Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Russia warns of ‘direct military clash’ with US

Samizdat | August 16, 2022

Washington’s behavior on the world stage risks direct conflict between the nuclear states, the Russian embassy in the US has warned.

“Today, the United States continues to act with no regard to other countries’ security and interests, which contributes to an increase in nuclear risks,” the embassy said in a statement on its Telegram channel.

“The [US’] steps to further engage in a hybrid confrontation with Russia in the context of the Ukrainian crisis are fraught with unpredictable escalation and a direct military clash of nuclear powers.”

The embassy noted that Washington has recently withdrawn from two key arms control agreements, the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which banned certain classes of land-based missiles, and the 1992 Treaty on Open Skies, which allowed for surveillance flights over each other’s territories.

The embassy urged the US to “take a closer look at its own nuclear policy instead of making unfounded accusations against the countries whose worldviews do not coincide with the American ones.”

“Our country faithfully fulfills its obligations as a nuclear-weapon state and makes every effort to reduce nuclear risks,” the diplomats said.

The statement comes after the US accused Moscow of using the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant in southern Ukraine as cover for its soldiers. The plant, the largest in Europe, was seized by Russian troops during the early stages of Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine, which was launched in late February. It continues to operate with Ukrainian personnel under Russian control.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken called Russia’s action at the facility “the height of irresponsibility.” Russia and Ukraine, meanwhile, have been accusing each other of shelling the plant. According to Moscow, artillery fire by Ukrainians forces caused several fires and partial power outages this month.

Russia initiated a UN Security Council meeting last week regarding the situation around the Zaporozhye power plant. Russian envoy Vassily Nebenzia said that Moscow supports the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect the facility as quickly as possible.

August 16, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

US-Iran deal dangling in the air

BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | AUGUST 16, 2022

In an interview on The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro Show, the former prime minister of Israel — and the likely next PM — Benjamin Netanyahu claimed on Sunday that he had an ingenuous Plan B for forcing regime change in Iran. Netanyahu said, “With low-flying satellites” and other miniature devices, “you might break their (regime’s) hold—their monopoly on information. That begins to challenge them.” 

Netanyahu insisted that “there are devices the size of a matchbook” that could help destabilise the Iranian regime. “There are many other things I could talk about, but I won’t,” he added. 

The hawkish politician was speaking at a defining moment when Tehran was expected to give its “final thoughts” to the European Union’s “final text” on behalf of the Americans, at the end of the 16-month long negotiations in Vienna that would enable Washington to return to the 2015 nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA.) 

Netanyahu’s thesis was that Israel cannot and will not put all its eggs in the American basket. He sarcastically illustrated the point, narrating how naive top American diplomats could be, as the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan testifies. 

Conversely, the big question is also how naive would the Iranians be to place their eggs in the American basket when it comes to their national security. From details available so far, Iran’s response, which was transmitted to Brussels Monday evening mostly focuses on outstanding questions related to sanctions and guarantees around economic engagement. An EU spokesman reacted today, “We are studying it and are consulting with the other JCPOA participants and the US on the way ahead.”

An IRNA report says that Iran’s response is “calling for flexibility” from the US side, without elaborating, as a final deal is “closer than ever if the US accepts the requirements of a sustainable, reliable deal in action.” [Emphasis added.] 

Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian said yesterday that Iran has shown enough flexibility and the US knows this and that it was the latter’s turn “to show flexibility this time.” Indeed, the IRNA report also adds vaguely that “the disagreement is over three issues, two of which have been orally accepted by the US, but Iran insists on including them in the text.” 

Importantly, Tehran’s response falls short of a rejection of the EU’s proposal. The Nour News, Iranian website linked to the Supreme National Security Council, reported yesterday after an extraordinary meeting chaired by President Ebrahim Raisi that a “final result” will depend on the US response to “the legal demands of Iran.” 

The bottom line appears to be that Tehran needs guarantees that the West’s promise of economic engagement will not once again remain a chimera as it turned out with the 2015 deal. Conceivably, Iran wants this aspect to be included in the text of the agreement. 

From available details, Tehran no longer makes an issue of the IAEA seeking Iran’s accountability for the “missing uranium” or over the IRGC continuing to remain in the US watchlist of terrorist groups. But the emphasis is on the efficacy of implementation and the durability of the new agreement. 

Past experience shows that unless the POTUS puts his weight behind the agreement, it becomes rudderless. The paradox is that the shelf life of a new agreement is far from certain, although no expiry date is put on its label. It all depends on the end-user — in this case, the western companies who may be wary about a long-term relationship with Iran, with an eye on Washington. 

But then, Iran’s oil is much sought-after today, and for a conceivable future, it will be an indispensable energy source for western economies. This was not the case previously in 2015 when Europe (and the US) could easily access Russian oil, which was in abundant supply at low prices.

In turn, the criticality of the Iranian oil to salvage the EU economies means that Brussels will now be a genuine stakeholder ensuring the implementation of the new agreement that lifts the sanctions on Tehran’s oil exports and fire walling the deal in the near and medium terms. 

Meanwhile, the expert assessment is that even if large scale investments are made by oil producing countries, there is a gestation period for the  results in the form of increased production capacity to appear. 

Then, there is also the question of the oil producing countries having their own interest in high oil prices. A report in the weekend showed that Saudi Aramco has doubled its profits due to the high oil prices. 

Suffice to say, this time around, the market forces — high demand for oil and the need of the western economies to recover from recession — provide a reasonable guarantee that the EU and the US dare not upset the apple cart. Surely, Iran cannot but be aware of it. 

The odds, therefore, may seem to be favouring the conclusion of the new agreement at Vienna. As a statement on Monday by the so-called Elders shows, there is no dearth of advice cajoling the Iranian regime to be reasonable and cooperative. And it is difficult to see how Tehran will let this moment pass as history.

That said, Tehran can also afford to wait. The status quo is not so bad, as some may make out. After all, Iran is selling its oil and generating appreciable income, and, importantly, the international environment has created more space lately for it to manoeuvre, while also advancing its nuclear programme. (See a recent interview with Ali Akbar Velayati, senior adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei on international affairs and a former foreign minister for over sixteen years during 1981 to 1997.)

Fars news agency which is close to the IRGC has quoted FM Amirabdollahian as saying that Iran has a “Plan B” if no agreement could be reached. As he put it, “failure to revive the pact would not be end of the world.”

From the American perspective too, Biden Administration cannot hope to make any political capital out of the deal in the November 8 mid-term elections as if this is some great arms control deal. Of course, Biden is sure to be criticised by the Republicans. 

If anything, after the knife attack on Salman Rushdie and the purported plot to kill former White House national security adviser John Bolton, the optics are probably not congenial for the Biden team to have a photo-op with Iranian officials. 

Reuters has noted wryly in an analysis, “The lack of better policy options for Washington, and Tehran’s view that time is on its side, could leave the deal dangling.” Netanyahu probably senses that his matchbox like contraption may still have its uses. Elections are due in Israel on 1st November. 

August 16, 2022 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , | Leave a comment

Western ‘superweapons’ myth dispelled – Shoigu

Samizdat – August 16, 2022

Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine has served to dispel the myth of Western ‘superweapons’, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said during an international security conference on Tuesday.

Speaking at the forum, part of the ongoing Army 2022 expo near Moscow, Shoigu claimed that the weapons provided to Kiev have not had a significant effect on the battlefield, as has been claimed by the West.

“Initially, it was about the supply of Javelin anti-tank systems and some unique drones. More recently, HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems and long-range howitzers were being promoted to the role of superweapons by Westerners. However, all of these weapons are being ground up in battle,” the minister said.

Shoigu added that Russian forces are “carefully examining” the Western weapon systems seized on the battlefield in Ukraine, and are “taking into account the features and specific qualities” of these weapons when planning combat operations.

The minister’s statement comes after US Defense Secretary LLoyd Austin announced last week that the weapons sent to Kiev by Washington have proven themselves effective on the battlefield and pledged to send more arms to Ukraine for “as long as it takes.”

The US has approved more than $54 billion of economic and military aid to Ukraine since February, while the UK has committed nearly $3 billion in military aid alone, and the EU has spent another $2.5 billion on arms for Kiev.

A large range of equipment, from rifles and grenades to anti-tank missiles and multiple launch rocket systems, has left Western armories for Ukraine, with most entering the country through Poland.

Moscow, meanwhile, has repeatedly warned the West against sending weapons to Kiev, saying it only prolongs the conflict and increases the number of casualties.

August 16, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

US oil dynasties fund climate activists

Free West Media | August 15, 2022

According to a media report, the heirs to three US oil dynasties finance climate activists and non-governmental organizations that promote climate protest actions. Descendants of oil barons Getty and Rockefeller allegedly feel responsible for preventing “eradication” on Earth. That may not be the real reason however.

Descendants of the oil billionaires have been paying hundreds of green activists $25 000 a year each for their protests around the world, Britain’s Daily Mail reported August 10. Aileen Getty, Rebecca Rockefeller Lambert and Peter Gil Case fund such salaries through their non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Aileen Getty, granddaughter of Getty Oil’s founder, now has over $1 million through her Climate Emergency Fund paid to activists. The wealthy heirs to the Rockefeller family, Rebecca Rockefeller Lambert and Peter Gil Case, whose ancestors founded Standard Oil in 1870, have spent over thirty million dollars on the Equation Campaign.

They all pay the activists, who, according to the Daily Mail, have caused disturbances with their actions around the world, especially in recent months, and finance the relevant NGOs. Lambert and Case, for example, put eco-activists from groups like Just Stop Oil on the payroll for $25 000 each and also funded the organization themselves. The descendants of oil baron John D. Rockefeller also established a fund to support anti-fossil fuel protests.

In recent months, thousands of activists have taken to the streets around the world to protest. The environmentalists also rioted and caused destruction, including in the US, Europe, the UK and Australia. Tires of SUVs were punctured in the US, UK and Australia, and famous oil paintings were vandalized in EU countries by the very activists who are on the payrolls of oil heirs’ non-profit organizations.

The Daily Mail questioned this type of funding: “Three American oil scions have been bankrolling mobs of eco-zealots who have terrorized the world by slashing tires, blocking traffic and attacking firms. Aileen Getty, Rebecca Rockefeller Lambert and Peter Gill Case, who are heirs to their families’ huge fortunes, are paying the salaries for thugs through their non-profits in an apparent bid to offset their relatives’ legacies.”

In 2019, Aileen Getty donated $500 000 to Extinction Rebellion climate activists. She herself is convinced that “a comprehensive disruption of everyday life” is necessary for actions. Getty conforms to the stereotype of idle, rich heirs: She contracted HIV from an extramarital affair and has survived numerous drug overdoses.

She told the New York Times that she wanted to support the effectiveness of the activists she sponsored and has so far donated $1 million from her own wealth to the Climate Emergency Fund. In her opinion, the civil disobedience spurned by such grassroots organizations is just a warning signal and the destruction is minimal compared to what is at stake.

She told the newspaper: “Let’s not forget that we’re talking about extinction. Don’t we have a responsibility to do everything we can to protect life on Earth?”

The Daily Mail also pointed out that scaremongering by various scientists are also financed by the oil heirs. In the US, the Climate Emergency Fund of the NGO Scientist Rebellion made $100 000 available for consultant salaries and travel expenses. Eco-warriors need money since they spend their lives protesting. Without funding, we would therefore not see the likes of Greta Thunberg making a fuss.

NASA climate researcher Peter Kalmus, who also belongs to this organization, brought together around 1000 scientists in 25 different countries who blocked traffic and chained themselves to landmark buildings.

‘Wreaking havoc on ordinary people’ to keep oil prices high

According to the Daily Mail, Kalmus justified his involvement in Scientist Rebellion’s concept of disrupting citizens’ everyday lives as follows: “He spent 16 years looking for ways to save the planet and came to the conclusion that the best way to do it is to wreak havoc on ordinary people.”

Last year in June, the Wall Street Journal reported that climate activists were driving up the price of oil: “Some investors are wagering that Wall Street’s preference for green energy will depress spending on oil extraction, setting the stage for supply shortages and higher fuel prices. The bets come as money managers line up trillions of dollars for wind, solar and other renewable programs and expenditures on oil projects tumble. The drop in fossil-fuel spending is becoming so severe that energy companies could struggle to quench the world’s thirst for oil, some analysts say.”

More recently, US sanctions against Russia have also helped to keep oil prices high.

August 15, 2022 Posted by | Environmentalism, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

New American nuclear doctrine targets Russia and China simultaneously

By Drago Bosnic | August 15, 2022

As America is trying to shift the blame to Russia and China, it ignores that it was the US aggression against the world which caused the proliferation of thermonuclear weapons, as countries decided they don’t want to be held at gunpoint by the political West.

For nearly 80 years, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) has been keeping the relative global peace, preventing superpowers from going into a head-on confrontation. One of the stabilizing factors was the fact there were only two superpowers – the Soviet Union and the United States. This made negotiating arms control deals much easier than would be the case nowadays. The reason is that in the last 30 years, global geopolitical architecture has changed dramatically. The fall of the USSR almost completely dismantled the former Eastern Bloc. This led to the rise of new superpowers, resulting in a different level of geopolitical rivalry, the most important part of which is strategic dominance.

At the same time, the geopolitical interests of global players remained largely unchanged. Russia, although smaller and less powerful than the USSR remained a military superpower as it still had thousands of thermonuclear warheads, although its conventional forces went through a severe degradation. This changed in the 2000s, when Russia started regaining its strength. At the same time, China grew exponentially stronger, giving the Asian giant a virtually universal recognition of superpower status. One notable exception to this was (and to an extent, still is) its thermonuclear arsenal.

For decades, China has been maintaining a minimalist approach to its strategic security. This doctrine boils down to the idea of maintaining a minimal force required to inflict unacceptable damage to an opponent, regardless of how much more powerful the said rival is. It stood in stark contrast to the offensive-oriented nuclear posturing of the US and the USSR, both of which built enormous arsenals aimed at outgunning each other. China started changing this, as its blistering economic strength started translating into geopolitical and military power. And indeed, in the last 2-3 years, China has built hundreds of new missile silos, indicating that it’s moving toward a full superpower status which would help improve its strategic security beyond the Asia-Pacific region.

The US is closely following this process, as the Washington decision-makers and the Pentagon strategic planners are now faced with the nightmarish prospect of having to face not one, but two near-peer adversaries. The belligerent thalassocracy is now “furiously writing a new nuclear deterrence theory to tackle the new threat”, said the supreme commander of America’s nuclear arsenal. Top brass at US Strategic Command has been contemplating strategies to face this new reality and the ways of “how threats from Moscow and Beijing have changed this year”, said STRATCOM chief Navy Admiral Chas Richard. Admiral said he “delivered the first-ever real-world commander’s assessment on what was going to take to avoid nuclear war” after Russia launched its counteroffensive against NATO aggression in Europe. 

Richard claims that “China has further complicated the threat”, and the admiral made an unusual request to experts assembled at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, last Thursday, August 11:

“We have to account for three-party [threats],” Richard said. “That is unprecedented in this nation’s history. We have never faced two peer nuclear-capable opponents at the same time, who have to be deterred differently. The need for a new deterrence theory comes as “institutional expertise on avoiding nuclear war has atrophied. Even our operational deterrence expertise is just not what it was at the end of the Cold War. So we have to reinvigorate this intellectual effort. And we can start by rewriting deterrence theory, I’ll tell you we’re furiously doing that out at STRATCOM,” he added.

According to Defense One, STRATCOM “took steps to evolve past the traditional nuclear deterrence theory of MAD (mutually assured destruction), which posits that any use of nuclear weapons would result in retaliatory use and total annihilation of all parties,” which, as previously mentioned, has been preventing nuclear war for nearly eight decades. The idea of going beyond MAD is quite controversial, to say the least. Although quite a rudimentary concept at its core, it’s been proven to work, preventing global thermonuclear confrontation, including during the Cuban missile crisis, which is arguably the closest we’ve got to a world-ending war.

“Russia and the PRC have the ability to unilaterally, whenever they decide, they can escalate to any level of violence in any domain. They can do it worldwide and they can do it with any instrument of national power. We’re just not used to dealing with competitions and confrontations like that,” Richard concluded.

As the admiral was trying to shift the blame to Russia and China, he ignored the simple fact that it was the sheer US belligerence and aggression against the world which caused the proliferation of thermonuclear weapons, as countries decided they don’t want to be held at gunpoint by the political West. Now, the US is faced not just with old rivals like Russia, but also with China, which is responding to numerous US provocations, including in Taiwan. As a result, any new strategic arms control negotiations will put the US in a very difficult position, as neither Russia nor China trust the political West to hold its end of the deal. Thus, the US will need to either escalate a new arms race (the one in which it’s already lagging behind) or come to an agreement which will still result in the need to divide its strategic forces (limited by a treaty) equally against Russia and China, while the two (Eur)Asian giants have only the US to focus on.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

August 15, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

I just now notified hundreds of people at the CDC why they aren’t able to find any vaccine-related deaths

By Steve Kirsch | August 14, 2022

I just sent the email below to nearly 300 people at the CDC who are known to be involved in the COVID vaccine program.

I pointed out that existing autopsy protocols cannot find vaccine deaths and asked why isn’t the CDC notifying medical examiner and pathologists how to find COVID vaccine-related deaths?

Do you think I’ll hear back? Do you think they will do anything differently?

Here is the full text of the email:

I wanted to make sure everyone who is involved in the COVID vaccination program understands exactly why the CDC isn’t finding any vaccine associated deaths.

The short answer is because they aren’t looking for them properly even though the methodology to do so is in plain sight. That methodology is ignored. This is why the pathologists find nothing.

A simple analogy: if the PCR test were run with just 5 cycles, we’d never find any COVID virus. We’re basically doing the same thing with the tests we do post-vaccine: we didn’t change the tests to FIND the vaccine.

This is unethical.

I wanted to make sure everyone who works at the CDC is aware of this.

At the very least, the CDC needs to publicly acknowledge this clear failing.

As I said recently on Fox News, hundreds of thousands of Americans have been killed by the COVID vaccines.

I’ve posted the summary of the backup data here.

People who were skeptical of my numbers found that document very convincing.

Fox News REFUSED to look at my data or discuss it. Why not? Because they are paid not to challenge the narrative. Over $1B is being paid out to promote the vaccines and ignore anything that goes against the narrative.

Even worse, nobody will go on camera to try to refute any of this. Why not?

The reason the CDC finds no deaths is because they aren’t looking for them with tools that will find the deaths.

How can Burkhardt and Bhakdi find 93% vaccine-caused deaths when the coroners found nothing IN THE EXACT SAME TISSUE SAMPLES?

You need to run specialized tests to determine an association with the vaccine. The standard tests run by medical examiners are NEVER going to find an association. That was clear in their paper and it was independently validated by Dr. Ryan Cole who is a very experienced board certified pathologist.

The question you all should be asking is:

Why isn’t the CDC requiring that for anyone who dies 30 days after getting a vaccine an autopsy protocol that can find an association with the vaccine using the necessary specialized tests?

Such a protocol already exists and it is proven it works. See this article.

Dr. Cole points out that YOU NEED SPECIALIZED TESTS to find the association.

How many pathologists are doing these tests in America? Just one as far as he knows.

I am absolutely baffled as to why the CDC has never done any of these tests and why nobody has talked to Dr. Cole.

Do you know why? Can you tell me?

While there may be a better protocol, this protocol is proven to detect vaccine involvement in 93% of the cases studied. These are all tissue samples from people dying shortly after vaccination where the medical examiners were unable to find any association.

If this protocol is insufficient, where is the CDC document explaining why and proposing a better one that finds more association?

If the CDC has been doing adequate tests, where is the documentation of that?

It seems pretty clear to me that the CDC isn’t finding vaccine-caused deaths because they refuse to look.

They can even go back to the autopsy tissue samples they already have and re-stain them to see how many were missed in the initial analysis as documented in the Rosenblum paper in Lancet.

The Rosenblum paper should have reported that none of the autopsies used stains that were necessary to show an association. But this was never mentioned. Shouldn’t that paper be corrected?

I tried to talk to the authors, but Martha Sharan at the CDC ignored every email and phone call I left for her.

Is this how science is done? By not allowing anyone to challenge your work?

My article also explains very clearly why doctors are not finding vaccine-related deaths. The interview with Gina Doane makes it clear her dad died from the vaccine yet the doctor in charge refused to even consider this as a possibility even though NONE of his other explanations fit, and the vaccine hypothesis fit perfectly. That’s not how science works. This is corruption. You don’t need a medical degree to figure it out. It’s all in the video.

But that second video shows you first hand how doctors are looking the other way.

I hope you will find the two videos and the content of the post eye opening. One commenter wrote: ” One of the best and most revealing pieces of research on the net….very telling. Thank you.”

It’s well worth your time. I’ve written over 700 articles on the COVID vaccines and the content presented in these two interviews are the most important interviews for everyone at the CDC to watch because it shows you how 1) the tests are inadequate and 2) even with overwhelming evidence, the doctors are deliberately NOT acknowledging vaccine death.

If you want to chat, I can be reached at <redacted>.

-steve

Am I flogging a dead horse?

No. I’m just putting hundreds of people at the CDC on the record as having been notified of what is going on.

And who knows. Maybe ONE person is honest.

The CDC has backed off their earlier “guidance” and have removed things from their website that were untrue.

August 14, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Justice Department Accused of Taking Attorney-Client Material at Mar-a-Lago

By Jonathan Turley | August 14, 2022

Fox News is reporting that the FBI seized boxes containing attorney-client privileged and potentially executive privileged material during its raid Mar-a-Lago. When the raid occurred, I noted that the legal team had likely marked material as privileged at the residence and that the collection could create an immediate conflict over such material. Now, sources are telling Fox that the Justice Department not only took attorney-client material but has refused Trump requests for a special master to review the records.

The request for a special master would seem reasonable, particularly given the sweeping language used in the warrant. It is hard to see what material could not be gathered under this warrant.

Attachment B of the warrant has this provision:

“Any physical documents with classification markings, along with any containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are located, as well as any other containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the aforementioned documents and containers/boxes; b.. Information, including communications in any form, regarding the retrieval, storage, or transmission of national defense information or classified material”

Thus, the agents could not only take an entire box if it contained a single document with classification markings of any kind but could then take all boxes around that box.

It is not surprising that dozens of boxes were seized.

Given that sweeping language (and the various lawsuits and investigations facing Trump), it would seem reasonable to request a special magistrate. That is why the reported refusal is so concerning. What is the harm from such a review? The material is now under lock and key. There is no approaching deadline in court or referenced grand jury.

Moreover, many have accused the Justice Department of using this search as a pretext. While saying that they were seeking potential national security information, critics have alleged that the real purpose was to gather evidence that could be used against Trump in a prosecution over his role in January 6th riot. I have noted that such a pretext would be deeply disturbing given the documented history of Justice Department officials misleading or lying to courts in prior Trump-related investigations.  The continuation of such subterfuge could be disclosed in a later oversight investigation.

The use of a special master could have helped quell such claims of a pretextual search. Conversely, the denial of such a protective measure would fuel even greater concerns.

The refusal to take this protective measures is almost as troubling as the sweeping language in the search warrant itself. We need to see the affidavit that led to this search warrant. I am not going to assume that the search was unwarranted until I see that evidence. However, in the interim, Attorney General Merrick Garland could have allowed accommodations for this review to assure not just the Trump team but the public that the search was not a pretext for seeking other evidence like January 6th-related material.

August 14, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

Measuring the extent of the Myocarditis Iceberg?

Safety lessons from smallpox vaccination

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | August 14, 2022

In 2015 a team of researchers employed by the medical services of the US military published a peer-reviewed paper on the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis after smallpox vaccination (SPX) and vaccination with an inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV).

Despite being published 7 years ago before anyone had heard of “covid”, the findings in this study could have very significant implications for the Covid-19 mRNA injections.

In this study, the researchers found that:

  1. When active surveillance systems are used, significantly more myocarditis cases were identified than in earlier studies which had relied on more passive reporting.
  2. The incidence of cases of possible myocarditis without symptoms – detected by testing all subjects vaccinated regardless of symptoms – was far higher than the cases in which subjects developed symptoms such that they would seek medical help.

Given these observations, it seems highly likely that the incidence rates of myocarditis following Covid vaccination have to date been severely underestimated.

The background to the study was that the US military rolled out a limited program of SPX following a perceived threat that smallpox might be used as a weapon in a bioterrorism incident. By the time of the paper’s publication, >2m doses had been administered, but the US had 290m doses in reserve to use for the general population if required. Concerns had been raised about a possible risk of myocarditis after this vaccination. This study sought to quantify these risks.

Key aspects of the study design:

  • Subjects were selected from previously healthy military personnel presenting for either SPX (1081 subjects) or TIV (189 subjects). A battery of baseline tests were performed and these were repeated either once or twice 5-8 days after vaccination and  / or 9-28 after vaccination.
  • The notable difference between this and other studies assessing myocarditis and pericarditis rates was that the assessments were performed on all subjects and they included measurements of cardiac troponin levels (a protein which is released by damaged heart muscle cells) and ECG, in an attempt to detect possible “subclinical” cases of myocarditis – ie those which did not result in symptoms and so ordinarily would not gain the attention of healthcare systems.
  • Clinical myocarditis and pericarditis were determined according to published epidemiological case definitions that require the development of new onset cardiac symptoms soon after vaccine exposure, and each case was confirmed by an independent adjudicator.
  • Possible subclinical myocarditis and pericarditis were diagnosed whenever troponin levels rose by or to a certain level[1], or by ECG changes respectively, in the absence of symptoms.
  • Incidence rates were compared to background incidence rates calculated from a 2002 study among 1,390,352 service members (no exposure to any vaccines).

Key results:

  • Subjects receiving SPX were predominantly young (mean 23 years) and male (88%), those in the TIV cohort were more evenly balanced (54% male) and older (mean 36 years)
  • 8.8% of the SPX recipients reported severe cardiac symptoms (defined as >3 out of 10 on a visual scale for at least 2 days).The most frequently reported cardiac symptoms were chest pain and dyspnea on exertion.
  • Despite no significant differences in pre-vaccine health self-assessment between the cohorts and fewer reported physical limitations in the SPX cohort, there was a significantly higher incidence of new onset cardiac symptom(s) post-SPX (10.6%) compared to the older post-TIV cohort (2.6%), p<0.001. These differences remained 4-5 fold higher in the SPX cohort after adjusting for group differences in age, sex, weight, race, smoking, and physical limitations, and also when symptoms were limited to consideration of those above 3 out of 10 on the visual scale.
  • The incidence rate of clinical myocarditis / pericarditis after SPX was 5 cases out of 1081 (4 were myocarditis and one pericarditis), equating to 463 per 100,000, which was >200 x background expected rates.
  • The incidence of possible subclinical myocarditis / pericarditis after SPX was 2868 per 100,000, or nearly 3%, which was 6 x the rate of clinical myocarditis.[2] This could not be compared to an expected background rate as this had never been measured before in this way.
  • No cases of either clinical or subclinical myocarditis were detected after TIV.

Implications.

Before going on to discuss the implications of this study for the Covid-era, it must be emphasised that “full recovery” from myocarditis is a misleading term: whilst the patients may initially become symptom-free, all should ideally receive regular cardiological follow-up to detect cardiomyopathy and / or arrhythmias later in life, and there is a significantly raised risk of cardiac morbidity and mortality.

Moreover, in several case series, for example this one published in JAMA, “Late Gadolinium Enhancement” on cardiac MRI[3] indicative of long term heart damage was found in the majority of clinical myocarditis cases which underwent detailed investigation. This finding is not consistent with mRNA-induced myocarditis having a more benign course than other forms, as was originally hoped.

For the above reasons, it is important to try to accurately capture all possible cases of myocarditis, both for the individuals concerned (so they can receive proper follow-up) and for calculating the extent of any added risks from vaccination.

In respect of the accurate detection of myocarditis cases, this study raises several important concerns relevant to the Covid injections:

Passive surveillance misses many cases.

Before this study, the rate of clinically diagnosed myocarditis / pericarditis had been previously estimated to be 16.1 cases per 100,000 in a cohort of US service members receiving smallpox vaccination, nearly 7.5-fold higher than the expected background rate of 2.16 per 100,000 observed among comparable unvaccinated service members.

The rate of clinical myocarditis observed in this SPX study was approximately 28 times higher than the previous estimate, at 463 per 100,000 – several hundred times the expected background rate. The higher incidence rate detected is almost certainly due to the active surveillance systems in place, where cases were pro-actively sought out and participants and their physicians made aware of their possibility.

As the authors state:

Prior to the present study, the incidence of myocarditis / pericarditis following smallpox vaccination was estimated from passive surveillance registries and population databases, with an inherent bias towards underestimation of disease incidence.

Myocarditis cases may be easily dismissed as musculoskeletal in origin.

Myocarditis is usually self-limiting in its acute phase, improving with self-treatment by a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug such as ibuprofen. It could quite easily be confused with “expected” aches and pains following injection, or with musculoskeletal injury, and this would be more frequent in the young, especially if active in sport.

The authors make the point that:

“3 of the 5 clinical cases would not have sought medical care without study interventions including enhanced education and surveillance.”

With the Covid mRNA injections, not only have we experienced a lack of active surveillance and a reliance on passive adverse event reporting, but there has been an atmosphere of discouragement of reporting. Many physicians have reported censure by hospitals or other health authorities for even discussing a possible vaccine origin for adverse events, and even subjects themselves have received opprobrium online after questioning the origin of their symptoms.

Hence, whatever factors the authors noted in 2015 in relation to underreporting of myocarditis following SPX are likely to be even more in evidence now for the Covid vaccines.

Because of this, there must be a very significant possibility that the actual numbers of clinical myocarditis cases caused by the mRNA injections have to date been very significantly underestimated.

The frequency of subclinical cases may dwarf the clinical cases.

This was actually the first study to attempt to detect possible subclinical cases of myocarditis (ie those without discernible symptoms) following vaccination.  It is highly likely that, just as there is a spectrum of outcomes with symptomatic cases, such that a proportion have zero long-term problems, so with the subclinical cases an unknown proportion may well go on to have cardiac problems. Given that heart cells are irreplaceable and that scar tissue in the heart can disrupt electrical conduction the degree of concern about heart damage must be much more than with, say, damage to the skin, which can self-repair and still perform its primary function.

The actual proportion of subclinical cases which go on to manifest in cardiac disease later in life is unknown, however the authors selected a threshold for the measured troponin levels by which to define a subclinical case which is known to be associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes. In the paper cited by the authors in support of their chosen troponin criterion it had been concluded that:

“In the general population, cTnT [troponin – protein released from heart damage] elevation is rare in subjects without CHF, LVH, CKD, or DM, [Congestive Heart Failure, Left Ventricular Hypertrophy, Chronic Kidney Disease or Diabetes Mellitus] suggesting that the upper limit of normal for the immunoassay should be <0.01 μg/L. Even minimally increased cTnT may represent subclinical cardiac injury and have important clinical implications, a hypothesis that should be tested in longitudinal outcome studies.”

*Definitions in [ ]  with bold added by this author

The rate of possible subclinical myocarditis detected after SPX (3% of subjects) was 6 x the rate of symptomatic myocarditis.  That these findings are or might be significant rather than chance fluctuations is supported by the fact that zero such cases were detected in the TIV cohort.

Moreover, the authors point out that even this may be an underestimate (bold added):

“While assumptions about benign troponin release from the myocardium have been made, there is a growing body of literature suggesting that even in generally healthy populations with no known cardiac disease risk, small elevations in troponin (stratified below the levels measured by the assay in this study) are associated with increased risk of all cause and cardiovascular mortality. Therefore, the rate of reported elevations in this study may actually be an underestimate of the true incidence of vaccine related subclinical myocarditis.“

There seem no reasons to suggest that possible subclinical myocarditis might not also be occurring after Covid injections, and also at higher rates than clinical cases.  In fact, given the use of active surveillance for clinical cases employed in the SPX study, it is likely that the ratio between possible subclinical and reported clinical myocarditis cases for the Covid vaccines may in fact be higher than the 6-fold seen after SPX, because of the significant underreporting of clinical cases after Covid vaccines for the reasons mentioned above.

It should be stressed that little is known about the long-term prognosis of myocarditis / pericarditis, whether infective in origin or otherwise. No follow-up to the Engler et al paper (now 7 years old) measuring cardiac status in either the clinical or possible subclinical cases has been published to date.

A 2005 paper reported a well-conducted follow-up study of 67 cases detected following smallpox vaccination of 540k military personnel and found normalisation of echocardiography, ECG, and functional status (measured by ECG exercise-testing) in all subjects including those who initially had depressed cardiac function.  This is encouraging, although the median follow-up period was just a few months and none were followed for more than one year after the myocarditis; hence concerns must remain regarding cardiac function in later life, especially in those in whom cardiac reserve falls secondary to other cardiac pathology such as coronary artery disease.

Concluding remarks

The authors conclude their paper with this warning:

Our study identified a rate of myocarditis/pericarditis following SPX immunization that is significantly higher than previously described, and highlights the challenges of post-licensure vaccine safety surveillance to identify adverse events that are not well understood or previously unrecognized.

Applying the incidence described in this study to a SPX immunization program that has delivered over 2 million doses, largely to young, healthy primary vaccinees, there are potentially thousands of vaccine associated cases, many undiagnosed because of self-medication or lack of provider awareness].

In our study, 3 of the 5 clinical cases would not have sought medical care without study interventions including enhanced education and surveillance. The recognition of potential adverse events following immunization requires accurate diagnosis of new onset clinical symptoms.

Our study reinforces the need, as part of all post-vaccine (and potentially new drug related) adverse events surveillance, to include specific standardized inquiry about new onset cardiac symptoms and to highlight the value of dynamic pre to post immunization cardiac troponin increases as a potential biomarker of risk in future safety surveillance studies.

Two million doses of SPX sounds a large number, but it is sobering to consider where we are today in respect of our understanding of the association of the Covid vaccines to myocarditis, having rolled out several billion doses, a program which is now continuing with 3rd or even 4th doses (whereas the incidence studies published to date have been based on 2 doses only).

It is accepted now that there is a definite association between mRNA vaccination and myocarditis, yet the precise rates of increased risks reported vary hugely between different studies, which probably reflect vastly different methodologies between investigators and countries according to prevailing local reporting standards and customs.

Moreover, initial claims that myocarditis risk might be higher after Covid infection compared to vaccination have not held up to scrutiny. The latest study – based on a large (~200k) cohort of adults in Israel – found no increase in the incidence of pericarditis or myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19.

In addition to the high, yet underreported, rates of clinical myocarditis, there remains a distinct possibility that there may have been very large numbers of subclinical myocarditis cases caused by Covid vaccines, the long-term outcomes for which are uncertain.

Approximately 3% of those receiving a single SPX vaccination met the criteria for having developed possible subclinical myocarditis, and given that billions have now received Covid mRNA products (many multiple times), if the frequency is similar to SPX the number of such cases following mRNA injections could well be in the millions.

Despite these worrying data, we have inexplicably witnessed the rollout of multiple booster doses, including in many countries to young adults and even children, despite there having been:

  • No active surveillance for myocarditis, only passive reporting
  • No prospective studies of troponin levels (which would be relatively simple to perform).
  • No standardised inquiries about new onset cardiac symptoms

One could be forgiven for thinking that the reason for this is that those who have relentlessly pushed this program into younger and younger people at little to no risk from Covid, simply do not want to know, and prefer to maintain a degree of “plausible deniability”.

Footnotes:

  1.  For subclinical myocarditis, the criteria for diagnosis were: the development of any one of the following: a) elevated post-vaccine levels of cTnT ≥ 0.02 ng/ml with pre-vaccine cTnT levels <0.01 ng/ml; or b) a post-vaccine cTnT level of 0.02 ng/ml greater than the pre-vaccine level based on the imprecision profiles of the assay.
  2. The absolute subclinical cTnT elevations post SPX vaccine ranged from 0.02 to 0.24 ng/ml with the majority (n = 28, 90.3%) ranging from 0.02 to 0.07 ng/ml
  3. This is a radiological feature seen on cardiac imaging which is indicative of myocardial damage consistent with a high risk of poor long-term prognosis.

August 14, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

NYC to Close “Toddler COVID Vaccine Sites” — due to NO DEMAND

By Igor Chudov | August 13, 2022

Great news! New York City is closing “Infant COVID Vaccination Sites”, citing lack of demand, next week!


In effect, New York is really forced to do the same thing as DeSantis did in Florida — it is closing vaccination clinics for infants, which DeSantis never even opened. While in Florida it was done thanks to the Governor, in New York it happened because parents refused to give their children the Covid vaccine.

The ridiculous explanation NYC gave, is that they are “pivoting to monkeypox”.

This is a huge win for New Yorkers and for people everywhere.

This also means that our anti-Covid-vax activity, broadly speaking, is NOT a waste of time. Mind you, the media keeps lying, as usual. The New York Times, the most important newspaper in New York, is mum about this closure. Google does not show any articles about it except the one I quoted, either.

But people noticed and the public opinion has turned from most people wanting COVID vaccines a year ago to 90% not wanting any extra doses. It did not just happen by itself. We made it happen.

I want to thank my readers who shared my anti-Covid-vaccine-for-babies articles like crazy. That helped, perhaps to a very tiny extent, to warn parents of the danger of giving their kids Covid vaccines.

If people like us did not spread it, nobody would know the truth!

August 13, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

NATO-Backed Kiev Regime Resorts to Nuclear Terrorism

Strategic Culture Foundation | August 12, 2022

Europe’s biggest nuclear power plant is under repeated missile attacks by the NATO-backed Kiev regime. Let that appalling fact sink in for a moment. Can anything more criminal and reckless at this time be imagined?

Bear in mind that the very governments (regimes really) responsible for this abysmal situation are the same ones who proclaim “rules-based order” and “liberal democracy”. Evidently, their rhetoric is just a sick facade for totalitarianism and lawlessness.

What is going on is nuclear terrorism by the Nazi-infested Kiev regime and its Western sponsors. The missiles hitting the Zaporozhye nuclear plant (ZNPP) are supplied by the United States and its NATO allies. The power station has been under sustained artillery or drone attack since last week. A fire at the installation has already been reported although the Russian military and the Ukrainian civilian operators at the Zaporozhye plant managed to put the blaze out. The ZNPP is reckoned to contain hundreds of tonnes of enriched uranium and other spent nuclear fuel. Situated on the mighty Dnieper River in southeast Ukraine that flows into the Black Sea, if the ZNPP is fatally hit the damage would be catastrophic for Europe and the rest of the world. The resulting radioactive contamination would far exceed that of Chernobyl or the Fukushima disaster. The world is on the brink of a deliberately orchestrated cataclysm.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the UN international nuclear supervising agency, the IAEA, have both condemned the attacks on Zaporozhye as “suicidal”. They have appealed for demilitarization of the area. The UN is being cowardly in its restraint by not specifically condemning the NATO-weaponized Kiev regime. The UN is hiding behind cynical claims that there are “conflicting reports” of who is to blame for the shelling of the nuclear plant.

The United States and its Kiev proxy are blaming Russia for the military strikes. Displaying twisted logic, they say Russia is carrying out the attacks in order to smear the Ukrainian regime. They also claim that Russia is using the plant as a cover for its military forces.

Russian forces commandeered the Zaporozhye NPP in early March, days after they invaded Ukraine on February 24. Russia’s military operation was compelled by the relentless build-up of NATO’s offensive threat in neighboring Ukraine since the CIA coup d’état in 2014. Securing the ZNPP was a top priority given the criminal recklessness of the NATO-backed Kiev regime. Now the United States and its Kiev catspaw are absurdly making out that Russia is hitting its own forces and territory under its control, including the vitally important ZNPP.

The trajectory of missiles fired on the ZNPP clearly shows that the attacks are coming from the territory under the control of the Ukrainian forces and its NATO accomplices. The rational suspicion is that the long-range multiple-launch rocket systems supplied and overseen by the U.S., Britain and Germany are involved.

Washington and its NATO allies are calling on Russia to relinquish control of the nuclear plant and give it back to the Kiev regime.

That preposterous demand exposes who the nuclear terrorists are. The United States and its NATO axis are responsible for holding Europe and the world hostage with the threat of nuclear catastrophe.

We should note that anything claimed by the Kiev regime and its Western handlers, including the entire news media acting as propaganda outlets, cannot be taken remotely seriously. This week, the Kiev puppet president Vladimir Zelensky admitted through his aide Mikhail Podolyak that all public statements are “information warfare” designed to deceive Russia. The alleged Russian massacres at Bucha and Mariupol, allegations of mass rapes by Russian soldiers, and allegations of bombing civilians all fit into this admission of lies.

The furor over a report by Amnesty International last week blaming the Kiev regime for using civilian centers such as hospitals, schools and homes as military shields is just the tip of a very dirty iceberg. But it illustrates the depravity and corruption of the NATO-backed Kiev regime.

The risible accusations that Russia is shelling the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant as some kind of propaganda stunt betray the guilt of projecting onto others what the accusers themselves are capable of doing.

Russian forces have secured Europe’s largest nuclear power station and up to now have averted disaster by protecting it. It is Russia that summoned the UN Security Council to convene this week in an emergency session to highlight the extreme danger. Moscow is calling for demilitarization and for IAEA inspectors to be allowed access to the ZNPP in order to report the circumstances. It is the Kiev regime and its Western sponsors who are preventing those calls. The United States and its NATO axis are supplying more and more long-range missiles to Ukraine and slandering Russia with claims of “nuclear terrorism”. The U.S. axis is in effect giving a green light to the Kiev regime to continue its criminal offensive.

This week saw the 77th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That horror was carried out as a criminal act of state terrorism. American justifications for the crimes on August 6 and 9, 1945, have always been known – albeit not widely known due to Western media lies – to be baseless propaganda. The intended effect of the U.S. imperial regime then was to terrorize the rest of the world into submitting to its presumed global dominance.

The same abominable, lawless logic is on show again with the situation in Ukraine over the Zaporozhye nuclear plant. The United States is using its Kiev proxy to hold the world hostage to its imperial objectives.

The psychopathic gambling by the U.S. regime is heinous. Russia has warned that if its territory comes under threat it will use nuclear forces to defend itself. Nuclear war is an increasing risk. If the U.S.-sponsored Kiev regime makes a fatal blow on Zaporozhye causing untold radioactive contamination of Europe, Russia and the rest of the world, what do the Americans expect Moscow to do? Yet this madness by Washington is being pursued.

A diplomatic end to the crisis over Zaporozhye as with the general war in Ukraine is being thwarted by NATO’s militarism. The world’s foremost nuclear terrorist regime – in Washington – is playing with fire and acting as the perverse God of Death again, holding the whole world to ransom for its pernicious ends.

A simple, urgent test beckons: stop the military attacks on Zaporozhye. Now, who is objecting?

August 13, 2022 Posted by | Nuclear Power, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

West will brush Ukraine biolab allegations under the carpet just like those of Kosovo organ trafficking

By Aleksandar Pavic | Samizdat | August 13, 2022

In crisis after crisis, Western narrative control kicks into overdrive to shift blame, whitewash culprits, or make sure inconvenient lines of questioning are never pursued

Soon after US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent descent on Taiwan, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, called out Nicholas Burns, America’s ambassador to China, for “keeping an embarrassed silence” regarding the “insolent stunt.”

The silence was quite a change from how vocal Burns had been a mere month prior at the World Peace Forum in Beijing, where he demanded that China stop relaying “Russian propaganda” by “accusing NATO of starting” the conflict in Ukraine. He used the opportunity to accuse the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson of “telling lies about American bioweapons labs, which do not exist in Ukraine.”

But that was then and this is now in the West’s ‘rules-based order’, where each occasion requires a new set of rules. Thus, it goes without saying that, for the time being, Burns will also keep an ‘embarrassed silence’ about another potentially tectonic event – the latest, even more damning statement regarding alleged US-run biolabs in Ukraine made by the Russian Defense Ministry on August 4. Lieutenant-General Igor Kirillov, the head of the Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection Troops of the Russian Armed Forces, said Moscow was assessing the possibility of US involvement in the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as investigating US-funded research of various other pathogens.

The reason for Burns’ silence is not difficult to guess – the serious allegations made in Kirillov’s presentation, if properly investigated and proven true, could serve as an indictment of what could be America’s use of Ukraine as a vast pathogen testing ground. And since the Western media mostly chose to ignore it, the ambassador was certainly not going to make a statement they would have to quote, drawing attention to the issue. And now that Twitter has suspended the Russian Foreign Ministry’s account for daring to quote key parts of Kirillov’s media presentation about the possible origins of Covid-19, Burns and company don’t have to say anything at all. If it’s memory-holed by the social media, then it’s as if it never happened.

That’s the modus operandi of the Western elites – it’s not the truth that matters, but successfully managing the narrative so that it doesn’t leave room for doubt in people’s minds. In other words, they think they can do whatever they want.

Perhaps we should remind ourselves of the post-Cold War Western formula announced during the heady days of the early 2000s, an era marked by another famous American political quote, Karl Rove’s “we’re an empire now and, when we act, we create our own reality.” As Tony Blair’s policy adviser, Robert Cooper, nonchalantly put it on the pages of The Guardian in April 2002: “The challenge to the postmodern world is to get used to the idea of double standards. Among ourselves, we operate on the basis of laws and open cooperative security. But when dealing with more old-fashioned kinds of states outside the postmodern continent of Europe, we need to revert to the rougher methods of an earlier era – force, pre-emptive attack, deception, whatever is necessary to deal with those who still live in the 19th century world of every state for itself. Among ourselves, we keep the law but when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle.”

Two decades later, despite the rise of both China and Russia and the world’s inexorable evolution to multipolarity, imperial habits die hard – usually until they hit a wall of reality, as is currently happening in Ukraine and is bound to happen in Taiwan. But back to Burns for a moment. He’s far from new in enforcing double standards in the ‘jungle’. Before his present work on poking the Dragon regarding Taiwan, and the Bear regarding just about everything, he distinguished himself as a partisan and apologist of NATO’s illegal aggression against Serbia back in the 1990s, which resulted in Kosovo’s unilateral secession.

Meanwhile, in 2009, when he was the US under-secretary of state for political affairs, Burns explained to the media that the recognition of Pristina’s independence was in fact an expression of the US’ “interest in good relations with Serbia.” Will he, in due time, express himself similarly vis-à-vis China and Taiwan? Outside the West, it’s all still a jungle to Burns and his ilk, and the ‘natives’ are to be dealt with accordingly. So, in Burns-talk, Pelosi’s Taiwan sojourn and pledge of continuing US support for the island is actually a sign of America’s interest in good relations with China.

Another notable Anglo-American figure visible across the Kosovo-China-Ukraine crisis landscape is the Englishman Geoffrey Nice, who gained international notoriety as a prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), whose sole purpose was to shift the blame for the Western-inspired bloody breakup of that multinational country solely onto the Serbs. In addition to his selective prosecution of former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic for ‘crimes against humanity’, Nice’s ICTY legacy also includes accusations of destroying evidence related to human organ trafficking in Kosovo.

Nice subsequently offered his legal services to former Kosovo President Hashim Thaci, one of the main figures in not just the trafficking but the alleged “forcible extraction” of human organs of still-living, mostly Serb prisoners, as outlined in a stunning Council of Europe 2011 report, ‘Inhuman treatment of people and illicit trafficking in human organs in Kosovo’. The report also cites anti-drug agencies of “at least five countries” as saying Thaci “exerted violent control over the trade in heroin and other narcotics.” Nice’s subsequent attempt to discredit the report was, however, brilliantly dissected and exposed by American journalist Diana Johnstone as the latest attempt by a representative of “self-righteous Western democracies” to reserve the privileges of a “culture of impunity” exclusively for themselves and their clients. Of course, the clients in the ‘jungle’ still have to pay for the imperial ‘double standards’ umbrella, so in the end, Nice reportedly accused Thaci of owing him “almost a half a million euros” for his work for the Kosovo government.

Zakharova just recently more fully described the house of horrors over which Thaci allegedly presided: “Kosovo is the territory of ‘black’ transplantation. People were dissected alive, taking out internal organs for sale to those people in the West… In the West they stood in line for organ transplant operations. And they began to receive these organs when Kosovo turned into a terrible black hole in which people disappeared, who were not just killed, but killed to sell their internal organs.”

To paraphrase Franklin D. Roosevelt’s immortal words justifying US support for Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza, they may be sons of b****es, but they’re the West’s sons of b****es.

August 13, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

CDC says COVID vaccine status no longer relevant

By Mike Campbell | The Counter Signal | August 12, 2022

The CDC has dropped special quarantine recommendations for unvaccinated persons, finally admitting that natural immunity should be considered and that vaccines don’t stop infection.

“CDC’s COVID-19 prevention recommendations no longer differentiate based on a person’s vaccination status because breakthrough infections occur, though they are generally mild, and persons who have had COVID-19 but are not vaccinated have some degree of protection against severe illness from their previous infection,” their update reads.

The CDC removed the recommendation that unvaccinated persons quarantine after they’re exposed to the virus. They now recommend that individuals wear a mask for ten days post-exposure and get tested after five days.

The CDC further acknowledged that the Omicron variant of COVID poses a smaller risk of hospitalization and death than previous variants.

This announcement will likely pressure Canada’s health authorities (and Trudeau) to follow suit. Although numerous countries dropped their medical segregation policies long ago, Canada remains one of the last to do so.

Moreover, each consecutive variant appears to be weakening, with immunity (including natural immunity) being widespread. Although Canada has an abnormally high amount of mask and vaccine fanatics, the remaining medical segregation could soon be a thing of the past.

With that said, Canada’s health authorities have done nothing but warn of a return to restrictions and upcoming waves of COVID, telling Canadians that the pandemic is not over.

Additionally, the University of Toronto recently mandated that young health students living on residence get a 3rd vaccine.

August 12, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »