Killing humanitarian workers as a strategy: Israel’s endgame in Gaza
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | April 9, 2024
Israel described its clearly deliberate killing of seven humanitarian aid workers in Gaza on 1 April as a “grave mistake”, a “tragic event” of a kind that “happens in war”. Obviously, Israel was lying. In fact, this entire so-called war in Gaza — which is in reality a genocide — has been based on a series of lies, some of which Israel and its supporters continue to peddle.
For some in the mainstream media, it took months to accept the obvious fact that Israel has been lying about the events that led to its military offensive and the objectives of its constant targeting of hospitals, schools, shelters and other civilian facilities. As such, it was only logical for the occupation state to lie about killing the six internationals and their Palestinian driver working with the World Central Kitchen (WCK) charity. Notwithstanding an event as atrocious as this undoubtedly was, it is implausible for Israel to start telling the truth now.
Fortunately, few seem to believe Israel’s version of the WCK incident or, indeed, its ongoing massacres elsewhere in Gaza. The state “cannot credibly investigate its own failure in Gaza,” said the US-based NGO on 5 April.
The issue of targeting these internationals, however, has to be placed within a larger context.
Israel was hardly secretive about its intentions to deny Palestinians even the most basic necessities of survival in Gaza, epitomised in the words of Minister of Defence Yoav Gallant way back on 9 October: “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, no water, everything is closed.”
This statement, like many others, was understood at the time to be due to Israel’s desire to punish Palestinians for the 7 October Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by resorting to its usual tactic of collective punishment. Based on statements made by other Israeli officials, though, it soon became clear that the occupation state wanted to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from the enclave altogether.
The Israeli stratagem was rejected immediately by Egypt, Jordan, other Arab countries and, eventually, governments around the world. Israel, however, persisted. Far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich described the “voluntary migration” of Palestinians in Gaza as the “right humanitarian solution”. Benjamin Netanyahu concurred. “Our problem is [finding] countries that are willing to absorb Gazans [sic], and we are working on it,” said the Israeli prime minister.
However, for ethnic cleansing to take place, several prerequisites had to be fulfilled. For a start, the bulk of Gaza’s 2.3 million people had to be forced to the south, as close to the Egyptian border as possible. This has been achieved. Then everything conducive to life had to be destroyed throughout Gaza, including all hospitals and clinics.
Thus, we saw the grisly massacre at Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital on 17 October, for example, and the bloodbath and eventual total destruction of Gaza’s largest medical complex, Al-Shifa, on 1 April. When the Israeli military pulled out of the Shifa area, troops left behind one of the most tragic scenes in the history of modern warfare. Hundreds of bodies were hurriedly buried in mass graves amid charred buildings and indescribable destruction. Limbs of children stuck out of the dirt, and whole families were tied together and executed; and there were other crimes that will take the world a long time to fathom, let alone explain. And yet former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett claimed nonchalantly that “not one civilian” was killed in Al-Shifa. Another blatant lie.
Most civilian shelters, bakeries, markets, electricity grids and water generators also had to be targeted so that the hapless population, especially in northern Gaza, would understand that life there would simply be unsustainable. Becoming fully aware of Israel’s ultimate plan of inducing a famine in Gaza, though, the Palestinians fought back. Their counterstrategy was predicated on ensuring that as many of them as possible remained in northern Gaza, and that those concentrated in Rafah were not pushed into the Sinai desert.
Aside from the ongoing battle between the Israeli army and Palestinian resistance movements in Gaza, there was thus another deadly struggle taking place: Israel’s push for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the latter’s desire to survive and remain within the nominal borders of their land.
This is why Israel has killed countless Palestinians involved in the life-sustaining work in northern and central Gaza.
According to the UN, prior to the killing of the six internationals on 1 April, Israeli troops had already killed 196 humanitarian aid workers in the Palestinian territory. This figure does not include doctors, medical staff, civil defence workers, police chiefs and officers, and anyone else contributing to day-to-day life in areas that Israel wanted to empty of its inhabitants.
Even when, under international pressure, the rogue state allowed limited aid to enter northern Gaza, its army killed and wounded Palestinian civilians on a number of occasions as they gathered in desperation hoping to get some life-saving supplies. According to a 4 April report by Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, Israel has killed 563 Palestinians and injured 1,523 by bombing and shooting people waiting for aid at designated spots in northern Gaza, or when it bombed distribution centres and workers responsible for distributing the aid. The Kuwait roundabout area in Gaza City alone witnessed the murder of 256 starving refugees, while 230 others were killed on Al-Rashid Street elsewhere in the city.
Israel’s bombing was not random, as it also targeted and killed 41 police officers who had worked with volunteers from various Gaza clans to help the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) to distribute aid among the famine-stricken population. Even the clans themselves were targeted in equally merciless bombardments.
On each occasion, just as happened after the attack on the WCK workers, the entity responsible for the aid would declare that it would no longer be involved in aid distribution. This is how Gaza’s hunger turned into famine. It was Israel’s very deliberate strategy.
The killing of the internationals in Gaza served the same goal of ensuring that no aid distribution mechanism was in place, because Israel would not allow it. Ironically, the involvement of World Central Kitchen was itself the outcome of a US-negotiated agreement that would deny the Gaza authorities and even UNRWA any role in the distribution of aid.
The apartheid state of Israel must be stopped at any cost. Moreover, that cost must include Israeli war criminals being held accountable for one of the worst genocides in modern history.
See also:
Drone footage shows Gaza turned to wasteland since start of Israeli offensive
Hundreds of corpses recovered from vicinity of Al-Shifa Hospital

The Cradle | April 9, 2024
The bodies of hundreds of Palestinians killed by Israel have been recovered from the vicinity of the Al-Shifa Medical Complex in Gaza City, in the north of the strip.
The medical facility was destroyed in a massive Israeli operation inside and around the hospital, which spanned two weeks.
“The bodies of 409 martyrs – some of them decomposed – have so far been recovered by civil defense teams from the Al-Shifa Medical Complex and its surroundings in Gaza City,” Palestinian news agency WAFA reported on 9 April.
Israeli troops raided Al-Shifa Hospital on 18 March – for the second time since the start of the war – carrying out what it said was an operation against Hamas leaders in the facility. During the onset of the attack, Brigadier General Fayeq al-Mabhouh, Gaza’s chief of police and overseer of aid distribution in the north of the strip, was assassinated by Israeli forces.
The army withdrew from Al-Shifa Medical Complex on 1 April. Following the withdrawal, videos on social media showed the full extent of the damage inflicted on the hospital by Israel’s army and aircraft.
The complex’s entire buildings were ravaged, and hundreds were killed in the two-week attack. The hospital has been sheltering thousands of displaced Gazans since the war began. Dozens of Palestinians, among them children, were executed by Israeli forces around the hospital throughout the operation.
Palestinian Civil Defense in Gaza also reported massive damage and unprecedented numbers of dead bodies in the strip’s southern city of Khan Yunis on 9 April. Israel had been operating in Khan Yunis since early December in an attempt to dismantle the presence of Hamas’ military wing, the Qassam Brigades – which it failed to do.
Following the army’s large-scale withdrawal from Gaza over the weekend – which has left a limited number of troops inside the enclave – families returning to Khan Yunis witnessed scores of bodies, many trapped under rubble.
Dozens of young men have also been reported missing, according to what returning families told the civil defense.
The city “smells of death,” one mother said as she was returning, adding: “We don’t have a city anymore – only rubble. There is absolutely nothing left.”
The civil defense has urged the international community to provide specialized equipment to remove the bodies from underneath the rubble.
German Intelligence Chief Advocates for Monitoring Speech and Thought
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | April 9, 2024
The head of Germany’s domestic spy agency, Thomas Haldenwang, has penned an op-ed for a German newspaper and provided some insight into the way he understands freedom of expression, and more importantly, its limits.
Haldenwang, who is at the helm of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), defended in the article published by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung his policy of keeping watch on citizens, which includes things like “thought and speech patterns.”
At the same time, Haldenwang didn’t rule out that legal expressions of opinion might be targeted in this population surveillance effort, and made attempts to provide justification for such a stance.
Meanwhile, critics see this as a policy designed to advance restrictions on speech and economic freedoms, primarily aimed at political opponents. In fact, recent polls suggest that most citizens also believe that BfV has become a political tool, and this opinion is said to be strongly present among parties (other than, unsurprisingly, the Greens).
That seems to be precisely the reason Haldenwang felt compelled to publish his thoughts in the newspaper, noting the increased frequency of “headlines and articles” that question and criticize BfV’s activities, some suggesting the agency is policing opinion, language, and even “mood” – and is morphing into German government’s, basically, “bodyguard.”
Haldenwang goes on to assert that “freedom of opinion prevails” in his country, and reminds his readers (less so, it seems, himself) that this freedom is what separates a democracy from an autocracy.
But, the BfV chief also seems to differentiate between “freedom of opinion” and freedom to actually express that opinion. And while in Germany one can have “offensive, absurd and radical opinions” – freedom of expression “has its limits,” he writes.
“Even within the limits of criminal law, however, expressions of opinion, despite their legality, can become relevant for constitutional protection,” the op-ed goes on.
This can be interpreted as yet another example of authorities in a declaratively democratic country trying to find a way to restrict speech they don’t like regardless of its being formally legal – while at the same time being unwilling to legislate to outlaw it, either because of lack of political consensus, or fear of political backlash.
As for what is speech and opinion that the Constitution may need protecting from, the “definition” is broad enough to fit in a lot of things.
It includes “permissible criticism and democratic protest escalating and turning into aggressive, systematic delegitimization of state conduct” – and this may or may not include “calls for violence.” There’s also violation of “human dignity of members of certain social groups or political actors.”
Scotland Police May Be Forced To Make Budget Cuts To Deal With Authoritarian Speech Complaints
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | April 8, 2024
Police Scotland is grappling with potential budgetary pressures and service reductions. David Threadgold of the Scottish Police Federation (SPF) has raised concerns about the financial impact of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act. According to him, the legislation has already led to an overload of calls, with over 6,000 logged since its enactment. This influx of reports, he fears, will necessitate cuts elsewhere in the police budget.
Threadgold’s worry centers on the unforeseen costs of handling these cases, particularly the overtime payments for control room staff. He believes these expenses will reverberate throughout the year, affecting other police services. Calum Steele, former general secretary of the SPF, echoes these concerns. As reported by The Scotsman, Steele criticized Police Scotland’s preparation for the Act, calling it “negligently unprepared” and pointing out that the additional costs were predictable.
The new authoritarian legislation has been criticized not only for its financial burden but also for its potential to stifle free speech. The Act consolidates existing hate crime laws and introduces a new offense of inciting hatred against protected characteristics. This broadening of the law has sparked fears about its impact on free speech and expression.
Critics, including Tory MSP Russell Findlay, have accused Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf of ignoring these concerns. Yousaf, for his part, maintains confidence in Police Scotland’s ability to manage these cases, emphasizing that the force is well-equipped and trained for this task.
The legislation’s impact extends beyond financial strains. The Act has resulted in a notable rise in the logging of non-crime hate incidents, incidents perceived as hateful but not necessarily criminal. This increase has prompted concerns about a potential inundation of trivial or malicious complaints, especially in the context of highly charged events like football matches. Tory MSP Murdo Fraser has already lodged a complaint over a tweet he posted being logged as a hate incident.
The Scottish government and Police Scotland maintain that they are adept at handling such cases. However, critics argue that the focus on these hate incidents diverts attention and resources from more serious crimes, potentially impacting the overall efficacy of law enforcement.
London pharmacist battles Zionists and wins
Press TV – April 7, 2024
London pharmacist Nazim Ali has finally won his long running legal battle against Zionist regime proxies, a battle which started in 2017 when Nazim Ali spoke at the Quds Day Rally following which the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, (CAA), lodged a complaint with the Police accusing Nazim Ali of Anti-Semitism.
The Crown Prosecution Service, however, refused to press charges.
The Zionists took a private prosecution that was eventually stopped by the CPS. They took out a judicial review against the CPS and lost.
In January 2019 Ali’s professional regulator, the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC), which is responsible for the independent regulation of the pharmacy profession within England, Scotland and Wales, as well as the regulation of pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and pharmacy premises, said there was no case to answer, but gave him a warning for being offensive.
The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA) then bullied the regulator into reversing its position in July of that year.
The council concluded his words were not anti-semitic in November 2020. But the UK lawyers for Israel joined the campaign against Anti-Semitism to continue to harass Ali.
In December 2020, a complaint was lodged with the body which regulates the regulator, the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care or PSA.
The intimidation worked and the PSA took the GPhC to court, at which point the GPhC folded and offered no defense.
The high court then sent the case back to the GPhC which made the absurd determination that two of Ali’s remarks were objectively, if unintentionally, anti-semitic. However, it gave him a warning, as it had before.
The Zionists were still not happy and appealed to the courts to get Ali sacked. In March this year, the Court declared that there was no case to answer.
This is a historic and hard fought victory.
But who are Zionist groups who have bullied and intimidated the professional regulators into such submission?
The Campaign Against anti-Semitism took up the cudgels first; the CAA is a creature of the Zionist regime which was set up to attack the pro-Palestine movement with fake anti-Semitism allegations.
Much of its early funding came from the Jewish National Fund, the racist land-theft group, which is one of the four so called national institutions in Israel.
The UK Lawyers for Israel is a group which appears to have been set up under the auspices of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Its whole purpose is to use ‘lawfare’ tactics to manipulate the law and bully British institutions into doing its bidding.
The case of Nazim Ali reveals how foreign agents of the Zionist regime can harass, bully, and intimidate the UK so effectively that they can, in effect, occupy the professional bodies regulating the profession of pharmacy, which is a clear cut case of state capture.
It also tells us that people can fight back and win.
In fact, this is one of a number of recent victories against the Zionist movement.
It would appear, for all intents and purposes, that the tide is turning.
New Challenges to the First Amendment from the Biden Administration
By Peter van Buren | We Meant Well | April 3, 2024
The great irony is despite all the fear mongering spewed out about Donald Trump ending democracy, it is mostly the Democrats who are taking shots at its most sacred freedoms, those of the First Amendment.
The House recently passed a bill, HR 7521, seeking to “ban” the popular app Tik Tok from America’s smartphones. The logic works like this: Tik Tok is owned by a Chinese company. Chinese companies are under the control of the Chinese Communists. Therefore, Tik Tok is brainwashing American youth while at the same time gathering their personal data for some undefined yet assumed nefarious use. Tik Tok thus should be banned.
No evidence has been presented for any of the assertions listed — no evidence the Chinese government exerts control over Tik Tok, whose contents are 100 percent user-created, no evidence the app has any purpose other than to make money, and no evidence the app collects data and uses it in some way, nefarious or not. It just feels scary bad, like any other Red Scare, and so the House moved to ban it. The Senate votes soon, and Joe Biden says he will sign the bill if it reaches him.
This is not the first time the government has tried to ban Tik Tok. In 2021, President Donald Trump issued an executive order against Tik Tok that was halted in federal court when a judge found it was “arbitrary and capricious.” Another judge found that the national security threat posted by Tik Tok was “phrased in the hypothetical.” When the state of Montana tried to ban the app in 2023, a federal judge found it “oversteps state power and infringes on the constitutional rights of users,” with a “pervasive undertone of anti-Chinese sentiment.” Candidate Trump now opposes the Tik Tok ban.
You’d think that was enough for Tik Tok. Yet note the ban is just on some Chinese company owning the app and the bill allows for an American company or ally to buy Tik Tok and go on its merry way. It’s not a ban, it’s a hijacking. And don’t think the Chinese won’t find an American app to retaliate against. Listening Apple and Android?
But that is not where the true First Amendment challenge lies, though “banning” the app can itself be seen as restricting speech. The real challenge lies in the details of the actual bill, another Patriot Act in hiding.
Section 2(a)(1) of the bill prohibits “foreign adversary controlled applications” (FACA) from operating in the U.S. The prohibition applies not just to the app itself but to app stores and Internet hosting providers. There’s even a provision for a penalty of $5,000 per user fine; Tik Tok has 170 million users. Effectively, the bill creates a Federal government kill switch preventing distribution of “prohibited” apps or websites at the hosting level, clear top-down central government censorship of speech and absolutely unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Unless of course the weasel excuse is used that the actual killing of the imported app is carried out by Apple and Google as proxies without being touched by the Feds, the same trick currently used to gather American citizen data, in addition to direct hoovering up of material by the NSA on a scale the Chinese could only dream of.
What is a “foreign adversary controlled application” under Section 2(g)(3) of the new bill? Any social/content-sharing website, desktop app, mobile app, or VR app that has more than a million monthly active users creating content is a FACA when two conditions are met: First, if it is “controlled by a foreign adversary” or a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity controlled by a foreign adversary. Second, if the President determines it “presents a significant threat to the national security of the United States.” The term “controlled by a foreign adversary” means that the company (a) is domiciled in, headquartered in, or organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country; or (b) has a 20 percent ownership group from one of those countries; or (c) is “subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity” from one of those countries (Section 2(g)(1). “Adversary” is currently defined elsewhere in the U.S. Code as Russia, China, North Korea or Iran, but can be changed to someday be, say, France (remember “Freedom Fries“?)
There in the details lies the real challenge to the First Amendment, a set of vague criteria that allow the president to ban websites and apps based on his own finding of threat. No appeals, no due process. Censorship.
Americans have a right to speak freely, and to listen/read/watch freely and make up their own minds. The Supreme Court in Lamont v. Postmaster General already ruled in 1964 that this right even extends to foreign propaganda (the case involved Soviet propaganda materials passing through the U.S. Mail.) In addition, the irony of the U.S. government showing concern for what a foreign company might do with user data when in the U.S. such data is openly for sale, including to the government itself, cannot be dismissed. The Tik Tok ban is bad law, likely unconstitutional, and generally unconscionable.
The Tik Tok bill is not the only current challenge to the First Amendment. As exposed by the Twitter Files and elsewhere, for years the Biden administration worked hand-in-glove with the big tech social media companies, @jack’s old Twitter in particular, to censor speech. Various agencies, including those responsible for Covid-19 policy, would contact the media companies to demand wrongthink posts be taken down. Particularly offensive were conservative posts questioning the efficiency and safety of the Covid vaccine, and those dealing with election fraud.
The question of whether or not the government can do that — demanding specific online speech be killed — reached the Supreme Court, and oral arguments were held earlier this month in the case of Murthy v. Missouri. The Court seemed skeptical of the idea that such action by the government was unconstitutional on its face, as the states claimed. Instead, the justices’ questions seemed to lean toward how the censorship was done. The government was free to persuade social media carriers, cajole them, argue with them but as long as the government did not force them to take something down, it was likely legal. The states contend the looming power of the federal government made each request, however bland and polite, into a threat. Same as when the mafia thug in the movies says “Nice home you have here, hate to see anything happen to it if you’re late paying us.” In one interaction a government watchdog seeking to deep six some posts stated “the White House is considering its options” if the take down effort fails.
There was room for debate. Justice Alito stated “When I see the White House and Federal officials repeatedly saying that Facebook and the Federal government should be partners… regular meetings, constant pestering… Wow, I cannot imagine Federal officials taking that approach to print media.” Alito also thought the barrage of emails from the White House and others to the social media companies may have met the legal standard for coercion. The states agreed, saying “Pressuring platforms in back rooms, shielded from public view, is not using a bully pulpit. That’s just being a bully… We don’t need coercion as a theory. The government ‘cannot induce, encourage or promote’ to get private actors to do what government cannot: censor Americans’ speech.”
Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson came back with “Whether or not the government can do this… depends on the application of our First Amendment jurisprudence. There may be circumstances in which the government could prohibit certain speech on the internet or otherwise. My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.”
Justice Barrett seemed uncomfortable with the lower courts’ conclusion that the Biden administration could be banned not only from “coercion,” but also from any action that “significantly encourages” platforms to take down protected speech. “Encouragement would sweep in an awful lot,” she said.
Interactions between administration officials and news outlets are part of a valuable dialogue that is not prohibited by the First Amendment, said Justices Kavanaugh and Kagan. The Justices suggested instead there is a role for vigorous efforts by the government to combat bad speech, for example discouraging posts harmful to children or conveying anti-Semitic or Islamophobic messages.
Brown’s, et al, remarks are frightening from a constitutional point of view, basically saying when the government is ineffective in creating dominant content of its own to address public messaging (i.e., “Vaccines are safe”) it justifies proxy censorship to eliminate counter information.
A Supreme Court decision is expected in June.
Mexico warns Israel for ‘protecting’ suspect in disappearance of 43 students
Press TV – April 6, 2024
Mexico has warned that if Israel continues with its refusal to extradite a fugitive security official wanted in connection with the disappearance of 43 Mexican college students a decade ago, their bilateral ties may be damaged.
Back in September 2014, 43 male students disappeared from the Ayotzinapa Rural Teachers’ College after being abducted in Iguala, in the southwestern state of Guerrero. The students were traveling to a demonstration in Mexico City amid a drug war.
The official narrative by the government said at the time that corrupt police handed the ill-fated students over to drug gang henchmen, who then incinerated the students at a garbage dump and threw the ashes in the San Juan River.
Questioning the official narrative by some experts as well as growing anger in Mexico at federal inaction prompted the current administration, led by President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, to pledge to re-open the case.
Tomas Zeron, who headed the Criminal Investigation Agency that led the inquiry into the case – dubbed one of Mexico’s worst human rights tragedies – is wanted by the Mexican justice system for the crimes of torture, violation of human rights and forced disappearance of the 43 students.
“The lack of progress in resolving this case is interpreted as de facto protection by Israel of Tomas Zeron and threatens to become an irritating and disruptive factor with” Tel Aviv, the Mexican foreign ministry said in a statement on Friday.
The former official, who fled to Israel in 2020, has also been charged with the abuse of power and authority, embezzlement, fraud and criminal association. He has consistently denied all allegations.
Although Mexico and Israel do not have an extradition treaty, Mexico City has repeatedly asked Tel Aviv to hand over Zeron over allegations of serious irregularities in the probe into the said case, but all to no avail.
Zeron is one of the architects of the 2015 official narrative or the so-called “historical truth” regarding the fate of the disappeared students, whose exact circumstances of their disappearance are still unknown.
The victims’ families have so far strongly rejected that narrative.
THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT’S WAR ON SUPPLEMENTS
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | April 4, 2024
Constitutional Attorney & President of the Natural Health Products Protection Association, Shawn Buckley, LLB, warns Del of the Canadian government’s war on vitamins and supplements via the introduction of extreme regulations designed to restrict access and raise the cost of natural products.
Does the Hepatitis B Vaccine Used in the U.S. Stop Infection and Transmission of Hepatitis B in a School Setting?
Your bite-size dose of immunity against vaccine misinformation. Spread the truth.

Injecting Freedom by Aaron Siri | March 29, 2024
Does the Hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine used in the United States stop infection and transmission of Hepatitis B in a school setting?
“Yes” or “No”?
When picking an answer, keep in mind that HepB is mandated in every state except a handful to attend grades K-12 in the United States, and the justification for these rights-crushing mandates is to prevent transmission of Hepatitis B in the school setting.
The above is a great question and so the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the CDC asking for “documentation sufficient to reflect any case(s) of transmission of Hepatitis B in an elementary, middle, or high school setting.”
In response, the CDC explained that: “A search of our [CDC] records failed to reveal any documents” of “transmission of Hepatitis B in an elementary, middle or high school setting.” This is because Hepatitis B is a bloodborne illness, typically transmitted by sex workers or drug users sharing needles — not activities that occur in a classroom setting.
And of course, at the risk of stating the obvious, just because someone hasn’t gotten a HepB vaccine doesn’t mean they have Hepatitis B! It is also noteworthy that, as the CDC explains, “almost all children 6 years and older and adults infected with the hepatitis B virus recover completely and do not develop chronic infection.”
Screenshots of the relevant portions of the websites linked above (in case they change):


Reiner Fuellmich Team Find Bombshell Evidence Of A Dossier Showing Conspiracy To “Deal With” Him
ELSA | APRIL 4
On Reiner’s first court appearance after the long Easter break, he and his legal team made what can easily be termed bombshell – that there has been a Dossier Reiner Fuellmich from the German state with the express purpose to take him out, notably out of any possibility of gaining a position in the political arena.
I understand the concerns of the German state. Here was someone with integrity and courage, with charisma and intelligence, with extensive experience plus shared leadership in a small German political party. Very appealing to many people fed up with mandates, loss of freedom of speech, mass immigration, and ever so much else. Here was a suitable leader.
Anyway, here is the Dossier, from bittel.tv. You can also find it on Roger Bittel’s Telegram channel:
👉 Dossier Deutsch (https://t.me/bitteltv/25826)
👉 further languages (https://t.me/bitteltv/25838)
👉 the full broadcast (https://t.me/bitteltv/25839)
All of the dossier is important. However, you may be most interested in the last section:
Report and recommendations for action regarding Reiner Fuellmich
Date: August 24, 2021
Author: B**
Subject: Comprehensive analysis and recommendations for dealing with Reiner Fuellmich
Included within this last section:
The awarding of or the possibility of obtaining politically exposed offices must be prevented by all means within the rule of law.
How is this to be done:
The initiation of criminal proceedings on the basis of the evidence collected against Reiner Fuellmich must be prepared. This includes cooperation with public prosecutors [bolding and italics mine] and the preparation of charges in the event of demonstrable violations of the law. Any necessary constructions must be weighed up and suitable third parties recruited [bolding and italics mine].
NOW HERE, THE FULL DOSSIER. I RECOMMEND READING IT.
http://www.bittel.tv / Broadcast from 2.4.2024
Dossier Reiner Fuellmich
Reiner Fuellmich, co-chairman and candidate for chancellor of the party “dieBasis”, is a German lawyer who has become known in particular for his involvement in various legal disputes and his public statements on various issues, including the measures and political decisions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. His views and legal activities have attracted both national and international attention and are the subject of controversy.
Professional career:
Reiner Fuellmich began his legal career after graduating from law school. He is licensed to practice law in Germany and in California, USA. Over many years, he has specialized in various areas of civil law and has been involved in several legal disputes, some of which have attracted considerable media attention.
Engagement against banks and corporations:
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, Fuellmich made a name for himself in particular through his involvement in cases against large banks and companies. These often involved consumer protection and claims for damages.
Read the rest of Elsa’s article here.


If you regard the United States as perhaps flawed but overall a force for good in the world . . .