At nearly no other time in history has there been this level of fear generated across the world as experienced thus far in 2020 and 2021. The depth and breadth of the strategies used to stoke those fears has been overwhelming.
Emergency use authorizations for drugs that have not proven to be effective in trials,1,2 public mask mandates for which there is no scientific evidence3,4,5 and the suppression and censorship of health information has boosted public fear over a viral illness with a survival rate of over 99%.6
Unfortunately, many of the early effective treatment strategies that can be used at home have also fallen victim to censorship. Ivermectin is one of those strategies. In a computational analysis of the Omicron variant against several therapeutic agents, data show that ivermectin had the best results.7
Yet, as you look objectively at what’s been happening across the world, the fear being generated is not one-sided. The suppression of information by corporations, government agencies and the pharmaceutical industry is one indication of their concern and how far they’re willing to go to ensure the level of fear remains high enough to manipulate behavior.
Consider the statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2019, 4.6% of the U.S. population was diagnosed with heart disease.8 The population at the end of 2019 was 328,239,523.9 This means there were 15,099,018 people with heart disease in the U.S. in 2019. There were 696,962 people who died that year from heart disease,10 which is a death rate of 4.6%.
This is 20 times greater than the death rate from COVID-19. Yet these same agencies were not lobbying for mandates against soda or sugar-laden foods; they weren’t banning smoking and they weren’t mandating exercise — all heart disease risk factors.11
The censorship and suppression of information has hobbled early treatment of COVID-19 in many western nations. Through 2020, public health experts12,13 and the mainstream media14,15 warned against the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Both are on the World Health Organization’s list of essential drugs,16 but the benefits have been ignored by public health officials and buried by the media.
Newest Ivermectin Study Showed Best Results Against COVID
This study on Cornell University’s preprint website has not yet been peer-reviewed. Researchers used a computational analysis to look at the Omicron variant, which has demonstrated a lower clinical presentation and lower hospital admission rates.17
After having retrieved the complete genome sequence and collecting 30 variants from the database, the researchers analyzed 10 drugs against the virus, including:
- Nirmatrelvir
- Ritonvir
- Ivermectin
- Lopinavir
- Boceprevir
- MPro 13b
- MPro N3
- GC-373
- GC376
- PF-00835231
The researchers found that each of the drugs had some degree of effectiveness against the virus and most were currently in clinical trials. They used molecular docking to find that the mutations in the Omicron variant didn’t significantly affect the interaction between the drugs and the main protease.
An analysis of all 10 drugs found that ivermectin was the most effective drug candidate against the Omicron variant. The testing included Nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid), which is the new protease inhibitor for which the FDA provided an emergency use authorization against COVID in December 2021.18
In other words, Pfizer released a new drug which cost the U.S. taxpayers $5.29 billion or $529 per course of treatment19 and which received an EUA despite the availability of a similar drug that has proven to be more effective and is cheaper, priced between $4820 and $9521 for 20 pills depending on your location.
How Ivermectin Works
Ivermectin is best known for its antiparasitic properties.22 Yet, the drug also has antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties. Studies have shown that ivermectin helps to lower the viral load by inhibiting replication.23 A single dose of ivermectin can kill 99.8% of the virus within 48 hours.24
A meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics25 showed the drug reduced infection by an average of 86% when used preventively. An observational study26 in Bangladesh evaluated the effectiveness of ivermectin as a prophylaxis for COVID-19 in health care workers.
The data showed four of the 58 volunteers who took 12 mg of ivermectin once a month for four months developed mild COVID symptoms as compared to 44 of the 60 health care workers who declined the medication.
Ivermectin has also been shown to speed recovery, in part by inhibiting inflammation and protecting against organ damage.27 This pathway also lowers the risk of hospitalization and death. Meta analyses have shown an average reduction in mortality that ranges from 75%28 to 83%.29,30
Additionally, the drug also prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure.31 Added together, these benefits make it clear that ivermectin could all but eliminate this pandemic.
Early Intervention Lowers Long COVID and Hospitalization
Some people who have had COVID-19 seem to be unable to fully recover and complain of lingering symptoms of chronic fatigue. Others struggle with mental health problems. One study,32,33 in November 2020, found 18.1% of people who had COVID-19 received their first psychiatric diagnosis in the 14 to 90 days after recovery. Most commonly diagnosed conditions were anxiety disorders, insomnia and dementia.
These symptoms have come to be called long COVID, long-haul COVID, post-COVID syndrome, chronic COVID or long-haul syndrome. They all refer to symptoms that persist for four more weeks after an initial COVID-19 infection. According to Dr. Peter McCullough, board-certified internist and cardiologist, 50% of those who have been sick enough to be hospitalized will have symptoms of long COVID:34
“So, the sicker someone is, and the longer the duration of COVID, the more likely they are to have long COVID syndrome. That’s the reason why we like early treatment. We shorten the duration of symptoms and there’s less of a chance for long COVID syndrome.”
Some of the common symptoms of long COVID include shortness of breath, joint pain, memory, concentration or sleeping problems, muscle pain or headache and loss of smell or taste. According to McCullough, a paper presented by Dr. Bruce Patterson at the International COVID Summit in Rome, September 11 to 14,35 2021:36
“… showed that in individuals who’ve had significant COVID illness, 15 months later the s1 segment of the spike protein is recoverable from human monocytes. That means the body literally has been sprayed with the virus and it spends 15 months, in a sense, trying to clean out the spike protein from our tissues. No wonder people have long COVID syndrome.”
It should come as no surprise that studies have also confirmed that early intervention improves mortality37 and reduces hospitalizations.38 Perhaps one of the greatest crimes in this whole pandemic is the refusal by reigning health authorities to issue early treatment guidance.
Instead, they’ve done everything possible to suppress remedies shown to work. Patients were simply told to stay home and do nothing. Once the infection had worsened to the point of near-death, patients were told to go to the hospital, where most were routinely placed on mechanical ventilation — a practice that was quickly discovered to be lethal.
However, as the featured study39 and others have demonstrated,40 ivermectin is one of the successful treatment protocols that can be used against SARS-CoV-2.
Africa Has Lowest Case and Death Rate, Likely From Ivermectin
Across the world, countries have taken different approaches to address the spread of the virus.41 The steps taken in Africa varied depending on the country, yet the infection and death rates were relatively stable and low across the continent.42
In the last year there have been reports of small areas in the world where the number of infections, deaths or case-fatality rates have been significantly lower than the rest of the world. For example, India’s Uttar Pradesh State43 reported a recovery rate of 98.6% and no further infections.
However, the entire continent of Africa appears to have sidestepped the massive number of infections and deaths predicted for these poorly funded countries with overcrowded cities. Early estimations were that millions would die, but that scenario has not materialized. The World Health Organization has called Africa “one of the least affected regions in the world.”44
There are several factors that may influence the infection rate in Africa. A study from Japan demonstrates that after just 12 days that doctors were allowed to legally prescribe Ivermectin to their patients, the cases dropped dramatically.45
The chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association46 had noticed the low number of infections and deaths in Africa, where many use ivermectin prophylactically and as the core strategy to treat onchocerciasis,47 a parasitic disease also known as river blindness. More than 99% of people infected with river blindness live in 31 African countries.
In addition to ivermectin use in Africa, other medications are also commonly available, such as hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, which have long been used in the treatment and prevention of malaria,48 also endemic in Africa.49 In America, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko has published successful results using hydroxychloroquine and zinc against COVID-19.50,51,52
Finally, Artemisia annua, also known as sweet wormwood, is an herb used in combination therapies to treat malaria.53 It was used in traditional Chinese medicine for more than 2,000 years to treat fever. Today artemisinin, a metabolite of Artemisia, is the current therapeutic option for malaria. The plant has also been studied since the 2003 SARS outbreak for the treatment of coronaviruses, with good results.54,55
In other words, whether by design or default, the medications that have proven to be successful against the virus are commonly used in Africa for other health conditions. While Pfizer tests the short- and long-term effects of a genetic experiment on Israel’s population,56 it appears one continent has demonstrated administration of a 30-year-old, inexpensive drug with a known safety profile could reduce the cases, severity and mortality from this infection.
The question that must be asked and answered to get to the bottom of this plandemic is what is blinding mainstream media, government agencies, public health experts, medical associations, doctors, nurses, and your next-door neighbor from recognizing and speaking out in support of science?
Sources and References
February 15, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Africa, Covid-19, FDA, United States |
Leave a comment
Democrats repress dissent to stay in power
In 2005, President George W. Bush allegedly addressed a meeting of Republicans discussing whether to renew the Patriot Act due to its possible unconstitutionality by angrily blurting out that the Constitution was “just a goddamned piece of paper!” If the story is true, it partly explains the numerous crimes committed by Bush and his associates, including the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq based on hyped and even fabricated intelligence. It also suggests the unwillingness of proponents of overriding executive authority to accept that the American people are the inheritors of a number of inalienable liberties to include freedom of speech and association, both of which were impacted negatively by the Patriot Act and the other legislation that followed.
I often think of George Bush when I observe the antics of Joe Biden and his claque of Trotskyites at work. To be sure, thanks to the Bill of Rights you can currently say anything you want in the United States, though there are limits on that freedom if one goes so far as to offend those who are powerful. If you do upset the oligarchs who run our country through corruption of public officials, they have a thousand ways to get you. I recently wrote an article on the use of lawfare to block people and views one objects to by taking them to court on some pretext and bankrupting them through legal fees and penalties. The court system hardly represents the people in any country. It is inevitably heavily politicized by the politicians that grant it its authority and ultimately represents the big money interests that the judges consider their real peers in the Establishment.
The United States government has in fact embraced the suppression of unpopular views and the nations and groups that it finds offensive through the use of sanctions, which are essentially punishments doled out arbitrarily as the government can issue a sanction on its own authority without having to provide any evidence or make a case. And when the White House sanctions a foreign government or group, secondary sanctions kick in to prevent anyone from exchanging goods or services with the targeted entity. I recently was on the receiving end of a Department of the Treasury demand that I stop writing for a foreign website which had been sanctioned. I was warned that I might be subject to a $311,562 fine if I failed to comply. Insofar as I could determine, the foreign website was only guilty of having strongly condemned United States foreign policy, as do I and many other Americans, but the threat of the government coming down with its thousands of lawyers meant that I and other US contributors terminated our relationship.
The federal government was telling us that we had a right to free speech and association except in cases where we were interacting with groups that the Treasury Department disapproved of. In a system as hopelessly corrupted as the US federal government, it is inevitable that powerful groups will surface that will be able to dictate what is acceptable and what is not. That very often comes down to what might once have been regarded as free speech and association issues. The Democratic Party might reasonably be described as a group of satrapies representing certain special interests, most visibly homo-and transsexuals, “choice” women, blacks and Jews. The balancing act required to keep all the subsets under control frequently strains credibility. Joe Biden recently made an impassioned speech demanding that the so-called Equal Rights Amendment should immediately become part of the Constitution because it is “the clear will of the American people.” Ironically, Joe heads a government that believes that gender discrimination is okay as long as it is directed against white men. He is also currently pushing for national education reform, which some refer to as either dumbing down or reverse racism, to bring more “diversity” and “equity” into the system. Doing so of course will require Affirmative Action style discrimination based on race and the president is also pledged to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice based solely on skin color and gender, not on qualifications or preparation for the position. Other candidates need not apply even if they are better qualified and “equal rights” depend on who you are in the Democratic Party pecking order. Leondra Kruger, reportedly a leading candidate is black, a woman and also Jewish.
So Joe Biden either understands the meaning of the words and expressions he uses, or he doesn’t. He probably thinks it doesn’t matter as he is speaking to a receptive and not very critical audience, which includes his mainstream media allies. And there is also his Chief of Staff Ron Klain there to poke him in the ribs when he is hesitating and has to say anything or look presidential.
In another speech in Atlanta regarding the so-called “right to vote,” Honest Joe explicitly compared skeptics in the Senate who would prefer to have the states determine who is a legal resident and citizen for voting purposes to historic racists Bull Connors and George Wallace. He then denied that he had been calling the dissidents out as racists. George Orwell’s “newspeak” is definitely on the way as the “right to vote” is little more than a pious slogan that is an invitation to widespread electoral fraud benefiting the Democrats through mail-in voting and registration without documentation.
And there is of course Israel, which has an entire government department dedicated to the propagation of expressions like “holocaust denial, “surging anti-Semitism” and “right to defend oneself.” January 27th was International Holocaust Remembrance Day and some of the antics engaged in by presumably well-educated adult politicians and government officials perhaps offer a glimpse into what is coming in terms of the waning ability to speak one’s mind. The United Nations approved an Israeli motion calling for a crackdown on “holocaust denial,” and the Israeli ambassador Gilad Erdan demanded that such content be banned from social networking media worldwide. He claimed that “Holocaust denial has spread like a cancer. It has spread under our watch. It has spread because people have chosen to be irresponsible and to avoid accountability…As you dodge responsibility, evil grows… Social media giants can no longer remain complacent to the hate that spreads on their platforms.”
To be accurate, the “avoiding accountability” claim sounds more reminiscent of Israeli and US behavior than that of those social media sites alleged to be in denial. And the malady appears to have taken hold in “liberal” Canada, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has denounced protesting truckers as “fascists” and “racists.” He is beginning to sound like Joe Biden and Naftali Bennett and I am waiting for the “domestic terrorist” and/or “anti-Semite” label to be applied to quell what is a genuine populist reaction to draconian government policies. To cite Orwell again, what Israel, Canada and the United States understand is that when it comes to establishing the preferred narrative “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past… The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.” Labeling opponents as racists or Nazis delegitimizes them so you will not have to deal with their grievances or arguments, which is precisely what is intended.
The irony is that free speech is already a distant memory in many countries. Orwell opined that “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” Constitutions guaranteeing a right to free speech proliferate in the Old World but are ignored or circumvented by governments, particularly if one is addressing almost anything having to do with the Second World War. Witness how in Europe the issue of presumed “holocaust denial,” now sometimes referred to in the US as “holocaust denialism” as if it were a disease, has been widely criminalized. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the negation or revision of “clearly established historical facts — such as the Holocaust — … would be removed from the protection of free speech under the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Bear in mind that “holocaust denial” includes any questioning of any aspect of the standard narrative endorsed by the US and other governments. Interestingly, a bit of pushback against a holocaust exemption for free speech appeared in an issue of Foreign Policy magazine, entitled “First they came for the Holocaust Deniers and I did not speak out”. The author Jacob Mchangama observes how hate speech and similar legislation has an unfortunate tendency to propagate and be used by governments to block all kinds of speech and writing that is actually quite innocent of any agenda but disapproved of by those in power. He cites how in 2014 a Russian blogger named Vladimir Luzgin was arrested and imprisoned after writing quite innocently on social media that Communist Russia and Nazi Germany collaborated to invade Poland in 1939 and thus began World War 2. His account was undoubtedly historically accurate, but the way it was presented offended someone in power and he was found guilty of misrepresenting the accepted narrative relating to the “Great Patriotic War against Germany.”
It is not completely clear what kind of Brave New World the Democrats are intent on creating, but it should be accepted as certain that once free speech goes and the universities go “woke” there will no longer be platforms to challenge the status quo. Conservative or otherwise dissenting publications will come under pressure to toe the line or the arbiters of decorum in Washington will be quick to make sure that the message is received that there will be consequences. We have entered into a strange twilight zone where what really happens and happened in the past will not be subject to examination. Will it be a better or safer world because of that? Undoubtedly no, but living now in what are likely to be the twilight years of our tottering republic we can only hope that somehow sanity will prevail and we will again be able to experience real freedom.
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.
February 15, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | Human rights, Joe Biden, United States |
Leave a comment
After the fall of the Soviet Union, I told the Senate that expansion would lead us to where we are today.
Today we face an avoidable crisis between the United States and Russia that was predictable, willfully precipitated, but can easily be resolved by the application of common sense.
But how did we get to this point?
Allow me, as someone who participated in the negotiations that ended the Cold War, to bring some history to bear on the current crisis.
We are being told each day that war may be imminent in Ukraine. Russian troops, we are told, are massing at Ukraine’s borders and could attack at any time. American citizens are being advised to leave Ukraine and dependents of the American Embassy staff are being evacuated. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian president has advised against panic and made clear that he does not consider a Russian invasion imminent. Vladimir Putin has denied that he has any intention of invading Ukraine. His demand is that the process of adding new members to NATO cease and that Russia has assurance that Ukraine and Georgia will never be members.
President Biden has refused to give such assurance but made clear his willingness to continue discussing questions of strategic stability in Europe. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian government has made clear it has no intention of implementing the agreement reached in 2015 for reuniting the Donbas provinces into Ukraine with a large degree of local autonomy — an agreement with Russia, France, and Germany that the United States endorsed.
Was this crisis avoidable?
In short, yes. In 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, many observers wrongly believed they were witnessing the end of the Cold War when It had actually ended at least two years earlier by negotiation and was in the interest of all the parties. President George H.W. Bush hoped that Gorbachev would manage to keep most of the 12 non-Baltic republics in a voluntary federation.
Despite the prevalent belief held by both the DC foreign policy establishment and most of the Russian public, the United States did not support, much less cause the break-up of the Soviet Union. We supported the independence of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and one of the last acts of the Soviet parliament was to legalize their claim to independence. And — despite frequently voiced fears — Vladimir Putin has never threatened to re-absorb the Baltic countries or to claim any of their territories, though he has criticized some that denied ethnic Russians the full rights of citizenship, a principle that the European Union is pledged to enforce.
Since Putin’s major demand is an assurance that NATO will take no further members, and specifically not Ukraine or Georgia, obviously there would have been no basis for the present crisis if there had been no expansion of the alliance following the end of the Cold War, or if the expansion had occurred in harmony with building a security structure in Europe that included Russia.
Was this crisis predictable?
Absolutely. NATO expansion was the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War. In 1997, when the question of adding more NATO members arose, I was asked to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In my introductory remarks, I made the following statement:
“I consider the administration’s recommendation to take new members into NATO at this time misguided. If it should be approved by the United States Senate, it may well go down in history as the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War. Far from improving the security of the United States, its Allies, and the nations that wish to enter the Alliance, it could well encourage a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat to this nation since the Soviet Union collapsed.” Indeed, our nuclear arsenals were capable of ending the possibility of civilization on Earth.
But that was not the only reason I cited for including rather than excluding Russia from European security. As I explained to the SFRC: “The plan to increase the membership of NATO fails to take account of the real international situation following the end of the Cold War, and proceeds in accord with a logic that made sense only during the Cold War. The division of Europe ended before there was any thought of taking new members into NATO. No one is threatening to re-divide Europe. It is therefore absurd to claim, as some have, that it is necessary to take new members into NATO to avoid a future division of Europe; if NATO is to be the principal instrument for unifying the continent, then logically the only way it can do so is by expanding to include all European countries. But that does not appear to be the aim of the administration, and even if it is, the way to reach it is not by admitting new members piecemeal.”
The decision to expand NATO piecemeal was a reversal of American policies that produced the end of the Cold War. President George H.W. Bush had proclaimed a goal of a “Europe whole and free.” Gorbachev had spoken of “our common European home,” had welcomed representatives of East European governments who threw off their communist rulers and had ordered radical reductions in Soviet military forces by explaining that for one country to be secure, there must be security for all.
President Bush also assured Gorbachev during their meeting in Malta in December, 1989, that if the countries of Eastern Europe were allowed to choose their future orientation by democratic processes, the United States would not “take advantage” of that process. (Obviously, bringing countries into NATO that were then in the Warsaw Pact would be “taking advantage.”) The following year, Gorbachev was assured, though not in a formal treaty, that if a unified Germany was allowed to remain in NATO, there would be no movement of NATO jurisdiction to the east, “not one inch.”
These comments were made to Gorbachev before the Soviet Union broke up. Once it did, the Russian Federation had less than half the population of the Soviet Union and a military establishment demoralized and in total disarray. While there was no reason to enlarge NATO after the Soviet Union recognized and respected the independence of the East European countries, there was even less reason to fear the Russian Federation as a threat.
Was this crisis willfully precipitated?
Alas, the policies pursued by Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden have all contributed to bringing us to this point.
Adding countries in Eastern Europe to NATO continued during the George W. Bush administration but that was not the only thing that stimulated Russian objection. At the same time, the United States began withdrawing from the arms control treaties that had tempered, for a time, an irrational and dangerous arms race and were the foundation agreements for ending the Cold War. The most significant was the decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty which had been the cornerstone treaty for the series of agreements that halted for a time the nuclear arms race. After 9/11, Putin was the first foreign leader to call President Bush and offer support. He was as good as his word by facilitating the attack on the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. It was clear at that time that Putin aspired to a security partnership with the United States as the jihadist terrorists who were targeting the United States were also targeting Russia. Nevertheless, Washington continued its course of ignoring Russian (and also allied) interests by invading Iraq, an act of aggression that not only Russia opposed, but also France and Germany.
Although President Obama initially promised improved relations through his “reset” policy, the reality was that his government continued to ignore the most serious Russian concerns and redoubled earlier American efforts to detach former Soviet republics from Russian influence and, indeed, to encourage “regime change” in Russia itself. American actions in Syria and Ukraine were seen by the Russian president, and most Russians, as indirect attacks on them.
And so far as Ukraine is concerned, U.S. intrusion into its domestic politics was deep, actively supporting the 2014 revolution and overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government in 2014.
Relations soured further during President Obama’s second term after the Russian annexation of Crimea. Then things got worse during the four years of Donald Trump’s tenure. Accused of being a Russian dupe, Trump passed every anti-Russian measure that came along, while at the same time flattering Putin as a great leader.
Can the crisis be resolved by the application of common sense?
Yes, after all, what Putin is demanding is eminently reasonable. He is not demanding the exit of any NATO member and he is threatening none. By any common sense standard it is in the interest of the United States to promote peace, not conflict. To try to detach Ukraine from Russian influence — the avowed aim of those who agitated for the “color revolutions” — was a fool’s errand, and a dangerous one. Have we so soon forgotten the lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis?
Now, to say that approving Putin’s demands is in the objective interest of the United States does not mean that it will be easy to do. The leaders of both the Democratic and Republican parties have developed such a Russo-phobic stance that it will take great political skill to navigate such treacherous political waters and achieve a rational outcome.
President Biden has made it clear that the United States will not intervene with its own troops if Russia invades Ukraine. So why move them into Eastern Europe? Just to show hawks in Congress that he is standing firm?
Maybe the subsequent negotiations between Washington and the Kremlin will find a way to allay Russian concerns and defuse the crisis. And maybe then Congress will start dealing with the growing problems we have at home instead of making them worse.
Or so one can hope.
February 15, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Militarism, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | NATO, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
Throughout the invasion and 20-year occupation of Afghanistan, U.S. officials portrayed themselves as great saviors and benefactors of the Afghan people. Perhaps the best example of this phenomenon is the Pentagon’s application of the term “Operation Enduring Freedom” to its deadly and destructive operations in Afghanistan. There was also the supposed concern for “women’s rights” within the country.
It was always a lie. That was demonstrated by the fact that there was never an upward limit on the number of Afghan people who could be killed during the invasion and occupation. Why, early on, the Pentagon and the CIA even established a policy to not keep count of the number of Afghans they killed. It didn’t matter. Any number of deaths and injuries, no matter how high, was considered acceptable. The idea was that those people who survived the deadly and destructive U.S. violence would enjoy “enduring freedom” and “women’s rights.”
The truth is that U.S. officials never cared one whit for the well-being of the Afghan people, including all those people at Afghan wedding parties who were periodically bombed during the 20-year occupation.
Today, the U.S. government’s viciousness is, once again, on display, with two things: (1) The decision by President Biden and the Pentagon’s to enforce one of their patented systems of economic sanctions on the Afghan populace, and (2) Biden’s and the Pentagon’s decision to steal more than $7 billion from the Afghan government.
The sanctions are a pure display of viciousness. Why target the Afghan people with more death and suffering? The war is over. The Pentagon and the CIA lost. Get over it. Leave the Afghan people alone. Enough is enough. Can’t they be satisfied with the large number of deaths and the massive destruction they wreaked for the last 20 years on the Afghan people? Why kill and impoverish even more with a brutal system of economic sanctions?
The dark irony is that they’re enforcing the sanctions in the name of fighting “terrorism.” But isn’t the reason they condemn terrorism is that it targets innocent people as a means to achieve a political goal? Well, that is precisely what their evil system of sanctions does. It too targets innocent people with death, impoverishment, and suffering as a way to achieve a political goal — i.e., to make the Taliban regime look bad or even maybe — (hope springs eternal!) — brings regime change and another corrupt U.S. puppet regime into power.
Prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban central bank had deposited more than $7 billion in the United States for safekeeping. That money rightly belongs to the Taliban central bank, which has demanded it back. It matters not that the Taliban defeated the Pentagon and the CIA and forced them to exit the country. The money still rightly belongs to the Afghan government.
President Biden and the Pentagon, however, have decided to steal it. They say that they are going to use half the money to compensate the victims of 9/11 and the other half for “humanitarian aid.” Oh, aren’t they such good, caring, and compassionate people? Who would have known?
But they are not. They are nothing more than common thieves. They have no moral or legal right to steal that money, no matter what they do with it. The money belongs to the Afghan government.
Moreover, the Taliban regime never had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, and no one, including the victims of 9/11, has ever provided any evidence to the contrary. The only reason that the George W. Bush regime ordered the invasion of Afghanistan was because the Taliban refused his unconditional extradition demand for Osama bin Laden, which the Taliban had the legal right to do given that there was no extradition treaty between the two countries. The Bush regime never provided one iota of evidence indicating that the Taliban were complicit in the 9/11 attacks and neither have any of the 9/11 victims.
Moreover, the notion that Biden and the Pentagon are going to be “humanitarian” with the Taliban’s money is laughable. They couldn’t care less about humanitarian concerns among the Afghan people. Remember: There was never an upward limit on the number of Afghan people they were willing to kill, maim, and injure in the process of bringing “enduring freedom” and “women’s rights” to Afghanistan. Keep in mind also that 99 percent of the people they killed, maimed, and injured and whose homes and businesses were destroyed by U.S. bombs for 20 long years had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.
After wreaking so much death, suffering, and destruction on the people of Afghanistan, Biden and the Pentagon need to do the right thing. They need to lift those deadly and destructive sanctions and finally leave the Afghan people alone. They also need to return the Afghan government’s money to the Afghan government. Behaving like vicious common thieves seeking revenge and retribution for their defeat does not reflect well on the United States.
February 14, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Afghanistan, United States |
Leave a comment
A website has claimed to have obtained a trove of personal data from Freedom Convoy donors, as the main fundraising platform for the backers of the Canadian anti-vaccine mandate truckers suffered an alleged hack and went offline on Monday.
The Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoS) whistleblower site announced it had been given 30 megabytes of information on the donors of the Christian fundraising site GiveSendGo, including names, email addresses, zip codes and IP addresses.
This data won’t be made available to the public, but will only be provided to “journalists and researchers” due to its sensitive personal nature, according to DDoS.
Meanwhile, GiveSendGo – which became the main crowdfunding hub for the protesters after the mainstream platform GoFundMe blocked donations to them on February 5 – remained unresponsive on Monday.
Those visiting the site were met with a message saying: “Application is under maintenance, we will be back very soon.”
Media reports said GiveSendGo had been breached overnight, with its front page replaced by a clip from Disney’s animated movie ‘Frozen’, suggesting that its operations and money have been frozen too.
The video also contained a manifesto, in which the hackers labeled the site’s donors “grifters and hatriots,” while accusing them of funding “the insurrection in Ottawa” and the Capitol riots in the US on January 6 last year.
The Freedom Convoy demonstrations began in late January over Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s demand for unvaccinated truckers to quarantine after coming back to Canada from the US.
The protest escalated quickly and saw roads and border crossings blocked across Canada, including the capital, Ottawa, with those taking part also decrying Covid-19 lockdowns and mask mandates, along with calling for Trudeau’s resignation.
Supporters of the cause allegedly gathered $8 million online to continue rallying, but a Canadian judge issued an injunction blocking the money for the Freedom Convoy over the weekend.
Late on Sunday, the Canada Border Services Agency said it had ejected the last remaining demonstrator from the border with the US in Windsor, Ontario, reopening North America’s busiest trade link after a six-day blockade.
February 14, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism | Canada, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
US Republican lawmakers have sent a letter pressing chief White House medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci for answers about his alleged silencing of concerns that the Covid-19 virus originally came from a Chinese lab.
The letter, sent on Monday by three US House members, cited emails suggesting that Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins, then director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), tried in early 2020 to quash speculation among scientists that the virus may have originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Instead of alerting national security officials to the pandemic’s potentially unnatural origin, Fauci and Collins sought to shut down the debate, the GOP lawmakers said.
The emails, which were obtained by media outlets under Freedom of Information Act requests, reportedly showed that some virology experts saw reason to believe that the virus was lab-created. Some of the messages made reference to a February 2020 conference call in which many scientists leaned toward the lab-leak theory. For instance, Tulane Medical School professor Robert Garry said he could see no “plausible natural scenario” for some aspects of Covid-19 otherwise.
“However, those same email communications, particularly when viewed in light of other publicly available information, demonstrate an apparent effort by you and Dr. Collins not only to cover up the concerns those virologists raised, but to suppress scientific debate about the origins of Covid-19,” the letter said.
Representatives Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Washington), Brett Guthrie (R-Kentucky) and Morgan Griffith (R-Virginia) signed the letter.
They demanded that Fauci provide details on how those conversations with scientists were initiated and who consulted him and Collins on Covid-19’s likely origins. The lawmakers also requested information on any communications by Fauci and Collins with Chinese scientists, as well as documents related to US funding of the research in Wuhan.
Even as scientists were speculating about Covid-19’s potentially manmade origins, Fauci told reporters in April 2020 that the sequencing of the virus was “totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.” Earlier that same day, Collins sent him a message of concern about the lab leak theory, asking how NIH might “put down this very destructive conspiracy.”
Republican lawmakers have accused Fauci of directing taxpayer funding to gain-of-function research that could potentially make organisms more transmissible or lethal. In Monday’s letter, the House members claimed the efforts to quell the lab-leak theory may have stemmed at least partly from fears of those grants being exposed. “It appears you and Dr. Collins may have done so to protect China and avoid criticism about incredibly risky research that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases was funding at the Wuhan lab,” the legislators said.
February 14, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Anthony Fauci, Covid-19, Francis Collins, NIH, United States |
Leave a comment
Over the weekend we heard that the US is evacuating its embassy in Kiev for fear of a Russian invasion. We also heard that Russia is evacuating its embassy in Kiev for fear of a US-backed provocation in eastern Ukraine that may lead to a Russian military response.
We are in “uncharted territory” the media tells us. Yes, that is true. But it is uncharted because no one had ever imagined in the past that the US government would be so foolish to risk a thermonuclear war over the borders of a country – Ukraine – that have changed so many times over the past century.
An urgent Biden-Putin phone call on Saturday did not lead to any breakthrough – as if anyone thought it would. Instead, it provided cover for Biden Administration hawks to claim they tried every diplomatic approach, but war seems to be the only option.
But this whole thing is a farce. As I see it, here is the Ukraine crisis in a nutshell:
Biden to Putin: “Don’t invade Ukraine.”
Putin to Biden: “We have no intention of invading Ukraine.”
Biden to the US media: “Putin is about to invade Ukraine!”
Then Biden’s top officials proceed to embarrass themselves by warning that the invasion was imminent. Or it’s coming next Tuesday, or Wednesday, or surely before the end of the Olympics. Does anyone think they have any credibility left with their constant hysterical warnings?
Meanwhile “US intelligence” continues to leak incendiary information – likely self-serving – to a US media that has lost any interest in skepticism toward any “scoop” handed down by US government officials.
What the US media will not report is that this entire crisis – and the threat of a serious war – has all been brought about by US interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine, specifically the US-backed coup that overthrew an elected government in 2014. Every bit of unrest in Ukraine proceeded from that single foolish and immoral act by the Obama Administration.
That is why we are non-interventionist. The philosophy of non-interventionism is one very good piece of insurance protecting us from needless war. If you don’t meddle in the affairs of foreign countries, there is less chance of being dragged into an unnecessary war.
Ukraine is a great example of why non-interventionism is the only pro-America foreign policy. We are risking nuclear war with Russia over what? Ukraine’s borders? Surely most Americans see how idiotic this is.
The Biden Administration is at present shell-shocked that the Russian government did not back down over plans to expand NATO to Ukraine. Russia understandably views NATO membership for Ukraine -with its Article 5 guarantees – to be an unacceptable threat considering the ongoing border disputes.
This is not our fight, yet Biden’s foreign policy team has decided it’s a great time to kick the hornet’s nest.
Is it all about Biden’s dismal approval ratings? What a sick thing to risk a major war over. We need to stand up and say “enough.” Before it’s too late.
Copyright © 2022 by RonPaul Institute
February 14, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Joe Biden, Obama, Russia, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
The Supreme Court is doing exactly what they said that they were going to do — blocking OSHA from imposing vaccine mandates on private companies but allowing states and cities to impose whatever vaccine tyranny they wish.
Sotomayor Rejects New York School Workers on Vaccine Requirement
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor refused to intervene on behalf of 15 people who said they are about to be fired from their jobs as New York City school employees because they refuse to get vaccinated against Covid-19.
This instantly leads to absurdity as jurisdictions governed by Democrats continue to impose vaccine fascism. If you work for the government in California or New York the state owns your body but if you work for the government in Virginia, thanks to the recent election, you have personal sovereignty.
Vaccine mandates in blue cities and states are a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
In trying to sidestep the major Constitutional issues raised by vaccine mandates, the Supreme Court threw gasoline on the fire of political polarization in this country. Since it is illegal for OSHA to force companies to impose a vaccine mandate it should also be illegal, pursuant to the 14th Amendment, for hospitals and jurisdictions controlled by Democrats to impose vaccine mandates.
As I explained in an earlier article, the Constitution clearly gives us a right to bodily autonomy (via the First, Fourth, and Thirteenth Amendments) and the Supreme Court should have struck down the OSHA mandate on Constitutional grounds rather than the narrower statutory interpretation that they used (stating simply that ‘the original OSHA statutes did not give the agency that authority’).
Because the Supreme Court ruled on such narrow grounds, blue states continue to trample individual liberties. Now families have to flee blue states for sanctuary in red states which is leading to partition and possible civil war.
In the absence of clarity from the Supreme Court we must take matters into our own hands by passing a Constitutional amendment to protect bodily sovereignty.
February 14, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties | COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
The U.S. Government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database was updated this past Friday, February 11, 2022, and it is now reporting that there have been 1,103,893 cases of injuries and deaths following COVID-19 vaccine since December of 2020, when the FDA issued emergency use authorizations for the COVID-19 vaccines. (Source.)
By way of contrast, there were 918,856 cases of injuries and deaths following all FDA-approved vaccines for the previous 30+ years, from 1990 through November of 2020. (Source.)
So there have been more injuries and deaths recorded in VAERS during the past 14 months following COVID-19 vaccines, than there were for the previous 30+ years combined following all vaccines recorded in VAERS.
Fetal Deaths Increase by 1,867% Following COVID-19 Vaccines
This most recent update of VAERS shows that there have now been 3,573 fetal deaths following COVID-19 vaccines. (Source.)
To arrive at the number of fetal deaths recorded in VAERS I had to test several different searches on listed “symptoms” and then see if the search results documented fetal deaths, since there is no demographic for “fetal deaths.”
The following is the current list of “symptoms” in VAERS that reveals fetal deaths:
- Aborted pregnancy
- Abortion
- Abortion complete
- Abortion complicated
- Abortion early
- Abortion incomplete
- Abortion induced
- Abortion induced incomplete
- Abortion late
- Abortion missed
- Abortion of ectopic pregnancy
- Abortion spontaneous
- Abortion spontaneous complete
- Abortion spontaneous incomplete
- Ectopic pregnancy
- Ectopic pregnancy termination
- Ectopic pregnancy with contraceptive device
- Foetal cardiac arrest
- Foetal death
- Premature baby death
- Premature delivery
- Ruptured ectopic pregnancy
- Stillbirth
This list may not be exhaustive. But if we use the exact same search using these symptoms, we can compare “apples to apples” in examining fetal deaths following COVID-19 vaccines as compared to fetal deaths following all non-COVID vaccines.
Using this search for all FDA-approved vaccines for the previous 30+ years before the COVID-19 vaccines were given emergency use authorization in December of 2020, we find 2,519 fetal deaths, the vast majority of which followed vaccines produced by Merck, which would include the Gardasil vaccines. (Source.)
Here are the yearly averages:
- 82 fetal deaths per year following non-COVID vaccines
- 3063 fetal deaths per year following COVID-19 vaccines
I arrived at these averages by taking the total number of fetal deaths following non-COVID vaccines and divided by 31, and for the fetal deaths following COVID-19 vaccines I divided by 14 to get the monthly average, and then multiplied by 12.
To get a more accurate percentage of how many more fetal deaths are following the COVID-19 vaccines than all other FDA approved vaccines, we have to also factor in the number of doses administered.
The U.S. Government’s Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) complies data on the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and a report that they published on 12/01/2021 shows that there were over 4 billion (4,092,757,049) doses of vaccines administered in the United States between 1/01/2006 through 12/31/2019, a year before the COVID-19 vaccines were given emergency use authorizations. (Source.)
Using that date range I repeated the exact same search for fetal deaths recorded in VAERS during that time, and VAERS reports 1,369 deaths from among those 4 billion+ doses administered between 1/01/2006 through 12/31/2019. (Source.)
The CDC reported this past week that there have been 543 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered as of February 3, 2022. (Source.)
So from 2006 through 2019, there was 1 fetal death recorded in VAERS for every 2,989,596 doses of vaccines administered.
From December, 2020 through February 4, 2022, there has been 1 fetal death recorded in VAERS for ever 151,973 doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered.
That’s a 1,867% increase of fetal deaths recorded in VAERS following COVID-19 vaccines.
I’ve run out of superlatives to use in the English language to describe this. And this is just using the U.S. Government’s own reported statistics, without even trying to figure out what the unreported factor is.
Here are two recent stories from young mothers who lost their unborn babies just after receiving a second COVID-19 vaccine. Perhaps their words and their experiences, which obviously represent, at least, many thousands of others, can better communicate just how truly horrible this is.
This is on our Bitchute channel, and also on our Telegram channel.
February 13, 2022
Posted by aletho |
War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine, FDA, United States |
Leave a comment
Ukrainian lobbyists contacted US congressional offices, think tanks, and media figures over 10,000 times last year, according to an analysis of Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings reported by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft on Friday.
The Quincy report pointed to the “extraordinary” scale of Ukraine’s lobbying campaign, noting that the lobbying efforts of Saudi Arabia – known as one of the largest foreign lobbies in Washington DC – pales in comparison.
According to the report, most of Kiev’s persuasive efforts focused on members of Congress, who were deluged with over 8,000 contacts – emails, phone calls, and meetings – in an effort to convince them of the need to block the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, among other issues.
The Ukrainian Federation of Employers of the Oil and Gas Industry (UFEOGI), the country’s largest energy trade group, would reportedly cite Ukraine’s PM, arguing that the pipeline was “no less an existential threat” to Ukraine’s “security and democracy” than “Russian troops on the border.” The pipeline, which is completed but still has to receive the green light from German regulators, would allow Russia to export gas directly to Europe without having to pay Kiev billions for the transfer of gas.
UFEOGI lobbyists apparently centered their efforts on Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who took just several days to channel the Ukrainian PM on social media. In his own message, Cruz likewise referred to the Russian pipeline as an “existential threat.”
The trade group also sought to reach out to senators who had previously backed legislation to thwart the completion of the pipeline, including several members of the Foreign Relations Committee with a history of anti-Russian votes. Cruz, Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire) were all contacted at least 100 times last year, with some of these contacts resulting in their staffers meeting directly with Ukrainian energy lobbyists, the report claims.
The bill proposed by Cruz would have imposed bans on doing business with US companies for those involved with the Nord Stream 2 project, in addition to travel restrictions and asset freezes. It failed to pass, however.
A separate legislative proposal, put forth by Senator Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey) and dubbed “the mother of all sanctions,” would punish senior Russian officials and banks in the event of an invasion of Ukraine. The Quincy report noted that one of Menendez’s former staffers, Brittany Beaulieu, now represents UFEOGI, as well as the ‘Civil Movement for a Just Ukraine’.
Apart from the US lawmakers, Ukrainian lobbyists also reportedly courted pro-NATO think tank the Atlantic Council, contacting it hundreds of times. The report noted that one of the richest men in Ukraine, Victor Pinchuk, is also one of the Atlantic Council’s international advisers, while his foundation is a major contributor to the think tank.
Ukrainian lobbyists also targeted the Heritage Foundation, which has been advocating selling more US weapons to Ukraine and ramping up US financial assistance to Kiev. The lobbyists reached out 180 times to high-ranking figures in the organization, including its VP, throughout 2021, according to the report.
The lobbyists also did not overlook the US media, contacting the Wall Street Journal’s newsroom at least 147 times last year, the report said, citing Quincy’s analysis of the interactions.
Russia has repeatedly denied plans to invade its neighbor, dismissing reports to the contrary as fake news. US media outlets, nevertheless, have attempted to predict the outbreak of hostilities down to the very day, citing anonymous government sources. Numerous US officials have argued that the invasion was looming, with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan saying on Friday that it could begin “any time.”
On Saturday, however, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called on the Americans to share the evidence they supposedly have of Russia’s intentions after having previously warned that reports of an imminent war risk destabilizing his country.
February 13, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Russophobia | Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
A legal motion makes bombshell allegations about IT firm’s clandestine spying activities on Trump White House
Lawyers working for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign paid an IT firm to “infiltrate” servers at Trump Tower and the White House in order to establish a “narrative” that would link Donald Trump to Russia, an explosive new legal filing alleges.
The legal motion, filed in a District of Columbia court on Friday by a Justice Department (DOJ) prosecutor investigating the origins of the FBI’s ‘Russiagate’ probe, relates to potential conflicts of interest by former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann. Sussmann has previously pleaded not guilty to a one-count charge of lying to federal agents.
Two months before the 2016 election, Sussmann, a partner at Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented the Democrats and Clinton’s campaign, allegedly told the FBI he was not working on behalf of Clinton when he presented the agency with supposedly incriminating documents.
In the filing, Special Counsel John Durham alleges that Sussmann was working on behalf of the Clinton campaign and an unnamed “technology executive” at a US tech firm when he submitted “purported data” and “white papers” to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016. They apparently pointed to a “covert communications channel” between the Trump Organization and Russia-based Alfa Bank (identified as “Russian Bank-1”).
Highlighting Sussmann’s “billing records,” Durham alleges that he had “repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations.” This involved an unnamed lawyer working with the campaign, the tech executive (identified as “Tech Executive-1”), an investigative firm, several cyber-researchers, and employees at “multiple internet companies,” the motion states.
It alleges that the executive “exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data” and tasked researchers at an unnamed US university to “mine Internet data” so as to create “an inference” and “narrative” linking Trump to Russia. The executive claimed to be working “to please certain VIPs.”
While many US media outlets pointed to the Alfa Bank claims as proof of Trump’s “collusion” with the Kremlin, the FBI found that the email server in question was run by an advertising agency that sent out promotional emails for Trump’s hotels, among other things.
Among the internet data exploited was “domain name system (DNS) Internet traffic” from Trump Tower, Trump’s apartment building in New York City, and the White House, the filing states. It alleged that Tech Executive-1’s employer (identified as “Internet Company-1”) provided DNS resolution services to the White House – and accused the executive and his associates of exploiting this arrangement to mine data for “derogatory information” about Trump.
Then, in 2017, Sussmann apparently used this information to compile “an updated set of allegations” about Trump’s supposed Russian ties – noting “suspicious DNS lookups” and “Russian-made wireless phones” – to another US government agency, the motion states. Durham said he found “no support for these allegations” and added that some of the lookups occurred as early as 2014 during the Obama administration.
Demanding “reparations” be paid, Trump said in a statement on Saturday that the filing provided “indisputable evidence” that his campaign and presidency were “spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign” to “develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia.”
“This is a scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate and those who were involved in and knew about this spying operation should be subject to criminal prosecution,” he added, noting that there was a time when the alleged crime “would have been punishable by death.”
There has been no official response from Clinton as yet.
Last year, Sussmann’s attorneys said their client had “committed no crime,” calling charges against him “baseless [and] unprecedented.” Meanwhile, a lawyer for the person who fed Sussmann the Alfa Bank claims said that his client did not know his law firm had a relationship with the Clinton campaign “and was simply doing the right thing.”
Sussmann represented the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during proceedings related to the alleged 2016 hack of its computers. Both Clinton and the DNC had blamed Russia, but could not back up their accusations.
The original Russia probe ballooned into a two-year investigation led by then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who failed to produce evidence of collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia.
February 13, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Deception, Timeless or most popular | Hillary Clinton, United States |
Leave a comment
February 9, 2022
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS and EMAIL
Dear Dr. Janet Woodcock:
We write to you on behalf of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a non-profit organization devoted to the health of people and the planet. We have actively followed your work to evaluate, authorize and approve vaccines for the American public, and particularly children.
We are aware that you are likely to grant Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of Pfizer’s BioNTech SARS-CoV-2 vaccine for children aged six months up to five years old following your upcoming meeting on February 15, 2022. We are writing to put you on notice that should you recommend this pediatric EUA vaccine to children under five years old, CHD is poised to take legal action against you. CHD will seek to hold you accountable for recklessly endangering this population with a product that has little, no, or even negative net efficacy but which may put them, without warning, at risk of many adverse health consequences, including heart damage, stroke and other thrombotic events and reproductive harms.
We briefly outline why such a recommendation would be reckless for nearly 20 million children in the United States, and millions more around the world.
-
There is no COVID emergency for children under five years old. Children have a 99.995% recovery rate and a body of medical literature indicates that almost zero healthy children under five years old have died from COVID.
-
A large study conducted in Germany showed zero deaths for children under 5 and a case fatality rate of three out of a million in children without comorbidities.
-
A Johns Hopkins study monitoring 48,000 children diagnosed with COVID showed a zero mortality rate in children under 18 without comorbidities.,
-
A study in Nature demonstrated that children under 18 with no comorbidities have virtually no risk of death.
-
Data from England and Wales, published by the UK Office of National Statistics on January 17, 2022 revealed that throughout 2020 and 2021, only one (1) child under the age of 5, without comorbidities, had died from COVID in the two countries, whose total population is 60 million.
-
Another study in Nature from April, suggests children’s bodies clear the virus more easily than adults.
-
This study published in December in Nature demonstrated how children efficiently mount effective, robust and sustained immune responses.
-
Over one third of all children are estimated to have natural immunity to COVID, according to CDC’s own data. There is no ethical justification for superfluous vaccination that will put children at elevated risk of vaccine harm.
-
The risks demonstrably outweigh the benefits of COVID vaccination in young children. A study out of Hong Kong, showed one out of every 2,700 12-17 year old boys being diagnosed with myocarditis following the 2nd dose of Comirnaty vaccine, or 37 per 100,000 vaccinated. A study from Kaiser found the same rate of myocarditis in 12-17 year old American boys, 1/2700.
-
While the CDC is saying that myocarditis is a mild disease, cardiologists know otherwise. CDC’s own preliminary data, reported at the February 4 ACIP meeting, revealed that nearly half of the young people diagnosed with myocarditis still had symptoms 3 months later, and 39% had their activity restricted by their physician. We know this serious adverse event occurs frequently in teenagers. But no one knows how often it occurs in younger children. This is of major concern for babies and younger children.
5. The clinical trials for children 2 through 4 years old failed., You’re proposing to use a product and schedule that failed in its clinical trials, and you may potentially add a third dose later in the spring. This is an unprecedented proposal not backed by science. It does not meet the risk-benefit standard of 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 “the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat such disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product.”
6. Some children likely will die and others will be permanently injured from these vaccines based on reporting to the current VAERS database. The latest data shows a total of 1,088,560 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 23,149 deaths and 183,311 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2022.
7. The pediatric clinical trials for the COVID vaccines were too small to detect safety signals–especially for a population in the tens of millions.
8. There are a) no long-term safety data for COVID vaccination of young children, and b) the proposal is to vaccinate children under the Emergency Use Authorization. Both a) and b) establish that vaccinating small children for COVID will be an experiment, not a standard medical procedure.
9. Unethical coercive pressure will be applied to children and their parents, as has occurred with older children and adults. To grant authorization is to abet this unethical coercion that violates the Nuremberg Code’s first principle.
10. There is no available care for children injured by COVID shots. There is no way to remove the spike protein and other toxic byproducts of vaccination, which may be produced for a considerable period of time following inoculation of messenger RNA. The science and medicine have not yet developed, and most families will be unable to cover the costs of potential catastrophic injuries.
11. First, do no harm. You are a physician who owes a duty to patients and medical ethics. If you recommend these shots to this age group, given all you know, will you be upholding your oath? If not, is it possible that your acts could later be seen as reason to remove your medical licenses?
12. The liability-free nature of your deliberations may not stand the test of time. In the fullness of time, your decisions may not have the liability protection that they currently enjoy. Under the PREP Act of 2005, all actors advancing an EUA agenda for medical countermeasures enjoy liability protection, absent willful misconduct., Nonetheless, if at a later point these shots are deemed non-therapeutic gene products that you knowingly and recklessly recommended, and which were then distributed to children as a direct result of your decision, it is possible that liability could later attach.
13. There are safer drugs that could be used prophylactically and therapeutically for COVID in children. There is extensive and compelling medical evidence for this assertion; and the choice to eschew use of these drugs in favor of a demonstrably dangerous vaccine is arbitrary and capricious.
14. The vaccines do not prevent transmission. They do not prevent infection. There is no statistically valid evidence that they prevent severe disease or deaths in children. Which begs the question: what are you actually trying to accomplish by vaccinating small children? What is your goal?
15. On August 23, 2021, FDA’s letter to BioNTech explained that neither the VAERS nor the VSD surveillance systems were adequate for FDA to determine the risk of myocarditis resulting from the Pfizer vaccine. Therefore, Pfizer and BioNTech were instructed by FDA to carry out a series of studies of myocarditis to ascertain the risk in different groups, including children. These studies were scheduled to produce final reports to FDA over the next five years. If the FDA is willing to wait until 2027 to learn the actual risks of myocarditis from the vaccine for children, shouldn’t it be required to wait until 2027 before inoculating millions of small children with a vaccine anticipated to provide them no benefit and possibly substantial risks?
16. An important Cell article in press, written by scientists from Stanford, has shown that, based on lymph node sampling after mRNA vaccination, spike protein and its mRNA remain present in the germinal centers of draining lymph nodes for up to 60 days, which is when sampling ceased. This was not supposed to happen. The demonstration of vastly prolonged spike protein production has revealed that the dose of spike protein produced in vivo by mRNA vaccines is unpredictable. FDA, however, requires uniformity of dosing. This fact alone should disqualify all authorizations and approvals of mRNA COVID vaccines.
We ask that you carefully consider all the information above before making any recommendation for Pfizer’s vaccine in the 6 months to under 5 year age group at your meeting on February 15, 2022.
_____________________________________
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Meryl Nass, M.D.
Unfortunately, the footnotes are missing from this version. They can be found at:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/CHD-Letter-to-FDA__EUA-Under-5_2-9-2022-1.pdf
February 13, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine, FDA, United States |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
