World renowned CV19 critical care and pulmonary expert Dr. Pierre Kory says the data is clear the CV19 injections are “not safe, not effective” and shows they are causing a huge number of deaths.
It’s going to get much worse if we don’t stop the shots. Dr. Kory warns,
“They already broke death records with these vaccines almost a year ago. Now, you are starting to see it in actuarial data with life insurance companies. The life insurance companies have been paying out claims like they never have before, and they are noticing the deaths cannot be explained by Covid. If you look at the actual morbidity and mortality from the CDC . . . 2019, 2020 and 2021 in the ages of 18 to 64
. . . you’ll see in America, starting in quarter two of the year 2021 (when the vaccines started), the mortalities started to rise, and it rose from 120 percent above normal to 140 percent above normal, and it’s far exceeded the death rates in 2020. The difference in 2020 and 2021, we had covid in both years. In 2021, we had the vaccines. They know the amount of deaths they are reporting cannot be explained by Covid.
. . . There is something else driving a huge and extremely terrifying mortality signal in the U.S. population. To think that it is anything but the vaccines, if we get this wrong and if you keep saying they are safe, that line which is already in a significant and steep incline will continue the more we boost and the more we vaccinate. . . . This has to stop. We have to stop, people are dying.”
Meanwhile, the captured regulatory agencies like the CDC and FDA are trashing and cutting off proven scientific cures for Covid such as Ivermectin. Dr. Kory says Ivermectin has been proven effective in defeating Covid infections, and he says, “It is “one of the safest drugs ever brought to market.”
Dr. Kory also says the so-called experimental vaccines “are not safe and not effective.” So, why do government agencies push them anyway?
Dr. Kory says, “I have had a front row seat to see this.” . . . And he goes on to say government agencies are suffering from “regulatory capture” by big Pharma. Meaning, the FDA and CDC push ineffective and dangerous vaccines so Big Pharma can make money off them, while disregarding cheaper, safer and more effective drugs like Ivermectin.
Dr Kory gives a real-world example during the pandemic and explains,
“Prescriptions in this country (for Ivermectin) in August were hitting 90,000 per week. So many doctors were using it for Covid that it spooked the pharmaceutical companies. . . . In response to the massive uptake in the use of Ivermectin by physicians with prescriptions and pharmacists filling them, the CDC went on the attack.
They sent a bulletin to every state department of health which was full of propaganda and misinformation screaming the FDA has not approved Ivermectin (for treating Covid) and it’s not a proven drug, and it’s dangerous and there are overdoses and all of these things that were false.
It went to all state departments of health. But guess what happened next? The medical boards and the pharmacy boards started sending that to every licensed physician and pharmacist in the land. The average physician and pharmacist, I am sorry to say this, is not well read. They are not keeping up with data.
They are overwhelmed and they are easily influenced. That’s why in this country you have a war between the physicians that know that Ivermectin is effective . . . and are at war with the pharmacies.
A huge proportion of pharmacists will refuse to fill a decades-old safe drug for Covid because they have been threatened and manipulated by their boards. They are afraid to lose their licenses. It all smoke.
It’s all B.S. because you cannot lose your license for use of a safe drug. . . We need our doctors to do doctoring, and we need our pharmacists to do pharmacy and stop being influenced by propaganda by pharmaceutical companies who don’t want you to use this drug.
We have to stand up, and we have to resist on behalf of our patients. We are finding that with compounding pharmacies and small pharmacies we can still get access (to Ivermectin), but it is a battle and you do have to navigate.”
Former Pfizer VP Dr. Michael Yeadon said this week,
“Max vaccination is leading to mass death.” Dr. Kory agrees and explains, “It’s not only data from a life insurance company that came out this week that is based on CDC data that can’t be explained by Covid alone, there are huge increases of dying in this country this year. . . They have done huge analysis of the European mortality data as well as the U.S. mortality data and they controlled for vaccination status.
They found that for every age range that they looked at, the all-cause mortality of the vaccinated were increased over the unvaccinated. All-cause mortality and that means that you are more likely to die of something if you are vaccinated. . . All-cause mortality are coming out of actual databases by credible scientists.
You have life insurance companies showing the data, and you have our own federal government showing unexplained large rises in dying. . . Don’t you think a good scientific question and a good hypothesis to test would be ‘Could these be the vaccines?’
The answer is ‘the vaccines,’ and I cannot find a better fit to answering that hypothesis than that, it’s this mass explosion of this vaccination policy with single, double and booster shots. It’s going like wildfire through the population. If the mortality of the vaccinated is higher than the unvaccinated, you have the data that you can safely and confidently conclude the vaccines are associated with and causing death.”
In closing, Dr. Kory says, “What has happened in the last month or so is the data for adverse reactions and effects are no longer hidden and suppressed. They are coming out on servers . . . and actuarial tables.”
Dr. Kory tells people to go to the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance website and get any and all information for treating Covid-19 for free.
Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Dr. Pierre Kory, one of the top Pulmonary and Covid Critical Care experts on the planet, who is co-founder of the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (flccc.net). (There is much more in the nearly 59 min. interview)
After The Interview:
Dr. Kory has said in past interviews that history will also not be kind to Dr Fauci. Dr. Kory contends Dr. Fauci made nearly every decision in favor of Big Pharma and not the public.
All the information is free on Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance website flccc.net.
January 14, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
The Government should be your single source of truth
SEPTEMBER 4, 2020 – New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said in Parliament: ‘I want to send a clear message to the New Zealand public: we will share with you the most up-to-date information daily. You can trust us as a source of that information. You can also trust the Director-General of Health and the Ministry of Health . . . dismiss anything else. We will continue to be your single source of truth.’
This is one of the most oft-repeated and misleading lies of Jacinda Ardern. Whistleblowers from within government departments including nurses, doctors and officials have reported that they have been instructed to refrain from revealing to the public the true extent of adverse events and deaths following vaccination, thus hiding the real risks. The excuse presented to employees by the government was that ‘a medical emergency’ justifies the expedient of hiding the truth. Moreover the risks of Covid itself have been consistently overblown to stoke the fear narrative. Based on this lie, the government has refused to acknowledge the import of published research.
The virus spreads because of the unvaccinated
October 4, 2021 – Jacinda Ardern quoted in Stuff: ‘The vast majority of New Zealanders eligible now are being vaccinated, but the virus is finding our unvaccinated individuals. A boundary is not an ironclad way of protecting ourselves against Covid; a vaccine is.’
Even before the start of the NZ vaccination roll out in February 2021, the government was warned that the vaccine allowed transmission. Dozens of published papers since show that there is little or no correlation between transmission and vaccination.
The government failed to call out false information in articles published by the media and sponsored by vaccine interests pretending that Covid spreads 20 times more easily among the unvaccinated. This created unnecessary fear of the unvaccinated and overconfidence among the vaccinated. It has divided our nation. It has led to an economic disaster for businesses who are required to discriminate against the unvaccinated. It has caused personal hardship for thousands of highly qualified and experienced NZ professionals and greatly reduced the pool of qualified individuals in NZ. This lie was the false basis for mandates.
The vaccine is entirely safe
22 October 2021 – Jacinda Ardern quoted in the NZ Doctor: ‘The vaccine we are using in New Zealand is safe and effective.’
This lie has been repeated again and again in the saturation government advertising which has cost millions. Individuals known to be vulnerable to vaccination adverse effects including people with a history of anaphylactic shock, past reactions to vaccination etc, have been denied information which might enable them to make informed choices. They have also been denied exemption to vaccination. Young people who have very little risk of serious Covid outcomes, yet a relatively high risk of vaccine injury, have been left completely uninformed.
There is no need to require reporting of vaccine adverse events
December 15 2021 – Astrid Koorneeff, Director, National Immunisation Programme: ‘An accurate measurement of all adverse events [subsequent to vaccination] is not required.’
This is among the most damaging of lies. Faced with a novel vaccine with a short period of testing developed by a company with a history of medical harm lawsuits against it, the government refused to institute mandatory procedures which would correctly evaluate the extent of any adverse effects. Instead they continued with a voluntary system. A Medsafe website records that only 5 per cent of adverse effects are reported. This has enabled Jacinda Ardern and the government to deny the extent of adverse events and death following vaccination by pleading insufficient information.
Heart disease affects only 3 out of 100,000 vaccinated individuals
15 December 2021 letter – Dr Ashley Bloomfield, Director General of Health: ‘In New Zealand, the true incidence of vaccine-associated myocarditis is unknown as the onset of symptoms occurs in the first few days after vaccination and is potentially under-reported. However, the overall rate of this event in New Zealand is reported to be around 3 per 100,000 vaccinations.’
How can any rational person say in the same paragraph that incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis is underreported in NZ, but also assert an absurdly low rate for incidence? In fact a new study puts the risk of myocarditis to be higher among vaccinated males under 40 than from Covid itself. The latest careful assessment of incidence of perimyocarditis in the published literature puts the incidence as high as 1 in 2,000, not 3 in 100,000.
Multiple reports from individuals reveal that it is common practice to turn away recently vaccinated individuals experiencing symptoms of myocarditis from NZ general practices and hospitals without treatment or a report of cardiac problems. This is mediated by another myth that myocarditis is a ‘mild’ disease that is short-lived. That’s a frightening lie. The damage to the heart from acute viral myocarditis is typically permanent, and the three- to five-year survival rate for myocarditis has historically ranged from 56 per cent to 83 per cent.
Whistleblowers from emergency rooms around NZ report that facilities are being overwhelmed with cardiac cases among vaccinated individuals.
Taken together, the misinformation effort by the NZ government led by Jacinda Ardern has irreparably changed the character of our society and caused needless suffering for thousands.
January 13, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine, Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand |
Leave a comment
Parents must be allowed to make individualized decisions regarding the risks and benefits of COVID vaccines for their children, Dr. Meryl Nass told Maine lawmakers this week.
Nass, a Maine-based practicing physician and member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, submitted written testimony to the Maine Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee in support of a bill that would ban state-mandated COVID-19 vaccinations without informed consent.
Hundreds of Maine residents on Tuesday attended a public hearing in support of the bill. Click here to listen to the entire hearing.
There are many reasons why preventing COVID vaccine mandates until adequate, sufficient safety studies have been performed is “the right decision for this committee and legislature,” Nass wrote.
Those reasons include:
- All available COVID vaccines are experimental products.
- Legally, recipients must be offered the right to refuse.
- Mandates negate the right of refusal.
- Basic safety questions regarding the vaccines have not been resolved, and some will not be answered until 2027.
- The WHO does not recommend broad COVID vaccinations for children.
- Parents should be permitted to make individualized decisions regarding their children’s risks and benefits from COVID vaccines.
- Unfortunately, no one can make a fully informed decision about COVID vaccines until the public has access to complete information on safety and efficacy, which are not now available. This fact alone should negate all mandates.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Tracy Quint, a Republican from Hodgdon, Maine, told the committee the bill would protect “the vital right of all Mainers to informed consent” about a vaccine whose long-term effects are unknown. She called it a chance “to change course” on the controversial issue.
Quint told Newscenter Maine she’s been hearing from people, particularly concerned parents, from across the state who are fearful there will soon be a vaccine mandate in schools.
“It didn’t matter whether they were a Democrat or a Republican, just parents in general, had some concerns whether or not this would be mandated for their children,” Quint said.
Matt Landry of Greene, Maine — one of more than 280 people who testified remotely or wrote in during the three-hour hearing — told lawmakers he is “tired of these jabs being forced against the people’s will and making people sick, injured or dead. I can see it happening to people I know, and it makes my blood boil.”
Maine Gov. Janet Mills, who opposes the bill, told Newscenter Maine:
“This is the time for everybody in leadership positions, everybody in public office, everybody in roles of leadership in their community, to get the word out to make sure people understand how safe and thoroughly tested these vaccines are and how critical they are to keep you out of the hospital, keep you out of the ICU, keep you from dying.”
But Nass told lawmakers no matter what claims have been made regarding these vaccines, they are not “safe and effective.”
Nass wrote:
“‘Safe and effective’ is an [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] ‘term of art’ that may only be applied to licensed drugs and vaccines. All currently available COVID vaccines in the United States are unlicensed and experimental, a.k.a. investigational.”
Read Nass’ full testimony below:
January 11, 2022
Honorable Chairpersons, Members and Senators,
I write in support of LD 867. There are many reasons why preventing COVID vaccine mandates until adequate, sufficient safety studies have been performed is the right decision for this committee and legislature.
1. COVID vaccines are experimental
Let me say, first, that no matter what claims have been made regarding these vaccines, they are not “safe and effective.” “Safe and effective” is an FDA “term of art” that may only be applied to licensed drugs and vaccines. All currently available COVID vaccines in the United States are unlicensed and experimental, a.k.a. investigational.
Medicines and vaccines are either licensed products or experimental products. There is no gray area between them in US law. Whether or not research is explicitly conducted, the use of experimental products (including those issued an Emergency Use Authorization) falls under the Nuremberg Code and under US law regulating experimental drugs. As former FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn himself noted, “EUA products are still considered investigational.”
According to 21CFR Subchapter D Part 312: “an experiment is any use of a drug except for the use of a marketed drug in the course of medical practice.” Vaccines are considered a subset of drugs by FDA. And the use of unlicensed, Emergency Use Authorized vaccines is thus, by definition, experimental.
US law requires that humans receiving experimental products must provide written informed consent. However, when the PREP Act creating Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) was written, this requirement was loosened slightly for emergencies in which EUA products would be used. The required disclosures when using EUAs were specified below. Please note the option to accept or refuse.
21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 – Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies (ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed —
(I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product;
(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and
(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.
All Moderna, Janssen (Johnson and Johnson) and all childhood Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines are being used under EUAs. And while the adult Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is supposed to be licensed with brand name Comirnaty, in fact the Pfizer adult vaccines being used in the US today are EUA products as well.
2. While FDA licensed Comirnaty, the only approved COVID vaccine, only Emergency Use Authorized (experimental) vaccines are being used in the US
Despite claims to the contrary, the licensed and branded Comirnaty has not been made available for administration in the US. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is currently available, is authorized under an Emergency Use Authorization, which provides a broad liability shield to the manufacturer, distributor, administrator, program planner, and virtually anyone else involved in the vaccination process. The branded product, on the other hand, is subject to ordinary liability claims at the present time.
Exactly three weeks after FDA issued Comirnaty a license, the National Library of Medicine, part of the NIH, posted information that Pfizer was not planning to make Comirnaty available in the US while the EUA vaccine was still available.
Pfizer received FDA BLA license for its COVID-19 vaccine
Pfizer received FDA BLA license on 8/23/2021 for its COVID-19 vaccine for use in individuals 16 and older (COMIRNATY). At that time, the FDA published a BLA package insert that included the approved new COVID-19 vaccine tradename COMIRNATY and listed 2 new NDCs (0069-1000-03, 0069-1000-02) and images of labels with the new tradename.
At present, Pfizer does not plan to produce any product with these new NDCs and labels over the next few months while EUA authorized product is still available and being made available for U.S. distribution. As such, the CDC, AMA, and drug compendia may not publish these new codes until Pfizer has determined when the product will be produced with the BLA labels.
FDA extended the vaccine’s EUA authorization on the same day it licensed the vaccine.
FDA appears to have been acceding to the White House demand that the vaccine be licensed, to allow it to be mandated for large sectors of the US population. Under an EUA, which specifies that potential recipients have the right to refuse, mandates cannot be imposed. So a license was issued, allowing the administration to inform the public that the vaccine was fully approved and licensed. But in fact, the public was unable to access the licensed vaccine.
Why was this convoluted regulatory process performed? While under EUA, Pfizer has an almost bulletproof liability shield. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on September 23, 2021, “courts have characterized PREP Act immunity as ‘sweeping.’” The CRS explains, “the PREP Act immunizes a covered person from legal liability for all claims for loss related to the administration or use of a covered countermeasure.”
3. FDA instructed Pfizer-BioNTech that FDA’s Congressionally-mandated databases are inadequate to assess the danger of myocarditis (and other potential COVID vaccine side effects) and therefore Pfizer-BioNTech must perform studies to evaluate these risks over the next six years
On the day FDA issued a license for Comirnaty, August 23, 2021, FDA instructed Pfizer-BioNTech that it did NOT have sufficient information on serious potential risks of the product, and required Pfizer and BioNTech, the manufacturers, to conduct a series of studies to assess these potential risks. These studies were to be performed on both products: the licensed Comirnaty and the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Note that they include the requirement for a safety study in pregnancy, which will not be completed until December 31, 2025.
I have reproduced part of what FDA wrote about these required safety studies below, directly from pages 6-11 of the FDA approval letter sent to BioNTech.
FDA’s admission that it cannot assess these safety risks, and that up to 6 years will be taken to study them, provides us with additional de facto evidence that the Pfizer vaccines cannot be termed safe, as many of the fundamental safety studies are only now getting started.
“POSTMARKETING REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 505(o) Section 505(o) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) authorizes FDA to require holders of approved drug and biological product applications to conduct postmarketing studies and clinical trials for certain purposes, if FDA makes certain findings required by the statute (section 505(o)(3)(A), 21 U.S.C. 355(o)(3)(A)).
We have determined that an analysis of spontaneous postmarketing adverse events reported under section 505(k)(1) of the FDCA will not be sufficient to assess known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis and identify an unexpected serious risk of subclinical myocarditis.
Furthermore, the pharmacovigilance system that FDA is required to maintain under section 505(k)(3) of the FDCA is not sufficient to assess these serious risks. Therefore, based on appropriate scientific data, we have determined that you are required to conduct the following studies:
- Study C4591009, entitled “A Non-Interventional Post-Approval Safety Study of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine in the United States,” to evaluate the occurrence of myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY. We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule: Final Protocol Submission: August 31, 2021 Monitoring Report Submission: October 31, 2022 Interim Report Submission: October 31, 2023 Study Completion: June 30, 2025 Final Report Submission: October 31, 2025
- Study C4591021, entitled “Post Conditional Approval [EUA] Active Surveillance Study Among Individuals in Europe Receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech Coronavirus Page 7 – STN BL 125742/0 – Elisa Harkins Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine,” to evaluate the occurrence of myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY. We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule: Final Protocol Submission: August 11, 2021 Progress Report Submission: September 30, 2021 Interim Report 1 Submission: March 31, 2022 Interim Report 2 Submission: September 30, 2022 Interim Report 3 Submission: March 31, 2023 Interim Report 4 Submission: September 30, 2023 Interim Report 5 Submission: March 31, 2024 Study Completion: March 31, 2024 Final Report Submission: September 30, 2024
- Study C4591021 sub-study to describe the natural history of myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY. We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule: Final Protocol Submission: January 31, 2022 Study Completion: March 31, 2024 Final Report Submission: September 30, 2024 7. Study C4591036, a prospective cohort study with at least 5 years of follow-up for potential long-term sequelae of myocarditis after vaccination (in collaboration with Pediatric Heart Network). We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule: Final Protocol Submission: November 30, 2021 Study Completion: December 31, 2026 Page 8 – STN BL 125742/0 – Elisa Harkins Final Report Submission: May 31, 2027
- Study C4591007 sub-study to prospectively assess the incidence of subclinical myocarditis following administration of the second dose of COMIRNATY in a subset of participants 5 through 15 years of age. We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this assessment according to the following schedule: Final Protocol Submission: September 30, 2021 Study Completion: November 30, 2023 Final Report Submission: May 31, 2024
- Study C4591031 sub-study to prospectively assess the incidence of subclinical myocarditis following administration of a third dose of COMIRNATY in a subset of participants 16 to 30 years of age. We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule: Final Protocol Submission: November 30, 2021 Study Completion: June 30, 2022.
Final Report Submission: December 31, 2022 …
- Study C4591022, entitled “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine [the EUA vaccine] Exposure during Pregnancy: A Non-Interventional Post-Approval Safety Study of Pregnancy and Infant Outcomes in the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (OTIS)/MotherToBaby Pregnancy Registry.”
Final Protocol Submission: July 1, 2021 Study Completion: June 30, 2025
Final Report Submission: December 31, 2025
4. The World Health Organization does not recommend COVID vaccines for normal children
The WHO website “WHO SHOULD GET VACCINATED” states the following:
Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults, so unless they are part of a group at higher risk of severe COVID-19, it is less urgent to vaccinate them than older people, those with chronic health conditions and health workers.
More evidence is needed on the use of the different COVID-19 vaccines in children to be able to make general recommendations on vaccinating children against COVID-19.
WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) has concluded that the Pfizer/BionTech vaccine is suitable for use by people aged 12 years and above. Children aged between 12 and 15 who are at high risk may be offered this vaccine alongside other priority groups for vaccination. Vaccine trials for children are ongoing and WHO will update its recommendations when the evidence or epidemiological situation warrants a change in policy.
If the World Health Organization believes there is insufficient evidence to support general vaccination of normal children, why would this committee and the Maine Legislature think otherwise?
To sum up:
- All available COVID vaccines are experimental products.
- Legally, recipients must be offered the right to refuse.
- Mandates negate the right of refusal.
- Basic safety questions regarding the vaccines have not been resolved, and some will not be answered until 2027.
- The WHO does not recommend broad COVID vaccinations for children.
- Parents should be permitted to make individualized decisions regarding their children’s risks and benefits from COVID vaccines.
- Unfortunately, no one can make a fully informed decision about COVID vaccines until the public has access to complete information on safety and efficacy, which are not now available. This fact alone should negate all mandates.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Meryl Nass, MD
© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
January 12, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
Stuff is starting to get interesting (and undeniable)

There is so much news hitting the streets that is being censored by main stream media and social media today, that it is overwhelming easy comprehension.
Let’s start with the letter to sent to Secretary of the HHS, Xavier Becerra from Representatives Jim Jordan (Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary) and James Comer (Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and Reform). Here is the opening excerpt:

The letter goes on:
Rather than be transparent with the Committee, HHS and NIH continue to hide, obfuscate, and shield the truth. By continuing to refuse to cooperate with our request, your agencies are choosing to hide information that will help inform the origins of the ongoing pandemic, prevent future pandemics, respond to future pandemics, inform the United States’ current national security posture, and restore confidence in our public health experts. HHS and NIH’s continued obstruction is likely to cause irreparable harm to the credibility of these agencies. The emails released today raise significant questions, including but not limited to:
1. Did Drs. Fauci or Collins warn anyone at the White House about the potential COVID-19 originated in a lab and could be intentionally genetically manipulated?
2. If these concerns were not shared, why was the decision to keep them quiet made?
3. What new evidence, if any, came to light about COVID-19 between February 1, 2020 and February 4, 2020 to alter the belief it originated in a lab?
4. Did Drs. Fauci or Collins edit the Nature Medicine paper entitled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2”?
5. Would having this knowledge earlier have benefitted either vaccine or treatment development?
6. By February 1, 2020, were Drs. Fauci or Collins aware of the State Department’s warnings about WIV safety?
7. Would this warning have changed the early response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
These questions are vital to understanding this and future pandemic responses. Unfortunately, thus far, HHS and its subordinate agency have hidden behind redactions to shield these emails from public scrutiny. We call on you to immediately lift these redactions and produce the email communications to Congress. Further, considering the import of the above questions, we request Dr. Anthony Fauci be made immediately available to sit for a transcribed interview. Please respond by January 18, 2022 to confirm.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
The appendixes of this letter have a number of emails showing in detail what is alleged above. Again, please open the document and read for yourself. These emails are in of themselves the smoking gun that reveal the lies Dr. Fauci has told Congress about what he knew of the gain-of-function research.
If you want a detailed analysis of above letter and the appended emails, I recommend ZeroHedge Tyler Durden’s article entitled “House Republicans Release Damning Fauci Emails Suggesting Concealed Knowledge Of Lab Leak”.
More on the Project Veritas data dump.
Minor main stream media outlets are already trying to cast aspersions on the Veritas documents, although as of yet, they have yet to strike a direct hit. Their tactic out of the box are to attack Veritas, and smear the legitimacy of the documents (without evidence, near as I can tell). All the while, ignoring the contents of the documents themselves. Did “we” really expect anything more from them?
I will be the first to say that we don’t have full verification, but the report issued to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense by US Marine Corp Major Joseph Murphy on August 13th, 2021 appears to be the real deal so far. When Project Veritas contacted Major Murphy, he declined to talk about the documents, but Project Veritas reported that he said the following:

To me, the above statement doesn’t exactly sound like a denial. Something tells me that Major Murphy will be pushed one way or another to reveal more of what he knows. To either verify the legitimacy of his report or not.
First, I encourage everyone to read the actual report.
This report is damming on so many fronts. Read it. Read it. Read it.
If validated, it is as big as the Pentagon papers. This would mean that research funded and conducted by the US Government has caused the death of millions of people world wide. Just ponder that. I can’t hardly wrap my head around the idea. Shocking doesn’t describe how important this is. History will remember.
I am briefly going to focus on just one of tiny aspect of this report. The “how and why” this all happened:

Translated: The purpose of the gain of function research was to inoculate (vaccinate) bats found in caves in Yunnan, China where confirmed SARS viruses had been identified. This research project was to reduce the prevalence of bat SARS viruses found in bat populations there. Basically, the researchers were trying to build a bat attenuated virus spike protein vaccine to “enhance their immune memory.” Of course, remember the adage that one should not vaccinate into a pandemic or against a rapidly mutating RNA virus, as one does not want create vaccine escape mutants. But these researchers seemed unaware of this risk (they seemed unaware on a whole lot of issues, but that is beside the point here). Why vaccinate bats with viruses adapted to humans, you might ask? Major Murphy then details that the virus got accidentally released before it fully attenuated (attenuated means to be mutated to be non-pathogenic, presumably to bats and humans).


Now, I have all sorts of questions about this. My first and foremost question is why would the researchers chose a chimera that attaches to human ACE2 receptors as the target?
Warning- tortuous logic curves ahead…
Once again seeking to provide benefit of the doubt, I suspect that the logic must have been that by vaccinating the bats with such a construct, this would reduce the risk of developing a human adapted, ACE2-binding SARS-related virus in same bats. But if this is the case, then the logic is really convoluted. One would first develop a human adapted SARS-like virus which binds human ACE2, then attenuate this virus, then find a way to aerosolize it, then infect the bats. And apparently, somehow, before the attenuation step to adapt the human adapted virus to infect the bats, there was a lab leak.
I think that might have been the underlying logic and history, at least as far as I can figure out at this point.
I think that at this point we can all agree that more rigorous constraints on gain of function research are needed. And in my opinion, we need to renegotiate the biowarfare treaty.
However, how we can stop arrogant scientists with a sense of entitlement from doing reckless stuff with viruses is beyond me.
I also still question the legitimacy of this report. Provenance and chain of custody need to be established. A statement from Major Murphy to someone or a group other than the primary source of the documents would be a good start.
Please note that I have only touched on one tiny aspect of this report. Please go read it for yourself. It is jaw dropping in its detail and allegations.
I also know that it is time for Congress to step in and investigate. Are all of these documents real? Does Major Murphy’s report accurately detail all of the events in the report? Finally, I have complete faith that the Congressional Representatives Jim Jorden and James Comer intend to conduct this investigation. I just hope that the rest of Congress gets out of the way and lets them do their job.
January 12, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights |
Leave a comment
This should terrify you if you’ve received an mRNA booster.
Last month, the European Medicines Agency authorized boosters EVERY THREE MONTHS:

Today, not even five weeks later, and barely 24 hours after Pfizer’s CEO downplayed a fourth dose, they said they think frequent boosters may not be safe:

What changed? What data have they seen since Dec. 9? Animal studies? Side effect reports? Epidemiological data? Or is this just an abundance of caution – caution that did not exist last month?
The time for obfuscation and deception is over. Hundreds of millions of people across the United States and Europe have received mRNA boosters.
They deserve to know the truth.
January 11, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine, European Medicines Agency, European Union |
Leave a comment

After 18 months of sustained direct action taken at the Elbit Ferranti site in Oldham, Greater Manchester, with 36 people arrested, Elbit have now sold Ferranti technologies, with its continued operation in Oldham appearing unfeasible. Activists have occupied, blockaded, smashed, disrupted, and protested regularly at the site, ultimately succeeding in ending the factory’s production of specialist military technologies for Israel’s fleet of combat drones.
In November 2021, anonymous sources revealed to Palestine Action that mass redundancy notices had been issued to staff working at the factory, and that premises were being cleared in preparation for Elbit leaving the site. Today, it was publicised that Ferranti has indeed been sold to TT Electronics, a British electronics firm. This major restructuring – selling a subsidiary which Elbit has consistently promoted as a success and which has helped Elbit to land multi-million pound contracts with the British government – suggests that Elbit is under significant pressure to tighten its UK operations. This is most likely due to the impossibility of continuing at the often-occupied site, the massive financial impact of occupations, and an attempt to avoid more bad publicity.
Early in 2021, Elbit attempted to make the Oldham factory a viable production site by improving security. Elbit increased spending massively for round-the-clock security, and also benefitted from a rapid police response for protestor removal. Neither of these measures succeeded in keeping out activists, with the site continuing to be targetted regularly.
The first action taken in Oldham by Palestine Action, in late August 2020, involved spraying premises in blood-red paint, symbolising the Palestinian bloodshed made possible with Elbit Ferranti technologies. Following this, actions accelerated. Windows were smashed in an occupation in November 2020, while an action taken in collaboration with XR North in February 2021 caused over £20,000 in damages. In April 2021, activists not only occupied the site but gained entry to the factoy, smashing the roof, windows, air vents, and undermining future operations by covering equipment and computers in red paint – over £100,000 of damages were caused, and the site remained shut for well over a week. On July 5th, three activists gained entry to the site, allegedly causing £500,000 of damage and closing the factory for a number of weeks. More recently, in August of this year, activists blockaded the factory – blocking roads with vehicles and locking onto gates – and occupied the factory itself again. There have been a number of other actions taken at the Oldham site, with the factory forced to close for a significant number of weeks in total due to damage caused.
The site has also been subject to regular protests called by Oldham Peace and Justice and Manchester Palestine Action, with large crowds gathering outside the factory on a weekly basis since the massive and brutal bombardments of Gaza by Israel in May. Sustained pressure, through both protests and an extended campaign of effective direct action, has generated immense challenges for Elbit, who have now sold the subsidiary and left the site.
A Palestine Action spokesperson has stated:
“The sale of Ferranti and the closure of the Oldham factory is a huge victory for the movement. So far, our actions have undermined and disrupted operations – but this news vindicates our long-term strategy. Direct action works – the brave individuals who occupied the factory over the past year can proudly say that drone technologies are no longer in production in Oldham. But its not enough that just one of these death-factories shuts down. We want to see Elbit itself shut down for good, and all of their businesses forced out of Britain – we will keep escalating our actions until that happens.”
This site had been targetted due to the crimes committed against Palestinian civilians using Elbit Ferranti products. The Oldham factory was used for the manufacture of specialist military products and technology, including the SkEye persistent surveillance system aboard Elbit’s Hermes 450 and 900 drones. Ferranti also manufacture the SpectroXR ultra long-range imaging system for Hermes drones. Hermes drones have been used extensively by Israel in bombardments of Gaza, notably during Operation Protective Edge in 2014 in which over 2,200 Palestinians were killed, including 526 children. The site was also used for the production of IronVision helmets for use in battle tanks such as the Carmel – specficially designed for operations in densely built urban areas, such as Gaza.
January 11, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | Israel, Palestine, UK |
Leave a comment
Republicans on the House Oversight Committee have released several emails which suggest Dr. Anthony Fauci may have known that Covid-19 originated from a lab leak, and that it may have been “intentionally genetically manipulated.”
“We write to request a transcribed interview of Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director, U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Excerpts of emails we are making public today (see enclosed Appendix I) reveal that Dr. Fauci was warned of two things: (1) the potential that COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan Institute Virology (WIV) and (2) the possibility that the virus was intentionally genetically manipulated. It is imperative we investigate if this information was conveyed to the rest of the government and whether this information would have changed the U.S. response to the pandemic,” reads the letter from Reps. James Comer and Jim Jordan to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra.
The letter goes on to state that Fauci – despite claiming otherwise on multiple occasions – was in fact aware of the monetary relationship between NIAID, the NIH, EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan lab – by January 27, 2020. Fauci also knew that EcoHealth and NIAID worked together to craft a grant policy which would ‘sidestep the gain-of-function moratorium at the time.’
“This allowed EcoHealth to complete dangerous experiments on novel bat coronaviruses – and with little oversight – that would have otherwise been blocked by the moratorium,” the letter continues, adding that in January 2020, Fauci was also aware that EcoHealth was delinquent in submitting an annual progress report to NIAID, “presumably to hide a gain-of-function experiment conducted on infectious and potentially lethal bat coronaviruses.”
The conference call
The letter references a February 1, 2020 conference call between Fauci, NIH head Collins, and ‘at least eleven other scientists’ who convened to discuss Covid-19.
“It was on this conference call that Drs. Fauci and Collins were first warned that COVID-19 may have leaked from the WIV and, further, may have been intentionally genetically manipulated. Again, it is unclear if either Dr. Fauci or Dr. Collins ever passed these warnings along to other government officials or if they simply ignored them.”


Three days after the call, four participants authored a paper entitled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” of which Fauci and Collins were sent drafts. The authors, who had previously expressed concern over a lab-leak and genetic manipulation, suddenly abandoned that theory to insist the new virus had a natural origin.
Meanwhile, on April 16, 2020, Collins emailed Fauci to express dismay that the Nature Medicine article which they saw prior to publication (and were given the opportunity to edit), did not quash the lab leak hypothesis. Collins asked Fauci if the NIH could do more to “put down” the lab leak hypothesis. The next day, Fauci cited the paper from the White House podium “likely in an effort to further stifle the hypothesis that COVID-19 leaked from the WIV.”
Questions
The House GOP letter then asks a series of questions.
Rather than be transparent with the Committee, HHS and NIH continue to hide, obfuscate, and shield the truth. By continuing to refuse to cooperate with our request, your agencies are choosing to hide information that will help inform the origins of the ongoing pandemic, prevent future pandemics, respond to future pandemics, inform the United States’ current national security posture, and restore confidence in our public health experts. HHS and NIH’s continued obstruction is likely to cause irreparable harm to the credibility of these agencies. The emails released today raise significant questions, including but not limited to:
1. Did Drs. Fauci or Collins warn anyone at the White House about the potential COVID-19
originated in a lab and could be intentionally genetically manipulated?
2. If these concerns were not shared, why was the decision to keep them quiet made?
3. What new evidence, if any, came to light about COVID-19 between February 1, 2020 and February 4, 2020 to alter the belief it originated in a lab?
4. Did Drs. Fauci or Collins edit the Nature Medicine paper entitled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2”?
5. Would having this knowledge earlier have benefitted either vaccine or treatment development?
6. By February 1, 2020, were Drs. Fauci or Collins aware of the State Department’s warnings about WIV safety?
7. Would this warning have changed the early response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Read the entire letter and released emails below:
Download this PDF
January 11, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Anthony Fauci, Covid-19, United States |
Leave a comment
Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla sees the dangers ahead, as his very carefully worded interview (worthy of close review) with CNBC yesterday shows.
Remember NINJA loans?
NINJA stood for “No income, no job/assets.” Back in the mid-aughts, when the banks and not the regulators were the ones going crazy and setting the financial system on fire with free money, they were all the rage.
I remember hearing ads for them in 2006 and 2007 and thinking, this has to be a bait and switch. You cannot walk into Your Friendly MegaBank and walk out with a few hundred grand for a house with no proof you even have a job! A job seems pretty basic.
But you could. And people did. Lots of people.
Underlying this madness was a model, naturally. American housing prices had never collapsed nationally and simultaneously since at least the Depression. Therefore the models that the banks and mortgage originators used said they never would.
Therefore on a national basis the collateral – the houses – underlying the mortgages would always be fine, even if the borrowers couldn’t repay them. The lenders just needed to be in different markets to be geographically protected. Besides, the bankers were all reselling the loans and offloading the risk. They got paid up front, whether the loans were paid back or not.
It was a very good business.
Until it went bad.
“How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked.
“Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually, then suddenly.”
—
You remember 2008. You were there.
In a matter of months, the big banks became the most hated institutions in the United States. The desperation to blame them ran so deep that we all seemed to agree collectively that the borrowers were the victims. The people who had taken the money had no responsibility for signing those loans, much less repaying them.
Obviously, that formulation was simplistic. Many of the NINJA and similar borrowers no doubt understood the game they were playing. They were hoping to buy and flip houses they couldn’t afford.
No matter. They had lost. Anyway, we couldn’t make villains out of millions of ordinary people. So we understandably focused our anger on the Wall Street tycoons who had crashed our financial system and made hundreds of billions of dollars.
Fast-forward to 2022.
This time around the myth of the truly innocent victim is not a myth.
The hundreds of millions of people who have received shots of mRNA/LNP and DNA/AAV Covid vaccines had no real idea what they were taking.
They did so on the urging of the vaccine companies and health authorities, who told them that in doing so they would protect themselves and their families and end the Covid epidemic. The statements were public. Many are less than a year old. They cannot be suppressed or memory-holed, no matter how hard anyone wants to try.
Every single one of those statements has proven wrong – so wrong that the companies, which are at much greater legal risk than the public health authorities – no longer even try to defend them.
Here’s what Albert Bourla, Pfizer’s chief executive officer, said on Monday in an interview on CNBC:
The hope is that we will achieve something that will have way, way better protection, particularly against infections because the protection against the hospitalizations and the severe disease, it is, it is reasonable right now, with the current vaccines as long as you are having let’s say the third dose.
Read those words very carefully.
Protection against “severe disease” is “reasonable right now” for people who have taken a “third dose” of Pfizer’s vaccine.
Put aside the fact that even those words are at best an optimistic interpretation of current data.
Put aside the fact that Pfizer has NEVER compared a three-dose vaccine regimen to a placebo in a clinical trial.
Put aside the fact that “reasonable right now” suggests that any effect of a third dose will not last.
What the chief executive of Pfizer is telling you is THAT IF YOU RECEIVED TWO DOSES OF HIS COMPANY’S VACCINE LAST YEAR, YOUR PROTECTION IS GONE.
Even against “the hospitalizations and the severe disease.”
You need to be “having let’s say the third dose” for protection against those.
I didn’t say it.
Pfizer’s CEO did. (And I can’t wait to see Twitter’s lawyers try to explain it when they defend my fifth strike. It goes WAY further than that tweet did.)
Ask yourself why Pfizer’s chief executive officer would be MORE negative about his company’s vaccine and future boosters than the public health authorities and the media bluechecks.
Here’s a hint: not because Pfizer has a history of honest and ethical behavior to uphold.
—
Most people don’t understand yet how badly they were conned.
But they will.
The raw numbers are stark – in Ontario, for example, 76 percent of hospitalized people and 56 percent of those in intensive care are now vaccinated. Both the raw numbers and the percentages have soared in the last two weeks.
The data out of Europe are similar. The only reason the American data look different is that we don’t get to see the raw numbers. Instead, health authorities provide meaningless adjusted rate ratios (adjusted for age of vaccinated people, but NOT for healthy vaccine user bias – the fact that frailest elderly people are often not vaccinated because they cannot be.) Further, American hospitals report people as unvaccinated when their vaccine status is “unknown,” further skewing the ratios.
But you can trust Albert Bourla: vaccine protection against severe outcomes drops over time – and drops much more quickly against the Omicron variant.
That’s one side of the coin.
The flip side is adverse events. We don’t know how bad those are after a third dose, much less a fourth or fifth or more. (How can we? Remember, the companies didn’t test three doses against placebo.)
But the third-shot myocarditis data looks bad. It suggests a dose-dependent response. And the rise in all-cause deaths across Europe in the last few months cannot be ignored, even if the health authorities are ignoring it.
I suspect the smartest people at the companies are increasingly aware of the potential crisis of repeated dosing. Which may be why Bourla also said in the CNBC interview, “I don’t know if there is a need for a fourth booster.”
What? In the same interview where Pfizer’s CEO warned people not to expect long-lasting protection from a third shot – “reasonable right now” – he also pivoted away from more boosters?
Instead Bourla talked up Paxlovid, his company’s new $530 per treatment antiviral. “This is where most of the effort of most of the governments is moving.”
Actually Paxlovid is basically unavailable right now; Pfizer has promised 120 million doses worldwide in 2022, but as of 10 days ago, only 180,000 were available.
So what’s Bourla’s game? Doesn’t he want to sell as many vaccines as he can?
Maybe not. Especially not with a drug that potentially can be huge ($530 x 120 million = $62 billion, give or take, and Pfizer won’t have to share it with BioNTech).
More important for Bourla, the real risk to Pfizer – and to him – comes from side effects. People will be angry when they figure out that they’ve been conned into taking vaccines that didn’t work. But most of them won’t be furious, especially since Omicron appears much milder than earlier variants. Zero efficacy probably won’t destroy Pfizer or get anyone indicted.
But side effects might. People will be FURIOUS if they think they have been conned into taking vaccines that didn’t work and potentially hurt them, or their parents, or their kids.
Right now the rate of reported serious vaccine injury is just low enough that the companies and vaccine fanatics can argue it’s not real, it’s a statistical artifact, the VAERS reports are fake (they’re not), etc. The third dose appears to be changing that equation somewhat.
Who knows what future doses will bring? Nobody, including Albert Bourla, though his scientists may have shot up enough mice and monkeys to give him a better idea than the rest of us.
Unlike BioNTech and Moderna, Pfizer isn’t stuck with mRNA. It is a $300 billion pharmaceutical company that is busily taking its vaccine loot to buy lots of research. Plus it now has Paxlovid.
(Big investors have figured all this out, by the way. The stocks of BioNTech and Moderna are down more than 50 percent since the peak of the vaccine frenzy in August, while Pfizer’s is up 20 percent and near an all-time high. Like Big Pharma, Wall Street is a lot of things, but it ain’t dumb.)
So the prudent move for Albert Bourla, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, PhD., is to begin to tamp expectations for vaccines, slow-walk more boosters, and hope that Omicron does his job for him. His biggest problem is probably that the public health authorities are a lot stupider than he is and continue to push boosters.
I’d love to know what Pfizer is telling them privately. I’m gonna guess it’s not in email, though.
January 11, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Paxlovid |
Leave a comment
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Project Veritas has obtained startling never-before-seen documents regarding the origins of COVID-19, gain of function research, vaccines, potential treatments which have been suppressed, and the government’s effort to conceal all of this.
The documents in question stem from a report at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, better known as DARPA, which were hidden in a top secret shared drive.
DARPA is an agency under the U.S. Department of Defense in charge of facilitating research in technology with potential military applications.
Project Veritas has obtained a separate report to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense written by U.S. Marine Corp Major, Joseph Murphy, a former DARPA Fellow.
The report states that EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in March 2018, seeking funding to conduct gain of function research of bat borne coronaviruses. The proposal, named Project Defuse, was rejected by DARPA over safety concerns and the notion that it violates the basis gain of function research moratorium.
According to the documents, NIAID, under the direction of Dr. Fauci, went ahead with the research in Wuhan, China and at several sites across the U.S.
Dr. Fauci has repeatedly maintained, under oath, that the NIH and NAIAD have not been involved in gain of function research with the EcoHealth Alliance program. But according to the documents obtained by Project Veritas which outline why EcoHealth Alliance’s proposal was rejected, DARPA certainly classified the research as gain of function.
“The proposal does not mention or assess potential risks of Gain of Function (GoF) research,” a direct quote from the DARPA rejection letter.
Major Murphy’s report goes on to detail great concern over the COVID-19 gain of function program, the concealment of documents, the suppression of potential curatives, like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, and the mRNA vaccines.
Project Veritas reached out to DARPA for comment regarding the hidden documents and spoke with the Chief of Communications, Jared Adams, who said, “It doesn’t sound normal to me,” when asked about the way the documents were shrouded in secrecy. “If something resides in a classified setting, then it should be appropriately marked,” Adams said. “I’m not at all familiar with unmarked documents that reside in a classified space, no.”
In a video breaking this story published on Monday night, Project Veritas CEO, James O’Keefe, asked a foundational question to DARPA:
“Who at DARPA made the decision to bury the original report? They could have raised red flags to the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress, which may have prevented this entire pandemic that has led to the deaths of 5.4 million people worldwide and caused much pain and suffering to many millions more.”
Dr. Anthony Fauci has not yet responded to a request for comment on this story.
READ THE DOCUMENTS
REJECTION OF DEFUSE PROJECT PROPOSAL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: DEFUSE
BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT PREventing EMerging Pathogenic Threats(PREEMPT)
U.S. Marine Corp Major Joseph Murphy’s Report to Inspector General of DoD
About Project Veritas
James O’Keefe established Project Veritas in 2010 as a non-profit journalism enterprise to continue his undercover reporting work. Today, Project Veritas investigates and exposes corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions to achieve a more ethical and transparent society and to engage in litigation to: protect, defend and expand human and civil rights secured by law, specifically First Amendment rights including promoting the free exchange of ideas in a digital world; combat and defeat censorship of any ideology; promote truthful reporting; and defend freedom of speech and association issues including the right to anonymity.
January 11, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | Covid-19, Darpa, NIAID, United States |
Leave a comment
British warships deployed to the South Atlantic after Argentina’s invasion of the Falkland Islands [Islas Malvinas] in 1982 were armed with dozens of nuclear depth charges. Prince Andrew served on HMS Invincible, which carried 12 nuclear weapons.
The revelation is contained in a new file released to the National Archives. Marked “Top Secret Atomic,” it shows that the presence of the nuclear weapons caused panic among officials in London when they realized the damage, both physical and political, they could have caused.
The military regime in Argentina claimed the Falkland islands and invaded on April 2, 1982. The U.K. government under Margaret Thatcher dispatched a naval task force to the South Atlantic to retake the islands.
A Ministry of Defence (MoD) minute, dated April 6, 1982, referred to “huge concern” that some of the “nuclear depth bombs” could be “lost or damaged and the fact become public.” The minute added: “The international repercussions of such an incident could be very damaging.”
Nuclear depth bombs are deployed from navy ships to attack submerged submarines.
The unidentified official who wrote the minute continued:
“The secretary of state [John Nott] will wish to continue the long-established practice of refusing to comment on the presence or absence of UK nuclear weapons at any given location at any particular time.”
Heated Row
The existence of the weapons provoked a heated row between the MoD and the Foreign Office. The latter asked the MoD to “unship” the weapons. The Navy refused to do so.
The MoD noted the principal arguments in favour of keeping the weapons on board. It stated:
“In the event of tension or hostilities between ourselves and the Soviet Union concurrent with Operation Corporate [the codename given to liberating the Falklands] the military capability of our warships would otherwise be severely reduced.”
One document in the file says there was no risk of an “atomic bomb type explosion.” But there was a threat of the “disposal of fissile material” if any of the weapons was damaged which could lead to up to 50 “additional deaths” from cancer.
Even if there was no pollution in the event of a damaged or sunk nuclear weapon the Argentinians might get hold of nuclear technology and “we might have had to face acute embarrassment in the non-proliferation field,” recorded a MoD official.
Keeping Secret
A plan to offload the weapons at the British base on Ascension Island in the South Atlantic Ocean was rejected by the Navy. It said this would delay the passage of the task force to the Falklands and that the operation would not be kept secret.
Instead, the weapons were transferred from the frigates and destroyers to the larger aircraft carriers, HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible, where the weapons could be better protected. Prince Andrew served as a helicopter pilot on Invincible during the war.
By the middle of May 1982, the Hermes had 18 nuclear weapons on board and Invincible 12, while the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship, Regent, had one, according to the file. The ships were within the “total exclusion zone” imposed by Britain around the Falkland Islands, the documents say.
The file does not say whether any of these were “inert” surveillance rounds used to monitor the “wear and tear on the weapons”, as academic Lawrence Freedman put it in his Official History of the Falklands Campaign, published in 2005.
Surveillance and training rounds were used to test the depth charges to see how they would perform. They were identical to live weapons except the fissile material was replaced by depleted uranium and inert substances.
But even the presence of inert rounds caused alarm in the Foreign Office. Its top official, Sir Antony Ackland, wrote to Sir Frank Cooper, his opposite number in the MoD: “I was very glad to have your confirmation that HMS Sheffield was not carrying an inert round when she was hit.”
The destroyer sank on May 10, 1982 after being attacked by an Argentinian Exocet missile six days earlier.
Nuclear Free Zone
The Foreign Office was also anxious about the presence of the nuclear weapons because of the 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco. This established a nuclear free zone in Latin America and surrounding waters, including the Falklands.
Although Britain had signed and ratified the treaty’s protocols other countries, including Argentina, had not done so. According to Freedman, Margaret Thatcher insisted that no ship carrying nuclear weapons would enter the three-mile territorial waters around the Falklands which would be a “potential breach” of the Tlatelolco treaty.
The MoD admitted in 2003 that British ships in the task force carried nuclear weapons and that a weapon container had been damaged. But the number of weapons had not been revealed before this document was transferred to the National Archives in Kew, south west London.
But a number of documents from the file have been weeded by the MoD or the Cabinet Office. They include an intriguing note, dated April 11, 1982, beginning “The Chiefs of Staff believe…” What they believed we are not allowed to know.
What About Gibraltar?
Many more documents are missing from a separate file, now declassified, entitled “Gibraltar: Impact of the Falklands Crisis”.
Gibraltarians, like the Falkland Islanders, inhabited a British “Overseas Territory” and were concerned because Spain supported Argentine claims of sovereignty over the islands just as it claimed Gibraltar, the large rock and British base on the southern tip of the Iberian peninsula.
Whitehall weeders have withheld no fewer than 73 documents from the Gibraltar file. They have done so under exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act, and, specifically, sections 27(i), 40 (2), and 41.
These cover information whose disclosure might “prejudice” the interest of the U.K. abroad, “personal data” and “information provided in confidence.” Passages in other documents in the file have also been excised.
What has the British government to hide? Documents declassified previously may offer some clues. Thatcher repeatedly expressed concern about the implications of the Falklands crisis for Gibraltar.
Despite the public rhetoric, successive U.K. governments have been prepared to negotiate about sovereignty of the Falklands and sought a joint sovereignty agreement with Spain over Gibraltar in 2000 and again in 2002.
Thatcher’s government secretly offered to hand over sovereignty of the Falklands islands two years before the invasion by Argentine forces in 1982. The cabinet’s defence committee approved a plan whereby Britain would hand Argentina titular sovereignty over the islands, which would then be leased back by Britain for 99 years.
Lord Carrington resigned as foreign secretary over the Argentine invasion of the Falklands. He told the subsequent Franks Committee, which inquired into the run-up to the invasion, that British policy had been one of neglect and hoping for the best. “We did not have any cards in our hands”, he said.
Richard is a British editor, journalist and playwright, and the doyen of British national security reporting.
January 10, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Environmentalism, Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Falkland Islands, Islas Malvinas, Latin America, UK |
Leave a comment
Ivermectin, a decades-old, off-patent drug costing pennies to make, with an unparalleled safety profile and numerous manufacturers across the world, actually sits atop one of the largest and strongest clinical trials evidence base in history. The existing, massive amount of clinical trials data shows immense efficacy against COVID-19 in all its phases; prevention, early and late treatment, and long-haul syndrome (no actual trials in long-haul but rather extensive positive clinical experiences). Despite this inarguable (yes, inarguable) supportive evidence, no major Western or international health agency has recommended its use in COVID-19. Conversely, ivermectin has been officially adopted for early treatment in all or part of 23 “less developed” countries (39 if you include non-government medical organizations), and which include about 25% of the world’s population.
Now, before we delve deeper into the workings of the most heinous disinformation campaign ever waged by the pharmaceutical industry in history (and also it’s most successful so far as 75% of the earth’s inhabitants still have not been recommended to use it to treat COVID), I will ask you not to just “take my word for it” but instead take you on a brief, guided tour of the insanely positive evidence base supporting the use of ivermectin in COVID-19.
Let’s go. First, the below “Forest Plot” was compiled by the anonymous expert research group at c19early.com (not enough can be said of the impact their meticulous work has had on COVID clinicians and scientists across the globe). Please visit their site, it is mind-blowingly impressive. The compounds listed in the rows represent the medicines with the most clinical trials evidence as of today, either by size or by number and are listed in order of potency against COVID.

Here is how to read and understand a Forest Plot: there is a thin grey line in the center, on either side of which are plotted squares which represent an estimate of the true size of the “treatment effect,” derived from an average of the treatment effects measured from all the trials performed of that medicine. If the box is squarely on the vertical line it means it is a treatment whose benefits have been found equal to its harms. In the above list, (with the exception of one) medicines with “positive” treatment effects are listed, meaning the benefits of treatment with these agents outweigh any potential or actual harms. No medicine on the list above, besides convalescent plasma (CP), indicates it is inferior to placebo (note that CP was the initial favored therapy of every single academic medical center in the U.S despite the fact CP has only ever been shown to be effective in hematogenous infections). In cases, such as with CP, due to the fact it’s harms outweigh it’s benefits, the box is plotted on the right side of the line and shaded in red. Conversely, the farther to the left of the vertical line that a box is plotted, the larger the measured impact on the clinical outcome tested. Green boxes indicate the effect estimate is based on at least 4 trials. Grey boxes and greyed out medicine names mean the estimate for that medicine is based on fewer than 4 trials. The thin horizontal line through each little box indicates the degree of precision, i.e. how confident we can be in the estimate of the treatment effect – narrow horizontal lines through the boxes mean the data in support is large and consistently positive and is “statistically significant” in favor of the medicine. The wider the line, the less consistent, or less amount of data can be relied upon to make the estimate. When the horizontal line through a box extends across the vertical gray line, this indicates that it is statistically possible that the true estimate may actually be in favor of placebo!
With ivermectin, what sets it apart from all the other compounds tested, is the sheer number of randomized and observational controlled trials that have been performed to date. It is #1 among the “green box” compounds given it has been tested in 73 controlled trials which include an unheard-of 56,804 patients. Why unheard of? Because never in history has a medicine been so thoroughly tested, with such consistent positive results, yet led to a situation where governmental agencies in highly developed countries call for even more placebo-controlled trials to be done… and then slow walk to doing them. The ethics of giving a covid patient a placebo given this amount of supportive data are too miserable to contemplate this early in the article (fun fact – I was personally asked to try to help recruit patients for the ongoing University of Minnesota placebo controlled RCT. I got off the phone as fast as I could). Another not-so-fun fact: penicillin was mass deployed to great effect to all our troops for their battlefield injuries in World War II… based on a case series of 157 patients where their bacterial infections overtly resolved without signs of toxicity during treatment. Not one RCT was done before this decision was made by military and medical leaders.
The only other medicine with a larger supportive evidence base is hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), especially when only the early treatment trials of HCQ are considered as that collection of trials results in an equally impressive position on the Forest plot (not shown). A tired topic I will explore later is the much parroted (and highly favored by Pharma) notion that “retrospective, observational controlled trials (OCT)” cannot be trusted as they are inferior to “proper, large, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled trials (RCT).” This notion is not evidence based. Even the captured (I know, sorry) Cochrane Library knows this. They themselves have shown that, on average, over thousands of clinical trials, over decades of research, OCT’s and RCT’s reach the same conclusions. So stop with the false dichotomy. Pharma wants you to only trust in “large RCT’s”… because they are the only ones with the cash to do them. That way, they can control the only medicines that get “proven” and thus adopted into guidelines.
Two absurdities (crimes) must be highlighted in the above diagram – one is the sheer number of medicines with demonstrated efficacy, most costing under $5 a dose (and almost all with unparalleled safety profiles and/or “over the counter” status) that are still not recommended by any U.S or “western” health agency (with the exception of the state of Florida since the hire of Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo who has put together a terrific public health campaign supporting the use of a combination early treatment protocol which includes another FLCCC adopted drug, fluvoxamine).
Meanwhile our federal governmental health agencies, which I have argued repeatedly (and will for years until it stops) are so completely captured by the pharmaceutical industry that they have not advocated for any one of these “repurposed” compounds, even as a “precautionary principle” (meaning that even if the purported benefits may not be realized to the extent estimated, the risks are so small it is more likely best for all we employ them now in early treatment given the world is cratering). Their most unforgivable and absurd inaction is the deliberate ignoring of the critical role of Vitamin D in protecting against the worst outcomes of COVID, despite knowing full well significant portions of the U.S population is Vitamin D deficient. Even Anthony Fauci recommends to himself that he take Vitamin D… regularly. The data below was given to me by a Dr. Henele and is from work he published in 2016. Note the percent of the U.S population that is critically deficient in Vitamin D.

The second absurdity is found when looking at the plot with only the medicines recommended in the NIH’s COVID protocol circled. Note that the NIH protocol is adhered to by almost the entirety of the country’s hospitals (largely due to large add-on bonuses paid to hospitals when the protocol elements are used – I am not making this up). A “theme” should begin to emerge as you look at the circled, “recommended” medicines vs the non-circled, “non-recommended” medicines – every single one is massively expensive. Every single one. Note not one inexpensive drug is circled. How much more evidence do you need to prove that our agencies have been completely captured by the pharmaceutical industry?

Fun fact now that you are en expert in reading Forest Plot’s: Merck’s mutagenic new drug molnupiravir, after the highly positive results from their study’s “interim analysis,” published in a press release, instead found that, in the 2nd half of its one study, the data favored… placebo. Thus if the 2nd half was a stand-alone study (which it arguably could have been) it’s box would be firmly on the right side of the line. FDA still approved… while feigning concern. Unsurprising really.
Now, beyond the above 73 controlled trials supporting ivermectin, there are, in addition, numerous health ministries from around the world that deployed ivermectin in either the prevention or early treatment of COVID, among often very large populations. Each program’s report found that ivermectin use led to massive reductions in the need for hospitalization and/or death (Mexico City, Uttar Pradesh, Brazil, Misiones, La Pampas, Peru, Phillipines, and Japan – I will do a deeper dive on these in a later post). The program in the city of Itajai, Brazil is both the largest study of ivermectin in the world (data from nearly 200,000 patients was carefully collected over a 6 month period) and most impressive. They found that, despite the fact that the 120,000 patients who agreed to take ivermectin every 15 days were older, fatter, and sicker than the approximately 37,000 that did not… they went to hospital 67% less frequently, and died 70% less frequently… from all causes, not just COVID. The issue with ivermectin as a therapeutic in COVID… has NOTHING to do with the science.
The issue with ivermectin is simply it’s price – it costs less than a $1 and represents the biggest threat to the immense and future profits of the pharmaceutical industry’s novel oral anti-viral drugs… as well as their vaccines.
The previous title holder of the largest threat to Pharma profits in COVID was the highly effective (and also anti-viral) drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). However, it lost that title after the 2020 war on HCQ was essentially won by Pharma (for now?), using tactics so sinister as to be unimaginable, and which I will not review here as that macabre war has already been expertly reviewed in incredible and highly referenced detail in the book “The Real Anthony Fauci” by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. His book, in my opinion, is a must read for all the globe’s citizens, as without it, no coherent understanding of the innumerable non-scientific actions and policies across the entirety of the developed (and majority of the undeveloped) world can be gained.
I must emphasize that ivermectin is just the latest drug under attack during Pharma’s long-standing (and highly successful) war on off-patent, “no-longer-obscenely-profitable” medicines. Books have been written about the numerous, and often criminal actions that Big Pharma has employed to replace older off-patent medicines with newer, highly profitable, and often poorly tested drugs with either prospectively known dangers or quickly discovered dangers which they then criminally suppress or distort to preserve profits. When science supporting older, off-patent, often “repurposed” medicines (particularly in the lucrative environment of a global pandemic) becomes “inconvenient” to the financial promise of newer agents, the industry employs what are called “Disinformation” tactics, first invented and perfected by the Tobacco Industry, and now used to great effect by the Pharmaceutical (and many other) industries. These tactics are brilliantly and succinctly summarized in an article called The Disinformation Playbook written by The Union for Concerned Scientists. I encourage all to read. The 5 main “plays” from the playbook are listed below. If you are at all versed in the ivermectin in COVID saga (many FLCCC followers are), it should be easy to quickly come up with numerous examples of each nefarious tactic. I give some hints below…
1) The “Fake”: Conduct counterfeit science and try to pass it off as legitimate research (Dr. Andrew Hill)
2) The “Blitz”: Harass scientists who speak out with results or views inconvenient for industry (attacks on FLCCC founders)
3) The “Diversion”: Manufacture uncertainty about science where little or none exists (Dr. Andrew Hill/captured high-impact journals)
4) The “Screen”: Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies (i.e. high impact medical journal influences)
5) The “Fix”: Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy (i.e. capture the health agencies by creating “revolving doors” between Pharma and government to ensure total synchrony in objectives amongst their leaders)
Given the Disinformation Playbook was last updated in 2018, it does not include newer, more nefarious tactics that industries have been able to deploy since the historic consolidation of financial power by just 3 multi-trillion dollar investment funds (Black Rock, State Street, and Vanguard). These three corporations have now acquired influential or outright controlling investment stakes in nearly every major corporation in nearly every industry. These investment managers power, particularly the power held synchronously over media companies, social media companies, and the near entirety of the pharmaceutical industry, has allowed even more fearsome tactics to be used in the near-global suppression of the efficacy of ivermectin (and HCQ) as they now:
1) CENSOR any mentions of supportive evidence in corporate, (a.k.a. “legacy”) media. Note that, besides the influence of these investment manager overlords, the global censoring ability of media was greatly helped by the “Trusted News Initiative (TNI),” an obscene (and either naively misguided or completely corrupt) effort by the most powerful journalism organizations in the world to band together to try to control the spread of “mis-information”. Yes, professional journalists decided they needed to control information in a pandemic. I am not making this up. Would an appropriate analogy be that a bunch of physician leaders decided they needed to spread disease in a pandemic?
2) CENSOR any mentions or discussions of efficacy on almost all social media – see explicit youtube “community” policy below as the most unsubtle example:
YOUTUBE COMMUNITY GUIDELINES

3) RETRACT positive papers from impactful medical journals (3 fully peer-reviewed and highly supportive scientific reviews of ivermectin have been retracted, either immediately prior to or post-publication (I was the lead author on the first one with my FLCCC colleagues)
4) BLOCK review and publication of positive trials of ivermectin in major medical journals (in my now global network of ivermectin-expert and/or ivermectin study investigator colleagues, all lament how their positive clinical trials or papers were rejected for review from all the high-impact (captured) journals, with Dr. Eli Schwartz’s highly sophisticated, expertly conducted, and immensely positive study from Israel being one of the most illustrative examples
5) PUBLISH numerous “hit pieces” within high profile print media outlets discrediting the science and/or the scientists who support the medicine. This is actually an example of the already described “Blitz” tactic, but in 2021, during COVID, using total media control, it was deployed by a division of Howitzers. A more recent and relatable example of “the Diversion” tactic was when the NFL used media hit pieces to go after the scientists (and their inconvenient science) after they began publishing and disseminating data about the high rates and disastrous impacts of chronic traumatic encephalopathy in retired NFL players.
What I have found fascinating, is that for every planted hit piece article discrediting the mountain of evidence supporting ivermectin as a therapeutic, the FLCCC is actually rarely mentioned. But why? I think it is because the FLCCC is a sizeable group of highly published physicians and researchers (Professor Paul Marik is actually the most published practicing ICU physician in the history of the specialty). Thus, it’s hard (but not impossible) to call us “fringe.” The last thing they want to do is call attention to our high degree of credibility. Instead they seem to be trying to destroy it using separate hit pieces (among other tactics) which has led to the recent loss of employment for three founding FLCCC members (Drs. Marik, Meduri, and yours truly have been forced to leave jobs or had their exemplary clinical and research careers ended (Drs. Marik and Meduri). An article on ivermectin that does not mention our organization does so purposefully so as not to give attention to credible support for its use given we are considered the foremost clinical experts on the clinical use of ivermectin in COVID in the world.
6) employ a coordinated media-government agency PROPAGANDA campaign;
August 26th, 2021: Pharma used their CDC to send out a “health advisory” to all 50 state Departments of Health, which they then sent to all the physicians licensed in their respective states (a terrifying example of the immense destructive power of a federal agency captured by pharmaceutical industry interests). The bulletin both;
1) depicted ivermectin as a dangerous drug by deliberately exaggerating reports of calls to poison control centers
2) cited the meaningless fact that it “is not FDA approved for COVID” as a reason it should not be used, hoping doctors may not realize that “off-label” prescribing is both legal and encouraged… by the FDA.
Next, a quickly debunked (not quickly enough) planted media article in Rolling Stone appeared with an impressively click-bait-able headline describing emergency rooms so overflowing with ivermectin overdoses that our nation’s gunshot victims couldn’t get (obviously) needed care (even I clicked on it). The article then went viral across the world (thousands of media mentions) before the hospital could put out a statement saying it was 100% false. Gee, do you think Pharma hired a professional PR firm to pull that one off or did they just benefit from a serendipitous and lamentably lazy journalist’s error?

Then, in another terrifying example of the control of major corporate media… for week after week every news broadcaster, pundit, and late-night talk show host prefaced the word ivermectin with the descriptor “horse de-wormer.” Over and over and over again (totally pissing off Joe Rogan who recovered from COVID with ivermectin as part of his combination protocol- hah!)
Then finally, in a coup de grace, in comes Pharma’s FDA proudly using twitter to associate ivermectin with, you guessed it, horses. Janet Woodcock, the acting Commissioner of the FDA, even sent out a congratulatory email to her team about the success of the tweet.
Was this a coordinated attack led by an expert team of brazen PR professionals who have a fondness for horses… or did it arise organically via a series of disconnected events?
If you are still not convinced of the former, I need to point out that this “series of disconnected events” had an uncanny sense of when to “roll-out.” The CDC’s Health Advisory was issued on August 26th. Look at the below chart and see if you can find any reason why it would start then? Recall that the advisory was ostensibly in reaction to false “reports of calls to poison control centers”. The below chart shows instead what was really going on at the time – hundreds, if not thousands of licensed medical professionals across the country were prescribing ivermectin like mad during the terrible, and deadly summer surge of the Delta variant. Was someone getting nervous that a “dirty little secret” was being rapidly discovered by American citizens and physicians? The answer is a definitive yes – thus triggering Pharma to nefariously try to “stuff the genie back in the bottle” by unleashing their terrifying disinformation propaganda campaign.
NUMBER OF IVERMECTIN PRESCRIPTIONS DISPENSED IN THE U.S OVER TIME

But check this out… the good ole’ FLCCC, my little band of brothers and sisters, is somehow making a opening in the wall of information suppression and distortion as shown in the chart below (compiled by our data analyst and ivermectin expert, Juan Chamie). I say this makes us “the Bad News Bears” in the repurposed drug war.

I am going to stop here… and call it PART I. Please subscribe below so you can be sure to get Part II where I will continue to detail the numerous and wide-ranging corrupt actions taken to suppress the knowledge of efficacy and restrict the use of ivermectin… across the world. There is way way more to this story.
Also, please be aware of the following events:
World-wide Rally for Freedom Day
Join us for a march in DC on defeating the mandate and to march in support of our international colleagues- who are also rallying on this day: Sunday January 23rd.
United we stand, in peace we watch. Bring friends and jackets.
Go to https://defeatthemandatesdc.com/ for details
Finally, I am honored to have been invited by Dr. Chris Martenson and Peak Prosperity to their Annual Seminar as part of a speaker panel including some powerhouse thought leaders. Don’t miss it folks. Register using this link: http://peak22.events/kory
January 9, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Deception, Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Covid-19, Ivermectin |
Leave a comment
ISRAEL’S PRIMARY EXTERNAL INTELLIGENCE agency, the Mossad, was likely behind a series of mysterious bombings in 1981, which targeted German and Swiss engineering firms believed to be aiding the Pakistani nuclear program, according to new exposé by a leading Swiss newspaper. Several bomb attacks targeted a number of engineering firms in Switzerland and what was then West Germany in 1981. Alongside these attacks, there were threatening telephone calls that targeted West German and Swiss engineers.
A previously unknown militant group calling itself the Organization for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in South Asia took responsibility for these actions. Its members mailed a number of political manifestos to the German and Swiss press, and repeatedly issue proclamations via telephone in broken German or English, according to contemporary accounts. Interestingly, the Organization for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in South Asia has never been heard of since.
Now, however, one of Switzerland’s leading newspapers, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ), claims in a new report that the violent actions against German and Swiss scientists and engineering firms were likely undertaken by the Israeli Mossad. In a leading article published on Saturday, the Swiss daily cited “new, previously unseen documents from archives” in Switzerland and the United States, which allegedly shed light on these mysterious attacks.
The report rests partly on the work of Swiss historian Adrian Hänni, who argues that Israeli intelligence was eager to prevent Pakistan from acquiring access to nuclear energy. The prospect of Pakistan becoming the first Muslim-majority nuclear state was viewed by Israel as an “existential threat”, according to Hänni. Additionally, the Mossad had credible information that senior officials in Islamabad worked closely with the Islamic Republic of Iran, one of Israel’s mortal regional enemies. These factors convinced the Israeli leadership of the time to authorize a covert operation against a number of European firms and scientists who were allegedly aiding Islamabad’s pursuit of a nuclear arsenal, according to the NZZ.
January 8, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Islamophobia, War Crimes | Germany, Israel, Mossad, Pakistan, Switzerland, Zionism |
Leave a comment