I just pulled out some of the high-sounding claptrap in this article, below, to give you its flavor. You can see how a small cadre of immoral ‘scientists’ funded by an evil cabal can create an “intellectual” infrastructure to justify stealing land in the name of pandemic prevention.
Israel has killed six more Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. The six were targeted by an Israeli drone in Nour Shams Camp, located east of Tulkarm. They were confirmed dead at the Martyr Thabet Thabet Government Hospital in the city.
Hospital officials noted that Israeli occupation forces delayed ambulances trying to reach the victims of the attack. After a delay of 65 minutes, the Israelis released an ambulance carrying three seriously injured individuals from Nour Shams camp, reported the Palestinian Red Crescent.
The head of the Tulkarm Doctors’ Syndicate, Radwan Balibla, reported that an Israeli soldier stabbed one of the injured Palestinians inside the ambulance. He added that other wounded Palestinians were also assaulted with kicks, punches and rifle beatings as Israeli soldiers threatened to kill them.
The Palestinians killed were identified as 19-year-old Ahmed Anwar Hamarsha; Ahmed Abdel Rahman Issa, 19; Adham Muhammad Fahmawi, 19; Yazan Ahmed Wahid Fahmawi, 23; Fares Hossam Fahmawi, 29; and Hamza Ahmed Mustafa Fahmawi, 17. A 24-year-old Palestinian sustained serious head injuries. His condition was described as critical.
According to Wafa news agency, the occupation forces used artillery to target an abandoned house in the Aktaba suburb, east of Tulkarm, near the refugee camp. Palestinian homes in different areas of the camp, including Al-Manshiya, Al-Mahjar, Al-Joura, Al-Damj and Jabal Al-Nasr, were also targeted by the occupation forces. They conducted extensive raids inside these homes, interrogated the occupants and destroyed their belongings.
Furthermore, Israeli troops used high-rise buildings in and around the camp as observation posts. Bulldozers were employed to demolish infrastructure in the camp’s main streets, square and Al-Manshiya neighbourhood. This destruction included the demolition of public and private property.
At least 320 Palestinians have been killed in the occupied West Bank since 7 October, according to the local Palestinian authorities. More than 3,200 others have been wounded.
The owners shredded the Constitution. Legal protections, or even their simulation of a simulation, no longer exist. In Florida, questioning a historical event or the policies of a Middle East country risks ten years in prison. Taking selfies at a legal demonstration endorsed by a sitting President of the United States can get you almost twenty. A journalist and opinion writer became an international fugitive for insulting a Jewish woman online. Douglas Mackey (X/Twitter handle Ricky Vaughn) received a seven month federal prison sentence for posting a Hillary Clinton election meme. Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis pled guilty to one felony count of “aiding and abetting false statements and writings” after she wrote in a letter that the 2020 election was rigged. To avoid prison (she’ll still be a convicted felon and get disbarred), she agreed to testify against her co-defendants (who will likely receive prison time) in this bizarre “false statements/writings” racketeering case. Given the rapid rise in thought/speech crime incarceration, it behooves citizen-serfs, especially political ones, to gain some familiarity with the workings of the US prison industrial complex.
For the record, I’ve never been to prison. I’m disseminating data picked up from sources who have. If anyone reading this has done prison time or worked/works as a CO (corrections officer) and feels that I’ve misrepresented something, please add your perspective in the comments section. I don’t claim to be an expert on the penal system. Nor do I want to be.
Imagine you repost a meme on social media and get charged with “spreading misinformation while committing hate speech within a fifty-mile radius of an Israeli consulate and or synagogue during the commission of a thought crime.” Your day in court arrives, and after the #MeToo Jacinda Ardern lookalike prosecutor gives her PowerPoint presentation on your online browsing history and puts your bad-breakup ex-girlfriend on the stand, your case goes to a jury of monthly boosted blue and yellow flag emoji patriots. Following an hour of deliberation they return a guilty verdict. (They voted guilty within the first minute, but for appearance’s sake wait an hour before notifying the bailiff). After the Kamala Harris wannabe judge reads a moving passage from Michelle Obama’s “The Light We Carry” and tells you what a degenerate scumbag you are, she sentences you to ten years. What kind of life awaits you inside the prison industrial complex? Prison conditions vary depending on security level, location, and whether it’s a state or federal facility. While low-level fed camps offer the best conditions, high-level federal institutions like USP Atlanta and Beaumont are super barbaric. Alabama and Florida state prisons have bad reputations. Generally speaking, the higher the security level, the more brutal the prison. That’s not to say you can’t get jammed up in a minimum security facility or county jail.
Prison is violent. An angry lifer has little to lose by smashing or stabbing a prisoner he dislikes. “What are you looking at?” can be a tricky question to answer in the civilian world. Much more so in prison.
Even if you’re an astute practitioner of conflict avoidance, in higher-level prisons you will likely receive a “heart check,” i.e. a prisoner tests you. The majority prison consensus for this type of encounter? Fight. The good news is that there is no shame in losing a prison fight. Violence is so common that most prisoners, no matter how tough, have lost a fight during their stay. All that matters is you stood up. For those lacking skills, “flailing arms spaz mode” style seems the best option. It should be over pretty quickly. If you don’t fight, you’ll be labeled prey. This invites future b!tch slap humiliations and extortion. Extortion could mean turning over commissary items, or in more extreme cases, a family member wiring funds to a prisoner’s “girlfriend” to keep you healthy. Predatory prisoners love draining nest eggs. For those with money, refrain from bragging about past French Riviera vacations.
Most prison violence stems from gambling and drugs, especially in regard to debt. If you choose to indulge, pay as you go. Taking commissary on credit also entails risk. Some prisoners operate “stores” whereby they loan out one can of soup with the expectation of receiving two as repayment. Better to go hungry that night. Defaulting on prison debt gets you smashed or stabbed. On occasion, a soft younger inmate runs up a debt he can’t cover. Some creditors accept sexual favors as repayment. Once an inmate goes that route, there’s no coming back. For Boomers and fellow Gen Xers, even if so inclined, that escape hatch won’t be open to you. Nobody wants your old ugly ass. The takeaway—don’t run up prison debt.
Even if you play things right, you could still find yourself housed with a violent psychopath who doesn’t like your face. This could morph into a case of “kill or be killed.” Killing your adversary could get you a life sentence with transfer to a super-max dungeon. Legal self-defense doesn’t carry much weight in prison. If you stab or bludgeon him and he survives, you might only wind up with a few weeks or months in the hole (solitary confinement). Or you could add decades to your sentence and a super-max stay. How a facility’s administration deals with violent offenses varies from prison to prison. In some places, as long as you don’t give staff the paperwork headache of a body, they don’t care how extreme prisoner-on-prisoner violence gets. Alabama prison administrators are known for covering up prison homicides, which could work to your advantage if you need to take out an adversary. Conversely, this could work against you if you wind up on the receiving end of the shank.
When things get too heavy, some prisoners opt to “check-in” (enter protective custody (PC) /solitary confinement). Some guards want you to name your antagonizer(s) before letting you check-in, which technically makes you a “snitch.” Snitches and chomos (pedophiles) inhabit the lowest rung of the prison hierarchy. Not a good look. Even if you manage to enter PC without snitching, you’ll be labeled a “check-in.” At some point you go back into general population. A check-in label follows you for the rest of your stay and opens you up to victimization. If faced with an unreasonable predator, the better option might be to handle things yourself.
What about prison rape? While common back in the day, it’s been largely eradicated through PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act) and current prison culture. In most prisons, a booty bandit who targeted straight males would get run off the yard, i.e. smashed. Plus, with all the openly gay prisoners today, there’s no reason for a booty bandit to take it by force. Many prison organizations forbid their members from engaging in gay sex. Members who pursue down-low activity risk a death sentence. Overall, messing with “boys” (effeminate prison gays) is looked down on, and most prisoners avoid it. The small percentage who practice that lifestyle do so openly and without fear of reprisal. No one’s calling a three-hundred-pound wall of granite a f@g. Or his “boy.”
Many large corporations utilize prison slave labor. According to zio-globalist Harvard University, on average, prisoners get paid ninety-three cents per day. Juxtaposed to these slave wages are real-world prices for prison goods and services. US prisons outsource food services, phone, internet, healthcare, commissary, and pretty much everything else to private corporations. To maximize profits, these corporations price gouge prisoners and cut services. Prison food is often rotten and inedible. If you don’t want to lose weight, you’ll need to buy commissary food at market prices. But how can you do that earning ninety-three cents a day? You can’t. If fortunate, you might have family members who put money on your books (prison account). Otherwise, you’ll need to form a “prison hustle.” This could include offering cell cleaning and laundry services, working as a jailhouse lawyer or tattoo artist, running a poker table, brewing prison wine, or selling drugs. Predatory prisoners simply take stuff off weaker inmates.
Prison living conditions can be quite bad. Institutions often go on lockdown for months. That means sharing a bathroom-sized cell with another man 24/7 until the lock pops. To me, this constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Imagine getting locked down with a cellie who snores like a Metallica concert bass amp. Or a psycho-maniac. As reported by the Miami Herald : “An inmate at Columbia Correctional Institution’s annex was able to strangle and mutilate his cellmate, gouge out his eyeballs, wrap his blood-soaked body in a sheet and walk into the prison’s chow hall wearing the dead inmate’s ear strung around his neck before officers learned anything was amiss.” Prisoners with psycho-maniac cellmates often develop severe PTSD from continuously sleeping with one eye open.
The lack of privacy in prison is obscene. That includes bathroom privacy. Full view-everything. Whoever invented this layout was a sick f*ck.
Prisoners are subject to regular “bend over, spread your cheeks and cough” level strip searches that would be humiliating if carried out by a licensed medical practitioner in a private patient room. Imagine performing this routine in front of snickering guards.
West Coast prisons practice racial segregation, i.e. races stay with their own. Fraternizing with a member of another race could get you smashed or stabbed. In West Coast prison politics, if a prisoner fights, it’s usually against someone from his race. If he gets victimized, it’s usually by an individual or group from his race. If two prisoners of different races have a beef, most times the shot callers of the respective races put the aggrieved parties into a cell and let them fight it out. After it’s over, the matter’s considered settled. If a prisoner goes into debt to someone from another race, members of the debtor’s race sometimes pay the debt and then smash or stab the debtor to avoid a race riot. An unsettled interracial beef can result in a race riot. If a race riot pops off, you’ll be expected to swing your lock-in-a-sock or shank for your race even if you have no involvement in the beef or know what it’s about. Anyone caught ducking out of a race riot gets smashed or stabbed by members of his race.
East Coast prisons are not racially segregated, although like in society, people tend to gravitate toward their own. However, strong bonds often develop between prisoners of different races.
In some institutions, prison organizations (gangs) control the internal politics. Higher-tier prison organizations resemble paramilitaries, as they possess a military top-down chain of command, written constitutions, well-trained soldiers with a high capacity for violence, mandatory boot camp level calisthenic regimens, large capital flows, and a reach that extends into the streets which includes access to serious arsenals. As per the Second Amendment, citizen militias still exist. Conversely, many prison organizations (gangs) lack structure and discipline and are more free-wheeling.
Prisoners join gangs for different reasons, e.g., protection, fellowship, thrills, resources. Joining a gang means following orders. This could include anything from stabbing a gang target to acting as a drug mule. Refusing an order could result in a death sentence. Like any major life decision, weigh the pros and cons carefully before signing on. As with civilian organizations, application standards vary. Some prison organizations want numbers, while others maintain a higher bar for entry. A case of “twenty-five pennies versus a quarter.”
Prison guards can be somewhat professional, corrupt, or sadistic. A nasty CO can make a prisoner’s life hell. Most COs just collect a paycheck and don’t care what happens to their charges. The Stanford Prison Experiment provides insight into guard psychology. Try to be respectful toward guards, but avoid fraternization, as this will cause some prisoners to label you a snitch.
It should be noted that the #MeToo psyop poses a unique danger to political prisoners. #MeToo started with Harvey Weinstein. I didn’t follow his case closely enough to comment on how far Weinstein’s actions went past the Hollywood casting couch quid pro quo that has existed since the days of silent movies and into the classic legal definition of rape. Weinstein was a connected insider. His circle of friends included Hillary Clinton and Oprah Winfrey. He was a rabid Hollywood Zionist with Mossad ties. To his credit, Miramax offered up some decent movies in the 90s. Weinstein appeared to run with the “above the law” crowd, however, the donor class sometimes sacrifices one of its own when politically expedient. I don’t know why they chose Weinstein. Julian Assange became the first major “enemy of the state” #MeToo victim. Once the globalists had him in their clutches, his “rape” charges quickly and quietly vanished. Comedian-political commentator Russell Brand appears to be the latest #MeToo target.
#MeToo framed political prisoners entering prison with “bad paperwork” or sex offender status get greenlit. That means open season for extortion, smashing, and slashing. It could even mean a death sentence. Real rape is a terrible crime that traumatizes the female victim. However, from my viewpoint, throwing fake sex crime charges at an innocent man is an equal or worse crime. The Bible says – “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” It’s serious sh!t. Any woman or operative who participates in such a horrific charade deserves an appropriate response. If the Deep State #MeToo frameup trend continues. I respectfully suggest that the heads of convict-code based prison organizations (gangs) consider secondary in-house trials for “sex crime convicted” political prisoners to determine if the charges are real or state fabrications.
In summary, from my review of the data, best prison practices include:
Mind your business aka “do your own time.” If you involve yourself, you’re involved, i.e., the violent predator who was the other guy’s problem becomes your problem. In a similar vein, never look into another prisoner’s cell when passing by it. Not only is that considered rude, but if he’s in the middle of hiding contraband and his cell gets searched later, guess who he’s blaming.
Don’t snitch.
Avoid gambling, borrowing, (hard) drugs, and “boys.”* (*No offense to gay people. It’s prison politics).
Practice C&R (Courtesy and Respect). “Please, thank you, and excuse me” go a long way in civilian life, but even further in prison.
Choose solid associates (“friends”). You’ll be judged by the company you keep. If your associate gets into a beef, you’ll be expected to back him up, and vice versa. Someone prone to drama could drag you in. If your associate borrows heavily and checks in or gets transferred, his debts could pass on to you.
For those facing potential incarceration for “hate speech,” “spreading misinformation,” questioning election results, posting offensive memes, attending protests, or similar crimes, I hope this article helps. If you need more data, there are informative YouTube channels hosted by ex-prisoners.
While prison seems to be the modality of choice, please note that the Deep State can always exercise the ultimate option to neutralize enemies. See Wikileaks DNC whistleblower Seth Rich. Or the quixotic veteran who believed in free and fair elections. Her name is Ashli Babbitt.
We live in a society run by criminals. Goldman Sachs stole way more money than John Dillinger, and the worst child killer pales in comparison to Madeleine Albright, who starved five hundred thousand Iraqi children to death and bragged about it on network television. The “rules” don’t apply to the donor class.
Outsourcing of jobs, endless war, corporate welfare, and banker theft increased poverty and raised crime levels. Formerly productive regions of the US became opioid/meth/crime/poverty zones. While prisons warehouse violent predators who pose a serious threat to public safety, it’s not uncommon for innocent poor people to take shorter sentence plea deals rather than risk going to trial with a checked-out public defender and potentially receiving a decades-long sentence. As America sinks further into third-worldism and despotism, former law-abiding citizens might need to go “Walter White” to pay medical bills, avoid homelessness, or practice basic civil rights.
Just like the Military Industrial Complex requires endless wars for its business model, the for-profit Prison Industrial Complex needs to fill beds. An influx of thought/political criminals into the system floats stocks. Not surprising that end-stage neoliberal capitalism America has the world’s highest incarceration rate.
For those who cheered Reagan-Clinton mandatory-minimum sentencing for nonviolent drug offenses while the CIA shipped in freight loads of coke and heroin to inner cities and the Sacklers drowned the heartland in a sea of opioids- congratulations, you’ve arrived at gulag nation. Welcome home son.
The US government has run into a significant hurdle in its campaign to “revitalize” the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority (PA) as possible successors to Hamas in the Gaza Strip, failing to convince Israel to unblock funds necessary to prevent the PA from total collapse.
“Even if we agreed [to take over for Hamas in Gaza], how can we implement it? The policy of Israel is to weaken the authority, not strengthen it,” PA Deputy Prime Minister Nabil Abu Rudeineh told the Washington Post. “We cannot even pay the salaries of our soldiers, our employees,” he added.
Despite round-the-clock visits to the heavily fortified PA headquarters in Ramallah and meetings with Israeli authorities, US officials have made little progress in securing the release of millions in Palestinian tax money that Israel has blocked since 7 October.
Two months ago, the Israeli finance ministry – led by Jewish supremacist official Bezalel Smotrich – froze the transfer of tax revenues amounting to some $188 million monthly to the PA.
“The PA didn’t see fit to distance itself from these barbarian actions, and officials in the authority even expressed support for the awful massacre […] Furthermore, the PA is acting against Israel at the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice,” Smotrich said on 30 October.
The tax revenues – known in Palestine as maqasa – are collected by the Israeli government on behalf of the PA on Palestinian imports and exports. Israel earns a commission of 3 percent of collected revenues.
On Friday, the European Commission said it was preparing a $130 million aid package to help plug the gap.
According to Sabri Saidam, a member of the central committee for the Fatah party and close adviser to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, plans for Palestinians to receive their tax revenue have “collapsed.”
Besides finding ways to avert the financial collapse of the PA, US officials have also been pushing for “changes and new faces in key positions” in a last-ditch effort to improve the public image of the deeply unpopular organization.
According to a recent poll from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, 88 percent of Palestinians want Abbas to resign as PA President, up 10 points from three months ago.
Meanwhile, the popularity of Hamas has soared in the occupied West Bank, from 12 percent to 44 percent.
“It’s always this colonizing mentality, whereby, ‘We decide your leadership, we are the ones basically designing your strategy for the day after, we tell you how to live, we tell you how to breathe, and we tell you how to run your land,’” Saidam told the Washington Post.
The PA was established in 1994 based on the first Oslo Accords (1993) between Tel Aviv and the now-defunct Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). It was initially established as a temporary governing body to lay the foundation for an independent Palestinian state.
Complicating matters further for Washington, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is staunchly opposed to a PA-controlled Gaza.
“Expectation that the Palestinian Authority will demilitarize Gaza is a pipe dream,” Netanyahu says in an op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on Monday.
“[The PA] has shown neither the capability nor the will to demilitarize Gaza,” the premier added, claiming that Ramallah “currently funds and glorifies terrorism […] and educates Palestinian children to seek the destruction of Israel.”
“For the foreseeable future, Israel will have to retain overriding security responsibility over Gaza,” Netanyahu stressed.
A vast field is filled as far as the eye can see with miserable and gaunt men in remnants of military uniform. It’s May 1945 and the war in Europe has ended. By rights, these surrendered soldiers will be allowed to return to their families, but many will not leave this muddy ground alive. There is no food, no shelter, and no medicine. The Rheinwiesenlager (Rhine meadow camps) were the killing fields of one of the worst war crimes in modern history, committed by General Dwight Eisenhower and the US Army.
The cull of German troops was a closely-guarded secret until four decades after the war, when a Canadian researcher was writing a book on a French resistance hero. James Bacque found that his subject, Raou Laporterie, had been saved by a German soldier, Hans Goertz. In gratitude, in 1946, Laporterie got Goertz out of a French prison camp to work in his chain of drapery stores. Goertz told of mass deaths of inmates through lack of sustenance.
‘Over most of the western front in April 1945, the thunder of artillery had been replaced by the shuffling of millions of pairs of boots as columns of disarmed German soldiers marched wearily towards Allied barbed wire enclosures. Scattered enemy detachments fired a few volleys before fading into the countryside and eventual capture by Allied soldiers.’
As Fisher explained, German soldiers did everything they could to evade capture by the Russians, who raped and pillaged as they advanced over eastern Germany:
‘The mass surrenders in the west contrasted markedly with the final weeks on the eastern front where surviving Wehrmacht units still fought the advancing Red Army to enable as many of their comrades as possible to evade capture by the Russians. This was the final strategy of the German High Command then under Grand Admiral Doenitz who had been designated Commander-in-Chief by Adolf Hitler.’
But crossing to the Allied side was not the sanctuary that the defeated Germans expected, due to the visceral hatred of Eisenhower. The supreme military commander, of Swedish-Jewish background, had wriiten in a letter to his wife ‘God, I hate the Germans’. In September 1944, in the presence of the British ambassador to Washington, Eisenhower proposed that the entire German general staff, all officers of the Gestapo and all leaders of the Nazi party from mayor upwards should be exterminated (around a hundred thousand men).
Fisher had met Bacque in Washington in 1987 where they uncovered evidence, deeply buried in national archives, of a systematic slaughter. ‘More than five million German soldiers in the American and French zones were crowded into barbed wire cages, many of them literally shoulder to shoulder. The ground beneath them became a quagmire of filth and disease. Open to the weather, lacking even primitive sanitary facilities, underfed, the prisoners soon began dying of starvation.’
Shockingly, more German soldiers died in the camps from April 1945 onwards than died in combat.
In the archives, Bacque studied each edition of the ‘Weekly Prisoner of War and Disarmed Enemy Forces Report’, which showed a high number in the category of ‘other losses’. As escape was almost impossible, these men must have died in the camps. According to Bacque:
‘The victims undoubtedly number over 800,000 and quite likely over a million. Their deaths were knowingly caused by army officers who had sufficient resources to keep the prisoners alive. Relief organizations that attempted to help the prisoners in the American camps were refused permission by the army. All of this was hidden at the time; then lied about when the Red Cross, Le Mondé and Le Figaro attempted to tell the truth publicly.’
Ominously, on 26th April 1945 the combined chiefs-of-staff at Reims decided to create the status of ‘disarmed enemy forces’. This category would apply to ‘prisoners-of-war in American hands only’. No public declaration was made of this bypassing of the Geneva Convention. Mortality data were censored by the American military authorities, who exploited their control of media to push propaganda about their humane treatment of prisoners.
With German soldiers failing to come home in the months after the war ended, the myth of a ‘world food shortage’ was used, a contrived crisis blamed on the Germans. Yet despite the war, there was ample supply of wheat and corn The Swiss Red Cross had thirteen and-a-half million food parcels intended for prisoners, which would have prevented any death from starvation, but this provision was blocked. Indeed, the Red Cross was prevented from entering the camps, as Bacque explained:
‘Granting permission for the welfare agencies to visit the camps would have led to a storm of public protest against the atrocious conditions, while at the same time producing the workers and political will needed to alleviate them. It can hardly be doubted that this was why permission was not given.’
Eisenhower’s accomplice in this cruelty was an old friend of his from military training. Appointed as Eisenhower’s right-hand man, General Everett S Hughes took an extraordinary interest in prisoners’ rations, which he deviously reduced by as much as he could.
The British were innocent in this massacre, its German prisoners dying at no more than an expected rate, because they were fed and housed appropriately. Bacque’s book begins with a conversation at the banqueting table at the Yalta conference in 1943. Joseph Stalin expressed his desire to shoot a line of fifty thousand German officers. Franklin Roosevelt suggested a compromise of 49 thousand, before his son Elliott, a brigadier-general in the US Army, added to the proposed cull hundreds of thousands of Nazis. Winston Churchill stormed out, after stating ‘I would rather be taken out in the garden here and now to be shot myself than sully my own and my country’s honour by such infamy’.
There is another part to this dark episode. General George Patton, a magnanimous victor who respected the Germans as a people, was disgusted by Eisenhower, accusing him of Gestapo practices. Patton, whose Third Army had rapidly swept through northern France after the D-Day landings, due to his brilliant tactics, made himself unpopular with the US military establishment after the war was won. A thorn in the side of Eisenhower, he suggested that the Germans be rearmed to fight the communist Russians.
As described in a Daily Mail article (21 December 2019), General Patton MURDERED? Mystery pertaining to the suspicious death of the general 74 years later, Patton’s death at the end of1945 was later suspected as an assassination. In 1979 Second World War spy Douglas Bazata claimed that he was ordered by the Office of Strategic Services (forerunner of the CIA) to kill Patton and make it look like an accident. Patton was driving a Cadillac in Mannheim when he collided with a military truck. He was paralysed from the head down, but recovered sufficiently in an army hospital for medical clearance to fly back to the USA. On 21st December, the day before his flight, he died suddenly. There was no autopsy, and medical records disappeared.
Was Patton killed because he knew too much about the death camps, and was as much of a maverick to risk the dirty secret coming out?
***
Niall McCrae is a researcher and educator, and author of ‘The Moon and Madness’ (Imprint Academic, 2011), and ‘Moralitis: a Cultural Virus’ (Bruges Group, 2018). See his 21WIRE archive here.
An Israeli airstrike targeting a refugee camp in the central part of the Gaza Strip has killed at least 70 Palestinians as the regime’s genocidal war across the besieged territory continues unabated.
Gaza’s Health Ministry reported the massacre in a late Sunday statement, saying the fatalities came after the regime’s air raid hit a number of houses at the al-Maghazi refugee camp.
According to the ministry’s spokesman, the strike destroyed a “residential block” and the “toll is likely to rise” given the large number of families residing there and the fact that many people are still under the rubble.
“What is happening at the al-Maghazi camp is the annihilation of an entire residential square,” Ashraf al-Qudra said.
The ministry also noted that another Israeli strike on a house in the Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza has killed 10 members of the same family.
The ministry’s spokesman said the regime’s forces “are bombing the main roads between the [refugee] camps … to impede the arrival of ambulances and civil defense vehicles to the targeted locations.”
“Most of the martyrs who arrived from the Maghazi camp were children, women, and the elderly,” the spokesman for Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital was quoted by the Palestinian media as saying.
Gaza’s Government Media Office said the Israeli strike saw the regime’s military bombing “four inhabited homes” at al-Maghazi.
“We call on all countries of the world to put pressure on the criminal occupation in order to stop the genocidal war … against our Palestinian people and against children, women and civilians,” it added.
The Gaza-based Palestinian resistance movement Hamas also reacted to the Israeli attack, describing it as a “horrific massacre.”
Hamas called the strike “a new war crime extending the genocide” that the Israeli regime “commits against children and unarmed civilians.”
The movement said Israel perpetrated “this treacherous and cowardly bombing…in an attempt to renovate the image of its defeated army.”
Hamas noted that Israel’s onslaught on Gaza is being “supported by [US] President [Joe] Biden’s administration, [which is] the primary partner of the Zionist entity in its crimes and fascist aggression” against the blockaded territory.
The Israeli war machine launched its military aggression on October 7 following an operation by Gaza’s resistance movements, dubbed Operation Al-Aqsa Storm. Over 20,400 people, most of them women and children, have been killed in the Israeli genocide so far.
As the regime’s most dedicated ally, the US has supplied it with more than 10,000 tons of military equipment since the onset of the aggression.
Washington has also cast its veto against all the United Nations Security Council resolutions that called for implementation of an immediate ceasefire across Gaza.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, politicians, scientists and media organizations vilified unvaccinated people, blaming them for prolonging the pandemic and advocating policies that barred “the unvaccinated” from public venues, businesses and their own workplaces.
But a peer-reviewed study published last week in Cureusshows that a key April 2022 study by Fisman et al. — used to justify draconian policies segregating the unvaccinated — was based on the application of flawed mathematical risk models that offer no scientific backing for such policies.
Dr. David Fisman, a University of Toronto epidemiologist was the lead author of the April 2022 study, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), which the authors said showed that unvaccinated people posed a disproportionate risk to vaccinated people.
Fisman has worked as an adviser to vaccine makers Pfizer, Seqirus, AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Pasteur. He also advised the Canadian government on its COVID-19 policies and recently was tapped to head up the University of Toronto’s new Institute for Pandemics.
Fisman told reporters the key message of the study was that the choice to get vaccinated is not merely personal because if you choose to be unvaccinated, you are “creating risk for those around you.”
The press ran with it.
Headlines like Salon’s, “Merely hanging out with unvaccinated puts the vaccinated at higher risk: study,” Forbes’ “Study Shows Unvaccinated People Are At Increased Risk Of Infecting The Vaccinated” or Medscape’s “My Choice? Unvaccinated Pose Outsize Risk to Vaccinated” proliferated in more than 100 outlets.
The Canadian Parliament used the paper to promote restrictions for unvaccinated people.
However, in the new study published last week, Joseph Hickey, Ph.D., and Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., show that Fisman’s “susceptible-infectious-recovered (SIR)” model, used to draw his conclusions, had a glaring flaw in one of its key parameters — contact frequency.
When they adjusted that parameter to account for real-world data, the model produced a variety of contradictory outcomes, including one showing that segregating unvaccinated people can increase the epidemic severity among the vaccinated — the exact opposite of what Fisman et al. purported to show
Hickey and Rancourt, researchers at Canada’s Correlation: Research in the Public Interest, concluded that without reliable empirical data to inform such SIR models, the models are “intrinsically limited” and should not be used as a basis for policy.
The Canadian researchers attempted to publish their paper in CMAJ, where Fisman had published his original study, but the editor — a collaborator of Fisman’s — refused even to review it.
The open-access version of CMAJ also declined to publish the article even after it received favorable peer reviews.
In a letter sent, with supporting documentation, to the CMAJ and the Canadian Medical Association, Hickey and Rancourt recounted the “tedious saga” whereby the journal editors “concocted a multitude of ancillary and unnecessary objections, apparently intended to be insurmountable barriers” to publishing their study.
They later published the study in the peer-reviewed journal Cureus.
Rancourt tweeted a link to the study results along with a montage of pandemic-era media clips scapegoating unvaccinated people.
The latest rigorous peer-reviewed science has now proven that these (video clip) despicable global-parasite pronouncements were wrong (=disinformation), and were therefore evil given the widespread harm caused… MEDIA NOTICE ABOUT THE ACTUAL SCIENCE: https://t.co/FrXJGWaCsF h/t… pic.twitter.com/xyV8ksCtiH
SIR models were commonly used as the basis for pandemic policies, often with fatal flaws research has since shown.
Fisman et al. designed their study to measure the impacts of segregating two groups — vaccinated and unvaccinated people — applying a SIR model to predict whether the unvaccinated pose an undue risk to the vaccinated during a severe acute respiratory viral outbreak, based on variable degrees of mixing among the groups.
However the model, Hickey and Rancourt wrote, failed to consider the impacts of that segregation on “contact frequencies,” a key parameter in predicting epidemic outcomes.
Instead, it assumed contact frequencies among the majority (vaccinated) and socially excluded (unvaccinated) groups would be equal and constant, which “is not realistic,” Hickey told The Defender.
In other words, the model assumed the two groups would be separated, yet living the same parallel existence — socializing, working, shopping and coming into contact with others in exactly the same ways.
But in the real world, segregation meant the unvaccinated were barred from many public places, so their contact frequencies were severely curtailed.
Hickey and Rancourt implemented the SIR model again, testing for a degree of segregation that ranged from zero to complete segregation and allowing the contact frequencies for individuals in the two groups to vary with the degree of segregation.
When they ran the model using the more realistic estimation of how different segregation policies might generate different contact frequencies among the two groups, “we found the results are all over the map,” Hickey said.
By segregating unvaccinated people from the vaccinated majority, he said, “You can have an increase in the attack rate among vaccinated people or you can have a decrease.”
“Negative epidemiological consequences can occur for either segregated group, irrespective of the deleterious health impacts of the policies themselves,” they wrote.
Hickey said the variable outcomes were very sensitive to the values of the parameters in the model, namely infectious contact frequency.
But he said, in the real world there are no reliable measures for contact frequency, and without reliable measures for model inputs, the model is essentially meaningless.
They concluded that the degree of uncertainty is so high in such SIR models that they cannot reasonably inform policy decisions.
“It’s a policy based on nothing basically,” Hickey said.
“We cannot recommend that SIR modelling be used to motivate or justify segregation policies regarding viral respiratory diseases, in the present state of knowledge,” the study concluded.
‘Fisman’s Fraud’
Modeling had a major impact on the pandemic response in Canada and globally, statistician Regina Watteel, Ph.D., who chronicled the impact of the Fisman paper in her book “Fisman’s Fraud: the Rise of Canadian Hate Science,” told The Defender.
As a key figure in modeling the pandemic in Canada, Fisman “was involved in Canada’s pandemic response at all levels,” she said.
He was also influential as a public figure, making numerous disparaging comments about “anti-vaxxers” from early on and advocating policies like vaccine passports and school closures long before he received a major grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for his SIR modeling study.
Fisman was open in interviews about the fact that the point of the 2022 study was to “undermine the notion that vaccine choice was best left to the individual,” Watteel said.
The 2022 modeling paper didn’t just present mathematical results, the authors also made political claims.
“The choice of some individuals to refuse vaccination is likely to affect the health and safety of vaccinated people in a manner disproportionate to the fraction of unvaccinated people in the population.
“Risk among unvaccinated people cannot be considered self-regarding, and considerations around equity and justice for people who do choose to be vaccinated, as well as those who choose not to be, need to be considered in the formulation of vaccination policy.”
Fisman publicly advocated for vaccine mandates and passports and told reporters the impetus behind the modeling study was not a scientific question of the effects of segregation on infection rates, but the political question of, “What are the rights of vaccinated people to be protected from unvaccinated people?”
A few days after the study was published, the parliamentary secretary to the Ontario Ministry of Health used the study to defend proposed travel restrictions, Watteel showed in her book.
As a result, she wrote, it “has generated a massive trail of misinformation.”
Watteel concurred that Fisman et al.’s study was based on bad modeling. She added that by omitting publicly available current data that contradicted the data they presented in the article, the study was actually “fraudulent.”
Fisman et al. published the paper during the so-called Omicron surge, which was dominated by infections among the fully vaccinated. By spring 2022, people who were boosted had disproportionately more infections than others, according to data on the government of Ontario COVID-19 website and reproduced in Watteel’s book.
However, none of that publicly available data was included in the study.
“Fisman et al. concocted a model to generate the results they wanted, completely omitting any reference to readily available real-world data that contradicted their results (falsification). They went on to state the contrived results as facts (data fabrication) and then proceeded to inform public policy based on the fabricated results.
“The researchers continued to push the false narrative long after numerous scientists rebuked the findings and provided evidence of the findings’ falsity. This indicates a willful misrepresentation and misinterpretation of research findings.”
CAMJ editor, Fisman colleague, blocks review of Correlation article
Hickey told The Defender when they submitted their paper critiquing SIR models like Fisman’s to CAMJ in August 2022, editor Matthew Stanbrook, M.D., Ph.D. — who also works at the University of Toronto and has collaborated with Fisman on academic articles, grants and courses — rejected the article without even sending it for peer review.
Hickey and Rancourt appealed the decision and requested Stanbrook recuse himself. The journal suggested they resubmit their study to the open-access version of CAMJ, which they did. It was rejected without going through peer review.
They appealed that decision and the paper was sent for review. A few months later, they received two positive reviews with requested corrections. They responded to the reviews and made corrections to the paper, expecting publication.
The journal then informed them there had been a “technical error” and the journal — which is supposed to have an entirely transparent peer-review process — had failed to send them concerns from anonymous internal editors and an anonymous statistician.
Hickey told The Defender :
“It is their policy that the reviewers’ names are public and that the review reports and the revision, like the responses by the author, all that stuff is public. That’s the policy. There’s no escaping that.
“And yet what do they do? They use anonymous internal people to put barriers up and make pretexts to not publish even in the face of positive reviews.”
Those anonymous comments included a suggestion that they should use Fisman’s flawed mathematical analysis, Hickey said. The authors responded to those comments in what they have now also posted on their website as a stand-alone article.
Months later, they requested an update on the journal’s plans for the article and were informed that the journal decided the article would not be suitable for its audience and suggested they instead publish in a modeling journal.
All of their collected critiques of Fisman’s 2022 paper are also collected on the Correlation website.
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
Expressing support for Palestinians in the ongoing conflict in Gaza risks Canadians being fired, suspended from their jobs and calls not to be hired, the country’s public broadcaster reported on Friday, reports Anadolu Agency.
It is a development in other countries, including the US and Europe, and affects various employment fields, such as the service sector, education, health care, the law and media. “I can tell you personally, in the last month and a half, I’ve probably spoken with someone at least once a day [about this],” Jackie Esmonde, a labour lawyer at the Toronto-based firm Cavalluzzo Law, told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). “They’re not always cases that we take on, but we do have eight to 10 cases that we’re actively working on at the moment.”
She said these are not cases of hate speech or support for terrorism.
In November, the University of Ottawa suspended Dr Yipeng Ge after a social media post that said: “From the River to the sea, Palestine will be free.” The university interpreted this to mean the “ethnic cleansing of Jewish people from Israel.”
Others have suffered job suspensions for posts that featured the words “genocide” and “apartheid” to describe Israel’s actions.
In November, 650 lawyers, law students and professors from across Canada published an open letter that says there has been a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression since the start of the Israeli-Hamas conflict on October 7.
Meanwhile, lawyers interviewed by the CBC said they were not aware of anyone facing consequences for social media posts supporting Israel.
And two employees at the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies – a non-profit human rights organization that fosters antisemitism education – told the CBC that teachers at the centre have been told to report students who make statements critical of Israel.
During the first six weeks of the war on Gaza, Israel routinely used one of the largest and most destructive bombs supplied by the US in areas it deemed safe zones for civilians, according to an analysis of visual evidence conducted by the New York Times published on Friday.
The report showed Israel’s bombardment using bombs weighing approximately one tonne in an area in southern Gaza, to which civilians were displaced under the pretext of seeking safety.
Many Western armies use bombs of this size, but munitions experts confirmed that US forces no longer drop them in densely populated areas, according to quotes by the newspaper.
The newspaper reported that it had programmed an artificial intelligence tool to scan satellite images of southern Gaza in search of craters resulting from this type of bomb. Its reporters manually reviewed the search results, looking for craters 13 metres or more.
According to munitions experts, only bombs weighing one tonne would create craters of this size in Gaza’s light, sandy dirt.
The investigation identified 208 craters in satellite images and drone footage. Due to limited satellite images and differences in bomb effects, many instances were likely not captured. However, the findings reveal that the one-tonne bombs pose a widespread threat to civilians seeking safety in southern Gaza.
The newspaper quoted the remarks of an Israeli army spokesperson, claiming that Israel’s priority is to destroy Hamas and “questions of this kind will be looked into at a later stage,” adding that the Israeli army “takes feasible precautions to mitigate civilian harm.”
US officials say Israel must do more to minimise the number of civilians killed in its war on Hamas.
The Pentagon has increased its arms shipments to Israel, including smaller bombs considered more suitable for use in densely populated and urban environments like the Gaza Strip. Despite this, since October, the US has supplied Israel with more than 5,000 MK-84 munitions — a type of one-tonne bomb.
The video sharing service Rumble announced on Friday that it would disable access to all users from Brazil pending its legal challenge of the Brazilian court order to censor certain creators.
Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski revealed the move in a post on X (formerly Twitter), noting that the court orders clashed with the company’s mission to “restore a free and open Internet.”
“Users with unpopular views are free to access our platform on the same terms as our millions of other users,” Pavlovski wrote. “Accordingly, we have decided to disable access to Rumble for users in Brazil while we challenge the legality of the Brazilian courts’ demands.”
Brazilians who lost their access to Rumble content have only their courts to blame, he added, noting that he hoped the judges would reconsider their decision so that the service could be restored soon.
“I will not be bullied by foreign government demands to censor Rumble creators.”
In a follow-up post, Pavlovski noted that Rumble was “the only company at our scale that holds the line for free speech and American values,” and that he hoped some day other Big Tech companies would do the same. “I will continue to lead by example until that day arrives,” he added.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who lives in Brazil and hosts the ‘System Update’ show on Rumble, noted that the Brazilian Supreme Court is “consumed with censoring political speech,” to the point that it banned platforms such as Telegram and WhatsApp for failing to immediately obey their censorship orders.
This is the second time Rumble has suspended service in a country over a censorship row. In November 2022, Pavlovski defied France’s orders to censor certain Russian-language outlets, citing the company’s free speech mission.
Pavlovski, a Canadian tech entrepreneur, founded Rumble in 2013 after seeing YouTube giving priority to influencers after getting acquired by the search engine giant Google. The platform grew in popularity starting in 2020, after a mass purge of dissident voices by Silicon Valley, and continued in 2021 with the influx of US conservatives censored elsewhere.
On Monday, the UK House of Commons debated the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (“IHR”).
The debate was held in response to a petition to the UK Parliament which gained more than the required number of signatures. In yet another brilliant speech, Andrew Bridgen MP left no stone unturned. A few other Members of Parliament (“MPs) didn’t hold back either.
The first to speak was Philip Davies, MP for Shipley. He summed up the problem both with the WHO’s two proposed instruments – the IHR amendments and the Pandemic Treaty or Accord – and the UK Parliament’s mindset regarding concerns raised about them.
“In preparing for today’s debate, I looked back at the contributions made in April when another petition on this topic was debated here in Westminster Hall … I have to say that I was disappointed by some of the rhetoric, when valid concerns were dismissed as an ‘overreaction and hysteria’. It is clear that this is – quite rightly, in my opinion – an important issue for the public. We can see that that is the case from not just the full Gallery, but the large numbers signing the petitions,” Mr. Davies said.
“We have two international legal instruments, both designed to increase the WHO’s authority in managing health emergencies,” he said. “What is being proposed could have a huge and detrimental impact on all parts of society and on our sovereignty … We are talking about a top-down approach to global public health hardwired into international law.”
“Let us not forget that the director-general is appointed by an opaque, non-democratic process – and I think that is being rather generous,” he added.
Andrew Bridgen, MP for North West Leicestershire, took the floor next. “I [ ] thank the 116,000 members of the public who signed this public petition so that we can have this important debate today,” he began.
“It is impossible to consider either the pandemic treaty or the amendments to the international health regulations in isolation; they are two linked instruments of the WHO, and they need to be considered in parallel.”
Why does the WHO make false claims regarding proposals to seize states’ sovereignty? Mr. Bridgen asked the House noting that Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’ statements that “no country will cede any sovereignty to WHO” are unequivocally, and also wholly inconsistent with the text he is referring to.
Mr. Bridgen reminded the House that Tedros, as with all WHO officials, is unelected, unaccountable, non-taxpaying and immune from prosecution due to diplomatic immunity.
The intent of the text of the IHR amendments and Pandemic Accord is clear: WHO’s proposed instruments transfer decision-making power to WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function, decision-making that is currently vested in nations and individuals. “The WHO director-general will have the sole authority to decide when and where they are required, and the proposals are intended to be binding under international law,” Mr. Bridgen said.
“Continued claims that sovereignty is not lost, echoed by politicians in this House, other elected assemblies, and of course the media, therefore raise very important questions concerning motivations, competence and ethics.”
Later in his speech, Mr. Bridgen said that WHO’s position raises a real question of whether its leadership is truly ignorant of what is being proposed or is actively seeking to mislead countries and the public to increase the probability of acceptance.
“Amending the 2005 international health regulations may be a straightforward way to quickly deploy and enforce what appears to be the new normal for health control measures that we have seen implemented since the covid-19 pandemic. The current text applies to virtually the entire global population, counting 196 states, including all 194 WHO member states. Approval may or may not be required by a formal vote of the World Health Assembly: the recent 2022 amendment was adopted through consensus. If the same approval mechanism were to be used in May 2024, many countries, and indeed the public, might remain unaware of the broad scope of the new text and its implications for national and individual sovereignty. That is why today’s debate is so important,” he said.
Mr. Bridgen quoted from article 18 of the IHR which details specific examples of measures that are currently non-binding and WHO can recommend.
“When implemented together, those measures have generally been referred to since 2020 as lockdowns and mandates -“lockdown” was previously a term reserved for people incarcerated as criminals. It removes basic, universally accepted human rights. Such measures were previously considered by the WHO itself to be detrimental to public health. However, since 2020, it has become the default standard for public health authorities to manage epidemics, despite its contradictions to multiple stipulations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – the UDHR.” Mr. Bridgen said.
Mr. Bridgen explained how the current recommendations will be changed into requirements through three mechanisms:
“The first is the removal of the term “non-binding” … Second is the insertion … [of] the phrase that ‘Member States’ will ‘undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations’ … Thirdly … ‘State Parties’ undertake to enact what previously were merely recommendations, without delay, including requirements of WHO regarding non-state entities under their jurisdiction.”
Mr. Bridgen explained that “non-state actors” means private businesses, charities, and individuals. “In other words, everyone and everything comes under the control of the WHO, once the director-general declares a public health emergency of international concern,” he said.
Mr. Bridgen also pointed out that the IHR also allows WHO to deploy “personnel” into the country. “That is, it will have control over entry across national borders for whoever it chooses,” he said.
He called out WHO’s desire to limit freedom of speech to “counter misinformation and disinformation.” This clashes with the UDHR, Mr. Bridgen said.
“Although freedom of speech is currently exclusively for national authorities to decide, and its restriction is generally seen as being negative and abusive, United Nations institutions including the WHO have been advocating for censoring unofficial views in order to protect the people from what they call “information integrity.” No doubt, if these amendments were in place, I would not be allowed to give this speech and, if I was, it would not be allowed to be reported in the mainstream media or even on social media.”
Mr. Bridgen mentioned the potential for human rights abuses by WHO and its allies coercing populations to take experimental vaccines or drugs:
“If vaccines or drugs are still under trial and not fully tested, the issue of being subject to an experiment is also real. There is a very clear intent to employ the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovations’ 100-day vaccine programme, which, by definition, cannot complete meaningful safety and efficacy trials within the timespan. As we know, the covid-19 vaccines are still experimental, years on from their first introduction, because they are still under emergency use authorisation.”
The proposed pandemic agreement, Mr. Bridgen said, will set humanity into a new era that is organised around pandemics: pre-pandemic, pandemic and inter-pandemic times.
“The relevant question regarding the two WHO instruments should be not whether sovereignty is threatened,” he said, “but why democratic states would forfeit any sovereignty to an organisation that is significantly funded by and bound to obey the dictates of corporations and self-proclaimed philanthropists, and jointly governed by member states half of which are not even open and transparent democracies.”
Mr. Bridgen followed this by voicing a thought that has been on many of our minds in recent years:
“If sovereignty is being knowingly forfeited by governments, without the knowledge and consent of their peoples and based on the false claims of governments and the WHO, the implications are extremely serious. It would imply that leaders were working directly against the interests of their people. Most countries have specific fundamental laws for dealing with that practice.”
You can watch Mr. Bridgen’s speech in parliament below and read a transcript of it in the Hansard HERE.
Andrew Bridgen: International Health Regulations Amendments Debate in Westminster Hall, 19 December 2023 (24 mins)
John Redwood, MP for Wokingham, agreed. “I hope that the Minister will listen very carefully to the debate and the petitioners,” he said. “It would be quite wrong to vest the power of decision in people so far away from our own country who are not in full knowledge of the local circumstances.”
“Before any such power is vested in the WHO, there should be a proper inquiry and debate about how it performed over the course of the most recent covid pandemic,” Mr. Redwood said. “We need more transparency, debate, discussion and challenge of those in the well-paid positions at the WHO, so that science can advance.”
“We do not want an international body saying, ‘There’s only one way to look at this problem or to think about it’ … we need much more accountability, exposure and proper debate.”
Mark Francis, MP for Rayleigh and Wickford, also voiced his concerns about amendments to the IHR. “Not least because the WHO will be given extremely strong powers in any future pandemic,” he said.
“The proposed amendments empower the WHO to issue requirements for the UK to mandate highly restrictive measures, such as lockdowns, masks, quarantines, travel restrictions and medication of individuals, including vaccination, once a PHEIC has been declared by the WHO. That is something we should all be very concerned about. We as parliamentarians are guardians of the country’s liberty, so we need to be very anxious about that.”
Danny Kruger, MP for Devizes, began by noting that it was very worrying that so few MPs were present at the debate. “Significant numbers of the public have a real interest in this topic, so what is going on?” he asked. And reiterated the points already made.
He emphasised the provision in the proposed regulations that WHO would require countries to tackle misinformation and disinformation. After recalling one or two erroneous statements made by WHO in response to the covid pandemic, Mr. Kruger said:
“This is the organisation that we propose giving the power to intervene in national debates, and to close down discussion about the origins and appropriate response to pandemics under the guise of tackling misinformation and disinformation.
“We should be concerned about the value of the World Health Organisation, given its record, and we should, I am afraid, have the same scepticism about our government’s role.”
Sir Christopher Chope, MP for Christchurch, said: “Once we have given away these powers to the WHO, which is power hungry … it is very difficult to get them back.”
He pointed to an insidious development, following a recent Supreme Court case, of what is called “customary international law.” “That development basically means that a group of outsiders can tell us in this country what is good for us and what is not,” he said.
Mr. Francis interjected and said: “For the avoidance of any doubt … none of us has argued this afternoon for withdrawal from the World Health Organisation – we might call it Wexit.” To which Mr. Davies responded, “Yet.” [Attaboy Mr Davies!]
“We do not want to withdraw,” Sir Christopher said, “there is no need to withdraw from a voluntary organisation that is confined to giving us advice and providing data and information.”
Sir Christopher reminded the House about WHO’s war on ivermectin. “Even more sinister than the change in advice on lockdowns was the WHO’s approach to finding a treatment for covid-19 patients. There was a lot of evidence to suggest that ivermectin – it was not the only such drug – could be used to really good effect to improve outcomes for patients suffering from covid-19,” he said.
“[The campaign against ivermectin] was a war, organised by the WHO, against a remedy for covid-19, because, obviously, the whole vaccine development programme was premised on there being no cure for covid-19, and no effective treatment for it,” he added.
“I hope that the Government will start looking really seriously, and sceptically, at the work of the WHO, and at the extent to which it is unduly influenced by external factors. A lot of its work is not based on straight science, but is actually political.”
After noting that Slovakia, Estonia and New Zealand had come out publicly with their scepticism about WHO’s process, Sir Christopher said:
“I hope that our government will now say, ‘By all means, let’s keep the WHO as a body that provides advice, but under no circumstances will we sign up to anything that will give them control over our lives’.”
You can read the full transcript for the 3-hour debate HERE and watch the full debate on Parliament TV HERE.
New research suggests that four billion people globally will be overweight in 2050. This trend can be traced back to the ‘low-fat, high-carb’ guidelines first issued in the 70s, and should prompt a major U-turn on dietary advice.
A recent report from the Potsdam Institute predicts that by 2050 there will be four billion overweight people in the world, with one-and-a-half billion of them obese. This is not entirely surprising. The world has been getting fatter for years, and things do not seem to be slowing down.
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.