Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The PA keeps losing its authority, through its own actions

By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | September 24, 2021

Recent statistics corroborate the growing resentment in the occupied Palestinian territories against the Palestinian Authority and its leader Mahmoud Abbas. The Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) carried out a poll at a time when the PA persisted in proving how unsynchronised it is with the Palestinian people’s needs, and to what lengths it would go to ensure its political survival over Palestinian liberation.

Against the backdrop of the latest Israeli aggression on Gaza, the extrajudicial killing of Palestinian activist Nizar Banat by the PA’s security services, as well as the PA’s repression of protests calling for justice for Banat, the PA fared badly, to the point that an unprecedented 80 per cent of Palestinians are now demanding Abbas’ resignation. Indeed, the PA would do well to heed the survey’s findings, because its reliance on Israel and security coordination to keep Palestinians under control might not be so effective, when considering Palestinian unification from the people’s perspective.

While Abbas is clearly failing to inspire Palestinians, as seen in the increasing calls for his resignation, 87 per cent of Palestinians stated that the escape of the six Palestinian prisoners from Gilboa served “as an inspiration to Palestinians outside the prison to take the initiative and actively work toward the ending of occupation.” Abbas has also fared badly in terms of the Israeli bombardment of Gaza when compared to Hamas – 45 per cent of Palestinians believe that Hamas would better represent the Palestinians people, while only 19 per cent advocated for Fatah under the leadership of Abbas.

For decades, security coordination has provided safety for Abbas with regard to his political leadership and the purported state-building funded by the international community. Diplomatically, security coordination was considered an integral component of state-building, so much so that it overrode the Palestinian people’s legitimate concerns and fears of repression.

If the PA wished for its violent tactics to cement silence among Palestinians, Banat’s murder heralded the opposite. The survey shows that 63 per cent of the Palestinian public believe that the PA or security leaders ordered his extrajudicial killing deliberately. Likewise, 63 per cent supported the demonstrations demanding Abbas’ resignation, while 69 per cent are not satisfied with the steps taken by the PA in terms of seeking justice for Banat’s murder. And if the PA expected that violence would suppress dissent, 74 per cent of Palestinians “believe the steps taken by the PA security services in arresting the demonstrators who demanded justice for Banat is a violation of liberties and human rights.”

A dire picture has been painted for the PA. Not only have the Palestinian people expressed their beliefs in the survey – their demands are being publicly articulated. There is no turning back for the Palestinian people – Abbas and the PA proved themselves unworthy of leadership not only by clinging to illegitimate rule, but also through the “sacred” security coordination. The only option remaining is to turn to the people, and Abbas will soon realise that even turning to the people will not suffice, because Palestinians are no longer waiting for the leadership to spell out their political demands.

September 24, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , | Leave a comment

WHO Published Guidelines for Governments to Implement Vaccine Passports

21st Century Wire | September 23, 2021

This flew under the radar at the time, but it’s important to shine a light on it now.

Back on August 27, 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) quietly published a detailed directive which instructs governments around the world how to standardise and implement the digital segregation system which they are calling a ‘digital COVID-19 certificate’ aka vaccine passport, immunity passport, health pass, green pass, or digital wallet (as the EU has since renamed it).

By positioning itself in this way, the WHO has elevated itself to de facto global government status, with little or no interest in the democratic processes of individual sovereign nations and their people. Instead, they are simply pushing forward with their own globalist agenda – clearly run on behalf of the transnational pharmaceutical cartel – in concert with a cadre of billionaire elites (led by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation which funds the WHO to the tune of $265 million per annum) and another key unelected non-state actor, the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland.

It clearly states its primary function in guiding governments:

“The primary target audience of this document is national authorities tasked with creating or overseeing the development of a digital vaccination certificate solution for COVID-19. The document may also be useful to government partners such as local businesses, international organizations, non- governmental organizations and trade associations, that may be required to support Member States in developing or deploying a DDCC:VS solution.”

The following is taken directly from the WHO’s own website:

Digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates: vaccination status: technical specifications and implementation guidance, 27 August 2021

Overview

This is a guidance document for countries and implementing partners on the technical requirements for developing digital information systems for issuing standards-based interoperable WHO-2019-nCoV-Digital-certificates-vaccination-2021.1-eng digital certificates for COVID-19 vaccination status, and considerations for implementation of such systems, for the purposes of continuity of care, and proof of vaccination.

Download the full PDF document here

September 24, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , | Leave a comment

Here’s the skinny on what happened yesterday and today regarding the booster dose

By Meryl Nass, MD | September 23, 2021

Last Friday, FDA’s advisory committee (VRBPAC) voted 16 to 2 against giving a license to a third Pfizer booster shot for everyone age 16 and up.

Although a second vote at Friday’s meeting had not been planned, another question was hastily developed. That question asked whether the vaccine could be licensed for a third booster dose for high risk people under the age of 65. That vote got a unanimous yes.

The panels decisions are not final. The FDA is obliged to take the panels advice into consideration, but it is not required to adopt it. So yesterday, the FDA issued a license for the Pfizer vaccine for the booster dose.

But in doing so, FDA added an additional category of people for the booster dose, a category that had not been included in the Advisory Committee’s vote:

  • “individuals 18 through 64 years of age whose frequent institutional or occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 puts them at high risk of serious complications of COVID-19 including severe COVID-19.”

This is what I call weasel wording. This statement does not make sense. People whose occupation puts them at high risk of exposure to COVID are no more likely to be at high risk of serious complications or severe COVID-19 than anyone else. They are at higher risk of developing COVID, but not at higher risk of serious COVID.

What FDA did (and you know who did this:  Peter Marks, head of CBER and Janet Woodcock, acting Commissioner, are the only people with the authority to come up with this BS) was to take the VRBPAC approval for people with underlying conditions that put them at high risk for severe COVID, and twist it into an approval for all health care workers, staff at schools and colleges, grocery store workers, big box employees, etc.

Why? Because a license is necessary to impose a mandate, that’s why.

It looked like the weasels had won again. However, there was a small hoop left to jump through before any mandates came down.

While FDA determines how a drug or vaccine should be licensed or authorized for use, the CDC’s ACIP committee is the group responsible for creating the recommendations for use of the vaccine in different demographic groups.

And so ACIP did what it never does. It rejected the CDC’s proposal to widen the license for the third dose to all with potential occupational exposures. the ACIP limited their approval to what the FDA advisory committee had voted for last Friday. As CNBC noted,

The panel struggled over a controversial proposal to give boosters to a wide swath of the U.S. population, rejecting the plan by a vote of 9-6.

… Dr. Leana Wen [member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the World Economic Forum], an emergency physician and former Baltimore health commissioner, on Twitter called the CDC panel’s vote to reject boosters more widely a “mistake.”

“Really, we are not allowing healthcare workers, many of whom got vaccinated in back in December, to get a booster? What about teachers in cramped classrooms where masks aren’t required?” she tweeted, adding CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky should overrule the recommendation.

… In a paper published days before an FDA advisory meeting last week, a leading group of scientists said available data showed vaccine protection against severe disease persists, even as the effectiveness against mild disease wanes over time. The authors, including two high-ranking FDA officials and multiple scientists from the World Health Organization, contended in the medical journal The Lancet that widely distributing booster shots to the general public is not appropriate at this time.

I think 2 things happened. The propaganda that the vaccines still prevent serious disease while perhaps not preventing mild disease stood in the way of approving boosters to prevent mild disease. Why give a potentially dangerous booster to prevent a cold? It doesn’t make sense.

Second, everyone on those committees knew that if the vaccine’s third dose did get approved for a huge swath of the general public, it would be mandated for themselves in no time. A third dose would have been required for every member of both FDA’s and CDC’s advisory committees. I don’t think they were ready for that.  And maybe they weren’t ready for the resistance from those who took the 2 shots thinking they were done… and now, it seems they could get into a situation where they could be fired for not having a third dose. What about more and more doses?

Or maybe the large demonstrations in Australia and Europe were influencing those advisory committee members…

September 23, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment

New York’s New Gov Threatens To Replace Unvaccinated Hospital Workers With ‘Foreigners’

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | September 23, 2021

New York’s first female governor Kathy Hochul, who took the reins in the Empire State after her predecessor and former boss, Andrew Cuomo, finally resigned, is showing the state’s recalcitrant healthcare workers just how understanding and progressive she can be.

During a press briefing with reporters in Rochester Wednesday, Hochul told a group of reporters that she hoped all unvaccinated workers would meet Monday’s deadline to get the jab, or lose their jobs.

For those who continue to resist – including nearly 20% of the state’s hospital and nursing-home workers – they will be replaced. Possibly by foreign workers.

Faced with this, it makes sense to wonder how NY State, which has no immigration-related authority, could even credibly make such a threat? But Hochul says there have been conversations with the Department of State (albeit on a “limited basis”) about the possibility of doling out emergency visas to foreign workers.

“To those who won’t, we’ll be replacing people. And I have a plan that’s going to be announced very shortly,” she said.

“We’ve identified a whole range of opportunities we have to help supplement them.”

Hochul said state officials were “working closely with various hospital systems to find out where we can get other individuals to come in and supplement places like nursing homes.”

“We’re also reaching out to the Department of State to find out about visas for foreign workers, on a limited basis, to bring more nurses over here,” she said.

Per the Department of Health’s records, 19% of the state’s hospital workers remained unvaccinated as of Sept. 15, and 18% of nursing home employees remained unvaccinated as of Wednesday.

Starting Monday, employers can fire unvaccinated workers who don’t have a “valid medical exemption” (though employees who claim religious exemption are also immune until Oct. 12 due to a temporary injunction issued by a federal judge in Utica).

The plaintiffs in that case, almost all of them Catholic, oppose vaccines because they “employ aborted fetus cell lines in their testing, development, or production.”

Though the US Conference of Bishops says it’s okay for Catholics to take these vaccines if no alternatives are available, and Pope Francis has of course spoken out in favor of vaccination.

Circling back to the situation in New York, while Hochul is probably reveling in her first opportunity to play “hardball” – a game for which her predecessor was famous – New York health workers can probably rest easy – at least when it comes to the foreign worker threat. The State Department couldn’t process all those SIVs for Afghan collaborators in a timely manner. What makes you think they’ll be able to dole them out to foreign workers, who probably also haven’t been vaccinated. Where does Hochul think these foreign workers are going to come from? Europe?

September 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Pending International Treaty Empowering The WHO

By Dr Urmie Ray B.A., M.A., Mmath, Ph.d. | Principia Scientific | September 23, 2021 

Between 29 November and 1 December 2021, member states are meeting in a special session with the World Health Organisation to discuss, possibly sign, a new treaty on pandemic preparedness and response.

This decision was taken in March 2021 and backed by 26 nations, among which Australia, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay and Member States of the European Union.1

To be noted is the absence of Russia, China, and India among these 26.

The International Health Regulations (2005)[i] signed by 196 countries already provide States the legal right to:

“– review travel history in affected areas;

– review proof of medical examination and any laboratory analysis;

– require medical examinations;

– review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis;

– require vaccination or other prophylaxis;

– place suspect persons under public health observation;

– implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons;

– implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons;

– implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons;

– refuse entry of suspect and affected persons;

– refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and

– implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.”

In other words, all the measures applied round the world since 2020, including mandatory vaccination, are in effect legal under this former treaty.

In particular, it critically changes the definition of “quarantine”  from that in the 1969 IHR. There, it is used only in the expression “in quarantine” defined to be a “state or condition during which measures are applied by a health authority to a … means of transport or container, to prevent the spread of disease, reservoirs of disease or vectors of disease from the object of quarantine”.[i]

The 2005 revised IHR use the term by itself, and define it as “the restriction of activities and/or separation from others of suspect persons who are not ill or of suspect baggage, containers, conveyances or goods in such a manner as to prevent the possible spread of infection or contamination”.

This represents a subtle but critical shift from protection of the community to restriction of individual liberties.

The implementation of quarantine and other coercive measures on all, including surveillance and vaccination, is legalized: the expression “suspect persons” criminalizes every individual, both healthy and unhealthy.

Indeed, it covers anyone “considered by a State Party as having been exposed, or possibly exposed, to a public health risk and that could be a possible source of spread of disease”. Of significance is the use of “possibly” and “possible”, hence not just anyone definitely known to be a risk factor.

So Why The Need For A New Treaty?

The answer was given by WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.  “It’s the one major change, Tedros said, that would do the most to boost global health security and also empower the World Health Organization.[i]

The 2005 revised IHR  still leave some authority to States and require certain conditions for a health event in a particular State to be considered sufficiently serious globally for the State to be forced to communicate it to WHO.   Once communicated, it becomes the prerogative of the director general of WHO to determine whether it “constitutes a public health emergency”, but in collaboration with that particular State.

Although it should be added that in case of disagreement, the director general decides after consultation with the emergency committee of WHO, and passed a certain period no State can reject or emit reservations about the IHR or any later amendments.    Still, to some extent, measures implemented remain the result of a dialogue between  “IHR focal points” in each country and “WHO IHR contact points”.

What is particularly important is that the above listed measures, although rendered legal by the IHR, can under this treaty, only be recommended by the WHO, not imposed, and that it is up to the States to proceed towards their imposition, and to verify they are followed by means already existing in their respective countries.[ii]

The new treaty would address the above “weaknesses” of the IHR as they are considered to be, by ensuring “independent verification, monitoring, and compliance”.  Given the clearly expressed end of empowering the WHO,  should one conclude that “independent” means under the authority of WHO rather than the States themselves?[i]

Further the IHR cover “public health hazards and public health emergencies of international concern”,  whereas the treaty will concern “all hazards”, not just pandemics.  In the latter case, it would take over from the IHR once a pandemic is officially declared by the WHO.[ii]

This said, the treaty would presumably also make clear the idea expressed in the 2007 CDC “Interim Pre-pandemic planning guidance”,[i] namely overruling the need of a pandemic to implement restrictive measures.  All that would be needed would be for an event to be declared a “public health emergency of pandemic potential”.

Given that any future event is always hypothetical, does this enable the maintenance of the measures for an indeterminate period? For it can always be claimed that a pandemic will occur especially were the measures lifted.   This raises many questions, all the more so as the event would no long need to be of “international concern as in the current IHR”. “Measures”, as advised, should also go beyond the current scope of IHR”, in particular to cover the production and supply of vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments”.[ii]

The treaty would unlike the IHR also go beyond sanitary issues and allow the implementation of measures against “social and economic disruptions” as well as “broader disaster risk”.[i]

Would this in effect not only make it legal to put an end to criticisms, and thus to the freedom of expression, and make it possible to control any public antagonism against restrictive measures through “urgent international assistance”,[ii] namely not just by national police or military forces, but international ones?  

In short, would the treaty not provide the international legal framework for derogation from the civil and political rights guaranteed “even in time of emergency threatening the life of the nation” by The Syracuse Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights drafted in 1984,[iii] namely:

“the right to life; freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and from medical or scientific experimentation without free consent; freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude; the right not be be imprisoned for contractual debt; the right not to be convicted or sentenced to a heavier penalty by virtue of retroactive criminal legislation; the right to recognition as a person before the law; and freedom of thought, conscience and religion.  These rights are not derogable under any conditions even for the asserted purpose of preserving the life of the nation”?

For the Syracuse Principles only ensure that “No state party shall” in any circumstance “derogate from the Covenant’s” above guarantees”.  However, according to the new treaty, would the WHO, possibly together with the help of other international bodies, not become an occupying planetary power, with each State a collaborating subservient unit, like France in 1940, and hence without any power to ensure that non-derogable rights are protected?

Last but not least,  “[t]rying to revise the IHR would be a long process and take several years. … In addition, any amendment made to the IHR will enter into force only two years after its adoption. A world in crisis cannot afford to wait this long.[i] Why such a rush to get the treaty ratified?

It should not be forgotten that among the main contributors of WHO are the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and the vaccine alliance (GAVI). It established in 2000 and whose initial funding it essentially provided – a “unique public-private partnership … bring[ing] together key UN agencies, governments, the vaccine industry, private sector and civil society”.[i]

References

[1]     https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA74/A74_ACONF7-en.pdf

[1]     https://www.who.int/health-topics/international-health-regulations#tab=tab_1

[1]     https://www.who.int/csr/ihr/WHA58-en.pdf

[1]     https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/05/31/1001943709/the-time-has-come-for-a-global-pandemic-treaty-whos-tedros-says?utm_source=dailybrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DailyBrief2021Jun1&utm_term=DailyNewsBrief

[1]     https://www.who.int/csr/ihr/WHA58-en.pdf

[1]     https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/05/23/how-would-a-pandemic-treaty-relate-with-the-existing-ihr-2005/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork&utm_term=DailyNewsBrief

[1]     Ibid.

[1]     https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/cbn/2007/cbnreport_02072007.html

[1]     https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/05/23/how-would-a-pandemic-treaty-relate-with-the-existing-ihr-2005/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork&utm_term=DailyNewsBrief

[1]     Ibid.

[1]     Ibid.

[1]     https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/1984/07/Siracusa-principles-ICCPR-legal-submission-1985-eng.pdf

[1]     https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/05/23/how-would-a-pandemic-treaty-relate-with-the-existing-ihr-2005/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork&utm_term=DailyNewsBrief

[1]     https://www.gavi.org/history-gavi

September 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fighting Vaccine Mandates – #SolutionsWatch

Corbett • 09/22/2021 

While the UK is supposedly dropping their vaccine passport idea (for now), things are looking bleak in country after country as people all around the world are facing the threat of vaccine mandates. Today on #SolutionsWatch James explores the array of solutions that are on the table to thwart this threat.

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Minds / Odysee or Download the mp4

SHOW NOTES:
What’s Going on in Japan? – Questions For Corbett #078

Japan’s vaccine passports: Here’s what you need to know

Suga challenger in LDP leadership race vows huge COVID relief package (Kishida calls for vaccine passport)

UK Government drops plans for domestic vaccine passports

Did Ayn Rand defeat vaccine passports?

President Biden Announces Vaccination Mandate for Employers

Australian Premier Dan Andrews: “we are going to lock out the unvaccinated”

Italy makes COVID-19 pass mandatory for all workers | DW News

Surging Delta variant: France and Greece introduce mandatory vaccinations for healthcare workers

Alberta to launch proof-of-vaccination program, declares health emergency

Introducing #SolutionsWatch

Form for Employees Whose Employers Are Requiring Covid-19 Injections

HomeRemedySupply comment on September Open Thread

America’s Frontline Doctor’s Legal Team’s “Vaccines and the Law” page

Vaccine religious exemption template downloads from Gab.com

Doctors for COVID Ethics example forms, templates, letters and other resources

Legal principle of non discrimination

The COVID-19 “Vaccine” and the Nuremberg Code. Crimes Against Humanity, Genocide

No, COVID-19 vaccines do not violate the Nuremberg Code

Bioethics and the New Eugenics
United Airlines warns of unpaid leave for staff given religious vaccine exemptions

Religious exemption to vaccine mandates may be difficult to obtain, as Amish case shows

How To Meet Like-Minded People

Unjected

TheFreedomPages

The No Vax Mandate Job Board

Here’s How To Still Dine At A Restaurant UNVAXXED!! Suss Them Out & Find Out Who’s Cool!!

Together Declaration

1000s take over Time Square in NYC for the protest against the mandatory shot

“This Is Not Political!” — Thousands Gather At “Freedom Rally” In New York City To Oppose Vaccine Passport

Beware of Fake “Resistance” to Mandates

Executive Orders and How to Stop Them

James Corbett – Ernest Hancock with Arizona Dara (Solutions; BlackMarketFridays.com)

The Revolution of the Mind

September 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Video | , | Leave a comment

Barricaded from Covid reality by government and media

By Neville Hodgkinson | TCW Defending Freedom | September 23, 2021

THE analyst Dr Will Jones has observed that the world is in the grip of something akin to religious mania in its response to the arrival of Covid-19. I feel sure he is right. We have suffered greatly from this mania and are in real danger of an even greater crisis ahead.

Dalek-like cries of ‘Vaccinate! Vaccinate!’ are everywhere, and yet many reputable doctors and scientists have warned for months of existing hazards from the jab, including deaths and injuries linked to its unique and experimental mode of action, and future risks that may be even more dire. (See also here and here.)

I have written some 35 articles on Covid over the past year, first for Lockdown Sceptics, now renamed The Daily Sceptic, and then for The Conservative Woman, now renamed TCW Defending Freedom. Both these daily newsletters, with associated websites, run largely by volunteers, are doing a far better job than any of the well-funded mainstream media or indeed academic journals in consistently questioning and challenging Covid orthodoxy, from a strong ethical as well as factual basis. It is a dynamic field, and they have risen to the challenge magnificently.

With some sadness, I have decided I must step back from the controversy for a while. As with ‘HIV’/Aids, another scientific nonsense which I covered as a journalist but which survived for decades because it suited so many powerful interests, Covid-19 has gripped the public imagination and discourse in such a way that facts, reason and ethics are playing little part in the global response to the crisis.

To see a recent example of how crazy things have become, please watch this five-minute video by Julie Ponesse, a professor of ethics at the University of Western Ontario.  She recorded it for first-year students, having been threatened with dismissal after 20 years because ‘I will not submit to having an experimental vaccine injected into my body’.

‘My job is to think critically,’ she says. ‘To ask questions. Questions like, Says who? Who is the authority giving this order? Should I trust them with my body?

‘As a professor, I don’t have to watch the news to find out if the Covid vaccines are safe. I read medical journals, and I consult my colleagues who are professors of science and medicine. I’ve learned from doctors that there are serious questions about how safe these vaccines really are. There are questions about how well they work.  Nobody is promising that I won’t get Covid, or transmit Covid, if I get the vaccine.

‘But ultimately, none of that matters to me. Because I am a professor of ethics, and I am a Canadian. I’m entitled to make choices about what does and does not enter my body, regardless of my reasons.

‘If I’m allowed back into my university, it’s my job to teach my students that this is wrong. It is ethically wrong to impose an experimental medical procedure as a condition of employment. This is my first, and potentially my last, lesson of the year.’

On September 7, Ponesse was dismissed. Now Joe Biden is threatening 80million unvaccinated Americans with mandatory jabs – more than he is threatening the Taliban, as a Fox News commentator put it.

Most of my former medical and science correspondent colleagues, and indeed the social media giants such as Facebook and Google (whose ad department has just de-platformed TCW Defending Freedom), have been drawn into the false belief that we are in a war that can be won only if everyone gets the jab.

That belief has been supported and promoted from the start by a scientific establishment seeking to assuage its guilt over the fact that science itself gave us SARS-CoV-2. The virus was clearly a product of genetic engineering by American and Chinese scientists, but a high-level decision was taken to try to hide this fact from the public.

Top UK scientists, including Sir Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust and Sir Patrick Vallance, former president of research and development at global pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline and now chief scientific adviser to the Government, took part in secret talks the day after Covid-19 was declared a global health emergency to decide how to respond.

Bibles of the scientific world such as Nature and The Lancet vigorously promoted the idea that the virus jumped across to humans from an animal host, and I believed them myself at first, in common with most reporters.

The initial cover-up proved inadequate, however, and though Nature has continued to fudge the issue, last week The Lancet – 18 months on – published a letter from 16 scientists declaring that there is no scientifically validated evidence that directly supports the natural origin claim.They called for an ‘objective, open and transparent debate’.

For all this time, since the pandemic began, it has been left to individual ‘maverick’ researchers – often barred from official channels of communication – to demonstrate that years of laboratory work brought about the modifications which turned a bat virus into a danger for humans.

Yet nearly 18 months ago, an Anglo-Norwegian team of vaccine researchers using electron microscopy described six ‘unique fingerprints . . . indicative of purposive manipulation’ in the virus’s spike protein, enabling it to enter a wide range of human cells. They warned that the protein in itself was hazardous and that specific precautions would be needed when using it in any vaccine candidate.

Their report was suppressed, and even today the scientific community continues to avoid considering its devastating implications, which include an explanation for the blood clotting belatedly acknowledged as an adverse effect from vaccines based on the spike.

Was Covid a plandemic? High-level, international pandemic scenario planning did precede the arrival of SARS-CoV-2, but the evident panic in China when the first cases emerged, and attempted cover-up of British and American involvement, speak more to an accidental escape than a planned crisis.

However, immensely influential foundations, whose own financial interests and investments are served as they fund campaigns for so-called ‘global health security’ and ‘pandemic preparedness’ (see for example hereherehere and here) have contributed to the crisis.  They have helped bring into being the very threats they were supposed to counter. Unless and until these influences are exposed, and the malign consequences acknowledged, we look set to perpetuate the mistakes.

At least in the UK, ministers may be realising that lockdowns intended to ‘save’ our NHS had the opposite result. The service is on its knees, with many staff dispirited, and millions are awaiting care and treatment. Children and old people have especially suffered.

Yet public opinion has been whipped into such a frenzy of fear that there is widespread acquiescence in the face of proposals for more punishing controls, especially surrounding Covid vaccines.

This is despite a lack of clear evidence as to whether Covid vaccination is truly ‘safe and effective’, as we are constantly assured by government scientists, or may actually be doing more harm than good. The issue has become so political that it is difficult to sort out facts from propaganda, but I believe that Public Health England, while promoting vaccine passports and ‘no jab, no job’ policies, has its head in the sand over evidence that we may face a disaster of unimaginable proportions.

It tries to justify lives lost to the jab by plucking huge numbers of ‘lives saved’ and ‘infections avoided’ out of thin air.  Data showing declining vaccine effectiveness and a need for booster shots tell us that these claims are at best, huge overestimates. The latest experience of highly vaccinated Israel (see here and here) is discouraging, to say the least.

Before I learned of the toxicity of the spike protein and the way it is carried through the blood and distributed throughout the body, accumulating especially in the ovaries and potentially damaging fertility, I admired the ingenuity of the RNA vaccines and hoped they would work.

Today, however, despite being aged 77, I would far prefer to take my chances with the virus, which we now know is dealt with successfully by most people’s natural immune mechanisms, than with the jab, which is designed to bypass the body’s first defences.

The human body has astonishing resilience and intelligence, and I am sure most of the millions who have received and recovered from the jab, usually without more than a day or two of discomfort, will be fine.

Yet now the NHS is gearing up to roll out the jab for 12- to 15-year-olds, and teachers’ leaders are all for itObjections by experts who know that healthy children are at essentially zero risk from the virus, while the jab itself can injure or kill, have been acknowledged, but set aside, by the UK’s four chief medical officers. This is despite heartfelt pleas such as from the UK Medical Freedom Alliance.

Vaccinating 12-year-olds with an experimental jab of certain toxicity, even against their parents’ wishes? How could we have reached a state of such stupidity as even to contemplate such measures?

And it won’t necessarily end there. Pfizer and Moderna are both seeking authorisation to extend the jab drive to 5-11-year-olds.

An element that has surprised and distressed me is the almost complete lack of Parliamentary oversight of the handling of the crisis. It is as if our elected representatives have been reduced to a single party, and even that party has been dancing to the tune of unelected advisers and officials.

I wondered about writing to Labour leaders to urge them to challenge the Government much more strongly, but then read a long essay, The Unions and the U-turns, which provides an important piece of the puzzle as to why ministers have stumbled along so disastrously for so long, usually with cries of ‘Too late!’ or ‘Hit harder!’ from the Opposition.

Written by philosopher, author and campaigner Ben Irvine, it describes the driving role that public sector unions have played, largely behind the scenes, in what Irvine calls the ‘coronapanic debacle’ in Britain. Understanding the role of socialists in pushing the Prime Minister into repeated U-turns on Covid policy, he writes, ‘is key to unlocking this whole sorry mess’.

For instance, you may not know that the first lockdown was set in motion the day after the largest teaching union threatened unilateral schools closures. Or that numerous teaching unions refused to return to work during the first lockdown. Or that in the summer of 2020 a transport workers’ union threatened to strike unless the government mandated masks on trains. Or that in the same summer a retail workers’ union threatened to strike unless the government mandated masks in shops. Or that the third lockdown happened the day after there was a colossal teaching mutiny with hundreds of thousands of teachers refusing to return to work in January 2021. Or that the reason why children have been cruelly masked in schools was that mutinous teaching unions demanded it.

In the time I now intend to take out, I want to explore what is missing in the human spirit that makes us vulnerable to such madness.

Greed plays a part. It is obvious that Big Pharma, with its friends in government and the World Health Organisation, has been well placed to capitalise on the crisis.

How much better it would have been if the incredible £400billion cost to the nation of the UK’s handling of the crisis to date had been spent on strengthening immunity to the virus through nutritional and social support structures, rather than poured into furlough schemes, mass testing with dodgy kits, and untested vaccines.

But the discovery that powerful unions helped amplify the disaster makes me realise it is not just scientific embarrassment, and capitalist greed, driving the policy errors, but also the false compassion to which those on the Left seem especially vulnerable. ‘Save Lives – Stop Living’ is one of my favourite slogans from these Orwellian times.

In the early years of Aids, I joined media colleagues in raising the alarm about a virus that we were told put all sexually active people at risk because of a long time lag between infection and illness. We were happy to feel we were contributing to the public health effort.

But thanks to the work of ‘dissident’ scientists in the USA and Australia, I gradually learned that ‘HIV’ was not a genuine pathogen. ‘HIV/Aids’ was a concept, marketed with skill and urgency by American government scientists with support from colleagues in the UK and elsewhere, after a period in which the plight of early Aids victims had been cruelly neglected.

The virus theory democratised the illness and brought compassion in place of condemnation. Gay Lib leaders had fought for years to end discriminatory laws and attitudes and when Aids came along, its early characterisation as a ‘gay plague’ linked to promiscuous anal sex and heavy drug use threatened to derail the movement.

Then big money, combined with political correctness, created a monolithic belief system, never fully dismantled, that caused enormous harm. Under the leadership of the US ‘Aids czar’ Anthony Fauci, now playing a similar role with Covid, HIV/Aids became a business worth hundreds of billions of dollars, supporting countless well-meaning NGOs as well as science journals and researchers.

The use of unvalidated test kits bequeathed poor African countries with a false belief that the continent was in the grip of a terrible epidemic. A lethal, hugely expensive, US government-sponsored drug marketed by Burroughs Wellcome killed and tortured thousands of gay men, as well as ‘HIV’-positive children, and patients with the blood clotting disorder haemophilia. (See PoIson By Prescription – The AZT Story, by John Lauritsen, published by Asklepios, New York, 1990.) A futile search for a vaccine to a non-existent virus continues to this day – 35 years on!

The scientific community fiercely resisted challenge and never owned up to the mistakes at the heart of the HIV paradigm, which I have summarised here.

When the then Sunday Times editor Andrew Neil persisted in publishing Aids heresies, the response was censorship, suppression and ridicule. Other mass media, notably the BBC, GuardianIndependent and Observer, bayed for our blood. The Health Education Council started an Aids journalism award specifically in our dishonour. The science journal Nature contemplated picketing the ST offices.

This was despite challenges from top scientists, including Nobel laureates such as Kary Mullis, inventor of the PCR test widely used in Aids research and now (grossly misused) in purportedly diagnosing Covid, who insisted there was zero scientific evidence of HIV being the cause of the collapse of the immune system seen in the syndrome.

I learned at that time that the bigger the evidence vacuum, the greater the intolerance of dissenting views and the tighter the attempted mind control.

Doctors who sought to treat aids by means other than the official drug, called AZT, were struck off the medical register or otherwise hounded out of the profession. Scientists who advocated different ways of tackling Aids were unable to publish.

The censorship was absolute. At one point, a major paper deconstructing the HIV theory was accepted by a well-respected journal. But the defenders of the HIV/Aids faith got to hear of it, the editor was removed, and his successor withdrew the paper from the publication pipeline. Even patients who dared question the orthodoxy were viciously lied against and abused, sometimes with lethal results.

It took 25 years for the WHO to acknowledge that there was no world pandemic among heterosexuals, although it continued to maintain that sub-Saharan Africa was being devastated by the disease. That too was untrue, as I learned in 1993 during several weeks reporting from supposed Aids hotspots in Africa. I found that scarce resources were being misdirected to an imaginary epidemic created by the unvalidated ‘HIV’ test. The scientific and medical establishments went into a frenzy over these reports but they were never refuted.

Unlike ‘HIV’/Aids, Covid-19 is all too real. For reasons that are not well understood, the disease comes in definite though generally short-lived waves, and it can be lethal in people who are already near death’s door through other illnesses or because of old age.

I am sure that those who knew of its genetically engineered status when it first escaped from the Wuhan lab feared the worst, and that was why a global alert was sounded.

However it has been known since late last year that overall the proportion of virus-infected patients who die is less than 0.2 per cent, not much more than in a bad year for flu, and far lower than was initially thought.

By that time, though, full-scale fearmongering propaganda was under way. An uncalibrated diagnostic test had been rushed out, giving the false impression that ‘cases’ were rampant when in fact many of those who tested positive were in good health.

Deaths among the elderly were reclassified as Covid even when from cancer or heart disease or inappropriate drug use (see this funeral director’s report for a moving account of this scandal).

Just as with ‘HIV’/Aids, cheap treatment approaches such as vitamin D and ivermectin that were being used by some doctors to keep patients out of hospital were officially rubbished and even banned.

Mask mandates, lockdowns and enforced separations were used indiscriminately, and largely without scientific justification, to bring about a completely disproportionate fear.

Now, in what seems to me to be a continuing effort to divert attention from the laboratory-induced, chimeric status of the Covid virus, scientists are telling us there are many more like SARS-CoV-2, jumping from animals into humans all the time and potentially causing new pandemics.

They also talk up the threat posed by genetic changes in the virus, when in fact the variations are generally insignificant and natural, as explained here by Oxford University’s Professor Sunetra Gupta.

They ignore evidence that ‘natural immunity not only confers robust, durable and high-level protection against Covid, but also provides better protection than vaccine-induced immunity’.

And meanwhile, the so-called variants provide a convenient excuse for the failure of the existing vaccines and an argument for booster shots which could become the basis of a never-ending bonanza for the pharmaceutical companies.

Is there any hope that we may come to our senses sooner with Covid than with Aids?

Government agencies worldwide, including the UK’s (Bill Gates and Big Pharma funded) Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), have been supine in the face of a huge range of adverse effects potentially related to the Covid jab. More than 1,500 deaths and thousands of injuries have been reported under the UK’s ‘yellow card’ scheme, and many thousands more in the US, but the regulators have shown extreme reluctance to acknowledge the harm being caused.

One big difference from the ‘HIV’/Aids era is that the internet has enabled critics of Covid orthodoxy to post challenging data and opinion, despite online censorship.

When celebrity rapper Nicki Minaj, with 22.6million followers, tweeted that her cousin’s friend became impotent through swollen testicles after receiving the Covid vaccine, she was almost universally mocked. But as analyst Steve Kirsch reported in TrialSite News, Minaj was right and all the world’s experts wrong: there are more than 60 cases of testicular swelling on the US database of adverse reactions to the Covid jab.

Information that could end the ‘vaccine dystopia’ is out there. It is present in a multitude of sources, including the UK’s own TCW Defending Freedom and The Daily Sceptic, but is still largely withheld from the wider public by governments, their advisers, and the mainstream media.

I do not share the view that there is a depopulation agenda at work, or that super-prisons are being built to house the unvaccinated, or that microchips are to be implanted in us by crazed technocrats. But I can understand how such theories gain credence while top scientists who funded the work that created the virus remain in denial about what they have done, and world leaders who were informed of SARS-CoV-2’s laboratory origin remain in the panic mode that brought such a disastrous response.

Our leaders, both scientific and political, have barricaded themselves behind a wall that is preventing them from seeing and hearing the reality. This time, unlike in the tragic ‘HIV’/Aids story, perhaps the fourth estate will soon recognise that it can step back from its own well-intentioned panic stations, and bring that wall down.

September 22, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Energy poverty is not an option for India’s 360 million poor

By Vijay Jayaraj | American Thinker | September 22, 2021

The global call to impose climate shutdowns akin to the COVID-19 lockdowns fails to recognize that there are millions of poor people for whom there is no room to compromise on energy liberty.

Political organizations like the World Economic Forum see the pandemic-driven economic pause as an opportunity to impose energy restrictions to address climate change. Many organizations now want to “save the planet” by implementing policies that will help them reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or at least make them appear sensitive to the issue. However, the poor in the developing world cannot forgo access to fossil-driven economic development just because of the climate delusions of politicians in luxurious European offices.

Speaking for my own country, India, the 360 million people living in poverty should have more of an option than continued deprivation. Presenting as morally superior their choosing to sacrifice the use of fossil fuels for the sake of a faux battle against climate change is itself immoral.

I know a family’s sole breadwinner whose only livelihood is stitching clothes in a poor neighborhood of Indias most populated city. For her, the electrical sewing machine — recently bought with help — is an absolute essential. Any intermittency in power supply is likely to make her lose out on precious money.


File photo.

For this woman, who is already below the poverty line, the real possibility of not being able to buy basic groceries is a much larger problem than a few degrees’ change in global temperature. In fact, the United Nations has forecasted that even a large rise in global average temperature during the next 80 years will result in a loss of less than five percent in global GDP (gross domestic product).

So why would this impoverished woman give up her access to cheap and reliable coal-powered electricity just because of a theoretical loss of GDP postulated as a worst-case scenario by the year 2100? How dare anybody — least of all affluent jet-setters — ask her to?

While governments in the U.S., Canada, and Europe offered cash payment during the economic lockdown, the poor in developing parts of the world suffered without any help.

Yes, many small businesses in the West suffered during the COVID-19 lockdown. But the situation in developing countries was worse. A majority of the poor in these countries work in a sector of the economy that requires no documentation or proof of identification, making it difficult to get aid to them.

We are talking about numbers larger than the entire U.S. population who do not have a home or a vehicle or people to help them.  Studies have shown that India lost years of progress against poverty during the four-month initial COVID-19 lockdown in 2020. For this reason, the countrys federal government refused to impose a nationwide lockdown during the second wave. Economic restrictions were mostly imposed by state governments.

The proposed climate lockdowns would be not at all different from the brutal COVID-19 lockdowns. They would deny the poorest hope of climbing the socio-economic ladder.

Even worse are stealthy energy restrictions that international political bodies have been imposing on developing economies. Climate alarmists have made a consistent effort to disrupt the fossil-fuel sector during the past two decades.

Oil, coal, and natural gas are requisites for the sustenance of the poor. Without them, there is no cooking fuel for billions of people in the Third World. Even a slight interruption of the coal supply will result in blackouts for more than a billion people on an everyday basis.

It makes absolutely no sense for governments to switch to intermittent renewables like wind and solar in the name of climate change. Firstly, there is no backup solution (other than fossil) that can substitute for intermittent sources in real time during peak hours. Secondly, even advanced economies like the U.K. are unable to cope with the power demand when their renewables fail. Why would developing countries fare any better? Thirdly, wind and solar are proven contributors to a rise in electricity prices globally.

Oh, yes — we should mention that there is no climate emergency. The world has been warmer for most of the last 10,000 years, and predictions of a warming catastrophe are based on consistently wrong computer models.

The clarion call from the world’s poor is not a climate SOS! Rather, they desperately need economic growth that can be fostered only through extensive use of fossil fuels.


Vijay Jayaraj is a research associate for the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va., and holds a masters degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, England.  He resides in Bengaluru, India.

Photo credit: Jorge RoyanCC BY-SA 3.0 license.

If you would like to comment on this or any other American Thinker article or post, we invite you to visit the American Thinker Forum at MeWe.

September 22, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

“THESE PATIENTS DESERVE TO BE HEARD” – VAERS WHISTLEBLOWER

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | September 18, 2021

In a Highwire exclusive, Deborah Conrad, a hospitalist physician’s assistant on the frontlines of the pandemic, pulls back the curtain on the complete lack and disregard in her hospital for reporting Covid vaccine injury to VAERS, this country’s only mechanism to track the safety of these rushed-to-market, mandated products.

In riveting detail, including emails & recorded phone conversations, Conrad exposes the internal push to turn a blind eye to injuries and “tow the company line” that this vaccine is safe.

September 22, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Video | , , | Leave a comment

IMF report suggests credit scores could soon be based on web browsing history

Dystopian future

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | September 21, 2021

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has published the results of research conducted into how lenders are likely to be doing their business in the future, and what new information and personal data these companies plan to start asking from borrowers in order to determine their credit score.

The biggest takeaway is the seemingly inevitable shift from merely accessing credit information to also incorporating people’s online behavior into the process of deciding whether to lend them money necessary, for example, to buy a house.

Compared to the way the system now works in most countries – these changes, which are expected to be coming soon, look fairly invasive privacy-wise, and with no “vision” of proper safeguards. Banks and others will go as far as to access personal browsing and shopping history. This would be done by allowing automated systems, powered by algorithms, to harvest the data and turn it into credit reports.

From the report:

“The use of non-financial data will have large effects on the provision of financial services. Traditionally, banks rely on the analysis of customer financial information from payment flows and accounting records. The rise of the internet permits the use of new types of nonfinancial customer data, such as browsing histories and online shopping behavior of individuals, or customer ratings for online vendors.”

Currently, those hoping to take out a loan can expect to have their repayment and credit history length, as well as total debt checked, but going forward, the IMF study suggests, this will be expanded to include what’s known as people’s digital footprint – either collected from data already publicly available, or that obtained by credit bureaus.

The stated goal is to improve “loan default predictions” – and the upcoming trend is sold as a way to give access to money to people who have previously been unable to use loans because their status is “unscorable.” Also known as “credit invisibles,” these are mostly low-income minorities and immigrants, and having access to their personal habits and behavior as exhibited on the internet is supposed to help banks and other lenders “profile” them precisely enough to determine if they should be given a loan.

On the other hand, citizens who are “scorable” but whose score is low might suffer in the new system now in the making, as their online activity could persuade lenders to cut them off from access to money.

Although the move in this direction looks inevitable, some key answers are missing: what data scraped from the internet will be used to determine someone’s credit rating, and how it will be secured.

IMF’s post warns, however, to expect an “efficiency-privacy trade-off.”

September 21, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption | | Leave a comment

Alabama Hospital Defies Biden Administration, Ends COVID Vaccine Requirement for Staff

By Jack Davis | Western Journal | September 20, 2021

Bowing to the threat of legal action against it, one Alabama hospital has rescinded its requirement that all staff be vaccinated against the coronavirus.

UAB Hospital in Birmingham said it will wait to learn how the federal vaccine mandates announced by President Joe Biden play out before imposing any requirement, according to WBRC-TV.

Last week, the Alabama Center for Law and Liberty said the hospital was violating state law, according to Al.com.

The letter said the state’s ban on vaccine passports means government entities cannot require anyone to disclose vaccine information.

“As the Supreme Court of Alabama has recognized, UAB Hospital is a state-run hospital,” the letter said.

“Consequently, UAB Hospital may not require its employees to disclose whether they have been vaccinated or not. Likewise, the Alabama Attorney General has examined the law and concluded that ‘no government, school, or business in Alabama may demand that a constituent, or customer, respectively, be vaccinated for COVID-19 or show proof of his or her vaccination for COVID-19,’” the letter said.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall also questioned the legality of the Biden administration mandate, saying he had received complaints about privacy violations, according to the Alabama Political Reporter.

“The Attorney General’s Office has received complaints from healthcare employees who believe their COVID-19 immunization status was obtained by their employers through the ImmPRINT registry for the purpose of verifying compliance with the employer’s immunization requirement,” Marshall said, referring to a statewide immunization database.

“In several of those cases, a shared employer specifically acknowledged accessing the state immunization database for this purpose. This privacy violation is unlawful,” he said.

Marshall said other health care providers should also take note and not be asking employees about their immunization status.

He has said that when the vaccine mandate takes place, Alabama will file a lawsuit against it, according to Al.com.

“The vaccine mandate is unprecedented in its audacity and unlawful in its application,” Marshall said. “The Biden administration knows this full well. The State of Alabama will not allow such an authoritarian power grab to go unchecked.”

Dr. Don Williamson, president of the Alabama Hospital Association, said voluntary efforts have produced vaccination rates of 50 percent to 80 percent depending upon the facility.

“It’s not a small issue if we have unvaccinated employees,” Williamson said. “Hospitals have successfully navigated the waters of getting people vaccinated and for the most part, they have been able to do it without mandates.”

The UAB Hospital in Birmingham issued a statement explaining why a mandate imposed one month was scrapped the next.

“The UAB Health System’s policy requiring COVID vaccines for its workers was implemented in August prior to the announcement of forthcoming federal directives,” it said.

“President Biden issued an executive order Sept. 9 indicating that federal rules and regulations will be issued in the coming weeks that will require COVID vaccines for workers at health care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid dollars.

“Because UAB Health System must follow federal law, UAB Health System will remove its vaccine policy at this time. UAB Health System will wait for the detailed federal guidance to develop a replacement vaccine policy in order to ensure full compliance with federal law.”

The statement noted that a voluntary incentive that rewards employees who get vaccinated with $400 remains in place.

September 21, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment