Aletho News


French troops violently disrespect African populations during anti-occupation demonstrations

By Lucas Leiroz | December 1, 2021

Paris has always had Africa as a route for its political and economic expansionism, advancing on the continent and making it part of its international sphere of influence. However, it is possible to see that the African people are increasingly indignant with the constant presence of French military personnel in the region, which has resulted in protests taking to the streets of African cities, clamoring for a change. Now, French forces are seeing such demonstrations as a real threat and treating the population in a violent and disrespectful way, with the sole intention of asserting power and demonstrating the strength of the Paris’ agenda.

In recent days, thousands of people have taken to the streets to protest against the French expansionism in many African countries. This week, at least two people died in western Niger due to the brutality of French troops trying to stop a demonstration. During the action of the military convoy that tried to prevent the people from protesting, several shots were fired, leaving, in addition to the fatalities, eighteen injured people – eleven of them seriously wounded. This same convoy had previously performed similar scenes in Burkina Faso, where French military personnel shot at four protesters last week, generating a wave of indignation and revolt on the part of the local population.

According to what has been reported by Agence France-Presse, the convoy has a force of around 100 soldiers and has departed from Côte d’Ivoire and, after circling through Burkina Faso and Niger, is on its way to Mali, where it will be joining a French military base in the Gao region. Apparently, this convoy is making an international tour of the western part of the African continent, acting as a kind of “police force” in the containment of demonstrations, ignoring local authorities and the right of the citizens of these states to demand changes in the security policies that are being implemented in their countries.

The French forces reported that the shooting in Niger was motivated by the protesters’ own actions. According to the troops, the protesters tried to block the convoy’s passage, which was why the soldiers, trying to open the way, acted with the use of force. Obviously, regardless of the actions taken by the protesters, it is inconceivable for trained military personnel armed with war equipment to act with total force against unarmed civilians. Although it is admitted to partially use military power to disperse protesters, it is absolutely reprehensible that this resulted in lethal gunshots, killing innocent citizens who only exercised their civil right to protest against the presence of foreign troops in their country.

Also, there are images and videos circulating on the internet recording the horror scenes that took place in Niger this week, where it is possible to note that the use of force by the French far exceeded the reasonable line to simply disperse a human barricade of protesters. In one of the videos, it is possible to see a French Mirage 2000 strike aircraft dropping flares and tear gas bombs in a high-speed, low altitude pass over the protesters. There are also reports of shootings from military drones.

Commenting on the case, the Nigerien Interior Ministry said in a statement that “an investigation has been opened to determine the exact circumstances of this tragedy and determine responsibility”. However, it should be noted that this is not the first time that such actions have been carried out with impunity by French forces. Not only are the African people tired of the immeasurable violence perpetrated by French troops, but the very governments that “allow” such actions also wish to put an end to them, however, they lack the power to do so.

Faced with immense military asymmetry, with African countries being much weaker than France and still sharing a problematic heritage from the colonial ties of past centuries, West African governments do not have many options to respond to the suffering of their own people. There are no ways to retaliate or punish the French for their criminal acts – and there are no viable ways to expel the Europeans either.

In Mali, the military tried to end the French presence through a coup d’état last year, but the Paris’ forces continue to act freely against the local population in many situations, such as the massacre of 22 civilians during an attack to a Malian village earlier this year. In fact, there seems to be no alternative path for the African states, which, as long as they do not have a political, economic, and military structure strong enough to coercively expel foreign troops, will continue to suffer the consequences of Paris’ neo-colonial expansionism.

France, on its part, has diminished its interest in the African continent. The failure of the occupation of the Sahel showed that the French project for Africa was unfeasible and that, therefore, Paris should change its focus on international projection – which has gradually turned to the European and Mediterranean space itself. On the other hand, France does not want to simply “abandon” Africa, as this would open the way for another world power to occupy this space.

The French project, therefore, consists of reducing the presence of their troops in the African space, but preventing a real “independence” on the part of African governments, preventing them from seeking new alliances. In practice, this materializes in actions such as the ones of this convoy, which spread chaos and instability in the region. The French objective in Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso and Niger is to prevent, through intimidation, a maneuver such as the one that happened in Mali – and, in Mali, the aim is to prevent the military’s plan to succeed.

Indeed, France “does not want” Africa at the moment, but it is not willing to allow Africans to follow their own path of independence. Fostering social chaos, disorder and violence seems to be the French tactic in this regard.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

December 1, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

France sends military police to Martinique amid vaccine mandate protests

RT | December 1, 2021

France has sent police reinforcements to overseas territory Martinique, after riots broke out in response to a mandatory Covid-19 vaccine policy for healthcare workers.

Around 70 armed French police officers, known in France as gendarmes, arrived in Martinique on Tuesday to tackle the violent protests, which were marred by arson, looting, and vandalism.

French Minister of Overseas Territories Sebastien Lecornu said in a press conference that “social dialogue is not possible without a sound basis and that sound basis is the re-establishment of freedoms… and our capacity to re-establish order.”

Civil unrest broke out after France imposed a vaccine mandate for healthcare workers in Martinique, which has reported low vaccination rates amid high levels of mistrust in the government and faith in natural medicine

As a result of the riots – which included an attack on the residence of France’s most senior official on the island – France revealed on Friday that it would be postponing its vaccine mandate.

Lecornu has blamed Martinique’s vaccine hesitancy on the island’s culture, saying, “I don’t want to stigmatise but the mistrust over vaccines is cultural.”

Protesters, however, say they are unable to trust officials with their health after previous cases of misconduct – 95% of adults in Martinique have traces of a pesticide with links to cancer in their blood after it was consistently sprayed on the island for several decades.

Martinique was colonized by France in 1635 and has remained under French control despite independence efforts.

December 1, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Subjugation - Torture, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Uprising in Guadeloupe

By David Montoute  | Fourth World | November 23, 2021

An insurrectional situation has emerged in Guadeloupe. Roads are closed, buildings set on fire, and clashes between demonstrators and security forces are raging. Many Guadeloupeans have decided that, against dictatorship, violence is a legitimate option. It is a violence directed against the so-called ‘health pass’ and against the mandatory vaccination of careworkers imposed upon this overseas territory by Metropolitan France.

In September, France had made it compulsory for all health workers, home carers, transport staff, medical students, firefighters, and all related personnel to have the Covid vaccine. This was accompanied with the requisitioning  of all Ivermectin stocks in order to force the deeply unpopular vaccine upon the people of Guadeloupe (as well as neighbouring Martinique). According to French government figures, only 33% of Guadeloupeans are vaccinated (versus 75% in Metropolitan France), with a simiar figure in Martinique. 

Tensions rose in October with the arrest of two demonstrators, one of them being Claudine Maraton, the general secretary of the UTS-UGTG (the trade union section of the General Workers Union of Guadeloupe). The UGTG had taken a leading position in the political opposition to the vaccine mandate, a position that the president of the Guadeloupe region also came to echo. As the conflict sharpened, the governing En Marche party’s MP for Guadeloupe began to describe the situation on the island as “quasi-insurrectional”, with opposition to the Covid regulations showing a “weakening state authority” on the island.

The Minister of Health, Olivier Véran seemed to recognise the fragility of France’s position, and decided to push back the deadline for the vaccination mandate to November 15th. But if November 15th marked the end of the ‘health emergency’ measures in most of the overseas territories, in Guadeloupe, it marked the start of an indefinite general strike, launched by a collective of trade union and citizen organisations against the mandatory injection of careworkers and the pass sanitaire. At a press conference at the Palais de la Mutualité in Pointe-à-Pitre, Maïté Hubert M’Toumo, the new General Secretary of the UGTG had already sounded the battle-cry: “From Monday, war is declared!”

“From September, the French state decided to renew hostilities […] all doctors and nurses can receive a notice prohibiting them from working. This means that from Monday, the French state which spoke of war has just declared war on us. The situation is catastrophic. Thousands of workers are affected, whom they want to shamelessly fire, without delay of challenge. We can’t accept that. It’s not possible. The Guadeloupeans are in danger and from the moment war is declared, we are obliged to respond. From Monday, war is declared, there will be nothing that will work, we must organise ourselves so that nothing functions: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday… every day! We have no choice, we must come together, all social and professional classes, all Guadeloupeans. From Monday there will be two camps: the camp of the French state which has decided to defile us and defile all who oppose their plans; and the other side that wants to protect the country in order to live in freedom. The French president said that vaccines are freedom, so freedom is conditioned on a vaccine, a vaccine that is not under control, a vaccine that generates more and more serious side effects. Is this freedom? It’s not possible. So from Monday, war is declared!”

Maïté Hubert M’Toumo

The Departmental Fire and Rescue Service (SDIS), also affected by the mandatory vaccination order, had come to assume a leading role in the protests. As the strike began on the 15th, fights broke out between firefighters and the elite gendarmes, When the gendarmes charged one group, the firefighters responded with jets of water. Other incidents between strikers and police triggered a wave of arrests as the Pointe-à-Pitre prosecutor’s office complained of “repeated threats to a law enforcement officer.” Maïté Hubert M’Toumo denounced the arrests in a public statement, calling them “a serious attack on a fundamental freedom which is the right to strike” and rallying “all members and activists to strengthen the picket lines”. Even as the government sent in hundreds of police and gendarme reinforcements, the strike hardened on the following weekend, with rioting breaking out in Pointe-à-Pitre and across the Island. Several gas stations were closed by protesters, and many motorists raided those that remained open, fearing the strike would impact fuel supplies. As the demonstrations and clashes escalated, shops and pharmacies were torched and looted, while schools, post offices and courts were shut down. Reports surfaced that protestors had broken into an arms depot in the island’s capital, Pointe-à-Pitre, and stolen rifles. Col Jean Pierre, of the gendarmerie at Pointe-à-Pitre, said some of the protesters had fired upon security forces. “We just don’t know how far this will still go,” the city’s mayor, Harry Durimel, told FranceInfo radio.

This weekend, Paris authorities began sending elite police and counterterrorism officers with armoured vehicles to Guadeloupe in a bid to stamp out the uprising. The police reinforcements set about dismantling protesters’ road barricades while the island’s authorities imposed a dusk-to-dawn curfew until Tuesday morning. By Monday the police had arrested at least 38 people charged with looting and smashing shops.

Over the weekend, the main UGTG trade union called for continued protests. Meanwhile, Martinique has followed its neighbour’s example and gone on general strike against the measures dictated by Paris.

The cultural rejection 

Guadeloupe – like Martinique – has a deep-rooted history of anti-vaccine sentiment linked to distrust of the Paris government. Political scientist Pamela Obertan, who is helping to organise anti-mandate protests explains that Guadeloupeans “are descendants of slaves, and for us, control over our bodies is really important… The government wants to impose on us a medical experiment. We are still medical experiments.”

For decades, agriculture workers in Guadeloupe and Martinique were exposed to an endocrine-disrupting, carcinogenic pesticide called chlordecone. Around 95% of the population in these two islands is known to register chlordecone in their blood. Studies have linked the pesticide to prostate cancer, and, significantly, Guadeloupe and Martinique have the highest prostate cancer rates in the world. Yet nothing has been done about real health emergencies such as this one. And this goes a long way to explain the distrust towards the metropolis that is felt in the French Antilles. It is this context that has empowered vaccination-refusal, which is now turning into a nationalist and patriotic cause.

Accompanying this development, there is a longstanding usage and trust in folk medicine. As Guadeloupe’s University Hospital director lamented, the vaccine refusniks are “pushing Guadeloupian pharmacology.” From the start of the aggressive push for ”Covid” vaccination, sales of Virapic, a syrup based on the local jackass bitters herb, skyrocketed. This tropical shrub (Neurolaena lobata) is traditionally used for treatment of fever and flu symptoms, wounds and infections, and a variety of parasitic ailments such as malaria, ringworm, and amoebiasis. The plant has found a local champion in pharmacist Henry Joseph, co-founder of the laboratory Phytobokaz. Joseph, claims to have proven the plant’s efficacy against emerging RNA viruses and thus its relevance to ‘Covid-19′.

Whatever comes of such research, the island’s distrust in vaccines is unlikely to abate any time soon. The metropolitan government’s refusal to negotiate, together with the local suppression of data on vaccine deaths will continue to antagonise an already rebellious populace. According to lawyer Maître Ellen Bessis, the University Hospital Center (CHU) of Guadeloupe never declares vaccination status amongst any hospitalisations. This, she says allows them to register vaccinated deaths in Guadeloupe’s hospitals as unvaccinated, which is what she says is happening. Bessis’ claim is based on the extensive testimony of firefighters who, in Guadeloupe, share the job of transporting emergency cases to hospital. As the civil liberties organisation Rester Libre ! says,  “If this information were verified, it would be an absolute scandal: a statistical lie designed to hide the dangerousness of the vaccine. It would create a crisis of absolute confidence with the public authorities, and, therefore, all the figures, all the data, could be called into question.”

It is difficult to imagine how the execrable Macron government could possibly backtrack in this conflict, or provide any concessions for Guadeloupe. For to do so would undermine the mandate policy in metropolitan France. Yet the rebellion of the island population can only deepen, as Ellen Bessis affirms.

“We wonder what is going on in the mind of the government!” says Jocelyn Zou,  of the fire department’s union. “We Guadeloupeans have a notion of freedom. But they impose compulsory vaccination on us when alternative solutions exist. We have every motivation to fight to the end!”

France to send special forces to Guadeloupe after looting, arson:

RELATED:   Martinique and Guadeloupe: Ivermectin stocks are requisitioned to force vaccination

November 26, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , , | 1 Comment

French Presidential candidate Marine Le Pen speaks out against vaccine passports

By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | November 25, 2021

Presidential candidate in next year’s election in France, Marine Le Pen, has promised to remove vaccine passport mandates if she is elected because they are “useless” and a “disproportionate” restriction.

She will be running against current President Emanuel Macron, who supports the controversial measures.

“What is the vaccine passport for, apart from imposing a useless and disproportionate constraint on the French people?” Le Pen said in an interview on French radio France Inter.

Le Pen is against mandatory vaccination for everyone, including medical professionals. She supports “vaccine-freedom,” especially considering the vaccine does not prevent you from getting COVID or from contaminating others.”

Referring to vaccinated Prime Minister Jean Castex testing positive for the virus, Le Pen said, “I think we have a good example at the top here.”

“The real question is: can the vaccine prevent the spread of the virus? I think today the answer is no,” she said.

When asked if she supported vaccine boosters, she reiterated that vaccination should be a choice.

“I don’t have to be for or against it. I think everyone has to be free to do it or not, since in reality, it’s only your own life which is at stake,” Le Pen said.

“Everyone has to determine the risks and benefits for themselves.”

Le Pen said those with a vaccine passport could be more dangerous than the unvaccinated because they “shake hands and go to the restaurant” while sick with the virus.

“Nothing, it seems, can stop the spread of this virus, so all these constraints are meaningless,” she insisted.

She said she would remove the “senseless restrictions” if she is elected, particularly the suspension of healthcare workers who have not been vaccinated.

“The suspension of healthcare professionals is useless, [and] we need them,” she said.

“Hospitals are the main problem,” she added.

“It’s the government’s responsibility [to ensure there are enough hospital beds]…. They’ve removed beds [and] have allowed hospitals to become medical deserts with 30% of posts now vacant,” she continued.

“For the rest, we remove all of these constraints which are obviously useless.”

November 25, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 3 Comments

Why does Iran say we do not have ‘nuclear negotiations’?

By Abdolreza Hadizadeh | Press TV | November 13, 2021

The first step in any negotiation is that the participants must share common views on the issue that will be discussed. The main topic takes center stage and viewpoints on its resolution will be put to consultation by the countries participating in the negotiations. Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian and his deputy Ali Baqeri-Kani are seeking to build a common understanding about the nature of future discussions through making trips and phone calls with their counterparts.

In this regard, the Islamic Republic of Iran stresses that it will not participate in any talks revolving around the nuclear issue, and that the country’s nuclear program will not be the topic of any future negotiations.

But, what is the reason for such position in the talks which are set to start on November 29?

The case of negotiations related to Iran’s nuclear issue was closed in 2015 and the parties achieved significant results. In the course of the talks leading up to the nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 group of countries, the Islamic Republic faced unsubstantiated and political allegations. The country had also been subjected to attacks and questions that led it to be unjustly accused by Western media. Therefore, Iran had to build the necessary trust to show its goodwill seriousness.

So, Iran made large-scale retreats in the field of peaceful nuclear energy before the lifting of sanctions. This issue was strongly challenged inside the country. Critics of the agreement in Iran raised the question of why the Zionist regime is engaged in non-peaceful activities without being a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (​NPT) while Iran is not supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency and even punished in some way despite its NPT membership and extensive cooperation with the UN atomic watchdog.

The negotiations reached a conclusion and all countries were obliged to honor their commitments based on a specific timetable.

According to the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the IAEA was responsible for verifying Iran’s practical measures at its nuclear sites. Later, in 16 reports, the body confirmed goodwill on the part of the Islamic Republic and its full implementation of the nuclear agreement.

These verification reports proved that Iran’s nuclear issue was only a political case brought by the country’s enemies and rivals. Iran’s full commitment to nuclear restrictions took place while the administration of former US president Barack Obama violated the JCPOA through various sanctions and pressure.

After that, the unilateral and illegal withdrawal of Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, from the JCPOA completed the unfinished work of the Democrats, and thus the United States practically violated an international agreement as well as UN Security Council Resolution 2231. Other JCPOA members either failed to provide Iran with the economic benefits of the deal or, like the three European countries, sided with America.

Hence, the United States and the European states are accused of reneging on their obligations. After the US pullout from the JCPOA, the Islamic Republic exercised more than two years of “strategic patience” to prevent the collapse of the nuclear pact.

Then Iran decided, in accordance with Articles 36 and 37 of the deal, to expand its peaceful nuclear activities and take reciprocal measures in the face of the blatant violation of the agreement.

The difference between the political actions of the Islamic Republic and the United States was that Washington through its withdrawal from the JCPOA breached the international agreement, while Tehran expanded its nuclear activities using the mechanisms and methods in the agreement to reaffirm its commitment to the failed deal.

However, the US government’s measures seriously damaged and weakened the deal, and significantly increased the Iranian people’s distrust towards Washington, according to opinion polls.

Investigation into one JCPOA signatory’s violation of its commitments is now the subject of the talks, and other axes of the negotiations will be formed around it, the most important of which are as follows:

1) The Islamic Republic will by no means renegotiate its previously negotiated nuclear issues. Other subjects such as missile and regional issues will also be off the agenda of the talks.

2) If the US government allows itself to completely change its policy towards international obligations after the change of each government, it must give the new Iranian government the right to at least oppose part of the Vienna talks under the previous administration and call for the beginning of new negotiations.

3) The US government’s unilateral and illegal move has made the high wall of mistrust between Iran and America stronger and more stable. If current US officials regard as wrong the path pursued in the past and regret it, they should take confidence-building measures now.

Unfortunately, so far, despite US President Joe Biden’s criticism of Trump’s policies towards the nuclear deal, Iran has not seen any serious change. Hours after taking office, Biden issued 17 executive orders to annul the previous administration’s decisions, but regarding Iran, he continued Trump’s strategy. This matter intensifies the need for the US to build trust.

4) The US has inflicted heavy damage on Iran over the past three years due to its unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal. The United States must apologize, compensate the losses, and compensate for Iran’s lack of benefit from the JCPOA.

5) Following confidence-building measures, the US must completely fulfill its obligations. It must remove visa bans, as well as the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), and more than 1,500 sanctions imposed on our country by US governments since its signing of the JCPOA.

6) Iran should have ample time to verify the normalization of its trade and the transfer of currency into the country.

7) The United States must commit itself not to violate its obligations with the change of governments in the country. Additionally, due to the growing distrust towards the US, its ability to trigger the snapback mechanism should be blocked and locked.

8) With the lifting of sanctions and the compensation for the damage inflicted on Iran, along with America’s commitment not to renege on its obligations again, Iran can take steps to return to the restrictions imposed under the JCPOA and thus the nuclear deal can be revived.

November 13, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

EU Official Calls US Warships Near Russia’s Coast “Clearly” An Unncessary “Provocation”

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | November 12, 2021

An EU official has made surprising remarks this week, evaluating the presence of a pair of large US warships in the Black Sea. French member of the European Parliament Thierry Mariani slammed ongoing naval exercises by the USS Porter and USS Whitney as “clearly a provocation” by Washington.

“The presence of the ‘Mount Whitney’, flagship of the US Sixth Fleet and the USS Porter in the Black Sea, as well as the NATO naval maneuvers, are clearly a provocation of Russia,” Mariani said.

He issued the statements in an interview to Russia’s Sputnik : “Can you imagine what the American reaction would be if the Russian navy organized maneuvers in international waters off the American coast, near Washington DC?” he questioned.

The statements come as both US and Ukrainian officials, as well as Romanian leaders and other Black Sea NATO members, have urged a greater US military presence on the Black Sea, citing “Russian aggression.”

On renewed tensions over Ukraine, coming two weeks after Kiev officials accused the Kremlin of building up troops near Donbass and in the Crimea area, the French official said:

“This is very serious and could push Ukrainian politicians, the culprits of this widespread corruption, into a headlong rush action, for example into a hazardous military offensive in Donbass or an armed provocation of Russia in the Black Sea.”

And on NATO encroachment in eastern Europe and around the Black Sea, he said:

“NATO should have been dismantled at the same time as the Warsaw Pact was suppressed in the last century and the present expansion, and projection by NATO of military forces to the whole world is very alarming.”

The statements appeared to back provocative statements made days ago by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, who said, “This is an almost constant attempt to test us, to check how ready we are, how much we have built the entire [defense] system off the Black Sea coast.”

November 12, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | 1 Comment

Macron goes nuclear to protect France’s energy independence in green future

RT | November 9, 2021

France will start building new nuclear reactors after a decades-long pause, President Emmanuel Macron has announced, citing both energy security needs and the promise to reach carbon emission neutrality by mid-century.

“To guarantee France’s energy independence, to guarantee our country’s electricity supply, and to reach our goals – notably carbon neutrality in 2050 – we will for the first time in decades revive the construction of nuclear reactors in our country, and continue to develop renewable energy,” Macron said in a televised address to the nation on Tuesday.

The French president made the announcement after attending last week’s COP26 UN climate summit in Glasgow, where activists called for radical changes to energy production in order to stave off the projected rise in global temperatures.

Some 75% of France’s electricity comes from nuclear power, and early in his presidency Macron pledged to lower that to 50% by 2035, also in the name of preserving the environment. Skyrocketing oil and natural gas prices, as well as the mixed performance of wind and solar, appear to have changed his mind, however.

Macron’s remark about the reactors was part of a broader speech addressing the Covid-19 pandemic, social policies, and the impending French presidency of the EU.

November 10, 2021 Posted by | Nuclear Power | | Leave a comment

No Booster Jabs No Train Travel For France’s Over-65’s

By Richie Allen | November 10, 2021

France has become the first European country to mandate the third covid jab. From December 15th, over-65’s will need to have had a booster jab to travel by train or eat in restaurants.

The rule will apply to expats and tourists too.

Speaking last night, French President Emmanuel Macron said:

“Faced with the resurgence of the epidemic, the solution is an extra dose. If you have been vaccinated for more than six months, I ask you to book an appointment. To those not yet vaccinated: Get vaccinated. Get vaccinated to protect yourselves. Get vaccinated to live normally.”

France introduced a “health pass” which allows those who have been double-jabbed, had a negative coronavirus test or who have recently recovered from the virus access to bars, restaurants, venues, trains and planes.

From December 15th, if you are over-65, being double-jabbed won’t be enough. Your health pass will be invalid until you have booster shot.

“Get vaccinated to live normally,” said Macron.

It’s open tyranny now.

November 10, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 2 Comments

Yemen on the Brink of Disaster, Poverty, and Extinction

By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – 03.11.2021

UNICEF Spokesperson James Elder has just returned from Yemen with some tragic news about children living in what the United Nations calls the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.

Speaking at a press briefing in Geneva, he said: “The Yemen conflict has just hit another shameful milestone: 10,000 children have been killed or maimed since Saudi Arabia’s bombing campaign started in March 2015. That’s the equivalent of four children every day.” Elder told reporters that the estimates provided by the international UN agency were likely an understatement of the actual number of children killed and injured, which is rarely recorded by anyone. “These are of course the cases the UN was able to verify. Many more child deaths and injuries go unrecorded, to all but those children’s families.”

International experts have identified four significant dangers that have brought the country to the brink of humanitarian collapse. First of all, it is a brutal and protracted military conflict, and the blame for unleashing it lies entirely with the US and Saudi Arabia. Secondly, the colossal economic devastation that struck all regions of the country resulted from the military conflict. Also, there is a lack of infrastructure and social services, i.e., health, nutrition, water and sanitation, social protection, and education. Finally, the UN is critically underfunded.

It may be recalled that the war with Yemen began in March 2015, when Saudi Arabia brazenly and cynically launched a bombing campaign to restore the former regime, which obeyed orders from Riyadh, essentially maintaining Yemen’s status as a parallel and subordinate state to the Saudis. This had been the case before the popular revolution in the country, which triggered powerful Saudi airstrikes. The United States sold hundreds of billions of dollars worth of arms to the Kingdom during this war, in addition to intelligence and logistical support for Saudi military aircraft. Evidence shows that the UK is the second-largest supplier of arms to Riyadh, which is being actively used in an undeclared war, mostly against civilians. Other Western countries, including “democratic” France and Canada, have also profited enormously from this war, supplying the Saudis with mountains of offensive weapons.

These are the words and deeds of the so-called democratic West. Calling for democracy and freedom in their words, Western countries in reality supply arms and military equipment at every opportunity, thus fomenting military conflicts in which hundreds of thousands of people die in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Libya. It makes one wonder where are the so-called international organizations which allegedly aim to prevent conflict and prosecute those who incite and encourage these bloody wars?

The United States, the skilled cheaters of double standards in politics and human rights, has once again manifested itself concerning Yemen. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has loudly reiterated that resolving the conflict in Yemen remains an alleged top priority of US foreign policy. These comments were made during a telephone conversation with the newly appointed United Nations Special Envoy for Yemen Hans Grundberg. And this was said at a time when the Pentagon was sending a new shipment of aerial bombs to Saudi Arabia, which the Saudis are actively using in their war against, as Riyadh says, “the fraternal Yemeni people.”

So far, only human rights groups have accused these countries of complicity in Saudi Arabia’s war crimes in Yemen. One investigation found that the bomb dropped from a Saudi warplane in August 2018, which hit a school bus and killed more than 40 children, came from the United States. But it was just one bomb, while Yemeni officials say most Saudi airstrikes have targeted residential areas, and all Saudi bombs and missiles are purchased abroad from “democratic” countries.

The head of the UN Children’s Agency also presented journalists with these grim figures on the suffering of Yemeni children, from malnutrition to education and sanitation. For example, he said: “Let me share a few more numbers: Four out of every five children need humanitarian assistance; that’s more than 11 million children, and 400,000 children suffer from severe acute malnutrition More than two million children are out of school. Another four million are at risk of dropping out. Two-thirds of teachers, more than 170,000, have not received a regular salary for more than four years. 1.7 million children are currently internally displaced because of violence. As the violence has intensified, especially in the Marib area, more and more families have fled their homes. A staggering 15 million people (more than half of them, about 8.5 million, are children) do not have access to safe water, sanitation or hygiene. With the current level of funding and without an end to the fighting, UNICEF will not be able to help all these children.” And he went on to predict a grim prognosis: “There is no other way to help them without a lot of international support, which will result in a large number of Yemeni children dying.”

But does it matter to the gentlemen in western capitals who make huge profits from the blood of Yemeni children and the supply of arms, which allows them to eat sweet and sleep well? It’s none of their business. As they usually say in the United States, it’s just business, nothing personal.

Despite the efforts of UNICEF and other international organizations, the severity of the humanitarian situation in Yemen cannot be overemphasized. The economy is in a critical state. GDP has fallen 40% since 2015 when neighboring Arab Saudi Arabia decided to punish Yemenis for their “disobedience.” Vast numbers of people lost their jobs, causing family incomes to plummet. About a quarter of people, including many health workers, teachers, engineers, and sanitation workers, rely on civil servants’ salaries that are paid irregularly, if at all. And while the displacement and destruction of schools have resulted in classrooms that can hold up to 200 children, teachers are showing up. Yes, unpaid teachers come in and teach on their enthusiasm to educate the next generation.

In addition to the Saudi-imposed war, with the US behind it, many Yemenis are starving not because there is no food but because there is not enough money to buy it. “But such people have no choice, which means they are forced to sell everything from jewelry to pots just to feed their own children,” writes Egypt’s Al-Ahram. “But their children continue to starve, as families end up selling off all their possessions and cannot buy simple food for themselves or their children.”

Economists believe that UNICEF alone urgently needs more than $235 million to continue its life-saving work in Yemen until mid-2022. Failure to do so will force the agency to reduce or terminate life-saving assistance to vulnerable children. “Funding is critical,” notes Al-Ahram. “We can draw a clear line between donor support and lives saved,” it adds. And perhaps the newspaper’s most emotional comment was the following: “Yemen is the most brutal place in the world to be a child. And, incredibly, it’s getting worse.”

Last month, the United Nations warned that 16 million Yemenis, more than half the population, are facing starvation. Unless the international community steps up support, food aid could soon dry up. Doctors warn that a staggering 99% of Yemenis have not been vaccinated against Covid-19. The country is now battling a third deadly wave of infections in which large numbers of people, especially children and the elderly, will die due to a lack of vaccines. How the West treats the suffering of Yemenis, who are direct co-conspirators in Saudi Arabia’s shameful war, was directly commented on by Yemen’s Al-Sahwa : “We need the promised vaccines, but it is also shameful that by buying up all the vaccines for themselves, rich countries like the UK and Germany are blocking all decisions to get the medicine we need into our country.”

Many countries worldwide are well aware of the plight of the Yemeni people, especially the children and elderly, and deplore the fact that Saudi Arabia still seeks a military solution to the Yemeni crisis, stating that this approach will lead to nothing but death and destruction. They have repeatedly called on Riyadh to abandon a military solution and instead seek political ways to end the devastating war in Yemen. Speaking at a briefing for journalists, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said: “Unfortunately, the Saudi government is still looking for a military solution for Yemen, even though it knows and has understood after a long time that war has no other result than killing innocents and civilians, damaging the peoples of the region and security.” The sooner the Government of Saudi Arabia shows its commitment to political solutions and ends this destructive war, the better for the country and the region, as well as for the peace and security in the entire region.

November 5, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , | 3 Comments

I cannot do it anymore

In an open letter, an employee of German public broadcaster ARD is critical of one and a half years of Corona coverage: Ole Skambraks has worked as an editorial assistant and editor at the public broadcaster for 12 years.

BY OLE SKAMBRAKS | multipolar magazine | 14. Oktober 2021

I can no longer remain silent. I can no longer silently watch what has been going on for a year and a half now within my organization, a public service broadcaster. Things like “balance”, “social cohesion” and “diversity” in reporting are principles embedded in the statutes and media state contracts. Today, the exact opposite is happening. There is no true discourse and exchange in which all parts of society can come together and find common ground.

From the beginning, I felt that public service broadcasting should fill precisely this space: promote dialogue between advocates of measures and critics, between people who are afraid of the virus and people who are afraid of losing their basic rights, between vaccination supporters and vaccination sceptics. For the past year and a half, however, the space for discussion has narrowed considerably.

Scientists and experts who were respected and esteemed before Covid, who were given space in public discourse, are suddenly labelled cranks, tinfoil hat wearers or Covidiots. As an oft-cited example, consider Wolfgang Wodarg, a medical specialist in several fields, an epidemiologist and a long-time health politician. Until the Covid crisis, he was also on the board of Transparency International. In 2010, as Chair of the Council of Europe Health Committee, he exposed the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in the swine flu pandemic. At that time, he was granted the opportunity to express his opinion on public service broadcasting, but in times of Covid this is no longer possible. His voice has been replaced by that of so-called fact-checkers, who seek to discredit him.

Paralysing consensus

Instead of an open exchange of opinions, a “scientific consensus” was proclaimed, that must be defended. Anyone who doubts this and demands a multidimensional perspective on the pandemic, will reap indignation and scorn.

The same pattern is at work in the newsrooms. For the last one and a half years, I have no longer been working in the daily news business, which I am pleased about. In my current position, I am not involved in decisions about which topics are treated and how. Here, I describe my impressions from editorial conferences and an analysis of the reporting. For a long time I did not dare to leave the role of observer, the supposed consensus seemed too absolute and unanimous.

For a few months, I have been venturing out onto the ice, making some critical remarks here and there in conferences. This is often followed by a shocked silence, sometimes a “thank you for pointing it out” and every so often a lecture on why it is not true. This has never resulted in any reporting.

The result of one and a half years of Covid-19 is an unparalleled division in society. Public service broadcasting has played a major role in this. It is increasingly failing in its responsibility to build bridges between the camps and to promote exchange.

It is often argued that the critics are a small, negligible minority, which, for reasons of proportionality, cannot be accommodated to any great extent. This argument should have been retired at least with the Swiss referendum on Covid-19 measures. Despite the lack of free exchange of opinions in mass media in that country too, the votes cast went only 60:40 in favour of the government. (1) With a proportion of 40%, can you talk about a small minority? It also turned out that the Swiss Government had tied Covid-related financial support to the vote, which might have influenced some to tick “Yes” on the ballot.

The developments of the Covid crisis are taking place on so many levels, affecting all parts of society, and thus we clearly need more space for a free debate – certainly not less.

In this context, it is less revealing which topics are being discussed in public service media, than what is not being discussed. The reasons for this are many and need to be subject to honest internal scrutiny. It could be helpful to look at some titles published by the media scientist and former MDR broadcasting adviser Uwe Krüger, for example his book “Mainstream – Warum wir den Medien nicht mehr trauen” (“Mainstream — why we no longer trust the media”).

In any case, it takes courage to swim against the current in conferences where such topics are discussed. Often those who can put forward their arguments in the most eloquent way will get their message across but, if in doubt, the editorial team will decide, of course. Very early on, those critical of the Government’s Covid-19 measures were labelled right-wingers. Which editor will still dare to voice similar ideas?

Open questions

Thus the list of inconsistencies and open questions, which have gone largely unreported, is very long:

  • Why do we know so little about “gain of function research” (which aims at making viruses more dangerous to humans)?
  • Why does the new Infection Protection Act state that the basic right to bodily integrity and the inviolability of one’s home may be restricted henceforth – even without an epidemic situation?
  • Why must people who have already had Covid-19 still get the jab, even though they are at least as well protected as those who are vaccinated?
  • Why are we not talking about ”Event 201” and the global pandemic exercises held shortly before the spread of SARS-CoV-2 — at all, or only in the context of conspiracy theories? (2)
  • Why was the internal document from the German Federal Ministry of the Interior — a document which was known to the media and in which the authorities were asked to create a “shock effect” to underscore the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on human society — not published in full and discussed publicly?
  • Why is the study by Professor Ioannidis on survival rates (99.41% for people under 70) not featured in the headlines, while the fatally flawed, inflated figures produced by Imperial College were (in the spring of 2020, Neil Ferguson foresaw half a million Covid-19 deaths in the United Kingdom and more than 2 million in the United States)?
  • Why does it say, in a document produced for the German Federal Ministry of Health, that Covid-19 patients stood for no more than 2% of the burden of hospitals during 2020?
  • Why does Bremen have the by far the highest incidence (113 as at 04/10/21) and at, the same time, by far the highest vaccination rate in Germany (79%)?
  • Why were payments of 4 million euro paid into a family account belonging to EU Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides, who was responsible for concluding the first EU vaccine contracts with pharmaceutical companies? (3)
  • Why are people suffering severe vaccine injury not featured to the same extent as people with severe Covid-19 disease were in 2020? (4)
  • Why is no one disturbed by the irregular way of counting “breakthrough infections” in vaccinated people? (5)
  • Why does the Netherlands report clearly higher volumes of side effects of the Covid-19 vaccines than other countries?
  • Why has the efficacy description of the Covid-19 vaccines published on the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut website been changed three times in the last few weeks? From “Covid-19 vaccines protect against infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus” (on 15 August 2021), via “Covid-19 vaccines protect against severe forms of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus” (on 7 September 2021), to, finally, “Covid-19 vaccines are indicated for active immunization to prevent the Covid-19 disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus” (on 27 September 2021). (6)

A couple of these points warrant a closer look.

“Gain of function” and “Lab leak”

As for “gain of function research” — research aiming at making viruses more dangerous, as was done at the Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, and financed by the United States — so far, I have not heard or read anything substantial. This type of research is done in so-called Biosafety Level 4 Laboratories, where work has been carried out for decades to see how animal viruses can be altered to make them dangerous to humans as well. So far, ARD and ZDF have given this topic a wide berth — despite the obvious need for a debate. One question worth exploring could be: Do we, as a society, want such research to be carried out?

There are numerous reports on the “lab leak theory” – the assumption that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a lab. It is worth noting that last year, this idea was immediately labelled a conspiracy myth. Alternative media investigating this were banned from social media such as YouTube and Twitter and the information was deleted. Scientists who supported this theory found themselves under massive attack. Today, the “lab leak theory” is at least as plausible as the bat transmission theory. The American investigative journalist Paul Thacker published the results of his meticulous research in the British Medical Journal. Commenting on this, Dr. Ingrid Mühlhauser, professor of health sciences at Hamburg University writes:

“Step by step, he [Thacker] reveals how members of an American lab group deliberately concocted a conspiracy theory to disguise their lab accident at Wuhan as a conspiracy theory. This myth is supported by respected journals such as The Lancet. Science journalists and fact-checker services accept the information without any reflection. Participating scientists keep mum, either out of fear, or to avoid running the risk of losing their standing or research grants. For more than a year now, Facebook has blocked posts that question the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. If the lab accident theory is confirmed, then ZDF and other media will have defended conspiracy theories.”

Ivermectin and alternatives to vaccination

For months now, it has been clear that effective and cheap treatments do exist for Covid-19, but their use is not allowed. The data on this is unequivocal. But the pseudoscientific disinformation campaigns against these medications are indicative of the state of medicine today. Hydroxychloroquine is a drug known for decades and used routinely against malaria and rheumatic disorders. Last year, the drug was suddenly deemed dangerous. The statement by then-President Donald Trump that hydroxychloroquine would be a “game changer” did the rest to discredit the medication. The political reasoning no longer allowed a scientific debate on HCQ.

In the spring, the catastrophic situation in India caused by the spread of the Delta variant was widely reported in the media (then still referred to as the Indian variant). But the fact that India rather quickly brought the situation under control, and that the use of Ivermectin in large states such as Uttar Pradesh had a decisive role in this, was not deemed newsworthy. (7)

Ivermectin was granted a temporary authorisation in the Czech Republic and Slovakia for treating Covid-19 patients. This was at least reported by the MDR, albeit with a negative slant.

In its report on possible medications, Bayerischer Rundfunk failed to even mention Ivermectin. As for hydroxychloroquine, only negative studies were cited, omitting all studies with positive results.

In the summer of 2020, lab tests showed that the molecule Clofoctol was also effective against SARS-CoV-2. Until 2005, the antibiotic drug was sold in France and Italy under the commercial names of Octofene and Gramplus. The French authorities repeatedly blocked the Pasteur Institute in Lille from launching a study with Covid-19 patients. At the beginning of September, after several attempts, the first patients were recruited.

Why are the health authorities taking such a strong stand against treatments, which have been available since the beginning of the pandemic? I would have liked to see some investigative research by the ARD here! It has been made clear that the new Covid vaccines could qualify for emergency use authorisation (EUA) only because there was no officially recognised treatment for SARS-CoV-2.

This is not about celebrating any one Covid miracle drug. My aim is to highlight facts which have not been given due consideration. From the outset, the message given in public discourse was that vaccination was the only way out. The WHO even went so far as to change the definition of “herd immunity”, implying that it can only be achieved by vaccination and no longer by previous infection, as was previously the case.

What about if the road chosen is a dead end?

Questions on vaccine efficacy

Data from countries with a particularly high vaccination rate show that infection with SARS-CoV-2 also in fully vaccinated people is more rule than exception. Dr. Kobi Haviv, Director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, reports that between 85% and 90% of severe cases in his intensive care unit are patients who have had two jabs. (8)

As regards Israel as a whole, the journal Science writes: “On 15 August, 514 Israelis were admitted to hospital with severe or critical Covid-19 disease … out of these 514 persons, 59% were fully vaccinated. Out of those vaccinated, 87% were 60 years or older.” Science quotes an Israeli government adviser, who explains: “One of the great stories coming out of Israel [is]: ‘The vaccines work, but not well enough’.”

It is also now evident that, with the Delta variant, vaccinated people carry (and spread) the same viral load as unvaccinated people.

What has this data situation brought about in Germany? — A lockdown specifically for unvaccinated people or, put somewhat euphemistically: the “2G rule”. In fact, society is being divided into two classes. Vaccinated people regain their freedom (as they do not risk endangering others), whereas unvaccinated people (who do risk endangering others) must undergo tests, and pay for them out of their pocket, and will no longer receive sick pay if quarantined. Moreover, employment bans and dismissals on the grounds of vaccination status are no longer out of the question, and health insurance funds may impose less favourable rates on the unvaccinated in the future. Why this pressure on unvaccinated people? This has no foundation in science and is damaging to our society.

Antibodies produced by vaccination wane after only a few months. A look at Israel shows that after the second jab, there will be a third for the whole population, and then a fourth as recently announced. Those who fail to get a booster shot after six months will lose their status as immune and thus their “Green Pass” (the digital Covid-19 pass introduced in Israel). In the United States, President Joe Biden is talking about Covid-19 booster shots every 5 months. Marion Pepper, immunologist at the University of Washington, questions this strategy, explaining to The New York Times that repeated stimulation of the innate immune response can lead to a phenomenon called “immune fatigue”.

It is a little discussed fact that natural infection allows a person to develop clearly stronger immunity. “Ultrapotent antibodies” or ”super immunity” have been found in people who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the last year. These antibodies react against more than 20 different mutations of the virus and remain for longer than antibodies acquired via vaccination.

After all, Health Minister Jens Spahn has now declared that proof of antibodies is also to be accepted. But to be officially recognized as immune you still have to be vaccinated. Who can understand this logic? A CNN interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of NIAID (under the NIH, the National Health Institutes) clearly illustrates the absurdity of the situation. People with natural immunity are still not a consideration in the minds of the politicians!

I know a physician who is desperately trying to get an answer from the health authorities and the RKI to this problem: One of her patients presents an IgG antibody titer value of 400 AU/ml — clearly more than many vaccinated people. As her Covid-19 infection occurred more than six months ago, she has lost her immune status. The answer was: “Give her the jab!” — which the physician will not do, considering the titer value.

A lack of basic journalistic understanding

The way out of the pandemic touted by our politicians and the media turns out to be a permanent vaccine subscription. Scientists advocating a different Covid approach are not able to reach out via public service media, as demonstrated again by the sometimes defamatory reporting on the video action #allesaufdentisch. Instead of discussing the content of the videos with the parties concerned, experts were sought out to discredit the campaign. By doing this, public service commit the very same error which they hold against #allesaufdentisch.

Der Spiegel journalist Anton Rainer opined in the SWR interview about the video action, that these are not interviews in a classical sense: “In principle you see two people agreeing with each other.” Listening to the reporting by my broadcaster gave me stomach pains, and I was very annoyed by the lack of basic journalistic understanding of the need to let those with opposing views have their say. (9) I made my concerns known to those concerned and the editorial team by email.

A typical comment in conferences is that a topic has “already been covered”. For example, when I brought up the high likelihood of underreporting of vaccine side effects. Yes, sure, the topic was discussed with in-house experts, who – no surprises here – concluded that there was no underreporting. “Opposing views” will be discussed here and there, but are rarely given a human face in such a way that broadcasters actually speak with people who hold critical views.

Critics under pressure

The most vocal critics must count on house searches, prosecution, account suspensions, transfers or dismissal, or even referral to psychiatric care. Even if they hold opinions you do not share — this has no place in a state subject to the rule of law.

In the United States, it is already being discussed whether criticising science should be labelled a hate crime. The Rockefeller Foundation has announced a grant of 13.5 million dollars to censor misinformation in the health field.

WDR television broadcasting director Jörg Schönenborn declared that “facts are facts and they hold true”. If that was so, how is it then possible that scientists behind closed doors argue incessantly and even strongly disagree on some quite basic issues? As long as we are not making that clear, any assumption of supposed objectivity will lead to a dead end. We can only hope to edge closer to “reality” – and that is only possible with open exchange of ideas and scientific knowledge.

What is happening now is no honest fight against “fake news”. Rather, we are left with the impression that any information, evidence, or discussion deviating from the official narrative is suppressed.

A recent example is the factual and scientifically transparent video by IT specialist Marcel Barz. By analysing raw data, Barz was able to establish that the actual figures on excess deaths, hospital occupancy rates as well as infections did not correspond to those gleaned from the media and politicians in the last year and a half. He also demonstrates how you can present a perfect image of a pandemic using such data, and explains why he feels this is dishonest. After three days and 145,000 views, the video was deleted from YouTube (and reinstated only Barz after objected, and many others protested). The stated reason: “medical misinformation”. This begs the question: Who decided this, and on what grounds?

The fact-checker from Volksverpetzer dismissed Marcel Barz as “fake”. The verdict by Correctiv was a bit milder (Barz has given a public and detailed reply). He is proved right by the document produced for the German Federal Ministry of Health, which shows that Covid-19-Patienten stood for no more than 2% of the hospital burden during 2020. Barz went to the press with his analysis but was ignored. In a functioning discourse, our media would invite him for a debate.

Covid-related content has been deleted countless times, as shown by journalist Laurie Clarke in The British Medical Journal. Facebook and similar media are private companies and are thus free to decide what may be published on their platforms. But in doing so, are they also allowed to steer the discourse?

Public service broadcasting could have an important balancing role, by offering an open exchange of opinion. Not so, unfortunately!

Digital vaccine passes and surveillance

The Gates and Rockefeller Foundations drafted and financed the WHO guidelines for digital vaccine passes. These passes are now being rolled out everywhere. Only with these passes will public life be possible – whether you want to take the tram, have a coffee or get medical treatment. An example from France shows that this digital pass will stay even after the pandemic ends. MP Emanuelle Ménard demanded the following addition to the legal text: The digital vaccine pass shall end when the virus spread no longer presents a level of danger which justifies its use. Her proposed amendment was rejected. Thus we are but a small step away from global population control or even a surveillance state via projects such as ID2020.

Australia is currently testing a facial recognition app, to ensure that people stay at home when in quarantine. In Israel, electronic wristbands are used for this purpose. In one Italian city, drones are being tested to measure the temperature of beachgoers, and in France, the law is changed to allow large-scale drone surveillance.

All these topics must be subject to intensive and critical scrutiny within our society. This is not happening to a sufficient extent in the reporting by our broadcasting organisations and, indeed, was not an election campaign issue.

Blinkered vision

The way in which public discourse has been curtailed is indicative of the “gatekeeper of information”. A current example comes from Jan Böhmermann, who demanded that virologists Hendrik Streeck and Professor Alexander S. Kekulé be deprived of their opportunity to speak out, claiming that they were not competent to do so.

Even though the two physicians have very impressive CVs, Böhmermann has thus narrowed the field of vision even more. So, now we cannot even listen to people who present their criticism of government policy wearing kid gloves?

Public discourse has been curtailed so much that Bayerischer Rundfunk has more than once refrained from broadcasting speeches by members of state parliaments who take a critical view of the measures during parliamentary debates.

Is that what the new understanding of democracy looks like in public service broadcasting? Alternative media platforms thrive first and foremost because the established platforms fail to do their job as a democratic corrective.

Something has gone wrong

For a long time, I could say with pride and joy that I work in public service broadcasting. ARD, ZDF and Deutschlandradio have generated outstanding research, formats, and content. The quality standards are extremely high and thousands of staff members are doing great work despite increasing cost pressure and savings targets. But with Covid-19, something has gone wrong. Suddenly, I have become aware of tunnel vision, blinkers and a supposed consensus which is no longer questioned. (10)

The Austrian broadcaster Servus TV is proof that another way is possible. In the programme “Corona-Quartett” / “Talk im Hanger 7” proponents and critics are given equal space. Why is that not possible in German television? (11) “You cannot let every crank take the stage”, is the quick retort. The false balance, giving serious and dubious opinions an equal chance to be heard, must be avoided. — A killer argument, which also happens to be unscientific. The basic principle of science is doubt, questioning, checking. If this does not happen, then science has become a religion.

Yes, there is actually a false balance. It is the blind spot in our heads, which no longer allows true debate. We are throwing around apparent facts, but can no longer listen to each other. Contempt replaces understanding, fighting the opposing view replaces tolerance. The basic values of our society are thrown overboard, just like that. Here we go: People who do not want to get the jab are crazy, there we go: “Shame on the sleeping sheep”.

While we are busy fighting, we fail to notice that the world around us is changing at breakneck speed. Virtually all areas of our lives are being transformed. How this develops is essentially determined by our capacity for cooperation, compassion and awareness of ourselves and our words and deeds. For our spiritual wellbeing, we would do well to open the space for debate – while being mindful, respectful and with understanding of different perspectives. (12)

Writing this, I feel like a heretic — someone who commits high treason and must reckon with being punished. Maybe this is not the case. Maybe I am not actually risking my job, and maybe freedom of opinion and pluralism are not under threat. I really hope so and I look forward to constructive exchange with my colleagues.

Ole Skambraks

About the author: Ole Skambraks, born in 1979, studied Political Science and French at Queen Mary University in London, as well as Media Management at the ESCP Business School in Paris. He was a Moderator, Reporter and Writer at Radio France Internationale, Online Editor and Community Manager at, Programme Manager of the MDR Sputnik morning show and Editor at WDR Funkhaus Europa / Cosmo. He is currently working as an Editor in Programme Management/Sound Design at SWR2.

Further information from the author

PS: For fact-checkers and people interested in a multi-perspective, here are the counter-positions to the points discussed in the text:


Prof. John Ioannidis

Imperial College Modelling

Gain of function research

Hydroxychloroquin / Ivermectin,RtghbZ4—even-as-who-warns-against-its-use-as-covid-19-treatment/

Immunity of the vaccinated

Immunity of the recovered

Vaccination breakthroughs / Pandemic of the non-vaccinated

Pseudo-experts / Science Denial / PLURV-Principle,podcastcoronavirus300.html#Argument


(1) The exception was the coverage of the referendum, during which Swiss television was obliged to give both parties the same broadcasting slot.

(2) More Pandemic-Emergency exercises were “Clade X“ (2018), “Atlantic Storm“ (2005), “Global Mercury“ (2003) and “Dark Winter“ (2001). These exercises were always about information management.

(3) Panorama reported on the payments, but did not clearly portray Kyriakides’ role regarding the Corona vaccine contracts. Otherwise, the issue has not had much prominence in the media.

(4) For example, there was hardly any coverage on public radio of the British musician Eric Clapton, who developed violent reactions after vaccination and now regrets it.

(5) According to the RKI, a vaccination breakthrough is when a vaccinated person can show both a positive test and symptoms – for the unvaccinated, a positive test is sufficient. In this way, the unvaccinated are statistically more significant.

(6) Each under the heading “List of approved vaccines”; previous PEI website editions accessible via the Internet archive Wayback Machine.

(7) The WHO has even praised the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh for its corona policy, but without mentioning ivermectin. The vaccination rate in Uttar Pradesh is below 10 %.

(8) See also FDA meeting of 17 September 2021, at 5:47:25

(9) The fairest reporting comes from BR, although here too it was about and not with the makers. MDR offers a comprehensive and differentiated analysis on its media portal.

(10) I would not like to speak of an actual “unified opinion” of the public broadcasters. There have always been critical contributions and course corrections in reporting. But it is always a question of context, broadcasting time and scope how a topic is treated. My colleagues have also confirmed my observations.

(11) Fresh formats like ZDF’s “Auf der Couch” (On the Couch) give hope, even if I don’t think a Karina Reiß or a Wolfgang Wodarg will be taking a seat there any time soon.

Note: This text ist also available in German and in French.

October 16, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , , , , , | 2 Comments

French President Macron criticized for creating online “thought police” task force

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | September 30, 2021

The President of France, Emmanuel Macron, has come under fire after forming a committee against online speech that critics are already calling the “thought police.” According to Macron, he considers “conspiracy theories” a “poison” to society.

Macron claimed in an interview that conspiracy theories are a “key problem” for France and that he’s fighting against the idea that “all views are equal, that those of someone who is not a specialist but who has an opinion on the coronavirus are just as valid as those of a scientist.”

However, some have blasted the president for trying to impose an official narrative to secure a second presidency against conservative populists such Marine Le Pen.

François Bernard Huyghe, a political scientist at the Institute of Strategic and International Affairs in Paris, has criticized the president’s commission.

“I don’t think that multiplying laws, censoring social media accounts or treating people as cretins is the solution. It provokes the opposite effect to the one desired and the feeling that something is being hidden,” Huyghe stated in The Times.

Members of the committee will include 15 academics, as well as journalists, teachers and lawyers. Mr Macron asked them to submit a report on these topics, along with algorithms that are “enslaving the public.”

However, the chair of the commission, Gerald Bronner has denied all claims in involvement with the effect of the “thought police”, stating that “There is no question of censorship but of strengthening the space for common debates that are increasingly threatened by a succession of opinions.”

October 1, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

High Recorded Mortality in Countries Categorized as “Covid-19 Vaccine Champions”

The Vaccinated Suffer from Increased Risk of Mortality compared to the Non-vaccinated

By Dr. Gérard Delépine | GlobalResearch | September 30, 2021

Since the beginning of the health crisis, the French government has claimed that early treatment was ineffective. It has  imposed major restrictions on our freedoms, in particular on doctors’ prescriptions,[1]

It has also promised that vaccination would achieve collective immunity, the end of the crisis and a return to normal life.

But the failure for 18 months of this so-called “health strategy” based on false simulations, innumerable lies, promises never kept, as well as the propaganda and fear campaign has become unbearable.

In turn this been followed by the extortion of consent to be vaccinated, by outright blackmail, while curtailing our freedoms to move and socialize, our right to work and engage in leisure activities.

Are the current vaccines that they want to impose on us effective?

Can they lead to a collective immunity or is it only a myth? To answer this question, we will make the current sanitary assessment of the most vaccinated countries according to the figures provided by the World Health Organization and the curves of OurWorldinData. (From Vaccine outset in December 2020 to September 15, 2021)

Record mortality in Gibraltar, champion of Astra Zeneca injections

Gibraltar (34,000 inhabitants) started vaccination in December 2020 when the health agency counted only 1040 confirmed cases and 5 deaths attributed to covid19 in this country. After a very comprehensive vaccination blitz, achieving 115% coverage (vaccination was extended to many Spanish visitors), the number of new infections increased fivefold (to 5314) and the number of deaths increased 19fold. The number of deaths increased 19-fold, reaching 97, i.e. 2853 deaths per million inhabitants, which is one of the European mortality records. But those responsible for the vaccination deny any causal link without proposing any other plausible etiology. And after a few months of calm, the epidemic resumed, confirming that 115% vaccination coverage does not protect against the disease.

Malta: 84% vaccine coverage, but just as ineffective

Malta is one of the European champions of pseudo-vaccines: on this island of 500,000 inhabitants, nearly 800,000 doses have been administered, ensuring a vaccine coverage of nearly 84% with a delay of about 6 months.

But since the beginning of July 2021, the epidemic has started again and the serious (fatal) forms are increasing, forcing the authorities to recognize that vaccination does not protect the population and to impose restrictions.

Here again, the recurrence of the epidemic in terms of cases and mortality proves that a high rate of vaccination does not protect the population.

In Iceland, people no longer believe in herd immunity

In this small country of 360,000 inhabitants, more than 80% are primo-vaccinated and 75% have a complete vaccination cycle. But by mid-July 2021, new daily infections had risen from about 10 to about 120, before stabilizing at a rate higher than the pre-vaccination period. This sudden recurrence convinced the chief epidemiologist of the impossibility of obtaining collective immunity through vaccination. “It’s a myth,” he publicly declared.

Belgium: recurrence of the disease despite vaccination

In Belgium, nearly 75% of the population is primo-vaccinated. And 65% of the population has a complete vaccination cycle. However, since the end of June 2021, the number of new daily infections has risen from less than 500 to nearly 2000. As RTBF acknowledges, in the face of the Delta variant, current vaccination is far from sufficient to protect the population.

Singapore abandons the hope of “Zero Covid” through vaccines

This small country is also highly vaccinated and nearly 80% of the population has received at least one dose. But since August 20, 2021, it has had to face an exponential resumption of the epidemic with an increase in cases from about ten in June to more than 150 at the end of July and 1246 cases on September 24.

This uncontrolled recurrence of the disease despite vaccination has led to the abandonment of the strategy of eradicating the virus for a model of “living with the virus” by trying to treat the disease “like the flu“.

In the UK: a worrying rise in infections

The United Kingdom is the European champion of Astra Zeneca vaccination, with more than 70% of the population vaccinated for the first time, and 59% with a complete vaccination schedule. This high “vaccination” rate did not prevent an explosion of cases at the beginning of the summer, with up to 60,000 new cases per day by mid-July.

Faced with this significant resumption of the epidemic despite vaccination, Andrew Pollard, representative of the Oxford Vaccine Group, acknowledged before Parliament: “collective immunity through vaccination is a myth“.

This resumption of infections has been accompanied by a resumption of hospitalizations, severe cases and deaths. According to the official report of August,[2] deaths were more frequent among fully vaccinated patients (679) than among non-vaccinated patients (390), thus cruelly denying the hopes of a protective effect of the vaccine on mortality.

After the last sanitary restrictions were lifted, the epidemic decreased to a level of less than 30,000 cases per day, whereas at the beginning of July, simulations by covid specialists were predicting up to 100,000 new cases per day if the sanitary measures were removed.

Israel: obvious post-vaccination disaster denied by officials

Israel, champion of the Pfizer injection, once everywhere cited as an example of effectiveness, is now being harshly reminded of reality and is now the model of vaccine failure.

70% of the population is primo-vaccinated, and nearly 90% of those at risk have a complete vaccination cycle. But the epidemic has rebounded stronger than ever since the end of June, and more than 11,000 new cases were recorded in 1 day (September 14, 2021) surpassing the peaks seen in January 2021 during the outbreak following the first Pfizer injections by nearly 50%.

This resumption of the epidemic, despite the Pfizer injections, is accompanied by an increase in hospitalizations where the vaccinated represent the majority of those hospitalized.

Vaccination does not protect against severe forms of the disease or against death.

End of July: 71% of the 118 seriously ill Israelis (serious, critical) were fully vaccinated!

This proportion of seriously ill people vaccinated is much higher than the proportion of fully vaccinated people: 61%. To claim that the vaccine protects against serious forms of the disease, as the Israeli Minister of Health imprudently declared, is a mistake (or disinformation?).

In order not to acknowledge its mistakes, the Israeli government remains in denial of this obvious failure and continues to propose only vaccination as a solution. How many more deaths will it take before it follows the example of India or Japan and finally adopts early treatment?


The current pseudo vaccines are not effective enough. They do not prevent the recurrence of the epidemic, nor hospitalizations, nor severe forms, nor death. In Israel and Great Britain, which specify the vaccination status of the victims, the vaccinated suffer from an increased risk of mortality compared to the non-vaccinated.

The pursuit of a vaccine-only policy leads to a deadly impasse, whereas countries that officially advise early treatment (India) or allow their doctors to prescribe it (Japan, Korea) fare much better.

What are our health authorities waiting for to stop believing in false simulations carried out by epidemiologists who are too closely linked to vaccine companies, to look at the proven facts and to interrupt their deceptive and deleterious pro-vaccination campaign and recommend early treatment?

The continuation of the ban on early treatment by treating physicians leads to a loss of chances for many patients and directly engages the responsibility of the government and particularly the Minister of Health.

Dr Gérard Delépine is an oncologist and statistician

Translated from the French by Global Research.


[1] For the first time in 2500 years…

[2] SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England Technical briefing 21
Published August 2021 Public Health England Gateway number : GOV 9374 20 August 2021

The original source of this article is, published on our French language web site
Copyright © Dr. Gérard Delé, 2021

September 30, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment