MSNBC regular Malcolm Nance, who has spent 36+ years in US intelligence, told Zerlina Maxwell on Wednesday night that around 30% of the country are white extremists and they’re part of an “insurgency” that “we may have to fight.”
“Here is the United States — to characterize that to understand what kind of terrorism we might be dealing with, you have to label it as white extremism because we have 30% of the population of the United States who no longer believe in the democratic norms that we established in the founding of the country. Let’s just be honest about that. The January 6 uprising was an attempt to overthrow American democracy. And we have now learned from the hearing that Donald Trump intended to go there to march down to the well of the House of Representatives and essentially be crowned as a king,” [Nance said.]
Anchor Zerlina Maxwell asked, “You call what is happening an insurgency. We have heard that term in foreign wars recently in Iraq. Talk about why you apply the term insurgency to what you see here as a persistent and ongoing threat of domestic extremists?”
Nance said, “I was reading their forums. I was reading their own intelligence about what they intended to do. It was pretty clear at that point that they were going to try to either overthrow the government or they were going to settle in for a long-term series of destabilizing actions using a political party, the Republican party, as their political base and then using violence, threat of violent extremism as a way to manifest change in the street. So remove politics from the halls of power and change politics through violence on the street. This is called an insurgency. The insurrection that happened on January 6 that was one event. An insurgency is a chain of events. It’s common knowledge. A year and a half ago, when I was calling this an insurgency, people were saying, that’s crazy, this isn’t an insurgency, this isn’t like Iraq, it’s not like Libya, it’s not like Syria. Well, it is. And it’s well on its way. It’s closer to the beginnings of the Irish Republican Army. You know Irish Republicanism, where now the Republican Party is Sinn Fein, and it’s just a matter of seeing who comes up as the original Irish Republicans in this story and starts carrying out acts of violence to affect change. So we are well on our way to a multi-year campaign that we are already two years into this campaign where we may have to fight them. The ‘they’ in my title and the ‘they’ in my title is those who want to kill Americans are your neighbors.”
Here we have a US intelligence analyst, who has admitted previously to torturing hundreds of people on behalf of the DC regime, suggesting that white Americans who voted for Trump are part of a terrorist “insurgency” that needs to be put down with force and he’s preparing MSNBC viewers to fight (and presumably kill) their neighbors.
Back in April, Nance went over to western Ukraine to show his support for the Azov Battalion and joined the Ukrainian military’s foreign legion. He claimed he was fighting on the “frontlines.” He came back late last month and released his new book two weeks later.
“America is primed for a possible explosive wave of terrorist attacks and armed confrontations that aim to bring about a Donald Trump led dictatorship,” the description continues.
When US National Security Advisor Jack Sullivan first spoke about a potential Iran-Russian drone deal, Moscow kept quiet and Tehran issued a pro forma rebuttal, which suggested that it is still a work in progress. Sullivan’s disclosure appeared at the end of a White Course briefing for President Biden’s West Asia tour to Israel and Saudi Arabia, and seemed to have an element of grandstanding aimed at fuelling the latent anti-Iran sentiments in the Gulf region that could in turn impart momentum to POTUS’ project to put together an Israeli-Arab military front in the region.
In the event, the ploy didn’t work. After Biden’s visit ended, the Saudi Arabian foreign minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan told CNN, amongst other things, that talks are going on between Iran and the GCC states for improvement of relations and the focus should be on changing Iran’s behaviour.
But Sullivan has repeated his charge and has since added that an official Russian delegation “recently received a showcase of Iranian attack-capable UAVs,” the last time being as recently as on July 5. CNN has cited White House officials as saying that Iran is expected to supply Russia with hundreds of drones for use in the war in Ukraine, “with Iran preparing to begin training Russian forces on how to operate them as early as late July.”
Iran is known to have a varied drone ecosystem and is reportedly showcasing to Russia the Shahed-191 and Shahed-129 “killer” drones. According to published information, Shahed-129 has a wingspan of 50 feet with a cruising speed of about 160 km per hour, an endurance of 24 hours with a range of 1,700 km and a ceiling of 24,000 feet. The 129 can carry 8Sadid-345 miniaturized precision-guided bombs capable of hitting moving targets. The bomb’s small size with a range of 6 km, reduces collateral damage and would allow the Shahed to achieve more kills or attack strikes per mission.
The Shahed 191 carries two Sadid-1 missiles internally, has a cruising speed of 300 km/h, an endurance of 4.5 hours, a range of 450 km, and a payload of 50kg. The ceiling is 25,000 ft. Iran’s Fars News Agency says the Shahed 191 has been used in combat in Syria.
Both are stealth drones, harder for air defences to detect. Russia is, reportedly, short of such armed drones, which have the capability to undertake long-range missions to find and destroy, for example, the US-supplied HIMARS mobile rocket launchers which are currently deployed in Ukraine as well as knocking out Ukrainian air defences. Besides, drones are relatively cheap and expendable, unlike crewed aircraft.
If the drone deal indeed goes through, as seems likely, it will mark a quantum leap in Russia-Iran relations. For, Iran will be doing something that only China is capable of doing but won’t out of fear of US reprisal. That makes Iran a very special partner country indeed. Ironically, Russia is yet to upgrade its relationship with Iran as “strategic.”
On its part, Iran is literally sticking out its neck in an act of defiance of the West’s “rules-based order”, as Russia will be deploying its weapon systems on a European battlefield against the air defence systems supplied to Ukraine by the US and NATO countries. There cannot be many parallels of an emerging middle power rendering such critical help to a superpower in high-tech warfare in real conditions on the frontline. Of course, it enhances Iran’s standing regionally and internationally.
In geopolitical terms, however, the most important salience lies in the certainty that the door is closing on the nuclear negotiations between Iran and the US via European mediators. Tehran would have drawn the conclusion already that President Joe Biden is virtually co-opting his predecessor’s [Israel Lobby dictated] Iran policy and the US has reverted to its decades-old strategy of promoting an Israeli-Arab front against Tehran. Put differently, Tehran is moving on to a trajectory that is predicated on unremitting American hostility.
This will mean that Tehran will double down on its efforts to improve relations with its Aran neighbours and explore all possible avenues in that direction, seizing the window of opportunity in the new Saudi thinking to reduce its dependence on the US and explore its strategic autonomy. It is possible to say that Tehran is a beneficiary if the Saudi-Russian and Saudi-Chinese relationships strengthen. Arguably, Saudi Arabia’s quest for BRICS membership brings the Kingdom tantalisingly close to Iran’s world view which places primacy on a democratised, multipolar world order where every country is free to choose its developmental path.
To be sure, against this backdrop, President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Tehran on Tuesday is invested with great importance. Iran is becoming one of the most consequential relationships for Russia. What began as a limited alliance in Syria is taking on a global character.
The December 2020 resignation of Dr. Deborah Birx, White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator under Trump, revealed predictable hypocrisy. Like so many other government officials around the world, she was caught violating her own stay-at-home order. Therefore she finally left her post following nine months of causing unfathomable amounts of damage to life, liberty, property, and the very idea of hope for the future.
Even if Anthony Fauci had been the front man for the media, it was Birx who was the main influence in the White House behind the nationwide lockdowns that did not stop or control the pathogen but have caused immense suffering and continue to roil and wreck the world. So it was significant that she would not and could not comply with her own dictates, even as her fellow citizens were being hunted down for the same infractions against “public health.”
In the days before Thanksgiving 2020, she had warned Americans to “assume you’re infected” and to restrict gatherings to “your immediate household.” Then she packed her bags and headed to Fenwick Island in Delaware where she met with four generations for a traditional Thanksgiving dinner, as if she were free to make normal choices and live a normal life while everyone else had to shelter in place.
The Associated Press was first out with the report on December 20, 2020.
Birx acknowledged in a statement that she went to her Delaware property. She declined to be interviewed.
She insisted the purpose of the roughly 50-hour visit was to deal with the winterization of the property before a potential sale — something she says she previously hadn’t had time to do because of her busy schedule.
“I did not go to Delaware for the purpose of celebrating Thanksgiving,” Birx said in her statement, adding that her family shared a meal together while in Delaware.
Birx said that everyone on her Delaware trip belongs to her “immediate household,” even as she acknowledged they live in two different homes. She initially called the Potomac home a “3 generation household (formerly 4 generations).” White House officials later said it continues to be a four-generation household, a distinction that would include Birx as part of the home.
So it was all a sleight-of-hand: she was staying home; it’s just that she has several homes! This is how the power elite comply, one supposes.
The BBC then quoted her defense, which echo the pain experienced by hundreds of millions:
“My daughter hasn’t left that house in 10 months, my parents have been isolated for 10 months. They’ve become deeply depressed as I’m sure many elderly have as they’ve not been able to see their sons, their granddaughters. My parents have not been able to see their surviving son for over a year. These are all very difficult things.”
Indeed. However, she was the major voice for the better part of 2020 for requiring exactly that. No one should blame her for wanting to get together with family; that she worked so hard for so long to prevent others from doing so is what is at issue.
The press piled on and she announced that she would be leaving her post and not seeking a position at the Biden White House. Trump tweeted that she will be missed. It was the final discrediting – or should have been – of a person that many in the White House and many around the country had come to see as an obvious fanatic and fake, a person whose influence wrecked the liberties and health of an entire country.
It was a fitting end to a catastrophic career. So it would make sense that people might pick up her new book to find out what it was like to go through that kind of media storm, the real reasons for her visit, what it was like to know for sure that she must violate her own rules in order to bring comfort to her family, and the difficult decision she made to throw in the towel knowing that she has compromised the integrity of her entire program.
One slogs through her entire book only to find this incredible fact: she never mentions this. The incident is missing entirely from her book.
Instead at the moment in the narrative at which she would be expected to recount the affair she says almost in passing that “When former vice president Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election, I’d set a goal for myself—to hand over responsibility for the pandemic response, with all its many elements, in the best possible place.”
At that point, the book skips immediately to the new year. Done. It’s like Orwell, the story, even though it was reported for days in the world press and became a defining moment in her career, is just wiped out from the history book of her own authorship.
Somehow it makes sense that she would neglect to mention this. Reading her book is a very painful experience (all credit to Michael Senger’s review) simply because it seems to be weaving fables on page after page, strewn with bromides, completely lacking in self awareness, punctuated by revealing comments that make the opposite point of what she is seeking. Reading it is truly a surreal experience, astonishing especially because she is able to maintain her delusionary pose for 525 pages.
Recall that it was she who was tasked – by Anthony Fauci – with doing the really crucial thing of talking Donald Trump into green-lighting the lockdowns that began on March 12, 2020, and continued to their final hard-core deployment on March 16. This was the “15 Days to Flatten the Curve” that turned into two years in many parts of the country.
Her book admits that it was a two-level lie from the beginning.
“We had to make these palatable to the administration by avoiding the obvious appearance of a full Italian lockdown,” she writes. “At the same time, we needed the measures to be effective at slowing the spread, which meant matching as closely as possible what Italy had done—a tall order. We were playing a game of chess in which the success of each move was predicated on the one before it.”
Further:
“At this point, I wasn’t about to use the words lockdown or shutdown. If I had uttered either of those in early March, after being at the White House only one week, the political, nonmedical members of the task force would have dismissed me as too alarmist, too doom-and-gloom, too reliant on feelings and not facts. They would have campaigned to lock me down and shut me up.”
In other words, she wanted to go full CCP just like Italy but didn’t want to say that. Crucially, she knew for sure that two weeks was not the real plan. “I left the rest unstated: that this was just a starting point.”
“No sooner had we convinced the Trump administration to implement our version of a two-week shutdown than I was trying to figure out how to extend it,” she admits.
“Fifteen Days to Slow the Spread was a start, but I knew it would be just that. I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them. However hard it had been to get the fifteen-day shutdown approved, getting another one would be more difficult by many orders of magnitude. In the meantime, I waited for the blowback, for someone from the economic team to call me to the principal’s office or confront me at a task force meeting. None of this happened.”
It was a solution in search of evidence she did not have. She told Trump that the evidence was there anyway. She actually tricked him into believing that locking down a whole population of people was somehow magically going to make a virus to which everyone would inevitably be exposed somehow vanish as a threat.
Meanwhile, the economy was wrecked domestically and then all over the world, as most governments in the world followed what the US did.
Where did she come up with the idea of lockdowns? By her own report, her only real experience with infectious disease came from her work on AIDS, a very different disease from a respiratory virus that everyone would eventually get but which would only be fatal or even severe for a small cohort, a fact that was known since late January. Still, her experience counted for more than science.
“In any health crisis, it is crucial to work at the personal behavior level,” she says with the presumption that avoidance at all costs was the only goal. “With HIV/AIDS, this meant convincing asymptomatic people to get tested, to seek treatment if they were HIV-positive, and to take preventative measures, including wearing condoms; or to employ other pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) if they were negative.”
She immediately hops to the analogy with Covid. “I knew the government agencies would need to do the same thing to have a similar effect on the spread of this novel coronavirus. The most obvious parallel with the HIV/AIDS example was the message of wearing masks.”
Masks = condoms. Remarkable. This “obvious parallel” remark sums the whole depth of her thinking. Behavior is all that matters. Just stay apart. Cover your mouth. Don’t gather. Don’t travel. Close the schools. Close everything. Whatever happens, don’t get it. Nothing else matters. Keep your immune system as unexposed as possible.
I wish I could say her thought is more complex than that but it is not. This was the basis for lockdowns. For how long? In her mind, it seems like it would be forever. Nowhere in the book does she reveal an exit strategy. Not even vaccines qualify.
From the very beginning, she revealed her epidemiological views. On March 16, 2020 at her press conference with Trump, she summarized her position: “We really want people to be separated at this time.” People? All people? Everywhere? Not one reporter raised a question about this obviously ridiculous and outrageous statement that would essentially destroy life on earth.
But she was serious – seriously deluded not only about how society functions but also about infectious disease of this sort. Only one thing mattered as a metric to her: reducing infections through any means possible, as if she on her own could cobble together a new kind of society in which exposure to air-born pathogens was made illegal.
Here is an example. There was a controversy about how many people should be allowed to gather in one space, as in home, church, store, stadium, or community center. She addresses how she came up with the rules:
The real problem with this fifty-versus-ten distinction, for me, was that it revealed that the CDC simply didn’t believe to the degree that I did that SARS-CoV-2 was being spread through the air silently and undetected from symptomless individuals. The numbers really did matter. As the years since have confirmed, in times of active viral community spread, as many as fifty people gathered together indoors (unmasked at this point, of course) was way too high a number. It increased the chances of someone among that number being infected exponentially. I had settled on ten knowing that even that was too many, but I figured that ten would at least be palatable for most Americans—high enough to allow for most gatherings of immediate family but not enough for large dinner parties and, critically, large weddings, birthday parties, and other mass social events.
She puts a fine point on it: “if I pushed for zero (which was actually what I wanted and what was required), this would have been interpreted as a ‘lockdown’—the perception we were all working so hard to avoid.”
What does it mean for zero people to gather? A suicide cult?
In any case, just like that, from her own thinking and straight to enforcement, birthday parties, sports, weddings, and funerals came to be forbidden.
Here we gain insight into the sheer insanity of her vision. It is nothing short of a marvel that she somehow managed to gain the amount of influence she did.
Notice her above mention of her dogma that asymptomatic spread was the whole key to understanding pandemic. In other words, on her own and without any scientific support, she presumed that Covid was both extremely fatal and had a long latency period. To her way of thinking, this is why the usual tradeoff between severity and prevalence did not matter.
She was somehow certain that the longest estimates of latency were correct: 14 days. This is the reason for the “wait two weeks” obsession. She held onto this dogma throughout, almost like the fictional movie “Contagion” had been her only guide to understanding.
Later in the book, she writes that symptoms mean next to nothing because people can always carry around the virus in their nose without being sick. After all, this is what PCR tests have shown. Instead of seeing that as a failure of PCR, she saw this as a confirmation that everyone is a carrier no matter what and therefore everyone has to lock down because otherwise we’ll deal with a black plague.
Somehow, despite her astonishing lack of scientific curiosity and experience in this area, she gained all influence over the initial Trump administration response. Briefly, she was godlike.
But Trump was not and is not a fool. He must have had some sleepless nights wondering how and why he had approved the destruction of that which he had seen as his greatest achievement. The virus was long here (probably from October 2019), it presented a specific danger to a narrow cohort, but otherwise behaved like a textbook flu. Maybe, he must have wondered, his initial instincts from January and February 2020 were correct all along.
Still, he very reluctantly approved a 30-day extension of lockdowns, entirely on Birx’s urging and with a few other fools standing around. Having given in a second time – still, no one thought to drop an email or make a phonecall for a second opinion! – this seemed to be the turning point. Birx reports that by April 1, 2020, Trump had lost confidence in her. He might have intuited that he had been tricked. He stopped speaking to her.
It would still take another month before he would fully rethink everything that he had approved at her behest.
It made no difference. The bulk of her book is a brag fest about how she kept subverting the White House’s push to open up the economy – that is, allow people to exercise their rights and freedoms. Once Trump turned against her, and eventually found other people to provide good advice like the tremendously brave Scott Atlas – it was five months later when he arrived in an attempt to save the country from disaster – Birx turned to rallying around her inner circle (Anthony Fauci, Robert Redfield, Matthew Pottinger, and a few others) plus assembling a realm of protection outside of her that included CNN reporter Sanjay Gupta and, very likely, the virus team at the New York Times (which gives her book a glowing review).
Recall that for the remainder of the year, the White House was urging normalcy while many states kept locking down. It was an incredible confusion. The CDC was all over the map. I gained the distinct impression of two separate regimes in charge: Trump’s vs. the administrative state he could not control. Trump would say one thing on the campaign trail but the regulations and disease panic kept pouring out of his own agencies.
Birx admits that she was a major part of the reason, due to her sneaky alternation of weekly reports to the states.
After the heavily edited documents were returned to me, I’d reinsert what they had objected to, but place it in those different locations. I’d also reorder and restructure the bullet points so the most salient—the points the administration objected to most—no longer fell at the start of the bullet points. I shared these strategies with the three members of the data team also writing these reports. Our Saturday and Sunday report-writing routine soon became: write, submit, revise, hide, resubmit.
Fortunately, this strategic sleight-of-hand worked. That they never seemed to catch this subterfuge left me to conclude that, either they read the finished reports too quickly or they neglected to do the word search that would have revealed the language to which they objected. In slipping these changes past the gatekeepers and continuing to inform the governors of the need for the big-three mitigations—masks, sentinel testing, and limits on indoor social gatherings—I felt confident I was giving the states permission to escalate public health mitigation with the fall and winter coming.
As another example, once Scott Atlas came to the rescue in August to introduce some good sense into this wacky world, he worked with others to dial back the CDC’s fanatical attachment to universal and constant testing. Atlas knew that “track, trace, and isolate” was both a fantasy and a massive invasion of people’s liberties that would yield no positive public-health outcome. He put together a new recommendation that was only for those who were sick to test – just as one might expect in normal life.
After a week-long media frenzy, the regulations flipped in the other direction.
Birx reveals that it was her doing:
This wasn’t the only bit of subterfuge I had to engage in. Immediately after the Atlas-influenced revised CDC testing guidance went up in late August, I contacted Bob Redfield… Less than a week later, Bob [Redfield] and I had finished our rewrite of the guidance and surreptitiously posted it. We had restored the emphasis on testing to detect areas where silent spread was occurring. It was a risky move, and we hoped everyone in the White House would be too busy campaigning to realize what Bob and I had done. We weren’t being transparent with the powers that be in the White House…
One might ask how the heck she got away with this. She explains:
[T]he guidance gambit was only the tip of the iceberg of my transgressions in my effort to subvert Scott Atlas’s dangerous positions. Ever since Vice President Pence told me to do what I needed to do, I’d engaged in very blunt conversations with the governors. I spoke the truth that some White House senior advisors weren’t willing to acknowledge. Censoring my reports and putting up guidance that negated the known solutions was only going to perpetuate Covid-19’s vicious circle. What I couldn’t sneak past the gatekeepers in my reports, I said in person.
Most of the book consists of her explaining how she headed a kind of shadow White House dedicated to keeping the country in some form of lockdown for as long as possible. In her telling, she was the center of everything, the only person truly correct about all things, given cover by the VP and assisted by a handful of co-conspirators.
Largely missing from the narrative is any discussion of the science gathering outside the bubble she so carefully cultivated. Whereas anyone could have noted the studies pouring out from February onward that threw cold water on her entire paradigm – not to mention 15 years, or make that 50 years, or perhaps 100 years of warnings against such a reaction – from scientists all over the world with vastly more experience and knowledge than she. She cared nothing about it, and evidently still does not.
It’s very clear that Birx had almost no contact with any serious scientist who disputed the draconian response, not even John Iaonnidis who explained as early as March 17, 2020, that this approach was madness. But she didn’t care: she was convinced that she was in the right, or, at least, was acting on behalf of people and interests who would keep her safe from persecution or prosecution.
For those interested, Chapter 8 provides a weird look into her first real scientific challenge: the seroprevalence study by Jayanta Bhattacharya published April 22, 2020. It demonstrated that the infection fatality rate – because infections and recovery was far more prevalent than Birx and Fauci were saying – was more in line with what one might expect from a severe flu but with a much more focused demographic impact. Bhattacharya’s paper revealed that the pathogen eluded all controls and would likely become endemic as every respiratory virus before. She took one look and concluded that he had unnamed “fundamental flaws in logic and methodology” and “damaged the cause of public health at this crucial moment in the pandemic.”
And that’s it: that’s Birx grappling with science. Meanwhile, the article was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology and has over 700 citations. She saw all differences of opinion as an opportunity to go on the attack in order to intensify her cherished commitment to the lockdown paradigm.
Even now, with scientists the world over in outrage, with citizens furious at their governments, with governments falling, with regimes toppling and anger reaching a fevered pitch, while studies pour out by the day showing that lockdowns made no difference and that open societies at least protected their educational systems and economies, she is unmoved. It’s not even clear she is aware.
Birx dismisses all contrary cases such as Sweden: Americans could not take that route because we are too unhealthy. South Dakota: rural and backwater (Birx is still mad that the brave Governor Kristi Noem refused to meet with her). Florida: oddly and without evidence she dismisses that case as a killing field, even though its results were better than California while the population influx to the state sets new records.
Nor is she shaken by the reality that there is not one single country or territory anywhere on the planet earth that benefitted from her approach, not even her beloved China which still pursues a zero-Covid approach. As for New Zealand and Australia: she (probably wisely) doesn’t mention them at all, even though they followed the Birx approach exactly.
The story of the lockdowns is a tale of Biblical proportions, at once evil and desperately sad and tragic, a story of power, scientific failure, intellectual insularity and insanity, outrageous arrogance, feudalistic impulses, mass delusion, plus political treachery and conspiracy. It is real-life horror for the ages, a tale of how the land of the free became a depostic hellscape so quickly and unexpectedly. Birx was at the center of it, confirming all of your worst fears right here in a book anyone can buy. She is so proud of her role that she dares to take all credit, fully convinced that the Trump-hating media will love and protect her perfidies from exposure and condemnation.
There is no getting around Trump’s own culpability here. He never should have let her have her way. Never. It was a case of fallibility matched by ego (he has still not admitted error), but it is a case of enormous betrayal that played off presidential character flaws (like many in his income class, Trump had always been a germaphobe) that ended up wrecking hope and prosperity for billions of people for many years to come.
I’ve tried for two years to put myself in that scene at the White House that day. It’s a hothouse with only trusted souls in small rooms, and the people there in a crisis have the sense that they are running the world. Trump might have drawn on his experience running a casino in Atlantic City. The weather forecasters come to say a hurricane is on the way, so he needs to shut it down. He doesn’t want to but agrees in order to do the right thing.
Was this his thinking? Perhaps. Perhaps too someone told him that China’s President Xi Jinping managed to crush the virus with lockdowns so he can too, just as the WHO said in its February 26 report. It’s also difficult in that environment to avoid the rush of omnipotence, temporarily oblivious to the reality that your decision would affect life from Maine to Florida to California. It was a catastrophic and lawless decision based on pretense and folly.
What followed seems inevitable in retrospect. The economic crisis, inflation, the broken lives, the desperation, the lost rights and lost hopes, and now the growing hunger and demoralization and educational losses and cultural destruction, all of it came in the wake of these fateful days. Every day in this country, even two and a half years later, judges are struggling to regain control and revitalize the Constitution after this disaster.
The plotters usually admit it in the end, taking credit, like criminals who cannot resist returning to the scene of the crime. This is what Dr. Birx has done in her book. But there are clearly limits to her transparency. She never explains the real reason for her resignation – even though it is known the world over – pretending like the entire Thanksgiving fiasco never happened and thus attempting to write it out of the history book that she wrote.
There is so much more to say and I hope this is one review of many because the book is absolutely packed with shocking passages. And yet her 525-page book, now selling at a 50% discount, does not contain a single citation to a single scientific study, paper, monograph, article, or book. It has zero footnotes. It offers no go-to authorities and displays not even a hint of humility that would normally be part of any actual scientific account.
And it nowhere offers an honest reckoning for what her influence over the White House and the states foisted on this country and on the world. As the country masks up yet again for a new variant, and is gradually being groomed for another round of disease panic, she can collect whatever royalties come from sales of her book while working at her new gig, a consultant to a company that makes air purifiers (ActivePure). In this latter role, she makes a greater contribution to public health than anything she did while she held the reins of power.
Jeffrey A. Tucker is Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute and the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and ten books in 5 languages, most recently Liberty or Lockdown. He is also the editor of The Best of Mises.
Roughly 1 in 30 — 3.49% — of children and adolescents ages 3 to 17 were diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in 2020, according to a JAMA Pediatrics research letter published this month by a team of researchers in China.
The letter also referenced a new study showing a 53% increase in ASD in American young people since 2017.
The researchers used data, gathered in 2019 and 2020, from the U.S. National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), which collects health-related information via household interviews conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.
During the NHIS interviews, a parent or guardian reported on ASD diagnoses made by a physician or other healthcare professional.
Of the 12,554 individuals ages 3 to 17 surveyed in 2019 and 2020, 410 were reported to have a diagnosis of ASD.
The research team, including corresponding author Dr. Wenhan Yang, M.D., Ph.D., from the School of Public Health, Guangdong Pharmaceutical University in China, compared the 2019 and 2020 NHIS results to NHIS results from the years 2014 to 2018.
“We found the prevalence of ASD increased from 2014 to 2016, decreased from 2016 to 2017, and then increased again from 2017 to 2020,” Yang and colleagues wrote.
The study showed an ASD diagnosis rate of 2.79% in 2019 and 3.39% in 2020 — which is a 53% increase since 2017 — and reported an overall ASD diagnosis rate of 3.14% in 2019 and 2020.
The researchers said the 2019 and 2020 prevalence rates were higher than those reported in other countries and geographical areas since 2014 — including Europe (0.42% to 3.13%), the Middle East (0.11% to 1.53%) and Australia (1.41% to 2.52%).
The data showed a higher prevalence of ASD in boys. For 2019 and 2020, 4.64% of boys were reported as having been diagnosed with ASD versus 1.56% of girls.
The study authors also found a statistically significant higher rate of ASD diagnosis among lower-income demographics.
The authors noted a limitation of their research is that it relied on parents’ recall of information, which may biased or incomplete.
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., said the researchers’ findings are important because their data capture ASD diagnosis information that other measurements of ASD diagnosis rates may have missed.
The ADDM data, however, tends to underestimate the rate of autism, according to Hooker, because it draws largely from reports of higher-income families and looks only at diagnosis rates of 8-year-olds.
The NHIS data used by Yang and colleagues “are more accurate and more reflective of where cases are missing in the CDC’s numbers because people in the ADDM Network tend to be of a higher-income demographic,” he said. “This study has really captured the lower end of poverty-level income demographics.”
Hooker added:
“I think it’s stunning that there’s a statistically significant difference [showing] that the higher levels of autism are now being diagnosed in those with lower income.
“It’s interesting because it’s something that we suspected all along, but we haven’t seen it quantified like this.”
There is no immediately clear explanation for why the child autism rate is now higher among lower-income families compared to higher-income families.
However, Hooker thought it might reflect the fact that more children in schools serving lower-income demographics are being diagnosed in order to get those children access to services.
Or, he said, it might be that people in lower-income demographics tend to be more vaccine-compliant because they’re participating in the CDC’s Vaccines for Children program, where they get their vaccines for free.
“You do have to wonder about vaccination rates because higher-income families tend to vaccinate less.”
The CDC’s website states that vaccines do not cause autism. However, in the high-profile vaccine-injury case involving Hannah Poling, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services conceded that Poling’s autism was caused by a vaccine.
“The vaccinations Hannah received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.”
Future research must focus on ‘risk factors and causes of ASD’
Though the study authors said their findings warrant investigation into the risk factors for developing autism, they did not suggest what potential risk factors future researchers should consider.
“ASD is a complicated neurodevelopmental disability with an increasing prevalence worldwide and considerable implications for individuals and their families,” the authors of the JAMA Pediatrics letter wrote.
“Given that ASD is a lifelong disease in most children, future research needs to focus on understanding risk factors for and causes of ASD.”
Much recent research has focused on identifying the possible genetic components of the condition.
Autism geneticists are now studying “the final frontier” of the non-coding genome, according to Spectrum, an online outlet for autism news and analysis. The non-coding genome is the largely unexplored 99% of the human genome that lies beyond the protein-coding exome.
However, Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, attributes risk factors beyond genetics to the development of the condition.
Seneff — who for decades has investigated possible causes for the high rates of ASD in American children — said exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller that is also present in many foods, is a probable risk factor.
Nonetheless, the CDC’s research through the ADDM Network does not investigate what external factors might impact the prevalence of autism diagnoses.
According to the CDC website, the ADDM Network’s goals are to:
Compare how common ASD is in different areas of the country.
Measure progress in early ASD identification.
Identify changes in ASD occurrence over time.
Understand the impact of ASD and related conditions in U.S. communities.
Public health experts ‘tap dance’ on new high numbers, attributing rise to ‘greater awareness’
Dr. Marc Siegel, internal medicine doctor and clinical professor at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine, told FOX News he believes the rise in autism diagnoses is largely a function of more parents being on the lookout for signs of ASD in their children.
Siegel said:
“This [study] was pre-pandemic, so I want to start with that. It’s because parents were more on the lookout for resistance in routines, not meeting your glances, emotional withdrawal, obsessive behavior — all of that is what could go into being diagnosed with an autistic spectrum disorder.
“Raising awareness is a big, big part of it, but there’s also probably something that women are exposed to in the womb that we don’t yet know about that could be causing it.
“And a third thing is all of the bombardment of the internet, of social media, of iPhones, all of that leads to an inability to socialize.”
However, Kim Rossi, managing editor of Age of Autism, found Siegel’s reasons unconvincing and inadequate.
Age of Autism is a non-profit that gives “voice to those who believe autism is an environmentally induced illness, that it is treatable and that children can recover.”
Rossi, mother of three adult children with autism, said in a July 12 post that Siegel “tap danced” on the new autism numbers and failed to provide any substantial answers about what parents need to know regarding the surge in ASD diagnoses reported by the study.
“Autism numbers continue to rise unabated. But no one is really concerned. It’s just this or that or tra la la … And no one cares in public health, pediatrics, or Washington.
“Notice how Siegel alludes to ‘something women are exposed to in the womb’ which is ‘probably’ also a factor. After thirty years of exploding autism statistics, we’re still totally uninterested in what that ‘something’ might be.”
According to Rossi, the surge in ASD diagnoses among U.S. children is largely “coming from the outside” in the form of environmental toxins, including vaccines — and these potential risk factors should be researched.
“Something on the outside is affecting the inside,” she told The Defender in an interview.
Rossi speculated environmental factors, including exposure to chemicals and eating non-organic foods, may play a role.
“Parents have reported for decades vaccine injury and then an autism diagnosis,” she said.
Rossi also expressed concern about the recent trend to frame autism in terms of “neurodiversity” — a view that emphasizes the potential gifts of autism and downplays the challenges presented by the condition.
“Autism has fallen under the umbrella of identity politics,” she said.
While people with autism should be proud, she said, the current framing of ASD as a personality trait does not adequately respect and honor the situation of many individuals with ASD — particularly those with severe autism — and their family members who care for them.
When ASD is no longer considered a medical condition, everyone is “off the hook” for identifying and mitigating the possible environmental risk factors.
No one is held responsible, she said. No one, except the parents caring for autistic children and the school districts serving them.
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Fairfield, Iowa.
OCCUPIED JERUSALEM – Member of Hamas Political Bureau, Harun Nasser al-Din, said that the archive records and documents and rental contracts conclusively prove the ownership of Palestinian families of the land allocated by Israel for the US embassy in Occupied Jerusalem.
Israel displaced its owners during the Nakba and forcibly confiscated their property in 1950, he clarified in a statement issued Friday.
As US President Joe Biden makes his first visit to the region as US President, Nasser al-Din called for cancelling the plan and returning the lands to their owners.
“We stress that confiscating this land under the so-called Absentees’ Property Law is a continuation of the ethnic cleansing of our people in Occupied Jerusalem,” he added.
Being involved with the Israeli occupation in the seizure of this land, the US administration is actually violating the rights of the legitimate owners of these lands, he continued.
Saudi Arabia is ready to increase oil production to its maximum of 13 million barrels per day but does not have the capacity to pump out more, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said during his address at the US-Arab summit in Jeddah on Saturday.
“The kingdom has announced an increase in its production capacity level to 13 million barrels per day, after which the kingdom will not have any additional capacity to increase production,” he was quoted as saying by UAE’s newspaper The National.
The crown prince also said that the global community should join forces to support the global economy, but noted that unrealistic policies regarding energy sources would only worsen the situation.
“Adopting unrealistic policies to reduce emissions by excluding main sources of energy will lead in coming years to unprecedented inflation and an increase in energy prices and rising unemployment, and a worsening of serious social and security problems,” he stated.
Mohammed bin Salman’s words come a day after his talks with Joe Biden, who was in Saudi Arabia on his first visit as US president, and urged the kingdom to increase oil production in order to reduce global reliance on supplies from Russia.
Commenting on his trip to the kingdom, Biden said Saudi Arabia’s “energy resources are vital for mitigating the impact on global supplies of Russia’s war in Ukraine.”
Saudi Arabia, one of the globe’s largest oil exporters and the leading producer within the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), currently pumps out more than 12 million barrels of oil per day. The kingdom previously said it plans to reach production capacity of 13 million barrels per day by 2027. The Crown Prince did not reveal whether the timeframe for the boost in capacity has changed.
Following the start of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, the US and other Western nations have stepped up sanctions on Moscow, calling, among other things, for a boycott on Russian energy supplies. The US stopped importing Russian oil earlier this year, and the EU placed a partial embargo on Russian fuel last month.
Washington is now planning to set a price cap on the Russian commodity, and the US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is currently in Asia attempting to garner support for the scheme. The US is especially eager to secure the participation of China and India in the price cap mechanism, as both countries have not only refused to sanction Russia over the Ukraine conflict, but have recently stepped up purchases of Russian oil.
The United States may reduce the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe by 150,000 tonnes in July following the accident at the Texas-based Freeport LNG plant, an energy expert at the Russian company Vygon Consulting, Ivan Timonin, told Sputnik on Saturday.
Freeport LNG, the operator of one of the largest US LNG plants, announced that it would be closed after the explosion and fire occurred on June 8 at the plant for at least three months, while a full restoration of work is not expected until the end of the year. The US energy ministry said in July that the closure of the plant would reduce the country’s LNG export capacity by about 2 billion cubic feet per day or about 17% of total capacity. The ministry lowered its export forecast for the second half of the year to an average of 10.5 billion cubic feet per day, a decrease of 14% compared to the June forecast.
“In total, in the first half of 2022, 65 million tonnes of LNG were sent to Europe, of which 9 million tonnes – in June. Some decrease – within 150,000 tonnes – can be expected in July due to the disposal of the Freeport plant, which managed to send to Europe comparable volumes for the first half of last month,” Timonin said.
Timonin added that in the first half of 2022, Europe was the priority market for the US as about 70% of all LNG produced in the US was sent to the region. In comparison, the amount of exported LNG for the same period last year was 33%, Timonin said.
Two-and-a-half years ago, the Grand Poobahs of global vaccinology admitted — in behind-closed-door confessions caught on camera at the World Health Organization (WHO) — that public and professional confidence in vaccines was “wobbly,” and deservedly so.
As the gathered experts conceded, the glaring inadequacies of vaccine safety science and the dysfunctional safety monitoring systems that permit routine “obfuscation” of serious adverse events were understandable reasons for public distrust.
At the time, it seemed as though such momentous disclosures would presage a death knell for vaccine “business as usual” — but then along came COVID-19, and with it, the instant memory-holing of the WHO’s stunning admissions.
Rather than finally address the self-confessed vaccine disaster, public health officials and global leaders — ranging from presidents to private-sector employers to top military brass to central bankers — used COVID-19 as an opportunity to double down in the opposite direction, forcibly stuffing the “vaccine hesitancy” genie back in the bottle with ethically untenable vaccine mandates.
After 18 months of force-feeding the COVID-19 jabs, however, manufacturers are now discarding tens of millions of doses “amid sagging demand.”
In some respects, this could be construed as evidence of policy failure, but the fact is that the COVID-19 shots accomplished a significant goal for the parties that pushed them, launching a renewed vaccine gold rush that — with growing emphasis on voguish, biotech-reliant biopharmaceuticals — seems likely to extend well beyond the COVID-19 era.
As the head of Bayer’s pharmaceuticals division observed in late 2021, mRNA vaccine technology and other forms of cell and gene therapy — for all of their by now well-documented and even species-threatening dangers — have crossed over both the regulatory and public palatability threshold.
Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson (J&J), AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Eli Lilly — some of major players in the biopharma space — are actively prioritizing “strategic alliances” and “collaborations to expand their [biopharmaceutical] product portfolios.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are poised to roll out, at breakneck speed, approvals and recommendations for whatever new childhood and adult vaccines are sent their way.
In short, using technologies both “conventional” and new, a multipronged effort is afoot to jump-start and ensure a frenzied vaccine-palooza.
The mRNA pipeline
Having succeeded in foisting COVID-19 mRNA injections on an initially unsuspecting public, manufacturers and government agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are now salivating at the prospect of an endless series of mRNA vaccines.
It is no coincidence that the mRNA jabs in the works target some of the very conditions being reported as COVID-19 vaccine adverse events, a neat “create-a-problem, develop-a-drug-to-manage-the problem” trick that accounts for many other drugs already on the market.
In the pipeline are mRNA vaccines for the following:
Cancer: Researchers are conducting dozens of clinical trials to test “mRNA treatment vaccines in people with various types of cancers.” Dr. Ryan Cole, a pathologist, described the dramatic surge in endometrial and other cancers following the rollout of COVID-19 shots.
Shingles: Cole and others also noted the uptick of shingles in COVID-19 vaccine recipients. Moderna in March announced its development of an mRNA shingles vaccine, as well as mRNA vaccines for herpes and cancer.
Other forms of immune suppression: With numerous indications that COVID-19 shots are reprogramming the immune response, officials and manufacturers are dusting off HIV as the supposed bogeyman. Moderna and NIH are partnering in mRNA vaccine clinical trials for HIV. This would represent a particular coup for Dr. Anthony Fauci, who over four decades has found development of an HIV vaccine to be “a daunting scientific challenge.”
Heart attacks: Cardiac problems are among the few COVID-19-vaccine-related adverse events grudgingly acknowledged by manufacturers and the FDA. In the U.K., researchers are investigating the use of “exactly the same technology as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to inject micro RNAs to the heart,” claiming they can get whatever heart cells survive after a heart attack to proliferate.
COVID and influenza: Manufacturers also are gearing up for a new generation of mRNA-based flu shots and mRNA combination vaccines which, they promise, will “protect against several different infections at the same time, such as influenza, COVID-19 and other respiratory infections.”In the meantime, CDC just recommended that seniors (aged 65 years or older) receive “enhanced” flu shots — either high-dose, adjuvanted or recombinant — in lieu of “standard-dose unadjuvanted, inactivated vaccines.” Adjuvanted influenza vaccines feature a new generation of “smart” vaccine adjuvants designed to ensure even the most mediocre vaccine sends recipients’ immune systems into overdrive.
For babies — something old, something new
In June, the FDA reaffirmed its long-standing allegiance to an agenda of guaranteed harm when it authorized emergency use COVID-19 shots for infants as young as 6 months old.
After the conflict-of-interest-riddled FDA advisors’ 21-0 vote, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) commented, “[I]n balancing the risk to rewards here, all the risks are to the innocent children and all of the billion-dollar rewards go to the government-protected pharmaceuticals.”
Seizures and psychosis are already being reported as adverse events in the under-5 age group.
In decrying FDA’s decision to give COVID-19 shots to tots, some dissenters waxed nostalgic about the perceived “rigor” of the pre-COVID-19 vaccine approval process, seemingly amnesiac about the FDA’s lengthy history of regulatory capture and business-friendly shortcuts.
As a reminder, at least two-thirds of the vaccines approved by the FDA from 2006 through late 2020 benefited from “flexibility in the evidence required for approval,” resulting in accelerated approvals.
This “turn-a-blind-eye” pattern also held sway in the FDA’s and CDC’s recent decisions to pile on two more options to the childhood schedule, options that will do nothing to improve the safety of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) that have been injuring children for decades.
First, on June 3, the FDA approved GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK’s) Priorix, an MMR vaccine initially launched in Europe in the late 1990s.
GSK developed Priorix using the MRC-5 cell line (derived from the lung tissue of a male fetus aborted at 14 weeks).
A 2020 analysis by the Italian association CORVELVA of a version of Priorix that also contains a varicella component found that the amount of DNA in the vaccine was “well above the allowed threshold,” and that continuous use of the cell line over time resulted in “vaccines containing progressively more and more modified human genetic material, that is dangerous for the health of the vaccinees themselves.”
The FDA’s go-ahead for Priorix shatters Merck’s position as the sole U.S. purveyor of MMR vaccines. Previously, FDA showed no sign of being troubled by Merck’s monopoly, despite the pharmaceutical behemoth being dogged by “a slew of controversies” that included whistleblower allegations of MMR-related fraud and undeniable evidence of a link with autism.
Moreover, as Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. pointed out in late 2019, when the FDA belatedly began to “tee up” Priorix as a replacement for Merck’s scandal-ridden MMR-II, rather than use an inert placebo to test Priorix, the FDA allowed GSK to use MMR-II as the comparator!
Even these sham clinical trials, Kennedy noted, had “horrifying” results. Within 42 days, nearly 50% of recipients of both manufacturers’ formulations experienced adverse events, with over 10% ending up in the emergency room. By six months, almost 4% of recipients had been diagnosed with a “new onset chronic disease.”
To date, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has received more than 37,000 adverse event reports for Priorix and another 11,000-plus for the varicella-containing version — with 58% and 79% of adverse events, respectively, occurring in the under-two age group that will now receive the jabs in the U.S.
Following the nominal slap on the wrist for Merck’s MMR-II, the FDA and CDC also offered Merck some good news, approving on June 17 and then recommending — for routine use in infants and children 6 weeks to 2 years of age — the company’s 15-valent PCV15 (brand name “Vaxneuvance”) as an interchangeable alternative to Pfizer’s Prevnar 13 (PCV13).
The CDC stopped short of issuing a “preferential recommendation” for PCV15, however. Admitting to “certain uncertainties, including concerns related to potentially higher reactogenicity” — with “reactogenicity” defined as the “state of being able to produce adverse reactions” — the CDC leaves it up to the hapless infants who receive Vaxneuvance to discover the shots’ “higher reactogenicity” for themselves.
Even without the addition of Vaxneuvance to the schedule, pneumococcal conjugate vaccines — with ingredients like aluminum and polysorbate 80 — have shown themselves plenty capable of wreaking havoc on the health of the infants expected to get four doses by the time they are 12 to 15 months old.
Eager to add even more injections to the childhood vaccine schedule, the industry is also eyeing as a potential cash cow a pediatric (and adult) mRNA vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).
In 2019, 30 candidate RSV vaccines were in the pipeline, and in 2021, the FDA fast-tracked an mRNA-based RSV vaccine developed by Moderna.
HPV downsizing — getting HPV shots into young people by any means necessary
The competition between Merck and GSK is also fierce where human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines are concerned.
In the U.S., Merck’s Gardasil (and later, Gardasil 9) handily beat out GSK’s Cervarix, which is no longer available to American youth — but with 100 or more countries having added HPV jabs to their national vaccination schedules, much more than the U.S. market is in play.
Data suggest HPV vaccine coverage in the U.S. starts out relatively high, with an estimated 66% of 13- to 17-year-olds getting a first dose, but the percentage completing the series (an additional one to two doses) drops off to 49%.
Worldwide, acceptance of HPV vaccines is even lower — for girls, global coverage is estimated at about 15% of those in the target age range.
Undoubtedly, one of the reasons for the global public’s lukewarm stance on HPV vaccination is the occurrence of serious adverse autoimmune reactions that have left many recipients, both female and male, disabled for life.
Merck is mired in lawsuits (with attorneys, including Kennedy) alleging it knowingly concealed Gardasil-associated adverse events.
Rather than re-evaluate — as some researchers have strongly urged — the adverse event profile that, until COVID-19 shots, made HPV vaccines some of the most dangerous on the market, agencies like the National Cancer Institute (NCI) are instead beginning to argue in favor of single-dose HPV vaccination (either Cervarix or Gardasil 9).
Punting to a one-dose regimen would, NCI officials disingenuously say, “simplify the logistics of vaccination, which could allow more girls [and boys] worldwide to be vaccinated.”
Monkeypox profiteering
As Rob Verkerk, Ph.D., reported last month, the suspected case definition of monkeypox is broad enough to include anyone with a common cold — or with post-COVID-19-vaccine immune suppression — who has a shingles rash.
Verkerk’s counsel is to worry about “what the WHO and collaborating institutions, governments and corporations are up to,” rather than succumb to fear-mongering about monkeypox itself.
In the U.S., what the government is “up to” is ordering more than 4 million doses of monkeypox vaccine — a whitewashed smallpox vaccine linked to heart inflammation — and formulating a “national monkeypox vaccine strategy,” including a protocol aimed at the vaccine’s use in children.
In other words, with a “COVID-19 corporatocracy playbook” that, in Verkerk’s words, “is now well and truly oiled,” corporate and government leaders of ill intent appear to believe they can continue to play the vaccine game indefinitely, using “fear and manipulated science to engender support for the global control of health.”
Palestinian factions have categorically rejected the Jerusalem Declaration signed by US President Joe Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid, saying it represents “an aggression” against Palestinian people and their rights.
In its statement after Biden and Lapid signed the declaration on the strategic partnership between the two sides, Hamas explained that the agreement comes to further “consolidate Washington’s approach of siding with and supporting the occupation’s aggression against our Palestinian people and their Islamic and Christian lands and holy sites and a continuation of the US’ suspicious attempts to liquidate the Palestinian cause by integrating this Zionist entity into our Arab and Islamic Ummah [nation].”
“This declaration expresses the blatant and unacceptable bias of the US administration toward the Zionist entity and its occupying agendas. It makes the US administration a partner in the Israeli occupation’s aggression and terrorism against our Palestinian land, people, and sanctities,” it added.
In turn, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine considered the deal a continuation of the aggression against the Palestinian people and their national rights and said it gives Israel more freedom to expand and deepen its colonial project in Palestine and its expansion abroad.
It called for “the escalation of all forms of resistance” against the “aggressive colonial and Zionist policies.”
For its part, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine said the Jerusalem Declaration is an open invitation to ignite regional wars and to reinforce Israel’s aggressive role at the expense of the interests of the peoples of the region under the pretext of Israel’s “right to defend itself”.
It warned of the repercussions of the plans of the United States and Israel to drown the region in “seas of blood and many problems such as impoverishment, starvation, waste of wealth and mass destruction”.
An Emirati official has dismissed the idea of forming a NATO-like military alliance in the region, saying the United Arab Emirates does not intend to form a regional coalition against any country, in particular Iran.
Speaking to reporters on Friday, the UAE president’s diplomatic adviser said a Middle East NATO was merely a “theoretical” concept and that confrontation was not an option for Abu Dhabi.
“We are open to cooperation, but not cooperation targeting any other country in the region and I specifically mention Iran,” Anwar Gargash said. “The UAE is not going to be a party to any group of countries that sees confrontation as a direction.”
He also said that the UAE was in the process of sending an ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
“Our conversation is ongoing … we are in the process of sending an ambassador to Tehran. All these areas of rebuilding bridges are ongoing,” Gargash maintained.
“We have an open eye. We are very clear if something is defending the UAE and its civilians, of course we are open to these ideas, but not to the idea of creating any axes against this or that country,” he added.
In recent months, Iran and the UAE have intensified their efforts to rebuild relations affected by the years-long war in Yemen and other regional issues.
Last August, Iran’s President Ebrahim Raeisi said that the Islamic Republic is determined and open to the expansion of relations with the UAE, stressing that Tehran sees no boundaries to the promotion of such ties, particularly trade and economic ones.
Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said after a May visit to the UAE that warm relations among neighbors disappoint the enemies.
“A new page was opened in the relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the UAE,” the top Iranian diplomat tweeted after meeting Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the newly-appointed president of the UAE, in Abu Dhabi on May 16.
“We warmly shake hands with our neighbors. The warmth of the neighbors’ relations disappoints the enemies of the region,” he added.
Data put out by the Labor Department this week showed that the Consumer Price Index hit 9.1 percent in June, its sharpest monthly increase since 1981 and the height of the ‘malaise days’ of the late Carter and early Reagan years. On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen admitted that inflation was “unacceptably high,” but blamed Russia.
The United States has lived through 14 straight months of higher and higher inflation since President Biden and his economic advisors deemed the issue a “temporary” and “transitory” issue that would quickly be brought under control.
“I really doubt that we’re going to see an inflationary cycle, although I will say that all the economists in the administration are watching that very closely. As my colleagues have said… we expect somewhat higher inflation over the next several months for a variety of essentially technical reasons… but that’s a transitory thing, not something that’s associated with a buildup in wage pressures,” Yellen said in a press conference on May 7, 2021.
Two months later, in mid-July 2021, President Biden assured Americans that recent price increases were “temporary,” and not connected in any way, shape or form to his administration’s spending plans. “As our economy has come roaring back, we’ve seen some price increases. Some folks have raised worries that this could be a sign of persistent inflation, but that’s not our view. Our experts believe and the data shows that most of the price increases we’ve seen were expected and are expected to be temporary,” Biden insisted.
What followed has been a steady ladder-shaped month-by-month increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) – the national inflation measure based on the price of a weighted basket of consumer goods and services purchased by households. Inflation crept up 5.4 percent year-on-year (YOY) in July of 2021, 6.2 percent YOY in October, 7.5 percent YOY in January, 8.3 percent YOY in April and YOY 9.1 percent in June.
source: tradingeconomics.com
On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen expressed support for the Federal Reserve’s decision to double interest rates to bring down the “unacceptably high” level of inflation, and assured that the issue was the administration’s “top priority.”
Yellen echoed Mr. Biden’s claims that America’s economic problems were partly Russia’s fault, calling the inflation rate one of the “spillover effects” caused by “Putin’s war” in Ukraine. Yellen added that broken supply chains were part of the problem, and called on G20 economies to “make our economies and our supply chains stronger and more resilient and avoid the sort of costly disruptions that have driven up inflation in America and globally.”
Last month, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell broke with the Biden administration’s “Putin’s price hike” talking point, telling lawmakers at a Senate Banking Committee hearing that “inflation was high before – certainly before the war in Ukraine broke out,” and that the phenomenon is caused by a number of factors, including supply chain disruptions, regulations that constrain supply, and “excessive fiscal spending.”
June’s inflation rate hike constituted the sharpest jump since 1981 – the height of the ‘malaise days’ of raging inflation, low growth, and soaring energy costs. The problem was ultimately resolved by temporarily increasing the interest rate to double digits, easing restrictions on adding to the federal debt, steep government spending cuts and a consumer credit boom.
Kiev is now employing the High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) provided by Washington to strike Moscow-controlled areas. Such missiles hit warehouses in Nova Kakhovka – in the Kherson region – containing saltpetre, a chemical compound that is used to make gunpowder and fertilizers. Ukraine claims the target was an ammunition dump. The strike caused a major explosion and fires. Shops, gas stations, pharmacies, a church, and other civilian buildings were also hit. At least seven people were killed and 60 have been wounded, according to Vladimir Leontyev, head of the Russian-controlled Kakhovka District military-civilian administration.
The first M142 HIMARS arrived in Ukraine at the end of June and have been linked to explosions in the Donbass region and southern Ukraine. In its counter-offensive, the Ukrainian authorities are indiscriminately attacking the areas whose control they lost and are basically shelling the very population they consider to be their own people – using American weapons for that. City districts have been leveled, with civilian infrastructure destroyed and many civilians killed in the process.
Last week, Alexandr Shulguin, Moscow’s permanent representative at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), warned that Kiev is preparing provocations with chemical weapons at the Nikolaevka thermal power plant and also at other locations in Kharkiv. He told Rossiya 24 channel that a note was sent to the technical secretariat of the OPCW.
Kiev was in control of the Azot chemical factory in Severodonetsk (now taken by the Russians forces), and, on June 25, Ukrainian shelling forced Russian forces to suspend the evacuation of civilians from the plant. Hundreds of people had taken shelter there. Ukrainian troops also shelled the Yasinovka coking chemical plant in the Kirovsky district of Makiivka in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) on June 19.
Already in May there were reports that Ukrainian nationalist battalions were plotting provocations at the chemical facilities in the so-called “chemical industry triangle” (Severodonetsk, Lisichansk, and Rubezhnoye), which is home to over 30 chemical factories. On May 6, Mikhail Mizintsev, chief of Russia’s National Defense Management Center, had already warned about Kiev’s plans to deploy “heavy weapons” against chemical plants in the region. In fact, the Ukrainian military has been gathering information about chemical facilities in the Donbass, both in the DPR and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR).
Thus, the Ukrainian strategy that is unfolding now seems to involve attacking chemical plants and facilities. And US-provided missile systems might be used for that very purpose. The environmental hazards of this are quite obvious, not to mention the humanitarian disaster and the potential long-term health effects on the population even after the end of the conflict for many years to come (due to soil and water contamination). A lot of chemicals are stored in Donbass, which is a heavily industrialized region. It is also home to a number of mines which are currently closed. If a dam is broken, mercury and sulfur from the flooded mines could end up in the Sea of Azov.
Currently, eight American HIMARs are in Ukraine and four more are expected to arrive by the end of July. Even though Kiev claims this new development is a game changer, it can only protract the conflict and in fact cannot ensure Ukrainians will retake terrain. Last week, on July 6, the Russian defense ministry announced Moscow had destroyed two Ukrainian HIMARS and their ammunition depots in a village south of Kramatorsk in the Donetsk region.
If Kiev keeps targeting chemical facilities, a Russian offensive is sure to follow, and it will include an aerial onslaught. In this scenario, the HIMARs batteries will be helpless, according to a Ukrainian military official quoted by Jack Detsch, a Pentagon correspondent writing for Foreign Policy.
The proxy war the US-led West is waging against Moscow in Ukraine does not seem to have a way out or an exit strategy right now. Even with all the heavy weaponry provided, Russia and its artillery machine cannot be defeated. In fact, the Russian Federation controls three-quarters of the Donbass and still has five times more artillery than Ukraine. Ukrainian officials say there are 10 Russian canons for every Ukrainian one.
Kiev’s other weaknesses are well known, such as its lack of skilled infantry – not to mention the bad shape of its economy. Moreover, there are no real diplomatic endeavors toward peace or a compromise. So, the Western strategy apparently consists in keeping the flow of weapons to Ukraine to prolong an already disastrous conflict, at an enormous humanitarian, environmental and economic cost.
Silver was medicine. Not alternative medicine. Not folk medicine. Medicine. In surgery. In obstetrics. In the burn ward. In water treatment. In the household medicine chest. Every physician before 1938 knew this.
By the 1870s, silver nitrate was standard in surgical wound care across the leading hospitals of Britain, Germany, and the United States. Colloidal silver preparations — Collargol, Argyrol, Protargol — entered European and American practice through the 1890s and early 1900s and became standard antiseptics in military field medicine. By the time Fleming grew his first penicillin mould in 1928, silver was the first-line antimicrobial of the Western pharmacopoeia. The Lancet and the British Medical Journal carried the clinical reports in volume. The practice ran continuously through the Victorian era, the Edwardian era, the First World War, the interwar period. By 1980, almost all of it was gone.
What has not been treated at book length, until now, is how a four-thousand-year clinical record disappeared from mainstream medicine within four decades of the Flexner Report — and what the honest account of silver looks like once that record is reassembled.
Colloidal Silver reconstructs the pre-1938 record from The Lancet, the British Medical Journal, and the primary literature of the era; recovers Robert Becker’s bioelectric framework from the regeneration research the pharmaceutical model buried; and places silver inside a practical terrain-paradigm guide to its current place — in water, on the body, inside the body, and in the chronic conditions where antibiotics have failed. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.