BY GREGORY ELICH | COUNTERPUNCH | MAY 1, 2024
Since the U.S. military brought its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to South Korea in 2017, it has met with sustained local resistance. THAAD is the centerpiece of the numerous actions the United States has undertaken to enmesh South Korea in its hostile anti-China campaign, a course that Korean peace activists are fighting to reverse.
In a unanimous decision at the end of March, South Korea’s Constitutional Court dismissed two challenges lodged by residents of Seongju County against the deployment of THAAD. [1] Since its arrival, the THAAD system has met with recurring demonstrations in the nearby village of Soseong-ri. The hope in the Yoon and Biden administrations is that the court’s decision will dishearten opponents of THAAD. In this expectation, they are already disappointed, as anti-THAAD activists responded to the court’s decision by vowing to “fight to the end.” [2]
Although protestors have regularly held rallies on the road leading to the THAAD site, swarms of Korean police cleared them away to allow free passage for U.S. military supply trucks. Opposition to THAAD has angered U.S. officials, leading the Biden administration to dispatch Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to Seoul to deliver the message that it deemed the situation “unacceptable” and progress on establishing the base needed to accelerate. Austin also raised objections to protests by residents in Pohang over noise from U.S. Apache attack helicopters conducting live-fire exercises. [3] Predictably, the Yoon administration responded by prioritizing U.S. demands over the welfare of the Korean people and promised “close cooperation for normalizing routine and unfettered access to the THAAD site” and “improvement of the combined training conditions.” [4]
THAAD is billed as an anti-missile defense system consisting of an interceptor missile battery, a fire control and communications unit, and an AN/TPY-2 X-band radar. The ostensible purpose of THAAD in Seongju is to counter incoming North Korean missiles, but serious doubts exist about its efficacy in that role. In terms of coverage, THAAD’s position in Seongju puts it in range to cover the main U.S. military base in South Korea, Camp Humphreys in Pyeongtaek, but out of range to protect Seoul, which at any rate is indefensible due to its proximity to the border. Even so, it is questionable how much utility the system offers even for Pyeongtaek. THAAD’s missiles are designed to intercept incoming ballistic missiles at an altitude of 40 to 150 kilometers. The THAAD battery would have less than three and a half minutes to detect and counter-launch against a high-altitude ballistic missile fired from the farthestpoint in North Korea. By then, the incoming missile would have fallen below the lower-end altitude range of 40 kilometers, leaving it invulnerable to interception. [5] That would be the best-case scenario, as in the event of a war, the North Koreans are not likely to be so accommodating as to launch ballistic missiles from as far away as possible.
Furthermore, the THAAD battery in Seongju is equipped with six launchers and 48 interceptor missiles. With a thirty-minute THAAD battery launcher reload time, incoming missiles would not take long to deplete THAAD’s ability to respond, even under the most accommodating circumstances.
An upgrade was recently made to integrate THAAD with Patriot PAC-3 defense to intercept ballistic missiles at a lower altitude. This enhancement is of doubtful utility, as the radar’s response would still be constrained by the short flight time of an incoming missile. For all the hype about the successful interception of Iranian missiles fired at Israel, the Patriot’s showing in a more suitable scenario was less than stellar. It had an advantage there, as Iranian and Yemeni launch sites were situated much farther away from their target than in the Korean case. Yet, out of 120 Iranian ballistic missiles, the Patriot system shot down only one. The others were intercepted primarily by U.S. warplanes. [6]
North Korea’s development of a solid-fuel hypersonic intermediate-range missile has added another unmeetable challenge for THAAD. Because of its proximity, it is doubtful that North Korea would target US forces with high-altitude ballistic missiles in case of war. Instead, it would likely rely on its long-range artillery, cruise missiles, and short-range ballistic missiles, flying well below the lower limit of THAAD’s altitude coverage.
Despite its doubtful defensive effectiveness on the Korean Peninsula, the United States attaches enormous importance to THAAD’s deployment in South Korea, which suggests an unstated motivation. A clue is provided by the stationing in Japan of two stand-alone AN/TPY-2 radars without an accompanying THAAD system. [7] In other words, it is the radar that matters to the U.S. military, and the linkage to THAAD interceptors is primarily a pretense made necessary by popular feeling in Korea. What makes the AN/TPY-2 special is its ability to operate in two modes. In terminal mode, it feeds tracking data to the THAAD missile battery, allowing it to target an incoming ballistic missile as it descends toward its target. In forward-based mode, the THAAD missile battery is not involved, and the role of the radar is to detect a ballistic missile as it ascends from its launching pad, even from deep into China. In this mode, the radar is integrated into the U.S. missile defense system and sends tracking data to interceptor missiles stationed on U.S. territory and Pacific bases. [8] As a U.S. Army publication points out, when in forward-based mode, a field commander may use the radar system “to concurrently support both regional and strategic missile defense operations.” [9]
There are hints that preparations may already be underway to establish the conditions necessary for THAAD to operate in forward-based mode. Last year, South Korea and Japan agreed to link their radars to the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command in Hawaii. [10] The ostensible purpose is to enhance the tracking accuracy of missiles fired from North Korea, but the concept applies equally well to Chinese missiles. It is not a stretch to imagine that if South Korean and Japanese radars have been linked to the United States, the same may be true with the THAAD’s AN/TPY-2. Certainly, if the U.S. Army switches the mode, it will not be informing South Korean authorities, so sure are the Americans that they can freely treat Korean sovereignty with contempt. Switching an AN/TPY-2 radar from one mode to the other takes only eight hours, a quick process that is opaque to outsiders. [11]
An anti-ballistic missile system can easily be overwhelmed by a full-scale enemy attack. The system’s primary purpose is to support a first-strike capability, in which the United States takes out as many of the enemy’s missiles as possible, leaving the anti-ballistic missile system to counter the few surviving missiles. In essence, that makes the radar in the THAAD system a first-strike weapon. The closer the radar is stationed to an adversary’s ballistic missile launch, the more precise the tracking provided to the U.S.-based anti-missile system. South Korea is ideally located for the AN/TPY-2, where its radar can cover much of eastern China. [12] The effect is to enlist South Korea, willingly or not, in U.S. war plans against China. When residents in Seongju argue that THAAD makes them a target, they are not mistaken.
The Yoon administration is taking integration with the U.S. missile defense system one step further in planning to spend an estimated $584 million to procure American SM-3 interceptor missiles, suitable for protecting the United States and its bases in the Pacific.[13] The SM-3 interceptors are to be deployed on South Korean Aegis destroyers, which will need to be upgraded at additional cost to handle them. [14]
Residents in Seongju are also concerned about potential health risks associated with living adjacent to the THAAD installation. Radars transmit pulses of high-frequency electromagnetic fields, and the AN/TPY-2 radar generates radio frequencies of 8.55 to 10 GHz. [15] According to the World Health Organization, radio frequency waves below 10 GHz “penetrate exposed tissues and produce heating due to energy absorption.” [16] One study observes that radars generate pulsed microwaves “in very high values of peak power compared to mean power emitted.” To evaluate risk, one must also take peak values into account. In that case study, exposure levels for 49 workers were assessed, where it was noted that “peak values are about 200 – 4000 times higher than corresponding mean values.” Although recorded mean values fell below exposure limits that could have caused thermal effects, the peak values suggested potential non-thermal impacts, and “peak power density frequently exceeded the reference level and were correlated with nervous system effects.” [17]
The AN/TPY-2 relies on a phased array antenna. The U.S. Army publication on Ground-based Midcourse Defense Operations warns, “Dangerous radio frequency power levels exist on and near antennas and phased-array radars during operations. Radio frequency electromagnetic radiation may cause serious burns and internal injury. All personnel must observe radio frequency danger indications and stay outside designated keep out zones.” It adds that the keep out zone can vary according to power output “but may extend out from a radar face in excess of 10 kilometers and sweep more than 70 degrees on each side from the system bore sight.” [18] In other words, the extent of risk depends heavily on the radar’s power output and disposition.
Where the radar is aimed matters; the extent of human exposure is sharply reduced outside of the direct path of the primary beam. The U.S. Army’s AN/TPY-2 forward-based operations field manual specifies three search plans for the radar while in that mode. The “standard operations mode,” named Autonomous Search Plans, “normally provides multiple search sectors,” and in general, the larger the ballistic missile named area of interest, “the larger the search volume of the radar sector.” [19] Since China constitutes a vast area of interest, the THAAD radar in forward-based mode potentially exposes a wide range of the local population to radiation.
Shortly after THAAD was brought to South Korea, the Daegu Regional Environmental Office attempted to ascertain the environmental impact through periodic measurements; results registered at safe levels at a point in time when the THAAD system was not yet fully implemented. However, the Environmental Office noted that the radar’s power output level and vertical and horizontal angles were unknown “due to military secrecy.” [20] While the low measurements were suggestive, they were essentially meaningless without knowing what radar settings were being measured.
Since the arrival of THAAD in 2017, the local population’s concerns about possible health impacts from electromagnetic radiation had gone unanswered until June 21 last year, when the Ministry of Defense issued a press release announcing the result of its THAAD environmental impact assessment. The Ministry of Environment judged the impact as “insignificant.” [21] The press release reported that the highest measurement registered was 0.018870 watts per square meter (W/㎡), far below the limit for human exposure.
An earlier series of tests in Gimcheon City, at four locations northwest of the radar, produced a slightly higher but comparable measurement to the Seongju test, definitely within a safe limit. The tests were conducted over one year, ending in May 2023. The highest and maximum readings were registered at the farthest location, 10.2 kilometers from the radar. [22] However, as in the earlier Daegu test, nothing about how the radar operated was known.
At first glance, the Seongju test result would appear to allay concerns over the radar’s health impact. But has it? The most striking aspect of the press release is its lack of transparency. No information is provided other than a single result. The Ministry of Defense withheld information because it would be “likely to significantly harm the vital interests of the state if disclosed.” [23] It is unclear how revealing details about the test conditions, such as the radar’s angle, would pose a security risk. More likely, United States Forces Korea preferred to hide the details from public view so that the test could be conducted in a way sure to produce safe readings.
Unlike the earlier Gimcheon report, which identified the populated areas where measurements had been taken, the Seongju environmental impact assessment “was done for the entire base, including the site negotiated by the Daegu Regional Environmental Office.” [24] The phrasing suggests that no measurements were taken outside of the THAAD base, an odd choice given the concerns of nearby residents. Even within that limitation, less than thirty percent of the base was included in the assessment. [25]
Several factors can produce dramatically different results when measuring radiation. The public’s only knowledge of the Seongu test is that radiation poses no risk in an unknown set of conditions. Risk remains a mystery in other scenarios. We do not know which mode(s) the test included. It is probable that only the terminal mode was involved, aligning with the fiction that the radar’s purpose is purely defensive. Estimated ranges for the AN/TPY-2 vary but are consistently far higher when set to forward-based mode. Therefore, a test in forward mode could be expected to produce a higher electromagnetic radiation reading, as the longer the range, the higher the average power the radar has to generate. [26]
There are also the factors of angle and direction. The press release was silent on these matters, as well. In none of the measurements was it known in which direction the radar was pointed. In terminal mode, the radar would presumably point north. The forward-based mode should have the radar directed toward China in a different and much broader range of directions. Furthermore, the AN/TPY-2 can be set at any angle ranging from ten to 60 degrees. [27]Presumably, the angle would be positioned much lower in forward-based mode than in terminal mode, resulting in a more direct environmental impact on the ground.
The highest radiofrequency radiation is in the path of the radar’s main beam. Outside of that, there is a sharp drop-off, typically at levels thousands of times lower. [28] If measurements are taken outside the line of the beam, then results would be misleadingly low. Also unknown are the positions of the radar in various planned operation scenarios. What populated areas would be situated directly in line of the beam? Without that information, let alone corresponding measurements, potential risk remains unknown.
The U.S. Army conducted the Seongju test, and the South Korean Air Force, partnering with the Korea Radio Promotion Association, measured the radiation. [29] There was no outside involvement in planning or conducting the test. Lacking independent outside oversight, the U.S. military chose the test conditions based on the motivation to produce a reassuring finding. In coordination with selected third parties, the Ministry of Environment’s sole role was to review the measurements handed to them by the South Korean military.
In its recent decision, the Constitutional Court dismissed every point in the two appeals that challenged the deployment of THAAD. The petition filed by Won Buddhists charged that THAAD violated their freedom of religion by requiring them to obtain permission from the military to conduct religious activities and meetings and by restricting pilgrimages. Similarly, the petition by residents argued that security restrictions imposed on farmers required them to seek permission from the police to work their fields. To both complaints, the court ruled that restricted access to a religious site and farmland does not apply to the constitution, as a joint U.S.-Korean commission had decided to deploy THAAD in accordance with the Mutual Defense Treaty. The court summarized its point by asserting, “If the exercise of public authority has no effect on the legal status of the applicants, there is no possible violation of their fundamental rights in the first place.” It was a curious framing for the court to adopt in that it ignored the impact on residents who could no longer conduct their activities in a normal manner. In dismissing the challenges relating to health concerns and noise pollution, the court cited the Ministry of Defense’s environmental test press release in evidence. Finally, in rejecting the challenge that THAAD would make Seongju a target in times of war, the court made the specious claim that since the system is defensive, it cannot be said that it “is likely to threaten the peaceful existence of the people by subjecting them to a war of aggression.” [30] Chinese complaints about the nature of THAAD are well known in South Korea; the judges could hardly have been unaware of how deployment has been perceived in the People’s Republic of China.
Following close on the heels of the publicized environmental test result, the court’s decision surely had Washington in a jubilant mood. South Korea’s military promised to “work closely with the U.S. side to faithfully reflect the opinions of the U.S. side so that the project can proceed.” [31] They plan to expedite the steps needed to “normalize” the base and ensure its permanent emplacement.
THAAD can be considered a microcosm representing everything unsettling about the U.S.-South Korea military alliance. It is a relationship serving American geostrategic objectives in which Koreans play a subservient role, often acting against their interests. As East Asian specialist Seungsook Moon explains, “While there have been variations and changes in the U.S. relationships with host countries over time, the military relationship between the USA and South Korea has been persistently neocolonial.” Moon adds that, in “maintaining the boundary between us and them,” the South Korean state “imposes the unequal burden of hosting the missile defense system on lower-class and rural citizens” and “exacerbates class inequality by diminishing these citizens’ quality of life and human security.” [32] The costs of U.S. militarism are also offloaded onto Koreans in other ways, as well, including communities impacted by toxic pollution from active and abandoned American bases. Those living near live-fire practice exercises must endure unbearable noise levels, while crimes committed by American soldiers victimize residents near bases.
As for South Korea as a whole, the presence of U.S. bases in the context of American hyper-militarized confrontation with China and North Korea poses an ongoing danger of dragging the nation into war. Indeed, the United States is quite explicit about the role it assigns to South Korea. Shortly after taking office, in a revealing statement, President Biden declared, “When we strengthen our alliances, we amplify our power.” [33] That leaves no doubt about whose interests allied nations are expected to serve. In South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, the United States has found an ideal lackey, a true believer who eagerly prioritizes American demands over the welfare of his people. It has long been a U.S. goal for its alliance to expand beyond the Korean Peninsula. With Yoon in power, the United States had been progressing toward moving the alliance in that direction. Austin and South Korean Defense Minister Shin Won-sik recently announced that the alliance is committed to “operate across the region with greater bilateral and multilateral political-military alignment to realize this vision of a true global comprehensive strategic Alliance…” [34]
The U.S. objective is total economic, diplomatic, and military domination of the Asia-Pacific. When Yoon met with Biden last year, he signaled his support for that policy, including the usual anti-China euphemisms. [35] Biden and Yoon have also been ramping up regional tensions with a nearly nonstop series of aggressive full-scale military exercises intended to intimidate and threaten North Korea and China. [36]
Yoon and Biden have underestimated the determination of the Korean progressive movement, which is unswayed by recent developments. If anything, the setbacks have energized them. On April 27, the seventh anniversary of the introduction of THAAD in Soseong-ri, activists held a demonstration at the site to proclaim their undying opposition, shouting, “We will be with you until the day THAAD is dismantled!” [37]
One of the speakers, student Lee Ki-eun, pointed out that THAAD’s radar is intended to defend the United States and Japan. “It is completely for foreign powers.” She added, “What is Korea? At the forefront of the confrontation with North Korea and China, the lives of our people are sacrificed for foreign powers.” Lee urged her audience: “With greater determination, with an even greater life force like a bursting prairie fire, let’s continue the anti-THAAD struggle!” [38]
The anti-THAAD battle is part of a broader movement by Korean progressives against the deepening military alliance with the United States and Yoon’s colonial mindset that sacrifices Korean sovereignty and the welfare of the Korean people on the altar of U.S. imperialism. As Ham Jae-gyu of the Unification Committee declared at the rally, “The Japanese colonial period merely passed the baton to U.S. imperialism, and subjugation by imperialism is accelerating. The United States is trampling every corner of Korea.” [39]
Notes.
[1] https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/197154
[2] Kwan Sik Yoon, “Anti-THAAD Group: ‘The Constitution Does Not Protect Basic Rights…We Will Fight to the End,” Yonhap, March 29, 2024.
[3] Oh Seok-min, “S. Korea, U.S. Working Closely on How to Improve THAAD Base Conditions: Seoul Ministry,” Yonhap, March 29, 2021.
[4] Press Release, “54th Security Consultative Meeting Joint Communique,” U.S. Department of Defense, November 3, 2022.
[5] Yoon Min-sik, “THAAD, Capacity and Limitations,” Korea Herald, July 21, 2016
[6] Lauren Frias, “US Fighter Jets, Destroyers, and Patriot Missiles Shot Down Loads of Iranian Weapons to Shield Israel From an Unprecedented Attack,” Business Insider, April 15, 2024.
Vera Bergengruen, “How the U.S. Rallied to Defend Israel From Iran’s Massive Attack,” Time, April 15, 2024.
[7] “U.S. Defense Infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific: Background and Issues for Congress,” p. 39, Congressional Research Service, June 6, 2023.
[8] https://sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Mobile-Radar.pdf
[9] ATP 3-27.3, “Ground-based Midcourse Defense Operations,” U.S. Army, October 30, 2019.
[10] Jesse Johnson, “Japan, South Korea, U.S. Begin Sharing Real-time Data on North Korean Missiles,” The Japan Times, December 19, 2023.
[11] Park Hyun, “Pentagon Document Confirms THAAD’s Eight-hour Conversion Ability,” Hankyoreh, June 3, 2015.
[12] https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/an-tpy-2.htm
[13] Eunhyuk Cha, “South Korea Approves Procurement of SM-3 for Ballistic Missile Defense,” Naval News, April 26, 2024.
[14] Younghak Lee, “South Korea to Upgrade KDX-III Batch-I Ships to Operate SM-3 and SM-6,” Naval News, November 19, 2023.
[15] “AN/TPY-2 Transportable Radar Surveillance Forward Based X-Band Transportable [FBX-T],” GlobalSecurity.org.
[16] “Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Radars and Human Health,” Fact Sheet N 226, World Health Organization.
[17] Christian Goiceanu, Răzvan Dănulescu1, Eugenia Dănulescu, Florin Mihai Tufescu, and Dorina Emilia Creangă, “Exposure to Microwaves Generated by Radar Equipment: Case Study and Protection Issues,” Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, April 2011, Vol. 10, No. 4, p 491-498.
[18] ATP 3-27.3, “Ground-based Midcourse Defense Operations,” U.S. Army, October 30, 2019.
[19] ATP 3-27.5: “AN/TYP-2 Forward Based Mode (FBM) Radar Operations,” U.S. Army, April 16, 2012.
[20] Press Release, “성주 사드기지 소규모 환경영향평가 협의 완료,” Daegu Regional Environment Agency Environmental Assessment Division, September 4, 2017.
[21] Song Sang-ho, “S. Korea Completes Environmental Assessment of U.S. THAAD Missile Defense Base,” Yonhap, June 21, 2023.
[22] “사드기지 소규모 환경영향평가 후속조치 기술지원 결과,” Republic of Korea Ministry of Environment, undated report.
[23] https://www.peoplepower21.org/peace/1927732
[24] Press Release, “전 정부서 미룬 사드 환경영향평가 완료, 윤정부 ‘성주 사드기지 정상화’에 속도,” Republic of Korea Ministry of Defense, June 21, 2023.
[25] https://www.peoplepower21.org/peace/1927732
[26] “Radar Navigation and Maneuvering Board Manual,” National Imagery and Mapping Agency, 2001, p. 24
https://www.furuno.com/en/technology/radar/basic/
[27] “Shielded from Oversight: The Disastrous US Approach to Strategic Missile Defense – Appendix 10: Sensors, Union of Concerned Scientists, p. 9.
[28] J. Kusters, “X-band Wave Radar Radiation Hazards to Personnel,” General Dynamics Applied Physical Sciences, November 26, 2019.
https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/radiation-radar
[29] “Science Prevails Over Wild Rumors,” JoongAng Ilbo, June 21, 2024.
[30] “2017헌마372: 고고도미사일방어체계 배치 승인 위헌확인고고도미사일방어체계 배치,” Constitutional Court of Korea, March 28, 2024.
[31] Press Release, “전 정부서 미룬 사드 환경영향평가 완료, 윤정부 ‘성주 사드기지 정상화’에 속도,” Republic of Korea Ministry of Defense, June 21, 2023.
[32] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09670106211022884
[33] “Remarks by President Biden on America’s Place in the World,” The White House, February 4, 2021.
[34] Press Release, “Defense Vision of the U.S.-ROK Alliance,” U.S. Department of Defense, November 13, 2023.
[35] “Leaders’ Joint Statement in Commemoration of the 70th Anniversary of the Alliance Between the United States of America and the Republic of Korea,” The White House, April 26, 2023.
[36] Simone Chun, “Unprecedented US War Drills and Naval Deployment Raise Fear of War in Korea,” Truthout, April 7, 2024.
[37] https://spark946.org/party/kor_en?tpf=board/view&board_code=3&code=27545
[38] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMb3eLbBve0
[39] https://worknworld.kctu.org/news/articleView.html?idxno=504477
Press TV – May 1, 2024
Jordan’s Foreign Ministry has said two Jordanian aid convoys carrying food and flour have been attacked by Israeli settlers on their way into the besieged Gaza Strip.
The convoys, one taking the Beit Hanoon crossing and another taking the Karem Abu Salem crossing into Gaza, were targeted by the settlers on Wednesday morning.
The assailants dumped some of their cargo and damaged the trucks.
The Jordanian ministry strongly condemned the assault and held the Israeli authorities fully responsible for the crime.
Jordan News Agency (Petra) reported that the “failure of the Israeli authorities to provide protection” for the convoys undermine the regime’s “claims and commitments to allowing aid to enter Gaza.”
Israeli settlers have been repeatedly blocking the humanitarian aid trucks heading to Gaza.
The settlers are calling on the regime to prevent the flow of aid supplies to the besieged strip, despite signs of famine across the territory.
People in Gaza are dehydrated and suffering from malnutrition.
The vast majority of humanitarian convoys have been inspected by the Israeli military in order to guarantee that there is no kind of material that can be smuggled into the besieged Palestinian territory.
A senior Hamas official has said any ceasefire in Gaza needs to be permanent. The senior official said reaching a ceasefire deal could not be at any cost.
Meanwhile, Benjamin Netanyahu has pledged that the invasion of the southernmost city of Rafah would go ahead as planned.
The Cradle | May 1, 2024
The Geneva-based Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor (Euro-Med) released a report on 30 April urging an investigation into Israel’s potential use of illegal thermal weapons.
“An international committee of experts must be established to look into the weapons Israel has been using as part of its genocide in the Gaza Strip … including the potential use of bombs that produce such high heat that victims’ bodies evaporate,” the Euro-Med report said.
The rights group cites testimonies received from Gaza which revealed a “horrific new level of killing in the Strip.” The bodies of Palestinian victims appear to have been vaporized by the weapons Israel used against residential buildings.
“Thousands of victims remain missing, either because it was impossible to recover them from under the debris in light of insufficient equipment and technical know-how, or because their bodies were either hidden by the Israeli army or no longer exist,” the Euro-Med report reads.
The report continues to say, “A number of the victims killed in these horrifying Israeli raids on residential buildings have vanished and may have turned to ashes, raising questions about the type of bombs used in the attacks.”
Thermobaric weapons, also referred to as vacuum bombs, are two-stage munitions. The first charge disperses a fine aerosol cloud of materials ranging from carbon-based fuel to metal particles. The second charge ignites the materials used, creating a fireball, shock wave, and vacuum as it sucks up the surrounding oxygen.
The blast from these weapons can last significantly longer than conventional explosives, enabling it to vaporize human bodies.
Mass graves in Gaza hospitals previously raided by Israel show that civil defense staff found “bodies without skin,” according to Gaza’s Government Media Office.
According to the Euro-Med report, “The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and international humanitarian law all forbid the use of thermal bombs against civilians in populated civilian areas. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court also classifies the use of thermal bombs as a war crime.”
Israel has also illegally deployed white phosphorus weapons on civilians and civilian infrastructure in Gaza and Lebanon.
According to a Washington Post analysis, the white phosphorus munitions used in Lebanon’s south were supplied to Israel by the US.
Palestine’s Agricultural Work Committees Union said that Israel intentionally uses chemical weapons on farmlands in the Gaza Strip to contaminate its soil, posing an increased cancer risk to farmers.
The agricultural union’s lobbying director, Moayyad Bsharat, also points to Washington as the supplier of such munitions to Tel Aviv in an interview with Anadolu Agency.
Bsharat stressed how chemical attacks render Gaza’s soil unusable for five years, and effectively harm its food security and public health.
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | April 30, 2024
The United Nations continues with an attempt to advance the agenda to get what the organization calls its Code of Conduct for Information Integrity on Digital Platforms implemented.
This code is based on a previous policy brief that recommends censorship of whatever is deemed to be “disinformation, misinformation, hate” but that is only the big picture of the policy UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications Melissa Fleming is staunchly promoting.
In early April, Fleming gave a talk at Boston University, and here the focus was on AI, whose usefulness in various censorship ventures makes it seen as a tool that advances “resilience in global communication.”
A piece on the Boston University Center on Emerging Infectious Diseases site first asserts that AI had a “major role” in helping spread misinformation and conspiracy theories “in the post-pandemic era,” while the UN is described as one of the institutions that have been undermined by all this, while “working to dispel these narratives.”
(The article also – helpfully, in terms of understanding where its authors are coming from – cites the World Economic Forum (WEF) as the “authority” which has proclaimed that “the threat from misinformation and disinformation as the most severe short-term threat facing the world today”).
You will hardly hear Fleming disagreeing with any of this, but the UN’s approach is to “harness” that power to serve its own agendas. The UN official’s talk was about how AI can be used to feed the public the desired narratives around issues like vaccines, climate change, and the “well-being” of women and girls.
However, she also went long into all the aspects of AI that she perceives as negative, throwing pretty much every talking point already well established among the “AI fear-mongering genre” in there:
“One of our biggest worries is the ease with which new technologies can help spread misinformation easier and cheaper, and that this content can be produced at scale and far more easily personalized and targeted,” she said.
Flemming said that with the pandemic, this “skyrocketed” around the issue of vaccines. But she didn’t address why that may be – other than, apparently, being simply a furious sudden proliferation of “misinformation” for its own sake.
Flemming then mentions a number of UN activities, basically along the lines of “fact-checking” and “pre-bunking” (like “Verified,” and #TakeCareBeforeYouShare”).
Some might refer to Flemming as one of the “merchants of outrage” but she has this slur reserved for others, such as “climate (change) deniers.”
And it wasn’t long before X and Elon Musk cropped up.
“Since Elon Musk took over X, all of the climate deniers are back, and (the platform) has become a space for all kinds of climate disinformation. Here is a connection that people in the anti-vaccine sphere are now shifting to the climate change denial sphere,” Flemming lamented.
But, the UN official reassured everyone that “she and her team are working to build coalitions and initiatives that leverage AI to promote exciting, positive, fact-driven global public health communications.”
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | April 29, 2024
Two states have passed laws — and two states have bills pending — intended to prevent the World Health Organization (WHO) from overriding states’ authority on matters of public health policy.
Utah and Florida passed laws and Louisiana and Oklahoma have legislation set to take effect soon pending final votes. Several other states are considering similar bills.
The WHO member states will convene next month at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, to vote on two proposals — the so-called “pandemic accord” or “pandemic treaty,” and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) — that would give the WHO sweeping new pandemic powers.
The Biden administration supports the two WHO proposals, but opposition is growing at the state level.
Proponents of the WHO’s proposals say they are vital for preparing humanity against the “next pandemic,” perhaps caused by a yet-unknown “Disease X.”
But the bills passed by state legislatures reflect frequently voiced criticisms that the WHO’s proposals imperil national sovereignty, medical and bodily sovereignty and personal liberties, and may lead to global vaccine mandates.
Critics also argue the WHO proposals may open the door to global digital “health passports” and global censorship targeting alleged “misinformation.”
Such criticisms are behind state legislative initiatives to oppose the WHO, on the basis that states’ rights are protected under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Under the 10th Amendment, all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Such powers, critics say, include public health policy.
Mary Holland, president of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), told The Defender :
“It is encouraging to see states like Louisiana, Oklahoma and Utah pass resolutions to clarify that the WHO has no power to determine health policy in their states. Historically, health has been the purview of state and local government, not the U.S. federal government.
“There is no legitimate constitutional basis for the federal government to outsource health decision-making on pandemics to an international body. As state legislatures become aware of the WHO’s agenda, they are pushing back to assert their autonomy — and this is welcome.”
Internist Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, told The Defender that, contrary to arguments that the drafters of the constitution could not foresee future public health needs, vaccines, doctors and medicine were all in existence at the time the 10th Amendment was written. They were “deliberately left out,” she said.
This has implications for the federal government’s efforts in support of the WHO’s proposals, according to Nass. “The government doesn’t have the authority to give the WHO powers for which it lacks authority,” she said.
Tennessee state Rep. Bud Hulsey (R-Sullivan County) told The Epoch Times, “We’re almost to a place in this country that the federal government has trampled on the sovereignty of states for so long that in peoples’ minds, they have no options.”
“It’s like whatever the federal government says is the supreme law of the land, and it’s not. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land,” he added.
Utah, Florida laws passed
On Jan. 31, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) signed Senate Bill 57, the “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act,” into law. It does not mention the WHO, but prohibits “enforcement of a federal directive within the state by government officers if the Legislature determines the federal directive violates the principles of state sovereignty.”
In May 2023, Florida passed Senate Bill 252 (SB 252), a bill for “Protection from Discrimination Based on Health Care Choices.” Among other clauses, it prohibits businesses and public entities from requiring proof of vaccination or prophylaxis for the purposes of employment, receipt of services, or gaining entry to such entities.
According to Section 3 of SB 252:
“A governmental entity as defined … or an educational institution … may not adopt, implement, or enforce an international health organization’s public health policies or guidelines unless authorized to do so under state law, rule, or executive order issued by the Governor.”
Nass told The Defender that Florida’s legislation offers a back door through which WHO the state can implement WHO policies because it allows a state law, rule or executive order by the governor to override the bill. According to Nass, efforts to strengthen the bill have been unsuccessful.
SB 252 was one of four bills Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed in May 2023 in support of medical freedom. The other bills were House Bill 1387, banning gain-of-function research, Senate Bill 1580, protecting physicians’ freedom of speech and Senate Bill 238, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of people’s medical choices.
Louisiana, Oklahoma also push back against the WHO
The Louisiana Senate on March 26 voted unanimously to pass Senate Law No. 133, barring the WHO, United Nations (U.N.) and World Economic Forum from wielding influence over the state.
According to the legislation:
“No rule, regulation, fee, tax, policy, or mandate of any kind of the World Health Organization, United Nations, and the World Economic Forum shall be enforced or implemented by the state of Louisiana or any agency, department, board, commission, political subdivision, governmental entity of the state, parish, municipality, or any other political entity.”
The bill is now pending Louisiana House of Representatives approval and if passed, is set to take effect Aug. 1.
On April 24, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 426 (SB 426), which states, “The World Health Organization, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum shall have no jurisdiction in the State of Oklahoma.”
According to the bill:
“Any mandates, recommendations, instructions, communications or guidance issued by the World Health Organization, the United Nations or the World Economic Forum shall not be used in this state as a basis for action, nor to direct, order or otherwise impose, contrary to the constitution and laws of the State of Oklahoma any requirements whatsoever, including those for masks, vaccines or medical testing, or gather any public or private information about the state’s citizens or residents, and shall have no force or effect in the State of Oklahoma.”
According to Door to Freedom, the bill was first introduced last year and unanimously passed the Senate. An amended version will return to the Senate for a new vote, and if passed, the law will take effect June 1.
Legislative push continues in states where bills opposing the WHO failed
Legislative initiatives opposing the WHO in other states have so far been unsuccessful.
In Tennessee, lawmakers proposed three bills opposing the WHO, but “none of them made it over the finish line,” said Bernadette Pajer of the CHD Tennessee Chapter.
“Many Tennessee legislators are concerned about the WHO and three of them filed resolutions to protect our sovereignty,” Pajer said. “Our legislature runs on a biennium, and this was the second year, so those three bills have died. But I do expect new ones will be filed next session.”
The proposed bills were:
Amy Miller, a registered lobbyist for Reform Pharma, told The Defender she “supported these resolutions, especially HJR 1359. She said the bill “went to a committee where the sponsor didn’t think it would come out since a unanimous vote was needed and one of the three members was a Democrat.”
Tennessee’s HJR 820 came the closest to being enacted. According to Nass, this bill was “flawed,” as it “did not assert state sovereignty or the 10th Amendment.”
Another Tennessee bill, House Bill 2795 and Senate Bill 2775, “establishes processes by which the general assembly [of the state of Tennessee] may nullify an unconstitutional federal statute, regulation, agency order, or executive order.”
According to The Epoch Times, this would give Tennessee residents “the right to demand that state legislators vote on whether or not to enforce regulations or executive orders that violate citizens’ rights under the federal or state constitutions.” The bill is tabled for “summer study” in the Senate.
In May 2023, Tennessee passed legislation opposing “net zero” proposals and the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals — which have been connected to “green” policies and the implementation of digital ID for newborn babies and for which the U.N. has set a target date of 2030 for implementation.
According to The Epoch Times, “Maine state Rep. Heidi Sampson attempted to get a ‘joint order’ passed in support of personal autonomy and against compliance with the WHO agreements, but it garnered little interest in the Democrat supermajority legislature.”
In Alabama, the Senate passed House Joint Resolution 113 opposing the WHO. The bill was reported out of committee but, according to Nass, it stalled.
Other states where similar legislation was proposed in the 2024 session or is pending include Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina and Wyoming.
Recent Supreme Court ruling may curtail federal government’s powers
While opponents of the WHO’s proposed “pandemic agreement” and IHR amendments point to the states’ rights provision of the 10th Amendment, others argue that a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council allowed federal agencies to assert more authority to make laws.
The tide may be turning, however. According to The Epoch Times, “The current Supreme Court has taken some steps to rein in the administrative state, including the landmark decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, ruling that federal agencies can’t assume powers that Congress didn’t explicitly give them.”
Nass said that even in states where lawmakers have not yet proposed bills to oppose the WHO, citizens can take action, by contacting the office of their state governor, who can issue an executive order, or their attorney general, who can issue a legal opinion.
Door to Freedom has also developed a model resolution that state legislative bodies can use as the basis for their own legislation.
“It’s important for people to realize that if the federal government imposes something on the people, the people can go through their state’s powers to overturn it,” Nass said.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
BY MERYL NASS | APRIL 30, 2024
The USA agenda for the Pandemic Agreement appears to coincide with the globalist agenda: pathogen sharing, gain-of-function research, massively increased genome sequencing for purposes yet to be acknowledged, rapid rollout of vaccines and drugs for all the new pandemics we will see (or at least hear about, such as bird flu), centralized control of health emergencies by the WHO with a new governance role for that organization. Nations will be obligated to obey the WHO. The “One Health” concept will be used to give powers to the WHO that have heretofore not been considered directly related to health, but are being redefined so they are included in “One Health”—such as the ability to issue orders in the name of protecting animals, plants, ecosystems and so-called biodiversity.
There are more poor nations than rich ones. The poor nations would like more healthcare personnel; would like to plug the “brain drain” of medical and professional personnel to the richer countries; would like more infrastructure: clinics, hospitals, laboratories. They would like some money to flow to them.
The WHO treaty is telling them it will give them a little bit: some crumbs (10%-20% of the drugs and vaccines they will need for free or at low cost). And if they play along and provide what they consider to be their own intellectual property (dangerous microorganisms discovered on their turf) the rich nations promise them some royalties. Amount unspecified.
What the two sides want is very different. In all the drafts so far, what the globalists have offered has not moved much if at all. They have played hardball. How much are they prepared to give up at the last minute? There are no indications yet of last-minute generosity.
The Geneva Health Files substack today indicates that the WHO’s Secretariat and Bureau are jumping in to the negotiations to create new procedures to try and reach agreement. As I have said before, this is evidence that the “member-led process” claimed by Tedros is a sham, as the procedures are shaped and reshaped by bureaucrats in order to achieve the aims of the WHO’s biggest funders.
Geneva Health Files also has some interesting things to say about the country negotiators vs their ambassadors and health ministers. Priti Patnaik, the author, seems to think that consensus can be achieved if the negotiators can hold back the senior officials from their governments. Presumably this means that the negotiators are tired (or bribed) and are ready to give in to the big boys on some issues, and if they can just be allowed to manage the treaty discussions in isolation, without obeying messages from home, agreement can be reached. Hmmmm to that.
We have already seen the Russian negotiator Smolenskiy working against his nation’s interests and the Italian negotiator (who someone claimed was Ethiopian) claiming support for the treaty and amendments when the Italian government was not in favor. Does this imply that the globalists have captured other negotiators — so that separating them from those providing instructions from the home country is what is being attempted?
Will the global south give in to the globalist agenda for a measly few pieces of silver, accepting all the risks the WHO documents will subject them too? Meanwhile, the global north prints money like crazy, and could in fact offer considerably more at the last minute.
But is any amount worth the risk of entering into an era of pandemics, rolling out dangerous vaccines and giving the WHO authority over vast swathes of the planet?
I must ask again: for whom is the WHO’s agenda good? Who benefits? Only those seeking a one world government.
By Ivan Kesic | Press TV | April 29, 2024
The ruthless police crackdown on pro-Palestinian protests in universities across the United States is a continuation of years of silent repression and malign Zionist influence on American academia.
More than 20 universities in the US are protesting against the genocidal Israeli war on Gaza, where nearly 34,500 people have been killed since October last year, mostly women and children.
According to reports, more than 900 people have been arrested on US campuses since April 18 when a pro-Palestinian encampment at Columbia University in New York was forcefully removed by police.
The police were called by university president Nemat Minouche Shafik to dismantle the tent encampment set up on campus, which triggered a massive outcry from students and faculty members.
The unwarranted police action against students at Columbia University led to the expansion of protests to other university campuses including Yale University in Connecticut, City University in New York, Northeastern University in Boston, Arizona State University in Phoenix, Indiana University in Bloomington, Washington University in St Louis, University of Texas in Texas and University of California in Los Angeles among others.
Like Columbia, the University of Texas president Jay Hartzell also faced a strong backlash from students and faculty members on Friday after he called in police to break up the pro-Palestinian demonstration.
Hundreds of Texas University faculty members signed a letter expressing no confidence in Hartzell for “needlessly putting students, staff and faculty in danger” after riot police moved against protesters.
The protesting students and professors are calling for universities to divest and disassociate themselves from companies that are aiding the occupying regime’s no-holds-barred aggression on Gaza.
The US police, known for its notoriety, has responded with brute violence, drawing anger and outrage.
According to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the authors of ‘The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy’, a major monograph on the influence of the Israel lobby in the US, the Zionist influence on academia has faced more problems than politics, media and think tanks.
The origins of Zionist influence on US academia
The origins of the Israeli lobby’s influence can be traced to the late 1970s when the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) monitored campus activities and trained young advocates for Israel.
AIPAC, along with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), also recruited students to help them identify professors and campus organizations with anti-Israel positions, which they would document in dossiers and then systematically slander in their publications.
Toward the end of the 20th century, these lobby groups did not pay much attention to shaping the discussion at universities because the Oslo peace process was underway, with little violence in the occupied territories, and consequently with less criticism of the Israeli regime’s policies.
However, at the beginning of the new century when peace negotiations failed, the extremists led by Ariel Sharon took the helm of the Israeli regime and the Second Intifada ensued, the criticism at higher education institutions in the United States became much stronger and more intense.
The Israeli lobby, exerting considerable influence, responded with an aggressive attempt to “take back the campuses,” and the most important organization in that campaign was once again AIPAC, which more than tripled its spending on pro-Israel college programs.
According to AIPAC leadership at the time, these funds were intended to significantly expand the number of students involved in activities in favor of the Israeli regime on campuses, their competence, and their involvement in the national pro-Israel effort.
Hundreds of students were sent to AIPAC all-expenses-paid courses in Washington DC where they received intensive advocacy training, and they were instructed to concentrate on networking with campus leaders of all kinds and winning them over to promote the regime’s cause.
The multi-year campaign resulted in annual AIPAC Policy Conferences being attended by over 1,200 students from 400 colleges and universities across the US, including 150 student body presidents.
Simultaneously, this campaign to cultivate students has been accompanied by efforts to influence university faculty and hiring practices.
Israel lobby groups involved in US academia
In addition to AIPAC, other pro-Israel lobby groups have also been involved in pro-Israel campaigns at American universities, notably the Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC), an umbrella organization for the coordination of 26 different Zionist groups in US universities.
Although the ICC is not registered under the required Foreign Agent Registration Act, its leadership admitted that they have close ties and coordinate actions with Israel’s ministry of strategic affairs.
The Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) likewise initiated a series of advocacy training sessions for college students with the aim of defending the Israeli regime on their campuses.
A similar role was played by the David Project (TDP), which partnered with Christians United for Israel (CUFI), organizing training programs for students to agitate for Zionism.
The founder of the David Project was an Islamophobe who advocated banning the construction of mosques on American soil and co-founder of CAMERA, another Zionist group involved in smearing pro-Palestinian students on campuses.
New groups also emerged, such as the Caravan for Democracy (CFD), which brought Israeli settlers to speak at American universities, promoting the farce of Israel as “the only democracy in the region.”
The website Campus Watch, an affiliate of the Middle East Forum (MEF), was also established, whose dossiers continued AIPAC’s tradition of publicly defaming all campus critics of Israeli politics.
Press TV website in July 2023 published an investigation on how the Middle East Forum has shaped into a hardline Zionist and anti-Muslim think tank, founded by Daniel Pipes in 1990.
Its website stated that its mission is to “promote American interests in the Middle East (West Asia) and protect Western values from Middle Eastern threats”, secretly serving the Zionist agenda.
Rodney Martin, a former Congressional staffer, says the AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby groups in the US have successfully placed a chokehold on the US government.
American-Israeli agendas at work
The ICC and the TDP were actively engaged in pressuring American universities to reject multimillion-dollar donations from Muslim governments to Islamic studies programs, characterizing them as “anti-American.”
On the other hand, under the guise of expanding cultural cooperation and with the true goal of whitewashing the regime, Zionist megadonors launched a series of so-called “Israel studies” programs at American universities.
Fred Lafer and Sheldon Adelson, donors to such programs at New York University and Georgetown University, respectively, admitted that their motivation was to counter the Arab viewpoint at those institutions, referring to the pro-Palestine position.
After the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) spread across American colleges and universities, Adelson raised an additional 50 million in a secret summit in 2015 to fight the movement.
According to him, the funds raised were to go to operations on US campuses to fight the BDS movement and to “researchers” who would supply information about groups on campuses critical of Israel and recommend possible legal avenues to block their activities.
The precise amount of donations to American universities is difficult to determine because dozens of donors and Zionist charities regularly pay millions and some are given anonymously.
In the case of the University of Pennsylvania alone, pro-Israel lobbyists Marc Rowan and Ross Stevens are known to have donated 50 million and 100 million respectively.
AIPAC, the group that enjoys maximum influence on American academia, received about 12 million monthly donations before the start of the war in Gaza, and the receipts have multiplied since then.
Last month, prominent progressive organizations in the US formed a coalition to defend lawmakers targeted by the powerful AIPAC and counter its sway in US Congress.
Pertinently, one of the key but underreported factors of the unwavering US support for the Israeli genocidal war on Gaza is the overwhelming presence of Zionist Jews in the Biden administration.
The Zionist Jewishness of Biden’s cabinet was pointed out recently by The Forward, a progressive media for a Jewish American audience, as well as the Israeli right-wing newspaper Times of Israel.
By Humaira Ahad | Press TV | April 29, 2024
Dressed in traditional Shalwar Kameez, with her hair loosely covered, the youngest Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai recently shared the stage with former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the release of a musical about women’s suffrage in the US.
Born in the Swat district of Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Malala rose to international fame after she was shot in the head by masked militants while she boarded her school bus in October 2012.
She then left her home country and settled in the UK, where she has been living in Birmingham.
Malala is known for lending her voice to campaigns related to children and education. However, her silence over the killing of children in Gaza and the bombing of schools has enraged her followers.
Her decision to collaborate with Clinton, the self-proclaimed votary of the Israeli regime whose country and party have been deeply complicit in the genocide unfolding in Gaza, came under fire.
The duo made their Broadway production debut this month with the “Suffs”, a Broadway musical about the early 20th-century suffragette movement in the US, which sparked outrage as people accused Malala of blatant double standards.
Many questioned her silence over the killing of more than 34,400 Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip, including more than 15,000 children, while sharing the stage with cheerleaders of the genocide.
Branded as a ‘sell-out’ on social media, netizens described Malala as a factotum for partnering with the former US Secretary of State on the music project.
Importantly, the United States has been supplying lethal weapons worth billions of dollars to the Israeli regime, which are used to slaughter Palestinians in Gaza.
President Joe Biden, who, like Malala, is a member of the Democratic Party, has gone out of his way to defend the Benjamin Netanyahu regime’s genocidal onslaught on Gaza, including the murder of civilians and the bombing of hospitals and schools.
After coming under blistering fire for sharing the stage with the former US presidential candidate while maintaining silence over the Israeli-American war on Gaza, Malala swung into damage control mode.
The 26-year-old took to social media to condemn Israel’s aggression on Palestine.
“I wanted to speak today because I want there to be no confusion about my support for the people of Gaza. We have all watched the relentless atrocities against Palestinian people for more than six months now with anger and despair. This week’s news of mass graves discovered at Gaza’s Nasser and al-Shifa hospitals is yet another reminder of the horrors Palestinians are facing,” she wrote on X.
“It is hard enough to watch from afar – l don’t know how Palestinians bear it in their bones. We do not need to see more dead bodies, bombed schools and starving children to understand that a ceasefire is urgent and necessary. I have and will continue to condemn the Israeli government for its violations of international law and war crimes, and I applaud efforts by those determined to hold them to account. Publicly and privately, I will keep calling on world leaders to push for a ceasefire and to ensure the delivery of urgent humanitarian aid,” she added.
The statement, according to critics, was an attempt to appease her legions of supporters scattered across the world who have in recent days and weeks been critical of her silence over Gaza.
Malala’s public appearance with Clinton only added fuel to the already raging fire of anger and outrage as people around the world, including her supporters, lashed out at her.
Clinton, who is co-producing the musical with the Pakistan-born education activist, has been quite outspoken about her support for the occupying regime in Tel Aviv.
Last November, she wrote an op-ed for The Atlantic arguing against a complete ceasefire in Gaza. She said that a ceasefire would “perpetuate the cycle of violence” in the war-torn region.
“A full cease-fire that leaves Hamas in power would be a mistake,” she wrote at the time.
The former first lady of the US also labeled criticism against the Zionist regime as “antisemitic”
In a 2005 speech to “The American Israel Public Affairs Committee” (AIPAC), Clinton defended Israel’s move to build a barrier wall inside the occupied West Bank.
The move was deemed illegal even by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2004. The ICJ had said that Israel should dismantle the wall and should pay reparation to those individuals who had suffered as a consequence of the construction of the wall.
In 2006, when the regime was bombing Lebanon and Gaza, Clinton praised the bombardment at a pro-Israel rally in New York.
During her presidential campaign in 2008, Clinton’s staunch support for Israel was clearly evident.
In a letter in July 2015, she vowed to combat the Boycott, Sanctions, and Divestment (BDS) movement, urging the need to “make countering BDS a priority” and“fight back against further attempts to isolate and delegitimize Israel.”
“I am very concerned by attempts to compare Israel to South African apartheid. Israel is a vibrant democracy in a region dominated by autocracy, and it faces existential threats to its survival,” she wrote in that letter.
In August 2015, Clinton again bragged about her staunch support for the illegitimate regime in an op-ed published in a Jewish newspaper. I “stood with Israel my entire career,” she said.
Besides her unwavering support for Israel, the top diplomat in the Obama administration oversaw a campaign of deadly American drone strikes targeting tribal areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
These drone strikes killed hundreds of civilians in Malala’s home region of Swat, propelling online criticism against the youngest Nobel Laureate’s partnership with Clinton.
Since its inception, the Nobel Prize has been a farce as the award was born out of a blunder.
A French daily in 1888 carried a story of Alfred Nobel’s death, after whom the award is named.
The newspaper wrote, “Dr Alfred Nobel, who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before, died yesterday.” Petrified by the thought that he would be remembered as a “death trader”, Nobel set up the foundation for the Nobel Prize, an activity to rebrand himself.
On his TV show ‘Have it Out With Galloway’, George Galloway, a British parliamentarian while responding to a panelist on whether Iran or Houthis should get Nobel Peace Prize this year, said: “Neither will get the prize as you have to be a warmonger for the empire to get that prize.”
The selection process for the Nobel Peace prize has been shady, reducing the whole process to a farce. The people who get the prize are either war criminals or stooges of the imperialist empire.
In 1973, one of history’s most vicious war criminals Henry Kissinger, was a co-recipient of the prize with Vietnamese Le DucTho for the “peace agreement” that did not achieve peace and the Vietnam war continued.
Tho, however, turned down the controversial award. While negotiating the “peace agreement”, Kissinger was also carpet-bombing Cambodia.
Former US President Barack Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. In Obama’s tenure as the president of the US, there were at least ten times more air strikes in the so-called “war on terror” than under his predecessor, George Bush.
A total of 563 strikes, largely by drones, targeted Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen during Obama’s two terms, compared to 57 strikes under Bush. Hundreds of people were killed in these strikes.
Another farcical Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Shimon Peres in 1994, who shared that with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat. Peres, one of the founding fathers of the apartheid regime, systematically helped the regime to bolster its nuclear capabilities.
Peres launched two full-scale wars against the Gaza Strip, killing more than 3,700 Palestinians.
Under him, Israel shelled a United Nations compound near Qana, a village in southern Lebanon. The raid killed 106 people and injured around 116 others.
Bushra Shaikh, a London-based political commentator and analyst, in a post on X, said Malala’s case as someone with brown skin used as an operative is an old practice employed by the West:
“Malala Yousafzai working as an agent for the West isn’t new. Her selective activism for women and girls fails to extend to ALL. A personal struggle soon engineered into a Brown face actor for dollar bills. We’ve seen this happen time and time again.”
Zaman from India questioned the Nobel Laureates’ meeting with Clinton, a staunch supporter of Israel’s genocide in Gaza:
“It’s disheartening to see Malala Yousafzai cozying up to war criminals. Meeting with Hillary raises serious questions about her commitment to justice & human rights. She should be using her platform to hold accountable those responsible for violence and oppression, not rubbing shoulders with them.”
Based in California, US, Maryam regarded Malala as a performer activist whose activities bring forth her reality:
“Never forget I was bullied on every platform for weeks for calling Malala Yousafzai a performative activist 3 years ago. And she keeps proving me right without me doing ANYTHING… truth will always come out.”
By Jonathan Turley | April 29, 2024
Nina Jankowicz is back . . . with a vengeance. The former head of the infamous “Disinformation Governance Board” within the Department of Homeland Security is now heading a private disinformation group called the American Sunlight Project. With a close election looming in November, Jankowicz has found funding to “to expose and oppose efforts to weaponize disinformation in the United States.” The establishment of the group is only the latest example of how many in politics and media are doubling down on efforts to paint opposing views as dangerous for democracy as the nation readies for a historic election.
Jankowicz promises that “Once researchers are free to conduct their essential work, the American people will gain a better understanding of the nature and severity of the disinformation threats we face,” she said. “Disinformation knows no political party. Its ultimate victim is our democracy.”
It is not clear who has funded the new project in an election year. However, the co-founder is Carlos Álvarez-Aranyos, who is best known for his association with Protect Democracy, a group viewed by many as an anti-Trump and highly political outfit. Protect Democracy sued the Trump campaign based on the debunked Russian collusion claims that “the Trump Campaign conspired with Russian agents and Wikileaks to strategically disseminate the information Russia had hacked and that, in exchange, the Campaign would help Russia advance its foreign policy goals.”
The lawsuit was dismissed.
Many would call that lawsuit and the Russian collusion claims to be “disinformation,” but there is a clear bias in what is given this designation by groups pushing blacklists and censorship.
For example, according to an investigation by the Washington Examiner, the federal government helped to fund the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), which discourages advertisers from supporting sites accused of promoting disinformation.
All 10 of the sites that GDI claimed were the riskiest are popular with conservatives, libertarians and independents. GDI warned advertisers that they were accepting “reputational and brand risk” by “financially supporting disinformation online.”
The “risky” sites included Reason, a libertarian-oriented source of news and commentary about the government. Conversely, HuffPost, a far left media outlet, was included among the 10 sites at lowest risk of spreading disinformation. (GDI included USA TODAY in this group.)
I have been a long critic of Jankowicz, who became an instant Internet sensation due to a musical number in which she sang “You can just call me the Mary Poppins of disinformation” in a TikTok parody of the song “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.” She later moved to join a European group as a foreign agent to continue her work to block views that she considers disinformation.
Jankowicz portrays herself as a defender of free speech who opposed efforts to censor viewpoints. As one of her critics, I strongly contest that self-portrayal.
When she was appointed the executive director of the Disinformation Governance Board in April 2022, she was tasked with combating “disinformation” on subjects ranging from the U.S. southern border to other forms of disinformation.
While Jankowicz objects to the “overly personalized, false, and incendiary coverage of me,” it is only the false part that is actionable. Coverage is allowed to be “personalized” and even “incendiary” so long as it is true or protected opinion.
She was previously criticized for allegedly spreading disinformation and advocating censorship.
Jankowicz previously argued that Congress should create new laws to block mockery of women online by reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and including “provisions against online gender-based harassment.”
Jankowicz testified before the British House of Parliament about “gender misinformation” being a “national security concern” and a threat to democracy requiring government censorship.
She demanded that both tech companies and government should work together using “creativity and technological prowess to make a pariah of online misogyny.”
On the Hunter Biden laptop, Jankowicz pushed the false narrative that it was a false story and that “we should view it as a Trump campaign product.” She continued to spread that disinformation, including tweeting a link to a news article that she said cast “yet more doubt on the provenance of the NY Post’s Hunter Biden story.” In another tweet, she added “not to mention that the emails don’t need to be altered to be part of an influence campaign. Voters deserve that context, not a [fairy] tale about a laptop repair shop.”
She even cited the author of the infamous Steele Dossier as a guide for how to deal with disinformation. In August 2020, Jankowicz tweeted “Listened to this last night – Chris Steele (yes THAT Chris Steele) provides some great historical context about the evolution of disinfo. Worth a listen.” The Steele Dossier was viewed by American intelligence as relying on a suspected Russian agent as a source. These officials warned that it was itself used as a possible Russian disinformation vehicle.
She also joined the panic over the Musk threat to reintroduce free speech values to Twitter. In an interview on NPR, she stated “I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would look like for the marginalized communities.”
In addition to her co-founder’s past advocacy, Jankowicz assembled a board that has been challenged as showing past bias. Two of the four members have close ties to Brookings Institution that was deeply involved in the Russian collusion hoax.
The new project is expected to follow the same transparently biased judgments over what is “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation” (MDM) from the Biden Administration. The government has used this rationale to coordinate censorship in what it has called the “MDM space.”
For example, within DHS, Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, extended her agency’s mandate over critical infrastructure to include “our cognitive infrastructure.” The resulting censorship efforts included combating “malinformation” – described as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” I testified earlier on this effort.
Jankowicz famously sang how “You can just call me the Mary Poppins of disinformation.” Once again, when it comes to the use of disinformation to effectively silence others, Nina Jankowicz remains “practically perfect in every way.”
By Ron Paul | April 29, 2024
President Biden’s campaign will continue using the popular social media site TikTok even though the president supported a provision in the military aid bill he recently signed forcing TikTok’s parent company ByteDance to sell TikTok within 270 days. If ByteDance does not sell TikTok within the required time, TikTok will be banned in the USA. Biden’s continued use of TikTok to reach the approximately 150 million American TikTok users, is not the only example of hypocrisy from politicians who support the TikTok ban.
The TikTok ban was driven by claims that, because ByteDance is a Chinese company, TikTok is controlled by the Chinese government and, thus. is helping the Chinese government collect data on American citizens. However, the only tie ByteDance has to the Chinese government is via a Chinese government controlled company that owns a small amount of stock in a separate ByteDance operation. Furthermore, ByteDance stores its data in an American facility not accessible by the Chinese government.
Just days before passing the TikTok ban, the same Senate that is so concerned about TikTok’s alleged violations of Americans’ privacy passed the FISA reauthorization bill. This bill not only extended existing authorities for warrantless wiretapping and surveillance, it made it easier for government agencies to spy on American citizens. It did this by requiring anyone with access to a targeted individual’s electronic device to cooperate with intelligence agencies.
Supporters of banning TikTok also cited concerns over the site’s “content moderation” policies. These policies reportedly forbid postings embarrassing to the Chinese government such as some related to the 1989 Tiananmen Square confrontation or the Free Tibet movement.
TikTok, like most social media platforms, engages in content moderation. The TikTok ban was supported by Democrats, including President Biden, who have a history of “encouraging” social media companies to censor Americans from using social media to spread “fake news.”
Fake news is defined as anything that contradicts the Democrat or “woke” agenda, including the truth about covid origins, dangers, and treatments; whether democracy was really threatened on January 6; and the full story of Hunter Biden’s business dealings.
One major reason behind strong bipartisan support for the TikTok ban is the wish to engage in a cold war with China. ByteDance’s Chinese connection makes it a convenient target to help foster anti-Chinese sentiment. Sadly, the anti-Chinese hysteria is a bipartisan phenomenon and has even infected some politicians who take sensible positions on US intervention in Ukraine.
Another major reason banning TikTok has strong bipartisan support is that the site is being used by many young people to share information on the Israeli government’s action in Gaza. The head of the Anti-Defamation League was actually caught on tape complaining about the “TikTok problem.” This use of TikTok made TikTok a target for the many politicians who think the First Amendment makes an exception for speech critical of Israel.
The silver lining in the TikTok ban is it is waking up more Americans, especially young Americans, to the threat the out-of-control welfare-warfare-surveillance state poses to their liberty and prosperity. This provides a great opportunity to spread the ideas of liberty and grow the liberty movement.
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 29.04.2024
President Joe Biden has touted the NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine as a “battle between democracy and autocracy,” overlooking Kiev’s backsliding on elections (which have been canceled), and political, speech, and religious rights and freedoms (which have been curtailed). Now, observers fear that an even more severe clampdown may be on the horizon.
The Ukrainian government has updated its European colleagues on the terms of its partial suspension of Ukraine’s adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In a “Notification of Partial Withdrawal of Derogation” notice dated April 4, 2024 and published on the Council of Europe’s website, Ukraine’s permanent representation to the Council of Europe informed its colleagues about “the derogation measures” (i.e. exemptions) from its international commitments on human, civil, political, religious, and labor rights in connection with the martial law measures enforced across the country.
The notice reviewed Ukrainian authorities’ February 2022 decision to partially or fully suspend a number of rights under the country’s constitution, including:
In connection with the introduction of martial law, the state granted itself the right:
The notification to the Council of Europe was accompanied by an extract from “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law” legislation of May 12, 2015 (one year into the conflict in Donbass), which established the “temporary restrictions on constitutional rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen” outlined above, as well as additional measures, including:
In practice, the extensive suspension of civil, political, religious, property, and other rights means that the Ukrainian government has granted itself virtually unlimited authority to seize property, listen in on private conversations with loved ones, restrict freedom of movement (particularly for males aged 18-60), detain people indefinitely without charge, and interfere with people’s rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and even worship.
Kiev submitted its initial derogation to European and international human, civil, and political rights conventions in March of 2022 – about a month after the escalation of the crisis in Donbass into a full-fledged NATO-Russia proxy war across the whole of Ukraine.
The update submitted in April formally repeals the derogation on articles related to forced labor, arbitrary detention, freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, and the freedom of peaceful assembly, but the others remain in place.
Russian and international observers, human rights organizations, and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights have pointed to an alarming uptick in human, civil, and political rights violations in Ukraine over the past two years – from the banning of political parties deemed disloyal to the Zelensky regime, to the cancellation of elections, the persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, arbitrary detentions, forced disappearances, torture, and other abuses.
In March, a US State Department report outlined “significant human rights issues involving Ukrainian government officials,” ranging from “enforced disappearance, torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, arbitrary arrest or detention,” and more.
The report highlighted “serious problems with the independence of [Ukraine’s] judiciary, restrictions on freedom of expression, including for members of the media, including violence or threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship, serious restrictions on internet freedom, substantial interference with the freedoms of peaceful assembly and associated, restrictions on freedom of movement, serious government corruption, extensive gender-based violence, systematic restrictions on workers’ freedom of associated, and the existence of the worst forms of child labor.”
“Some of these human rights issues stemmed from martial law,” the State Department report indicated, adding that “the government often did not take adequate steps to identify and punish officials who may have committed abuses.”
Threat to Itself and Neighbors
“Gross violation of human rights” are being committed at the hands of Ukraine’s authorities and its military affecting not only the country itself, but its neighbors as well, says Vladimir Yevseyev, a Russian military analyst from the Moscow-based Institute of Commonwealth of Independent States.
“The latest vivid example of this is the murder of civilians in Avdeyevka. During demining operations, the bodies of civilians were found with their hands tied behind their backs with tape. They were all killed. This example shows the true state of the observance of human rights in Ukraine, their military’s crimes. Therefore, there isn’t even anything to discuss here,” Yevseyev told Sputnik.
More interesting than the violations themselves is the reaction of Kiev’s Western curators, the observer argues.
Pointing to the State Department report on “significant human rights issues involving Ukrainian government officials,” Yevseyev suggested that it may indicate “some kind of internal political struggle” within the Washington establishment “against the backdrop of the election campaign,” and perhaps part of a general “internal political interdepartmental struggle” as the extent of Kiev’s violations becomes increasingly difficult to conceal.
Accordingly, Yevseyev doesn’t rule out that Kiev may have decided to update its exemptions from European and international human, civil, and political rights conventions to counter this criticism, citing the excuse of the ongoing war effort.
In any case, the observer has no doubt that the Ukrainian state and military will continue to do what they have been doing, and that Kiev’s sponsors “will continue to turn a blind eye to all the violations that took place, at least before the presidential election” in the US, which will play the decisive role.
The decision to update the list of derogation measures is also likely connected to the extensive factual basis presented to international organizations on the violations taking place in Ukraine.
“Everyone knows,” for example, “how many people are in prison on politically motivated charges,” Yevseyev noted, saying this is “getting harder and hider to hide.” Accordingly, the partial derogation allows Ukraine to avoid legal reproach.
As for the implications of Kiev’s moves, and whether they will lead to a further deterioration of human, civil and political rights in Kiev, Yevseyev believes it will make little difference so long as Ukraine’s European and American sponsors continue to cover for them, and continue to prop up the Zelensky regime.
“The situation can be radically changed only through a change of regime. [The Zelensky] regime is totalitarian. Violations of human rights are the norm of behavior, rather than something provocative. The West, naturally, cannot admit that the regime is totalitarian. Therefore, they are forced to turn a blind eye to the massive violations of human rights that are taking place,” Yevseyev said.
The observer expects the situation to continue to deteriorate along with the deterioration of the socio-economic situation in Ukraine, and doesn’t rule out growing violence as ordinary Ukrainians fight back against the state – for example by killing officials from recruitment offices after the expansion of forcible mobilization measures.
By Barbara Loe Fisher | The Vaccine Reaction | April 22, 2024
Even as U.S. health agencies and the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) are being heavily criticized for their botched response to the COVID-19 pandemic,1 2 3 WHO officials are ramping up pressure on all nations to sign a WHO pandemic treaty and amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR), which will give them more authority to track, quarantine, force vaccine use and censor free speech during WHO declared pandemics.4 5 The WHO’s Director General has been blaming opposition to the UN agency’s epic power grab on “a torrent of fake news, lies and conspiracy theories.”6
On Apr. 19, 2024, the United Nations sent out a press release declaring that the “ongoing global spread of ‘bird flu’ infections to mammals including humans is a significant public health concern,” pointing to an outbreak of H5N1 viral infections in dairy cows in the U.S. and warning that the virus could evolve and cause human-to-human transmission with “extremely high” mortality.7 The implication was that a potentially deadly global bird flu pandemic was a clear possibility.
The CDC website describes symptoms of H5N1 bird flu infections, and they sound very similar to seasonal influenza or SARS-CoV-2 infections associated with COVID-19 disease:
“The reported signs and symptoms of bird flu virus infections in humans have ranged from no symptoms or mild illness [such as eye redness (conjunctivitis) or mild flu-like upper respiratory symptoms], to severe (such as pneumonia requiring hospitalization) and included fever (temperature of 100ºF [37.8ºC] or greater) or feeling feverish*, cough, sore throat, runny or stuff nose, muscle or body aches, headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath or difficulty breathing. Less common signs and symptoms include diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, or seizures.”8
Warnings That Egg and Milk Supplies May Be Contaminated with Bird Flu Virus
Mainstream media have been joining the UN in characterizing bird flu outbreaks in cattle as a significant public health concern, with news outlets breathlessly reporting that cattle were infecting each other with H5N1 and some experts questioning whether raw or even pasteurized milk containing high levels of the avian virus is safe.9 Although H5N1 bird flu was first detected in 1996, since 2020 there have been more outbreaks in poultry farms, wild bird and land and marine animals.10 11 Americans were warned in early April that the eggs from chickens potentially infected with the avian virus should be well cooked,12 and then the media reported that a U.S. dairy farm worker in Texas had been infected with bird flu.13
The same day the UN issued their press release, Agence France Presse again reminded readers that a person working on a dairy farm in Texas was recovering from bird flu. A WHO official was quoted as stating that, “The case in Texas is the first case of a human infected by an avian influenza by a cow.”14
U.S. Plan to Drive the Global “Health Security” Agenda If WHO Treaties Fail
Three days earlier, on Apr. 16, the White House announced a five-year “Strategy to Strengthen Global Health Security” plan citing the COVID-19 pandemic as the need to put the U.S. in the driver’s seat via bi-lateral financial investment partnerships with 50 to 100 countries to “drive global action toward shared goals” and “mitigate the impact of health security threats” in order “to prevent, detect and contain them at their source.”15 The new plan “articulates a whole-of-government science-based approach to strengthening global health security.”
The current U.S. administration is in favor of the WHO pandemic treaty and IHR amendments proposed by the world’s largest public health agency.16 However, the WHO is getting pushback from lawmakers and citizens in the U.S. and in other nations, who do not want to go along with the UN/WHO power grab that many critics say threatens human rights and national sovereignty.17 18 19 A respected Japanese scientist posted a video message to the world online,20 and there was a massive demonstration In Japan this month against the WHO pandemic treaty.21
The U.S. “Global Health Security” plan would ensure that if the WHO treaties fail to be signed by enough countries to become international law, the U.S. will make sure there is a global “rapid response to global health emergencies.” According to the U.S. plan, the core of that “rapid response” are “efforts to transform international financial institutions, such as the World Bank, and to accelerate “manufacture, procurement and delivery” of medical countermeasures like vaccines.22
Even though there is Increasing public opposition to the WHO’s plan to expand its legal authority to tell eight billion people what to do whenever WHO officials declare a “public health emergency” – which includes eliminating freedom of speech and electronically monitoring everyone’s vaccination status and requiring people to carry a digital “vaccine passport” in order to travel or enter public spaces23 – it looks like the U.S. government is going to get the job done whether the WHO manages to get enough countries to sign the WHO/IHR treaties or not. The lucrative public-private business partnerships that have been expanded over the past four decades between the WHO, pharmaceutical corporations, governments and other institutions is paying big dividends for the Public Health Empire.24
Bird Flu Vaccines Being Developed and Stockpiled
Is the latest well-publicized specter of a deadly global bird flu pandemic, which is so reminiscent of the well-publicized specter of a deadly coronavirus pandemic in early 2020,25 a harbinger of things to come or just a coincidence?
Whatever it is, the preparations for delivery and approval of H5N1 “vaccines,” which includes mRNA bird flu shots, is well underway.
On Apr. 20, Barrons reported that the U.S. government “says it could distribute enough [bird flu] vaccines within four months to inoculate a fifth of the U.S. population” (68 million people) if the H5N1 strain infecting cattle began to spread among humans.26 Healthcare workers, law enforcement and other first responders, military personnel pregnant women, infants and high risk children would get the shots first.
Apparently, two clinical trials of bird flu vaccine have been underway since last year and CSL Sequiris and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) are under contract to test the vaccines targeting a strain of avian influenza closely related to the H5N1 strain currently infecting U.S. dairy cows. Another major manufacturer of influenza vaccine, Sanofi, would also likely be involved in bird flu vaccine production.
H5N1 Vaccine Production Could Be Ramped Up to Vaccinate the Entire U.S. Population
An FDA spokesperson reportedly told Barrons that the approval process to quickly distribute a new H5N1 bird flu vaccine for Americans would be similar to the accelerated process used to create annual flu vaccines. A spokesperson for Administration for Strategic Preparedness & Response (ASPR) also commented that, if needed, the agency would work with bird flu vaccine manufacturers “to ramp up production to make enough vaccine doses to vaccinate the entire [U.S.] population.”
Oil in Water Adjuvants in Vaccines and Autoimmunity
Both Sequirus and GSK have developed “oil in water” emulsion adjuvants added to influenza vaccines, including bird flu vaccines, to stimulate hyper-inflammatory responses in the body that generate high levels of antigen-specific antibodies in an effort to make the vaccines more “effective.” Squalene adjuvants have been associated with development of autoimmune disorders.27 28 29
GSK’s AS03 adjuvant contains a-tocopherol, squalene and polysorbate 80,30 and some European children and adults, who got GSK’s AS03 adjuvanted H1N1 “swine flu” vaccine in 2009, developed cases of narcolepsy, a neurological autoimmune disorder.31 The Sequiris influenza vaccine contains MF59,32 the first squalene oil in water emulsion adjuvant added to influenza vaccines in the 1990s.33 According to the Apr. 20 Barrons’ report, large quantities of both of these squalene adjuvants are stored in the U.S. government’s special pandemic influenza vaccine stockpile, which was created in 2005, along with premade influenza antigens.
A 2023 article published by Chinese researchers the medical literature promoted the “remarkable success” of mRNA coronavirus vaccines and the need to use three types of specific adjuvants to make mRNA vaccines more effective: (1) RNA with self-adjuvant characteristics; (2) components of the delivery system [such as lipid nanoparticles]; and exogenous immunostimulants (such as squalene).34
As with squalene adjuvants, the lipid nanoparticles, which envelop and deliver synthetic RNA in COVID shots to body cells to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, are highly inflammatory to stimulate a strong immune response, but also have been associated with allergy and autoimmunity.35
Europe Already Has Approved Two H5N1 Bird Flu Vaccines
Earlier this year, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved two H5N1 avian flu vaccines made by Sequiris, although neither one are mRNA products. Medscape reported on Feb.23, 2023 that Celldemic had been approved for use in infants six months of age and older if public health officials anticipate a bird flu pandemic, and Incellipan had been approved for use when a bird flu pandemic has been declared.36
mRNA Bird Flu Vaccines A Quick Way to Produce Bird Flu Vaccines
A year ago, Scientific American reported that “vaccine makers are preparing for bird flu,” with one pediatric infectious disease doctor quipping “It’s a really dangerous time to be a bird.” Another expert warned “None of us know when the next influenza pandemic will emerge… At the outset, you have to say there is uncertainty, with one exception: there will be a pandemic.”37 In that article, the reliance on U.S. stockpiled egg-based flu vaccines to produce an H5N1 vaccine was called into question and mRNA technology to produce bird flu vaccine was highlighted because it offers “speed of production” so an mRNA vaccine targeting a new influenza strain can be created in a matter of weeks.
Also in 2023, there was a report in the medical literature that University of Pennsylvania researchers had created an H5N1 mRNA lipid nanoparticle vaccine being tested on mice and ferrets.38 In March 2024, Chinese researchers announced they had created a 10-valent mRNA nanoparticle vaccine encoding proteins from four seasonal influenza viruses, two avian flu viruses with pandemic potential, and spike proteins from four SARS-CoV-2 variants. They said two doses of FLUCOV-10 “elicited robust immune responses in mice” against all 10 vaccine-matched viruses.39
Only Time Will Tell
Amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR) will be voted on at the end of May. Only time will tell whether the latest publicity warning the public about a potentially imminent bird flu outbreak in humans is real or just another bit of propaganda being used to create fear and put pressure on governments to give up sovereignty for the illusion of safety.
1 Bell D. Pandemic preparedness and the road to international fascism. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology July 30, 2023.
2 Nuccio D. Public health agencies must be reined in before next pandemic. Washington Examiner Mar. 29, 2024.
3 Schaefer B, Groves S. The WHO Pandemic Treaty Fails Again. The Heritage Foundation Apr. 19, 2024.
4 Fisher BL. Stop the World Health Organization Power Grab To Mandate Vaccines & Censor Free Speech. National Vaccine Information Center Apr. 11, 2024.
5 Door to Freedom. WHO International Health Regulations Compendium. April 2024.
6 AFP in Geneva. Global pandemic agreement in danger of falling apart,WHO warns. The Guardian Jan. 22, 2024.
7 United Nations. Pandemic experts express concern over avian influenza spread to humans. UN Press Release Apr. 18, 2024.
8 U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC). Bird Flu Virus Infections in Humans. Apr. 11, 2024.
9 Branswell H. USDA faulted for disclosing scant information about outbreaks of H5N1 avian flu in cattle. STAT News Apr. 18, 2024.
10 Parpia R. Bird Flu Outbreak in Oregon Leads to Mass Euthanization of Poultry. The Vaccine Reaction Feb. 5, 2024.
11 Singler E. H5N1 influenza: From avian to bovine to feline and beyond. AAHA Apr. 19, 2024.
12 Camero K. Is it safe to eat runny eggs amid the bird flu outbreak? Here’s what the experts say. USA Today Apr. 4, 2024.
13 Hendler C. Texas Man and Dairy Cattle Test Positive for Bird Flu. The Vaccine Reaction Apr. 16, 2024.
14 Agence France Presse. H5N1 Strain of Bird Flu Found in Milk: WHO. The Barron’s Daily Apr. 19, 2024.
15 White House. Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Releases Strategy to Strengthen Global Health Security. Apr. 16, 2024.
16 Staver M. Biden’s Amendments Hand U.S. Sovereignty to the WHO. Liberty Counsel 2023.
17 Human Rights Watch. Draft “Pandemic Treaty” Fails to Protect Rights. Apr. 17, 2024.
18 Webster A. WHO pandemic amendments threaten national sovereignty. Mail Guardian Apr. 17, 2024.
19 NTD. U.S. Representatives speak on “Surrender of U.S. Sovereignty to WHO.” Press Conference Apr. 18. 2024.
20 Professor Massayasu Inoue, MD, PhD video message to the world on harms of mRNA COVID “genetic” vaccine and the WHO pandemic treaty threat to freedom and human rights. NVIC Rumble Channel Apr. 10, 2024.
21 The Gateway Pundit. Massive protests break out in Japan in Opposition to WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty. Apr. 13, 2024. Twitter video of protest in Japan.
22 White House. Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Releases Strategy to Strengthen Global Health Security. Apr. 16, 2024.
23 Fisher BL. G20 Leaders Pledge to Require Global “Digital Health Certificate” Vaccine Passport. The Vaccine Reaction Nov. 22, 2022.
24 Fisher BL. WHO, Pharma, Gates & Government: Who’s Calling the Shots? National Vaccine Information Center Jan. 27, 2019.
25 Fisher BL. Coronavirus Vaccines on Fast Track as WHO Declares Global Public Health Emergency. National Vaccine Information Center Feb. 5, 2020.
26 Kazis JN. U.S. Could Vaccinate a Fifth of Americans in a Bird Flu Emergency. Barron’s Apr. 20, 2024.
27 Autoimmune Technologies. Gulf War Syndrome: Anti-Squalene Antibodies Link Gulf War Syndrome to Anthrax Vaccine.
28 Kuroda Y, Nacionales DC et al. Autoimmunity induced by adjuvant hydrocarbon oil components of vaccine.Biomed Pharmacother 2004; 58(5): 325-327.
29 Guimaraes LE, Baker B, Perricone C, Shoenfeld Y. Vaccines, adjuvants and autoimmunity. Pharmacological Research 2015; 100: 190-209.
30 Garcon N, Vaughn DW, Didierlaurent AM. Development and evaluation of AS03, an Adjuvant System containing a-tocopherol and squalene in an oil-in-water emulsion. Expert Rev Vaccines 2012; 11(3): 349-366.
31 Miller E, Andrews N et al. Risk of narcolepsy in children and young people receiving AS03 adjuvanted pandemic A/H1N1 2009 influenza vaccine: retrospective analysis. BMJ 2013; 346.
32 Patel SS, Bizjajeva S, Heijnen E, Oberye J. MF59-adjuvanted seasonal trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine: Safety and immunenicity in young children at risk of influenza complications. Int J Infect Dis 2019; 85 (Suppl): S18-S25.
33 Black S. Safety and effectiveness of MF-59 adjuvanted influenza vaccines in children and adults. Vaccine 2015; 33 (Suppl 2): B3-B5.
34 RxLisXie C, Yao R, Xia X. The advances of adjuvants in mRNA vaccines. Npj Vaccines 2023; 8:162.
35 Lee Y, Jeong M, Park J et al. Immunogenicity of lipid nanoparticles and its impact on the efficacy of mRNA vaccines and therapeutics. Exp Mol Med 2023; 55: 2085-2096.
36 Agarwal D. Europe Greenlights Two Avian Flu Vaccines. Medscape Feb. 23, 2024
37 Docter-Loeb H. Vaccine Makers Are Preparing for Bird Flu. Scientific American Mar. 2, 2023.
38 Furey C, Ye N, Kercher L et al. Development of a nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine against clade 2.3.4.4b H5 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus. bioRxiv Apr. 30, 2023.
39 Wang XC, Ma Q, Li M et al. A 10-valent composite mRNA vaccine against both influenza and COVID-19. bioRxiv Mar. 5, 2024.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Lisa Pease | Consortium News | September 16, 2013
More than a half century ago, just after midnight on Sept. 18, 1961, the plane carrying UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and 15 others went down in a plane crash over Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). All 16 died, but the facts of the crash were provocatively mysterious. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 