Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Data Show FDA Process for Emergency Authorization of Pfizer, Merck COVID Pills Not Based on Science

By John Droz, Jr., M.S. | The Defender | March 7, 2022

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2021 granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to two COVID-19 early treatment oral drugs: Pfizer’s Paxlovid and Merck’s molnupiravir.

This was a major milestone, as until then, there were no FDA-endorsed pharmaceutical pill options for people diagnosed with COVID-19.

The standard medical therapy for a newly diagnosed person was: Go home, rest, drink water and go to the hospital if things get dire.

Now, after almost two years, people diagnosed with early stages of COVID-19 can be prescribed a pill!

As background, there are three stipulations a drug must meet in order to obtain EUA from the FDA:

  • There must be an emergency.
  • The treatment in consideration must be safe and offer 50% efficacy.
  • There must not be an alternative available treatment that is safe and effective.

Pfizer and Merck oversaw clinical trials that attempted to prove their products were safe and effective. In the letters of authorization issued to Pfizer and Merck, the FDA outlined what tests were done, what the results were, what some of the limitations and concerns are, etc.

The FDA then generated more detailed advisories to healthcare providers (doctors) for Paxlovid and molnupiravir. These documents give more specifics about use restrictions (e.g., not to children), potentially adverse effects of each drug (e.g., not to be used by pregnant women, etc.), potential conflicts with other drugs (quite a few), etc.

Here are four key points to consider regarding the Paxlovid and molnupiravir data:

  • The tests were conducted by the pharmaceutical companies themselves (not an unbiased entity).
  • No long-term testing was done on either of these drugs (the trials lasted a few months).
  • The effects on patients with many other diseases (e.g., Parkinson’s) were not evaluated and remain unknown.
  • The reported effectiveness of each drug (hospitalization or death: 88% and 30%) are relative not absolute. (See this explanation about this important point.)

OK, kudos to the FDA for giving consumers some early treatment options for dealing with COVID-19. It’s especially good that they are non-hospital, take-at-home therapies.

However, the question remains: How do these FDA-endorsed drugs compare to other over-the-counter (OTC) and non-patented drugs — especially ivermectin (IVM) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) — that are reported to have some early treatment effectiveness against COVID-19?

As a scientist (physicist) I try to be careful in analyzing data, to not only be accurate but to present it objectively and understandably.

In that light, see this table where I juxtapose Paxlovid and molnupiravir to IVM, HCQ and three OTC drugs: curcumin, Vitamin D and zinc. The comparisons made are based on about 20 COVID-19 factors (effectiveness, safety, cost, etc.).

Comparison of Major COVID-19 Early Treatment Oral Pharmaceuticals

Click here to increase the size of the chart and access the hyperlinks.

COVID chart

6 takeaways from comparison of Paxlovid and molnupiravir to IVM, HCQ, and OTCs

  • Pfizer’s Paxlovid is reported to have very high effectiveness.
  • HCQ and the curcumin have effectiveness comparable to Paxlovid.
  • Merck’s molnupiravir has very low effectiveness.
  • IVM, Vitamin D and Zinc have effectiveness far superior to molnupiravir.
  • Paxlovid and molnupiravir have more serious side effects than the others.
  • Paxlovid and molnupiravir cost considerably more than the non-patented options.

Are Pfizer and Merck oral treatment EUAs legal? 

Remember, federal law stipulates that an EUA can not be granted unless: “There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition.”

The data in this analysis indicate there are “adequate and available alternatives for treating” COVID-19. If the data are accurate, then these EUAs have questionable legality.

Adequate and available alternatives for treating COVID-19 do, in fact, exist — the FDA has no scientific justification for ignoring IVM, HCQ, Vitamin D and zinc.

Further, if these FDA-issued EUAs for Paxlovid and molnupiravir violate federal statutes, a closer examination of the FDA’s COVID-19 vaccine EUAs seems warranted.

If the Pfizer and Merck EUAs are legal, then why haven’t HCQ and IVM also been given EUAs?

Considering the six takeaways listed above — plus the fact, as noted in the above table, that there have been successful HCQ and IVM studies much larger (~10x) than those done for Paxlovid and molnupiravir — exactly why has the FDA not issued EUAs for IVM and HCQ?

The comparative in Table 1 adequately demonstrates there is no justification for the FDA’s refusal to grant EUAs to IVM and HCQ.

If the FDA had granted EUAs for HCQ and IVM a year ago, hundreds of thousands of COVID-19 deaths would have been prevented.

What FDA policy, procedure or precedent took priority over preventing hundreds of thousands of American deaths?

What about monoclonal antibody therapies?

Let us now expand our comparisons to include current monoclonal antibody therapies:

Comparison of Major COVID-19 Early Treatment Pharmaceuticals

Click here to increase the size of the chart and access the hyperlinks.

Early treatment chart

Note that the four key points identified above, regarding the Paxlovid and molnupiravir data, all apply here.

Some of the main takeaways from this comparison are:

  • Sotrovimab has the highest effectiveness — but the least amount of data.
  • HCQ and curcumin have effectiveness comparable to the bamlanivimab+ and casirivimab+ combinations.
  • The first FDA EUA given to bamlanivimab turned out to be a mistake (as health issues were discovered).
  • All the monoclonals have more serious side effects than the non-EUA options.
  • All the monoclonals cost considerably more than the non-EUA options.
  • All the monoclonals have much less safety data than the non-EUA options.

Again, this comparison shows that IVM, HCQ, curcumin, vitamin D and zinc compare very favorably to all of the early treatments that received EUA from the FDA.

John Droz, Jr. is an independent North Carolina physicist.

© 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.

March 8, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Moderna Patented Key COVID Spike Protein Sequence in 2016

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | March 7, 2022

The facts surrounding SARS-CoV-2’s origin just keep getting stranger and more disturbing as time goes on. From the start, most of the evidence seemed to point to the virus being a lab creation that somehow escaped the confines of the laboratory. We really don’t have much of anything to suggest otherwise.

Now, a study1,2 published February 21, 2022, in Frontiers in Virology claims to have discovered that a sequence of the virus’ spike protein is a 100% match to a modified messenger RNA (mmRNA) sequence patented3 by Moderna — in 2016.

Some believe this is a smoking gun, proving gain of function research is at the heart of this mystery. Of course, more research is needed to verify the findings, but if proven correct, it could be rather incriminating.

What Did Moderna Patent?

The genetic sequence patented4 by Moderna — and now found to be part of the SARS-CoV-2’s furin cleavage site in the spike protein that gives the virus access into human cells — is a 19-nucleotide sequence of a human gene called MSH3, which is a DNA repair gene.5

Nucleotides code for specific amino acids. The MSH3 gene works with the part of your immune system responsible for combating cancer by repairing damaged cells. This pathway has been identified as a potential target for new cancer treatments.

As noted in the patent application, the gene sequence has been modified “for the production of oncology-related proteins and peptides,” ostensibly for use in cancer research. The first name listed on the patent is Stéphane Bancel, a Frenchman who has been Moderna’s chief executive officer since 2011.

What’s so curious here is that the scientists of the Frontiers in Virology paper searched all viral and bacterial databases looking for matches to the furin cleavage site patented by Moderna, and SARS-CoV-2 is the only pathogen that has this sequence. It’s an absolute match — 100% identical.

What are the chances of a naturally-occurring virus having a rarely encountered furin cleavage site that is genetically identical to an engineered and patented one? As noted by the authors:6

“The absence of CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG from any eukaryotic or viral genome in the BLAST database makes recombination in an intermediate host an unlikely explanation for its presence in SARS-CoV-2.”

In other words, the sequence being a natural zoonosis is extremely unlikely. According to the researchers, the chance that SARS-CoV-2 would have randomly acquired this furin cleavage site through natural evolution is 1 in 3 trillion.7 They also noted that “Recombination in an intermediate host is an unlikely explanation.” What’s more, it’s known that inserting a furin cleavage site on the spike protein of a virus will make it more infectious.

Moderna CEO Suggests Lab Leak Responsible for COVID-19

One hypothesis raised in the paper is that the matching code might have been introduced into the SARS-CoV-2 genome through infected human cells that express the MSH3 gene. The question, then, is how and when did that happen?

Interestingly, in a February 24, 2022, interview, Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo questioned Bancel about the finding. He responded saying their scientists are looking into the claim, adding:

“That it came from a lab is possible. Humans make mistakes. It’s possible that the Wuhan lab in China was working on virus enhancement or gene modification and then there was an accident where somebody was infected in the lab, which affected family and friends. It is possible. On the claim you just mentioned, scientists will look to know if it’s real or not.”

Why This Code?

Now, if SARS-CoV-2 was man-made, why would they use this particular code? As noted in the Frontiers of Virology paper, the MSH3 sequence in question has been shown to cause mismatch repair in DNA, and faulty repair of genetic damage can lead to a number of diseases, including cancer. But overexpression of MSH3 also plays a role in virology:

“Overexpression of MSH3 is known to interfere with mismatch repair … which holds virologic importance. Induction of DNA mismatch repair deficiency results in permissiveness of influenza A virus (IAV) infection of human respiratory cells and increased pathogenicity. Mismatch repair deficiency may extend shedding of SARS-CoV-2 …

A human-codon-optimized mRNA encoding a protein 100% homologous to human MSH3 could, during the course of viral research, inadvertently or intentionally induce mismatch repair deficiency in a human cell line, which would increase susceptibility to SARS-like viral infection.”

It’s interesting to note that Moderna did not have a single successful mRNA product brought to market before the COVID-19 pandemic allowed them to bypass normal regulatory requirements.

Now, all of a sudden, we’re to believe they managed to throw together a safe and effective mRNA injection against SARS-CoV-2, a virus that just so happens to contain one of its own patented components. What are the odds?

Did Dr. Anthony Fauci, a leading promoter of mRNA technology as a replacement for traditional vaccines, have anything to do with Moderna’s sudden “success”? It certainly looks that way. After all, the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), an arm of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), both funded and co-developed Moderna’s COVID-19 jab.

As explained by the NIH,8 the injection “combines Moderna’s mRNA delivery platform with the stabilized SARS-CoV-2 spike immunogen (S-2P)9 developed by NIAID scientists.” In mid-November 2021, Moderna granted co-ownership of its COVID-19 mRNA “vaccine” patent to the NIH to resolve a dispute involving the naming of the inventors.10

Can the COVID Jab Trigger Cancer?

Incidentally, since the release of the mRNA COVID jab, some doctors have raised concerns about the possibility of the injections to trigger cancer, largely due to its detrimental impact on your immune function.

For clarity, this may have nothing to do with Moderna’s patented MSH3 sequence specifically, because the RNA code in the jab is not identical to the RNA code of the actual virus. The RNA in the jab has been genetically altered yet again to resist breakdown and ensure the creation of abundant copies of the spike protein.11

So far, the link to cancer post-jab seems to be related to the downregulation of toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4), which is involved in both infections and cancer. In an October 2021 article, Dr. Nicole Delépine, a French pediatric oncologist,12 discussed reports of exploding cancer cases post-jab:13

“Several months ago, we expressed at least “theoretical reservations” about vaccinating cancer patients or former patients who had been cured, because of the underlying mechanism of the gene injection on immunity.

Several geneticists had also expressed their concerns about the possible interference between active or dormant cancer cells and the activity of gene therapy on lymphocytes in particular. Months have passed, and the vaccine madness has amplified … [C]learly there seems to be three situations:

•The appearance of a cancer rapidly after the injection (two weeks to a few months) and very progressive, in a person who was previously free of known carcinological pathologies.

•The resumption of cancer in a patient who has been in complete remission for several months or years.

•The rapid, even explosive, evolution of a cancer that is not yet controlled.

Beyond the testimonies that are pouring in from relatives and friends and on social networks, a Swiss newspaper has finally addressed the subject in a broader way. Here are some excerpts from their article and their references:

‘Can COVID vaccines cause cancer? In some cases, the answer seems to be yes … [It] has been shown that in up to 50% of vaccinees, COVID vaccines can induce temporary immunosuppression or immune dysregulation (lymphocytopenia) that can last for about a week or possibly longer.

Furthermore, COVID mRNA vaccines have shown to ‘reprogram’… adaptive and innate immune responses and, in particular, to downregulate the so-called TLR4 pathway, which is known to play an important role in the immune response to infections and cancer cells.

Thus, if there is already a tumor somewhere — known or unknown — or if there is a predisposition to a certain type of cancer, such a state of vaccine-induced immune suppression or immune dysregulation could potentially trigger sudden tumor growth and cancer within weeks of vaccination …’”

Dr. Ryan Cole, in August 2021, also reported14,15 seeing a significant increase in certain types of cancer, especially endometrial and uterine cancers, since the start of the mass injection campaign. Cole runs a large pathology laboratory in Idaho.

Other Key Components of SARS-CoV-2 Have Also Been Patented

Time will tell where this all leads, but clearly, SARS-CoV-2 does not appear to be the result of natural evolution. The evidence for it being man-made is simply overwhelming. So far, few in mainstream media have been willing to touch this story, for obvious reasons.

Finding a key gene sequence of the virus in a patent of one of the primary vaccine makers is inconvenient to say the least — and this is in addition to all the other patents relating to the virus.

As previously detailed16 by David Martin, Ph.D., SARS-CoV-2 appears to have been engineered in the 1990s, perfected in 1999 and patented in 2002. Evidence also shows that plans for mandatory vaccinations were hatched in 2015. That year, during an Academies of Science meeting, Dr. Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance stated:

“… until an infectious disease crisis is very real, present, and at an emergency threshold, it is often largely ignored. To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase public understanding of the need for MCM’s [medical countermeasures] such as pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine.

A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of [the] process.”

According to Martin, “That’s admission of a felony, and the felony is domestic terrorism.” In a November 2021 Red Pill Expo speech,17 Martin reviewed the timeline of the COVID-19 jab, which began in 1990 with the first coronavirus vaccine patent for canines (dogs) filed by Pfizer.

That vaccine was an S-1 spike protein vaccine — just like the current Pfizer COVID shot, and according to Martin, that S-1 spike protein is a bioweapon, not a pathogen. Nine years later, in 1999, Fauci, as director of the NIAID, tasked the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill with the creation of “an infectious replication-defective coronavirus” specifically targeted for human lung epithelium.

The patent for that replication-defective coronavirus that attacks human lung cells, filed April 19, 2002, (Patent No. 7279327), details the gene sequencing of the resulting virus, and how the ACE receptor, the ACE2 binding domain and the S-1 spike protein were engineered and could be synthetically modified in the lab using readily available gene sequencing technologies.

Basically, computer code is turned into a manmade pathogen, or an intermediate pathogen. This technology was initially funded in order to harness the coronavirus as a vector for an HIV vaccine, but it clearly didn’t end there.

CDC Holds Patents on SARS Coronavirus

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also holds key patents, including an illegally obtained patent for the entire gene sequence for the SARS coronavirus (Patent No. 7220852), which Martin says is 99% identical to the sequence now identified as SARS-CoV-2.

That CDC patent also had several derivative patents associated with it, including U.S. patent 46592703P and U.S. patent 7776521, which cover the gene sequence of SARS coronavirus and the means for detecting it using RT PCR testing. With these two patents, the CDC has complete scientific control, as it owns the provenance of both the virus and its detection.

According to Martin, there’s also evidence of a criminal conspiracy involving the CDC and Sequoia Pharmaceuticals. April 28, 2003 — three days after the CDC filed its patent for the SARS coronavirus — Sequoia Pharmaceuticals filed a patent on an antiviral agent for the treatment and control of infectious coronavirus (Patent No. 7151163).

So, the CDC filed a patent on SARS coronavirus, and three days later there’s a treatment? This strongly suggests there was a working relationship behind the scenes. Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, founded in 2002, develops antiviral therapeutics with a special focus on drug-resistant viruses.18 Its lead investors include the Wellcome Trust.

But there’s yet another problem with Sequoia’s 2003 filing for an antiviral agent. It was actually issued and published before the CDC patent on SARS coronavirus had been granted, which didn’t happen until 2007, and the CDC had paid to keep the application private.

So, there is zero possibility for anyone but an insider to have that information. This is clear evidence of criminal conspiracy, racketeering and collusion, Martin notes. You cannot develop a treatment for something that you do not know exists.

Sanofi also owns a series of patents detailing what we’ve been told are novel features of SARS-CoV-2, namely the polybasic cleavage site, the spike protein and the ACE2 receptor binding domain. The first of those patents, U.S. Patent No. 9193780, was issued November 24, 2015.

Between 2008 and 2017, a series of patents were also filed by a long list of players, including Crucell, Rubeus Therapeutics, Children’s Medical Corporation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in München, Protein Science Corporation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, University of Iowa, University of Hong Kong and the Chinese National Human Genome Center in Shanghai.

According to Martin, there are 73 patents, issued between 2008 and 2019, that describe the very elements that are said to be unique to SARS-CoV-2. It’s unclear whether Moderna’s 2016 patent filing is part of that list.

Sources and References

March 8, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reflections on War, Injections, and Terror at This Crossroads in History Part I

By Professor Anthony Hall | Global Research | March 7, 2022

In late February the international news cycle moved between two very important focuses. One addressed controversies in Canada. The other continues to highlight events unfolding primarily in Russia, Ukraine, and the USA. While different in many ways, both stories have many-faceted worldwide implications.  

Both involve configurations of power and intrigue that overlap in crucial ways. Both involve conflicts with profound life-and-death implications. Both conflicts highlight that humanity and our civilizational inheritances are at a crossroads.

At this parting of the ways, the most well-travelled autobahn looming up ahead points towards tyrannies far more extreme than anything we have known in history so far.

Whatever highway we follow, it seems there is no escaping the onslaught of new forms of aggressive warfare that are fast pushing humanity into a jagged collision with high-tech weaponry capable of unprecedented destruction. To say we are living in dangerous times is a gross understatement.

Will humanity be subjected to even greater extremes of outright militarization? Will we continue to be assaulted by a novel array of overt and covert tactics aimed at radically re-engineering society as well as the very genetic attributes of the human genome? Will human beings continue to be reconfigured to advance the conditions of our decline into submissive enslavement? Will we continue to be subject to litanies of media lies, strategies of behavior modification, and unregulated medical experiments aimed at merging our biological persons with aspects of digital technology?

See this and this.

Some common themes wind through the convoluted array of unregulated assaults that menace humanity’s very survival in anything like the God-given form we inherited from nature. Powerful enemy forces are exploiting for their own self-interested advantage, our credulousness, naivety, and susceptibility to programs of mind control. The goal of the master class, it seems, is to modify our behavior so we can be better integrated into a world of pervasive robotization.

Enslavement With the Help of Digital IDs Combined with Cashless Transactions

Right now in the Western countries’ onslaughts of psychological warfare are integral to the military showdown initiated in Eurasia.

While experts in “perception management” are using the media to lure the public into single-minded condemnation of Russia, our attention is being drawn away from stunning revelations coming to light in our midst.

The disclosures underway illuminate the role of COVID Officialdom in forcing on us through mandates and other coercive techniques, highly lethal and injurious medical procedures. These procedures have been purposely designed to induce pathogenic outcomes and depopulation agendas. Throughout Europe and North America, dramatic increases in all-cause rates of death are being reported especially by life insurance companies and funeral homes.

One result is that Pfizer and Moderna investors are “running for the exit.” Former BlackRock investment advisor, Edward Dowd, has sounded the alarm on Moderna and Pfizer “as sinking ships that investors need to abandon.”

See this.

The bad news for the vaccine companies and their notoriously negligent regulators is compounded by the fact that their indemnification is threatened.

The companies and their regulators can be sued if it can be demonstrated that they have lied about their products. Indeed, they have lied on an epic scale and continue to do so. The evidence is clear that the inadequately-tested medical injections advertised as “safe and effective” are no such thing. Now there are headlines proclaiming, “Pfizer and Moderna are modern versions of Enron.”

See this and this. 

As blanket coverage of the Ukrainian conflict dominates the media, the next stage in the insidious COVID con is being executed with blitzkrieg speed. The objective is to rush humanity into a privatized system of universalized and standardized Digital ID before most people have an opportunity to get informed on the fuller implications.

The growing contingent of people devoted to principled non-compliance to the myriad COVID frauds must resist allowing the COVID hucksters to advance their diabolical agenda. The COVID con men and women must be forced to back away from their attempt at making sweeping appropriations and instrumentalizations of yet more elements of our private information. We need to hold the line against slick kleptocrats seeking total control of everything through digital invasion and theft of the little that remains of our personal realms.

Included in the Digital ID con job is the creation of a new type of One World digital currency presently being rushed into existence by the private central banks holding membership in the Swiss-based Bank of International Settlements (BIS). This process is being pushed ahead in partnership with the dystopian World Economic Forum (WEF).

Recently Klaus Schwab, the WEF’s founder, bragged that more than one-half of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Canadian cabinet is infiltrated with WEF insiders. Chrystia Freeland, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, is one of them.

In fact Freeland is currently a prominent member of the WEF’s governing body of trustees. As shall become clear, Freeland is emblematic of the abundant conflicts-of-interest and round-the-clock lies that have come to characterize the Liberal Party during the time of Trudeau’s denigration of public office in Canada.

See this, this, this and this. 

A pervasive system of social credit scoring is taking shape with the rush to entrench in many jurisdictions a transnational system of Digital IDs. The other necessary element is our willingness to go along with the creation of a single digital currency. The new system requires the consolidation of a One World megabank that is meant as a key element in the so-called Great Reset.

The advancement of a system of total surveillance and total control requires the termination of all cash transactions. Hence our insistence on continuing the conduct of business through the circulation of cash must be an expression of our principled non-compliance.

The merger of Digital ID together with the replacement of cash transactions would give central authorities the ability to cut off our “freedoms,” including, for instance, even our capacity to buy food. The entrapment of people in digital enclosures would put the vast majority of humans in a virtual penitentiary of unmitigated top-down authority.

See this.

A Matter of Life or Death for Russia

The creation of a social credit dystopia is being pushed rapidly forward under the cover of wall-to-wall coverage devoted to Russia’s intervention in Ukraine. According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russian troops are intervening with the goal of “demilitarizing and denazifying Ukraine.”

It is also thought that Putin intends to dismantle about fifteen US biological warfare labs. The Pentagon sponsors of these “research facilities” for mass murder would have us believe they are engaged in a “Biologic Threat Reduction Program.”

In his memorable speech of 24 Feb., Putin claims that the Russian mission in Ukraine, “is not a plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory.” The Russian government asserts that its actions in Ukraine are necessary for the protection of the Russian Mother Country. Over many years Putin has been stressing the themes that the Russian Armed Forces are now acting upon.

The explanation of this military operation as an act of self-defense depends on a historical analysis highlighting the decades-long campaign to strangle Russia in a boa constrictor’s grip of NATO’s aggressive militarism. The core agreements enabling the end of the Cold War have been violated by the patterns of NATO’s expansion since 1991.

NATO has been ingesting former Soviet republics into a US-backed militarized zone of organized anti-Russia zealotry. As Putin warned again and again over recent years, the US goal of transforming Ukraine into yet another militarized enemy of Moscow established a “red line,” a “matter of life or death” for Russia.

See this.

“The Controversies in Canada” will be the object of a followup article by Professor Anthony Hall

March 7, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia makes new claims on US-financed biolabs in Ukraine

The US has “covered” Ukraine with a network of biolaboratories linked to the Pentagon, the Russian Defense Ministry says

RT | March 7, 2022

The Ukrainian authorities have been urgently destroying pathogens studied at its laboratories linked to the US Department of Defense, the Russian military claimed on Monday, adding that such activities hint at the military purposes of these studies.

As many as 30 biological laboratories have been established in Ukraine that are actively cooperating with the US military, the commander of the Russian radiological, chemical and biological defense force, Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, said at a news briefing on Monday.

The list of these laboratories’ partners includes the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) – the largest biomedical research facility administered by the US military; the general added.

Many of these laboratories have been active since the 2014 coup d’état in Ukraine and their emergence in the country has coincided with a spike in infectious diseases in the region, including German measles, diphtheria and tuberculosis, the Russian military said.

After the Russian forces launched a military operation in Ukraine on February 24, these laboratories started hastily destroying the materials they had been working on, including the highly pathogenic bacterial and viral agents, Kirillov has said, adding that Moscow has obtained documents related to that process.

Analysis of the documents shows that the laboratories had been working with dangerous infections such as anthrax and the plague. “Assortment and the excessive quantity of the biological agents suggest that the work done in these laboratories had been part of some military biological programs,” the general has said, adding that just one such laboratory in the western Ukrainian city of Lvov had destroyed as many as 320 containers with pathogens causing plague, swamp fever and Malta fever among others.

“If these collections fall into the hands of the Russian experts, they will highly likely prove Ukraine and the US have been in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention,” Kirillov has said, adding that “this is the only reason that can explain the hasty destruction” of those materials.

The general has also expressed his concerns that all the biological materials needed for the alleged military biological program to continue had been already transported to the US.

Kiev has denied developing bioweapons, and Washington has not commented on the Russian military statements so far.

Moscow has been raising alarm about the activities of the US-financed biological laboratories located in the former Soviet states for quite some time. Earlier, it pointed to the Lugar Research Center – a US-funded laboratory in Georgia – as a place where some dangerous experiments are being conducted.

The Pentagon brushed off such accusations as a “Russian disinformation campaign” at that time.

March 7, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Moscow explains how it’ll do business with firms from ‘unfriendly states’

The Ministry of Finance has set up a special subcommittee to control foreign investment

RT | March 7, 2022

Russian companies wishing to work with firms from countries which oppose Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine will have to receive government permission for the deals, the press service of Russia’s Ministry of Finance said on Monday. Permission will be granted by the Government Commission for the Control of Foreign Investments. It includes representatives from Russia’s Central Bank (Bank of Russia) and the presidential administration.

According to the resolution establishing the procedure, which was signed by Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, a Russian resident company or foreign company from an “unfriendly state” must apply for permission for any business deal.

“[The application] should contain comprehensive information about the applicant, including information on the beneficial owners of the company. Based on the analysis of the documents received and the nature of the future agreement, a decision will be made to approve or refuse to implement it,” the press service said, stressing that “the main goal of this work is to ensure the country’s financial stability in the face of external sanctions pressure.”

The government on Monday also unveiled an updated list of countries which have been deemed “unfriendly states” for their positions on the Ukraine conflict. It includes the United States and Canada, the countries of the EU bloc, the UK (including Jersey, Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, and Gibraltar), Ukraine, Montenegro, Switzerland, Albania, Andorra, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Norway, San Marino, North Macedonia, and also Japan, South Korea, Australia, Micronesia, New Zealand, Singapore, and China’s self-ruled territory of Taiwan.

The countries and territories were added to the list after they imposed or joined the sanctions against Russia in connection with the ongoing military operation of the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine.

According to the government decree, Russian citizens and companies, the state itself and its regions and municipalities will now also have to pay for obligations to foreign creditors from countries on the list in rubles. The new temporary procedure applies to payments exceeding 10 million rubles per month, or a corresponding amount in foreign currency.

The measures have been introduced by Moscow to support the Russian economy after Western states placed Russia under heavy sanctions over the past 10 days. A number of Russia’s largest banks have been cut off from SWIFT and had their foreign assets frozen, restrictions were placed on certain Russian exports and imports, and a growing number of companies from all sectors have been shutting down operations in the country.

March 7, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

The New York Times hits a new Covid low on vaccines for kids, thanks to one Aubrey Clayton, PhD

By Alex Berenson | Unreported Truths | March 1, 2022

I know, I didn’t think it was possible either.

But today the NYT ran a opinion piece basically arguing the Food and Drug Administration should okay the Pfizer mRNA shot for children under 5 even if they fail the ongoing clinical trial.

This hideousness was titled:

A Smarter Way to Think About the Under-5 Vaccine

As soon as I saw the headline I knew it would be bad. But I couldn’t imagine how bad.

Imma translate it for you from scared academic phonics into English:

Pfizer’s mRNA shot appears to be failing its clinical trial in little kids.

Yes, it can’t even manage to demonstrate benefit in a trial intentionally designed to be as easy as possible to pass. (Remember, the pivotal clinical trials for mRNA jabs in adults showed a HUGE benefit against Covid infection, a benefit that doesn’t exist.)

I, Aubrey Clayton, PhD, wish to force my three young children to take a biotechnology that is useless for them to protect them from a disease that is an infinitesimal risk to them.

That way I can stop abusing them by forcing them to have outdoor play dates in subfreezing temperatures and wear masks on their tiny faces. Because I’m scared, or my second cousin has long Covid, or I have pronouns in my biography, who knows?

Point is, I want them to get the shot. Like about 10 percent of parents of little kids nationally, and 100 percent of the parents of little kids I know, I WANT THEM TO GET THE SHOT. I WANT I WANT.

Sad me. It looks like the FDA may do what it has done for generations, which is require that the trial designed to show a medicine works actually show it works.

Sad me so sad. So I am proposing an alternative pathway to approval. It’s called the, “I really want this shot to work so I’m going to assume it works and look for evidence supporting that assumption” pathway for approval.

Then I can give my children the useless biotechnology and feel better.

Yay me.

—

This is Aubrey. He/him has thoughts.

—

Okay, here’s the thing.

Drug development is really hard. Pharmaceuticals and biologics mostly don’t work. Sometimes they have serious side effects. Randomized clinical trials are the ONLY way to know with any reasonable certainty whether a new therapeutic will do what its developer says it does.

A drug that fails to show meaningful clinical benefit (which does NOT mean cure) with more than 95 percent statistical significance in a carefully designed clinical trial is likely to be at best useless and at worst harmful in the real world. Trials generally OVERSTATE the effectiveness of medicines for all kinds of complex reasons.

Trials aren’t perfect. But in a world filled with error, they are not just our best but our only real alternative to guesswork.

Find a different way to mess up your kids, Aubrey.

March 7, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

The CDC Got Vaccine Efficacy Wrong

By Ian Miller | March 6, 2022

Whoops!

Well, it’s not that big of a deal, it’s only one of the most crucial concerns of the entire pandemic.

The CDC, whose literal one job is to track and report on the spread of diseases, whose advice has been religiously followed by corporations, colleges, politicians and local school boards, managed to get vaccine efficacy wrong.

How could this happen?

How would anyone ever be able to trust them again?

Well, there have been numerous examples of the CDC destroying their credibility and eradicating whatever respect or confidence the informed public previously had for them and their conclusions.

Beyond the persistent misinformation on masks, the debacle of instigating contact tracing, the early testing failures, the remarkably useless county level metrics that were essentially made up out of thin air and the endlessly disgraceful “studies,” their inability to accept reality has led to unspeakable policies and purposeful, damaging discrimination all over the world.

Encouraging absurd and misleading percentages and estimates to be disseminated has and will continue to have far reaching and long term effects that we’ve only just begun to consider. Beyond the policies imposed as a result of their actions, there inevitably will be more erosion of trust in public health and resentment and anger towards institutions.

The CDC had one job to do. It failed. And there ought to be consequences for the damage they’ve inflicted on hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, due to their profound, inexcusable incompetence.

What’s happened here is profoundly disturbing.

If you haven’t seen the video already, CDC director Rochelle Walensky recently spoke at the Washington University in St. Louis to discuss “lessons learned” from the pandemic and how her experience as an HIV expert prepared her for the challenges of COVID:

“We learned so much from HIV in terms of who gets care and access to care,” Walensky said. “We in infectious diseases have long known that infectious diseases go not to places of wealth but to places of poverty and places that lack access to care. The first people who brought SARS-CoV-2 to the United States were people who traveled on airplanes, people who traveled on cruise ships, people who had the resources to do those sorts of things. But then it became a disease of the more vulnerable.”

If she was so concerned with “who gets care and access to care” for HIV, how has she not issued a statement explaining that unvaccinated people should never be denied care or access to care based on personal health status? I would expect she is aware that many of the unvaccinated are from marginalized or disadvantaged communities — the CDC is obsessively concerned with equity, except when the inequities are focused on those who haven’t had this specific vaccine.

Her agency’s maddening mistake and subsequent demonization of “unvaccinated” individuals directly led to horrifying examples of patients denied transplants and treatments for the simple crime of not receiving a vaccine which we’ve learned does little to nothing to protect others.

In addition, her astonishing conclusions about the disease becoming prevalent among “the more vulnerable” are stupefying. The disease has affected and will continue to affect everyone. That is how endemic viruses behave. Everyone will be exposed to COVID, likely multiple times throughout their lives.

Of course COVID impacts the most vulnerable more severely, because almost everything impacts the vulnerable more severely. This is the reason that the only acceptable solution to the COVID problem is and was the Great Barrington Declaration, the set of guiding principles that she resoundingly rejected in favor of pseudoscience.

Protecting the vulnerable should have been the ultimate goal, but instead the CDC, led for over a year now by Rochelle Walensky, has done very little to focus specifically on the vulnerable, instead endlessly promoting boosters for healthy college students and unconscionably masking toddlers.

If she and the CDC were really so caught off guard by the fact that an incredibly infectious respiratory virus spread to those who were most vulnerable, they certainly must be replaced immediately.

If under her watch the CDC didn’t realize that their early advocacy for lockdowns, which moved white collar workers into their homes while insisting blue collar grocery story workers, delivery people, food service and other lower income professions continue to keep working would increase the burden on disadvantaged groups while temporarily providing (extremely limited) protection to the wealthier groups of society, she and the entire organization should be replaced immediately.

And most importantly, the videos below provide ample evidence that Walensky is completely unfit to lead the CDC, and that the organization is stunningly, hopelessly, inept:

RACHAEL WALENSKY BASICALLY SAYS THAT JABS DON’T WORK

 

March 7, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Why Is Walensky Refusing to Answer this Senator’s Questions?

BY SHARYL ATTKISSON | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | MARCH 6, 2022

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) has taken a lead throughout the Covid-19 pandemic to hold public health officials and agencies accountable if they’ve failed to provide accurate and timely information to the public for whom they work.

From masks, vaccines, and school shutdowns, to the origination of Covid-19, Johnson has been asking critical questions. However, he says he has received very few answers.

According to Johnson, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky is one of the public health officials who has been non-compliant with his requests.

To date, Johnson says he has made eight specific requests, directly of Walensky, that have gone unanswered.

In his most recent attempt to get data, he writes:

“In the midst of a pandemic, it is unacceptable that CDC would withhold relevant data on Covid-19 that could inform the public and potentially save lives. Moreover, it is grossly arrogant that your agency has repeatedly ignored Congressional requests.”

Read Senator Johnson’s latest letter to Director Walensky below:

March 1, 2022

Rochelle P. Walensky, M.D., MPH Director
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Dear Director Walensky:

Over the last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has failed to be transparent to the American people and their elected representatives. Specifically, CDC has not responded to my multiple requests for information about COVID-19. In addition, CDC has reportedly “withheld information” about COVID-19 from the public that “could help state and local health officials better target their efforts to bring the virus under control.”1 In the midst of a pandemic, it is unacceptable that CDC would withhold relevant data on COVID-19 that could inform the public and potentially save lives. Moreover, it is grossly arrogant that your agency has repeatedly ignored Congressional requests.

To date, I have sent you numerous letters requesting information about COVID-19 including records and data on the virus, school guidance, and the vaccines. For the letters listed below, you have either failed to respond or your response was significantly incomplete:

  • May 19, 2021 – Requesting records relating to teachers’ unions and CDC guidance.
  • June 28, 2021 – Requesting information about COVID-19 vaccine adverse events.
  • July 13, 2021 – Requesting information on vaccine safety monitoring.
  • July 30, 2021 – Requesting data CDC used to create a slide deck on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.
  • August 22, 2021 – Regarding the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee meeting.
  • September 15, 2021 – Requesting information on the effectiveness of natural immunity as protection from COVID-19.
  • October 5, 2021 – Requesting information on early treatments for COVID-19.
  • December 29, 2021 – Requesting information about vaccine lot variation data.1 Apoorva Mandavilli, The C.D.C. isn’t publishing large portions of the Covid data it collects, NY Times, Feb. 21, 2022.

CDC’s failure to respond to Congress appears to be one piece of the agency’s larger problem with public transparency. According to the New York Times, during the “[t]wo full years into the pandemic, the [CDC] has published only a tiny fraction of the data it has collected.”2 The CDC’s apparent indifference toward transparency during a pandemic is disturbing and shameful.

Throughout the pandemic, CDC and other health agencies have promoted inconsistent policies and recommendations regarding COVID-19. Many Americans who voiced concerns about these shifting policies have been subjected to ridicule, vilification, and censorship from the press. Rather than provide the public with complete access to relevant data to justify its COVID- 19 policies, the Biden Administration has apparently favored censorship over transparency.

In my continued effort to ensure that the American people have access to complete and accurate data about COVID-19, I renew my previous requests and call on you to immediately respond to all of my outstanding letters. Additionally, I would like you to brief my staff on whether CDC is withholding data from the public as reported by the New York Times and provide the names and titles of CDC officials who may have withheld the relevant information. I ask that this briefing occur no later than March 15, 2022. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

cc: The Honorable Xavier Becerra Secretary

Department of Health and Human Services

The Honorable Christi Grimm
Inspector General
Department of Health and Human Services

Sincerely,

Ron Johnson
United States Senator

Sharyl Attkisson is an American journalist and television correspondent. She hosts the Sinclair Broadcast Group TV show Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson. Attkisson is a five-time Emmy Award winner, and a Radio Television Digital News Association (RTNDA) Edward R. Murrow Award recipient.

March 7, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

People’s Convoy Arrives at DC Beltway

By Stephen Lendman | March 7, 2022

On route from California since February 23, hundreds of trucks and other vehicles reached the 64 mile-long Capital Beltway that surrounds the Washington DC area through parts of Maryland and Virginia.

Before departing last month, a media statement said the following:

“The People’s Convoy continues to grow in numbers and support as we peacefully cross the country in unity.

The People’s Convoy has been diligent in our message and purpose.

Although we support any peaceful movements in spirit, we are not affiliated with any other groups.

The People’s Convoy has created an infrastructure with a third-party accounting firm, legal teams, security, and journalists documenting each mile.

We encourage truckers and supporters to officially join The People’s Convoy along our route.

The People’s Convoy would like to reiterate:

We are traveling across the US in PEACE and UNITY

We are 100% LAW-ABIDING citizenry and convoy

Our core principals of FREEDOM and LIBERTY give rise to the convoy’s request to end the State of Emergency that led to overreaching mandates

We demand government ACCOUNTABILITY through full and transparent congressional hearings

We are NOT going into DC proper, and we will NOT be there for the State of the Union

We are NOT associated with Bob Bolus or other convoys who are planning to go into DC

The People’s Convoy is a peaceful and unified transcontinental movement

This freedom-loving movement is about the journey, not the destination

Our website and social media platforms are the ONLY official locations with details on how to donate, routes and stopping points where people can come support

We are actively accepting donations through our secure site to support the truckers with fuel and supplies during the convoy.”

On March 7, thepeoplesconvoy.org said “American truckers & allies are currently staged (along the) Hagerstown (MD) Speedway.”

Once again, it stressed that it’s “time to end the declaration of national emergency…and restore our nation’s Constitution.

According to convoy leaders, plans are for the miles-long convoy to drive slowly at the minimum speed limit around the Capital Beltway on Monday — slowing, not blocking traffic.

On Friday, a statement by one trucker said:

“DC, the government, whomever, can claim that they have all this opposition for us waiting in DC.”

“But that flag on the back of my truck will go down to Constitution Avenue between the White House and the Washington Monument.”

Organizer Brian Brase said convoy participants intend to circle the Capital Beltway slowly before returning to Hagerstown at end of each day, returning the next day “until the group’s demands are met,” adding:

Other convoys are en route to join them.

“We’re going to be a huge pain.”

“We’re trying to work with our local law enforcement communities because we want them to understand that we are law-abiding citizens that are just exercising our rights to this protest.”

“Every day is going to elevate what we do.”

“We want to show the American people how large we are.”

“(W)e want to show our congressional leaders that we’re serious and we are here to negotiate.”

“We are here to talk. We are law-abiding. We are peaceful.”

“We don’t want to shut anything down, and we’re not coming downtown.”

On Monday, the Baltimore Sun reported that organizer Brase met with House and Senate members on Sunday night, quoting him saying:

“I’m hopeful that we have successful dialogue with congressmen and women and senators that help get what we’re looking for pushed through in a timely fashion,” adding:

“If they don’t come to the table to meet with us or they ignore us, then every day it will escalate.”

“We do not want to impede traffic any more than necessary to get our message across.”

Brase said he expects another convoy of about 500 vehicles from Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia to join the People’s Convoy overnight Monday.

March 7, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

Burning Globalist Structures to Save the Globalist ‘Liberal Order’

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 6, 2022

In its triple strike of sanctions on Russia, the EU initially was not looking to collapse the Russian financial system. Far from it: Its first instinct was to find the means to continue purchasing its energy needs (made all there more vital by the state of the European gas reserves hovering close to zero). Purchases of energy, special metals, rare earths (all needed for high tech manufacture) and agricultural products were to be exempted. In short, at first brush, the sinews of the global financial system were intended to remain intact.

The main target rather, was to block the core to the Russian financial system’s ability to raise capital – supplemented by specific sanctions on Alrosa, a major player in the diamond market, and Sovcomflot, a tanker fleet operator.

Then, last Saturday morning (26 February) everything changed. It became a blitzkrieg: “We’re waging an all-out economic and financial war on Russia. We will cause the collapse of the Russian economy”, said the French Finance Minister, Le Maire (words, he later said, he regretted).

That Saturday, the EU, the U.S. and some allies acted to freeze the Russian Central Bank’s foreign exchange reserves held overseas. And certain Russian banks (in the end seven) were to be expelled from SWIFT financial messaging service. The intent was openly admitted in an unattributable U.S. briefing: It was to trigger a ‘bear raid’ (ie. an orchestrated mass selling) of the Rouble on the following Monday that would collapse the value of the currency.

The purpose to freezing the Central Bank’s reserves was two-fold: First, to prevent the Bank from supporting the Rouble. And secondly, to create a commercial bank liquidity scarcity inside Russia to feed into a concerted campaign over that weekend to scare Russians into believing that some domestic banks might fail – thus prompting a rush at the ATMs, and start a bank-run, in other words.

More than two decades ago, in August 1998, Russia defaulted on its debt and devalued the Rouble, sparking a political crisis that culminated with Vladimir Putin replacing Boris Yeltsin. In 2014, there was a similar U.S. attempt to crash the Rouble through sanctions and by engineering (with Saudi Arabian help) a 41% drop in oil prices by January 2015.

Plainly, last Saturday morning when Ursula von der Leyen announced that ‘selected’ Russian banks would be expelled from SWIFT and the international financial messaging system; and spelled out the near unprecedented Russian Central Bank reserve freeze, we were witnessing the repeat of 1998. The collapse of the economy (as Le Maire said), a run on the domestic banks and the prospect of soaring inflation. This combination was expected to conflate into a political crisis – albeit one intended, this time, to see Putin replaced, vice Yeltsin – aka regime change in Russia, as a senior U.S. think-tanker proposed this week.

In the end, the Rouble fell, but it did not collapse. The Russian currency rather, after an initial drop, recovered about half its early fall. Russians did queue at their ATMs on Monday, but a full run on the retail banks did not materialise. It was ‘managed’ by Moscow.

What occurred on that Saturday which prompted the EU switch from moderate sanctions to become a full participant in a financial war à outrance on Russia is not clear: It may have resulted from intense U.S. pressure, or it came from within, as Germany seized an opportune alibi to put itself back on the path of militarisation for the third time in the past several decades: To re-configure Germany as a major military power, a forceful participant in global politics.

And that – very simply – could not have been possible without tacit U.S. encouragement.

Ambassador Bhadrakumar notes that the underlying shifts made manifest by von der Leyen on Saturday “herald a profound shift in European politics. It is tempting, but ultimately futile, to contextually place this shift as a reaction to the Russian decision to launch military operations in Ukraine. The pretext only provides the alibi, whilst the shift is anchored on power play and has a dynamic of its own”. He continues,

“Without doubt, the three developments — Germany’s decision to step up its militarisation [spending an additional euro100 billion]; the EU decision to finance arms supplies to Ukraine, and Germany’s historic decision to reverse its policy not to supply weapons to conflict zones — mark a radical departure in European politics since World War II. The thinking toward a military build-up, the need for Germany to be a “forceful” participant in global politics and the jettisoning of its guilt complex and get “combat ready” — all these by far predate the current situation around Ukraine”.

The von der Leyen intervention may have been opportunism, driven by a resurgence of SPD German ambition (and perhaps by her own animus towards Russia, stemming from her family connection to the SS German capture of Kiev), yet its consequences are likely profound.

Just to be clear, on one Saturday, von der Leyen pulled the switch to turn off principal parts to Global financial functioning: blocking interbank messaging, confiscating foreign exchange reserves and the cutting the sinews of trade. Ostensibly this ‘burning’ of global structures is being done (like the burning of villages in Vietnam) to ‘save’ the liberal Order.

However, this must be taken in tandem with Germany’s and the EU decision to supply weapons (to not just any old ‘conflict zone’) but specifically to forces fighting Russian troops in Ukraine. The ‘Kick Ass’ parts to those Ukrainian forces ‘resisting’ Russia are neo-Nazi forces with a long history of committing atrocities against the Russian-speaking Ukrainian peoples. Germany will be joining with the U.S. in training these Nazi elements in Poland. The CIA has been doing such since 2015. (So, as Russia tries to de-Nazify Ukraine, Germany and the EU are encouraging European volunteers to join in a U.S.-led effort to use Nazi elements to resist Russia, just as in the way Jihadists were trained to resist Russia in Syria).

What a paradox! Effectively von der Leyen is overseeing the building of an EU ‘Berlin Wall’ – albeit with its purpose inverted now – to separate the EU from Russia. And to complete the parallel, she even announced that Russia Today and Sputnik broadcasts would be banned across the EU. Europeans can be allowed only to hear authorised EU messaging – (however, a week into the Russian invasion, cracks are appearing in this tightly-controlled western narrative – “Putin is NOT crazy and the Russian invasion is NOT failing”, warns a leading U.S. military analyst in the Daily Mail. Simply “[b]elieving Russia’s assault is going poorly may make us feel better but is at odds with the facts”, Roggio writes. “We cannot help Ukraine if we cannot be honest about its predicament”).

So Biden, finally, has his foreign policy ‘success’: Europe is walling itself off from Russia, China, and the emerging integrated Asian market. It has sanctioned itself from ‘dependency’ on Russian natural gas (without prospect of any immediate alternatives) and it has thrown itself in with the Biden project. Next up, the EU pivot to sanctioning China?

Will this last? It seems improbable. German industry has a long history for staging its own mercantile interests before wider geo-pollical ambitions – before, even, EU interests. And in Germany, the business class effectively is the political class and needs competitively-priced energy.

Whilst the rest of the world shows little or no enthusiasm to join with sanctions on Russia (China has ruled out sanctions on Russia), Europe is in hysteria. This will not fade quickly. The new ‘Iron Curtain’ erected in Brussels may last years.

But what of the unintended consequences to last Saturday’s ‘sanctions Blitzkrieg’: the ‘unknowable unknowns’ in Rumsfeld’s famous mantra? The unprecedented switch-off affecting a key part of the Globalist system did not download into a neutral, inert context – It developed into an emotionally hyper-charged atmosphere of Russophobia.

Whereas EU states had hoped to spare Russian energy shipments, they did not take account of the frenzy raised against Russia. The oil market has gone on strike, acting as if energy were already in the frame for Western sanctions: Oil tankers had already started to avoid Russian ports because of sanctions fears, and rates for oil tankers on Russian crude routes have exploded as much as nine-fold in the past few days. But now, amid growing fears of falling foul of complex restrictions in different jurisdictions, refiners and banks are balking at purchasing any Russian oil at all, traders and others involved in the market say. Market players fear too that measures that target oil exports directly could be imposed, should fighting in Ukraine intensify.

Commodity markets have been in turmoil since the Special Military Operation began. European natural gas jumped as much as 60% on Wednesday, as buyers, traders and shippers avoid Russian gas. A combination of sanctions and commercial decisions by shippers and insurers to steer clear has cut that contribution to global supplies sharply over the last week. A default cascade by western companies is perfectly possible. And Supply line disruption is inevitable.

Many will be affected by the commodity turmoil, but with Russia providing 25% of global wheat supplies, the 21% hike in wheat and 16% rise in corn prices since 1 January will represent a disaster for many states in the Middle East among others.

All this disruption to markets comes even before Moscow responds with its own countermeasures. They have been silent so far – but what if Moscow demands that future payments for energy are to be made in Yuan?

In sum, the changes set out by von der Leyen and the EU, with surging crude oil costs, could potentially tip global markets into crisis, and set off spiralling inflation. Cost inflation created by energy costs spiralling higher and food disruptions are not so easily susceptible to monetary remedies. If the daily drama of the war in Ukraine starts to fade from public view, and inflation persists, the political cost of von der Leyen’s Saturday drama is likely to be European-wide recession.

“Since well before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Europeans have been struggling under the weight of runaway energy bills”, OilPrice.com notes. In Germany, for some, one month’s energy costs the same as they used to pay for a whole year; in the UK the government has raised the price cap for energy bills by a whopping 54%, and in Italy a recent 40% domestic energy cost hike could now nearly double.

The New York Times describes this impact on local businesses and industries as nothing short of “frightening”, as all kinds of small businesses across Europe (prior to last week’s events) have been forced to cease their operations as energy costs outweigh profits. Large industries have not been immune to sticker shock either. “Almost two-thirds of the 28,000 companies surveyed by the Association of German Chambers of Commerce and Industry this month rated energy prices as one of their biggest business risks … For those in the industrial sector, the figure was as high as 85 percent.”

One recalls that old prediction from the Middle East, that western values would turn against the West itself, and ultimately devour it.

March 6, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

NEW STUDY: MRNA VACCINES MAY ALTER HUMAN DNA

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | March 3, 2022

After nearly two years of fact-checkers promising mRNA Covid shots do not alter the human genome, new research is coming out to possibly contradict this point. Since no genotoxicity investigations were required or done prior to the Covid shot rollout, the public is left to wonder where the truth lies.

CDC LOWERS CHILDHOOD MILESTONES

PFIZER’S COVID VACCINE DATA DUMP BEGINS

Thanks to ICAN attorney Aaron Siri working on behalf of Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, the public will now have the documents Pfizer provided to the FDA for approval as regular releases will now be coming available. The HighWire begins its first investigation into the files.

March 6, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

US gives NATO countries ‘green light’ to provide fighter jets to Ukraine

RT | March 6, 2022

US Secretary of State Tony Blinken told CBS News on Sunday that Washington has given a “green light” to NATO members to supply Ukraine with fighter jets, and that the US would work to replace any jets sent to Kiev. Blinken spoke after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky urged US lawmakers to intervene in the ongoing conflict with Russia.

Asked whether NATO members could begin sending planes to Ukraine, Blinken said “that gets a green light.” The US’ top diplomat then said that Washington was already working with Polish officials to “backfill” any aircraft they send to Ukraine – meaning the US would replace every Polish aircraft given to Kiev with an American one.

Supporting the delivery of jets to Ukraine occupies a middle ground for the US between active intervention in Ukraine and purely economic retaliation against Moscow. The government in Kiev has made no secret of its desire for the US to intervene militarily, with President Zelensky urging American lawmakers on Saturday to enforce a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine. Such a measure would see the US and any willing NATO allies commit to shooting down Russian aircraft, something Moscow has explicitly said it would perceive as an act of war.

The US and NATO have ruled out a no-fly zone, and repeatedly stated that they would not send troops to Ukraine.

However, delivering fighter jets to the Ukrainians has not proven simple thus far. The European Union pledged warplanes to Ukraine late last month, but faced two significant hurdles: first finding jets that Ukrainian pilots could fly, and then finding countries willing to deliver them from their airports.

The Ukrainian Air Force uses Soviet-designed MiG-29 and Sukhoi Su-24, Su-25, and Su-27 jets in combat roles, and with the Su-25 used by Bulgaria and the MiG-29 used by Poland, Bulgaria and Slovakia, the jets would need to be sourced from these countries.

Shortly after the EU’s announcement, Poland stated that it wouldn’t send jets to Ukraine nor allow its airports to be used for deliveries. Bulgaria and Slovakia then stated that they wouldn’t take part in any deal, effectively killing off the EU’s arms supply plans.

However, Blinken’s statement on Sunday suggests that the plan may have been revived, but by the US and Poland rather than the EU. Blinken did not give any indication how soon Polish planes could be on their way to Ukraine, but said that discussions between Washington and Warsaw were “active.”

March 6, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »