By Ilya Tsukanov | Samizdat | July 7, 2022
The Russian military has already detailed the president’s son’s implication in a massive, clandestine biological weapons and pharmaceutical research program in Ukraine’s biological laboratories involving US government agencies, big pharma, the Ukrainian military and a number of Western ‘charitable’ and ‘health-related’ foundations.
‘The main focus of the research projects involving Pentagon military contractor Black & Veatch and Metabiota, the Hunter Biden investment fund-linked biotech company, were concentrated around quarantine infections that could damage nations’ agricultural sectors, Igor Kirillov, the chief of Russia’s Radiation, Chemical and Biological Defense Troops has indicated.
“Take note of the report for the US military by Black & Veatch and Metabiota. In accordance with this document, ‘veterinary projects’ with the code ‘TAP’ were implemented simultaneously with the ‘UP’ series projects in Ukraine. Their main focus was economically significant quarantine infections, capable of causing damage to the agriculture of individual nations and entire regions, such as galanders, African and classical swine fever, highly infectious pathogenic avian influence, and Newcastle Disease,” Kirillov said in a briefing Thursday in Moscow.
The Pentagon appeared particularly interested in African swine fever, according to the Russian MoD’s analysis, with the pathogen studied under two separate projects.
“The TAP-3 project is aimed at studying the spread of the African swine fever pathogen through wild animals, under which the migration routes of wild boars in Ukraine were studied. Under the TAP-6 project, this process was scaled up to the countries of Eastern Europe,” Kirillov explained.
The RCBD Troops commander specified that the research into populations of carriers of potentially dangerous zoonotic infections was conducted by scientists from the University of Florida’s Emerging Pathogens Institute in areas of western and central Ukraine, as well as territories bordering both Russia and Belarus.
This research has not been without its poisonous ‘fruit’, Kirillov indicated, pointing to the worsening pathological situation as it relates to African swine fever across Eastern Europe, as detailed by World Organization for Animal Health data, which has found that since 2014, disease outbreaks have been recorded in the Baltic states (more than 12,000 cases), and Poland (13,000+ cases), with economic losses from the outbreaks estimated at over 2.4 billion euros ($2.44 billion US).
Metabiota Used as Arm of the Pentagon
Kirillov said that the Biden-linked Metabiota stands out even among the other Western government and corporate actors involved in dubious biological research in Ukraine.
“The available materials indicate that this company served as a cover for solving tasks that were dubious from the point of view of international law and used by the US political elite to carry out non-transparent financial activities in various regions of the world,” Kirillov said.
“To give a specific example, Metabiota was involved in the response to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa. The activities of the company’s employees raised questions from the World Health Organization in terms of their compliance with biosafety requirements,” the senior officer said, pointing to a report by an international group of experts who took part in the fight against the Ebola virus in Sierra Leone in 2015. The report indicated that in addition to failing to comply with regulations on treating patients, Metabiota workers concealed the Pentagon’s involvement in the work, effectively allowing the biotech company to be used as an arm of the Defense Department, which sought to isolate highly virulent strains of the Ebola virus among the infected and deceased and to export these strains back to the United States.
“The Pentagon contractor’s heightened interest in the Ebola virus is not accidental: the disease is known to be among the most pathogenic for human beings. During the outbreak that began in 2014, 28,000 people fell ill, with 11,000 dying, for a lethality rate of about 40 percent,” Kirillov emphasized.
The Russian military, he said, has also recovered documents detailing Metabiota’s plans to work with the Science and Technology Center in Ukraine, the Kiev-headquartered international intergovernmental organization with offices across the former Soviet space, to study the Ebola virus on Ukrainian territory. Kirillov presented a slide with an image of a funding request for the diagnosis of dangerous pathogens, including Ebola, in Ukraine, with the research expected to take place at the Mechnikov Anti-Plague Institute in Odessa.
“Taking into account that the disease is not endemic, and, moreover, has never been recorded in Ukraine, questions naturally arise as to why such studies are needed and their true purpose,” the commander said.
At Thursday’s briefing, Kirillov also revealed that the RCBD Troops were able to recover a key conceptual document on the activities of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) for the period from 2005 to 2016.
The detailed 150 page document, prepared by a group of US experts, “contains information on the assessment of the effectiveness of healthcare systems, veterinary medicine and biosecurity,” in Ukraine, and serves as a “conceptual document for further planning of the Pentagon’s military-biological activities in the country, including conclusions on the implementation of its main directions,” Kirillov said.
Quoting from the document, the officer indicated that the Pentagon was aware that Ukraine had no legislation in place regarding the control of highly dangerous pathogens, and that there were “significant gaps” in its biosecurity, with funding insufficient for biological laboratories to respond effectively to public health emergency.
The report showed that the DTRA was aware of numerous gross safety violations at the Eastern European country’s biological facilities, from non-locking fencing systems to broken or deactivated pathogen access control systems, lack of alarm systems, etc.
The document positively accessed the DTRA’s own role in Ukraine, boasting its success in transporting Ukraine’s national collection of microorganisms to the United States, as well as the implementation of projects studying dangerous and economically significant infections.
“The appendix to the documents contains ambiguous comments regarding the Ukrainian biothreat reduction program’s sponsors and executors who have nothing to do with biosecurity issues. Specifically, the Soros Foundation is mentioned,” Kirillov said.
Bundeswehr’s Crimean Congo Fever Research
“As we have already noted, Ukraine and other nations in the post-Soviet space have become a biological weapons testing ground not only for the United States, but also for their allies in the NATO bloc, particularly Germany,” Kirillov indicated as he presented new information about the German military’s biological activities in the Eastern European country.
According to the Radiation, Chemical and Biological Defense Troops’ analysis, Bundeswehr specialists paid special attention to the causative agent of the Crimean Congo fever, engaging in research screening the susceptibility of Ukrainians to the disease through the generalization of demographic, epidemiological and clinical data to try to identify new regional virus genotypes and select strains that cause latent clinical forms of the disease.
Krillov said that that a study of Crimean Congo fever’s natural foci was conducted under the guise of ‘improving Ukraine’s epidemiological surveillance’ at the Kiev-based Institute of Veterinary Medicine, and the aforementioned Mechnikov Anti-Plague Institute.
“… Pay special attention to lethal cases of infection with the Crimean-Congo fever, as this will allow us to isolate virus strains from the deceased with maximum pathogenicity and virulence for human beings,” Kirillov said, quoting from a recovered report.
The disease has a lethality rate of up to 30 percent, and requires lengthy, costly treatment and prevention measures.
Tick-Borne Infection Research
Kirillov also provided new details on US microbiologists’ research into tick-borne infections, with this work funded by the DTRA within the framework of projects UP-1 and UP-8. A separate, additional project studying ixodid ticks, hosts of a number of dangerous infections, including Crimean Congo fever, tularemia and West Nile virus, was implemented by scientists from Texas A&M University. The ticks were collected mostly from regions of southeastern Ukraine, with natural foci for infection similar to neighboring Russian territory, according to Kirillov’s information.
Coincidentally, the officer said, this work “coincided with a rapid increase in the incidence of tick-borne borreliosis among the Ukrainian population, as well as an increase in the number of ticks in a number of Russian regions bordering Ukraine.” The Russian MoD and scientists are investigating the matter, according to Kirillov.
Captured Ukrainian Servicemen Suffering From Range of Illnesses
Kirillov also provided new data on the state of the health of Ukrainian servicemen who laid down their arms and surrendered to Russian forces in the course of the ongoing conflict. A significant percentage are suffering from diseases, he said.
“33 percent of surveyed servicemen were ill from hepatitis A, over four percent had renal syndrome, 20 percent had West Nile virus. These figures are significantly higher than the average [for Ukraine]. Given the fact that these diseases were actively studied by the Pentagon in the framework of its Ukrainian projects, there is reason to believe that personnel of the Ukrainian Armed Forces were involved in experiments as volunteers to assess tolerance to dangerous infectious diseases,” Kirillov said.
“According to available information, during inpatient treatment of Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel at medical institutions, the absence of a theraputic effect to the introduction of antibacterial drugs has been recorded. High concentrations of antibiotics, including sulfonamides and fluoroquinolones, have been detected in their blood,” the officer said.
“This may indicate the prophylactic use of antibiotics and the training of personel to carry out tasks in conditions of biological contamination, for example, the causative agent of cholera, which indirectly confirms information held by the Russian Ministry of Defense on the planned use of biological agents by Ukrainian special forces,” Kirillov concluded.
July 7, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | Africa, Ebola, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
American doctors are unnecessarily harming children
The Biden administration recently announced a plan to ban “conversion therapy” and dismantle barriers to “gender-affirming care” for transgender-identifying children and adolescents. A few days later, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal introduced the “Transgender Bill of Rights” on Capitol Hill which sought to legislate what the Biden Administration proposed to impose by executive order.
On this issue, the Democratic Party assumes the mantle of righteousness. Who could oppose “life-saving” “gender-affirming care”? Who supports “conversion therapy”, which the Biden administration described as “a discredited and dangerous practice that seeks to suppress or change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQI+ people”?
The reality diverges sharply from the loaded language the Biden Administration deploys, lifting terms directly from the most radical trans activists occupying positions at the outermost extreme of an ongoing debate between different factions of gender clinicians.
The dispute over how best to treat gender-questioning children that the Biden Administration seeks to resolve by enshrining “gender-affirming care” and stigmatising “conversion therapy” boils down to whether or not clinicians regard the children in their care as exceptions to everything we know about child development, human biology, sexual orientation, and more. Attending closely to the language of the activists with whom the Biden Administration has sided provides a masterclass in how to manipulate language to normalise risky and invasive medical intervention on a class of people — children — who are widely understood to be unable to provide consent in other contexts.
For exploratory providers, a child’s transgender identification is the beginning of a clinical inquiry that will travel through the individual patient’s biography, their social context, and the templates the culture at large offers that young patients use to make sense of suffering. Nothing magical or transformative happens when a patient experiences gender dysphoria or expresses a transgender identity. Children and adolescents remain children and adolescents. Clinical practice does not overthrow itself when a young patient changes her pronouns.
For affirmative clinicians, on the other hand, the declaration of a transgender identity and the desire for a particular gender presentation suffice. That’s what affirmation means: no further inquiry required. A transfer of loyalty takes place when affirmative clinicians are confronted with “trans” children and adolescents: clinicians’ sense of responsibility shifts from the patient in front of them to the patient’s transgender “alter”. Doctor and patient then collude to slice and drug the patient’s body into compliance with the new identity regime.
Across the Atlantic, countries such as Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom are stepping back and shifting away from hormones and surgeries and toward exploratory psychotherapy as evidence of harm mounts. It’s remarkable that the United States government has chosen this moment to double down, without reference to serious inquiries underway at home and abroad.
Rather than bending the arc of history toward justice, the Biden administration has put the full force of the federal government behind a treatment model that amounts to little more than an unregulated medical experiment on vulnerable children and adolescents. Don’t let the language of civil rights fool you.
To understand gender affirmation and the people who push it, we need to take a closer look at their belief in the utterly exceptional “transgender” child. What do affirmative clinicians believe about such a patient, who arrives in their office with a label firmly affixed? Affirmative care starts not with a question or a clinical assessment but with a moral imperative: validate the patient’s transgender identity.
Presented with a “transgender” patient, what else matters? Does a patient’s age or developmental stage matter? What about his or her sex or sexual orientation? What parts of a patient’s life story — or medical history — stand out?
Gender clinicians such as Johanna Olson-Kennedy prefer to talk about gender-questioning three-year-olds as “people”. And they are people. But when we talk about three-year-olds as “people”, rather than toddlers, important information gets lost, with consequences. When we talk about “people”, we think adults. We think autonomy. When we talk about “toddlers,” we think: tiny humans who need constant care and guidance, who cannot be trusted to brush their teeth or cross an empty street, much less start down a medical pathway.
That’s the reason Olson-Kennedy talks about “people” when she’s referring to toddlers. The ideas that underpin gender-affirming care lose their moral force when translated from “people know who they are” to “toddlers know who they are”.
What about sex and sexual orientation? As recently as the mid-2000s, medical providers understood cross-sex identification in childhood and adolescence to be a normal stage of homosexual development, resolving in the majority of cases as the child moved through adolescence and became comfortable with his or her sexual development and sexual orientation. Long before the concept of gender identity took root, the idea of being “born in the wrong body” resonated with many young gays and lesbians — not to mention medical providers, who viewed homosexuals as “inverts” in need of psychological or surgical “correction”.
Affirmative providers overlook, downplay, or outright deny the overrepresentation of same-sex attracted youth among youth seeking transition. But clinicians who rate the “gender presentation” of “transgender” preschoolers on a scale from stereotypical girl (fitted, sparkly, frilly) to stereotypical boy (baggy, sporty) inevitably sweep up children whose rejection of gender stereotypes is rooted in their same-sex orientation. Affirmative providers such as Diane Ehrensaft argue that “prototransgender youth use [same-sex] sexual identity as a stepping-stone toward their transgender true gender self”, a rhetorical move that overwrites the connection between homosexual development and gender dysphoria, and equates accepting your same-sex sexual orientation with pursuing irreversible medical interventions.
Much like their views on same-sex attraction as a “stepping stone” toward a young person’s “transgender true gender self”, affirmative providers treat just about any mental health comorbidities as secondary to gender dysphoria. Suicide attempts, psychotic episodes, anorexia nervosa, depression, anxiety, autism, obsessive-compulsive disorder, experiences of sexual abuse and trauma, and substance abuse aren’t taken as reasons to question or delay transition but instead are treated as evidence for the need to accelerate transition.
In order to grease the skids, affirmative providers have invented or adapted a wide range of new medical concepts, all of which operate to obscure what they do from the public and from providers themselves, scrambling the complex clinical presentations they need to parse — and manipulating patients, parents, and policymakers. These concepts include “wrong puberty”, “sex assigned at birth”, “reconstructive surgeries”, and “internalised transphobia”.
Reconceptualising patients as “wrongly sexed” (thus in need of reconstructive relief) and giving allegiance over to the patient’s transgender “alter” over the physical patient and her social and medical history skew clinical assessments and lower clinicians’ barriers to providing experimental medical interventions. Girls become “boys”, not in reality, but in the way gender clinicians talk about reality. Elective double mastectomies on girls become “reconstructive chest surgery” on “boys”. Exploratory therapy to understand where distress over sex and gender originates becomes “conversion therapy,” something no ethical clinician would practice. Drastic, life-altering medical interventions — such as “pausing” puberty and all the cognitive, physical, and emotional development that goes along with it — become conceptualised as non-interventions on the one hand, “life-saving” on the other. In any case, language becomes detached from reality, skewing risk analysis.
This language of determined identities and autonomous “people” speak to the way affirmative clinicians see their role: deferring to patient self-identification and facilitating hormonal and surgical interventions to bring patients’ bodies in line with how they want to “wear their gender”, Meanwhile, activists inside the medical profession push for policy changes to lower the age at which minors can consent to transition — a priority of the forthcoming guidelines from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health — and remove requirements for parental assent. California legislators are on the verge of passing a bill that would equate denial of “gender-affirming care” with child abuse, a move advocates say would turn California into a “sanctuary state” for trans-identifying children.
Ask for stronger evidence or stricter safeguarding measures and you’ll get an earful about suicide and self harm: affirmation is a “matter of life and death.” (Never mind that researchers had to cook bad survey data at extremely high temperatures in order to make such dire claims.)
Affirmative clinicians frequently compare gender dysphoria to endocrine conditions such as diabetes. Take Johanna Olson-Kennedy, dismissing the need to explore the causes of a young person’s distress over gender: “I don’t send someone to a therapist when I’m going to start them on insulin”. Never mind that medical providers can test for diabetes (and monitor whether the treatment is working), while relying on patient testimony to initiate medical transition. Never mind that untreated diabetes kills. Analogies to cancer also abound, especially when clinicians need to justify serious risks like permanent loss of fertility and the very real possibility that patients will lead shorter, sicker lives after medical transition. Ask clinicians and they’ll tell you that gender dysphoria, like cancer, is a life-threatening condition. In the absence of supporting evidence, this is emotional extortion, nothing more.
Affirmative clinicians evade the possibility of regret and detransition. They prefer to talk about “gender fluidity” or “gender journeys”— “journeys” that may include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and elective double mastectomies. Journeys that could not and should not have been avoided, in other words.
Affirmative providers also cleave to a narrow set of explanations about why patients experience regret and detransition, pinning regret and detransition on lack of social support for the patient’s transgender identification. By placing the blame on factors outside the medical system, providers avoid the suggestion that regret and detransition may be the result of inadequate evaluation or inappropriate medical interventions. This interpretation also keeps patients firmly within the ideological framework that underlies affirmative care. Under this framework, a patient remains “really transgender”, even if external factors conspire to keep the patient from living out that identity. Even if the patient disavows their transgender identity entirely.
***
If affirmative providers’ belief in the exceptional “transgender” child bears out, we can make a strong case for affirmation. But if this belief is merely an article of faith, nothing more, clinicians risk doing serious harm to their patients under the banner of affirmation. In other words, if gender-dysphoric children and adolescents are truly exceptions to everything we know about identity formation, child and adolescent development, how humans make sense of distress and their susceptibility to social influence, the role of sexual orientation in gender dysphoria, and more, then affirmation may be the right approach.
But what if supporters of gender-affirming care are wrong?
What if children who identify as transgender are just that: children? What if they hurt, like other children? What if they’re trying to figure themselves out and learn how to navigate the strange world they live in, like other children?
What’s changed are the ideas and expectations that we’ve raised children on and the way we’ve turned them loose in an online world whose terrain no one has mapped. Many of these children have grown up with extended experiences of online disembodiment. They may not be free to run around outside with their friends but they’re free to roam the darkest corners of the Internet. Who knows what strangers and strange ideas they encounter there.
These children have grown up hearing a very new and confusing set of fairy tales about gendered souls that can end up in the ‘wrong bodies’. Adults who should know better — adults who do know better — have made these children impossible promises.
Children who identify as trans aren’t sages. They aren’t sacred. They haven’t been endowed with wisdom beyond their years. It’s not fair to treat them as exceptions to the safeguards we place around children, so that when they grow up and change their minds and ask why we let them do this, we say: You wanted it. You asked for it. You were so sure. What else could we have done?
There’s a way in which everything that touches trans must be exceptional — the children, the stakes, the feelings, the possibility of knowing anything for sure — because if these kids aren’t exceptional, then we threw everything we knew out the window. We didn’t ‘help’ exceptional children but harmed ordinary ones, struggling with ordinary challenges of development, sexual orientation, identity, meaning, and direction.
July 7, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | United States |
Leave a comment
A judge has ruled that the LA Unified School District wasn’t authorized to mandate the COVID vaccines or force kids into independent study. If you were injured, I’ll help you recover damages.
An important decision on vaccine mandates was just signed and released this morning.
The case was filed by a father on behalf of his son who attends the Science Academy STEM LAUSD magnet school. The lawyer in this case was Lee Andelin.
LAUSD will likely appeal the decision, but it’s unlikely they will prevail.
The decision means that:
- LAUSD was wrong in requiring the COVID vaccines
- For all but ten vaccines, a personal belief exemption must be respected.
- LAUSD can no longer send kids away from their school and to independent study because they are not vaccinated.
- Only the Department of Public Health can mandate vaccines, not the schools
- The ruling applies to all students, not just the student filing the complaint
- Parents whose children were injured, either by having to have their child vaccinated (regardless of whether your child has a vaccine injury or not) or whose child was shifted into independent study, now have an opportunity to sue for monetary damages.
If you are in the last category, please register here and I’ll let you know how you can join with other parents to preserve your rights and to potentially recover monetary damages.
July 7, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties | COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
Leave a comment
There are lots of happy reports on the Supreme Court’s ruling throwing out EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan. Some go so far as to suggest that EPA is barred from regulating power plant CO2 emissions.
It is not quite that simple and the result is rather amusing. EPA is still required to regulate CO2 under the terms of the Clean Air Act, but that Act provides no way to do that regulation. The Clean Power Plan attempted to expand an obscure minor clause in the Act to do the job but SCOTUS correctly ruled that the clause does not confer that kind of massive authority.
EPA is between a rock and a hard place. It should tell Congress that it cannot do the job and needs a new law, along the lines of the SO2 law added to the Act in 1990, curbing emissions. But such a law has zero chance of passing in the foreseeable future.
EPA is stuck. What they will now do is anybody’s guess. Enjoy their dilemma!
Here is a bit more detail on the situation.
On one hand EPA’s legal mandate to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act is clear. First the (prior) Supreme Court ruled that CO2 was a “pollutant” under the Act. This is because buried in the 1990 Amendments was a clause adding causing climate change to the definition of “pollutant”. The Court accepted the government’s claim that the CO2 increase could cause climate change. The new Court could change this but is unlikely to do so.
Given CO2 as a pollutant under the Act, EPA was required to decide if it was dangerous to human well being or not. It then produced an “endangerment finding” saying that CO2 was indeed a threat.
Given these two steps the Act then requires EPA to regulate CO2. It has been trying to figure out how to do so ever since.
The deep problem is that the Clean Air Act specifies very specific regulatory actions, none of which work for CO2. This is because CO2 is nothing like the true pollutants that the Act was developed to regulate.
The Act’s mainline mechanism is the NAAQS (pronounced “nacks”) which stands for National Ambient Air Quality Standards. These standards specify the ambient concentration levels allowed for various pollutants. Carbon dioxide’s cousin carbon monoxide is one of these pollutants. Locations that exceed the NAAQS receive stiff penalties.
Clearly this mechanism assumes that local levels are due to local emissions, which can be controlled to achieve and maintain compliance.
But CO2 is nothing like that. There is no way America can control the ambient CO2 level. Even if humans are causing that level (which is itself controversial), it is then based on global emissions. CO2 is not a local pollutant.
For a CO2 NAAQS EPA could either set the standard below the global level or above it. If below then all of America would be out of compliance and subject to the Act’s penalties, with no way to comply. It is very unlikely that the Court’s would allow these universal endless penalties.
If the CO2 NAAQS were above the present level then there would be no legal basis for EPA taking any action, since compliance was complete.
So the NAAQS mechanism simply does not work.
Another major mechanism is to control the emissions of what are called “hazardous air pollutants” or HAPS. EPA explains it this way:
“Hazardous air pollutants are those known to cause cancer and other serious health impacts. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to regulate toxic air pollutants, also known as air toxics, from categories of industrial facilities.”
But CO2 is nontoxic, so not a HAP. In fact our exhaled breath contains over one hundred times the ambient level of CO2, that is over 40,000 ppm. Clearly if ambient 400 ppm CO2 were toxic we would all be dead. It would be absurd for EPA to try to classify CO2 as a HAP. No Court would stand for it.
The only other piece of Clean Air Act that EPA might try to use is called “New Source Performance Standards” but as the name says they only apply to new construction (or major modifications). The myriad existing fossil fueled power plants that supply our daily juice would not be covered. Even worse if EPA drove up the cost of new gas fired plants we would likely restart the host of retired coal fueled plants. What a hoot that would be!
So there you have it. EPA bought itself CO2 as a Clean Air Act pollutant, but there is no way under the Act to regulate it. To mix metaphors, EPA is all dressed up with no place to go. The Supreme Court decision returned EPA to its regulatory dead end.
I find this ridiculous situation to be truly laughable. What were they thinking? Does the EPA Administrator understand this? Has he told the President? How about Congress?
EPA’s problem with CO2 is much deeper than the latest Supreme Court Decision. The Clean Air Act simply does not work for CO2. What will EPA do?
David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy.
July 6, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | United States |
Leave a comment
A Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editorial board member Monday called into question the motives behind the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision to extend Emergency Use Authorization of Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines to toddlers and infants as young as 6 months old, writing that the decision was motivated by politics and pressure rather than science.
In her WSJ opinion piece — “Why the Rush for Toddler Vaccines?” — Allysia Finley wrote:
“The FDA standard for approving vaccines in otherwise healthy people, especially children, is supposed to be higher than for drugs that treat the sick.
“But the FDA conspicuously lowered its standards to approve COVID vaccines for toddlers. Why?”
Finley started her piece with a quote from President Biden, which praised the FDA’s recommendation: “This is a very historic milestone. The United States is now the first country in the world to offer safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as six months old.”
She responded, writing, “In fact, we don’t know if the vaccines are safe and effective.”
She continued:
“The rushed FDA action was based on extremely weak evidence. It’s one thing to show regulatory flexibility during an emergency. But for children, Covid isn’t an emergency.
“The FDA bent its standards to an unusual degree and brushed aside troubling evidence that warrants more investigation.”
“Mr. Biden’s hypocrisy is hard to stomach,” she wrote, listing many reasons for caution in vaccinating young children against COVID-19, including:
- Children are at low risk of dying from COVID-19: Only 209 kids between 6 months and 4 years old have died from COVID-19 — about 0.02% of all virus deaths in the U.S. About half as many toddlers were hospitalized with COVID-19 between October 2020 and September 2021 as were hospitalized with the flu during the previous winter.
- The two children in Pfizer’s trial who got sickest with COVID-19 also tested positive for other viruses. It’s possible that many hospitalizations attributed to COVID-19 this winter were instigated or exacerbated by other viruses.
- The FDA authorized vaccines for toddlers based on a comparison of the antibodies they generated to the original Wuhan variant with those in young adults who had received two doses. But two doses offer little if any protection against Omicron infection in adults, and even protection against hospitalization is only around 40% to 60%.
- Vaccinated toddlers in Pfizer’s trial were more likely to get severely ill with COVID-19 than those who received a placebo. Most children who developed multiple infections during the trial were vaccinated.
“FDA granted the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for toddlers an emergency-use authorization allowing the agency to expedite access for products that ‘prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions,’” wrote Finley.
“While adult COVID vaccines clearly met this standard in late 2020, the toddler vaccines don’t.”
As to why the FDA “rushed” and “bent its standards,” Finley suggested, “perhaps [the FDA] felt pressure from the White House as well as anxious parents.”
White House COVID-19 response coordinator Ashish Jha repeatedly told parents that he expected vaccines for toddlers would be available in June, she wrote.
© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
July 6, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science | COVID-19 Vaccine, FDA, Joe Biden, United States |
Leave a comment
Samizdat | July 6, 2022
Russian forces destroyed two US-made rocket launchers in Donbass, the defense ministry said on Wednesday.
The US provided Kiev with eight High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and ammunition since the beginning of the Russian military offensive in Ukraine, according to a Pentagon fact sheet published on Tuesday.
“In the area of the settlement of Malotaranovka in the Donetsk People’s Republic, high-precision air-launched missiles destroyed two US-made HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems and two ammunition depots for them,” the Russian military said in a statement.
At the end of June, the Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) said that an М142 HIMARS had been used by Ukrainian forces in Donbass, the first time that local authorities reported the US-supplied systems had been used in combat.
Prior to that, the chief of Ukraine’s General Staff, Valery Zaluzhny, posted a video, purporting to show pro-Kiev forces operating the long-range rocket system.
On June 23, Ukrainian Defense Minister Alexey Reznikov welcomed the arrival of HIMARS and expressed gratitude to his “American colleague and friend Lloyd Austin (the Pentagon chief) for these powerful tools.”
“Summer will be hot for Russian occupiers. And the last one for some of them,” he wrote on Twitter.
Russia has constantly warned the US and its allies against providing Ukraine with weapons saying that it would only lead to the prolongation of the conflict and the creation of long-term problems.
Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said on Tuesday that some of the foreign weapons intended for Ukraine were spreading throughout the Middle East and are turning up on the black market.
July 6, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | Russia, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
Samizdat | July 6, 2022
The US may owe the world huge compensation for the damage caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the Russian State Duma, said on Wednesday. He cited remarks made by the chair of The Lancet commission on the disease, who suggested the SARS-CoV-2 virus may have originated from an American research program.
Speaking in Madrid last month, economist Jeffrey Sachs called the current situation “a mess” and blamed diminishing American leadership for it, identifying the pandemic as one of the US failures. He said he was convinced that the virus “came out of US lab biotechnology” as opposed to evolving naturally, citing his experience with the authoritative British medical magazine.
Volodin asserted that the US government would not comment on Sachs’ remarks because President Joe Biden is “afraid that the world will know the truth about the true culprit of the pandemic.”
He added that the suffering of millions of people who contracted the virus, including the many who passed away, and the economic crisis caused by the pandemic were the US’ responsibility. “The US must compensate the damage to all nations affected,” he demanded.
The Russian official added that the US should “stop and declassify” its “military bioweapons research,” referring to the chain of biolabs scattered across the world that receive funding from the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency. The US says they are used to detect emerging pathogens, but some countries, including Russia and China, believe they may be used for clandestine military research.
Sachs himself called his remark “provocative” and lamented that the theory “is not being investigated, not in the United States, not anywhere,” despite evidence that warrants such a probe. “They don’t want to look underneath the rug too much,” he said.
The theory that Covid-19 started as a leak from a Chinese lab in Wuhan was popularized by the US government under President Donald Trump, who stated that Beijing should pay compensation for its supposed guilt. The Chinese government and Trump’s political opponents at home angrily rejected the idea. Major US tech companies even suppressed the lab leak theory as “disinformation” on their online platforms.
The censorship was reversed under President Joe Biden’s administration, which accused Beijing of failing to subject its microbiology research to international scrutiny. The outbreak was first detected in the Chinese city of Wuhan, which hosts a top biosecurity lab that has extensive records of doing research funded by American grants.
The World Health Organization conducted a probe into the origins of Covid-19 and concluded last February that the virus most likely came from an animal host.
July 6, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | China, Covid-19, Russia, United States |
Leave a comment
Did they know COVID was coming?
I gave the following testimony to the legislature of New Brunswick, Canada, in August 2019 to explain why they were suddenly being asked to impose vaccine mandates. It is chock full of useful information about this subject that few people know. Enjoy.
… I am a veteran of the vaccine war in the US, and today I feel compelled to speak about what I saw in that war. Legislators were forced to change their votes to revoke vaccine exemptions and rescind the historic right to consent to medical procedures. The vaccine war is a dirty war, in which platitudes about protecting the most vulnerable are invoked by the same pharmaceutical companies that paid $2.7 billion in criminal penalties in the US between 2012 and 2015. The vaccine industry generates enormous profits (estimated 10-40%), benefits from a government-guaranteed market, and receives almost total liability protection. No other industry can rival these benefits. And this industry’s rapacious desire to grow and guarantee its Canadian market is the reason we are here today.
Let me add context to this discussion by noting that in 2014, the NY Times said it cost $2200 to fully vaccinate one child. At that price, it cost $163 billion dollars to fully vaccinate every US child.
May I apologize at the outset for using mostly US data? I provide Canadian and New Brunswick information when available.
1. Pharma’s Pilgrimage to New Brunswick
Since March 2019, representatives of the three largest vaccine manufacturers in North America: GSK, Merck and Sanofi, have made their way to New Brunswick to meet with ministers, public servants and lawmakers. This is not coincidental. Pharmaceutical companies are colluding to expand on legislative victories gained in the US. Using a media storm over measles, censorship of numerous vaccine-related websites, new support for mandates from professional organizations that have benefitted from industry largesse, and deals with Democratic party leaders, the right to religious and philosophic vaccine exemptions has been voted away by legislatures in California, New York and Maine. In the recent case of New York, the Speaker of the NY Assembly was caught on videotape directing a committee member to change his vote in order for the mandate legislation to move forward.
This was not an idle pilgrimage to one of Canada’s smallest provinces. For Pharma it is the gateway to all of Canada.
The vaccine industry in 2019 is at a crossroads.
On the one hand, the vaccine business is booming. Several vaccines have been newly licensed, a robust industry-FDA revolving door has been established, and the children of North America are receiving more vaccines than ever before. Merck, for example, reported increased sales in the second quarter of 2019 for Gardasil HPV vaccine of 46% (to over $3 billion US annually) compared to last year, and increased sales of 58% for its MMRV (measles, mumps, rubella and varicella) vaccine. These are Merck’s 3d and 4th biggest sellers. This year’s US measles outbreak (about 1200 cases) and media-driven fears of contagion contributed to vaccine uptake.
On the other hand, the industry does not want to shoulder the considerable expense of developing, testing and licensing new vaccines–over 100 of which are in development–without a government guarantee that they will be purchased.
Vaccines are being developed for everything from acne to cancers.
Vaccine mandates guarantee a vaccine market, now and in the future. Mandates put in place today will enforce the uptake of vaccines on the currently required list, plus other vaccines yet to be added.
Industry Challenges
In 2019, the vaccine industry faces threatening legal challenges:
a) An expert witness for the US Department of Justice (DOJ) in the 2007 omnibus vaccine autism case (affecting the outcome for thousands of cases of alleged vaccine injury leading to autism), neurology professor Andrew Zimmerman, MD recently filed an affidavit stating that his expert testimony was altered by DOJ lawyers–that he told them that in certain cases, autism can be a consequence of vaccination. The case for which Prof. Zimmerman’s testimony was allegedly changed resulted in a denial of benefits for thousands of families with autistic children. It also led to a negative conclusion in the US Vaccine Court, for all future cases, that autism might be a consequence of vaccination. Potentially thousands of denied cases will need to be re-litigated.
b) Gardasil, a Merck vaccine used to prevent HPV infections and putatively cancer, is facing lawsuits around the world for neurologic injuries and deaths. The Japanese government rescinded its recommendation for Gardasil due to the widespread side effects reported. Recall that Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, MMR, varicella and other vaccines, hid the lethal side effects of Vioxx for nearly five years, paying out $4.85 billion US dollars to settle 27,000 injury claims. FDA scientist David Graham, MD estimated that 39,000 to 61,000 excess deaths occurred due to Vioxx.
c) Danish physician and anthropologist Peter Aaby, and the group he leads, have been studying vaccines in Africa for 40 years. After completing hundreds of vaccine studies, they have concluded that the DPT vaccine increases infant mortality, by 100% or more, in African infants. His group notes, “All studies of the introduction of DTP have found increased overall mortality.” You may be interested in his eye-opening talk at a recent Symposium on Scientific Freedom in Copenhagen.
The Best Defense is a Good Offense
Facing these challenges, in 2019 the vaccine industry seized its opportunity from a prolonged US measles outbreak. A flawless PR campaign conducted for the industry helped ram through legislation for enforced vaccine mandates in the US, and now the industry is repeating the strategy in Canada.
In the wake of the 2015 Disneyland measles epidemic, coupled with millions of dollars in lobbying fees and direct donations to legislators, California’s legislators voted to end non-medical vaccine exemptions. And this month, they passed a bill that restricted the granting of medical exemptions.
One of the unforeseen consequences of California’s vaccine mandate was the wholesale withdrawal of children from public schools. California’s Department of Public Health reported that the number of homeschooled, unvaccinated kindergartners soared from 2,000 to nearly 7,000 between 2016 and 2018, following California’s vaccine mandate.
Is New Brunswick, Canada prepared for a significant reduction in the number of children who attend public school?
2. You have been assured that “Vaccines are safe and effective.”
It has a reassuring ring, but conveys nothing. In fact, each vaccine is very different from every other. Generally, we know something (but not enough) about the benefit, but only a little about the harms of different vaccines. According to the Institute of Medicine, “The process of anticipating, detecting, and quantifying the risks of rare adverse events following immunization presents an enormous challenge.” Like drugs, each is appropriately used when the benefit outweighs the risk. Because vaccines are given to healthy people to prevent disease, they should be even safer than drugs.
The initial effectiveness of the different childhood vaccines ranges from about 40% to 93%. Immunity then wanes over time.
Here is a big problem at the heart of vaccine safety assessment: adverse event information is cloaked in secrecy, withheld from physicians and the public by public health agencies. Undesirable results are massaged or falsified until they appear acceptable. Because this is hard to believe, I will give you 3 important examples of CDC’s data manipulation.
1. Thomas Verstraeten was a young physician on a CDC fellowship who in 1999 studied the statistical relationship between cumulative amounts of thimerosal (mercury) infants received from vaccines and neurological illnesses. His results–including that children exposed to the highest levels of mercury from vaccines after birth had 7 times the level of autism as children not exposed–were so disturbing that CDC convened a private meeting of vaccine experts to discuss and manage them. No reporters or members of the public were permitted, but a copy of the meeting transcript was leaked. (I have provided you with an unpublished abstract obtained by FOIA showing some of Verstraeten’s data before it was massaged to remove the effect of mercury. His published 2003 paper says, “No consistent significant associations were found between thimerosal (mercury) containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes.” I also gave you a letter from physician Congressman Bill Weldon to Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the CDC about this data manipulation. The issue is unresolved. Merck was later found to have misled the public about when it removed thimerosal from infant vaccines.
2. Dr. William Thompson admitted that his group of CDC scientists was directed to destroy data in their study that linked early MMR vaccination in black males to increased rates of autism. The group met in a conference room, and put all data showing this effect into a garbage can. Thompson secretly retained a copy, and made it available to Congressman Bill Posey. The published paper denied any autism connection. Congressman Posey has called for an investigation, but none has occurred. The movie Vaxxed is about this matter.
3. Poul Thorson was a physician, CDC employee and later CDC contractor who both manipulated Danish data to remove the adverse effects of thimerosal (50% mercury), and stole funds from the CDC. Thorson is currently on the Department of Health and Human Services’ list of fugitives from justice.
Despite strong evidence of scientific misconduct in these 3 CDC cases, the papers published in top medical journals with these manipulated data have never been retracted from the medical literature. Instead, they provide foundational support for the safety of the MMR vaccine and for the safety of mercury in vaccines. The fraudulent papers pollute the medical literature, making it impossible to discern the true adverse effects of vaccines.
Since 1995, when Congress chartered the CDC Foundation, over $800 million dollars has been donated to CDC through this Foundation vehicle. Health Canada, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis and other vaccine companies donate to the CDC Foundation, sometimes to sponsor programs that increase sales. Former CDC Director Gerberding became the President of Merck Vaccines after leaving CDC. Financial conflicts of interest at CDC with respect to vaccine safety have long been documented.
Vaccine safety science
It is very difficult to link an adverse reaction to a vaccination unless it occurs soon afterward. In general, late adverse reactions are only identified as caused by vaccines if they occur many times more often than expected.
The National Academy of Sciences was chartered by Congress in 1863 to provide expert advice to government. Congress requested the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine to conduct a series of vaccine safety studies to inform vaccine policy.
In 2011, the US National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine examined the evidence for vaccine causality for 8 vaccines and 158 possible adverse effect-vaccine combinations. In the vast majority (85%) of cases, in the language used by the Academy, “the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship.” The science remains unsettled.
President Harvey Fineberg of the Institute of Medicine/National Academy of Medicine wrote, in the US National Vaccine Plan 2013 Annual Report: (pages 44-45)
“While few health problems are clearly associated with vaccines and some putative associations can be rejected based on evidence, in the majority of cases evidence was inadequate to accept or to reject a causal relationship… Confidence in vaccine safety requires more than surveillance and reporting in real time. In light of the paucity of strong conclusions about possible vaccine side effects, continued and selective investment in epidemiologic and other investigations into the risks of immunization will be necessary… About the best one can do is to estimate, based on the evidence, the probability that the frequency of an adverse event is less than a specified, low level. This may be enough for the physician who weighs the public health and personal health benefit against a very low risk, but not enough to satisfy a wary parent.
Continued, candid, and open communication is also an essential ingredient to a successful vaccine safety regime. This means more than the experts explaining the benefits and risks to parents and families. It means listening carefully to the anxieties and doubts, staying true to the strength of evidence without exaggeration or misrepresentation, and reporting fully and fairly on scientifically sound investigations into possible adverse events.“
By 2019 the winds had changed at the Academy of Medicine. A new President, Victor Dzau, himself and some of his advisory panelists tainted with undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, dismissed the concerns of his predecessor about lack of vaccine safety evidence, signing a brief whitewash: “Our work has validated that the science is clear–vaccines are extremely safe.”
We now know that the National Academies of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine/National Academy of Medicine has received millions of dollars from drug companies that have interest in its work. Merckhas given between $5 and $10 million dollars; AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson and Johnson, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and United Therapeutics have each given between $1 and $5 million.
Understanding of the adverse effects due to single vaccines, combinations of vaccines, or the number of vaccines remains murky.
Canadian physicians examined the health of babies after their 12 and 18 month vaccinations. They found an excess emergency room visit for one in every 168 babies vaccinated at 12 months with the MMR vaccine, occurring between one and two weeks later. They concluded, “There are significantly elevated risks of primarily emergency room visits approximately one to two weeks following 12 and 18 month vaccination. Future studies should examine whether these events could be predicted or prevented.”
1300 cases of narcolepsy were caused by the 2009 swine flu Pandemrix vaccine. This particular side effect was able to be linked to the vaccine because millions of people were vaccinated simultaneously, the narcolepsy that developed was severe and required intense medical attention, the rate of narcolepsy was 10-16 times higher than expected, and vaccine oversight had been increased to evaluate new pandemic vaccines. Canadians received a virtually identical vaccine (Arepanrix) but it was manufactured in a different facility, and by chance alone the Canadian version did not cause narcolepsy.
3. Is New Brunswick undergoing a crisis of vaccine-preventable disease?
The answer is no. And if there was a crisis, Bill 39 would not wait to go into effect until 2021.
Measles. As of August 3, Canada had 84 cases of measles in 2019, and no measles deaths since 2014. Surprisingly, given the media hoopla over measles, only three Americans have died from measles in the last 20 years. The last US child death occurred in 2003, in a 14 year old after a bone marrow transplant.
In a 2011 measles epidemic in Quebec, where over 95% of the population was vaccinated, 50% of those developing measles had received 2 doses of measles vaccine. After the Disneyland measles epidemic, it was found that 73 cases of measles (38% of those typed by CDC) were due to viruses from the measles vaccine.
Pertussis. Canada averages one death from whooping cough per year. There are many cases, most going undiagnosed and unreported. Some estimate a million US cases of whooping cough yearly. This is because vaccine protection wanes rapidly. More than 80% of whooping cough cases occurred in fully vaccinated children in a recent study.
Diphtheria. There is one case of diphtheria every two years in the US.
Mumps. Canada reported 180 mumps cases yearly from 2011-2013. Mumps outbreaks are a result of waning of vaccine-induced immunity. “Data from outbreak studies showed that the odds of developing mumps increased by 10 to 27% with each year post-vaccination.”
Rubella. All recent US rubella cases were infected in other countries.
Polio. There is no polio in Canada. The last wild (natural) polio case in Canada occurred in 1977. There have been 3 reported cases in the US since 2005, all from vaccine strains of polio. Worldwide, there are more new polio cases due to vaccine strains that became virulent than there are due to wild polio viruses. Last year, vaccine-derived viruses paralyzed 105 children worldwide; the wild virus just 33.
Vaccines containing live viruses, such as the MMR, Varicella, and oral polio can infect, harm and very rarely kill the recipient, especially if the child has an unknown immune deficiency. There are extensive warnings on the MMR vaccine information sheet which I have provided you, about who should not receive the vaccine.
UPDATE: On August 15, 2019 CDC changed most of its Vaccine Information Statements (which must be provided to parents before vaccines are given, according to the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act) eliminating many of the warnings associated with each vaccine. The MMR Vaccine Information Statement no longer says, “Some People Should Not Get this Vaccine.” The purpose for the changes appears to be to restrict the indications for medical exemptions, and create a federal standard to be applied by states that pass legislation like California’s.
Although it is not usually acknowledged, vaccination is not a one-size-fits-all procedure. According to the Mayo Clinic, “Human antibody response to measles vaccine is highly variable in the population.” Females have more adverse reactions than males. Gender and race influence the response. As does heredity.
Families that have experienced a serious vaccine reaction are right to be concerned about additional vaccinations and the safety of sibling vaccination, for their family is probably at higher than average risk of a reaction. What goes unreported is that many unvaccinated children are themselves a vulnerable group, and should not be vaccinated. However, there are no existing standards for doctors to use to determine the risk of vaccination to most children. So medical exemptions have been improvised, and are generally hard to come by.
4. Herd Immunity is undermined by high rates of vaccine failures
The Quebec measles epidemic I mentioned demonstrates that even a vaccination rate over 95% didn’t prevent a large measles outbreak. Herd immunity rates are based on statistical modelling, and are only projections. The reason that 50% of measles cases occurred in vaccinated children is primary or secondary vaccine failure. Primary vaccine failure means the vaccine never produced immunity, while secondary failure means the immunity was lost over time.
For most vaccines, primary and secondary failures go unnoticed, because children are not being exposed to most of these infections. The infections children do get exposed to are pertussis and influenza, and then vaccine failure is obvious–because most cases of pertussis and many of influenza occur in fully vaccinated children.
5. Do unvaccinated children put immunocompromised children at risk?
The fact is that immunocompromised children are not dying from vaccine preventable diseases, and few are getting them, with the exceptions of influenza, pertussis and varicella–because vaccines for these 3 infections provide limited immunity.
Fewer than one American dies yearly from measles, mumps, rubella, polio, or diphtheria. On average, one Canadian dies from whooping cough (pertussis). Ten Canadian children die from influenza. One American child dies yearly from varicella (chickenpox).
You are looking at 11 child deaths per year in Canada. Would vaccinating every child fully against whooping cough, varicella and influenza prevent these deaths? Remember, most whooping cough and varicella patients are fully vaccinated. And while the immunity generated in young children from flu shots varies yearly, it is usually less than 50%.
Herd immunity cannot be achieved for whooping cough or influenza because neither vaccine is adequate. Pertussis vaccine immunity wanes so quickly that little protection is left after 3-4 years. Transmission to others can occur before you realize you have influenza or pertussis. Even if 100% of Canadians were vaccinated, these diseases would continue to circulate within the vaccinated and the unvaccinated population.
Varicella cannot be eradicated both because the vaccine is not optimal (85% efficacy), waning occurs, and because the virus stays in your body permanently after vaccination or infection. Most immunocompromised children who develop varicella infections do so from virus already resident in their bodies. The claim that vaccine exemptions put immunocompromised children at risk was invented by PR firms, with no evidence behind it. In fact, immunocompromised children are at more risk from the shedding of live viruses in vaccines by other children who were recently vaccinated.
6. Sufficient population immunity appears to exist
While vaccination rates reported in New Brunswick are low, non-medical exemption rates are also low: 2%. The likeliest explanation for lack of epidemics despite low recorded vaccination rates is inadequate recordkeeping.
In Maine, with similar demographics, vaccination rates for each of the required vaccines is about 95%. Exemption rates vary by vaccine. Only 1% of US children receive no vaccines. Up to 25% receive some, but not every available vaccine.
7. Should we be concerned about vaccine quality and origin?
Vaccines are biologics. According to the FDA, “Most biologics are complex mixtures that are not easily identified or characterized.” Translation: vaccines contain unknown substances, unknown even to the FDA and Public Health Agency of Canada. This makes them challenging to regulate. The FDA relies on vaccine manufacturers to provide accurate data about each step in the manufacturing process. When a problem occurs during manufacturing, the FDA expects to be told and expects the manufacturer to recall affected lots of vaccine when necessary. I have provided you information on 5 vaccine recalls or other issues in Canada since 2012.
https://healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2018/66674a-eng.php
https://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2012/15083a-eng.php
https://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2012/15001a-eng.php
https://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2012/15834a-eng.php
https://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2012/15096a-eng.php
The quality of manufactured drugs has been diminishing. Over 80% of the drugs sold in the US are manufactured overseas, mostly in India and China.
The FDA usually redacts information about the locations where vaccine ingredients are manufactured. I am under the impression that at present, US vaccine products are made in Europe and North America.
However, the World Health Organization has a system for approving (or “prequalifying”) vaccines made in underdeveloped countries for sale internationally–generally to other underdeveloped countries.
Large multinational pharmaceutical companies, such as Sanofi, which has vaccine manufacturing facilities in both India and China, are manufacturing vaccines in underdeveloped nations. China and India each have over 20 vaccine manufacturers. It is probably only a matter of time before vaccines manufactured in countries known for inadequate government monitoring of pharmaceuticals are being used in Canada and the US.
China experienced vaccine scandals in 2016 and in 2018:
“In July, China experienced its “worst public health crisis in years” as stated by South China Morning Post. Chinese vaccine maker Changsheng Biotechnology was found to have fabricated production and inspection records and to have arbitrarily changed process parameters and equipment during its production of freeze-dried human rabies vaccines. Furthermore, substandard diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) vaccines produced by Changsheng Biotechnology were administered to 215,184 Chinese children; and 400,520 substandard DPT vaccines produced by Wuhan Institute of Biological Products were sold in Hebei and Chongqing. On July 25, China’s drug regulator launched an investigation into all vaccine producers across the country. Fifteen people from Changsheng Biotechnology, including the chairman, have been detained by Chinese authorities. This latest vaccine scandal follows on from a series of fake and substandard food and drugs issues in China. As a result, many parents have lost faith in the vaccine system.”
8. Influenza, and the Fluad vaccine
Influenza is a disease that affects from 3-20% of the population yearly. There were 6515 reported influenza deaths in the US in 2017, during the decade’s worst outbreak. CDC uses mathematical models to estimate influenza deaths, and the estimates include deaths from other heart and lung conditions, in people who had influenza. These estimates usually range from 30-50,000 deaths yearly, related to influenza. Ninety percent of influenza deaths occur in those over age 65. While most people over 65 receive annual flu vaccines in the US, this age group is less likely to develop immunity from the vaccine, compared to younger people. Overall, flu vaccine effectiveness averages about 40%, according to the CDC.
Each year, influenza vaccines are newly made to contain the dominant strains predicted for that season. Because of the need to make different products each year, and make them rapidly available for each flu season, they are not tested to the same extent as other vaccines. Clinical trials to test for safety are not required for yearly changes to flu vaccines. Effectiveness trials are impossible to do prior to mass use. Yearly flu vaccines are “grandfathered in,” although they are checked for manufacturing defects.
In 2009, a GSK vaccine for pandemic flu caused 1300 cases of narcolepsy in Europe, mainly in adolescents and young adults. The European Medicines Agency failed to warn the public of this problem in a timely manner, leading to extended use of the problematic vaccine.
Possible reasons this occurred include the revolving door between vaccine manufacturers and regulators, the abbreviated safety testing of flu vaccines, and the liability protection given to manufacturers by governments. The episode provides a warning that regulators’ first priority may not always be the public’s welfare.
The response of elders to flu vaccines is particularly poor. Two strategies are being tried to enhance vaccine immunity in this age group. The first involves using higher concentrations of antigens in the vaccines. The second involves using novel adjuvants, which are substances that provide increased stimulation to the immune system. Potentially this can improve immunity, but it might increase inflammation and autoimmune illnesses.
The Fluad vaccine is the only influenza vaccine in Canada and the US to contain a novel, immune-boosting adjuvant. The adjuvant is called MF59 C1. Originally produced by an Italian company, the adjuvant-containing flu vaccine was licensed for elders only, in Italy, in 1997. It was not licensed in the US until 2015, for elders only, presumably because they were less likely to experience complications from the vaccine’s additional immune stimulation. I have been unable to find unbiased literature on the MF59 adjuvant or the Fluad vaccine, as all the research has been sponsored by its manufacturers (Sclavo, then Chiron, then Novartis, and now Sequirus).
Fluad was licensed for elders in Canada in 2011. The government of Ontario’s fact sheet on the vaccine makes clear that by 2016 it was still not known whether the excess immune stimulation it provides actually improved protection against the flu:
“How well does the Fluad® vaccine protect against influenza? Influenza vaccines may decrease hospitalizations and deaths among elderly individuals. According to the product monograph, Fluad® produces a higher immune response in elderly individuals when compared to other influenza vaccines without an adjuvant. The higher immune response may indicate that Fluad® works better than unadjuvanted vaccines, although this is not known for certain.”
Nor is it known how safe the adjuvanted vaccine is. It causes about 15% more local reactions than nonadjuvanted flu vaccines, but we don’t know if it causes more serious, or later onset, adverse reactions.
FluWatch reports that 10 Canadian children died from flu last season, 8 aged 2-4 years old. Nine children died the prior season. Canada and the US recommend yearly flu vaccines for all eligible children aged over 6 months, while most of Europe does not recommend flu vaccine for healthy children. Very young children generate a poor immune response to current influenza vaccines. But few die from the disease.
Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunizations reviewed the literature on the use of the Fluad, MF59-adjuvanted vaccines in infants and young children in 2015. From their report’s Executive Summary:
“Severe reactions are rare, but several of the reviewed studies were too small to detect clinically significant but rare adverse events. In particular, the safety information is limited for ATIV (adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccines) in children with immunodeficiencies and other chronic illnesses… There are insufficient data to assess whether ATIV (adjuvanted flu vaccine) is more effective than UTIV (unadjuvanted flu vaccine) or LAIV (live attenuated flu vaccine) in practice or to make an informed risk-benefit analysis.”
The reviewers also noted that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) failed to license the vaccine for European children in 2012. The EMA report found a number of problems with the single pivotal clinical trial of Fluad in children. Furthermore, the EMA report states, “The current application, although related to a product developed more than 15 years ago and authorized for use in the elderly, includes only one study addressing clinical vaccine efficacy.” The report concludes, “The overall benefit-risk balance of Fluad Paediatric is negative.”
Despite a) the lack of evidence of benefit, b) limited and c) unreliable safety information, d) rejection in Europe, and e) no evidence of any other country using it for children, f) let alone use in infants–in 2015 the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) licensed Fluad pediatric for use in infants and babies aged 6 months to 2 years.
It seems that Canada’s youngest children have been selected to serve as the unwitting guinea pigs in a massive immune stimulation experiment of this novel-adjuvanted vaccine.
What was the PHAC thinking? Will Canadian children serve as experimental subjects, without their parents’ knowledge, for additional vaccines selected for them by their public health agency?
If vaccine exemptions are removed, how can they be protected from public health officials whose primary allegiance may not be to the public?
Public health officials use the mass media, medical professionals and the levers of government to encourage, exhort and cajole vaccinations. Their conduct with the Fluad pediatric vaccine has shown they must not be given the power to compel.
July 6, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Canada, United States |
Leave a comment
As the U.S. Food and Drug Administration continues to release Pfizer’s clinical trial documentation,1 we’re finding more and more evidence that very little has been done on the up-and-up, and the COVID jab trials may be among the most fraudulent in medical history.
Can All Serious Adverse Effects Be Written Off?
Importantly, Pfizer classified almost all severe adverse events that occurred during its Phase 3 trials as unrelated to the injection. As reported by The Defender, June 21, 2022:2
“The latest release by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine documents reveals numerous instances of participants who sustained severe adverse events during Phase 3 trials. Some of these participants withdrew from the trials, some were dropped and some died.
The 80,000-page document cache includes an extensive set of Case Report Forms (CRFs) from Pfizer Phase 3 trials conducted at various locations in the U.S., in addition to other documentation pertaining to participants in Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine trials in the U.S. and worldwide …
The CRFs included in this month’s documents contain often vague explanations of the specific symptoms experienced by the trial participants. They also reveal a trend of classifying almost all adverse events — and in particular severe adverse events (SAEs) — as being ‘not related’ to the vaccine.”
The Defender article includes 11 examples3 of trial participants who experienced severe adverse effects that were classified as “unrelated” to the experimental gene transfer technology they’d received just days or weeks earlier.
A 2,566-page document4 catalogues the serious adverse events and six deaths that occurred during the trial. These events were all classified as “toxicity level 4,” which is the most serious, yet none of them were deemed related to the injection.
This simply isn’t believable. It’s completely unrealistic, especially when serious events occur in multiple participants. A handful of examples of Level 4 adverse events listed in this document — all of which were written off as “not related” to the mRNA injection — include:5
- Acute respiratory failure
- Cardiac arrest
- Brain abscess
- Adrenal carcinoma (adrenal cancer)
- Chronic myeloid leukemia (blood and bone marrow cancer)
The six deaths reported were listed as being caused by arteriosclerosis, cardiac arrest, hemorrhagic stroke and myocardial infarction.6 Many participants also dropped out or were excluded from the trial due to serious side effects involving the heart, cardiovascular system, cancer, stroke, hemorrhage and neurological impacts.
Examples of Level 3 Adverse Events
Most Level 3 adverse events were also dismissed as unrelated to the shot. As reported by The Defender, only a “small number” were listed as being related to the injection. Examples of Level 3 side effects include:7
- Deafness/hearing loss
- Tachycardia (disruption of the normal electrical impulses that control your heart rate — the very problem that underlies most cases of “sudden adult death syndrome” or SADS)
- Ventricular arrhythmia (abnormal heart rhythm that makes the lower chambers twitch rather than pump — another underlying cause of SADS)
- Neutropenia (low neutrophil level in your blood; neutrophils are a type of white blood cell made by your bone marrow that fight infections by destroying viruses and bacteria)
- Vertigo
45% Experienced One or More Adverse Events
Another document8 that raises suspicions of bias is one admitting that “40% to 45% of participants who received BNT162b1 and BNT162b2 across age groups and across dose levels reported one or more AEs [adverse events] from Dose 1 through 28 days (i.e., 1 month) after Dose 2.”
BNT162b2 was the candidate injection that went on to receive Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA. Among those who got the highest dose (30 micrograms) of BNT162b2, 50% of younger participants 25% in the older age group reported one or more adverse events.
The most common adverse events were nervous system disorders, followed by musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders. Yet despite high rates of side effects across dose levels, this document also insists that “most AEs were considered by the investigator as not related to study intervention.”
During the open-label period of the study, 12,006 participants were followed for a minimum of six months, and among those, 28.8% reported at least one adverse event at some point during that follow-up, and 2.1% reported one or more severe adverse events.
Incidence Rate in Treatment Group FAR Higher Than Placebo
As reported by The Defender :9
“The review provides data for participants from dose 3 … to the data cutoff date. The severe adverse event incidence rate (IR) was 6.0 per 100 PY (patient-years), with specific conditions reported including pulmonary embolisms, thrombosis, urticaria, a cerebrovascular accident and COVID-19 pneumonia.
Here, the review adds that the IR for original placebo participants who had at least 1 life-threatening AE from Dose 3 to the data cutoff date was 0.5 per 100 PY.
Only one such life-threatening event, an instance of anaphylactoid reaction, was considered to be related to the vaccination. Other life-threatening, serious adverse events included cardio-respiratory arrest, gastrointestinal necrosis, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism …
Notably, according to the review, ‘all … events of facial paralysis were considered by the investigator as related to study intervention.” [Editor’s note: these specifically refer to events that occurred during the open-label follow-up period when BNT162b2 Dose 3 or Dose 4 was offered to both placebo and initial treatment groups.]
Young Children Have Extremely Low Risk of Death From COVID
In the end, we all know what happened. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Pfizer concluded the shot was safe and effective for everyone and the FDA went along with it. The vaccine manufacturers and the FDA have decided it isn’t even worth invoking the precautionary principle for the very youngest of children, which is nothing short of reprehensible, criminal maleficence.
In mid-June 2022, against strong objections from physicians, scientists and researchers, the FDA’s vaccine advisory panel — the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) — unanimously agreed to grant EUA to both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID shots for infants and young children.10,11
Pfizer’s EUA is for a three-dose regimen (3-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 5 years old, while Moderna’s EUA is for a two-dose regimen (25-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 6 years.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,12 an estimated 75% of American children ages birth to 11 already have some level of immunity, having been exposed to one of the several variants that have come into circulation over the past two-plus years.
This immunity level alone makes EUA for COVID shots questionable. CDC data also prove young children have a very low risk of hospitalization and death from COVID, which makes the EUAs even more questionable.
Data13 published in mid-March 2022 suggest babies and young children under the age of 4 have had a peak hospitalization rate for COVID of 14.5 per 100,000. That peak occurred after Omicron became predominant. The hospitalization rate for the Delta variant in this age group was 2.9 per 100,000.
In all, since March 2020, a total of 2,562 infants and young children (6 months to 4 years) have been hospitalized WITH COVID. Of those, 2,068 had COVID listed as the primary reason for admission (84.7% of the total), and only 624 required ICU admission.
The median length of hospital stay was 1.5 days (range: one to three days). Of the 2,562 children with suspected COVID infection, 16 of them (0.6%) died in the hospital. Death certificate data push that number a bit higher. The Vaccine Reaction notes,14 “According to death certificate data,15 202 deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 among children 6 months to 4 years of age through May 11, 2022.”
While any death is tragic, it’s worth noting that 923 (35.8%) of the children hospitalized with suspected COVID also had one or more underlying medical conditions.16 We don’t know for sure, but it’s quite possible that those who died with a COVID diagnosis actually died from whatever underlying condition was present or had brought them to the hospital in the first place.
What I’m trying to say is that 16 to 202 deaths over two-plus years aren’t cause for panic, and that’s true even if COVID was the primary cause of those deaths. The likelihood of your child getting injured by the mRNA shot is undoubtedly significantly greater than their risk of dying from COVID.
Jab More Likely to Put You in the Hospital Than Keep You Out
The same is true for adults, by the way. A June 2022 analysis17,18 of Pfizer and Moderna trial data found the shots are more likely to put you in the hospital than keep you out of it. As reported by The Daily Sceptic :19
“A new paper20 by BMJ Editor Dr. Peter Doshi and colleagues has analyzed data from the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccine trials and found that the vaccines are more likely to put you in hospital with a serious adverse event than keep you out by protecting you from COVID.
The pre-print (not yet peer-reviewed) focuses on serious adverse events highlighted in a WHO-endorsed ‘priority list21 of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines.’ The authors evaluated these serious adverse events of special interest as observed in ‘phase III randomized trials of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ …
Dr. Doshi and colleagues found that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Pfizer and 15.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Moderna …
When combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with a risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated … The authors note that this level of increased risk post-vaccine is greater than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization in both Pfizer and Moderna trials, which was 2.3 per 10,000 participants for Pfizer and 6.4 per 10,000 for Moderna.
This means that on this measure, the Pfizer vaccine results in a net increase in serious adverse events of 7.8 per 10,000 vaccinated and the Moderna vaccine of 8.7 per 10,000 vaccinated.”
Doshi’s team wasn’t the first to reanalyze Pfizer’s trial data. The Canadian COVID Care Alliance has also published a clear and easy-to-read summary22 of the Pfizer trial results, and the many questions raised by it. As noted by Dr. Robert Malone:23
“The bottom line is that the Pfizer Phase 3 trial which was used by NIAID [the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases], FDA and CDC to justify the emergency use authorization is pretty much a junk clinical trial which was inappropriately halted long before it even got close to meeting the intended follow up period, did not provide a sufficiently long follow up analysis of vaccination-associated adverse events, and in which the control group was intentionally eliminated.
This resulted in basically erasing any opportunity to ever get to the bottom of what the major true risks of the Pfizer mRNA inoculations were. In terms of more minor risks, the study was not powered (not big enough) to evaluate those.”
FDA and CDC Have Neglected Important Duties
Doshi and his coauthors also note the FDA also watered down results by including “thousands of additional participants with very little follow-up, of which the large majority had only received one dose.”
They then further diluted the appearance of risk by counting only the number of people affected rather than counting the total number of individual adverse events. This makes a big difference, as twice as many people in the treatment group reported multiple serious adverse events, as compared to the placebo group.
The FDA and CDC have both also failed to produce promised follow-up investigations. In July 2021, now a full year ago, the FDA said it would investigate four “potential adverse events of interest following Pfizer vaccination,” namely pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, immune thrombocytopenia and disseminated intravascular coagulation, but to date, no update has been issued.
Similarly, in early 2021, the CDC published a protocol on how to use proportional reporting ratios to detect signals in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), but no study or report showing what that protocol might have found has ever been published.
As it turns out, the CDC hasn’t been looking for safety signals in VAERS — not with the proportional ratios protocol or any other. So, while they’ve publicly claimed they haven’t seen any signals of concern, the reason they haven’t seen any signals is very simple: They never looked at the data!24
That’s how ridiculous things are now. When a drug company or health agency claims they haven’t found a problem, you actually have to ask them, “where, when, how and how often did you look?” But of course, virtually no one would ever ask such questions because they would assume these agencies are competent, which of course is a false assumption.
Their Fraudulent Behavior Could Be Their Undoing
As you probably know, the makers of the COVID shots are indemnified against legal liability for any injuries and all deaths stemming from their products. No one is able to sue them for damages.
The only way to hold them responsible is to prove they’ve committed fraud. This would remove their liability immunity. As detailed at the beginning of the article, their consciously choosing to miscategorize adverse events during the initial trials and concealing the harms should be a slam dunk to convict them of fraud.
But there is also another fact they concealed: There’s evidence showing they knew the mRNA doesn’t stay in the injection site but, rather, distributes throughout the body,25 and this too could be a smoking gun that proves fraud. If convicted of fraud, Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen would likely face liabilities in the trillions of dollars in damages.
When I exposed Merck’s Vioxx scandal in 1999 in this newsletter, before they even released their drug on the market, I thought that was huge. Their drug killed more than 60,000 people, and they could have been liable for $25 billion in damages, but their clever lawyers reduced it to $5 billion.
Well, that catastrophe is a drop in the bucket compared to the COVID scam, which has likely killed between 600,000 and 750,000 Americans, disabled as many as 5 million, and injured an estimated 30 million Americans in one way or another.26,27 That’s just the estimated toll in the U.S., so you can imagine what the global numbers might be. It’s a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. A June 2022 survey by Steve Kirsch also found:28
- 6.6% of COVID jabbed respondents suffered heart injury (about 10 million Americans, based on the national vaccination rate)
- 6.3% had to be hospitalized for their side effects (another 10 million Americans)
- 9.2% of those who took the jab had to seek medical help for their injury, which translated over the whole country would be about 18 million doctor’s visits
- People who got the shot were more likely to die from COVID than the unvaccinated
- 2.63% of the responders had lost someone in their household to COVID infection, and 2.03% had lost someone in their household to the COVID jab
Expect Depopulation
Whether intentional or not, mounting evidence now indicates the COVID-19 injections will result in depopulation through premature death and adverse effects on fertility in women and men alike. I’ve previously discussed the risk of pregnancy loss and infertility in women who get the shot, as the mRNA has an affinity for accumulating in the ovaries29 (as well as the adrenals, liver and bone marrow).
Research30,31 from Israel now also reveals the shot deteriorates sperm count and sperm motility in men for about three months. Considering the multidose mRNA shots are recommended at three-month intervals, you can see how this can really decimate a man’s prospects of fathering a child.
Fertility has been on a steady decline for decades in most parts of the world,32 but the worldwide COVID jab campaign may massively speed that up. Germany recently released data showing a 10% decline in birth rate during the first quarter of 2022.33
Other countries are also seeing a drop in birth rate, nine months after the start of the mass vaccination campaign against COVID. Between January and April 2022, Switzerland’s birth rate was 15% lower than expected, the U.K.’s was down by 10% and Taiwan’s was down 20%.34
What punishment could possibly be appropriate for company heads and health agency leaders responsible for causing massive depopulation worldwide through products that were based on fraudulent science and fictional claims? I doubt if there’s enough money in the world to set that right.
Future Trials To Be Skipped Altogether
As if matters weren’t already beyond horrible, the FDA is considering allowing manufacturers to reformulate their COVID injections in perpetuity without conducting any additional clinical trials!35 In other words, they’d allow drug companies to change the mRNA and/or other ingredients without any safety or efficacy testing whatsoever. As reported by Toby Rogers, Ph.D., in a June 27, 2022, article in The Defender :36
“FDA released a briefing document37 in connection with this scheme to end science as we know it in connection with future COVID-19 shots … The briefing document is 18 pages of text, 1.5 line spacing, with just 19 references — 9 of which are pre-prints or from the CDC’s in-house newsletter Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) which means they are not peer-reviewed.
Any true believer in The Narrative(TM) could have written this in a few hours. To base the entire future of COVID-19 shots on this glorified undergrad term paper is madness …
The core argument of the briefing document is hilarious (or rather, it would be hilarious if it was not a plan to permanently institutionalize genocide and hide the evidence). In several places the FDA argues (colloquialisms mine):
1. These COVID-19 shots work great … Boosters too, total home run, the Israelis even have 10-weeks of data showing that they might help old people. What more evidence could you want?
2. Okay, well, it depends on what you mean by ‘work.’ These shots do not stop infection, transmission, hospitalization, or death, even though that’s why we licensed them. Any protection wears off fairly quickly, but It’s Not Our Fault(TM) because This Wily Virus(TM) mutates too fast and no one told us that it would ever mutate.
3. So these shots must be reformulated but we cannot possibly ask Lord Pharma to do proper clinical trials ever again because we already know that these shots work great (see point #1)!”
In short, the FDA argues that since there are time constraints, evaluation of effectiveness must rely on “measures other than actual health outcomes.” In other words, whether the shots actually lower your risk of severe illness, hospitalization and death will have no bearing.
The only measure they’ll take into account is whether or not the jab triggers a rise in antibody levels, which has never been proven to be beneficial. If anything, the increase in COVID antibodies actually increases your risk of infection. This also means that as long as antibody levels are through the roof, the death rate could be just about anything, because it’s not part of the safety equation.
Faith in Magic Has Officially Replaced Science
As noted by Rogers,38 “The ‘Future Framework’ is a plan to base the entire COVID-19 vaccine program on magical thinking rather than science.” Indeed, Dr. Deborah Birx recently confirmed that the whole vaccine push has been based in faith in magic.39
June 23, 2022, Birx answered questions from the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asked whether the government was lying or guessing when they stated that vaccinated individuals couldn’t catch or spread COVID. At first, she claimed she didn’t know, but when pressed, she replied, “I think it was hope that the vaccine would work in that way.”40
So, the government issued mandates and made unequivocal, absolute statements that were not allowed to be questioned because they HOPED the shots would work a certain way — all while insisting they were the ones following and trusting the science and anyone who questioned their logic was a dangerous nut job. Let that sink in. Hope is literally the diametrical opposite of science.
It’s an Insiders’ Plot
As explained by Rogers, the same old players are behind this brazen attempt to eliminate the need for clinical trials: CDC staffers, academics who are in the pockets of Bill Gates and the NIAID, the drug companies themselves and the World Health Organization. Rogers writes:41
“I did not understand until just yesterday (as I started to write this article) that this entire ‘Future Framework’ is actually coming from the WHO. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the biggest voluntary contributor to the WHO. So Gates is likely directing the play.
Gates requires that WHO use the McKinsey consulting firm so this is probably a McKinsey operation (and McKinsey also works for Pharma so this is a huge conflict of interest). As Naomi Wolf points out, the involvement of the WHO also raises troubling questions about the influence of the Chinese Communist Party over this process.
As far back as January, the WHO/Gates/McKinsey junta realized that these shots were terrible and so they decided to use that as an opportunity to seize even more power and control.
The WHO set up a Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition (TAG-CO-VAC) to implement these Orwellian ‘Future Frameworks’ across the developed world to lower manufacturing costs for Pharma and avoid bothersome health data that might hurt profits. All the messaging we have seen from the FDA and leaked to the press was initially developed and released by TAG-CO-VAC.”
No doubt, we live in unprecedented, precarious times. Logic, reason, science and sanity itself has been tossed aside by those who claim the right to make decisions for all mankind. If the FDA goes forward with this “Future Framework” scheme, the only safe assumption is that COVID shots will become more and more dangerous.
Worse, we can expect other vaccines and drugs to be allowed on the market without clinical trials as well. It truly could change the science of medicine as we know it.
Of course the WHO also wants to seize control over health care worldwide, which would eliminate medical rights everywhere. It’s a nightmare scenario with no end in sight as of yet. All we can do is continue to push back, to inform ourselves, to speak out, share facts and data, and refuse to comply with unscientific recommendations based on little more than hope in fabricated conclusions.
Sources and References
July 5, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine, FDA, United States |
Leave a comment
Government officials must be held accountable
Quite likely a majority of Americans would agree that it is wrong for the government or police to torture someone, though some would surely accept the “ticking time bomb” exemption, where a detainee is withholding information that could save many lives. It is in fact illegal to torture someone as well as it being morally wrong. Indeed, it could constitute a crime against humanity or a war crime depending on circumstances. The United States, which has signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture and is bound by it, has thereby accepted legal sanctions to back up the view that torture is never permissible. Under US law, torture committed by “government officials and their collaborators upon a person restrained by the government is a felony punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison, and its fruits are inadmissible in all courts.” Given that background, one is astonished to learn that some in the government have not taken the obligation seriously. To be sure, the US has been quick to react when lower ranking officials, contractors and ordinary soldiers have reportedly been involved in torturing prisoners, as occurred with Abu Ghraib prior to 2004, but the higher one goes up the ladder of power the less do laws apply to even the most egregious misbehavior.
It has long been known that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), in the wake of 9/11, resorted to torture in its overseas “black” prisons, but details of what took place and anything that would stand up in court as evidence has been difficult to discern as it has been easy for the Agency to shroud its more nefarious deeds through claims of protecting “states secrets.” But now some more details have emerged. The news that former Donald Trump appointed CIA Director Gina Haspel during her tour overseeing a prison in Thailand in 2002 personally observed at least one terrorist suspect being tortured by waterboarding, which simulates being drowned repeatedly until a confession is obtained. Waterboarding was used by the Japanese on prisoners of war in the Second World War and was subsequently considered to be torture, a war crime.
The new information came from one of the creators of the Agency’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” program, psychologist James E. Mitchell, who was testifying in a May pretrial hearing at Guantanamo Prison relating to the treatment of Saudi al-Qaeda linked terrorist suspect Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who has been accused of being complicit in the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 that killed 17 American sailors. Al-Nashiri, who was shipped to Gitmo in 2006 and who has been waiting sixteen years for his trial, could face the death penalty if he is convicted. His defense is seeking to demonstrate that the evidence against him was obtained by torture and should therefore be inadmissible.
Al-Nashiri was subjected to four months of waterboarding as well as to what have been described as “other coercive techniques” during his questioning in Thailand. According to testimony, the hooded interrogators repeatedly slammed al-Nashiri’s head into a wall and forced him naked into a small confinement box. When he briefly went on a hunger strike due to his treatment he was fed rectally. It is not known how frequently Gina Haspel, the senior officer in charge of the base, observed the torture, which she allegedly watched but did not participate in, but she drafted up the classified cables detailing what had occurred and what information had been developed. Oddly, al-Nashiri was freely answering the questions from the interrogators, who recommended that the extreme measures be stopped, but CIA Headquarters insisted that the torture continue in the belief that nothing is “true” until it is verified under torture. Rather than resigning to demonstrate her disagreement, Haspel allowed the process to continue, which is why in part some of her former Agency colleagues regularly refer to her as “Bloody Gina.”
Videotapes were made of the torture but they were subsequently destroyed. Haspel participated in the November 2005 destruction of hundreds of hours of recordings contained on 92 tapes showing at least two interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and al-Nashiri. She did so while serving as chief of staff to the Director of the National Collection Service Jose A. Rodriguez Jr. At her Senate confirmation hearing as Director in 2018, she said “I would also make clear that I did not appear on the tapes.” Rodriguez, who made the decision to destroy the tapes, also reportedly determined how to handle a suspected terrorist detainee Gul Rahman. Rahman was chained, nearly naked, to a concrete floor for an extended time and then froze to death. There was an internal CIA investigation but no officer on-site nor at the Agency headquarters was punished – let alone prosecuted. In fact, Rodriguez, who was in charge of the detention site, received a $2,500 bonus for his “consistently superior work.”
The Agency currently regards the existence of the black prisons and the procedures used to elicit information as a “state secret” even though the existence of the sites is widely known and has been reported on extensively. After serving as Director of Central Intelligence Haspel retired from CIA in January 2021. She currently works for a major Washington law firm King & Spalding L.L.P., a typical transition for senior officials who are able to exploit the revolving door between government and the private sector. She reportedly is part of the firm’s Government Matters practice where she “advise[s] clients on cybersecurity and information technology, among other issues.”
Every instance of torture by the federal government or its agents is by law a separate felony. Beyond that, what went on in the Agency’s black overseas prisons is shocking even in a Washington where no crime is too low to be contemplated by the governments we have unfortunately placed into power. Some might object that Gina’s actions amounted to oversight of a dreadful necessity, but there is something particularly loathsome about a powerful Administration intelligence officer finding time to watch the horrors performed on a suspect who undoubtedly was not afforded any due process before he arrived in his cell to be experimented on by a team of modern-day Torquemadas.
The unfortunate fact is the Gina Haspel is not alone. She committed what are undeniably felonies and now enjoys a well-paid sinecure with a law firm that deals extensively with the government. One might recall similar trajectories relating to the former CIA Director George Tenet who lied America into a war with Iraq that is regarded as the greatest foreign policy failure since the Second World War. He was rewarded with a professorship at Georgetown. And then there is his partner in crime Paul Wolfowitz, he of the fabricated intelligence, who was named head of the World Bank only to subsequently step down after an unacceptable sexual relationship with a subordinate whom he rewarded with promotions was exposed. He is now a Senior Fellow at the neocon affiliated American Enterprise Institute think tank. George and Paul just might consider how the Nuremberg Trials regarded starting a war of aggression as “the ultimate war crime.” And they might suggest a bit of retrospection from their friends George Bush, Doug Feith, Scooter Libby, and Condi Rice, all of whom have been complicit in the same infamy. And then there is Donald Trump’s assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani based on a lie that he was seeking to kill Americans. They are all doing quite well, thank you, either still active or ensconced in highly respected retirement positions, shielded by their wealth and power.
As long as there is no accountability in Washington the farce of government “of the people, and for the people” will continue. That a government can use the “secrets privilege” to conceal and avoid any consequences when killing people without any due process is despicable. If you use government resources to murder someone, you should be tried and go to prison. If you start a war through deliberate lying, you should stay in prison forever. Those who make the decisions to commit crimes are wired into the system and are in a sense bullet-proof, while the public has been completely brainwashed and the beat goes on. Another recent story tells how the CIA was apparently planning to kill currently imprisoned journalist Julian Assange in London. It reportedly included scenarios for a possible shoot-out in the heart of the city, the ramming of Russian diplomatic vehicles and the disabling of any airplane that might be involved in an escape attempt. Who came up with that one? It dates back to 2010, when the noted constitutional lawyer Barack Obama was president. Didn’t he or his advisers know that murder is against the law?
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
July 5, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | CIA, United States |
Leave a comment
On July 1 at the White House, US President Joe Biden made a startling disclosure that “the idea we’re going to be able to click a switch, bring down the cost of gasoline, is not likely in the near term.”
American gas exporters have positioned themselves accordingly to fill the gap as Europe turns away from Russian imports. FT reported recently that “US liquefied natural gas producers have announced a string of deals to boost exports as the industry capitalises on shortages that have left Europe with a mounting energy crisis.”
The deals are so lucrative that Cheniere, America’s leading gas exporter, has taken an investment decision to push ahead with a project that will boost its capacity more than 20 per cent by late 2025, anticipating long-term supply deals and locked in purchases of US gas over the coming decades. The US producers of gas are reportedly running plants flat-out to increase supplies to the EU.
The US has overtaken Russia for the first time as Europe’s top gas supplier. Although LNG from the US is sold to Europe at much higher costs than pipeline gas from Russia, EU countries have no choice.
With Russian supply via Nord Stream at just 40% of capacity, and deliveries to be halted completely for annual maintenance on July 11-21, the outlook for near-term Russian gas supply to Europe appears bleak.
Germany has warned of the risk that Nord Stream gas may not return at all following the maintenance. At any rate, Russian supply to Europe is at record lows and is “set to remain constrained through the third quarter,” per S&P Global.
Germany is heading for a major economic crisis. The head of the German Federation of Trade Unions has been quoted as saying in the weekend, “Entire industries are in danger of collapsing forever because of the gas bottlenecks — especially, chemicals, glass-making, and aluminium industries, which are major suppliers to key automotive sector.” Massive unemployment is likely. When Germany sneezes, of course, Europe catches cold — not only the Eurozone but even post-Brexit Britain.
Welcome to the European Union’s “sanctions from hell.” The US literally hustled the Europeans into the Ukraine crisis. How many times did Secretary of State Antony Blinken travel to Europe in those critical months in the run-up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine to ensure that the door to any meaningful talks with the Kremlin remained shut! And American energy companies are today making windfall profits selling gas to Europeans. Won’t Europeans have the common intelligence to realise they have been had?
Now, Biden has washed his hands of the gas crisis. He brusquely stated at a press conference in Madrid on June 30 that such premium on oil prices will continue “as long as it takes, so Russia cannot, in fact, defeat Ukraine and move beyond Ukraine. This is a critical, critical position for the world. Here we are. Why do we have NATO?”
Biden’s counterfactual narrative is that the sanctions against Russia are going to work eventually and a long war in Ukraine would be Russia’s undoing. The US narrative is that if you look under the hood of the Russian economy, it may not be flexible and resourceful enough to develop an entrepreneurial bunker spirit and adopt new business models to neutralise the sanctions. Biden is convinced that the Russian economy is in the grip of industrial mafias that are not very innovative and, therefore, there aren’t many options for Russia under the western sanctions.
Biden said in Madrid: “Look at the impact that the war on Ukraine has had on Russia… They’ve (Russians) lost 15 years of the gains they made in terms of their economy… They can’t even — you know, they’re having — they’re going to have trouble maintaining oil production because they don’t have the technology to do it. They need American technology. And they’re also in a simi- — similar situation in terms of their weapons systems and some of their military systems. So they’re paying a very, very heavy price for this.”
But even if that’s the case, how does all that help the Europeans? On the other hand, President Putin’s strategic calculations with respect to the war remain very much on track. Russian forces made indisputable progress in establishing full control over Luhansk. On Monday, Putin gave the green signal to a proposal from the army commanders to launch “offensive operations.” Five months into the war, Ukrainians are staring at defeat and Russian army generals know it.
Russia didn’t wander into Ukraine unprepared, either. Evidently, it took precautionary steps both before and since the war to shield its economy. And this enables the Russian economy to settle down to a “new normal”. Washington’s options are quite limited under the circumstances. Fundamentally, western sanctions do not address the causes of the Russian behaviour, and therefore, they are doomed to fail to solve the problem at hand.
To be sure, Putin has some nasty surprises in store for Biden closer to the November mid-term elections. Biden blithely assumes that he controls all the variables in the situation. Schadenfreude is never a rational basis for statecraft.
Yesterday, the strategically important Kherson region bordering Crimea formed a new government with the First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia’s Kaliningrad region heading the cabinet and Russian nationals among his deputies. Now that HIMARS multiple launch rocket system, contrary to Biden’s promise, is blasting Russian cities, expect some major Russian retaliation.
The pathway of Russia’s offensive operations is being relaid to include Kharkov and Odessa as well, apart from Donbass. The influential Kremlin politician and chairman of Duma Vyacheslav Volodin said on Tuesday.
“Some people are asking what our goal is and when all this will end. It will end when our peaceful cities and towns no longer come under shelling attacks. What they are doing is forcing our troops not to stop on the borders of the Lugansk and Donetsk republics (Donbass) because strikes (on Russian regions) are coming from the Kharkov regions and other regions of Ukraine.”
How long does Biden think the Europeans will want to be involved in a protracted proxy war with Russia? Bild reported on Sunday that 75% of German respondents see recent price hikes as a heavy burden, while 50% said they feel their economic conditions are worsening; every second German fears a lack of heating this coming winter due to reduced Russian gas supplies and rising inflation in the European Union.
Yet, Biden says war will go on “for as long as it takes” and fuel shortage will continue “for as long as it takes.” The European economy is expected to start contracting over the course of the second half of 2022 and the recession may continue until the summer of 2023 at least.
Analysts at JP Morgan Chase, the US investment bank, said last week that Russia could also cause “stratospheric” oil price increases if it used output cuts to retaliate. It said, “The tightness of the global oil market is on Russia’s side.” Analysts wrote that prices could more than triple to $380 a barrel if Russia cut production by 5m barrels a day.
Putin’s decree last week is ominous — the Kremlin taking full control of the Sakhalin-2 oil and gas project in Russia’s Far East. State-owned Gazprom held a 50% plus one share stake in the project and its foreign partners included Shell (27.5%), Mitsui (12.5%), and Mitsubishi (10%). The decree stipulates that Gazprom will keep its majority stake, but foreign investors must ask the Russian government for a stake in the newly created firm within one month or be dispossessed. The government will decide whether to approve any request.
This will unsettle energy markets further and put more strain on the LNG market, and can be seen as a move to put more pressure on the West by concurrently restricting gas supplies to Europe and creating more demand for LNG in Asia that will draw off supplies currently going to Europe. Sakhalin-2 supplies circa 4% of the global LNG market!
The only part of the US agenda that is going well seems to be the unspoken part of it: the very same Anglo-American objectives that Lord Ismay once predicted as the rationale behind the NATO’s existence —”to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”
July 5, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Economics | European Union, NATO, United States |
Leave a comment
It’s easy to see why, according to a new Harris poll, 71 percent of Americans said they do not want Joe Biden to run for re-election. As Americans face record gas prices and the highest inflation in 40 years, President Biden admits he could not care less. His Administration is committed to fight a proxy war with Russia through Ukraine and Americans just need to suck it up.
Last week a New York Times reporter asked Biden how long he expects Americans to pay record gasoline prices over his Administration’s Ukraine policy. “As long as it takes,” replied the president without hesitation.
“Russia cannot defeat Ukraine,” added Biden as justification for his Administration’s pro-pain policy toward Americans. The president has repeatedly tried to deflect blame for the growing economic crisis by claiming Russia is solely behind recent inflation. “The reason why gas prices are up is because of Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia,” he said in the same press conference.
But Biden has a big problem: Americans do not believe him. According to a Rasmussen poll earlier this month, only eleven percent of Americans believe Biden’s claim that Russian president Vladimir Putin is to blame for high prices.
When it comes to disdain for the average American hurt by higher prices, there is more than enough in the Biden Administration to go around.
Brian Deese, Director of President Biden’s National Economic Council, was asked in a recent CNN interview, “What do you say to those families that say, listen, we can’t afford to pay $4.85 a gallon for months, if not years?”
His answer? “This is about the future of the Liberal World Order and we have to stand firm.”
Has there ever been an Administration more out of touch with the American people? If you asked working Americans whether they’d be happy to suffer poverty for the “liberal world order,” how many would say “that sounds like a great idea”?
President Biden’s attempts to bring down gasoline prices are bound to fail because he does not understand the problem. He can beg the Saudis to pump more oil, he can even threaten the US oil companies as he did in a Tweet yesterday. He can buy and sell from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an attempt to give the impression that prices are lowering. None of it will work.
The strangest part of this idea that Americans must suffer to hurt the Russians is that these policies aren’t even hurting Russia! On the contrary: Russia has seen record profits from its oil and gas exports since the beginning of the Ukraine war.
According to a recent New York Times article, increasing global oil and gas prices have enabled Russia to finance its war on Ukraine. US sanctions did not bring the Russian economy to its knees, as Biden promised. They actually brought the American economy to its knees while Russian profits soared.
As Newsweek noted last week, Russian television pundits are joking that with the financial windfall Russia has seen since sanctions were imposed, “Biden is of course our agent.”
Washington’s bi-partisan foreign policy of wasting trillions on endless wars overseas has finally come home. Biden is clearly out of touch, but there is plenty of blame to go around. The only question is whether we will see an extended recession… or worse.
Copyright © 2022 by RonPaul Institute.
July 5, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Russophobia | Joe Biden, United States |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
