American children have no choice but to act as experimental test subjects for the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine to determine the jab’s safety, the Food and Drug Administration has apparently concluded. Good luck, kids!
“We’re never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it,” editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and Harvard adjunct professor Eric Rubin argued last week, his words buried within the eight-hour barrage of presentations and discussions that swirled around the FDA advisory panel’s approval of the mRNA jab for children aged five to 11.
The FDA followed up on the advisory panel’s 17-0 recommendation with approval, as it typically does, on Friday. If the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention follows suit, some 28 million American children will be quickly served up as fresh-faced fodder for a smaller dose of the Covid-19 vaccine already poised to inject some 100 million American adults. That is, as soon as President Joe Biden is able to whip up a legally-binding demand he can submit to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Friday’s FDA approval means only the CDC stands between American children and a warp-speed rollout of the Pfizer jab. However, the rush to approval doesn’t necessarily mean there are no concerns. A disturbingly large portion of the FDA committee’s members are connected to Pfizer in some way or another, leading vaccine skeptics to cry foul. Meanwhile, a growing portion of the country continues to denounce the mandates in general, insisting everyone should be able to make their own decision regarding whether or not they wish to get injected.
Echoing the newly-reanimated pro-choice slogan, mandate protesters recently swarmed the Brooklyn Bridge declaring ‘My body, my choice’ as New York City employees faced the potential loss of their jobs as firefighters, police officers, sanitation handlers, and corrections officers due to Mayor Bill de Blasio’s insistence that all municipal employees get vaxxed or be relegated to the purgatory of open-ended unpaid leave.
The FDA’s effort to put the cart so far in front of the horse mirrored the words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the congressional tug-of-war over Obamacare in 2010. Faced with a phonebook-sized, dubiously-legal bill unlike anything Congress had passed before and no realistic timeframe to wrangle with the details, Pelosi suggested Congress would have to “pass the bill to find out what’s in it, away from the fog of controversy.”
Since then, legislation by brute force has only grown as the means by which laws are passed in the US, as ever-more-polarized parties refuse to give an inch and betray the appearance of weakness. Allowing the ‘other side’ to be seen as achieving even the slightest victory is unconscionable, and that framework remains in place in the vaccination arena – where it makes less sense than anywhere else.
After all, it was former President Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed that brought the world the Pfizer shot, even if the jab itself wasn’t rolled out until shortly (some would say deliberately) after the 2020 election and vaccine mandates have since become a cause celebre of the Democratic Party.
With half the US up in arms about the other half’s supposed refusal to roll up its sleeves and submit to an intensely politicized needle, anyone who hesitates is denounced posthaste in a 21st-century witch hunt – to be fired, if not set on fire; outfitted with the scarlet A for anti-vaxxer, not adulteress; and otherwise chased out of the public square – deplatformed from Twitter, YouTube and Facebook, if not chased physically with pitchforks and torches. Similar divisions have erupted across Europe, and countries like Italy and France have pushed the issue even further, barring the unvaccinated from so much as entering grocery stores to buy food.
While the US study of the Pfizer vaccine’s effects on children five to 11 failed to turn up any deadly side effects, critics argued its population size was too small to be effective for such a purpose. Parents of some jab recipients have observed disturbing symptoms in their offspring in the hours and days following the shots and filmed heartbreaking testimonials describing their downfall from healthy children to pain-wracked perma-patients experiencing near-constant seizures, facial distortions, debilitating heart problems, or other dire health issues.
Another doctor on the FDA committee, Michael Kurilla of the National Institutes of Health, abstained from voting on recommending Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine entirely, citing a lack of evidence that all children need the shot, and while Kurilla, an infectious disease and pathology expert, was the only panel member to abstain from voting, he was not the only member to openly express misgivings about doling out the jab to young Americans. His colleague, Dr. Cody Meissner of Tufts University, suggested that it would be an “error” to mandate the jab for children to return to school until there was more hard data.
“We simply don’t know what the side effects are going to be,” he said, acknowledging the shot – like its adult equivalent – probably wouldn’t prevent transmission of the virus. While he was not opposed to administering the shot to certain vulnerable subgroups inside the 5-11 age group, Meissner was concerned approving the shot for everyone in that category would lead to a heavy-handed mandate the likes of which is currently being wielded against American adults.
Children who receive the Pfizer-BioNTech jab may actually get less immunity and face more risk than supplied by getting and recovering from a current strain of Covid-19, Kurilla told the Daily Mail, referring to the Delta variant and other current strains of Covid-19 circulating among the population. “The question really becomes, does this vaccine offer any benefits to them at all?” he asked rhetorically during the FDA committee meeting. He would have voted ‘yes’ if the FDA had merely proposed opening up access to the vaccine to a ‘subset’ of those ages five to 11, but he disagreed with administering it to all children within that age group.
Two other panel members voted to approve despite their misgivings. Meissner argued that a “very small percent of otherwise healthy six-to-11-year-old children…might derive some benefit,” while President and CEO of Meharry Medical College James Hildreth agreed that “vaccinating all of the children…seems a bit much for me,” pointing to the relatively low risk of hospitalization and near-zero risk of death by Covid-19 for children.
Speaking up against the jab, even circumstantially, has become the kiss of death in the medical community, with even medical rock stars like Robert Malone, one of the inventors of mRNA as a drug, cast into the dustbin of history for expressing skepticism that his invention was being incorrectly used to deliver the Covid-19 vaccine.
However, governments worldwide are setting themselves up for civil war as populations are forced to choose one ‘side’ or another. Even many of the vaccinated have acknowledged that the jab should not be forced on anyone, while entire industries like shipping, air travel, defense, and the like grind to a halt as mandates run up against the stubborn will of their employees. Southwest Airlines was allegedly forced to cancel thousands of flights earlier this month, due to a reported mass ‘sickout’ by air traffic controllers unwilling to get vaxxed, though the airline itself has denied this, and rumors of trucker strikes from Australia to America have food sellers panicking at the thought of empty shelves.
As it stands, parents who were willing to submit themselves to experimental shots in the name of convenience and retaining employment may not be so willing to offer up their children as sacrifices to a company once denounced by the US Justice Department as the worst fraudster in the pharmaceutical industry.
Governments that have shown themselves as profoundly untrustworthy throughout the Covid-19 pandemic are unlikely to change their behavior at the last minute, and parents are wise to take care in where they place their trust.
An investigation of data found in the USA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has revealed that extremely high numbers of adverse reactions and deaths have been reported against specific lot numbers of the Covid-19 vaccines several times, meaning deadly batches of the experimental injections have now been identified.
But what’s perhaps more concerning is that the “deadly” lots were distributed widely across the United States whilst other “benign” lots were sent to just a few locations.
The data used in the investigation was pulled from the publicly accessible VAERS database which can be viewed here. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a United States programme for vaccine safety, co-managed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The programme collects information via reports made by doctors, nurses, and patients about adverse events (possible harmful side effects) that occur after administration of vaccines to ascertain whether the risk–benefit ratio is high enough to justify continued use of any particular vaccine.
The reports pulled from the database were ones that had been submitted up to October 15th 2021 and they included all adverse reactions reported against the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Covid-19 injections, as well as all adverse reactions reported against the influenza vaccines; which were used to generate a control dataset .
The VAERS database showed a total of 1,608 adverse event reports against the flu vaccines alongside 15 deaths and 73 hospitalisations. The total count of lot numbers returned was 494.
The ‘lot number’ is a specific string of numbers and letters that tracks a specific batch of vaccine from production and into a persons arm and it is usually found on a vaccine label or accompanying packaging.
The above chart shows the number of adverse event report made to VAERS against the influenza vaccines sorted by the lot number of vaccine that was administered prior to the adverse event.
Except for a few spikes the number of adverse events per lot number was generally the same, with no more than 26 reports being made against a single lot number of influenza vaccine.
The above charts shows the count of lots by number of reports of adverse reactions per lot for the influenza vaccines. It shows that 33% of the lots (165 / 494) only had a single adverse reaction report made against them, whilst just 0.6% of the lots (3 / 494) had at least 20 adverse reaction reports made against them.
The above chart shows how many times a specific lot number was identified in an adverse reaction report of which the person had died following vaccination against the Flu. Ninety-seven-percent of the lots (480 / 494) were associated with zero deaths, whilst 13 lots were associated with a single death and 1 lot was associated with 2 deaths.
The above chart shows the number of states within the USA a specific log number of the influenza vaccine was distributed to.
The VAERS data shows that 44% of the lots (219 / 494) were sent to just a single state within the USA, whilst a further 17% (86 / 494) were sent to 2 states, 10% (50 / 494) were sent to 3 states, 5% (24 / 494) were sent to 4 states, 3% (17 / 494) were sent to 5 states, 2% (11 / 494) were sent to 6 states, and just 0.4 (2 / 494) were sent to 12 states within the USA.
All of the above data was then used as a control dataset to compare against VAERS data for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Covid-19 vaccines.
The VAERS database showed a total of 171,463 adverse event reports against the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine alongside 2,828 deaths and 14,262 hospitalisations. The total count of lot numbers returned was 4,522.
This data alone shows that there have been 106 times as many adverse reactions, 189 times as many deaths, and 195 times as many hospitalisations due to the Pfizer Covid-19 jab than there have been due to all other influenza vaccines combined.
The above chart shows the number of adverse event reports made to VAERS against the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine sorted by the lot number of vaccine that was administered prior to the adverse event. We do not have reliable information about standard lot size, but news articles indicate an average lot size of 1000 vials (approx. 6000 doses).
The highest number of adverse event reports made to VAERS against a single lot number of the influenza vaccine was 26. Which makes it all the more shocking to discover that the highest number of adverse event reports made to VAERS against a single lot number of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine up to October 15th 2021 was 3,563, and this isn’t an anomaly.
Thousands of adverse event reports have been made against a single lot number of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine numerous times, and unfortunately the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine hasn’t fared any better.
The VAERS database showed a total of 188,998 adverse event reports against the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine alongside 2,603 deaths and 10,225 hospitalisations. The total count of lot numbers returned was 5,510.
This data alone shows that there have been 118 times as many adverse reactions, 174 times as many deaths, and 140 times as many hospitalisations due to the Moderna Covid-19 jab than there have been due to all other influenza vaccines combined.
The above chart shows the number of adverse event reports made to VAERS against the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine sorted by the lot number of vaccine that was administered prior to the adverse event, and it shows that the Moderna jab fared even worse than the Pfizer jab in this department with the highest number of adverse event reports against a single lot number of Moderna Covid-19 vaccine totalling a staggering 4,967.
The above chart shows the count of lots against the range of adverse events reported per lot of Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine. The data reveals that 2,908 lots (64%) had just a single adverse event report made against them, whilst 2 specific lots had over 3000 adverse event reports made against them.
Shockingly we can also see from the data that 30 lots of Pfizer vaccine had between 1,000 and 1,499 adverse event reports per lot, another 20 lots had between 1,500 and 1,999 adverse event reports per lot, and another 23 lots had between 2,000 and 2,499 adverse event reports per lot.
This suggests that there were a small quantity of dangerous batches of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine and a large quantity of seemingly harmless (at least in the short term) batches of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine.
But the investigation of VAERS data also revealed that reported deaths due to the Pfizer vaccine were again only associated with certain batches of the jab. The chart above shows that 96% of the lots of Pfizer vaccine had zero death reports made against them. Meaning the 2,828 reported deaths were associated with just 4% of the lots of Pfizer vaccine.
Five lot numbers were associated with 61-80 deaths each, a further 5 lot numbers were associated with 81-100 deaths each, and just 2 separate lot numbers were associated with over 100 deaths each.
The same can be seen for the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine. Ninety-five-percent of the lots of Moderna vaccine had zero death reports made against them. Meaning the 2,603 deaths were associated with just 5% of the lots of Moderna vaccine.
Thirteen lot numbers were associated with 41-60 deaths each, 2 lot numbers were associated with 61-80 deaths each and 1 lot number was associated with 81-100 deaths.
The investigation of VAERS data also found that specific batches of the pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines which were distributed to between 13 and 50 states across the USA had an unusually high number of adverse event reports and deaths compared to lots that were distributed to 12 states or less across the USA
As you can see from the above table 4,289 different lots of Pfizer vaccine were distributed to 12 states or less across the USA, recording 9,141 adverse event reports against them alongside 99 deaths and 657 hospitalisations. This equates to an average of 2 adverse event reports per lot and 0 deaths and hospitalisations.
However, a further 130 different lots of Pfizer vaccine were distributed to between 13-50 states across the USA, recording 166,170 adverse event reports, 2,799 deaths, and 14,155 hospitalisations. This equates to an average of 1,278 adverse event reports per lot number, alongside 22 deaths and 109 hospitalisations.
This data therefore shows that each lot from the 130 different lot numbers of Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine distributed to more than 13 states, harmed on average 639 times more people, hospitalised on average 109 times more people, and killed on average 22 times more people.
The above chart on the left shows the number of adverse event reports by lot number sent to 13 or more states across the USA. This chart has identified the actual lot numbers of Pfizer vaccine that have caused the most harm in the USA. The most harmful of which is lot number ‘EK9231’; causing over 3,500 adverse event reports.
The above chart on the left shows the number of deaths reported as adverse reactions to the Pfizer vaccine by lot number sent to 13+ states across the USA. This chart has identified the actual lot numbers of Pfizer vaccine that have caused the most deaths in the USA. The deadliest of which is lot number ‘EN6201’ causing almost 120 deaths.
The above chart on the left shows the number of adverse event reports against the Moderna vaccine by lot number sent to 13 or more states across the USA. This chart has identified the actual lot numbers of Moderna vaccine that have caused the most harm in the USA. The most harmful of which is lot number ‘039K20A’; causing over 4,000 adverse event reports.
The second most harmful batch of Moderna vaccine was assigned lot number ‘041L20A’, and media reports show that it was actually recalled by the Orange County Healthcare Agency in January 2021 following reports of allergic reactions.
The above chart on the left shows the number of deaths reported as adverse reactions to the Moderna vaccine by lot number sent to 13+ states across the USA. This chart has identified the actual lot numbers of Moderna vaccine that have caused the most deaths in the USA. The deadliest of which is lot number ‘039K20A’ causing almost 100 deaths.
Conclusion
This investigation of VAERS data reveals several concerning findings which warrant further investigation, but it also leads to questions of why authorities within the USA which are supposed to monitor the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines have not discovered this themselves.
The data clearly shows that the Covid-19 vaccination campaign has been significantly more harmful and deadly than the influenza vaccination campaign. This fact alone begs the question as to how the FDA advisory committee could possibly vote Seventeen to Zero in favour of approving the Pfizer vaccine for use in children aged 5 to 11.
One voting member of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee admitted that it will not be fully known whether Pfizer’s vaccine is safe for 5 to 11-year-old children, until it begins being administered.
Dr Eric Rubin of Harvard University said – “We’re never going to learn how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it, and that’s just the way it goes”.
But the investigation of VAERS has also identified the specific batches of Pfizer and Moderna vaccine that have caused the most harm across the USA, which leads to other extremely serious questions requiring urgent answers.
Why is it that certain batches of the vaccine have proven to be more harmful than others?
Why is it that certain batches of Covid-19 vaccine have proven to be deadlier than others?
Why is it that the most harmful and deadly Covid-19 vaccines were distributed across the entire USA, whilst the least harmful and deadly were only ever distributed to a few states? Was this done on purpose?
He’s upset the peasants have access to common sense and reason!
He’s upset the peasants actually read scientific studies for themselves!
And he’s very upset that the peasants are speaking to him without his express written permission!
Apparently, he’s also clairvoyant (like Santa) because he knows what you are writing before you even send it to him, so he has set up an auto-reply on his email account to let you know he’s very important, he gets lots of emails and he does not like “misinformation.”
Chen defines “misinformation” as anything that contradicts the Pharma narrative. Chen is adamant that nothing be allowed to pierce his protective Pharma information bubble.
I’m reminded of the phrase, “Methinks thou doth protest too much.”
What Chen is actually mad about is that he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
A search of the government website Open Payments reveals Chen accepted $437,250.70 from Emergent BioSolutions and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in 2020.
GSK is one of the four largest vaccine makers in the world. GSK makes the incredibly toxic Hep B vaccine (Engerix-B), the troubled HPV vaccine (Cervarix), a meningococcal vaccine that is loaded with aluminum (Bexsero) and various flu vaccines among others.
All of GSK’s products must go before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), that Chen sits on, in order to be approved.
Emergent BioSolutions has an abysmal safety record. Even though federal regulators are generally like Mr. Magoo when it comes to spotting safety problems, the issues at Emergent’s plant in Baltimore were so egregious that earlier this year the U.S. Food and Drug Administration shut down the plant and ordered J&J to take it over and run it themselves.
The FDA also ordered 75 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines manufactured at that plant be destroyed because of contamination. All of the vaccines manufactured at the Emergent BioSolutions plant must first be approved by the ACIP where Chen is a member.
This is completely unacceptable. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 27,550 pediatricians employed in the U.S. There is absolutely no reason for the ACIP to utilize a person with such extensive financial conflicts of interest.
The CDC must be above reproach in order to have any credibility with the general public. Sadly the CDC appears to do whatever it can get away with — a classic example of the fox guarding the henhouse.
The fact that these decisions involve the health of our children makes corruption all the more appalling.
Please contact the following four officials (as well your elected representatives) to let them know that you are troubled by Chen’s extensive financial conflicts of interest and please ask that he be removed from the ACIP before it meets on Tuesday, Nov. 2.
Dr. Rochelle Walensky
Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
It is beyond alarming that the ACIP has failed to properly monitor financial conflicts of interest amongst its members. All prior ACIP votes involving Chen should be reviewed by an independent outside review board to see if they must be thrown out because of this blatant corruption.
The CDC should also examine and release publicly all financial conflict of interest statements from all remaining ACIP members to determine if there are additional problems before Tuesday.
I have a simple question for every ‘expert’ who thinks they understand the root causes of the shipping crisis:
Why is there only one crane for every 50–100 trucks at every port in America?
No ‘expert’ will answer this question.
I’m a Class A truck driver with experience in nearly every aspect of freight. My experience in the trucking industry of 20 years tells me that nothing is going to change in the shipping industry.
Let’s start with understanding some things about ports. Outside of dedicated port trucking companies, most trucking companies won’t touch shipping containers. There is a reason for that.
Think of going to the port as going to WalMart on Black Friday, but imagine only ONE cashier for thousands of customers. Think about the lines. Except at a port, there are at least THREE lines to get a container in or out. The first line is the ‘in’ gate, where hundreds of trucks daily have to pass through 5–10 available gates. The second line is waiting to pick up your container. The third line is for waiting to get out. For each of these lines the wait time is a minimum of an hour, and I’ve waited up to 8 hours in the first line just to get into the port. Some ports are worse than others, but excessive wait times are not uncommon. It’s a rare day when a driver gets in and out in under two hours. By ‘rare day’, I mean maybe a handful of times a year. Ports don’t even begin to have enough workers to keep the ports fluid, and it doesn’t matter where you are, coastal or inland port, union or non-union port, it’s the same everywhere.
Furthermore, I’m fortunate enough to be a Teamster — a union driver — an employee paid by the hour. Most port drivers are ‘independent contractors’, leased onto a carrier who is paying them by the load. Whether their load takes two hours, fourteen hours, or three days to complete, they get paid the same, and they have to pay 90% of their truck operating expenses (the carrier might pay the other 10%, but usually less.) The rates paid to non-union drivers for shipping container transport are usually extremely low. In a majority of cases, these drivers don’t come close to my union wages. They pay for all their own repairs and fuel, and all truck related expenses. I honestly don’t understand how many of them can even afford to show up for work. There’s no guarantee of ANY wage (not even minimum wage), and in many cases, these drivers make far below minimum wage. In some cases they work 70 hour weeks and still end up owing money to their carrier.
So when the coastal ports started getting clogged up last spring due to the impacts of COVID on business everywhere, drivers started refusing to show up. Congestion got so bad that instead of being able to do three loads a day, they could only do one. They took a 2/3 pay cut and most of these drivers were working 12 hours a day or more. While carriers were charging increased pandemic shipping rates, none of those rate increases went to the driver wages. Many drivers simply quit. However, while the pickup rate for containers severely decreased, they were still being offloaded from the boats. And it’s only gotten worse.
Earlier this summer, both BNSF and Union Pacific Railways shut down their container yards in the Chicago area for a week for inbound containers. These are some of the busiest ports in the country. They had miles upon miles of stack (container) trains waiting to get in to be unloaded. According to BNSF, containers were sitting in the port 1/3 longer than usual, and they simply ran out of space to put them until some of the ones already on the ground had been picked up. Though they did reopen the area ports, they are still over capacity. Stack trains are still sitting loaded, all over the country, waiting to get into a port to unload. And they have to be unloaded, there is a finite number of railcars. Equipment shortages are a large part of this problem.
One of these critical shortages is the container chassis.
A container chassis is the trailer the container sits on. Cranes will load these in port. Chassis are typically container company provided, as trucking companies generally don’t have their own chassis units. They are essential for container trucking. While there are some privately owned chassis, there aren’t enough of those to begin to address the backlog of containers today, and now drivers are sitting around for hours, sometimes days, waiting for chassis.
The impact of the container crisis is now hitting residences in proximity to trucking companies. Containers are being pulled out of the port and dropped anywhere the drivers can find because the trucking company lots are full. Ports are desperate to get containers out so they can unload the new containers coming in by boat. When this happens there is no plan to deliver this freight yet, they are literally just making room for the next ship at the port. This won’t last long, as this just compounds the shortage of chassis. Ports will eventually find themselves unable to move containers out of the port until sitting containers are delivered, emptied, returned, or taken to a storage lot (either loaded or empty) and taken off the chassis there so the chassis can be put back into use. The priority is not delivery, the priority is just to clear the port enough to unload the next boat.
What happens when a container does get to a warehouse?
A large portion of international containers must be hand unloaded because the products are not on pallets. It takes a working crew a considerable amount of time to do this, and warehouse work is usually low wage. A lot of it is actually only temp staffed. Many full time warehouse workers got laid off when the pandemic started, and didn’t come back. So warehouses, like everybody else, are chronically short staffed.
When the port trucker gets to the warehouse, they have to wait for a door (you’ve probably seen warehouse buildings with a bank of roll-up doors for trucks on one side of the building.) The warehouses are behind schedule, sometimes by weeks. After maybe a 2 hour wait, the driver gets a door and drops the container — but now often has to pick up an empty, and goes back to the port to wait in line all over again to drop off the empty.
At the warehouse, the delivered freight is unloaded, and it is usually separated and bound to pallets, then shipped out in much smaller quantities to final destination. A container that had a couple dozen pallets of goods on it will go out on multiple trailers to multiple different destinations a few pallets at a time.
From personal experience, what used to take me 20–30 minutes to pick up at a warehouse can now take three to four hours. This slowdown is warehouse management related: very few warehouses are open 24 hours, and even if they are, many are so short staffed it doesn’t make much difference, they are so far behind schedule. It means that as a freight driver, I cannot pick up as much freight in a day as I used to, and since I can’t get as much freight on my truck, the whole supply chain is backed up. Freight simply isn’t moving.
It’s important to understand what the cost implications are for consumers with this lack of supply in the supply chain. It’s pure supply and demand economics. Consider volume shipping customers who primarily use ‘general freight’, which is the lowest cost shipping and typically travels in a ‘space available’ fashion. They have usually been able to get their freight moved from origination to delivery within two weeks. Think about how you get your packages from Amazon. Even without paying for Prime, you usually get your stuff in a week. The majority of freight travels at this low cost, ‘no guarantee of delivery date’ way, and for the most part it’s been fine for both shippers and consumers. Those days are coming to an end.
People who want their deliveries in a reasonable time are going to have to start paying premium rates. There will be levels of priority, and each increase in rate premium essentially jumps that freight ahead of all the freight with lower or no premium rates. Unless the lack of shipping infrastructure is resolved, things will back up in a cascading effect to the point where if your products are going general freight, you might wait a month or two for delivery. It’s already starting. If you use truck shipping in any way, you’ve no doubt started to see the delays. Think about what’s going to happen to holiday season shipping.
What is going to compel the shippers and carriers to invest in the needed infrastructure? The owners of these companies can theoretically not change anything and their business will still be at full capacity because of the backlog of containers. The backlog of containers doesn’t hurt them. It hurts anyone paying shipping costs — that is, manufacturers selling products and consumers buying products. But it doesn’t hurt the owners of the transportation business — in fact the laws of supply and demand mean that they are actually going to make more money through higher rates, without changing a thing. They don’t have to improve or add infrastructure (because it’s costly), and they don’t have to pay their workers more (warehouse workers, crane operators, truckers).
The ‘experts’ want to say we can do things like open the ports 24/7, and this problem will be over in a couple weeks. They are blowing smoke, and they know it. Getting a container out of the port, as slow and aggravating as it is, is really the easy part, if you can find a truck and chassis to haul it. But every truck driver in America can’t operate 24/7, even if the government suspends Hours Of Service Regulations (federal regulations determining how many hours a week we can work/drive), we still need to sleep sometime. There are also restrictions on which trucks can go into a port. They have to be approved, have RFID tags, port registered, and the drivers have to have at least a TWIC card (Transportation Worker Identification Credential from the federal Transportation Security Administration). Some ports have additional requirements. As I have already said, most trucking companies won’t touch shipping containers with a 100 foot pole. What we have is a system with a limited amount of trucks and qualified drivers, many of whom are already working 14 hours a day (legally, the maximum they can), and now the supposed fix is to have them work 24 hours a day, every day, and not stop until the backlog is cleared. It’s not going to happen. It is not physically possible. There is no “cavalry” coming. No trucking companies are going to pay to register their trucks to haul containers for something that is supposedly so “short term,” because these same companies can get higher rate loads outside the ports. There is no extra capacity to be had, and it makes NO difference anyway, because If you can’t get a container unloaded at a warehouse, having drivers work 24/7/365 solves nothing.
What it will truly take to fix this problem is to run EVERYTHING 24/7: ports (both coastal and domestic),trucks, and warehouses. We need tens of thousands more chassis, and a much greater capacity in trucking.
Before the pandemic, through the pandemic, and really for the whole history of the freight industry at all levels, owners make their money by having low labor costs — that is, low wages and bare minimum staffing. Many supply chain workers are paid minimum wages, no benefits, and there’s a high rate of turnover because the physical conditions can be brutal (there aren’t even bathrooms for truckers waiting hours at ports because the port owners won’t pay for them. The truckers aren’t port employees and port owners are only legally required to pay for bathroom facilities for their employees. This is a nationwide problem). For the whole supply chain to function efficiently every point has to be working at an equal capacity. Any point that fails bottlenecks the whole system. Right now, it’s ALL failing spectacularly TOGETHER, but fixing one piece won’t do anything. It ALL needs to be fixed, and at the same time.
How do you convince truckers to work when their pay isn’t guaranteed, even to the point where they lose money?
Nobody is compelling the transportation industries to make the needed changes to their infrastructure. There are no laws compelling them to hire the needed workers, or pay them a living wage, or improve working conditions. And nobody is compelling them to buy more container chassis units, more cranes, or more storage space. This is for an industry that literally every business in the world is reliant on in some way or another.
My prediction is that nothing is going to change and the shipping crisis is only going to get worse. Nobody in the supply chain wants to pay to solve the problem. They literally just won’t pay to solve the problem. At the point we are at now, things are so backed up that the backups THEMSELVES are causing container companies, ports, warehouses, and trucking companies to charge massive rate increases for doing literally NOTHING. Container companies have already decreased the maximum allowable times before containers have to be back to the port, and if the congestion is so bad that you can’t get the container back into the port when it is due, the container company can charge massive late fees. The ports themselves will start charging massive storage fees for not getting containers out on time — storage charges alone can run into thousands of dollars a day. Warehouses can charge massive premiums for their services, and so can trucking companies. Chronic understaffing has led to this problem, but it is allowing these same companies to charge ten times more for regular services. Since they’re not paying the workers any more than they did last year or five years ago, the whole industry sits back and cashes in on the mess it created. In fact, the more things are backed up, the more every point of the supply chain cashes in. There is literally NO incentive to change, even if it means consumers have to do holiday shopping in July and pay triple for shipping.
This is the new normal. All brought to you by the ‘experts’ running our supply chains.
One myth found in history books is that the United States was surprised by Chinese intervention in the Korean war. This was no surprise because China warned that it would intervene if American forces moved north of the 38th parallel. War with China was sought by General Douglas MacArthur who wanted an excuse to overthrow its new communist government. He assumed that American airpower could demolish Chinese armies while Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist forces landed from Taiwan and marched to Beijing. However, the Chinese army proved far better than expected in Korea and stymied MacArthur’s secret plan. American President Harry Truman ended this plot by firing General MacArthur.
“When elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled.”
So warned Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte in his address to the UN General Assembly on September 22, 2020. He was referring to the consequences for East Asia of a conflict between the US and China.
Fast forward to October 2, 2021, about one year later, and the first patch of grass has been stomped on by the U.S. elephant, trudging stealthily about, far from home in the South China Sea. On that day the nuclear-powered attack submarine, the USS Connecticut, suffered serious damage in an undersea incident which the U.S. Navy ascribed to a collision with an undersea object.
After sustaining damage, the submarine apparently surfaced close to the Paracel Islands which lie only 150 nautical miles from China’s Yulin submarine base in Hainan Province.
The Connecticut is one of only three Seawolf class of submarines, which are assumed to be on spying missions. But they can be equipped with Intermediate Range (1250-2500 km) Tomahawk cruise missiles which can be armed with nuclear warheads. It is claimed that they are not so equipped at present because the Navy’s “policy decisions” have “phased out” their nuclear role, according to the hawkish Center For Strategic and International Studies.
When a US nuclear submarine with such capabilities has a collision capable of killing U.S. sailors and spilling radioactive materials in the South China Sea, it should be front page news on every outlet in the U.S. This has not been the case – far from it. For example, to this day (October 30), nearly a month after the collision, the New York Times, the closest approximation to a mouthpiece for the American foreign policy elite, has carried no major story on the incident, and in fact no story at all so far as I and several daily readers can find. This news is apparently not fit to print in the Times. (A notable exception to this conformity and one worth consulting has been Craig Hooper of Forbes.)
A blackout of this kind will come as no surprise to those who have covered the plight of Julian Assange or the US invasion of Syria or the barely hidden hand of the United States in various regime change operations, to cite a few examples
The U.S. media has followed the narrative of the U.S. Navy which waited until October 7 to acknowledge the incident, with the following extraordinarily curt press release (I have edited it with strike-outs and italicized substitutions to make its meaning clear.):
The Seawolf-class fast-attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN 22) struck an object while submerged on the afternoon of Oct. 2, while operating in international waters in the Indo-Pacific regionin the South China Sea near or inside Chinese territorial waters. The safety of the crew remains the Navy’s top priority The crew is being held incommunicado for an indefinite period. There are no life threatening injuries. This allows the extent of injuries to the crew to be kept secret.
The submarine remains in a safe and stable conditionhidden from public view to conceal the damage and its cause. USS Connecticut’s nuclear propulsion plant and spaces were not affected and remain fully operationalare in a condition that is being hidden from the public until cosmetic repairs can be done to conceal the damage. The extent of damage to the remainder of the submarine is being assessed: is also being concealed. The U.S. Navy has not requested assistance will not allow an independent inspection or investigation. The incident will be investigated cover-up will continue.
Tan Kefei, spokesperson for China’s Ministry of National Defense although not so terse, had much the same to say as my edited version above, as reported in China’s Global Times:
It took the US Navy five days after the accident took place to make a short and unclear statement. Such an irresponsible approach, cover-up (and) lack of transparency … can easily lead to misunderstandings and misjudgments. China and the neighboring countries in the South China Sea have to question the truth of the incident and the intentions behind it.
But Tan went further and echoed the sentiment of President Duterte;
This incident also shows that the recent establishment of a trilateral security partnership between the US, UK and Australia (AUKUS) to carry out nuclear submarine cooperation has brought a huge risk of nuclear proliferation, seriously violated the spirit of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, undermined the construction of a nuclear-free zone in Southeast Asia, and brought severe challenges to regional peace and security.
“We believe that the actions of the US will affect the safety of navigation in the South China Sea, arouse serious concerns and unrest among the countries in the region, and pose a serious threat and a major risk to regional peace and stability.
The crash of the USS Connecticut goes beyond the potential for harmful radioactive leakage into the South China Sea, with potential damage to the surrounding nations including the fishing grounds of importance to the economy. If the US continues to ramp up confrontation far from its home in the South China Sea, then a zone of conflict could spread to include all of East Asia. Will this in any way benefit the region? Does the region want to be turned into the same wreckage that the Middle East and North Africa are now after decades of US crusading for “democracy and liberty” there via bombs, sanctions and regime change operations? That would be a tragic turn for the world’s most economically dynamic region. Do the people of the region not realize this? If not, the USS Connecticut should be a wake-up call.
But the people of the US should also think carefully about what is happening. Perhaps the foreign policy elite of the US think it can revisit the U.S. strategy in WWII with devastation visited upon Eurasia leaving the US as the only industrial power standing above the wreckage. Such are the benefits of an island nation. But in the age of intercontinental weapons, could the US homeland expect to escape unscathed from such a conflict as it did in WWII? The knot is being tied, as Krushchev wrote to Kennedy at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and if it is tied too tightly, then no one will be able to untie it. The US is tying the knot far from its home this time half way around the world. It should not tie that knot too tight.
What happens when you fail in your attempts to create a vaccine for “Covid-19” and then realize you’ve just missed out on a billion-dollar profit-making opportunity?
You hurriedly develop a new drug, rush it through a clinical trial (which you yourself design to ensure good results), and then announce it to the world as the Covid cure we’ve all been waiting for, except no one’s been waiting for it because Covid isn’t any more deadly than the flu, and can be treated by easy-to-procure, inexpensive means (if it exists at all).
But governments are too stupid to know that and you own most of the corrupt politicians making the decisions, so who cares? As long as they’re willing to invest in your new concoction, it doesn’t even have to be necessary, or safe, or effective, or ethical…
Yes, I’m talking about “Molnupiravir”, Merck’s latest poison being promoted as an effective treatment against covid-19 (hang on, I thought that’s what the vaccines were for?).
This unapproved (yes, unapproved) drug costs $700 per course and the US government has just agreed to buy 1.7m courses. That’s a 1.2 BILLION dollar investment.
The deal is part of the Biden administration’s pledge to “respond to the health needs of the public”, but, in actuality, it’s simply a money-siphoning operation, with the American public coming off second best.
Molnupiravir is being sold to the public as the next big breakthrough in Covid-19 treatment off the back of what appears to be a SINGLE study, which was never even completed. Furthermore, the study was conducted by Merck (the makers of the drug), who chose not to disclose any adverse events. If that isn’t suspicious enough, the study was never published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Media press releases are apparently the new standard when it comes to evaluating medical treatments. After all, why would you wait for independent confirmation of your results or objective peer-review when you can get paid journalists, without a shred of medical expertise, to convince the public that they need your new drug?
If government scientists with integrity were in charge of assessing Molnupiravir, not bribed pharma shills, they may be alarmed at the lack of testing or the failure to disclose adverse events, they may even notice that vitamin D has had FAR superior results in combating “Covid-19”. In fact, one study, published in the highly respected and influential Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, found that vitamin D reduced mortality among severe covid-19 patients by 79%.
Compare that to the alleged 50% reduction offered by Molnupiravir for “mild-to-moderately ill” patients. Not to mention the difference in cost. As stated earlier, Molnupiravir runs at $700 per course, while vitamin D costs a fraction of that (probably less than $10!).
Furthermore, while Merck chose not to disclose adverse reactions, years worth of reliable data shows that vitamin D supplementation is extremely safe. And not only is taking vitamin D safe, but it also has a wealth of benefits for a variety of conditions including depression, anxiety, pain, inflammation, hypertension, cardiovascular disease and more.
As was obvious from the very beginning of the “pandemic” when nutritional medicine experts were slandered in the press for recommending “lethal” doses of vitamins, world health has been hijacked by the profit-hungry, empathy-dead, toxic cartel of Big Pharma “medicine”, and our governments have been in bed with them all along.
Furthermore, this has been going on longer than most people think. In fact, more than a decade earlier, governments were locking in billion-dollar deals to buy stockpiles of “Tamiflu”, an equally useless influenza drug that was later found to have no effect on reducing hospitalizations, deaths or complications from influenza.
In fact, Tamiflu was subsequently found to cause a raft of serious adverse reactions including delirium, panic attacks and even hallucinations. The “milder” side effects include nausea and vomiting.
In 2020, an unsealed whistleblower lawsuit revealed that drug company Hoffman-La Roche, the maker of Tamiflu, misrepresented clinical studies and made false claims regarding the effectiveness of the drug to treat influenza. In a 2020 article, Nasdaq quotes attorney Mark Lanier as saying that:
As alleged in the complaint – Tamiflu does not do what Roche promised… Roche hid this fact for many years by selectively citing its studies and suppressing the data about Tamiflu. The company utilized lobbyists, key opinion leaders and ghostwriters to promote Tamiflu with a deceptive promise to governments fearful of an influenza pandemic.”
Nonetheless, the medicine remains on the World Health Organization’s “essential medicines” list. The US and UK governments spent $1.3 billion and $703 million respectively buying “strategic reserves” of Tamiflu in preparation for a global flu pandemic.
At the time, the media (which had not yet totally sold out to Mr. Global) condemned the investments as a waste of money.
Governments made these outlandish investments off the back of “incomplete” data, which is exactly what has occurred with the latest deal to procure Merck’s Molnupiravir. And I’ll bet that when more data comes out, it will be found, once again, that governments wasted millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money.
Bribed politicians would rather deepen their pockets than institute sensible health policies or invest money into procuring and promoting vitamin D, which would not only save lives but help to improve mental health in a woefully deficient population ravaged by anxiety and depression.
As functional medicine expert, Dr. Alex Vasquez states in his latest blog,
… viral infections and the fear and ignorance around them have become a great way for drug companies to sell worthless drugs to their bribed politicians. If we spent that money on heath-promotion rather than fear-promotion, we’d be freer, stronger, healthier, and we’d emancipate ourselves from the mental slavery of fear, ignorance, and dependence.”
Furthermore, the importance of sunlight cannot be overstated, for apart from being our principal source of Vitamin D, it also induces the production of several powerful antiviral metabolites that aid the body in fighting off illness.
This article would not be complete without at least mentioning some of the corrupt dealings, legal cases and blatant crimes that Merck has been involved in over the years. The most egregious of these offenses, and one of the largest scandals in medical history, was the company’s promotion of its anti-inflammatory drug, Vioxx.
During its height, Vioxx was earning Merck $2 billion in revenue per year and estimations have found that around 25 million patients were prescribed the drug. In September 2004, Merck was forced to recall Vioxx on account of it being shown to cause adverse cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks and stroke.
Merck was slammed with a massive class-action lawsuit that was eventually settled for $4.85 billion in 2007. Not only did Merck cover up data suggesting its drug was dangerous, they illegally promoted it as an “off-label” treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, without any indication of its effectiveness.
According to the testimony of Dr. David Graham, the Associate Director for Science and Medicine in FDA’s Office of Drug Safety, Vioxx caused 55,000 premature deaths from heart attacks and stroke.
Even years after taking the medication, patients often still experience problems, indicating that Vioxx may have killed far more people than the conservative estimate made by Dr. Graham, who, after all, works for the FDA, the organization that was responsible for assessing the drug’s safety.
In fact, after analysing US national mortality data starting from the year Vioxx was released up to the year it was withdrawn, Ron Unz, [former] publisher of The American Conservative, came to the startling conclusion that Vioxx may have been responsible for up to 500,000 deaths, mostly in the elderly (age 65+) population.
After the scandal, Merck hired the services of PR company, Burson-Marstellar (whose past campaigns include covering up genocide in Nigeria, fighting health authorities on the issue of second-hand cigarette smoke, and playing down Apple’s abuse of Chinese factory workers), to help clean up its public image and assert them as an “ethical player in the healthcare arena”.
And it seems to have worked, for here we are, 15 years later with another worthless – and possibly quite dangerous – Merck drug being promoted around the world as a treatment for “Covid-19”. Predictably, the UK government has now expressed interest in Molnupiravir, with many more countries expected to follow suit.
But Merck’s criminal history stretches further back than 1999 when Vioxx hit the shelves, for, as early as the 1960s, Merck faced controversy regarding its arthritis medication, Indocin. Although the drug had been approved by the FDA, it was later revealed that the medication had not been adequately tested for efficacy or side effects.
Less than a decade later, Merck’s drug DES (diethylstilbestrol), alleged to prevent miscarriages, was found to be carcinogenic, causing cases of cervical cancer and other gynaecological disorders. And last (but certainly not least), in 2007, Merck’s cholesterol drug, “Zetia” was shown to cause liver disease, a risk that was known to Merck who intentionally concealed the damning trial results.
For those who think the media are simply biased towards pharmaceutical drugs, this is a naive assumption. Behind the headline-making newspapers, magazines and television programs is a coordinated socio-political power vortex seeded in Big Pharma/Big Money corruption.
Medical journals are inherently biased towards publishing pro-drug articles. These then serve as advertisements for the pharmaceutical industry which pays millions of dollars for journal reprints.
Mainstream media outlets such as newspapers, magazines, TV shows and online publications then republish the pro-drug information, much to the delight of the pharmaceutical industry.
Medical science and mainstream media then become a pro-drug echo chamber for biased, Big Pharma propaganda.
Drug companies increase their sales, gaining profits and building influence to the point where they have more power than governments.
Pharmaceutical companies infiltrate medical education, media, and health policy; they pay “researchers” to publish and teach information favourable to the pharmaceutical paradigm.
Governments then write policies and make investments that favour drug companies rather than the citizens of that country.
At the time of writing, Molnupiravir has not yet been FDA approved. However, Merck has asked the FDA to grant “emergency” approval on account of the drug’s alleged effectiveness. Considering the decisions made by the FDA thus far, along with the fact that funding from pharmaceutical companies like Merck makes up 75% of the FDA’s drug review budget, what do you think the chances are of Molnupiravir’s approval being granted?
And would you trust a doctor who prescribed it to you?
It is common knowledge that the British armed forces have been heavily involved in the conflicts of the last decades incited by the United States as they used their troops on a large scale in Iraq and Afghanistan, to name a few. Due to the US and UK military actions in those countries a lot of civilians died and their families and representatives vehemently demand justice for those guilty of war crimes.
Through Resolution 2391 (XXIII) dated November 26, 1968, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. The rules aimed at protecting the victims of armed conflict, and placing restrictions on the methods and means of warfare, are spelled out in detail in international humanitarian law, which also defines the mechanisms for ensuring compliance with these rules.
However, the US and the UK have recently, and inexcusably, started to think of themselves as outside the scope of these international legal documents that they adopted themselves, and allow them to be ostensibly violated. Moreover, as evidenced by numerous testimony, including those published in Western media outlets, there is the increasing desire to cover up the war crimes that have been committed in recent decades in the Middle East and Afghanistan by US military service personnel, and some of its allies. Besides the efforts to shirk responsibility for the crimes committed through the use of such tactics, it has become increasingly evident that the US and UK military agencies have not properly monitored operations conducted by their combat units.
Thus, not only Arab, but also British media outlets have on multiple occasions reported the evidence that high-ranking British officials with the Ministry of Defense had been covering up the war crimes committed by UK military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan for years. These outlets have reported on multiple occasions, in particular, about the war crimes involving personnel from elite British special forces, such as the SAS and Black Watch. On top of that, journalistic investigations found hard evidence of the falsification of documents; in these, premeditated killings and torture in Afghanistan and Iraq were dressed up as “Special Ops against terrorists” while inquiry into the committed crimes was stonewalled due to explicit political pressure. In this vein, on instructions of then UK Defense Secretary Michael Fallon all proceeding regarding these matters were dismissed even before they got to court. The investigation by the BBC and the Times reporters has clearly shown that evidence collection and production was prevented due to political reasons.
For example, The Sunday Times has provided evidence regarding the involvement of one British Special Air Service soldier in the killings, as well as the evidence of crimes committed by members of the Black Watch battalion, which is part of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, including beatings, torture, and sexual abuse. These actions alone are enough to be scrutinized in the International Criminal Court.
It is worth pointing out that in order to investigate the complaints lodged by Iraqis about the British military’s actions, an IHAT (Iraq Historic Allegations Team) investigative group was specifically established to examine hundreds of claims made by victims’ relatives. However, in January 2016, swayed by then British Prime Minister David Cameron, the UK Ministry of Defense announced that investigation into 57 criminal cases filed against the British military had been discontinued. Moreover, intentionally trying to downplay criminal acts the UK authorities suspended from legal practice solicitor Phil Shiner that had handed over to IHAT data about more than 1,000 instances of violence by the military. In an all-out attempt to obstruct the investigations concerning offenses committed by the British military, Boris Johnson, the incumbent head of the UK Cabinet, authored the corresponding bill on Overseas Operations allowing for the suspension of investigation.
In 2017, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled that during their presence in Iraq British troops had breached the Geneva Conventions by committing pre-meditated murder, intentionally inflicting severe sufferings or grievous bodily harm, engaging in meaningless and large-scale destruction and appropriation of property (not warranted by military necessity), deliberate attacks on the civilian population as such or on individual civilians not directly involved in hostilities and offending human dignity including engagement in humiliating and degrading treatment.
Nonetheless, the Service Police Legacy Investigations (SPLI) dropped all cases related to UK service members alleged crimes committed between 2003 and 2009 in Iraq. None of 1,291 charges resulted in prosecutions or prison time. Iraqi civilians claims regarding the criminal behavior of British soldiers were considered by the police officers of the Royal Navy and the police of the Royal Air Force who were part of SPLI. As the UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace stated on October 20 in the House of Commons, the SPLI “officially closed its doors”, and noted that the main problem in the activities of this structure was the “lack of evidence base”, while acknowledging that “some shocking and shameful incidents did happen in Iraq.” “We recognize that there were four convictions of UK military personnel for offences in Iraq including offences of assault and inhuman treatment.”
There is no doubt that such a decision by the SPLI was again clearly driven by the political interests of the current Johnson’s government, which is wary of an uptick in anti-government protests in the country amid growing public discontent with the performance and policies of the British authorities.
It is worth noting that the UK government has a lengthy track record of harboring war criminals for decades. Since 1948, the Malaysians have been unable to seek justice in a case of the Scots guards massacring residents in a village near the town of Batang Kali, where 24 people were killed for no reason. Moreover, these murderers even took memento photo by the victims bodies. However, the British authorities have not brought anyone to justice and have not even bothered to pay compensation to the relatives of those murdered more than 70 years ago…
Such British policies, and, especially efforts of the UK Ministry of Defense regarding the war crimes cover-up raises a lot questions for the UK authorities. As for the UN, International Committee of the Red Cross, International Criminal Court and many other human rights institutions, they have a duty to respond to such crimes despite the attempts by certain British political circles to hush up such criminal activities and shirk responsibility.
Reports of China building a military base in the Central Asian country of Tajikistan are causing unease in Washington. But it’s wrong to assume Beijing is embarking on the sort of empire-building we expect from the United States.
Earlier this week, reports from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty suggested that Tajikistan had approved the construction of a new Chinese military base on its soil. Separately, the same US government-controlled media outlet claims that the Tajik government offered full control to Beijing of what was said to be an already-in-use Chinese military base, and has pledged to waive future rent in exchange for Chinese military aid.
Neither China nor Tajikistan has officially confirmed this news, and there is good reason to believe the US may be exaggerating these claims in order to raise the alarm on some kind of renegade Chinese militarism.
Earlier this month, a report was leaked to the Financial Times from anonymous US government sources claiming that China had tested an orbital hypersonic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, apparently able to travel around the world. Beijing denied this report, saying it had actually tested a reusable orbital space vehicle.
Chinese media were also quick to respond, with CGTN suggesting the US was trying to create a kind of ‘Sputnik moment’ to ramp up anti-China hysteria, referring to when the Soviet Union launched the world’s first artificial satellite in 1957, causing great concern in Washington and beginning the space race.
And indeed General Mark Milley, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, went public with that very suggestion, saying on Bloomberg that this alleged weapon test was “close to” a Sputnik moment. Are US cold war tactics really so predictable?
The answer is yes, and the same can also be applied to this latest development in Tajikistan. Even if the news is true, it does not in any way suggest what the US government is insinuating – that China is becoming an overly ambitious, hostile power.
For one, Tajikistan, believed to have the weakest military in Central Asia, is worried about its security after the American-led retreat from Afghanistan and the return of the Taliban. If China was to increase its involvement this would not be surprising, since other powerful countries in the region, such as Russia, have also been called on by the Tajik government to assist on security matters.
The likelihood of a war between Tajikistan and Afghanistan is low, despite Tajik President Emomali Rahmon’s hardline stance against the Taliban and rumors that his government is interfering in Kabul’s internal affairs. He has repeatedly said that his government will not recognize Taliban rule in Afghanistan due to concerns over human rights.
While this may just be political posturing from Rahmon, evidenced by his strong invocation of Afghanistan’s Tajik minority, Chinese security involvement in Tajikistan could serve as a moderating influence between the two sides, since Beijing has high-level contact with the interim Afghan government.
China also has legitimate concerns for its own security and that of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in relation to Afghanistan, since it shares a border with the country.
The latter two of these groups have also expressed support for Uighur extremist groups in China, like the Turkistan Islamic Party, which has drawn serious concern from Beijing as it seeks to cool down ethnic tensions in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region.
These concerns are valid, and so what we are seeing is not some far-flung overextension of China’s military presence, as is the working definition of ‘security’ for the US. Discounting these unconfirmed reports in Tajikistan, China has only one foreign military base, in Djibouti, compared to upwards of 750 operated by the US – including some 400 in China’s neighborhood alone.
Washington commentators have consistently blasted out a message that China will end up the next empire to die in Afghanistan, suggesting that Beijing would actually make the same ridiculous mistakes that they did over the past 20 years in Afghanistan. This is nonsense. Unlike Washington, Beijing has pursued a multilateral framework with Afghanistan that welcomes input from every regional country, including high-level discussion through the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a Eurasian regional security pact, and the SCO-Afghanistan contact group.
China will also not bomb Afghanistan to the Stone Age and construct a foreign-dependent warlord economy, instead opting to include Afghanistan in the BRI, meaning Beijing will help plug Kabul into an interconnected future in Eurasia – all without political strings attached. That’s because it’s a win-win situation for China, Afghanistan, Central Asia, and the world.
And if this might sound hard to believe? Well, it’s not. You would be hard-pressed to find any example of a Chinese war of aggression in modern history, because such an example doesn’t exist. On the other hand, there are examples of China helping clean up messes created by the US and its allies, including in Europe.
For instance, look at China’s involvement in the Balkans – particularly in Serbia, where at least one US-sponsored think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), now accuses the country of being a puppet for Beijing. But here’s the reality: NATO tore Serbia apart during the Yugoslav wars and used so much depleted uranium in airstrikes against Serbia in 1999 – about 15 tons – that the country has the highest cancer mortality rate in Europe.
On the contrary, the report by the CSIS notes that 40 percent of Serbians think China gives the most aid to the country – in terms of dollars – even though the European Union actually does.
Instead of spending billions on “government and civil society” programs (foreign interference, in other words) like the US and EU, in 2019 in Serbia, Beijing focused 31 percent of its investments toward transportation, 20 percent to information and communications technology, 20 percent to manufacturing, 13 percent to energy, and nine percent to health and human services.
These are, as the CSIS notes, highly visible and consequential sectors – and, I would add, the ones that Serbia obviously needs the most after the devastation brought on by the NATO bombing. Belgrade’s Pupin Bridge, built by the Chinese – one of its two major bridges that cross the Danube – serves as a permanent reminder of how important China’s aid to Serbia has been.
So, when considering an extended Chinese influence in Central Asia, in whatever form that takes, there’s no reason to conflate this in any way with US imperialism and its deleterious effects.
Bradley Blankenship is a Prague-based American journalist, columnist and political commentator. He has a syndicated column at CGTN and is a freelance reporter for international news agencies including Xinhua News Agency.
Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist and trained epidemiologist, not only sees patients every week but is the editor of two medical journals and has published hundreds of peer-reviewed papers. Prior to the pandemic, he was involved in the interface between heart disease and kidney disease — but that all changed.
McCullough is now a “hunted doctor” who’s been threatened with disciplinary actions, including suspension or revocation of his medical license, by the American Board of Internal Medicine for the “dissemination of misinformation.”1 He stepped forward during the COVID-19 pandemic because he saw something very wrong was going on early in 2020, and he felt compelled to do something about it.
In the video above, you can view McCullough’s October 27, 2021, presentation with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). I urge you to set aside one hour to view it in its entirety, as it’s packed with data that call into question the true motivations behind the mass injection campaign, which he believes should have been shut down in January.
Red Flags Showed Jabs Were Unsafe From the Start
According to McCullough, by January 22, 2021, there had been 186 deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database following COVID-19 injection — more than enough to reach the mortality signal of concern to stop the program.
“I know data, and I know safety. The FDA knows I know safety. In fact, I’ve chaired data safety monitoring boards for the National Institutes of Health and Big Pharma,” he said.3 It’s standard to have an external critical event committee, an external data safety monitoring board and a human ethics committee for large clinical trials — such as the mass COVID-19 injection program, but these were not put into place.
“With a program this size, anything over 150 deaths would be an alarm signal,” he said. The U.S. “hit 186 deaths with only 27 million Americans jabbed.” McCullough believes if the proper safety boards had been in place, the COVID-19 jab program would have been shut down in February 2021 based on safety and risk of death.4
Such was the case in 1976, when a fast-tracked injection program against swine flu was halted after an estimated 25 to 32 deaths.5 “We are far beyond that now,” McCullough said.6
While many have been silenced, McCullough found a way to share his concerns via regular contributions to The Hill and, back in August 2020, he warned that putting off early treatment in favor of waiting for an experimental injection was taking a gamble with people’s lives:7
“Warnings and barriers have prevented hundreds of thousands of patients from being treated at home with appropriate non-labelled use of off-target antivirals (zinc, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, doxycycline), steroids (dexamethasone, prednisone, budesonide, colchicine), and antithrombotics (low-molecular weight heparin, oral anticoagulants).
It has become apparent that America has adopted a late-illness hospitalization model while waiting patiently and painfully for the panacea of a COVID-19 vaccine.”
The Jab’s Spike Protein Is a Deadly Protein
The whole world seems to be in lockstep with one narrative — that an injection is the only way out of the pandemic. What’s been kept quiet is the significant health risks that come with the experimental jabs. “Spike protein is a deadly protein,” McCullough said.8 It should be noted that McCullough is not antivaccine — he’s recently had a flu shot. However, the COVID-19 jabs are different:9
“It’s the first time in human medicine that we are injecting vaccines and we’re asking the human body to make a potentially lethal protein. The hope is we make a small enough amount of it and it would create just enough of an immune test that we form immunity to this deadly protein.
The gamble was, what if we make too much? What if we make it for too long of a period of time? What if these lipid nanoparticles go to the wrong organs and don’t stay in the arm, and we start to produce this lethal protein …?”
In August 2021, a large study from Israel10 revealed that the Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA jab is associated with a threefold increased risk of myocarditis,11 leading to the condition at a rate of one to five events per 100,000 persons.12 Other elevated risks were also identified following the COVID-19 jab, including lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes), appendicitis and herpes zoster infection.13
Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia is another serious complication of COVID-19 injections,14 and fertility concerns have also been raised. Pfizer’s biodistribution study, which was used to determine where the injected substances go in the body, even showed the COVID spike protein from the shots accumulated in “quite high concentrations” in the ovaries.15
In May 2021, McCullough was one of 57 authors to sign a paper demanding answers to urgent questions on the jabs’ safety and calling for the mass injection program to be halted immediately if safety cannot be adequately proven and monitored.16
At the very least, McCullough noted, pregnant women, women of childbearing age and COVID-19 survivors shouldn’t have been vaccinated, as these groups were excluded from the jabs’ clinical trials because “they knew they weren’t going to work or would cause excessive harm” in these populations.17
Even with all of these blatant risks, health officials haven’t given any updates or regular briefings on the jabs, such as which one of the three — Pfizer, Moderna or Johnson & Johnson — works “best” or is preferred. A “vaccine ‘report card’ on safety is long overdue,”18 according to McCullough, who believes, “The disability that we are going to see due to these vaccines will go down in history as an unbelievable atrocity.”19
Injection Deadlier, Statistically, Than COVID-19
People are dying from COVID-19 jabs. In an analysis of COVID-19 vaccine death reports from VAERS, researchers found that 86% of the time, nothing else could have caused the death, and it appears the vaccine was the cause.20 Despite this, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continues to say that no causal link has been found between COVID-19 and the deaths.21 That’s malfeasance, McCullough says.
Even more shocking is a Toxicology Reports study that found the injections are deadlier, statistically, than COVID-19.22 “Because not everybody gets the respiratory infection, and because the respiratory infection is treatable and manageable, in fact one is more likely to die after the vaccine than just take their choice with forgoing the vaccine and potentially getting COVID-19. Statistically, in every age group, that’s the case,” he stated.23
You can see the data for yourself in the study’s graphical abstract, below. The researchers explained:24
“A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.”
Vaccine Failures Can’t Be Denied
Along with the health risks are the undeniable cases of “breakthrough infections,” otherwise known as vaccine failures. As of October 12, 2021, the CDC stated that 31,985 people who were fully injected against COVID-19 were hospitalized or died from COVID-19.25
Yet, media reports keep referring to the pandemic as a crisis of the unvaccinated, which is simply inaccurate since COVID-19 continues to affect and spread among those who have been vaccinated. The CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) posted online July 30, 2021, details an outbreak of COVID-19 that occurred in Barnstable County, Massachusetts — 74% of the cases occurred in fully vaccinated people.26
With breakthrough cases on the rise, on May 1, 2021, the CDC stopped monitoring most COVID-19 infections among vaccinated people.27 “The CDC started to do asymmetric reporting to start to craft a narrative that this was going to be a failure of the unvaccinated, a crisis of the unvaccinated,” McCullough said. “But the CDC data continued to come in showing us just the opposite.”28
Pivot to Early Treatment Is Necessary
The data are clear that a pivot away from mass injections to early treatment for COVID-19 could save lives, and McCullough and colleagues recommend that you demand early treatment if you have COVID-19, whether or not you’ve been vaccinated.29
McCullough’s early treatment regimen initially includes a nutraceutical bundle of zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C and quercetin. While you’re recovering at home, open your windows and get plenty of fresh air and ventilation in your home. If symptoms persist or worsen, he recommends calling your doctor and demanding monoclonal antibody therapy.
The treatment progresses to include anti-infectives like HCQ or ivermectin, antibiotics, steroids and blood thinners. If your doctor refuses to treat COVID-19 in the early stages, find a new one and/or visit a telemedicine clinic that will help, as “the prehospital phase is the time of therapeutic opportunity.” You can also download McCullough’s and colleagues’ Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment.30 He states:31
“I have not let a single one of my high-risk patients get slaughtered by the virus. And any doctor who has — and there’s been a million doctors who have — is immoral, is unethical and, from a clinical and civil perspective, is illegal. And I think there is going to be a price to pay.
It’s going to be years in the future, but there’s going to be a price to pay for all of these patients who have died. And if you look through the records on all of them, I will tell you they were all inadequately treated. Every single one of them.”
Outrage Over Forced Injection Grows
With the injections causing harm and failing to protect as promised, frustrations are mounting worldwide due to increasing injection mandates. McCullough noted:32
“The tension is ratcheting up all over the world as the Delta outbreak continues to flare in many heavily vaccinated regions of the world. When more than 25% of the population takes the ill-advised COVID-19 vaccine, this promotes a super-dominant mutant that can easily evade the vaccines’ weak protection, which has happened with Delta.
… Frustration is coming out in folk songs, and the pop music industry, as shown in Eric Clapton’s ‘Enough is Enough’ and ‘Waking Up’ … Expect more to come as many wake up to the reality that our government agencies have failed us on the science, transparency, and safeguarding Americans from conflict of interest.“
McCullough is among a growing number of experts who believe COVID-19 injections are making the pandemic worse instead of better, while effective solutions are being ignored and intentionally suppressed.
“Early ambulatory therapy with a sequenced, multi-drug regimen is supported by available sources of evidence and has a positive benefit-to-risk profile,” he explains, while “COVID-19 genetic vaccines have an unfavorable safety profile and are not sufficiently effective, thus they cannot be supported in clinical practice at this time.”33
Unfortunately, “censorship and reprisal are working to crush freedom of speech, scientific discourse and medical progress”34 McCullough calls on everyone to stand up against the propaganda, but especially doctors, who he believes can save lives by offering early COVID-19 treatment to their patients.
The Biden administration is now suggesting federal employers and government contractors offer “flexibility” when enforcing COVID vaccine mandates against unvaccinated employees. This announcement is an about-face from the far-reaching rules President Biden laid out in a September speech where he lashed out at those who are hesitant to get the vaccine.
“Deadlines are not cliffs,” Jeff Zients, White House coronavirus response coordinator, told reporters at a briefing Wednesday. “The federal worker deadline is the 22nd of November, and the federal contractor deadline is not until December 8th,” he said.
Zients added:
“But even once we hit those deadlines, we expect federal agencies and contractors will follow their standard HR processes and that, for any of the probably relatively small percent of employees that are not in compliance, they’ll go through education, counseling, accommodations and then enforcement.”
This announcement followed a meeting earlier this week between business groups and the White House Office of Management and Budget during which business leaders asked the Biden administration to postpone its vaccine mandate until after the holiday season.
The National Retail Federation, American Trucking Association and Retail Industry Leaders Association asked the White House to give businesses 90 days to comply, which would pause the implementation of the mandate until no earlier than late January.
In an interview with CNBC, Retail Industry Leaders Association President Evan Armstrong warned the coming mandate could trigger resignations at places already facing severe staffing issues.
While business leaders are holding discussions with policymakers and airing their grievances regarding how mandates will affect their bottom line, thousands of workers are protesting the policy, with some walking off the job.
A recent survey by Kaiser Family Foundation, found 72% of unvaccinated workers say they will quit their job if their employer mandates the vaccine.
Earlier this week, in Elma, New York, hundreds of workers at Moog Facilities walked off the job to protest the federal vaccine mandate.
“We just want to work,” said Matt Schieber, a Moog employee. “We don’t want to be forced to take a medical procedure if we don’t want it.”
New York City is requiring all city workers to be vaccinated before the Nov. 1 deadline. According to CBS-NY, employees from all city departments are protesting the mandate, some by “not providing city services and others by organizing rallies.”
On Thursday, thousands of firefighters and fire union officials protested the vaccine mandate in front of Gracie Mansion, the main residence of New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio.
“There is going to be a catastrophic manpower shortage if 3,500 firefighters that are currently unvaccinated are told not to go to work,” Uniformed Firefighters Association President Andrew Ansbro told ABC7.
The New York Post reported the New York City Fire Department is “preparing to shutter as many as 20% of all city fire companies and take an equal portion of its ambulances off the streets ahead of the impending deadline.”
Firefighters aren’t the only workers protesting the mandate in The Big Apple. Thirty-five percent of the workforce at the Department of Sanitation are unvaccinated and some have stopped showing up to work.
Residents of the Westerleigh neighborhood in Staten Island and the Bay Ridge neighborhood of Brooklyn are beginning to see the result of a city missing large swaths of its sanitation workforce.
One Bay Ridge resident told CBS, “It’s starting to smell. They’ve got tuna fish bags down the block.”
New York healthcare workers are currently in court over the state’s vaccine mandate, which did not make exemptions for those with religious objections to the COVID jab.
Also, scores of healthcare workers took to the streets of Rochester, New York, Monday to express their opposition to Mayo Clinic’s vaccine mandate.
As of Oct. 14, about 8,000 workers — or 12% of Mayo Clinic’s entire workforce — were unvaccinated. The clinic said employees not in compliance with the mandate by Jan 3 will be terminated.
One Mayo Clinic administrative assistant who recently resigned over the coming mandates estimated at least 700 employees are “ready to quit or be fired.”
In New Jersey, one of the largest hospital systems, RWJBarnabas Health, fired more than 100 of its employees this week who refused to comply with its vaccination policy.
Another behemoth hospital chain, Ballad Health, decided to forgo its vaccine mandate for healthcare workers after computer modeling suggested 15% of their nurses would quit.
Police in several states have resisted and protested the new mandate requirements. As reported by the DailySignal, “major cities across the United States risk losing one-third or more of their police forces” due to COVID vaccine mandates.
Chicago Fraternal Order of Police President John Catanzara said, “It’s safe to say that the city of Chicago will have a police force at 50% or less for this weekend coming up.”
NPR reported at least 150 Massachusetts State Police officers resigned ahead of the state vaccine mandate.
The Washington State Police force has also faced problems regarding COVID vaccine mandates, with 74 commissioned officers, 67 troopers, six sergeants and one captain resigning in protest to new vaccine policies.
The city of Seattle lost more than 300 officers over the past year. Earlier this month, Seattle’s police department had to send detectives and non-patrol officers to respond to emergency calls because of a shortage of patrol officers.
At the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, 185 employees quit as a result of the lab’s COVID vaccine mandate, which they opposed in court. Their legal action failed. Newsweek reported, “more than 100 scientists, nuclear engineers, research technicians, designers, project managers, and other employees joined the attempt to block the mandate.”
City workers in Los Angeles have until Dec. 18 to get fully vaccinated. Those who refuse to get vaccinated should “prepare to lose their job,” Mayor Eric Garcetti said earlier this week.
The workers originally had until Oct. 20 to get fully vaccinated. During the extended period, unvaccinated workers will have $65 deducted from their paychecks twice a week to cover the cost of weekly testing.
In Lafayette, Indiana, workers at GE Aviation are protesting the company’s vaccine mandate for a second time. Employees have until Dec. 8 to be vaccinated or they could lose their jobs.
Protesters say many of them have already had COVID so they feel their natural immunity will protect them. They say they feel they should have the choice to get it or not.
Jeremy Loffredo is a freelance reporter for The Defender. His investigative reporting has been featured in The Grayzone and Unlimited Hangout. Jeremy formerly produced news programs at RT America.
Today, Governor Kristi Noem signed Executive Order 2021-14, protecting state employees from President Biden’s federal vaccine mandates. She also released this video announcing her decision.
“South Dakota is fighting back against President Biden’s illegal vaccine mandates,” said Governor Kristi Noem. “Our state has many contracts with the federal government, and President Biden is attempting to use those contracts to force state employees to be vaccinated against their will. My executive order will protect their rights to medical and religious exemptions under any federal vaccine mandates. I am already talking with legislators about extending these protections to private employees through legislation as well.”
For the medical exemption, employees need a written statement from a physician stating that the COVID-19 vaccination is contraindicated for medical reasons.
For the religious exemption, a form will be made available by the Bureau of Human Resources that shall read in full, “I, [insert person’s full name], dissent and object to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds, which includes moral, ethical, and philosophical beliefs or principles.”
Due to established precedent, this Executive Order does not apply to service members with the South Dakota National Guard who must meet federal readiness responsibilities for deployment.
During the 2022 legislative session, Governor Noem will work with the legislature to make these protections for state employees permanent, and to extend similar health and religious liberty protections to employees of private businesses who adopted mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies.
Today, following Governor Noem’s promise to “see [President Biden] in court,” the State of South Dakota joined a lawsuit against the Biden Administration’s COVID vaccine mandate for federal contractors.
“South Dakota is standing up with other states to protect our people from the Biden Administration’s illegal mandates,” said Governor Kristi Noem. “Though they are delaying their announcement of other mandates because they know those would be unconstitutional, we will not wait to fight this federal contractor mandate. We set up our defense with an executive order earlier this week. Now it’s time to go on offense.”
Earlier this month, the Biden Administration sent notices to federal contractors, including state entities, indicating that they will be enforcing the federal contractor mandate. This lawsuit is in response to those enforcement steps.
This action follows Governor Noem’s executive order earlier this week to protect South Dakota state employees from the Biden Administration’s illegal mandate for federal contractors. Governor Noem’s order guaranteed medical and religious exemptions for these employees, and Governor Noem also announced her intention to bring legislation to extend similar protections to private workers.
South Dakota is joined in the lawsuit by the states of Missouri, Nebraska, Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Wyoming. You can find the court filing here.
… Most American adults of voting age don’t appear willing to reject the applicability of international law to Israel’s ongoing colonization of occupied territories in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Golan Heights. … Full article
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
