An Arab NGO has documented 148 Israeli rights violations against Palestinian journalists in the occupied Palestinian territories last month, Anadolu News Agency reports.
In a statement on Wednesday, the Journalists Support Committee said the month of May witnessed a surge in attacks on Palestinian journalists by Israeli forces and settlers.
It termed the attacks as “an attempt to prevent Palestinian journalists from covering Israeli assaults against Palestinians and their holy sites.”
According to the NGO, the Israeli violations varied from arrests, intimidation, shooting, verbal and physical assaults to car-ramming incidents.
It said 11 journalists were detained by Israeli forces in the West Bank during May, while the custody of five others was extended without trial.
“Israeli forces, in collaboration with settlers, disrupted the work of 61 journalists and media institutions while covering Israeli violations in the cities of Jerusalem, Hebron and Jenin,” it added.
The NGO also noted that the social media accounts of 11 Palestinian journalists were suspended for alleged violations of publication rules.
Last month, Al Jazeera journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh, 51, was shot dead while covering an Israeli military raid in the West Bank city of Jenin.
Palestinian officials and her employer, Al Jazeera, said she was killed by Israeli forces.
There was no comment from Israeli authorities on the NGO’s report.
Members of parliament today voted 202-117 to keep the current travel ban against unvaccinated Canadians in place.
The Conservatives proposed the motion to have the current travel ban against the unvaccinated lifted.
Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh, and Travel Minister Omar Alghabra voted against the motion, as did virtually every Liberal, NDP, and Bloq Quebecois member.
Conservatives all voted to lift the ban.
“Today, the NDP-Liberal government voted against our common-sense motion that would have returned to pre-pandemic rules and service levels for travel and helped end the delays we’re seeing at airports across the country,” their Conservative’s website reads.
“As Canadian travellers are being subject to extreme delays, line-ups, bottlenecks, and missed connections because of unnecessary protocols, our allies across the world, including the European Union and the United States, have loosened rules for passengers on flights and in airports.”
“. . . Airports have directly cited the Liberals’ policies as the reason for these delays . . .”
“After two long years of the pandemic, Canadians are finally looking to return to normalcy and begin travelling again. Unfortunately, the NDP-Liberal government continues to cling to outdated and unnecessary protocols that are exacerbating delays.”
Conservative members of parliament proposed the motion on May 17. However, Charter rights – such as freedom of movement – were not leveraged to justify their call to drop restrictions.
Instead, “unacceptable wait times” at the airport (for those who are allowed to travel), labour shortages, and economic losses caused by the restrictions were cited.
However, the motion also mentioned that the restrictions were ineffective and that international allies have all dropped their restrictions.
Israel’s Supreme Court has decided that the Palestinian region of Masafer Yatta in the southern hills of Hebron is to be appropriated entirely by the Israeli military and that the local population of more than 1,000 Palestinians is to be expelled. The court’s decision on 4 May was hardly surprising. Israel’s military occupation is not only enforced by soldiers with guns, but also elaborate political, military, economic and legal structures, all of which are dedicated to the expansion of illegal Jewish settlements and the slow — and sometimes not-so-slow — expulsion of the Palestinians.
When Palestinians say that the Nakba (“Catastrophe”), which led to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 and the establishment of the state of Israel on its ruins, is an ongoing unfinished project, they mean exactly that. The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from East Jerusalem and the endless torment of Palestinian Bedouins in the Naqab, and now in Masafer Yatta, are all testament to this reality.
However, Masafer Yatta is particularly unique. In the case of occupied East Jerusalem, for example, Israel has made a fallacious, ahistorical claim that the city is the eternal and undivided capital of the Jewish people. It combined its unsubstantiated narrative with military action on the ground, followed by a systematic process to increase the Jewish population and eject the native inhabitants of the city. Such notions as ‘Greater Jerusalem‘ and legal and political structures, like that of the Jerusalem Master Plan 2000, have all contributed towards turning the once absolute Palestinian majority in Jerusalem into a constantly shrinking minority.
In the Naqab, Israel’s objectives were put into motion as early as 1948, and again in 1951. The process of ethnically cleansing the natives remains in effect to this day.
Although Masafer Yatta is part of the same colonial scheme, its uniqueness stems from the fact that it is situated in Area C of the occupied West Bank. In July 2020, Israel purportedly decided to postpone its plan to annex nearly 40 per cent of the West Bank, perhaps fearing a Palestinian rebellion and unwanted international condemnation. However, the plan went ahead in all but name.
The wholesale annexation of large swathes of the West Bank would mean that Israel would become responsible for the welfare of entire Palestinian communities living therein. As a settler-colonial state, though, Israel wants the land, but not the people. In Tel Aviv’s calculation, annexation without the expulsion of the population could lead to a demographic nightmare, hence Israel’s need to reinvent its annexation plan. De jure annexation may have been “postponed”, but it has continued in de facto terms, which has attracted very little international political and media attention.
The Israeli court’s decision regarding Masafer Yatta, which is already being carried out with the expulsion of the Najjar family on 11 May, is an important step towards the annexation of Area C. If Israel can evict the Palestinian residents of twelve villages, more than 1,000 people, unhindered, more such expulsions can be expected, not only south of Hebron, but across the occupied Palestinian territories.
The Palestinian villagers of Masafer Yatta and their legal representation know very well that no real “justice” can be obtained from the Israeli court system. Nevertheless, they continue to fight the legal war in the hope that a combination of factors, including solidarity in Palestine and pressure from outside, can ultimately succeed in compelling Israel to delay its planned destruction and Judaisation of the whole region.
However, it seems that Palestinian efforts, which have been underway since 1997, are failing. The Israeli Supreme Court decision is predicated on the erroneous and utterly bizarre notion that the Palestinians of that area could not demonstrate that they belonged there prior to 1980, when the Israeli government decided to turn the area into “Firing Zone 918”.
Sadly, the Palestinian defence was based partly on documents from the Jordanian era and official UN records that reported on Israeli attacks on several Masafer Yatta villages in 1966. The Jordanian government, which administered the West Bank until 1967, compensated some of the residents for the loss of their “stone houses” — not tents — animals and other properties that were destroyed by the Israeli military. Palestinians tried to use this evidence to show that they have existed, not as nomadic people but as rooted communities. This was unconvincing to the Israeli court, which favoured the occupation army’s argument over the rights of the native population.
Israeli firing zones occupy nearly 18 per cent of the total area of the West Bank. It is one of several ploys used by the Israeli government to lay a pseudo-legal claim on Palestinian land and, eventually, to claim legal ownership as well. Many of these firing zones exist in Area C, and are one way that Israel appropriates Palestinian land officially with the support of the courts.
Now that the Israeli military has managed to acquire Masafer Yatta — a region covering 32 to 56km2 — based on completely flimsy excuses, it will become much easier to ensure the ethnic cleansing of many similar communities in various parts of occupied Palestine.
While discussions and media coverage of Israel’s annexation scheme in the West Bank and the Jordan Valley have largely subsided, the settler-colonial state is now preparing for gradual annexation. Instead of taking 40 per cent of the West Bank all at once, Israel is now annexing smaller tracts of land and regions, like Masafer Yatta, separately. Tel Aviv will eventually connect all these annexed areas through Jewish settler-only bypass roads to larger Jewish settlement infrastructures in the West Bank.
Not only does this alternative strategy allow Israel to avoid international criticism, but it will also permit the settler-colonial state to annex Palestinian land while incrementally expelling Palestinians. Thus, demographic imbalances will be prevented before they can even occur.
What is happening in Masafer Yatta is not only the largest ethnic cleansing scheme to be carried out by Israel since 1967, but the move should also be considered as the first step in a much larger scheme of illegal land misappropriation, ethnic cleansing and official mass annexation.
Israel must not be allowed to succeed in Masafer Yatta. If it does, its original, mass annexation scheme will become a reality in no time at all.
Israel’s bombardment of the biggest agrochemical warehouse in the besieged Gaza Strip by incendiary artillery shells last year amounts to chemical warfare, a rights group report finds.
On May 15, 2021, the Israeli military launched an artillery attack on the Khudair Pharmaceuticals and Agricultural Tools Company, considered as the largest agrochemical warehouse in the north of the blockaded enclave, setting fire to tons of pesticides, fertilizers, plastics and nylons.
The shelling attack occurred in the midst of the 11-day Israeli war against Gaza Strip, after weeks of violence against Palestinians in Al-Quds and a brutal crackdown on worshipers at the al-Aqsa Mosque, as well as attempts to steal their land in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood.
The results of a new investigation in the attack and its consequences by the West Bank-based Palestinian human rights NGO Al-Haq showed that Israel deliberately employed highly flammable munitions in the targeted attack, which burned tons of dangerous pesticides and set off an unfolding environmental disaster.
The FAI Unit built a 3D model of the warehouse after interviewing the locals, consulting international experts and analyzing data obtained from dozens of videos, including CCTV and drone footage, in a bid to establish the circumstances of the blaze, and determine the effects of the release of toxic chemicals.
“Our findings reveal that Israeli forces illegally employed highly flammable munitions in a targeted attack on the warehouse, whose location and contents are known to Israel, setting on fire over 50 tons of hazardous chemicals stored on the site,” said al-Haq.
The report is the first publication by Al-Haq’s newly-established Forensic Architecture Investigation Unit (FAI Unit), a first-of-its-kind collaboration in the Middle East with Forensic Architecture, a research agency based at Goldsmiths, University of London, which conducts spatial and media analysis for NGOs and in international human rights cases.
The shelling created a toxic plume, which engulfed an area of nearly six sq km, leaving local residents struggling with health problems.
“Within the first hour, the toxic plume had affected an area of approximately 5.7 square kilometers — spanning Beit Lahiya and its agricultural zones, as well as the densely populated Jabaliya refugee camp — placing approximately 3,000 homes in its shadow,” the report said, adding that the six-hour-long fire at the warehouse destroyed most of the facility and consuming the majority of its contents.
Al-Haq said that a toxic plume produced by the attack is tantamount to the indirect deploying of chemical weapons.
“Israeli occupation forces’ shelling of the Khudair Agrochemical Warehouse, with knowledge of the presence of toxic chemicals stored therein, is tantamount to chemical weapons through indirect means. Such acts are clearly prohibited… and prosecutable under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,” the group said in a legal report based on the findings of the investigation.
The probe determined that the Israeli military used several M150 Smoke HC 155mm shells in its attack against the warehouse.
“The dimensions and the smoke tail match the M150 Smoke HC 155mm ammunition developed by the Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems: an ‘advanced smoke projectile’ and a new type of shell designed to splinter into five separate canisters, all of which emit high-density smoke,” the report said.
It also stressed that the attack on the Khudair agrochemical warehouse was the first in an apparent string of similar attacks by the Tel Aviv regime, intentionally hitting civilian economic infrastructure and the industrial sector.
“On 17 May, two days after the Khudair Warehouse was destroyed, the Fomco Sponge Factory near Jabaliya camp was attacked in a similar manner, causing a large-scale fire. On the same day, over half a dozen other factories and warehouses, located in the industrial zone east of Gaza’s Shejaiyyeh neighborhood, were also bombed,” it stated.
In the latest bombardment campaign of Gaza by Israel in May last year, at least 260 Palestinians, including over 60 children, were killed in a time span of 11 days that began on May 10. The Gaza-based resistance movements retaliated.
The regime was eventually forced to announce a ceasefire, brokered by Egypt, which came into force in the early hours of May 21.
The Gaza Strip, home to some two million people, has been under a blockade imposed by Israel since June 2007.
The 108th anniversary of this event just happened last month. Always feels strange how a century can go by and little details slip through the cracks, forgotten. We thought we knew this story… but then we had to go and dig. {An edition to our new “Forgotten History” series}
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Africa Day, 25 May, has made an impact. In a rare show of African power and solidarity, several African member states objected to proposed International Health Regulations amendments, discussed at the World Health Assembly 75 this week – a move many believe might shake up the World Health Organization’s dominance.
A well placed source shared: “The resolution on IHR amendments was not passed at the WHA, as African countries were concerned that there was inadequate consultation amongst member states, and the process was being rushed. Botswana read the statement on behalf of the 47 AFRO members and I was personally present.”
According to Reuters, “if Africa continues to withhold support, it could block one of the only concrete reforms expected from the meeting, fraying hopes that members will unite on reforms to strengthen the U.N. health agency’s rules as it seeks a central role for itself in global health policy.”
The IHR seeks to define and detail WHO members’ obligations around public health emergencies and other health matters. The United States government proposed 13 controversial IHR amendments, which give the WHO DG Tedros unilateral power to declare actual or potential health emergencies and expect a response in 48 hours.
The draft proposal yet to be formally decided also aims to change article 59 of the IHR, and would accelerate the implementation of future amendments.
Bear in mind, a few countries at the WHA submitted draft resolutions to the IHR, which would need, at least according to the WHO process, four months to be considered. These countries are Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, European Union and its Member States, Japan, Monaco, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the United States of America.
The African #WHA75 delegation expressed reservations about these IHR amendments, saying all reforms should be tackled together as part of a “holistic package” at a later stage.
“The African region shares the view that the process should not be fast tracked…,” Moses Keetile, deputy permanent secretary in Botswana’s health ministry, told the assembly on Tuesday on behalf of the Africa region.
“We find that they are going too quickly and these sorts of reforms can’t be rushed through,” said a concerned African delegate in Geneva. The U.S. mission in Geneva did not respond to a Reuters request for comment.
BRIMI emerges: Brazil, Russia, Iran, Malaysia and India
Brazil and Russia form part of the BRICS initiative with Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Iran and Malaysia are reported to have also expressed reservations to the proposed IHR amendments, while Russia and Brazil seem set to make big moves on international health policies, or possibly even exit the WHO. Meanwhile, India raised audit concerns on irregularities with WHO financials.
A civil society World Health Assembly monitor shared “Just for your interest, from the external audit done by India team, who yesterday during the financial comittee stated that they feel very disappointed that their audit has been ignored by WHO.”
Time line, duplication, and waste of funding resources
The IHR amendments discussions are parallel to talks on a potential new pandemic treaty (#PandemicAccord) , raising concerns over duplication and waste of funding handed to the WHO.
Given the trajectory, it appears that both the IHR amendments and the new pandemic accord, if successful, will converge on the world in 2024, unless countries decide to curtail the WHO’s power and take charge of their health.
This 2024 date was highlighted in the working group on IHR amendments: “Delegates welcomed the final report of the Working Group on strengthening WHO preparedness and response to health emergencies which, among other things, proposed a process for taking forward potential amendments to the IHR (2005). They agreed to continue the group, with a revised mandate and name (the “Working Group on IHR amendments” (WGIHR)) to work exclusively on consideration of proposed IHR amendments. Member States also requested the Director-General to convene an IHR Review Committee to make technical recommendations on the proposed amendments that may be submitted. The Working Group will propose a package of targeted amendments for consideration by the Seventy-seventh Health Assembly.”
“Several developing countries have said that the WHO has too many platforms for negotiation, and it is simply not manageable,” said Nithin Ramakrishnan, consultant for the Third World Network.
Republican senator Ron Johnson … introduced legislation Thursday that would push back against the World Health Organization’s (WHO) overreach and ensure the Senate has power over its pandemic treaty.
The Daily Caller first obtained the legislation, titled the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act, which was spearheaded by Johnson and has 15 cosponsors. The bill mentions the WHO creating an intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) and, if passed, would require any agreement produced by the INB to be submitted to the Senate as a treaty in an effort to provide more transparency on the administration.
The lawmakers believe they need to start fighting to prevent the WHO from creating an INB.
“The World Health Organization, along with our federal health agencies, failed miserably in its response to COVID-19. Its failure should not be rewarded with a new international treaty that would increase its power at the expense of American sovereignty. What the WHO does need is greater accountability and transparency,” Johnson told the Daily Caller prior to officially introducing the legislation.
“This bill makes clear to the Biden administration that any new WHO pandemic agreement must be deemed a treaty and submitted to the Senate for ratification. The sovereignty of the United States is not negotiable,” Johnson continued.
Also in the US, Senator Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., is introducing legislation aimed at curtailing the power of the World Health Organization (WHO). This is welcome but ironic, as the amendments were proposed by the US Department of Health and Human Services. The bill, introduced Thursday, would prevent U.S. officials from being bound to orders or Republican directives given by the WHO or it’s branches. “In addition, it would require U.S. officials to oppose changes to the WHO charter until the House and the Senate agree to adopt the change in a joint resolution of Congress.”
Fact checkers spinning denial of sovereignty threat
Meanwhile, there is a clear spin attempt from establishment media against opposition to the IHR amendments and the WHO in general. A FactCheck article states “The World Health Organization can make recommendations after the declaration of a global emergency, but it has no control over any nation’s decisions. Yet conservatives in the U.S. falsely claim that amendments proposed by the Biden administration to existing global health regulations, and a new WHO pandemic treaty, will threaten U.S. sovereignty.”
It is not clear whether the writer fully understands the implications of the proposed IHR amendments, a new #PandemicAccord, sanctions for non-compliance, or the clear erosion of personal autonomy, national sovereignty, and democratic values.
The WHO and the IHR were spotlighted at the World Council for Health’s successful Better Way Conference, and a video presentation by WHO expert Dr Astrid Stuckelberger will soon be released. Dr Stuckelberger reminded the audience that the WHO is a small part of a much bigger UN/WEF machine.
Two years after the disastrous mismanagement of Coronavirus, it’s time the world thinks about and acts on a better way for health than giving power away to the WHO, which ignores its own standards on necessity, reasonableness, and proportionality.
Last year, the CDC published a paper comparing Pediatric COVID-19 Cases in Counties With and Without School Mask Requirements. The authors looked at data from 520 United States counties, concluding that “Counties without school mask requirements experienced larger increases in … case rates … compared with counties that had school mask requirements.” Corona astrologers and face diaper fetishists everywhere have used the findings to argue for forcing healthy children who are at no risk to wear fasks masks for multiple hours each school day.
More county-level data on American infection rates and mask mandates has since become available, and two Toronto scientists have taken the opportunity to replicate the study, looking now at 1,832 counties. In a turn of events that will surprise nobody, they find that the larger dataset shows that mask mandates actually do zero, and that prior findings were almost surely an illusion.
Here are masked vs. unmasked case rates, using a smaller data pool similar to that from the CDC study:
Week 0 is the week of school reopening after the summer holidays.
Yes, the maskless counties seem to do worse! Yet the Toronto authors point out that the original CDC study only considered infection rates through the second week after schools reopened, which turned out to be “exactly the peak of school case numbers for [their] sample of counties.” This obscured the fact “that cases quickly declined in later weeks and did so faster in counties without mask mandates.” Even the smaller sample used by the CDC study, in other words, showed no difference in masked vs. unmasked counties by the six-week mark.
The replication, with a much bigger dataset, meanwhile, showed that maskless counties never led infections at all:
Note that, in the larger sample, the maskless start out with lower rates of infections and catch up; in the smaller sample, they started out with higher rates which collapsed more quickly.
The authors note that the CDC study, by ending their analysis on 4 September 2021, effectively excluded counties with a school-start date after 14 August, which entailed an oversampling of southern states. I’ll fill in the blanks here: Counties in the American south tend to have fewer school mask requirements, and also to experience late summer infection spikes related to high temperatures and extensive reliance on climatisation.
Although masks have become the most clearly discredited measure deployed against SARS-2 (which is saying something), they just won’t go away. Even in places that have lifted all Corona restrictions, a great many people continue to mask in public, and it seems likely that many countries – Germany among them – will retain vestigial mask requirements indefinitely, probably for years. Masking is a totally unsupported superstitious practice that does nothing against viral infection, and yet for precisely this reason, no amount of evidence will ever convince the maskers to stop.
This week the Washington Postcopied and pasted from a Pfizer press release to announce yet another scientific miracle(TM) that will completely fail in practice. In the process WaPo also got some quotes from the FDA who have now nailed down the schedule for the 4 meetings in June in which they intend to assemble the final pieces for Pharma’s permanent dominance over the American people.
The new schedule is as follows:
June 7, Novavax
June 14, Moderna in kids 6 to 17 years old
June 15, Moderna in kids 6 months to 5 years AND Pfizer in kids 6 months to 4 years
June 28, “Future Framework” (the plan to skip clinical trials in perpetuity)
There is a lot to parse in the WaPo’s brief article.
Contrary to the breathless headline, they still don’t have any data.
Pfizer and BioNTech said the 80 percent efficacy finding was preliminary and based on 10 cases of Covid-19 in the study population as of the end of April. Once 21 cases have occurred, the companies will conduct a more formal analysis of efficacy… Pfizer and BioNTech said they plan to finish filing data with the FDA this week — and warned that the efficacy number was fluid because results are still arriving.
Let’s recap how we got here:
🚩 The Pfizer clinical trial in kids under 5 failed in December 2021.
🚩 So Pfizer added a third dose and that trial also apparently failed in February (which is why Pfizer was forced to withdraw its application on February 10).
🚩 Now Pfizer is describing a jerry-rigged trial of a third dose in 1,678 kids ages 6 months to four years old. Pfizer did not disclose how the kids were divided between the treatment and control group so it is impossible to run our own calculations on efficacy. Out of that sample, 10 developed Covid — although it is not clear how the 10 were distributed between the treatment and control group. (I suppose some quant on Twitter will figure out how to work backwards from Pfizer’s claims to calculate the numbers in each of these categories but needless to say, this is not the proper way to do science.) Of course Pfizer also failed to describe the contents of the “placebo.”
How exactly will Pfizer double the number of Covid-19 cases in the clinical trial in the next month given that 74.2% of kids already had natural immunity in February which means that nearly 100% of children likely have natural immunity by now?
Also, is the FDA seriously considering basing national policy, that impacts 18 million children, by relying a study with only 10 cases? It appears that the FDA is not even pretending to care about science anymore.
What little data they have will be based on antibodies in the blood, not health outcomes in the real world. That’s strange because the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee unanimously acknowledged on April 6 that there are “no correlates of protection” in connection with Covid-19 shots (this means that there are no valid proxy measures, such as antibody counts, that can determine whether someone who has received this shot is immune to the virus or not.)
WaPo continues:
While the adult trials recruited tens of thousands of volunteers and waited to see if vaccinated people were better protected, the children’s vaccine trials were primarily designed to measure immune responses using blood tests.
No they were not “primarily designed to measure immune responses using blood tests.” The studies were intentionally undersized to hide harms from the shots in addition to other tricks that they use to skew the results (such as kicking you out of the trial if you call 911 or go the the emergency room). But when one shrinks the sample size, surprise! it becomes impossible to detect actual health benefits from the shots (the signal would have been tiny if at all, but when one uses a sample that small then any positive signal can also disappear into statistical insignificance.)
II. The bigger picture
Tony Fauci and the NIAID funded the creation of a chimera virus that escaped a bioweapons lab and killed 6.3 million people worldwide.
Public health authorities have blocked access to safe and effective prophylaxis and early treatment throughout the pandemic in order to create the market for Covid-19 vaccines.
Covid-19 shots skipped essential safety steps (e.g. challenge trials in animals) and were rushed to market with no long term data.
In practice the mRNA shots suppress immune function for 6 weeks after the first shot, provide about two months worth of protection against coronavirus, then efficacy wanes quickly and becomes negative after six months. Meanwhile, these shots cause more side effects than any vaccine ever invented.
Popular support for the current regime has collapsed. More people have died of Covid under Mr. I Believe the Science(TM) than under Orange Man Bad. Only hypochondriacs in blue states seek out additional doses. Meanwhile Sudden Adult Death Syndrome stalks the true believers. In the past 48 hours alone actor Ray Liotta, Andy Fletcher of Depeche Mode, British drummer Alan White (from the band YES), and comedian Phil Butler were all likely killed by Covid-19 shots. It’s impossible to hide all of the bodies at this point.
The FDA seems to know that their window is closing to implement the Final Solution. So they are rushing to put the finishing touches on their plans to inject this toxic junk into the littlest kids in America. The FDA knows that these shots cannot pass proper regulatory review so they’ve developed a plan to rig the process in favor of Pharma in perpetuity. On June 28, the FDA’s “expert advisory committee” will vote on a “Future Framework” whereby all future (reformulated) Covid-19 shots will automatically be deemed “safe and effective(TM)” without any additional clinical trials, on the theory that they are “biologically similar” to existing Covid-19 shots.
What this means is that by fall, the Covid-19 shots that they will be injecting into Americans of all ages will have a new formula that skipped clinical trials altogether.
Injecting people with genetically modified mRNA that skipped clinical trials is genocide. It’s slower than the Nazi Final Solution. But it’s genocide all the same. Indeed the slower pace of the FDA Final Solution (5% to 15% increase in all cause mortality every year) might be even more lethal in the long run. It’s sinister in that they are intentionally building in plausible deniability (‘the FDA said it was safe’) to help the medical establishment feel virtuous while participating in genocide.
I’ll just conclude by saying: be careful what you wish for FDA. The tide has already turned. The American people know exactly what you are doing. We have the receipts. It will be relatively easy to secure a conviction at Nuremberg 2.0 — we literally have you on video committing crimes against humanity. As a reminder, the courts have determined that “I was just following orders” is not a valid defense.
Anyone who imagines that the suspension of Covid-related measures in much of Europe means that those measures, and hence the C-19 vaccination campaign, are things of the past should have a look at the recent pronouncements on the subject of the European Commission, starting with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s April 27 statement on the “next pandemic phase.”
While acknowledging that the “emergency” phase of the pandemic is over – but apparently not, on her account, the pandemic as such – von der Leyen warns that “we must remain vigilant. Infection numbers are still high in the EU and many people are still dying from COVID-19 worldwide. Moreover, new variants can emerge and spread fast.” “But we know the way forward,” she concluded, “We need to further step-up vaccination and boosting, and targeted testing”. The emphasis is mine.
Note that von der Leyen does not merely say that vaccination and boosting should continue – say perhaps for particularly vulnerable groups – she says rather that they have to be “further stepped-up”! This in an EU in which, according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, nearly 85% of the adult population has already been fully vaccinated!
In the Commission press release, von der Leyen’s call for “stepped-up” vaccination and boosting is the first of a series of measures that member states are called on to take “before autumn.”
A factsheet on “COVID-19 – Sustaining EU Preparedness and Response: Looking ahead,” which was published by the European Commission on the same day, April 27, reiterates von der Leyen’s point. The first section is entitled “Increasing uptake of COVID-19 vaccination” and the first bullet point reads:
• Member States should increase vaccination uptake and the administration of boosters and fourth doses for those who are eligible. They should also increase vaccination among children.
Here, the emphasis is in the original. The second bullet point continues:
• Member States should prepare COVID-19 vaccination strategies for the coming months taking into account the simultaneous circulation of seasonal influenza and incorporate COVID-19 vaccination into national vaccination programmes.
On May 12, The European Parliament’s recently created special committee on the Covid-19 pandemic (COVI) hosted a question-and-answer session with EU Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides. (Full video here.) In a tweet, the French Member of the European Parliament Virginie Joron summed up the gist of Kyriakides’s remarks as follows (author’s translation):
PRIORITY: 100 million unvaccinated in EU who will have to be convinced and targeted without discriminating against them. > combatting misinformation > next pandemic with new variants this winter
Like Kyriakides, incidentally, the Commission press release also identifies “intensify[ing] collaboration against mis- and disinformation on COVID-19 vaccines” as one of the priority actions for the fall.
Finally, in a more recent May 17 tweet, Virginie Joron shared the below photo of a Commission document that was distributed to the EU Parliament’s Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee and that includes, in effect, a “vaccination strategy” for the fall. This document likewise “targets” the unvaccinated, its first bullet calling on EU member states to: “Strengthen efforts to increase the uptake or completion of the primary course among the unvaccinated or partially vaccinated including by continuously monitoring and analysing vaccine hesitancy to overcome it.”
The emphasis on “targeting” the unvaccinated is particularly puzzling given how rapidly vaccine-induced protection against Covid-19 is now known to wane. In immunological terms, once it has, there is, of course, no meaningful distinction to be made anymore between vaccinated and unvaccinated. Some studies and data even suggest that the vaccinated are at this point more prone to infection. Only the very recently vaccinated may perhaps enjoy some added protection.
Numerous observational studies have demonstrated how rapidly the efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines wanes: in particular, that of the BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine, which is by far the most widely-used vaccine in the EU. But there is no need to cite these studies here, since the very next bullet point in the Commission document tacitly acknowledges the rapid waning of vaccine efficacy, calling on member states to: “Increase efforts on the uptake of booster doses by all eligible adults, starting from three months after the primary course.” The emphasis here is again mine.
The third and last vaccine-related bullet-point specifically concerns child vaccination. It is truncated in the document photographed by Joron, but the full version is to be found in the Commission’s most complete statement of its Covid-19 strategy for the fall: a communication to the Parliament and other EU institutions that likewise dates from April 27. The full version of the recommendation reads as follows: “Before the beginning of the 2022-2023 school year, consider strategies to increase vaccination coverage rates among younger children, e.g. by working with paediatricians and other health professionals who are trusted sources of information for many parents.”
It was considerate of Kyriakides to insist that the unvaccinated should not be discriminated against, even if they need to be “targeted.” But it should be noted that the April 27 communication, as reflected in Joron’s photo, also stresses the need to “[e]nsure the adoption of the Commission proposal to extend the application of the EU Digital COVID Certificate Regulation.” The main effect and purpose of the EU Digital Covid Certificate, which has also served as framework and infrastructure for domestic “health” or “vaccine” certificates in EU member states, is, of course, precisely to reward the vaccinated and discriminate against the unvaccinated.
The European Commission’s April 27th documents thus clearly invoke a new rollout of the Covid-19 vaccination campaign in the fall, specifically targeting the hitherto unvaccinated and also children. Moreover, if the Commission gets its way – as it can be expected to – and the EU Digital Covid Certificate is indeed extended, they also raise the specter of this new rollout being combined with exactly the same coercive, discriminatory measures that turned Europe’s unvaccinated into social pariahs for much of the last year.
Robert Kogon is a pen name for a widely-published financial journalist, a translator, and researcher working in Europe. He writes at edv1694.substack.com.
Global Health’ is confusing. A few short years ago community participation, disease burden, resource allocation and human rights dominated its decision-making processes. Causes such as improving childhood nutrition, empowering minorities and protecting girls from enslavement and mutilation were acceptable battles to fight.
Here we are in 2022: Coercion, exclusion, impoverishment and big business are in, whilst highlighting those other areas is ‘free-dumb’ or some subversive form of denialism. Same people, same organizations, same funders, just a change of the tide.
As with any historic shift towards fascism and colonialism, it takes a considerable group effort to ignore reality to keep this tide moving but humans, especially in hierarchical structures, have always been up to the task. We still are.
The World Health Organization (WHO) and its staff are currently engaged in two overriding priorities that are excellent examples of humanity’s proficiency at living such lies:
They are pushing the COVAX program to mass-vaccinate most of humanity, at an unprecedentedly highcost for any global health program, against a virus to which nearly all potential recipients are already immune.
They are working towards an expansion of their powers to manage infectious disease outbreaks, with the expressed intent of instituting the same measures used for the first time in the response to COVID-19, but more quickly and more often.
These are strange priorities for public health professionals, because these same staff of the WHO all know the following to be true:
About COVAX:
Their COVAX slogan, “No one is safe until everyone is safe”, is completely illogical for a vaccination program unless it is purely transmission-blocking, as it implies that those already vaccinated are not protected.
The current vaccines against COVID-19 do not halt or greatly slow transmission, and require boosters to maintain efficacy against severe disease.
Covid-19 is associated very strongly with old age, with mortality risk being several thousand-fold greater than in the young. Yet, more than half the people in sub-Saharan Africa – a major target of COVAX, are 19 years old or younger.
Most people in sub-Saharan Africa and India (so probably everywhere) now have post-infection immunity, which is equal to or more effective than vaccine-induced immunity, and not significantly enhanced by subsequent vaccination.
Vaccinating people in low- and middle-income countries with two doses, for a rapidly-waning benefit, would cost several times more than any other infectious disease program (up to 10 times the total spend on malaria).
The human resources devoted to the largest vaccination programme ever undertaken would further reduce healthcare access for other diseases whose burdens are currently increasing.
About lockdowns:
Health is, by the WHO’s own definition, a state of ‘physical, mental and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease and infirmity,’ meaning that harming mental and social health is a negative for overall health.
The WHO noted that border closures, prolonged school closures, and quarantining of health people would be likely to do more harm than good in their 2019 pandemic influenza guidelines.
It is standard public health knowledge that poorer people tend to die younger, and poorer countries have higher infant mortality and reduced overall life expectancy.
Is driving millions of girls into child-marriage (which many in the humanitarian community would previously have characterized as institutionalized rape).
Reduced case-finding and treatment access for tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, leaving more infected people in the community untreated, to transmit to others and die.
Greatly increased inequality between a rich controlling few and a rapidly expanding disempowered poor, reversing years of poverty reduction.
The whole humanitarian and global health world knows these facts. Even bankers can figure this out; the International Finance Facility considers that twice as many children died from lockdowns as died from Covid-19, while the Bank of International Settlements, key to international finance, recognizes that gross domestic product is a major determinant of long-term health.
Yet the WHO, as a public health body, acts as if unaware, even ignoring their standard age-dependent metrics for disease burden as they seek to justify policies that will increase child deaths to target a disease predominantly of the unwell elderly.
The WHO and other health organizations predicted lockdown harms, and have documented them since early 2020, whilst working to ensure they will happen more often. In 2018, they reiterated support for a horizontal approach emphasizing community control and empowerment in the ‘Astana Declaration,’ whilst in 2022 they advocate for a vertical approach based around population control and mass coercive use of pharmaceuticals. Human rights seem no longer a thing to be seen supporting, but the contradictions involved here are nothing short of remarkable.
We often see organizations as ‘beings’ in themselves, but of course they are the sum of the individuals that staff them; humans who are making choices every day, every hour, about what they are doing and what they should do next.
In this case, it appears the WHO’s staff are comfortable with ensuring the people they were charged to support are increasingly impoverished and their rights and health autonomy removed. They are not just resigned to the abandonment of basic public health principles and ethics, but actively working to undermine them.
Perhaps we would all do that to protect income, pensions, healthcare benefits and an attractive and genuinely interesting lifestyle of Swiss lakes, business-class travel and good hotels. We cannot criticize people who perpetuate such harm without recognizing much of ourselves in them.
Pressure to conform is strong and maintaining integrity carries risks. We all have families, jobs and lifestyles to protect. The belief of many that the ‘humanitarian’ sector was somehow different should by now be shattered. That is a good thing, as illusions do not help us and we need to recognize the historical reality that preserving personal comfort has often entailed throwing others under the bus.
When the tide turns, the easiest approach is to turn with it. As a staff member of an international agency said to me recently – ‘the money is going into pandemic preparedness, you have to accept and go with it.’
As an insight into humanity, this response is a disappointing one. We are always poorly served by cowardice. But recognizing how things are, and that help is not coming from those paid to do so, will strengthen the resolve of the rest of humanity to move forward without them, taking the future into their own hands. As, according to orthodox public health, they should.
David Bell, senior scholar of Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician based in the United States. After working in internal medicine and public health in Australia and the UK, he worked in the World Health Organization (WHO), as Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, and as Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, USA. He consults in biotech and global health. MBBS, MTH, PhD, FAFPHM, FRCP
Palestinian journalists are being systematically targeted by Israel because of the “gift of impunity” granted to the Apartheid State, a press conference in London was told today in the wake of the killing of Al Jazeera journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh.
Convened by the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP), lawyers working on an existing case filed at the International Criminal Court (ICC) over the targeting of Palestinian journalists by Israel announced that they will add the killing of Abu Akleh to the complaint issued in April.
Lawyers from Doughty Street Chambers and Bindmans LLP, along with representatives from the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate, and the ICJP, spoke about Israel’s systematic targeting of Palestinian journalists and the ongoing legal battle to bring prosecution against the Occupation State.
The same group of lawyers and unions submitted a formal complaint to the ICC accusing Israel of systematically targeting journalists working in Palestine and failing to properly investigate killings of media workers, which amount to war crimes. The ICC recognised, in a February 2021 ruling, that it has jurisdiction over the situation in occupied Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem. This has paved the way for legal prosecution to be brought against Israel over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The complaint details the systematic targeting of Palestinian journalists on behalf of four named victims – Ahmed Abu Hussein, Yaser Murtaja, Muath Amarneh and Nedal Eshtayeh – who were killed or maimed by Israeli snipers while covering demonstrations in Gaza. All were wearing clearly marked PRESS vests at the time they were shot.
The complaint also highlights the targeting of media and bombing of the Al-Shorouk and Al-Jawhara Towers in Gaza City in May 2021, including the cases of Alam News, Al Hayat Newspapers, Mayadeen Media, Al Bawaba 24 and others. Complaints have also formally been submitted to the UN Special Rapporteurs (UNSR) setting out how the systematic targeting of journalists working in Palestine, as well as the failure to properly investigate killings of media workers.
“We are awaiting confirmation from the ICC’s Prosecutor’s Office about the action they intend to take, but the killing of Shireen and the shooting of Ali Al-Samoudi bring to sharp focus the need for urgent action by the ICC”, Bindmans LLP, the firm hosting the event, said before the press conference. “We will seek to add these cases to the complaint that is already before the ICC.”
Director of the ICJP, Tayeb Ali, and the solicitor in the case said. “The targeting of journalists in conflict zones anywhere in the world is unacceptable and must bring severe consequences for those who try to hide their crimes and violations by killing or maiming journalists.” Ali described how “Israel has enjoyed a devastating impunity” and that the “gift of impunity” granted to the Apartheid State by international community has endangered the lives of Palestinian journalists. He stressed that “evidence is not the problem … holding Israel to account is.” Ali citied the large pool of documented evidence which he claims proves Israel is targeting journalists.
Updating the press conference over the April complaint issued to the ICC and the next step to prosecuting Israel, Jennifer Robinson, a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, also spoke of Israel’s systematic targeting of Palestinian journalists.
Robinson mentioned the findings of the 2019 Commission of Inquiry on the 2018 protests in Gaza. The Commission paid special attention to the protection of civilians and to groups warranting protection under international law, including children, women, health workers, journalists and persons with disabilities. Citing several individual cases including journalists that were shot in the abdomen, the Commission concluded that it had “found reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli snipers shot journalists intentionally, despite seeing that they were clearly marked as such”. The killing of Abu Akleh, said Robinson, is not one off. There exists a “pattern of targeting Palestinian journalists” she stressed, urging the ICC “to take action.”
Jim Boumelha, the former president of IFJ, a federation of some six thousand journalists world-wide, including Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate, warned against the culture of impunity enjoyed by Israel. “Risk-free killing has become a norm” he said speaking about Israel’s systematic targeting of Palestinian journalists. The killing of Abu Akleh is a message to countless others that they could be next, Boumelha claimed. IFJ alone has documented 877 violations by Israel against media and journalists. Appealing to the ICC to do its job, Boumelha said that “Israel may be the only country in the world that refuses to accept Palestinian journalists as journalists.”
A video message by Nasser Abu Bakr, President of the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate, urged new ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan to hold Israel to account. 50 journalists have been killed since 2000 alone said Abu Bakr. 7,000 crimes against Palestinian journalists have been documented.
A detailed account of Abu Akleh’s killing was given by her colleague, Walid Al-Omari. “Why would they target Shireen?” asked Al Jazeera’s Jerusalem Bureau Chief. He suggested that Israel was seeking to inflict a direct and powerful blow to Al Jazeera. By killing Abu Akleh, the Occupation State hoped to silence one of the most powerful voices in Arab media, Al Omari claimed.
Al Jazeera has called Abu Akleh’s killing a “blatant murder” that violates “international laws and norms”. In its statement on Thursday, the network said, according to Article 8 of the ICC Charter, “targeting war correspondents, or journalists working in war zones or occupied territories by killing or physically assaulting them, is a war crime”.
… At every corner, we are urged to simply believe what we are told. Whether it is about believing Porton Down and MI6 about “novichok”, or believing the White Helmets about Sarin, or believing the FBI about “collusion”, we are presented with no facts, just assertions from authority. Those who question those assertions are deemed “bots” at best or “traitors” at worst.
Well here, fellow traitors, are the Top Ten reasons to question anything and everything the CIA – or any intelligence agency – has ever told you. … Read full article
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.
Aletho News 