1953, the administrations of Harry Truman and Ike Eisenhower warned of using nuclear weapons against China over the latter’s support for North Korea in the civil war against American-backed South Korea.
In 1961, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff advocated a pre-emptive nuclear attack against the Soviet Union, but they were stood down by President John F Kennedy who abhorred the idea. Kennedy went on to implement a landmark arms control treaty with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev which many researchers believe led to his assassination by the CIA in 1963.
The propensity by the United States for the use of nuclear weapons can be seen as a form of blackmail and state terrorism against the rest of the world. It has used such weapons without apology, it has explicitly threatened to use such weapons on several occasions, and it continues to tacitly threaten to use these weapons at any time of its choosing. That, in short, is state terrorism.
It no doubt gives the American rulers some pause for thought that China or Russia could retaliate with devastating force. But what is reprehensible and uniquely criminal is the reckless way in which American rulers continue to push the dynamics for war despite their sanctimonious lecturing about upholding “the rules-based international order”.
This week, the Biden administration announced it was not rejoining the Open Skies Treaty which the previous Trump administration walked away from. That is at least the third arms-control treaty that the U.S. has unilaterally ditched – the ABM, the INF and now the OST. Again, the United States is gravely undermining global security based on provocative and baseless claims against Russia and China.
When Biden meets President Putin next month in Geneva, the former is said by U.S. media to be going to raise several concerns with the Russian leader. Such conceited reporting implies a grossly misplaced sense of moral authority. The reality is, however, that Putin will have a lot more genuine and urgent concerns to raise about the American side and its assault on global security.
The fact is the United States is a serial nuclear aggressor whose veneer of supposed virtue is a thin and increasingly transparent disguise for moral bankruptcy. It is the preeminent threat to world peace.
A mass grave containing the remains of 215 indigenous children has been found at the site of a former residential school for indigenous children in Canada, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau describing the discovery as heartbreaking.
The grim discovery took place at Kamloops Indian residential school near the town of Kamloops, British Columbia, on Friday.
The bodies belonged to the students, some as young as three years old, of the indigenous Tk’emlúps te Secwepemc group and the authorities said investigation into the cause and exact timing of their deaths was underway.
“We had a knowing in our community that we were able to verify. To our knowledge, these missing children are undocumented deaths,” said Rosanne Casimir, chief of the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc, in a statement. “At this time we have more questions than answers.”
In a statement, British Columbia Assembly of First Nations Regional Chief Terry Teegee also called finding such gravesites “urgent work” that “refreshes the grief and loss for all First Nations in British Columbia.”
The Kamloops Indian residential school was established in 1890 under the leadership of the Roman Catholic church, and closed in 1978.
The educational facility was part of a cross-Canada network of residential schools created to forcibly assimilate indigenous children by removing them from their homes and communities, and forbidding them from speaking their native languages or performing cultural practices.
A 2015 investigation into Canada’s residential school system concluded that the system, typically run by Christian churches on behalf of Ottawa, constituted “cultural genocide,” with reports documenting physical abuse, rape, malnutrition and other atrocities against the school children.
The same investigation said that the students were exposed to outbreaks of measles, tuberculosis, influenza and other contagious diseases.
It also found that more than 4,000 of 15,000 children died while attending these schools.
In 2008, the Canadian government formally apologized for the system.
My little boy with autism is back at school, for three days in the week. His support teacher is at last unmasked. On the seventh day of his return, there was an unheralded change. Instead of Joseph being accompanied by his support teacher at pick-up time so that she and I might have a quick chat, he was sent out alone along with his classmates. Inside his bag was a new small notebook, with “Communication Log” written on the cover, in which there were phrases describing aspects of Joseph’s day.
Joseph’s communication is profoundly restricted. He is unable to report any aspect of his physical experience; he cannot tell of anything that has happened to him, no matter how recently. A short exchange, before and after school, with the person responsible for him during the day is essential.
At drop-off time the following morning, Joseph’s support teacher watched helplessly from behind the classroom’s glass door while I held Joseph’s hand at the gate – another of the pathetic scenes that have been a feature of our Covid incarceration. “Mummy’s going to drop you here”, said one of Joseph’s year’s teachers, to me via him. When I objected, she told me, in a rush of what seemed like resentment, that the ‘Communication Log’ was to substitute for the morning and evening chats.
It did not take much representation to the school’s Head to have the chats reinstated; the arguments in their favour were so obviously reasonable. But that the arguments against them were so paltry reveals something concerning, I think.
Even according to ‘The Science’, there could be no conceivable added risk of infection by a respiratory virus in ending a day of up-close support of Joseph by standing in the open air and talking for a few minutes to his mum – to his credit, the Head did not attempt to suggest that there could be.
But if there was nothing actually harmful about these chats, even on the highly-sensitive Covid safety-scale, why were they ruled out so summarily?
Joseph’s support teacher is a woman of great humour; chatting with her is inevitably a lively affair no matter how mundane the topic. But there is something indistinctly offensive now about liveliness of any kind, something excessive, disrespectful.
On our uncertain return to normality there is dawning a new morality, according to which lively human interaction is unseemly simply by virtue of being… well, lively.
This may explain why persecution of the public house continues unabated – insofar as the pub encourages informal and vibrant association, it is the den of a new iniquity: the spontaneous overflow of the human spirit.
At the supermarket checkout the other day, the man in front of me observed through his mask to the woman working the till, how good it is that we have our freedoms back. So long as we use them sensibly, he added.
We have been prodded this year by the devilish theme of safety, which has dramatically altered the contour of our lives. But now the colour of our lives may be changing too, as we are encouraged from all sides not only to stay safe but to be sensible.
On May 15th, the FA Cup final was attended by twenty-two thousand supporters. The fans were back. Football was back. And certainly, the real crowd did foreground how anaemic has been its virtual equivalent. But when Leicester scored the goal that won them the cup, their cheering fans were faced down by a line of officials, caped in plastic over their high-visibility jackets and fanning their outstretched gloved hands, palms downwards, in a calming gesture – Let’s be sensible, folks.
Two days later, May 17th, brought the return of hugging for anyone who had been observing the ban. But it is not a rush-into-the-arms hugging, not a big hugging, not a tight hugging, all of which have about them this new taint of excess. It is sensible hugging: faces turned in opposite directions and got over with as quickly as possible.
There is a new kind of puritanism abroad – casting its pall over our lives, already so out of shape. Those moments when life is brimming over, when we act on impulse, when our sides split with laughter, when we cry with anger or with joy, when we cannot let go our embrace or when we could talk and talk for hours: all have about them a new hue of poor taste. The palate of human life has been dimmed; Let’s be sensible, folks.
In a short blog post from April 16th, the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben prepared us for a change of this kind.
Differently from other animals, Agamben wrote, we humans have always the task of deciding what it is that makes us human, and not merely animal.
Homo sapiens is the being that knows itself, the only being on earth that must determine its own essence.
This unique duty – that we decide the kind of being that we are – is what makes us humans so culturally rich and almost infinitely adaptable. But it is also what makes us vulnerable, as no other animal is, to being transformed, profoundly, from the ground up.
Nothing absolute stands in the way of our knowing ourselves differently and knowing ourselves differently changes us utterly.
Is such a change occurring now, as we get back to our new future? Are we in the process of deciding all over again what it is that makes us human?
This would certainly explain the newly muted tones of the life that we are now to live, in which the chatting, the cheering, the hugging that still come naturally to some of us seem suddenly and strangely out of step, not really done, a bit much – Let’s be sensible, folks.
According to Agamben, a society’s decision about what it is that makes us human is reflected in what that society identifies as ‘mere existence’ – bare life. In this space are established the terms on which we claw back from our animal natures whatever it is that is judged to make us human.
We opponents of governments’ Covid policies have traded heavily on this concept of ‘mere existence’, criticising the lockdowns for having reduced our human life to its bare bones.
But in doing so, have we unwittingly lent our voices to a new Covid-era version of ‘mere existence’ and, consequently, to a new Covid-era decision about what it is that makes us human?
Still when I was growing up, references to ‘mere existence’ had mostly to do with work; bare life was the life absorbed by a low-paid unsatisfying job with long hours, or (depressingly) by unwaged care of other people.
If you lived this mere existence, this bare life, you were perilously close to losing that which distinguished you as human – you were said to work like a dog, to have a dog’s life.
If you managed to rise above this mere existence to something better, something more human, you did so also in terms of work. Because a bare life was a life of unwaged drudgery, a full life was a life of satisfying and rewarding employment, and a good life was industrious and purposeful, filled with hobbies and sports at which you were as hardworking as you were at your job.
But since the advent of Covid, when we have bemoaned the reduction of our lives to mere existence, we have referred not to dull work without wages but to quarantine without symptoms. Bare life is no longer the life of unrewarding toil, but of isolation from other people, faces covered and hands sheathed.
The theme of bare life is no longer work but health, where ‘health’ refers, not to a personal equilibrium, but to public safety from invisible attack.
As we have lived this bare life during the past 15 months or so, and tried to reassert our humanness so as to rise above it, it is not the dog’s life against which we have had to define ourselves but the life of the herd animal whose individual hopes and needs are submitted to the advantage of the group: I isolate for everyone, I mask for everyone, I vaccinate for everyone.
Herd immunity has always been a feature of human life. It is a well-established phenomenon in epidemiology. But never before 2020 was it brought before us so unrelentingly that we were simultaneously compelled to reject it as beneath our human status and submitted to the version of it engineered and imposed by governments and their science advisers.
On the new terrain of bare-life-as-isolation-from-and-for-the-herd, we have had to battle all over again to reestablish what makes us human. Human life, we have objected, is more than isolation for the sake of public health. Human life, we have protested, is anathema to distance and to masks.
But we should be careful. Because, if we are beginning to win the battle against the reduction of our lives to mere-existence-as-quarantine, we are likely to be winning it on the terms set up by mere-existence-as-quarantine, that is, on the terms of health-as-safety.
If the society of work is coming to an end, the society of health may be just getting going. In this society, a full life will be the life of optimal protection from identified threats to public safety; and a good life will be the life of due respect for this enterprise, the careful life, the sensible life, in which our human bodies, now branded as traitors, will not be suffered to stretch their limbs too far, nor shout too loud, nor laugh too much, nor hug too tight.
The devil used to make work for idle hands – hence the old morality of working hard. Now the devil makes sickness for loose tongues, and all other body-parts that are brought to bear with gleeful abandon – hence the new morality of being sensible.
What is it that effects a transformation of this magnitude, from a life defined by work and lived industriously to a life defined by health and lived sensibly? How can such changes come about so suddenly and completely? According to Agamben, all it needs is a powerful enough device.
For the society of work, this device was the slave, an idea (rooted in reality, of course) profound enough to capture and recast a whole culture as woven around the theme of work and as haunted by the near-animality of work without reward.
For our society of health, the device is the asymptomatic, an idea (not rooted in reality, it turns out) so powerful that it has captured and recast our world as revolving around the theme of health-as-safety and as haunted by the prospect of disease at the level of the pack.
The device of the asymptomatic sick person has reset the horizons of our lives: the bare life is the life lived apart from the herd for the good of the herd; the full life is the life that is constantly proven to be without sickness itself and protected from the sickness of others: and the good life is the life that abstains from the joyful excess that so irresponsibly forgets that the absence of symptoms does not imply safety.
One of the Internet phenomena of our Covid era has been the film of a flash mob rendition of ‘Danser Encore’ in the Gard du Nord on March 4th.
It has inspired many repeat performances in towns and cities around the world, each one of them a joyful affair.
When I first saw the original video, its effect was profound. To see the sudden eruption, as if from nowhere, of… well, a mob, a glut of people, in the midst of the faceless bedraggle at the station – to see the masks carelessly pulled down or discarded, the random weaving in and out of the crowd, arms linked to the music, to hear singing at the top of fine unmuffled voices. Such a glorious upturning of safety.
But what strikes me now when I watch it is the ludicrousness of the performance, an assemblage of this and that: the tap dancer on her makeshift floor; the circus performer in his Breton top, making upside-down frog-legs; the amateur country dancers; the woman in the mask (around her eyes, not her mouth and nose!) creeping stealthily through the scene… random, heedless, a propos of nothing, not at all sensible.
If we are to unwind the Covid decision about what it is that makes us human – if we are to defuse the device of the asymptomatic spreader and refuse the life of safety to which it consigns us, then we might do worse than begin here, with the players in the Gard du Nord : and dance again and hug again and cheer again and chat again with the lively abandon that spares not a thought for the hidden health-status of ourselves or anyone else.
Dr Sinead Murphy is Associate Researcher in Philosophy at Newcastle University.
Virus Mania in New Zealand: * NZers who would like to order the book locally for $65 (incl. shipping) please contact admin@drsambailey.com Virus Mania Paperback: * Abe (lots of suppliers): https://www.abebooks.com/products/isb…
The number of reported adverse reactions to the Covid vaccines in the USA surpassed 200,000 according to data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The data comes directly from reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.
Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date, usually about a week prior to the release date. The latest data shows that between the 14th December 2020 and the 14th May 2021, a total of 227,805 total adverse events were reported to VAERS, including 4,201 deaths — an increase of 144 over the previous week — and 18,528 serious injuries, up 1,338 on the previous week.
This data also showed 943 total adverse events, including 23 rated as serious, among 12- to -17-year-olds.
In the U.S., 268.4 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of May 14. This includes 115 million doses of Moderna’s vaccine, 144 million doses of Pfizer and 9 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccine. […]
The latest VAERS data shows:
20% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
54% of those who died were male, 44% were female and the remaining death reports did not include gender of the deceased.
The average age of death was 74.7 and the youngest deaths reported include two 15-year-olds (VAERS I.D. 1187918 and 1242573 ) and a 16-year-old (VAERS I.D. 1225942). There were other reported deaths in children under 16 that could not be confirmed or contained obvious errors.
Of the 2,275 cases of Bell’s Palsy reported, 51% were reported after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccinations, 42% following vaccination with the Moderna vaccine and 192 cases, or 10%, of Bell’s Palsy cases were reported in conjunction with J&J.
There have also been 822,845 adverse reactions to the Covid vaccines in the UK alongside 1,180 unnecessary deaths, you can read our latest analysis of the UK report here.
Dr. Peter McCullough has been the world’s most prominent and vocal advocate for early outpatient treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection in order to prevent hospitalization and death. On May 19, 2021, he was interviewed about his efforts as a treating physician and researcher. From his unique vantage point, he has observed and documented a PROFOUNDLY DISTURBING POLICY RESPONSE to the pandemic — a policy response that may prove to be the greatest malpractice and malfeasance in the history of medicine and public health.
Dr. McCullough is an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, and Professor of Medicine at Texas A & M College of Medicine, Dallas, TX USA. Since the outset of the pandemic, Dr. McCullough has been a leader in the medical response to the COVID-19 disaster and has published “Patho-physiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection” the first synthesis of sequenced multi-drug treatment of ambulatory patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the American Journal of Medicine and subsequently updated in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. He has 40 peer-reviewed publications on the infection and has commented extensively on the medical response to the COVID-19 crisis in The Hill and on FOX NEWS Channel. On November 19, 2020, Dr. McCullough testified in the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and throughout 2021 in the Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, Colorado General Assembly, and New Hampshire Senate concerning many aspects of the pandemic response.
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
