The Mauling of Tennis Player Novak Djokovic
January 10th, 2022 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark
Notre site en Français: mondialisation.ca
Nuestro sitio en español: GlobalizacionJanuary 10th, 2022 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark
January 10th, 2022 by Steve Kirsch
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
I missed this study. So did the mainstream media for some reason. But this study is yet another independent analysis that is difficult to refute: we have been misled by the CDC, FDA, and NIH.
The next time you see you county health officer, President Biden, or Boris Johnson why not ask them if they can find a mistake in this study by Kyle A. Beattie entitled Worldwide Bayesian Causal Impact Analysis of Vaccine Administration on Deaths and Cases Associated with COVID-19: A BigData Analysis of 145 Countries (the PDF version is here).
The study found that the COVID vaccines cause more COVID cases per million (+38% in US) and more deaths per million associated with COVID (+31% in US).
The abstract says:
The statistically significant and overwhelmingly positive causal impact after vaccine deployment on the dependent variables total deaths and total cases per million should be highly worrisome for policy makers. They indicate a marked increase in both COVID-19 related cases and death due directly to a vaccine deployment that was originally sold to the public as the “key to gain back our freedoms.” The effect of vaccines on total cases per million and its low positive association with total vaccinations per hundred signifies a limited impact of vaccines on lowering COVID-19 associated cases.
These results should encourage local policy makers to make policy decisions based on data, not narrative, and based on local conditions, not global or national mandates. These results should also encourage policy makers to begin looking for other avenues out of the pandemic aside from mass vaccination campaigns.
In other words, we were lied to
The vaccines are making this worse, not better. This is why we are not getting ourselves out of the hole. Mandating vaccines are making this
This is hardly the first study to reach those conclusions. These studies, all done independently, found the same thing—the more you vaccinate, the worse things get.
The response to this new study by the health authorities is predictable
I think I’ve figured out the pattern and can now confidently predict how health authorities worldwide will react to this stunning result: they will ignore it. Instead, they will mandate vaccines for everyone of every age ASAP. Am I right?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from Pandemic.news
January 10th, 2022 by Rhoda Wilson
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
On 7 July 2021 the CDC updated their “Instructions for Use” of RT-PCR Covid tests. This was the exact date the CDC notified clinical laboratories and testing sites performing Covid testing of the withdrawal of Emergency Use Authorisation (“EUA”) from 31 December 2021 and to begin a transition to another FDA-authorised Covid test.
Page 40 of the Instructions for Use of the PCR test states (emphasis our own):
“Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full-length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.”
Click here to watch the video.
After almost two years of incorrect and fraudulent use of the PCR test, there seems to be a worldwide Government campaign to stop its use. Here are some examples:
“Canadians seeking a COVID-19 PCR test in recent days may have faced long line-ups at testing centres and a shortage of appointment slots as demand has risen amid the spread of the Omicron variant.” – CTV News, 26 December 2021
“Changes made to PCR testing guidance amid record demand [in Northern Ireland]. The Public Health Agency said it had issued new protocols to help ensure ‘the continued and targeted delivery of the service’.” – Belfast Telegraph, 29 December 2021
“A widespread shortage of PCR tests across the devolved nations was due to an administrative error, the First Minister of Scotland has said.” – Belfast Telegraph, 29 December 2021
“Asymptomatic people who test positive in Wales no longer required to have PCR test.” – ITV, 5 January 2022
“From today, people in NI who get a positive lateral flow test should presume that they have Covid-19 and that they are infectious – a PCR test will no longer be required to confirm the result.” – 4NI, 5 January 2022
“Boris scraps extra Covid testing rules in drive to stop Omicron shutting down the economy … And people testing positive after a lateral flow test do not have to have a PCR confirmation.” – Daily Express, 6 January 2022
“The need for PCR tests has now changed [in Scotland] in a bid to relieve pressure in test centres and labs.” – Daily Record, 6 January 2022
“Australians are no longer required to get a PCR test to confirm their COVID-positive result.” – ABC Net, 6 January 2022
A 20-year trail of patent applications concerning the virus responsible for Covid-19 proves it is neither new nor the result of a jump from animals to humans. In July 2021, a dossier of evidence supporting these claims was presented by Dr. David Martin to the international Corona Investigative Committee. The first SARS outbreak in the latter part of 2001 “gave rise to a ‘very problematic’ April 2003 patent filing by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It was for the entire SARS gene sequence, and for a series of derivative patents covering means of detection, including the PCR test [widely used today purportedly to diagnose cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection],” The Conservative Woman wrote.
“People should remember that all the “covid” case data is based on PCR and antigen tests which are meaningless. They give positive results for those with normal flu, which has the exact same symptomology as what they are calling Covid19. This conflation is clear as day and must be pointed out to everyone and we need to take the governments of the world to court for conducting no risk benefit analysis and perpetuating a fraud on the public and restricting basic human rights at par with the Nazi and Soviet era.,” Robin Monotti posted on Telegram on 31 December 2021.
Dr. Mike Yeadon: Covid-19 Lies – The PCR Test, The Highwire, 14 June 2021 (10 mins). Click here to watch the video.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from Shutterstock
January 10th, 2022 by Children’s Health Defense
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
An estimated 4,000 people showed up Wednesday in Albany, New York, at the state’s capitol building to let state lawmakers know they stand united against vaccine mandates.
The “We Will Not Comply Rally” marked the kickoff of the People’s Coalition of New York, a coalition of more than 40 groups that oppose medical mandates and are working to restore the civil liberties of all New Yorkers.
Wednesday’s crowd represented people of every race, religion, political background and socioeconomic status.
Vaccinated and unvaccinated united in a peaceful demonstration to voice their opposition to vaccine and mask mandates imposed on the people of the state of New York.
“Where there is a risk, there cannot be a mandate,” New York teacher Vicki Savini told the crowd. “Where there is risk, there must be choice.”
“We are at war for our families, at war for our children, at war for our lives,” civil rights attorney Trisha Lindsay told the empowered audience. “When you come for our children, you have declared war!”
New York City transit and labor leader Tramell Thompson stunned the crowd when he announced he was fully vaccinated, but ripped up his vaccine card because he opposes vaccine passports.
At the State Capital building in Albany NY @progressiveact who is fully V rips up his V card in front of thousands of protesters against the mandates #ny #rally #blm pic.twitter.com/YiXn1olcRd
— Leeroy Johnson (@LeeroyPress) January 5, 2022
New York lawmakers this session are weighing several bills that would dramatically impact the lives of those who choose to remain unvaccinated.
A8378 would mandate that all children receive the COVID injection to attend school. Since religious exemptions were removed in 2019, this bill would force parents to choose between finding alternate means for educating their children or being coerced into giving their child an experimental injection, the long-term impacts of which are unknown.
S75 would implement a statewide registry of all adult vaccination records. This bill is an egregious violation of every citizen’s right to privacy. It would also contribute to the continued removal of our personal freedoms and human rights. Such a registry would be the pathway to a possible state-wide vaccine passport.
“Who here feels like life is gonna be hard without this shot?” professional boxer-turned-activist Cara Castronouva asked. “We are going to win this war … This is still the USA!”
Patriotism, the U.S. Constitution, peaceful non-compliance, civil disobedience, and protecting the future and freedoms of all Americans and future generations were the common threads running through the speakers’ inspiring messages.
Many speakers referenced the Constitution’s “We the people” in their speeches to reflect the unity and strength of the health freedom movement. This unity was also reflected in the diversity of the protestors.
“This movement doesn’t belong to any person, government or organization,” activist Donna Schmidt of New Yorkers Against Medical Mandates reminded demonstrators. “It belongs to we the people!”
The rally in Albany established that the fight for health freedom is gaining momentum.
“We know the truth, and we stand in the truth,” said Mary Holland, president of Children’s Health Defense. “How do we get to the tipping point? Through love. To encourage [others] to seek out more information, not shame them.”
Wednesday’s rally reaffirmed that despite the display of passion and defiance, the core and foundation of the health freedom movement is, has been and must always be love.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from CHD
January 10th, 2022 by Jeremy Loffredo
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
COVID-19 booster shots could do more harm than good, according to scientists interviewed late last month by The New York Times.
The scientists warned “that too many shots might actually harm the body’s ability to fight COVID” and “might cause a sort of immune system fatigue.”
On Monday, Israeli authorities began offering anyone over age 60 a chance to get a fourth shot, or second booster of the COVID vaccine.
But scientists told The Times, before Israel confirmed it would offer the fourth shot, the science is not yet settled on using an additional booster shot to combat the new Omicron variant.
There is one official report of an Israeli dying from Omicron. However, according to The Times of Israel, it is unclear that Omicron caused the death of the individual — a man in his 60s hospitalized weeks earlier from a pre-existing condition.
A new report from the UK Health Security Agency showed booster doses are less effective against Omicron than previous variants, and their effectiveness wears off in only 10 weeks.
Professor Hagai Levine, an epidemiologist and chairman of Israel’s Association of Public Health Physicians, told The New York Times there’s no published scientific evidence a fourth shot is needed to prevent severe illness from Omicron.
“Before giving a fourth shot, it is preferable to wait for the science,” Levine said.
Benny Muchawsky, an architect based in Israel, told The Times the push to administer boosters for the Omicron variant “seemed like hysteria.”
“Israel is the laboratory for the coronavirus vaccine,” Muchawsky said.
Dr. Robert Malone echoed during an interview with Joe Rogan:
“These days the country’s name is actually ‘Pfizreal.’ It’s no longer Israel. Their government has a financial deal with Pfizer and they only have the Pfizer vaccine.”
Malone told Rogan the scientific data points to booster doses doing more harm than good.
Citing data from Denmark, he told Rogan there seems to be “negative efficacy in correlation with increased doses” meaning the more doses or boosters an individual receives, the higher chance they’ll be infected.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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.
Featured image is from CHD
January 10th, 2022 by J. D. Heyes
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Dozens of lawmakers have signed onto an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to toss out Joe Biden’s unconstitutional COVID-19 vaccine mandates for federal workers, contractors and many private businesses.
As reported by LifeSite News, 183 lawmakers have signed the “friend of the court” brief urging the justices to toss the mandates, which were issued through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in November.
“[OSHA] was never meant to be the health police,” the lawmakers wrote, according to the outlet. “Moreover, mandatory vaccinations do not stop individuals from contracting and transmitting COVID-19.
“Vaccinated workers can still contract and transmit COVID-19, including the new Omicron variant. Given that fact, imposing masking and testing restrictions only on unvaccinated workers makes no sense because all workers regardless of vaccination status remain potential carriers and transmitters of the virus,” the lawmakers added.
The letter came ahead of oral arguments before the high court this week in a case brought by Ohio and the National Federation of Small Businesses, both of which are suing over OSHA’s mandate for companies with 100 or more employees requiring workers to either be vaccinated or submit to weekly testing.
In addition, the justices heard arguments in a case pushing back on the federal mandate for healthcare workers who work at facilities that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.
“Congressional members have an interest in the powers they delegate to agencies not being abused,” the lawmakers noted in the brief. “The legislative authority vested in the federal government belongs to Congress, not the Executive branch. In this case, the promulgation by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) of a sweeping, nationwide vaccine mandate on businesses intrudes into an area of legislative concern far beyond the authority of the agency.”
The letter also cites the Biden regime for exploiting OSHA’s seldom-used “emergency temporary standard” provision to issue the mandates, saying it falsely creates a guise of legality and adding that OSHA has never had such authority and none has been delegated to the agency, implicitly or explicitly, by the Legislative Branch.
“In short, there is no mouse hole in which Congress could have even tried to hide the elephant of the ETS mandate here,” they wrote.
In addition, the lawmakers said that there are serious, legitimate concerns with the efficacy of the various vaccines, but that even if they were more reliable and effective, mandates and such have historically rested with states, not the federal government, and certainly not the Executive Branch.
“Without clear congressional authority in the regulatory scheme for such an expansion of agency authority into the realm of state police powers, it may not be assumed to exist,” they wrote.
“Moreover, the sudden ‘discovery’ of authority under the OSHA Act confirms that it was never intended to displace state authority in this area,” the lawmakers added.
During oral arguments this week, two of the court’s liberals made some false assumptions regarding the virus and vaccines, as The Federalist reported:
Justice Elena Kagan suggested that getting the vaccine reduces the spread of COVID-19, a dubious claim that’s contested by the rapidly rising number of breakthrough cases worldwide. Kagan’s opinion is that “this is the policy that is most geared to stopping all this.”
“There’s nothing else that will perform that function better than incentivizing people strongly to vaccinate themselves. So, you know, whatever necessary means, whatever grave means, why isn’t this necessary and grave?” she asked.
“We do not contest that COVID is a grave danger,” National Federation of Independent Business attorney Scott Keller responded. “But when the power for it to be necessary… an agency has to consider and explain alternatives.”
Justice Stephen Breyer also appeared to suggest that being vaccinated would stop the spread of the virus, claiming the argument that more people would leave the workforce due to the mandates was invalid because “more may quit when they discover they have to work together with unvaccinated others because that means they may get the disease.”
Sotomayor also falsely claimed that “hospitals are almost all full capacity,” adding that more than 100,000 children are hospitalized with COVID and on ventilators.
“The current national pediatric COVID census per HHS is 3,342. Many/most incidental,” American Commitment chair Phil Kerpen noted in response.
This is just absolutely astonishing. "100,000 children in serious condition," per Sotomayor. Where do these people obtain their misinformation? The current national pediatric COVID census per HHS is 3,342. Many/most incidental.
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) January 7, 2022
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from Medical Extremism
January 10th, 2022 by Andrew Korybko
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
As can be gathered from recent materials by Asia Times, CNN, and The National Interest, among others, adversarial media forces are claiming that President Tokayev carried out an anti-Chinese coup with Russian military support.
The US-led Western information warfare narrative about the CSTO’s limited peacekeeping mission in Kazakhstan that was requested by its internationally recognized government following an unprecedented explosion of urban terrorism there last week is quickly coalescing.
As can be gathered from recent materials by Asia Times, CNN, and The National Interest, among others, adversarial media forces are claiming that President Tokayev carried out an anti-Chinese coup with Russian military support. This warped interpretation is predicated on a superficial explanation of events that dishonestly leaves out some crucial contexts in order to spin a strategically self-serving narrative that checks off all the West’s most politically convenient boxes so to speak.
In a nutshell, these outlets believe that President Tokayev took advantage of violent protests in order to make a power play against former President Nazarbayev and the faction that’s allegedly loyal to him within that country’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”).
There’s even innuendo that he might have had a role in organizing the latest unrest himself exactly as similarly adversarial media forces speculated about Turkish President Erdogan during the failed summer 2016 coup against him in order to carry out a so-called “self-coup”. These ill-intended observers that are actually more akin to geopolitical provocateurs claim that Russia helped him due to concerns about China’s growing influence in Central Asia. This is a grossly inaccurate assessment of the latest events.
What actually happened is that a long-planned Color Revolution that was timed to coincide with the government’s preplanned removal of fuel subsidies was launched as a cover for disguising an Unconventional War against the state. It remains unclear exactly who orchestrated this terrorist campaign but it’s beginning to look likely that some of the Kazakhstani elite played a role in the latest events after former Prime Minister and chief of the National Security Committee Karim Masimov was detained on suspicion of treason alongside several other unnamed individuals. The US’ subversive anti-Russian “deep state” faction might also have provided some assistance to domestic collaborators in a desperate last-ditch attempt to sabotage the US-Russian security talks in Europe.
This interpretation explains why the Color Revolution was ordered to transform into an Unconventional War despite the first-mentioned’s anti-reform movement achieving their political goal almost right away after the state quickly reimposed price controls on fuel and even extended them to cover other social commodities and utilities following the government’s resignation. That would have ordinarily been the end of it if this was genuinely a mass protest movement in its entirety, but its near-instantaneous transformation into an Unconventional War reveals that the Color Revolution was just a cover for an anti-state coup that most likely involved treasonous elements of the elite who could have even received some unclear degree of foreign support. Their goal was to overthrow President Tokayev but they failed.
That country’s internationally recognized government requested its CSTO mutual defense allies’ support to guard strategic facilities so as to enable its security forces to concentrate more fully on the anti-terrorist dimension of the conflict. Russia and the other members’ decision to carry out this limited mission was meant to help the Kazakhstani authorities restore the constitutional rule of law and thus safeguard the country’s territorial integrity. The government’s fall in the face of this terrorist-driven regime change campaign could have created a black hole of chaos in the heart of Central Asia that certainly would have catalyzed much more serious security challenges for the broader region, including within Russia’s own borders if it led to large-scale refugee influxes and/or terrorist infiltration.
China’s security would also have been threatened since its Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) borders Hybrid War-victimized Kazakhstan.
The Russian-led CSTO’s limited peacekeeping mission therefore doesn’t contradict Chinese interests but perfectly complements them, which is why it’s patently ridiculous to speculate that President Putin was motivated by any anti-Chinese geostrategic considerations in approving this operation.
It’ll only involve several thousand troops who’ll remain in Kazakhstan for a short period according to official estimates and will leave the moment that the authorities feel comfortable enough with the security situation after fully regaining control of the country. It doesn’t involve any territorial changes or political quid pro quos, let alone anti-Chinese ones.
Nevertheless, it’s politically convenient for adversarial media forces to recklessly speculate otherwise since they very desperately want to drive a wedge between the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership that serves as the most powerful engine of the emerging Multipolar World Order. There’s also a soft power interest in misportraying Russia’s regional security operation as being driven by “imperialist” motivations since this conforms with what the global public has already been preconditioned by the US-led Western Mainstream Media’s years-long information warfare campaign about that country to seemingly expect. It doesn’t matter that this claim is utterly devoid of substance since similar such narratives are purely about perception management and not factually compelling arguments.
Those who propagate the literal conspiracy theory that President Putin plotted some kind of anti-Chinese coup with his Kazakhstani counterpart are either ignorant of two particular contexts or are deliberately omitting them from their materials in order to mislead their audience. The first is that the Hybrid War of Terror on Kazakhstan occurred during the middle of Russia’s 10-day New Year’s holiday season and right before Orthodox Christmas during the time when the entire country is on break for the most part, including the majority of its “deep state” apart from the military of course. It completely caught the Kremlin off guard since its intelligence services once again failed to anticipate yet another regional regime change crisis. This crisis literally happened at the most inconvenient time for its officials.
The second pertinent context is that all of this occurred in the run-up to the highly sensitive US-Russian talks for de-escalating the undeclared US-provoked missile crisis in Europe. Russia is already under tremendous multifaceted American pressure, especially in the soft power realm with particular respect to the continually debunked claims that it’s either plotting to “invade” Ukraine or supposedly already has, so it wouldn’t want to open up a whole new can of worms by “invading” Kazakhstan as part of some far-reaching anti-Chinese power play in Central Asia and thus risk complicating the upcoming talks any more than they already are. The Kremlin has actually done its utmost to signal that it’s on its “best behavior” ahead of these negotiations in order to avoid distracting its American counterparts.
These interconnected observations are crucial to consider when interpreting the latest chain of events. They discredit the self-serving narrative that this was a long-planned anti-Chinese power play that amounted to a Russian-backed coup buffeted by an imperialist invasion of Kazakhstan and predicated on the false flag basis that President Tokayev might have had something to do with the latest violence against his own government. The reality is altogether different since this was actually an attempted coup against that country’s incumbent leader that was advanced through terrorist means by a treasonous elite in potential collusion with foreign forces, but it was narrowly thwarted by the CSTO’s limited peacekeeping mission that also served China’s regional security interests as well.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on OneWorld.
January 10th, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
The reason our children are being targeted by COVID mandates is because vaccine makers want to get the shots onto the childhood vaccination schedule.
Once a vaccine is added to the childhood schedule, the vaccine maker is shielded from financial liability for injuries, unless the manufacturer knows about vaccine safety issues and withholds that information
Products must satisfy four criteria in order to get emergency use authorization:
According to a U.S. federal court decision, the Pfizer shot and BioNTech’s Comirnaty are not interchangeable
Comirnaty is not fully approved and licensed. It’s only “ready for approval.” Comirnaty is licensed to be manufactured, introduced into state commerce and marketed, but it’s not licensed to be given to anyone, and it’s not yet available in the United States. They’re waiting for it to be added to the childhood vaccination schedule, to get the liability shield
*
In this interview, Alix Mayer explains why our children are being so aggressively targeted for the COVID-19 injection even though they’re not at risk of serious SARS-CoV-2 infection, and clarifies the status of Comirnaty.
Mayer, board president of Children’s Health Defense — California Chapter, is herself vaccine injured; not from the COVID jab, but from a series of vaccines she received 20 years ago. (Incidentally, Mayer grew up in the Oscar Mayer family in the 5th generation descended from the original Oscar Mayer, a German immigrant who started as a butcher boy. Despite Mayer’s vaccine injury, her family does not share her views on vaccine safety issues.)
Mayer graduated from Duke University with a BA and from Northwestern University with an MBA in finance and management strategy. She worked for Apple in the mid-1990s. When she was 29, Apple promoted her to acting manager of worldwide customer research.
In preparation for a family trip to Bali, her doctor recommended getting six vaccines: hepatitis A vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, diphtheria, tetanus, polio and oral typhoid, which she did. Eventually, 13 years later, she finally realized it was these shots that triggered her health problems.
“They gave me brain damage and total disability,” she says. “I spent three years in my early 30s being 80% housebound, and I really I didn’t know if I was ever going to get better.
I went through a whole bunch of diagnoses: lupus, chronic fatigue syndrome, Lyme disease. Ultimately, none of those made sense and none of the treatments made me any better, until we put the pieces together and figured out that I was actually vaccine injured.
It’s literally just a cause and effect. If you look back at my history and lay out my vaccine schedule, you can see that my health declined two weeks after I got the vaccines.
I had encephalitis and encephalopathy … digestive issues, hypersomnia — sleeping 16 hours a day — flu-like symptoms, a 24/7 migraine, joint pain. I really had no life at all in my early 30s until I went on a gluten-free diet. That started my health recovery.
I then became an award-winning medical journalist with a bunch of different blogs, and then a health consultant. In 2018, I retired from all that and joined Children’s Health Defense.”
The COVID Jab Tragedy
While many vaccines have a questionable safety profile, especially when combined, data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) suggest there’s never been a vaccine as dangerous as the experimental mRNA gene transfer injections for COVID.
What’s more, while lack of transparency and accountability has been a chronic problem within the vaccine industry, the obvious hazards associated with vaccines are really being highlighted by the COVID jabs.
Many now know of someone who has been injured by the COVID jab, and most were injured so shortly after the shot that it’s hard to deny a correlation. The staggering number of injuries reported among adults who have received the COVID shot in turn highlights the insanity of rolling it out to young children.
According to Mayer, the reason they’re trying to mandate the COVID shot for children is to evade liability for injuries, because once a vaccine is on the childhood vaccination schedule, vaccine makers have immunity against lawsuits for injuries.
The COVID shots currently have legal immunity against liability because they’re still under emergency use authorization (EUA). If you think BioNTech’s Comirnaty has been fully licensed, you’d be mistaken. Mayer explains:
“I put together a slide deck about Emergency Use Authorization (which you can see in the video interview above) because there is so much confusion over this and what’s really going on. Once you understand the genesis of EUA and the standards they have to meet in order to keep these products on the market, then you understand the behaviors [we’re now seeing].
They’re falling all over themselves to protect the EUAs for these products and also introduce other very confusing kinds of approval to get away with stuff. So, let me just start to clarify it right now.
This presentation is all about these three strangleholds that the vaccine makers and our government are never going to let go of … These are the things they’re guarding with their lives.
First of all, they need to guard the emergency … so they cannot have any early treatments. Those cannot exist. They’re also going for full liability protection, and children will be used as pawns to get them full liability protection.
Vaccine makers love EUA products because they have this huge liability shield. If you’re injured by an EUA vaccine, you can’t sue the manufacturer, you can’t sue the person who gave it to you, you can’t sue the institution where you got the shot.
You have to go through something called the CICP, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, where they’ll only cover unpaid medical expenses, and probably only for pharmaceuticals and lost wages.
Now, if you’re vaccine injured, let me tell you right now, you are not going to be using pharmaceuticals because they do not work for vaccine injury. They will make you sicker. You’ll be on two dozen pharmaceuticals before you know it and you’re going to be sick from those. They do not work. The only thing that’s going to get you better if you’re vaccine injured is natural treatments …
That’s the kind of treatment you’re going to need, and that’s not even covered, even if you were to get compensation. Everybody I know with chronic illness, whether it’s a child or an adult who has chronic fatigue syndrome, vaccine injury, Lyme disease, they’re paying $50,000 out of pocket per year.
If you can’t work and you have to pay for your treatment out of pocket, I don’t know how you ever get by. People suffer like crazy, they lose homes, they go into bankruptcy.”
Since its inception, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which pays for injuries caused by vaccines on the childhood vaccination schedule, has paid out about one-third of claims. It’s a long, arduous process that oftentimes takes years and in the end rarely provides adequate compensation.
“If you do end up getting compensation … they don’t pay it out in one lump sum, they pay it out year by year, and they pretty much hope that whoever is injured is actually going to die of their injuries before they get compensated.
That’s been said to me a bunch of times by people who’ve been through this horrible process. Now, the CICP has only compensated 3% of claims. And so far, there have been no approvals for [compensation] for COVID shot injuries,” Mayer says. [Editor’s note: The first COVID case was recently determined “eligible” for compensation, but the case has not yet been adjudicated.1]
Stages of Liability: EUA
In her slide show, Mayer reviews each of the stages of product liability, and whether the mRNA shots can be mandated. As mentioned, vaccine makers have no liability as long as their product is under EUA, as the product is investigational.
“Investigational is a synonym for experimental,” Mayer says. “And the word experimental ties it directly into the Nuremberg Code, which says that we cannot be experimented on [without consent]. We always have the right to accept or refuse a medical treatment.
[The Nuremberg Code] is not a law, but it’s a code under which the whole world is supposed to be operating by. And it is actually codified into some local and federal laws as well … So, what everybody needs to know is that coercion and duress are considered de facto mandates and illegal. De facto means that it’s basically the same as an outright mandate.
It’s illegal medical segregation, medical apartheid [because that is a form of coercion or duress.] So, if you go to a restaurant and they demand your vaccine passport, only let you eat outside, and they might not let you use the bathroom, that’s medical segregation.
That is illegal and I do not support businesses that do that and you shouldn’t either. Any access privileges that are different between the vaccinated and unvaccinated are illegal, and any visual indication of vaccine status like a sticker or a bracelet … that’s also illegal because that creates segregation and medical apartheid, [since they are all forms of coercion or duress.]”
Importantly, mass violation of the law does not make something legal.
“If we all drove 100 miles an hour on Interstate 80, would we watch the speed limit signs suddenly changed to 100 miles per hour? No, it’s not going to happen. Mass violation of the law has never made anything legal. And just because schools and businesses and our government are mandating these shots, it doesn’t make it legal. It’s all illegal …
Now, they know full well that it’s illegal to mandate these [COVID shots]. President Biden knows it’s illegal. But what they’re counting on is that the court cases overturning their illegal mandates will take a while, and in that interim, people are going to be scared enough to get the shots. And unfortunately, it’s worked.”
Stages of Liability: Full Licensure and Childhood Scheduling
The next stage is full licensure (FDA approval). Once a product is fully licensed, the company becomes liable for injuries. At that point, the product can be legally mandated. Of course, knowing how dangerous the COVID shots are, no manufacturer wants to be financially liable for injuries. They’d be sued out of business.
To get immunity against liability again, the vaccine manufacturers need to get their product onto the childhood vaccination schedule. This will also allow government to mandate the shots. As noted by Mayer:
“This is the holy grail if you’re a vaccine manufacturer of a COVID vaccine right now. You want it to be fully licensed, but not put it on the market until you get it on the children’s schedule.”
DOJ Redefines Medical ‘Consequence’
In Doe v. Rumsfeld,2 the court held that service members could refuse an EUA product without punitive consequences such as dishonorable discharge or other punishments. Therefore, there were no consequences to refusing an EUA product, other than the natural consequence of possibly getting the disease.
However, in July 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice attempted to redefine the term “consequences” just for the COVID shot, to suggest that punitive consequences, like job loss or being separated from your working or learning location, are legal when a person refuses an EUA vaccine.
“But this type of consequence, a punitive consequence, has never been adjudicated,” Mayer says. “That’s not in any law. This is just an opinion from the DOJ. And it absolutely means nothing, except it came from our DOJ, so people give it a lot of authority.
They also stated twice — and this is so hard to understand because it’s just beyond reason — that the right to accept or refuse an EUA product is ‘purely informational.’
Literally, you can read that you could die by taking it, but it’s purely informational. You cannot act on it. That’s what the DOJ says. Again, it’s not adjudicated, so it doesn’t mean anything. It’s an opinion. It holds no legal weight at all. So, as we said before, these mandates are starting to be overturned.”
Four Standards for EUA
There are four standards that must be fulfilled for an EUA. If any of these criteria are not met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained. First, the secretary of Health and Human Services has to declare and maintain a state of emergency. If the emergency were to go away, all EUA products would have to come off the market. And that doesn’t just mean vaccines. It also includes the PCR tests and even surgical masks.
The second standard is evidence of effectiveness. Historically, vaccines had to show a 70% or greater effectiveness, as measured by a fourfold increase in antibody levels, in order to qualify. For an EUA vaccine, the efficacy threshold is only 30% to 50%. In another departure from prior vaccine approvals, the COVID vaccine clinical trials relied on the RT-PCR test, not antibodies, to demonstrate effectiveness in the small “challenge phase” of the trials.
Now, you probably heard that the Pfizer shot was 95% effective when it first rolled out, but that was relative risk reduction, not absolute risk reduction. Confounding these two parameters is a common strategy used to make a product sound far better than it actually is. The absolute risk reduction for Pfizer’s shot was just 0.84%.3
For example, if a study divided people into two groups of 1,000 and two people in the group who didn’t get a fictional vaccine got infected, while only one in the vaccinated group got infected, the relative risk reduction would be reported as 100%. In terms of absolute risk reduction, the fictional vaccine only prevented 1 in 1,000 from getting the infection — a very poor absolute risk reduction.
The take-home message here is that even though the minimal threshold for effectiveness is ludicrously low, in terms of absolute risk reduction, these shots still don’t measure up. Within six months, even the relative risk reduction bottoms out at zero. What’s more, there’s evidence that the clinical trials were manipulated as well.
“I remember an analysis very early in lockdowns [that showed] if you added back all the probable cases of COVID to the clinical trial [data], the effectiveness went from 90% to between 19% and 29%,”4 Mayer says.
The third standard is that the known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks of the product. In the case of COVID shots, there’s overwhelming evidence showing they do more harm than good.
The fourth and last standard that must be met is there can be no adequate, approved and available alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines). “This is why hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were quashed,” Mayer says. This is also another reason Comirnaty is not treated as a fully approved product in the U.S., because if it were, then all the other COVID shots that are under EUA would have to be removed from the market.
“This is a four-legged stool,” Mayer says. “If any one of these legs goes away, you have to take your EUA products off the market … by law. I put [state of] emergency and [treatment] alternatives in red, because those are two of the things that they have a stranglehold on; those are things they are guarding like crazy.
This means that every variant that comes out, they have to make it sound super scary to keep the emergency going. So, the variants serve a purpose. You have to think about these variants in the context of this crime, where they have to keep the emergency going to keep their products on the market.
You would think this emergency would stop maybe when we get to herd immunity, maybe if we get 90% vaccination uptake, maybe COVID is just going to go away, like smallpox did in the early 1900s [even though] only 5% of people were vaccinated. [But it won’t] go away [until] the shots get full approval and the manufacturers get a full liability shield.”
Comirnaty’s Quasi Approval
With regard to Comirnaty, is it or is it not fully approved and licensed? The answer is more complex than a simple yes or no. Mayer explains:
“Comirnaty’s quasi approval is just for BioNTech. It doesn’t have to do with Pfizer, and this is why I’m doing this presentation because I’m going to explain what’s going on with that.
This is the race to get liability protection. Remember, that’s the other stranglehold that they want. They really want to get this liability protection. Once the COVID shots are fully approved, the manufacturer has full liability.
There’s all this confusion about Comirnaty. Was it fully approved? Is it on the market? Is it interchangeable with the Pfizer shot? And does it make the COVID shot mandate legal? It’s all the same answer. No, no, no, no.
The FDA issued an intentionally confusing biological license application approval for Comirnaty. It was an unprecedented approval to both license the Comirnaty shot, saying it’s ‘interchangeable’ with the Pfizer shot. But they also said it’s ‘legally distinct.’
In that same approval, they retain the vaccine’s liability shield by designating it EUA as well. They want it to be fully approved, but they want the liability protection, so they did this BS dual approval.
So, [Comirnaty] is licensed to be manufactured, introduced into state commerce and marketed, but it’s not licensed to be given to anyone, and it’s not available in the United States. It’s available in the U.K., New Zealand and other places, but it is not available in the United States because they’re really scared of liability.
Now, are you ready for this one? The BLA actually states that Comirnaty is only ‘ready for approval.’5 It doesn’t say it’s approved anywhere in the document. And they buried this language in a pediatric section to confuse people even more.
Here’s what they said; ‘We’re deferring submission of your pediatric studies for ages younger than 16. For this application, because this product is ready for approval for use in individuals 16 years of age and older, as pediatric studies for younger ages have not been completed.’
Why did they do this? Sixteen is a very important number. You would think the age break would be 18. That’s a very typical age break for everything else that we do in this country. Why 16?
The reason they did 16 is because 16- and 17-year-olds are still on the children’s vaccination schedule. And then the manufacturer gets full liability protection. That’s why this is ready to be approved for 16 and up, not 18 and up.”
Comirnaty Is Not Fully Licensed
This confusion is clearly intentional. On the one hand, the FDA claims Comirnaty is interchangeable with the Pfizer shot, yet it’s also legally distinct. Courts have had to weigh in on the matter, and a federal judge recently rejected the DoD claim that the two shots are interchangeable. They’re not interchangeable. That means Comirnaty vaccine is still EUA. It doesn’t have full approval and it’s not on the market.
“Military members involved in lawsuits are challenging the military’s COVID vaccine mandate. They filed an amended complaint seeking a new injunction after the judge last month rejected the assertion that the Pfizer COVID shot and BioNTech’s Comirnaty are interchangeable. So, we’re still hammering on this legally, but a court has ruled that they’re not interchangeable.
[Editor’s note: This information is accurate at the time of the interview, but legal challenges are ongoing and courts may issue new rulings. December 22, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court announced6 it has slated January 7, 2022, to hear arguments challenging Biden’s vaccine and testing mandates.]
So, how do we know that Comirnaty is not being treated as fully approved? First, the approval states you have the right to accept or refuse the product. That means it’s an EUA. Second, it’s not available in the U.S. because Comirnaty doesn’t have liability protection. Third, if it were available, it’s an alternative [treatment] and all other EUA shots would have to come off the market.
No. 4, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) would have to recommend it for ages 16 to 18 and the CDC would have added it to the children’s recommended schedule. That’s how we know it’s not fully approved and on the market.
Here is the label for Comirnaty. It says it’s emergency use authorization. It doesn’t say it’s fully approved, because it’s not. But look at the safety information they are recognizing: Myocarditis and pericarditis have occurred in some people who’ve received the vaccine, more commonly in males under 40 years of age than among females and older males.
So, this is saying that young men are getting heart inflammation. And what we know from all the anecdotal reports is 300 athletes have died or collapsed on the field, and children in schools have died of heart attacks. That’s what’s going on here.
And the reason they have to declare this is because they know it. They know it’s happening. And the only way they can be sued is if they know there’s a problem with their vaccine and they don’t declare it. So, they declare it here, in very mild language as if it’s not that big of a deal, but it’s a very big deal. Young people are dying [from the shots] who have a 99.9973% chance of recovering from COVID …
The holy grail is to get the shot on the CDC recommended schedule for children, because then it gets full liability protection according to the 1986 Act. This is why they’re going after our children when they have a 99.9973% recovery rate …
Every medical intervention is a risk benefit equation, and it doesn’t calculate for kids at all. They should never be getting COVID shots. The shots don’t prevent transmission. They don’t prevent cases. They don’t prevent hospitalization or death.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Notes
2 Biotech Law December 22, 2003
January 10th, 2022 by Medea Benjamin
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
The Pentagon has finally published its first Airpower Summary since President Biden took office nearly a year ago. These monthly reports have been published since 2007 to document the number of bombs and missiles dropped by U.S.-led air forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria since 2004. But President Trump stopped publishing them after February 2020, shrouding continued U.S. bombing in secrecy.
Over the past 20 years, as documented in the table below, U.S. and allied air forces have dropped over 337,000 bombs and missiles on other countries. That is an average of 46 strikes per day for 20 years. This endless bombardment has not only been deadly and devastating for its victims but is broadly recognized as seriously undermining international peace and security and diminishing America’s standing in the world.
The U.S. government and political establishment have been remarkably successful at keeping the American public in the dark about the horrific consequences of these long-term campaigns of mass destruction, allowing them to maintain the illusion of U.S. militarism as a force for good in the world in their domestic political rhetoric.
Now, even in the face of the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan, they are doubling down on their success at selling this counterfactual narrative to the American public to reignite their old Cold War with Russia and China, dramatically and predictably increasing the risk of nuclear war.
The new Airpower Summary data reveal that the United States has dropped another 3,246 bombs and missiles on Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria (2,068 under Trump and 1,178 under Biden) since February 2020.
The good news is that U.S. bombing of those 3 countries has significantly decreased from the over 12,000 bombs and missiles it dropped on them in 2019. In fact, since the withdrawal of U.S. occupation forces from Afghanistan in August, the U.S. military has officially conducted no air strikes there, and only dropped 13 bombs or missiles on Iraq and Syria – although this does not preclude additional unreported strikes by forces under CIA command or control.
Presidents Trump and Biden both deserve credit for recognizing that endless bombing and occupation could not deliver victory in Afghanistan. The speed with which the U.S.-installed government fell to the Taliban once the U.S. withdrawal was under way confirmed how 20 years of hostile military occupation, aerial bombardment and support for corrupt governments ultimately served only to drive the war-weary people of Afghanistan back to Taliban rule.
Biden’s callous decision to follow 20 years of colonial occupation and aerial bombardment in Afghanistan with the same kind of brutal economic siege warfare the United States has inflicted on Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela can only further discredit America in the eyes of the world.
There has been no accountability for these 20 years of senseless destruction. Even with the publication of Airpower Summaries, the ugly reality of U.S. bombing wars and the mass casualties they inflict remain largely hidden from the American people.
How many of the 3,246 attacks documented in the Airpower Summary since February 2020 were you aware of before reading this article? You probably heard about the drone strike that killed 10 Afghan civilians in Kabul in August 2021. But what about the other 3,245 bombs and missiles? Whom did they kill or maim, and whose homes did they destroy?
The December 2021 New York Times exposé of the consequences of U.S. airstrikes, the result of a five-year investigation, was stunning not only for the high civilian casualties and military lies it exposed, but also because it revealed just how little investigative reporting the U.S. media have done on these two decades of war.
In America’s industrialized, remote-control air wars, even the U.S. military personnel most directly and intimately involved are shielded from human contact with the people whose lives they are destroying, while for most of the American public, it is as if these hundreds of thousands of deadly explosions never even happened.
The lack of public awareness of U.S. airstrikes is not the result of a lack of concern for the mass destruction our government commits in our names. In the rare cases we find out about, like the murderous drone strike in Kabul in August, the public wants to know what happened and strongly supports U.S. accountability for civilian deaths.
So public ignorance of 99% of U.S. air strikes and their consequences is not the result of public apathy, but of deliberate decisions by the U.S. military, politicians of both parties and corporate media to keep the public in the dark. The largely unremarked 21-month-long suppression of monthly Airpower Summaries is only the latest example of this.
Now that the new Airpower Summary has filled in the previously hidden figures for 2020-21, here is the most complete data available on 20 years of deadly and destructive U.S. and allied air strikes.
Numbers of bombs and missiles dropped on other countries by the United States and its allies since 2001:
Iraq (& Syria*) | Afghanistan | Yemen | Other Countries** | |
2001 | 214 | 17,500 | ||
2002 | 252 | 6,500 | 1 | |
2003 | 29,200 | |||
2004 | 285 | 86 | 1 (Pk) | |
2005 | 404 | 176 | 3 (Pk) | |
2006 | 310 | 2,644 | 7,002 (Le,Pk) | |
2007 | 1,708 | 5,198 | 9 (Pk,S) | |
2008 | 1,075 | 5,215 | 40 (Pk,S) | |
2009 | 126 | 4,184 | 3 | 5,554 (Pk,Pl) |
2010 | 8 | 5,126 | 2 | 128 (Pk) |
2011 | 4 | 5,411 | 13 | 7,763 (Li,Pk,S) |
2012 | 4,083 | 41 | 54 (Li, Pk,S) | |
2013 | 2,758 | 22 | 32 (Li,Pk,S) | |
2014 | 6,292* | 2,365 | 20 | 5,058 (Li,Pl,Pk,S) |
2015 | 28,696* | 947 | 14,191 | 28 (Li,Pk,S) |
2016 | 30,743* | 1,337 | 14,549 | 529 (Li,Pk,S) |
2017 | 39,577* | 4,361 | 15,969 | 301 (Li,Pk,S) |
2018 | 8,713* | 7,362 | 9,746 | 84 (Li,Pk,S) |
2019 | 4,729* | 7,423 | 3,045 | 65 (Li,S) |
2020 | 1,188* | 1,631 | 7,622 | 54 (S) |
2021 | 554* | 801 | 4,428 | 1,512 (Pl,S) |
Total |
154, 078* |
85,108 |
69,652 |
28,217 |
Grand Total = 337,055 bombs and missiles.
**Other Countries: Lebanon, Libya, Pakistan, Palestine, Somalia.
These figures are based on U.S. Airpower Summaries for Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria; the Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s count of drone strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen; the Yemen Data Project‘s count of bombs and missiles dropped on Yemen (only through September 2021); the New America Foundation’s database of foreign air strikes in Libya; and other sources.
There are several categories of air strikes that are not included in this table, meaning that the true numbers of weapons unleashed are certainly higher. These include:
Helicopter strikes: Military Times published an article in February 2017 titled, “The U.S. military’s stats on deadly air strikes are wrong. Thousands have gone unreported.” The largest pool of air strikes not included in U.S. Airpower Summaries are strikes by attack helicopters. The U.S. Army told the authors its helicopters had conducted 456 otherwise unreported air strikes in Afghanistan in 2016. The authors explained that the non-reporting of helicopter strikes has been consistent throughout the post-9/11 wars, and they still did not know how many missiles were fired in those 456 attacks in Afghanistan in the one year they investigated.
AC-130 gunships: The U.S. military did not destroy the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, in 2015 with bombs or missiles, but with a Lockheed-Boeing AC-130 gunship. These machines of mass destruction, usually manned by U.S. Air Force special operations forces, are designed to circle a target on the ground, pouring howitzer shells and cannon fire into it until it is completely destroyed. The U.S. has used AC-130s in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Syria.
Strafing runs: U.S. Airpower Summaries for 2004-2007 included a note that their tally of “strikes with munitions dropped… does not include 20mm and 30mm cannon or rockets.” But the 30mm cannons on A-10 Warthogs and other ground attack planes are powerful weapons, originally designed to destroy Soviet tanks. A-10s can fire 65 depleted uranium shells per second to blanket an area with deadly and indiscriminate fire. But that does not appear to count as a “weapons release” in U.S. Airpower Summaries.
“Counter-insurgency” and “counter-terrorism” operations in other parts of the world: The United States formed a military coalition with 11 West African countries in 2005, and has built a drone base in Niger, but we have not found any systematic accounting of U.S. and allied air strikes in that region, or in the Philippines, Latin America or elsewhere.
The failure of the U.S. government, politicians and corporate media to honestly inform and educate the American public about the systematic mass destruction wreaked by our country’s armed forces has allowed this carnage to continue largely unremarked and unchecked for 20 years.
It has also left us precariously vulnerable to the revival of an anachronistic, Manichean Cold War narrative that risks even greater catastrophe. In this topsy-turvy, “through the looking glass” narrative, the country actually bombing cities to rubble and waging wars that kill millions of people, presents itself as a well-intentioned force for good in the world. Then it paints countries like China, Russia and Iran, which have understandably strengthened their defenses to deter the United States from attacking them, as threats to the American people and to world peace.
The high-level talks beginning on January 10th in Geneva between the United States and Russia are a critical opportunity, maybe even a last chance, to rein in the escalation of the current Cold War before this breakdown in East-West relations becomes irreversible or devolves into a military conflict.
If we are to emerge from this morass of militarism and avoid the risk of an apocalyptic war with Russia or China, the U.S. public must challenge the counterfactual Cold War narrative that U.S. military and civilian leaders are peddling to justify their ever-increasing investments in nuclear weapons and the U.S. war machine.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.
They are regular contributors to Global Research.
January 10th, 2022 by Paul Antonopoulos
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
The first week of 2022 began with protests in Kazakhstan over rising LPG prices. The protests quickly devolved into destruction, killings and a dissolved government. President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev described the violence as “an act of aggression” from the outside and requested assistance from the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). The CSTO peacekeepers arrived in Kazakhstan to protect the country’s infrastructure and conduct counter-terrorism operations, such as arresting or exterminating armed militants. However, despite serving as peacekeepers, the US and Turkey are desperate to undermine the CSTO from performing its duties.
At first, the protests that broke out across Kazakhstan appeared not to be well organized and rather spontaneous. However, just three days later, armed men opened fire on Kazakh police and security forces. At least 164 Kazakhs have been killed, media outlets burned, police departments destroyed, and even airports and hospitals attacked. Western media blamed Kazakh security forces for opening fire on the protesters and started releasing unverified figures from unreliable sources to justify criticism of Kazakh authorities, akin to how the so-called Maidan Revolution occurred in Ukraine in early 2014.
The Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan Party and the Oyan Qazaqstan Party led the protests, and unsurprisingly are the two most pronounced pro-Western and anti-Russian political organizations in the country. As the ruling government has failed to find a policy of compromise between different political groups, outside forces have taken advantage of this situation to incite riots.
It is also worth noting that even within the ruling Kazakh government, anti-Russian ideology has begun to appear at the highest level. Over the past two years, Prime Minister Askar Mamin has become closer to ultranationalist forces and pro-Western opposition groups with anti-Russian sentiments. This factor is also a reason why Tokayev demanded the resignation of Mamin and the election of First Deputy Prime Minister Alikhan Smailov instead.
On the basis of the country’s constitution and laws, as well as its commitments to rights and responsibilities within CSTO, Kazakhstan had the right to call for intervention from the Russian-led bloc, especially when remembering that violence became so brutal that a police officer was beheaded. The CSTO mission prevents Kazakhstan from the tragic situation that befell Ukraine in 2014.
The Central Asian country’s security and defense apparatus needs to be rearranged to be more readily prepared for future color revolution attempts and external interference. Moscow too would be concerned about the arrival of color revolutions in Central Asia, a region where Turkey is also making inroads to impose its own influence.
“We hope that Kazakhstan will reach stability, peace and tranquility as soon as possible. For this, as Turkey and the Organization of Turkic States, we will give all kinds of support,” Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said at a meeting held by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) on January 9. “The problems of the member countries of the Turkic world are our problems. The whole world has seen it during the Karabakh victory [of Azerbaijan against Armenia].”
The 2020 Karabakh War was an emboldened attempt by Turkey to expand its influence in the South Caucasus, ultimately at Moscow’s expense, but something that was averted with much frustration in Ankara due to the presence of Russian peacekeepers. In this way, Çavuşoğlu is effectively announcing that Turkey is willing to once again act brazenly within Russia’s traditional sphere of influence without consulting Moscow. Ankara hopes that the Organization of Turkic States will become the main mechanism for Central Asian and South Caucasian issues to be discussed and resolved, thus supplanting not only CSTO, but also the Russia-led Commonwealth of Independent States, in which again Kazakhstan is a founding member.
Meanwhile, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki curiously said at press conference on January 6, despite no journalist asking the question, that the US had nothing to do with the events in Kazakhstan, without failing to mention Russia of course.
“There are some crazy Russian claims about the US being behind this. Let me just use this opportunity to convey that as absolutely false, and clearly a part of the standard Russian disinformation playbook,” she said.
The next day, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said: “I think one lesson in recent history is that once Russians are in your house, it’s sometimes very difficult to get them to leave.” He also questioned Kazakhstan’s request for CSTO peacekeepers.
As the US opposes the deployment of CSTO peacekeepers and Ankara continues its attempts to increase its influence in Central Asia by pushing for the utilization of the Organization of Turkic States to resolve the Kazakhstan issue, Russia is once again being challenged by NATO states in its own neighbhorhood. This comes as the West and Turkey are also supporting Ukraine to varying degrees against Russia in a similar manner, demonstrating the broad pressure Moscow is facing.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.
Featured image is from InfoBrics
January 10th, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
The European situation at NATO looks increasingly complicated. The gradual distancing of interests between the European Union and the US is evident, now materialized in the exclusion of European governments from the Summit between Washington and Moscow, scheduled for this month of January. Apparently, Washington is taking a rigid stance on the EU’s role in NATO and excluding Europeans from a prominent position in current international negotiations – probably due to the absence of a solid and unified foreign policy among European states.
Talks between Russians and Americans about the Ukrainian situation are generating great expectations around the world. Significant changes can come from this event, which promises to be an initial step for Washington and Moscow to start on a path of peace and cooperation in Eastern Europe. However, a curious fact that has generated great controversy is the absence of the EU in this summit. Considering the European importance in the composition of NATO’s military personnel and the fact that most of the member states of the alliance are on the European continent, it would be minimally reasonable to include European leaders in this type of event. But, in the complete opposite direction, Washington banned the European presence and decided to negotiate alone with Russia, which leaves many questions unanswered.
Around the world, several analysts have been struggling to explain the reasons for not including Europeans in these talks. The most widely accepted thesis so far is that the US made such a decision because the EU is supposed to have little influence on international policy. According to a recent Financial Times article, where anonymous sources are cited, the European bloc tends to be marginalized by the US with regard to the NATO-Russia topic because it does not have a strong and unified internal policy, being weak in its international projection, vulnerable to various internal polarizations and divisions.
In that article, it is argued that the EU has so far failed to establish a set of efficient measures to deal with the Ukrainian situation, failing to find joint responses with the US and NATO to the supposed “Russian threat”. Washington has warned of such a “threat” for months, but European efforts in order to confront it have been minimal, creating great friction within the Western world.
Indeed, this kind of stance on the part of the EU is understandable. There is no reason for the bloc to join the anti-Russian paranoia spread by the US about the Ukrainian case. The narrative about the “Russian invasion plan” is so weak and unsubstantiated that it is hard to believe that any government – other than Ukraine itself – is really taking it seriously. Europeans, when dealing with this type of discourse, act rationally: the narrative is endorsed, but there is no desperation or urgency to create a countermeasure plan, as it is evident that such an invasion will not happen. Anti-Russian paranoia and the rush to create defense plans are of interest only to the US and Ukraine. Europe’s role in this scenario is only to deliberate about peace to be maintained on the European continent, but there are no rational justifications for the EU to join any paranoia.
However, the exclusion was received disappointingly among Europeans. The bloc would like to participate in negotiations and to deliberate with Russians and Americans on the future of security in the eastern portion of the continent, which will not be possible due to Washington’s intransigent position. The EU repeatedly asked the US for permission to participate in the negotiations, but it was rejected without any possibility of dialogue, generating great discomfort. For the EU, the worst case scenario would be to become a mere spectator of the changes taking place within the European continent itself – and this is precisely what is about to happen.
What Washington still does not seem to understand is that this kind of attitude just tends to drive more and more Europeans away from NATO, creating internal dissension, friction, and polarization in the Western military alliance. Reacting to the American boycott, some EU members chose to contact Moscow directly in order to form a bilateral dialogue. Jens Plötner, German foreign policy adviser, and Emmanuel Bonne, Macron’s diplomatic adviser, will arrive in Moscow later this week to meet with some Russian officials. Then both will travel to Ukraine. Clearly, an internal parallel diplomacy is being developed within NATO, with the two main European powers negotiating with Russia directly, without US permission.
The consequences of this scenario remain to be known. It is possible that the terms negotiated with the Russians diverge between Europeans and Americans, considering that the EU and the US have notoriously different international projects. On the other hand, it is also possible that there is a general consensus among Western countries on the Ukrainian case. However, one effect is evident and cannot be denied: NATO is increasingly polarized, and it is no longer possible to speak about a true US-EU alliance.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
January 10th, 2022 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.
***
First published on November 23, 2021
“The PCR is a Process. It does not tell you that you are sick”.
Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and Inventor of the RT-PCR, passed away in August 2019.
“…All or a substantial part of these positives could be due to what’s called false positives tests.”
Dr. Michael Yeadon: former Vice President and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer
This misuse of the RT-PCR technique is applied as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, … under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients.
.Dr. Pascal Sacré, Belgian physician specialized in critical care and renowned public health analyst.
To read PART I of this article click link below
The Covid-19 Pandemic Does Not Exist
By
, November 15, 2021***
Media lies coupled with a systemic and carefully engineered fear campaign have sustained the image of a killer virus which is relentlessly spreading to all major regions of the World.
Several billion people in more than 190 countries have been tested (as well as retested) for Covid-19.
At the time of writing, approximately 260 million people Worldwide have been categorized as “confirmed Covid-19 cases”. The alleged pandemic is said to have resulted in more than 5 million Covid-19 related deaths.
Both sets of figures: morbidity and mortality are invalid. A highly organized Covid testing apparatus (part of which is funded by the billionaire foundations) has been established with a view to driving up the numbers of “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases”, which are then used as a justification to impose the “vaccine” passport coupled with the repeal of fundamental human rights.
A so-called “Global Tracker System” has been established with an interactive map pointing to global as well as country level trends and weekly tendencies.
A Fourth Wave has been announced. Invalid figures pertaining to Covid-19 are routinely plastered on the news tabloids.
Meanwhile, both the media and the governments have turned a blind eye to the rising trend of Covid-19 vaccine deaths and adverse events, which are confirmed by “official” government agencies. (See below)
TOTAL for EU/UK/USA
45,250 Covid-19 injection related deaths, 7,418,980 injuries
EudraVigilance Database, MHRA Yellow Card Scheme. VAERS database.
The slanted methodology applied under WHO guidance for detecting the alleged spread of the virus is the Polymerase Chain Reaction Test (RT-PCR), which is routinely applied all over the World.
The RT-PCR Test has been used Worldwide to generate millions of erroneous “Confirmed Covid-19 cases”, which are then used to sustain the illusion that the alleged pandemic is Real.
This assessment based on erroneous numbers has been used in the course of the last 20 months to spearhead and sustain the fear campaign.
And people are now led to believe that the Covid-19 “vaccine” is the “solution”. And that “normality” will be restored once the entire population of Planet Earth has been vaccinated.
“Confirmed” is a misnomer: A “Confirmed RT-PCR Positive Case” does not Imply a “Confirmed Covid-19 Case”.
Positive RT-PCR is not synonymous with COVID-19 disease! PCR specialists make it clear that a test must always be compared with the clinical record of the patient being tested, with the patient’s state of health to confirm its value [reliability] (Dr. Pascal Sacré)
The procedure used by the national health authorities is to categorize all RT-PCR positive cases, as “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases” (with or without a medical diagnosis). Ironically, this routine process of identifying “confirmed cases” . is in derogation of the CDC’s own guidelines:
“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” (emphasis added)
In this article we will present detailed evidence that the methodology used to detect and estimate the spread of the virus is flawed and invalid.
The earlier debate at the outset of the crisis focused on the issue of “False Positives”.
Acknowledged by the WHO and the CDC, the RT-PCR Test was known to produce a high percentage of false positives. According to Dr. Pascal Sacré:
“Today, as authorities test more people, there are bound to be more positive RT-PCR tests. This does not mean that COVID-19 is coming back, or that the epidemic is moving in waves. There are more people being tested, that’s all.”
The debate on false positives (acknowledged by the health authorities) points to so-called errors without necessarily questioning the overall validity of the RT-PCR test as a means to detecting the alleged spread of the CoV-SARS-2 virus.
The RT-PCR test does not identify/ detect the virus. What the PCR test identifies are genetic fragments of numerous viruses (including influenza viruses types A and B, and coronaviruses which trigger common colds).
The results of the TR-PCR test cannot “confirm” whether an individual who undertakes the test is infected with Covid-19.
According to Dr. Kary Mullis, inventor of the PCR technique: “The PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself.”According to renowned Swiss immunologist Dr B. Stadler
So if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left. Even if the infectious viri are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected].
Dr. Pascal Sacré concurs: “These tests detect viral particles, genetic sequences, not the whole virus.”
In an attempt to quantify the viral load, these sequences are then amplified several times through numerous complex steps that are subject to errors, sterility errors and contamination.
Two important and related issues.
The PCR Test does not identify the virus as outlined above. Moreover, the WHO in January 2020, did not possess an isolate and purified sample of the novel 2019-nCov virus.
What was contemplated in January 2020 was a “customization”of the PCR test by the WHO, under the scientific guidance of the Berlin Virology Institute at Charité Hospital.
Dr. Christian Drosten, and his colleagues of the Berlin Virology Institute undertook a study entitled, “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR”.
The title of the Berlin Virology Institute Study is an obvious misnomer. The PCR test cannot “detect” the 2019 novel coronavirus. (See Dr. Kary Mullis, Dr. B. Stadler, Dr. Pascal Sacré quoted in Section 2).
Moreover, the study, published by Eurosurveillance acknowledges that the WHO did not possess an isolate and purified sample of the novel 2019-nCov virus:
[While]… several viral genome sequences had been released,… virus isolates or samples [of 2019-nCoV] from infected patients were not available …”
The Drosten et al team then recommended to the WHO, that in the absence of an isolate of the 2019-nCoV virus, a similar 2003-SARS-CoV should be used as a “proxy” of the novel virus:
“The genome sequences suggest presence of a virus closely related to the members of a viral species termed severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-related CoV, a species defined by the agent of the 2002/03 outbreak of SARS in humans [3,4].
We report on the the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation [using the RT-PCR test], designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.” (Eurosurveillance, January 23, 2020, emphasis added).
What this ambiguous statement suggests is that the identity of 2019-nCoV was not required and that “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases” (aka infection resulting from the novel 2019 coronavirus) would be validated by “the close genetic relatedness to the 2003-SARS-CoV.”
What this means is that a coronavirus detected 19 years ago (2003-SARS-CoV) is being used to “validate” the identity of a so-called “novel coronavirus” first detected in China’s Hubei Province in late December 2019.
The recommendations of the Drosten study (generously supported and financed by the Gates Foundation) were then transmitted to the WHO. They were subsequently endorsed by the Director General of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom.
The WHO did not have in its possession the “virus isolate” required to identify the virus. It was decided that an isolate of the new coronavirus was not required.
The Drosten et al article pertaining to the use of the RT-PCR test Worldwide (under WHO guidance) was challenged in a November 27, 2020 study by a group of 23 international virologists, microbiologists et al.
It stands to reason that if the PCR test uses the 2003 SARS- CoV virus as “a point of reference”, there can be no “confirmed” Covid-19 cases resulting from the novel virus 2019-nCoV, subsequently renamed SARS-CoV-2.
While the WHO did not possess an isolate of the virus, is there valid and reliable evidence that the 2019 novel coronavirus had been isolated from an “unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient”?
The Chinese authorities announced on January 7, 2020 that “a new type of virus” had been “identified” “similar to the one associated with SARS and MERS” (related report, not original Chinese government source). The underlying method adopted by the Chinese research team is described below:
We prospectively collected and analysed data on patients with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection by real-time RT-PCR and next-generation sequencing.
Data were obtained with standardised data collection forms shared by WHO and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium from electronic medical records. (emphasis added)
The above study (quotation above as well as other documents consulted ) suggest that China’s health authorities did not undertake an isolation / purification of a patient’s specimen.
Using “laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection by real-time RT-PCR” is an obvious misnomer, i.e. the RT-PCR test cannot under any circumstances be used to identify the virus. (see section 2 above). The isolate of the virus by the Chinese authorities is unconfirmed.
Freedom of Information Pertaining to the Isolate of SARS-CoV-2
A detailed investigative project by Christine Massey, entitled: Freedom of Information Requests: Health/ Science Institutions Worldwide “Have No Record” of SARS-COV-2 Isolation/Purification provides documentation concerning the identity of the virus.
Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were addressed to ninety Health /Science institutions in a large number of countries.
The responses to these requests confirm that there is no record of isolation / purification of SARS-CoV-2 “having been performed by anyone, anywhere, ever.”
“The 90 Health /Science institutions that have responded thus far have provided and/or cited, in total, zero such records:
Our requests [under “freedom of information”] have not been limited to records of isolation performed by the respective institution, or limited to records authored by the respective institution, rather they were open to any records describing “COVID-19 virus” (aka “SARS-COV-2”) isolation/purification performed by anyone, ever, anywhere on the planet.”
See also: 90 Health/Science Institutions Globally All Failed to Cite Even 1 Record of “SARS-COV-2” Purification, by Anyone, Anywhere, Ever, By , August 04, 2021
The rRT-PCR test was adopted by the WHO on January 23, 2020 as a means to detecting the SARS-COV-2 virus, following the recommendations of the Berlin Virology research group (quoted above).
Exactly one year later on January 20th, 2021, the WHO retracts. They don’t say “We Made a Mistake”. The retraction is carefully formulated. (See original WHO document here)
Below are selected excerpts from my article entitled: The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis
The contentious issue pertains to the number of amplification threshold cycles (Ct). According to Pieter Borger, et al
The number of amplification cycles [should be] less than 35; preferably 25-30 cycles. In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture…(Critique of Drosten Study)
The World Health Organization (WHO) tacitly admits one year later that ALL PCR tests conducted at a 35 cycle amplification threshold (Ct) or higher are INVALID. But that is what they recommended in January 2020, in consultation with the virology team at Charité Hospital in Berlin.
If the test is conducted at a 35 Ct threshold or above (which was recommended by the WHO), genetic segments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus cannot be detected, which means that ALL the so-called “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases” tabulated Worldwide in the course of the last 22 months are invalid.
According to Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, et al, the Ct > 35 has been the norm “in most laboratories in Europe & the US”.
The WHO’s Mea Culpa
Below is the WHO’s carefully formulated “Retraction”.
“WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology. (emphasis added)
WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.”
“Invalid Positives” is the Underlying Concept
This is not an issue of “Weak Positives” and “Risk of False Positive Increases”. What is at stake is a “Flawed Methodology” which leads to invalid estimates of “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases”.
What this admission of the WHO confirms is that the estimate of covid positive from a PCR test (with an amplification threshold of 35 cycles or higher) is invalid. In which case, the WHO recommends retesting: “a new specimen should be taken and retested…”.
The WHO calls for “Retesting”, which is tantamount to saying “We Screwed Up”.
That recommendation is pro-forma. It won’t happen. Several billion people Worldwide have already been tested, starting in early February 2020. Nonetheless, we must conclude that unless retested, those estimates (according to the WHO) are invalid.
From the outset, the PCR test has routinely been applied at a Ct amplification threshold of 35 or higher, following the January 2020 recommendations of the WHO. What this means is that the PCR methodology as applied Worldwide has in the course of the last 20 months led to the compilation of faulty and misleading Covid statistics.
And these are the statistics which are used to measure the progression of the so-called “pandemic”. Above an amplification cycle of 35 or higher, the test will not detect fragments of the virus. Therefore, the official “covid numbers” (Confirmed Covid-19 Cases) are meaningless.
It follows that there is no scientific basis for confirming the existence of a pandemic.
Which in turn means that the lockdown / economic measures which have resulted in social panic, mass poverty and unemployment (allegedly to curtail the spread of the virus) have no justification whatsoever.
According to scientific opinion:
“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97% (Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, Clare Craig, Kevin McKernan, et al, Critique of Drosten Study)
As outlined above, “the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%”: It follows that using the >35 cycles detection will indelibly contribute to “hiking up” the number of “fake positives”.
The WHO’ Mea Culpa confirms that the Covid-19 PCR test procedure as applied is invalid.
In 2009 a H1N1 pandemic allegedly affecting 2 billion people was carried out by the WHO.
Corruption at the highest levels of the WHO: Several critics including Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg confirmed that the H1N1 Pandemic was “Fake”
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO’s motives in declaring a pandemic. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg, has declared that the “false pandemic” is “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.” (Michael Fomento, Forbes, February 10, 2010)
In retrospect, the COVID-19 “pandemic” is far more serious and diabolical than the 2009 H1N1.
See Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg incisive and carefully documented analysis of the RT-PCR test as applied by the WHO in relation to Covid-19.
The RT-PCR Test is the Smoking Gun. It invalidates Everything.
There is no such thing as a “Confirmed Covid-19 Case”. The entire data bank is invalid.
At the time of writing, the number of tabulated so-called “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases” is of the order of 260 million Worldwide. These numbers are totally meaningless.
None of this data can be categorized as “Confirmed”.
The PCR Test does not identify the novel virus, and the genetic fragments of a so-called “similar” 2003 coronavirus (SARS-1) cannot be used as a means to identify the virus which causes Covid-19, nor can it be used to identify the deadly variants of the 2019 novel coronavirus.
Moreover, according to the Freedom of Information (FOI) study quoted above, the isolate of the novel coronavirus is unconfirmed.
Sustained by a complexity of lies, the covid-19 narrative is extremely fragile. This consensus relies on fake science and a totally invalid data bank of alleged “confirmed Covid-19 cases”.
There is no pandemic.
And in the absence of a Covid-19 pandemic, there is no scientific justification for implementing the Covid-19 “Vaccine” which has resulted in a Worldwide trend of deaths and injuries:
How did Big Pharma manage to develop a vaccine (sponsored by the WHO, GAVI, the Gates Foundation, et al) with a mandate “to protect people” against a virus which has not been isolated/ purified from an “unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient”?
Vaccine in relation to What? The virus has not been identified.
Moreover, 2019 SARS-CoV-2 has been categorized as similar to the 2003 SARS-CoV which means that the 2019 SARS-CoV-2 is not a novel virus.
The legitimacy of the Covid vaccine project hinges upon the validity of hundreds of thousands of RT-PCR fake positive cases Worldwide combined with fake Covid related mortality data. ( See Michel Chossudovsky, Does the Virus Exist)
What lies ahead?
National governments have announced a Fifth Wave, focussing on the alleged “deadly variants” of SARS-CoV-2, including the Delta variant.
The variant is a scam. How do they identify the “variants”. The PCR test neither detects the virus nor the variants of the virus.
There is no isolate of the novel coronavirus on record. Moreover, the WHO’s “customized” PCR test uses as a proxy a similar 2003 SARS-CoV virus (which no doubt has mutated extensively over the last 19 years).
“Restrictions would have to be reintroduced”. … the Delta variant poses a “higher risk of hospitalisations”
These announcements are intended to justify a continuation of repressive policy measures, the speeding up of the vaccination program, as well as the repression of the protest movement.
There is no Pandemic. The Endgame is Tyranny.
The Pandemic is being used to Impose a New World Order.
When the Lie Becomes the Truth, There is No Moving Backwards.
The first Step is to Dismantle the Propaganda Apparatus.
The Elite’s Covid Consensus is Extremely Fragile.
There is no Pandemic. They Do not have a Leg to Stand on.
That Consensus must be broken.
***
See Michel Chossudovsky’s E-Book (13 Chapters) entitled
See also
Does the Virus Exist? SARS-CoV-2 Has Not Been Isolated? “Biggest Fraud in Medical History”
About the Author
Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.
He has undertaken field research in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific and has written extensively on the economies of developing countries with a focus on poverty and social inequality. He has also undertaken research in Health Economics (UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), UNFPA, CIDA, WHO, Government of Venezuela, John Hopkins International Journal of Health Services (1979, 1983)
He is the author of twelve books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005), The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015).
He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia. He can be reached at [email protected]
January 10th, 2022 by Margaret Menge
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
The head of Indianapolis-based insurance company OneAmerica said the death rate is up a stunning 40% from pre-pandemic levels among working-age people.
“We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica,” the company’s CEO Scott Davison said during an online news conference this week. “The data is consistent across every player in that business.”
OneAmerica is a $100 billion insurance company that has had its headquarters in Indianapolis since 1877. The company has approximately 2,400 employees and sells life insurance, including group life insurance to employers nationwide.
“And what we saw just in third quarter, we’re seeing it continue into fourth quarter, is that death rates are up 40% over what they were pre-pandemic,” he said.
“Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.”
Davison was one of several business leaders who spoke during the virtual news conference on Dec. 30 that was organized by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce.
Most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths, Davison said.
“What the data is showing to us is that the deaths that are being reported as COVID deaths greatly understate the actual death losses among working-age people from the pandemic. It may not all be COVID on their death certificate, but deaths are up just huge, huge numbers.”
He said at the same time, the company is seeing an “uptick” in disability claims, saying at first it was short-term disability claims, and now the increase is in long-term disability claims.
“For OneAmerica, we expect the costs of this are going to be well over $100 million, and this is our smallest business. So it’s having a huge impact on that,” he said.
That $100 million is what OneAmerica will have paid out to policyholders in group life insurance and disability claims, the company said.
Davison said the costs will be passed on to employers purchasing group life insurance policies, who will have to pay higher premiums.
The CDC weekly death counts, which reflect the information on death certificates and so have a lag of up to eight weeks or longer, show that for the week ending Nov. 6, there were far fewer deaths from COVID-19 in Indiana compared to a year ago – 195 verses 336 – but more deaths from other causes – 1,350 versus 1,319.
These deaths were for people of all ages, however, while the information referenced by Davison was for working-age people who are employees of businesses with group life insurance policies.
At the same news conference where Davison spoke, Brian Tabor, the president of the Indiana Hospital Association, said that hospitals across the state are being flooded with patients “with many different conditions,” saying “unfortunately, the average Hoosiers’ health has declined during the pandemic.”
In a follow-up call, he said he did not have a breakdown showing why so many people in the state are being hospitalized – for what conditions or ailments. But he said the extraordinarily high death rate quoted by Davison matched what hospitals in the state are seeing.
“What it confirmed for me is it bore out what we’re seeing on the front end,…” he said.
The number of hospitalizations in the state is now higher than before the COVID-19 vaccine was introduced a year ago, and in fact is higher than it’s been in the past five years, Dr. Lindsay Weaver, Indiana’s chief medical officer, said at a news conference with Gov. Eric Holcomb on Wednesday.
Just 8.9% of ICU beds are available at hospitals in the state, a low for the year, and lower than at any time during the pandemic. But the majority of ICU beds are not taken up by COVID-19 patients – just 37% are, while 54% of the ICU beds are being occupied by people with other illnesses or conditions.
The state’s online dashboard shows that the moving average of daily deaths from COVID-19 is less than half of what it was a year ago. At the pandemic’s peak a year ago, 125 people died on one day – on Dec. 29, 2020. In the last three months, the highest number of deaths in one day was 58, on Dec. 13.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from Shutterstock
January 10th, 2022 by Global Research News
By
, January 09, 2022Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul correctly identified President Putin’s fears of NATO’s ongoing encroachment in a December 21 tweet, but was McFaul correct to dismiss these concerns as the crazy ravings of a paranoid Russian dictator with no bearing in reality? Or is there something to Putin’s fears?
By
, January 09, 2022Trump was intent upon “normalizing” relations with Russia. That initiative was shunted by RussiaGate, the objective of which from the very outset of the 2016 election campaign was to discredit Donald Trump: “….presenting him as a Manchurian candidate serving the interests of the Kremlin. The end game was Regime Change in America”.
Video: The Corona Crisis: Is the Tide Turning? Reiner Fuellmich on Nuremberg 2.0
By
, January 09, 2022Dr. Fuellmich expressed so much hope, and with his explanations on how far the work of his Corona Investigative Committee has come, he expects that about 30% of the population are already awake, can no longer be fooled, and another 40% are in the process of waking up – demonstrating throughout Europe, what has so far been mostly hidden by the mainstream media, but cannot much longer be silenced.
Pills Equipped with Sensors to Digitally Track When and If You Took the Drug Approved by FDA in 2017
By
, January 09, 2022Pills with digital sensors are now the latest controversial technology that has seen itself gain approval from the FDA. The alarming new devices would employ a set of sensors within the chips to track data regarding each patients.
Evidence: No Vials Are Safe, Full Stop: Terminate COVID Injection Program Now
By
, January 09, 2022Recently on this show Dr. Jane Ruby came on and gave us the remarkable information that a huge percentage of side effects tracked in the CDC’s VAERS database are linked to just a small percentage of the vaccine batches produced by Pfizer and Moderna. This data came from a group calling itself Team Enigma.
Kazakhstan and Europe’s Anti-lockdown Protests — A Contrast in Reactions
By
, January 09, 2022On the 2nd of January, the same day as the current disturbances in Kazakhstan began, Dutch police used baton charges and attack dogs against participants of a prohibited anti-lockdown march in Amsterdam, less than seven weeks after police opened fire on anti-lockdown protesters in Rotterdam.
By
, January 09, 2022The upshot of both Blinken’s and Stoltenberg’s statements are that Russia has the choice of capitulating to NATO’s terms and demands regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine (and implicitly the return of Crimea) and NATO’s absorption of any former Soviet republics not already in the bloc or NATO will revert to its role as the military alliance it has been for 73 years: it will employ the military expedient against Russia.
A Look Back at 2021: The Good, the Bad and the Censored.
By
, January 08, 2022This is the first broadcast of the Global Research News Hour. And therefore the topic to discuss will obviously be the BIG stories of the previous year. It seems that by and large it was a turbulent year for stories. Donald Trump’s non-acceptance of defeat in the U.S. election resulting in the ULTIMATE “hell no” event on January 6.
20 Facts about Vaccination Your Doctor Forgot To Tell You
By
, January 08, 2022In the US a group of paediatricians with 30,000 young patients do not vaccinate at all. They have no cases of autism in their practice.
By
, January 08, 2022In this brilliant interview, lawyer Anna de Buisseret explains clearly and eloquently how those responsible for causing harm will be held liable under the law in relation to the experimental injections currently being rolled out, especially to young children.
January 9th, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
“COVID Chronicles” gives a concise look at the pandemic, answering some of the questions that have left many people scratching their heads, because the reality and science don’t seem to match up with what the media is reporting
Every positive COVID-19 test is considered a case, but these are two completely different things, since you can test positive without being ill
When COVID-19 was left to behave in a manner that would allow it to spread amongst the healthy, about two-thirds of the population displayed antibody levels naturally
Mask mandates did not noticeably change the number of cases or deaths the way they should if they actually reduce transmissibility; countries that used minimal masks were not worse off than neighboring countries with mask mandates
It’s important to stay grounded and think critically to avoid falling victim to unnecessary panic and stress
*
The filmmakers of Covid Chronicles are allowing for a FREE special stream until 1/10. CLICK HERE to support this important mission and own the film for life!
***
The “COVID Chronicles” movie1 gives a concise look at the pandemic, answering some of the questions that have left many people scratching their heads, because the reality and science don’t seem to match up with what the media is reporting.
Ivor Cummins is a biochemical engineer with a background in medical device engineering and leading teams in complex problem-solving. On his website, TheFatEmperor.com,2 he offers guidance on how to decode science to transform your health. He produced “COVID Chronicles” along with Donal O’Neill, a documentary filmmaker in the field of health and human performance.
There were red flags in the pandemic from the start. Because the symptoms of COVID-19 overlap with so many other diseases, the only way to know you have it is to test for it.
The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests used for COVID-19 use a powerful amplification process that makes them so sensitive they can even detect the remains of a dead virus long after infection, Cummins explains. But even beyond that, every positive COVID-19 test is considered a “case” — and therein lies a major problem.
A Positive Test Isn’t the Same as a Case
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, an internal medicine doctor and former head of health at the Council of Europe, is among those who referred to the COVID-19 pandemic as a “test pandemic” due to the PCR test.3
“It was accepted by WHO, and they said when the test is positive, we have a case of COVID-19. And this is how they started counting the cases,” Wodarg says. “What they counted was the activity of testing. And the more they tested, the more cases they found.”4 When labs use excessive cycle thresholds, you end up with a grossly overestimated number of positive tests, leading to a “casedemic”5,6 — an epidemic of false positives.
Wodarg says COVID-19 “was a ‘test’ pandemic. It was not a virus pandemic,”7 because PCR tests may give a positive result when it detects coronaviruses that have been around for 20 years.8 In “COVID Chronicles,” Cummins speaks with John Lee, a former clinical professor of pathology at Hull York Medical School and consultant histopathologist at Rotherham General Hospital, who later became the Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust’s director of cancer services.
He echoes Wodarg, stating that during the pandemic, every positive test is considered a case, but “these are two completely different things.”9 Normally, if you have a typical cold, for instance, you only become a “case” if you’re hospitalized, but this all changed with the pandemic. Lee says:10
“In coronavirus, we’ve been counting every single positive test as a positive case. Now this is scientifically and medically wrong. You can have a positive coronavirus test and be completely well. You can have a positive coronavirus test and be excreting minimal amounts of the virus.
To conflate positive tests with cases is simply wrong, and yet the positive cases have been driving government policy and the entire panoply of restrictive actions that have been taken.”
January 13, 2021, “WHO finally questioned the accuracy of PCR testing,” the film notes, and released an information notice that clarified instructions for interpreting results of PCR tests, including the fact that “careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed.”11 “Reported case rates collapsed in the U.S. the following day,” “COVID Chronicles” points out.12
Lockdowns Didn’t Work
Lockdowns can be effective if they’re implemented when no one has the disease, but once it’s already spreading in your population, they don’t work. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the lockdown was implemented far too late and caused much more harm than benefit.
The film highlights COVID-19 outcomes around the globe, including in vastly different regions, like densely-populated Khayelitsha in South Africa. It was originally assumed that COVID-19 would devastate the area. They were strictly locked down along with the rest of South Africa, but due to the dense population, the lockdown in Khayelitsha only served to force people further right on top of one another.
Because the area has a long history of battling diseases like HIV and tuberculosis, it was easy for officials to use data from the area, which quickly showed that those most at risk from COVID-19 were elderly, frail or suffering from other conditions like Type 2 diabetes. What surprised many, however, is that Khayelitsha fared much the same during the pandemic as everywhere else in South Africa.
Further, as the second and third waves struck, those in Khayelitsha were much better protected, even as new variants emerged. It was later found that as many as 68% of local residents had COVID-19 antibodies.13 As noted in “COVID Chronicles”:14
“[A]s Delta cut a swathe across the world and indeed South Africa, it was bigger here than any of the prior waves or the variants that we had seen. But in Khayelitsha, that 68% level of antibodies across the community proved to be extremely powerful and very, very protective, even against the new Delta variant.
So while the U.K. was in complete disarray, here we had an informal settlement in an economically deprived region with a population of half a million outperforming the U.K. and many First World nations … they had not intended … for COVID to spread throughout the community. But in doing so, they arrived at a point where herd immunity, if you like, had been reached.”
Other communities also enjoyed high levels of COVID-19 antibodies in the community, including in India, the Orthodox Jewish community in London and Amish communities in the U.S. So, when this virus was left to behave in a manner that would allow it to spread amongst the healthy, they were typically getting to about two-thirds of the population displaying antibody levels.15
Mask Mandates Didn’t Work
Like lockdowns, mask mandates are another pandemic control measure that’s been pushed as gospel despite lack of effectiveness and evidence of harm. The “Danmask-19 Trial,” published November 18, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine,16 found that among mask wearers 1.8% (42 participants) ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% (53) among controls.
When they removed the people who reported not adhering to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8% (40 people), which suggests adherence makes no significant difference. Initially, numerous research journals refused to publish the results, which called widespread mask mandates into question.17
If masks work, the film points out, you should immediately see a dramatic change in the curve, within 14 days. “If you look at around 10 or 12 countries where they brought in mask mandates, there was no impact on the curve … whatsoever so the empirical science of our own eyes is screaming at us: masks and lockdowns don’t really move the needle much, maybe a little, but no one wants to know. It’s an ideology now. It’s a religion,” Cummins says.18
Dr. Reid Sheftall also studied mask usage extensively and found mask mandates did not noticeably change the number of cases or deaths the way they should if they actually reduce transmissibility. Countries that used minimal masks were not worse off than neighboring countries with mask mandates.19
“That makes sense,” Cummins says, “because 40 years of science have been unanimous, pretty much, that for influenza viruses, surgical masks and coverings are highly ineffective. So it agrees with the science.” Yet, the media claim masks are effective, based on a “flurry of papers” that came in around June 2020 saying masks could be good. “So a few weeks of papers have overturned a few decades of scientific sense,” he adds.20
Injections Aren’t Working
It’s now been uncovered that the viral loads of COVID-19 are similar among people who’ve been injected and those who have not.21 “What kind of a vaccine needs three vaccinations, and a maybe a fourth, and more, within months?” Cummins asks. “The answer is a vaccine that’s not really working very well at all.”22
The media message that the pandemic is now a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” is also misleading, since data from Israel showed that similar numbers of people were being hospitalized for COVID-19, whether they were injected or not.23 Cummins notes:24
“There’s a lot of trickery with the data. The hospitalizations are difficult because you can’t get the raw data, and they’re very confounded data. In one case … the U.S. came out with shock stories that 99% are unvaccinated. However, they were accounting for way back … before the vaccines were available.
So the lion’s share back then were unvaccinated because the vaccines weren’t here yet. So there’s a lot of trickery — I would say fraud — in the way the data’s being presented.”
People who’ve received only one injection of an mRNA series are also referred to as unvaccinated, which further biases the data to again make it look like more uninjected people are being hospitalized. What’s more, the film notes, “In 2021, professor Sir Andrew Pollard, director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, stated that, ‘… herd immunity by vaccination is not a possibility because it [Delta] still infects vaccinated individuals.’”25
Is This a Pandemic of Lifestyle?
Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a consultant cardiologist and chairman of public health collaboration in the U.K., is also featured in “COVID Chronicles,” speaking about the underlying factors that make certain people more vulnerable to COVID-19 — namely lifestyle-related diseases driven by poor diet.
This aspect of prevention via a long-term healthy lifestyle, which could save lives in future pandemics, is another tenet that’s ignored by the dominant narrative. Malhotra explains:26
“I think what we’ve had is a fast pandemic, in terms of COVID, that has exacerbated and taken advantage of a slow pandemic, which is the pandemic of chronic, lifestyle-related diseases that have been putting stress on our health care system for many, many years, and our NHS, certainly even before COVID, was already at a breaking point.
But actually, COVID has broken the back of the NHS, and the main reason behind this is because we failed, for many, many years, to tackle prevention head on, specifically the biggest driver of these chronic diseases: poor diet.
Ultraprocessed food, which is the heart of the problem, is now half of the calorie consumption in the British diet. It’s about 60% of the calorie consumption in the United States, and there’s a very clear correlation between, already, countries that had 50% or more of the population overweight or obese had 90% of the deaths from COVID-19. So, poor metabolic health means poor immune health.
But beyond this, we know that the real drivers of this problem are structural. These are to do with the environment and with misinformation that is being subjected on the public for the purposes of profit. And the two real culprits behind this, in my point of view, are the food industry and the pharmaceutical industry.
And the collusion of academics, medical journals, doctors and politicians for financial gain with these industries is the heart of the problem. This needs to be exposed, and the public needs to understand and realize that the biggest enemies of democracy are the food industry and the pharmaceutical industry.”
If Not for Media, Would You Know There’s a Pandemic?
The film implies that COVID-19 presented an opportunity that multiple entities have used to further their own agendas, while media have served as a tool for overriding science and common sense. It’s important to stay grounded and think critically to avoid falling victim to unnecessary panic and stress. Cummins notes:27
“A key thing to remember, I think, is if you turned off the media, no one would know there’s an epidemic. Even during the surges in Ireland, in both seasons, if you did not have access to the media, you would never know.
No one really knew anyone who died — outside of someone in a nursing home, someone of elevated age or with stage 4 cancer — most people did not know anyone who died. Right? Isn’t that incredible, in a massive pandemic, as we’ve been told?”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Notes
2, 18, 19 The Fat Emperor, Podcast, December 11, 2020
3 Rumble, Planet Lockdown, Wolfgang Wodarg, Full Interview, October 18, 2021
4 Rumble, Planet Lockdown, Wolfgang Wodarg, Full Interview, October 18, 2021, 8:50
7 Rumble, Planet Lockdown, Wolfgang Wodarg, Full Interview, October 18, 2021, 14:02
8 Rumble, Planet Lockdown, Wolfgang Wodarg, Full Interview, October 18, 2021, 9:40
9, 10 Vimeo, COVID Chronicles, 15:00
12 Vimeo, COVID Chronicles, 17:16
13 Sunday Times Live March 25, 2021
14, 15 Vimeo, COVID Chronicles, 1:07
16 Annals of Internal Medicine November 18, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-6817
17 City Journal, The Panic Pandemic, Summer 2021
20 Vimeo, COVID Chronicles, 37:00
22 Vimeo, COVID Chronicles, 56:00
24 Vimeo, COVID Chronicles, 1:02
25, 26 Vimeo, COVID Chronicles, 1:09
27 Vimeo, COVID Chronicles, 1:13
Featured image is a screenshot from the video
January 9th, 2022 by Natylie Baldwin
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
An American Russia expert recently observed that diplomacy is not a reward for good behavior. Rather diplomacy is a necessary activity required for averting war. Skilled diplomacy requires one to understand the perceived interests of the other side and what shapes those perceptions. This helps both sides to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution that takes into account the most serious concerns of each. The Biden administration would be wise to give a fair hearing to the security concerns of the world’s other nuclear superpower at the upcoming meeting with Russia on January 10th in order to avert unnecessary escalation in Eastern Europe.
As Putin gets further into what could be his final term as president, he has decided to try to get a meaningful resolution to one of his top priorities: ensuring Russia’s national security. If he can successfully resolve this issue, he may feel freer to open up the purse strings and invest more in his other top priority: raising Russia’s living standards, which have fallen behind as a result of the austerity that has been imposed as the Russian government has focused on macroeconomic stability to make the economy “sanction-proof.”
He has started by offering a proposed draft agreement between Russia and the US and one between Russia and NATO that guarantee no further eastward expansion of NATO and no stationing of US/NATO troops in Ukraine or intermediate- and short-range missiles in Europe.
While it may seem like Russia is making extreme demands and offering no concessions of its own in return, one must keep a few points in mind. First, at the beginning of negotiations, parties will typically start with maximalist positions with the idea that they will be whittled down during talks to something they can live with. Second, Russia has genuine security concerns that many Americans are not aware of because most media has made little attempt to explain Russia’s perspective with regard to its disagreements with the US-led west.
Lacking some of the natural barriers that Americans take for granted, Russia has a history of invasions from the West, including Germany twice in the 20thcentury – having come through the Polish/Ukrainian corridor. Hitler’s invasion in WWII resulted in around 27 million dead Soviets and destruction of a third of the country. These perceived security interests are driven by historical experience and therefore represent a Russian view, not simply a Putin view.
With this heavy history, Mikhail Gorbachev was hesitant to allow a reunified Germany during 1990 negotiations with western leaders. Declassified government documents reveal that in order to secure Gorbachev’s agreement, he was promised verbally more than once by US Secretary of State James Baker and other western officials that NATO would not move “one inch eastward.”
After the mutually negotiated end of the Cold War and subsequent dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, NATO had lost its reason for existence and had to resort to finding other justifications for remaining in business. This project was assisted by political ideologues , such as Zbig Brzezinski and Neoconservatives, as well as intense defense contractor lobbying which helped spur NATO expansion rather than a re-negotiation of a European security architecture that would ensure the security of all parties. From Russia’s perspective, it made sense to ask: if the Cold War had ended, Russia had voluntarily given up its empire and was no longer an enemy, then why was NATO being expanded with Russia excluded from these new security arrangements?
Not only has the US overseen several rounds of NATO expansion since 1999, it has unilaterally withdrawn from several important treaties governing arms control. The first is the ABM Treaty, the abrogation of which Russia viewed as a threat to its nuclear retaliatory capability. There is also the INF Treaty, the dissolution of which will now allow the US to potentially station intermediate range missiles in Europe, representing another perceived danger to Russia’s security interests.
Then there was the US-supported coup that removed the corrupt but democratically elected leader of Ukraine in 2014, which sparked deeper dissension in a country that has political and cultural divisions that go back centuries. The cold hard reality is that Ukraine has more strategic and historical significance to Russia than it could ever have to the US thousands of miles away. Russia also has the advantage of proximity in the event of a military conflict. The US should seriously reconsider the wisdom of paying lip service to Ukraine’s military defense for any such scenario. Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe and also one of the most corrupt. Ukraine would provide no benefit to NATO as a member and it’s safe to say that neither Americans nor most Europeans would be willing to die for it. Ukraine would be best served if it were militarily neutral and allowed to negotiate economically beneficial relations with both Russia and the West, with the most extreme political elements in the country discouraged from their most reckless inclinations.
It’s time for the US to get beyond its post-Cold War triumphalist mentality and pursue practical diplomacy with Russia. Insisting that all countries have the right to decide what military alliances they join without regard to the larger real world context is a nonstarter. Everyone knows the US would never take this attitude if Russia and China decided to lure Canada or Mexico into joining a military alliance with them.
The Russia of 2022 is not the Russia of the 1990’s. In order to get something, the US-led west will now have to give something. That means a willingness to seriously address Russia’s security concerns. It remains to be seen if the US is capable of the shift in mindset needed to rise to the occasion.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Natylie Baldwin is the author of The View from Moscow: Understanding Russia and U.S.-Russia Relations, available from Amazon and other major booksellers. She blogs at natyliesbaldwin.com.
Featured image is from OneWorld
January 9th, 2022 by Daniel Larison
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
The Biden administration is continuing the farce that is our government’s regime change policy in Venezuela:
The United States continues to recognize the authority of the democratically elected 2015 National Assembly as the last remaining democratic institution and Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president. We welcome the agreement reached to extend the authority of the National Assembly elected in 2015 and of interim President Guaidó as its president.
It was a mistake to recognize Guaidó when he had some fig leaf of legitimacy three years ago, but to continue the charade now several years later when he and his allies have even less influence and standing than they did before is truly absurd.
The chief problem with recognizing him as “interim” president then was that he had no effective control over the state he was supposedly leading. There was initially a belief among regime changers that defectors from the military would lend their support to the cause, but this never amounted to more than a trickle, and the few that threw in their lot with Guaidó were then left high and dry by the amateurish would-be coup attempt. Since then, the opposition has only lost ground. Fewer governments recognize Guaidó today than recognized him in 2019, and his approval rating in Venezuela is abysmally low. As Francisco Rodriguez points out, the “interim” president has no real democratic or constitutional legitimacy:
Guaidó’s claim is tenuous both legally and politically. He has never won a national election, his term as legislator expired more than a year ago, and his poll numbers are as low as Maduro’s.
In addition to lacking legitimacy, he also lacks power inside the country. The military remains firmly on the side of Maduro and his allies. U.S. regime change policy has utterly failed to reach its goal, but it has still managed to inflict horrifying damage on the population. Rodriguez continues:
The central idea of this “maximum pressure” approach – implemented by Trump and Biden both through economic sanctions and by the transfer of control of Venezuelan government funds to Guaidó’s interim government – is that depriving the country of the funds needed to sustain its economy will bring about regime change. It hasn’t, and it won’t. It will simply contribute to worsening the country’s humanitarian crisis, fuel animosity toward the United States, deepen opposition divisions, and weaken civil society.
Rodriguez has authored a new study of the effects of U.S. sanctions on Venezuela’s economy, and his findings make for alarming reading:
I argue that U.S. economic sanctions toward Venezuela – which, in contrast to those of other nations, block the country’s access to export and financial markets – have played a crucial role in limiting the country’s access to foreign exchange, contributing to a collapse of 72 percent in the country’s per capita income – the equivalent of four Great Depressions and the largest contraction ever documented in Latin America [bold mine-DL]. Aggregate data show that oil production contracted after every U.S. decision to tighten sanctions, while detailed analysis of the evolution over time of output of oil-producing firms shows that companies with access to credit prior to sanctions suffered disproportionately from U.S. executive orders barring access to capital markets. According to econometric estimates presented in the study, U.S. sanctions are responsible for at least half of the decline in Venezuela’s oil production since 2017, depriving the country of the foreign currency revenue needed to import essential goods and sustain its economy.
He rightly condemns this sanctions policy, which he likens to siege warfare and the use of starvation as a weapon. As I have argued many times before, subjecting an entire country to economic warfare amounts to collective punishment of the people for the actions of their leaders. It is immoral and unjust, and it is all the more so because it is completely useless in delivering the political change that it is supposed to cause. According to the crude thinking of regime changers, impoverishing people and destroying their economy should make them rise up against their government, but we know from past and current examples that authoritarian leaders exploit the deprivation created by sanctions to tighten their control. Rodriguez notes later in his article, “An extensive literature demonstrates that sanctions are rarely effective in achieving regime change, and often end up making the target regimes stronger.” Meanwhile, the people are ground down deeper into want and misery so that they are preoccupied with meeting basic needs and surviving. No one has ever been liberated by mass starvation.
As Rodriguez says, “The deliberate targeting of civilian populations should have no place in the foreign policy of a civilized nation.” We should abhor using sanctions to attack innocent people just as we ought to abhor indiscriminate bombing and torture. Like those other crimes, collective punishment through sanctions strikes at the weak and defenseless through the reckless use of power. The use of broad sanctions against entire populations is inherently malign and must be brought to an end.
Rodriguez anticipates the objections of “maximum pressure” supporters and swats them aside:
Sanctions apologists have tried to muddy the discussion by arguing that it is Maduro and not sanctions that are to blame for Venezuela’s plight. This argument is fallacious and disingenuous. No serious scholarly work has ever tried to deny that Maduro’s policies contributed to the country’s economic crisis. The United States should be seeking to design policies that do not increase Venezuelans’ suffering, instead of just arguing that it is not causing as much damage as Maduro.
I would add that it is because Maduro had already done so much damage to Venezuela’s economy that the imposition of “maximum pressure” sanctions on the country was truly inexcusable. It is bad enough to impose broad sanctions on a country when it has been enjoying relatively good economic conditions. When it is already suffering from a massive economic and humanitarian crisis, as Venezuela was, it is imperative that our policy should do nothing to worsen the existing problems. Putting broad sanctions on Venezuela amounted to kicking the Venezuelan people when they were already down. Like other twisted sanctions policies, this one has been sold as “standing with” the people that it abuses. The people suffering from the sanctions are under no illusions about who is responsible for their added hardship, and they naturally oppose the policy that is strangling them. According to Rodriguez, “76 percent of Venezuelans oppose U.S. oil sanctions, while 53 percent have a negative view of Biden.”
Biden’s willingness to let this bankrupt and evil policy continue is a black mark on his record. This was a Trump-era policy that he inherited, so it would not have been that difficult for him to repudiate Trump’s policy at the beginning of his term. Whether because of inertia, political timidity, lack of imagination, or some combination of all three, Biden chose to keep the policy essentially unchanged. Cruel sanctions seem to be some of the only things that survive from one administration to the next. There is still time for Biden to change course, but judging from the administration’s latest endorsement of Guaidó he has no intention of doing that. It falls to members of Congress, activists, and the public to insist that the U.S. stop crushing the Venezuelan people with economic warfare.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: The US government continues to view Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido (left) as the rightful leader of Venezuela, not Nicolas Maduro (right). (Alexandros Michailidis/StringerAl/Shutterstock)
January 9th, 2022 by Matthew Ehret-Kump
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
In the wake of the December 31 phone call between Presidents Biden and Putin, two very different perceptions of reality were brought into conflict which we can only pray will be resolved in the coming days and weeks of meetings between both sides.
Where one side sees itself committed to supporting Ukraine’s independent right to join NATO in order to help empower the trans Atlantic rules based order, the other side sees an encroaching military encirclement of its vast territory under a military doctrine dubbed “full spectrum dominance”. This latter doctrine, born in the bowels of Brzezinski’s “Flexible Response” doctrine of 1980, assumes that it is possible to deliver a nuclear first strike on Russia (and China) with only minor “acceptable” rates of collateral damage suffered as a consequence.
Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul correctly identified President Putin’s fears of NATO’s ongoing encroachment in a December 21 tweet, but was McFaul correct to dismiss these concerns as the crazy ravings of a paranoid Russian dictator with no bearing in reality? Or is there something to Putin’s fears?
Considering the rapid growth of NATO from 16 to 29 nations in 24 years, and the obsessive drive which post-Maidan Kiev governments have made to enter into the military pact, Putin’s fears shouldn’t be dismissed too quickly.
When you also consider:
1) the vast array of military games that have taken place on the Black Sea in recent years,
2) the expansion of the anti-ballistic missile shield which weapons experts have proven can be turned into offensive systems with relative ease,
3) America’s abrogation of several trust building treaties since 2002,
4) the vast increase of arms sales to Ukraine over the past year, and
5) the promotion of first-use nuclear bombs by leading western officials in the last few weeks of 2021, it is clear that Russia’s fears are not unfounded as McFaul or other hawks encircling Biden would have it seem.
Considering McFaul is a renowned “color revolution expert” who was caught trying to arrange a failed “white revolution” in Russia in 2011, it must be assumed that his perspective is more than a little polluted.
Even China has felt the burn of full spectrum dominance and western regime change operations in recent years, with a massive armada of military bases, troop buildup, war games and anti-ballistic missiles like THAAD deployed in South Korea where 20 thousand American troops are stationed and ready for battle. These troops are joined by 50 thousand soldiers in Japan, while talks of creating a Pacific NATO (aka: QUAD) has occupied the conversations of military officials in Washington, Japan, India and Australia since 2020.
As much as Biden, McFaul, Carter or Nuland might scream and shout that “Crimea will always belong to Ukraine”, the fact is that a democratic plebiscite did occur in 2014 which resulted in a majority vote to return the peninsula to Russia. Whether you like it or not, that happened.
As much as war hawks might also scream that the island of Taiwan is an independent nation deserving of US military support, according to the United Nations, and Taiwan’s own constitution, the island is still legally a part of China. That’s just a basic fact of life that no amount of media spin can change.
Should we treat the words of leading NATOcrats like Jens Stoltenberg seriously when he threatens to move US nukes in Germany closer to Russia’s border? Should we dismiss the claims made by former Defense Secretary Ash Carter that the USA should support a color revolution in Russia? Should we ignore the words of Senator Roger Wicker when he called for a nuclear first strike on Russia on December 8?
Whether or not American citizens take such words seriously, the fact is that Vladimir Putin and his military advisors certainly do.
Taking the above facts into consideration, Putin’s demands for written agreements on freezing the growth of NATO’s eastward expansion should strike any American patriot as eminently reasonable.
After all, who does NATO’s growth actually benefit? Does it benefit the Ukrainian people if US missiles are installed in Kiev, which would only see the nation suffer the risk of a Russian retaliatory attack? And who on earth will gain if the world is pushed to nuclear war?
So why not make the oral promises of 1990 between James Baker, Bush Sr. and Gorbachev (that NATO would not expand one inch eastward) legally binding now once and for all?
If Putin requests that war games halt on Russia’s border (which he will reciprocate in turn) and requests that no short or medium range missiles be placed on Ukrainian soil (which he will reciprocate in turn) while re-empowering the Russia-NATO council, then what harm does this do to the USA’s interests? Moscow is, after all, only 300 miles away from Ukraine’s border, so this sort of security guarantee is perfectly rational.
Just to put it into perspective, I doubt a single American would feel secure if either Russia or China carried out military war games in the Gulf of Mexico while placing Russian-controlled missiles in Ottawa. And how secure would Americans feel if Moscow’s intelligence agencies were openly supporting rabidly anti-American Mexicans who wished to become a part of a Shanghai Cooperation Organization of the Americas?
So rather than risk lighting the world on nuclear fire in a bid for global hegemony, why not simply agree to Putin’s red lines, while also toning down the sabre-rattling in the Pacific while we’re at it?
Doing these simple things will involve returning to the tried-and-true methods of diplomatic engagement and acting like the UN Charter actually matters in international affairs. It will also involve treating other nations like partners with common interests, instead of assuming that everyone not under our hegemony are enemies vying for dominance in a world of diminishing returns.
It may be a lot to ask the NATOcrats running rampant in Washington, but I guarantee you that the majority of Americans from all sides of the political aisle will be overjoyed to avoid a nuclear holocaust.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was first published in today’s print and online edition of the Washington Times’ Cross Talk with Dr. Edward Lozansky.
Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas (which you can purchase by clicking those links or the book covers below). In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation.
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from OneWorld
January 9th, 2022 by Barbara Nimri Aziz
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
There are perhaps five million Arabs who identify as Americans, our earliest ancestors having arrived here almost two centuries ago. Many more Arab immigrants reside in Canada, throughout South America and across the Caribbean Islands.
Etel Adnan (1925-2021), whose work is being celebrated in an exhibition at New York’s Guggenheim Museum, was Arab American. Although she lived in Paris for the past three decades, before that Adnan resided in Sausalito, California. I am an Arab American; so are Ralph Nader, Leila Ahmed, Rashida Tlaib and Naomi Shihab Nye. You’ll find us engaged in all fields—education, industry, medicine, journalism, community service, sports, politics and the arts– and practicing many faiths.
I offer this as context for the splendid exhibition featuring Etel Adnan at New York City’s prestigious showplace, The Guggenheim Museum. Although contrary to some claims, recognition of her talents did not arrive late in Adnan’s life. For years, her work has been widely exhibited and celebrated in Europe. Moreover, while she surpassed any specific religious identity, Adnan was an unequivocally proud Arab woman.
The Guggenheim show, now in its final days, respectfully presents Adnan’s paintings and drawings. What I find reproachful is its program concerning her poetry. Given the reach of this important forum, the museum’s plan for a public reading of Adnan’s poems is flawed.
Etel’s first poetry collection appeared in 1966 (Moonshot, Beirut). Starting with her novel Sitt Marie-Rose she published in collaboration with Simone Fattal, founder and director of Post-Apollo Press. Best known for poetry, Adnan also penned plays and essays, some in French and Arabic as well as in English.
Initially, I was delighted to learn that readings of Adnan’s poetry were planned for January 10th, the final day of the NYC exhibition. This would introduce Americans to her important written work. (Although referenced in the captions accompanying Adnan’s paintings, I could find none of her books available at the Guggenheim bookstore.)
Etel’s writing is for the most part not culturally specific. This is understandable for someone with her breadth of experience and talent. Remember, she was a professor of philosophy for some years.
Her universalism is apparent in both her art and her writing. However, as anyone who knows her is aware, her Arab roots lie not far from the surface of her work. Those who worked with Adnan know how firmly she identified as an Arab America. She presided over the founding of the Radius of Arab American Writers (during my tenure as director) from 1992 to 2005, drawing in established figures while also attracting emerging writers.
This brings me back to the Guggenheim’s deficient plan for the forthcoming literary program in honor of Adnan.
If Arabs in America have any public literary profile, it’s as poets. Our best known, from Khalil Gibran to Naomi Shihab Nye to Mohja Kahf and Khaled Mattawa, have established a tradition that today includes hundreds of fine authors actively publishing in the U.S. Yet, the Guggenheim’s program– probably the most far-reaching presentation of Adnan’s work seen and heard in this country– includes not a single Arab American in the list of five participating readers. How is this possible?
Arab institutions in the U.S. include at least two literary organizations (RAWI and MIZNA) and the Arab American Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. In 2000 Lisa Majaj and Amal Amireh edited a collection of essays on Adnan’s work and life. In her honor the University of Arkansas Press publishes a series on Arab American poetry (edited by two of our leading poets). English departments across the U.S. include courses on our literature.
Can you imagine that any celebration of African American literature would exclude African American readers today? This challenge applies to Asian American literature, Latinx literature, Native American, Canadian, French, or Australian literature, etc.
Who decided on the presenters at the forthcoming Guggenheim reading? Did some indolent staff member simply called a local university or google Poet’s House to hastily assemble a few names.
Colonial mentality still rules, even with exhaustive search tools, even with Arab American literature now well established. Perhaps our Arab community outreach is still weak. Nevertheless, along with America’s enduring colonialist value system, academic nepotism is likely an additional factor in the program’s omissions. The Guggenheim Museum must be called out for its laxity. It has missed the opportunity to design a truly respectful literary program for one of our most esteemed and loved heroes.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Barbara Nimri Aziz whose anthropological research has focused on the peoples of the Himalayas is the author of the newly published “Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”, available on Amazon.
She is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All images in this article are from the author
By Barbara Nimri Aziz
A century ago Yogmaya and Durga Devi, two women champions of justice, emerged from a remote corner of rural Nepal to offer solutions to their nation’s social and political ills. Then they were forgotten.
Years after their demise, in 1980 veteran anthropologist Barbara Nimri Aziz first uncovered their suppressed histories in her comprehensive and accessible biographies. Revelations from her decade of research led to the resurrection of these women and their entry into contemporary Nepali consciousness.
This book captures the daring political campaigns of these rebel women; at the same time it asks us to acknowledge their impact on contemporary feminist thinking. Like many revolutionaries who were vilified in their lifetimes, we learn about the true nature of these leaders’ intelligence, sacrifices, and vision during an era of social and economic oppression in this part of Asia.
After Nepal moved from absolute monarchy to a fledgling democracy and history re-evaluated these pioneers, Dr. Aziz explores their legacies in this book.
Psychologically provocative and astonishingly moving, “Yogmaya and Durga Devi” is a seminal contribution to women’s history.
January 9th, 2022 by Gavin OReilly
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Over the past week, the Western corporate media, in lockstep, has focused on fuel protests in Kazakhstan – protests which, in the space of several days, have rapidly escalated into nationwide violence which has so far seen the deaths of 18 Kazakh security services members, including two who were decapitated, and the deployment of the Russian-led CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organisation) military alliance into the former Soviet state, at the request of Nur-Sultan, in a bid to quell the ongoing violence.
Leaving aside the sudden coordinated focus by the Western media on the Republic in central Asia, a region rarely covered by the BBC, CNN, Sky et al, being perhaps the most obvious clue so far to indicate a CIA-orchestrated colour revolution, as well as the sudden use of extreme violence by ‘protesters’, a tactic used by agent provocateurs in previous colour revolutions in Syria and Ukraine, the motivation for Western-backed regime change in Kazakhstan should be clear.
With a 7,000km border being shared between Kazakhstan and Russia, the largest land border between Russia and any other country, and the second-largest land border in the world after the United States and Canada, should Kazakhstan fall into political instability amidst the current violence, it would only be a matter of time before the after effects of such destabilisation began to spill over from the central Asian Republic into its larger northern neighbour – indeed, the use of regime change in Kazakhstan as a means to destabilise Moscow is outlined as such in a May 2020 document published by influential neoconservative think tank, the RAND corporation.
The current regime-change attempt in Kazakhstan also comes at the convenient time of increased tensions in Eastern Europe, with Russia being accused of planning an imminent invasion of neighbouring Ukraine, and Belarusian President and key-Russian ally Alexander Lukashenko, himself the target of a Western-backed regime change attempt in August 2020, being accused of attempting to destabilise the European Union via a build-up of African and Middle Eastern migrants, many of whom are fleeing US-NATO led wars and regime change operations in the first place, on the Belarus-Poland border – timing which suggests the goal of the current attempt at a Kazakh colour revolution is to stretch Russia’s resources along its Western and Southern borders.
A noticeable feature of the Western mainstream media’s reaction to the current violence in Kazakhstan however, and one which again strongly suggests external influences at play, is the contrast in their response to genuine human rights protests currently taking place closer to home – protests currently taking place in numerous European countries against mandatory vaccination and the current attempt at establishing a global corporate dictatorship, in line with the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset initiative, and which have so far drawn a brutal, repressive response from the governments of said countries.
On the 2nd of January, the same day as the current disturbances in Kazakhstan began, Dutch police used baton charges and attack dogs against participants of a prohibited anti-lockdown march in Amsterdam, less than seven weeks after police opened fire on anti-lockdown protesters in Rotterdam.
Two days later, similar scenes of violence erupted at anti-lockdown marches in Germany, protests which, in a similar vein to the Netherlands, were also prohibited under German law, and which saw the detainment and arrest of protesters by German police. These demonstrations also came in the same week in which French President Emmanuel Macron made a clear attempt to divide French society amongst those who have chosen to take the COVID-19 vaccine and those who haven’t, with his vow to ‘piss off’ the latter group.
Despite this attempt to dehumanise an entire segment of the French population, and the violence employed by Dutch and German authorities against human rights protesters in their respective countries, there has been virtually no criticism of Macron, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte or German Chancellor Olaf Scholz by the corporate media in relation to the current protests against lockdown measures and mandatory vaccination taking place in Europe – in stark contrast to their coverage of Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s vow to crack down on the agent provocateurs currently vying to impose a Maidan-style colour revolution on his country via the use of extreme violence, a media stance which amidst the current wider geopolitical context, will only serve to further increase tensions between Russia and the West.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Gavin O’Reilly is an activist from Dublin, Ireland, with a strong interest in the effects of British and US Imperialism. Secretary of the Dublin Anti-Internment Committee, a campaign group set up to raise awareness of Irish Republican political prisoners in British and 26 County jails. His work has previously appeared on American Herald Tribune, The Duran, Al-Masdar and MintPress News.
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
January 9th, 2022 by Great Game India
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Pills with digital sensors are now the latest controversial technology that has seen itself gain approval from the FDA. The alarming new devices would employ a set of sensors within the chips to track data regarding each patients.
It has been revealed that the FDA has authorized an Orwellian medical device that utilizes sensors implanted into tablets to digitally monitor medicine intake in patients’ bodies.
The US Food and Treatment Administration bragged in a recently released press statement from December 2017 regarding certifying an unique medication with a “digital ingestion tracking system” that employs “sensors” within pills to interact with a mobile device to document if and when the patient ingested the medicines.
“The system works by sending a message from the pill’s sensor to a wearable patch,” according to a press release.
“The patch transmits the information to a mobile application so that patients can track the ingestion of the medication on their smart phone. Patients can also permit their caregivers and physician to access the information through a web-based portal.”
Abilify, an antipsychotic medicine utilized to treat major psychiatric diseases such schizophrenia and bipolar driven mania, has been authorized to use this technology. Nonetheless, the FDA cleared the application of the “ingestible sensor” in 2012, indicating that the innovation could be utilized more broadly in the future.
“Being able to track ingestion of medications prescribed for mental illness may be useful for some patients,” said Mitchell Mathis, M.D., director of the Division of Psychiatry Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
“The FDA supports the development and use of new technology in prescription drugs and is committed to working with companies to understand how technology might benefit patients and prescribers.”
It is hardly contentious to use medicine to ensure that individuals who may be a hazard to oneself or others are cared for properly. Those opposed to the existing COVID-19 vaccine regulations, on the other hand, will be concerned about whatever technology that could aid in the continuation of medical dictatorship.
According to Dr. Harvey Risch, an epidemiologist at Yale University, the COVID-19 pandemic was one of fear, manufactured by people in nominal positions of power as the virus spread around the world last year.
Melissa Ciummei, an Irish independent financial investor, believes that COVID Vaccine Passports will ultimately control your life right up to the point where a global social credit system is in place.
The leading doctor credited with improving early treatment of COVID-19 said in a conference that the goal of vaccine transmission campaigns is to “control and kill off a large proportion of our population without anyone suspecting that we were poisoned.”
“The deaths that are meant to follow the vaccinations will never be able to be pinned on the poison. They will be too diverse, there will be too many, and they will be in too broad a timeframe for us to understand that we have been poisoned,” claims Dr. Shankara Chetty.
Not many are aware that the Big Tech, Big Government, Big Pharma censorship of the truth about COVID-19 is actively coordinated by NATO’s war propaganda arm, the Atlantic Council. This is how the Atlantic Council pulled over the COVID-19 Matrix on the world.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from GGI
January 9th, 2022 by Rick Rozoff
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Below are videos of U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at their respective press briefings following the virtual meeting of NATO’s thirty foreign policy chiefs on January 7, preceded by the transcript of Blinken’s comments. They provide a clear indication of what to expect from the upcoming NATO-Russia Council and Biden-Putin discussions.
The upshot of both Blinken’s and Stoltenberg’s statements are that Russia has the choice of capitulating to NATO’s terms and demands regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine (and implicitly the return of Crimea) and NATO’s absorption of any former Soviet republics not already in the bloc or NATO will revert to its role as the military alliance it has been for 73 years: it will employ the military expedient against Russia. As it has not hesitated to do in Europe, Asia and Africa in the past twenty-three years.
During Blinken’s initial presentation he mentioned Russia or used the words Russian, Moscow and Kremlin no less than 43 times. During answers to reporters he used Russia/n an additional 26 times. He used the pronouns it and its in reference to Russia perhaps dozens of times. Incidentally, on Christmas Day as it’s marked in Russia.
His tone in articulating – practically spitting out – the words was uniformly accusatory, confrontational and bellicose.
Part of his writ of indictment was:
He also denounced Russia for claiming that NATO, which has twelve members and partners bordering Russia and troops, armored vehicles, warplanes, warplanes, anti-ballistic missiles, air bases, cyber warfare centers and other assets in those nations and off their coasts, in any manner threatens Russian security interests – “NATO is a defensive Alliance” – claiming the reverse of the fact, that Russia endangers the ostensibly peace-loving North Atlantic Treaty Organization with its combined military spending of over a trillion dollars a year.
His claims of NATO being something other than – in fact the reverse of – what it is even took on a retroactive character in offering the revisionist assertion that after the end of the Cold War: “NATO never promised not to admit new members. Secretary of State James Baker said the same thing.” In fact it has done so, admitting fourteen members since 1999, all east of Germany (the pledge not to expand NATO one inch to the east was made at the time of German reunification in 1989), all former members of the Warsaw Pact or in two cases of the former Yugoslavia.
In what should strike closer to home for most people reading this, Blinken included among Russia’s assorted casus belli – because to him and NATO that is precisely what they are or as required can be construed to be – “malign social media operations, the use of overt and covert online proxy media outlets, the infection of disinformation into TV and radio programming, hosting conferences designed to influence attendees….” That list and what it implies would effectively cover any comments or activities critical of NATO.
To demonstrate that Washington’s and NATO’s hostility to and manifest readiness to confront Russia are not limited to Ukraine, or to Europe as a whole, his final words, in response to a question on the current Kazakh crisis, were: “And what’s happening in there is different from what’s happening on Ukraine’s borders. Having said that, I think one lesson in recent history is that once Russians are in your house, it’s sometimes very difficult to get them to leave.”
One could with far more justification say that of the nation Blinken represents and of the military alliance it dominates.
Click here to read the transcript of Blinken’s press conference.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Rick Rozoff, renowned author and geopolitical analyst, actively involved in opposing war, militarism and interventionism for over fifty years. He manages the Anti-Bellum and For peace, against war website.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
January 9th, 2022 by Peter Koenig
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
In this latest and perhaps so far most revealing and comprehensive – and foremost – hopeful interview with Maria Zeee on Rumble (MUST SEE – 57 min. video below), Dr. Fuellmich of the German Corona Investigative Committee explains in detail what the Committee’s first lawsuit will do. Dr. Fuellmich says many people would like to call it Nuremberg 2.0, but for him it is more of a people’s trial than a Nuremberg type tribunal.
Among the first ones to be on trial are Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, Dr. Tedros, General Director of WHO and Mr. Christian Drosten, the man who pushed and promoted the useless PCR test no end – and still does, even after WHO and CDC have said the test is not valid for detecting viral diseases, including covid.
In this video interview Dr. Fuellmich also talks about spirituality, he believes – and I fully share his belief – that spirituality will play an important role in humanity’s evolving and winning this case; in not giving up and in a future new society which Reiner believes will be based on local or regional societies, with local supplies, and regional trade.
It is also my firm belief that our – humanity’s – new beginning will be based on local production for local consumption with local sovereign money and banking systems and regional trade based on comparative advantages.
Dr. Fuellmich expressed so much hope, and with his explanations on how far the work of his Corona Investigative Committee has come, he expects that about 30% of the population are already awake, can no longer be fooled, and another 40% are in the process of waking up – demonstrating throughout Europe, what has so far been mostly hidden by the mainstream media, but cannot much longer be silenced.
This one-hour interview is a game changer, an interview of hope – tremendous hope enhanced by spiritual force, that indeed the tide may be turning – irreversibly turning.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense
January 9th, 2022 by Free West Media
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
The riots in Almaty were long planned and professionally coordinated. This was reported by Uzbek journalist and expert of the region Uzulbek Ergashev in a live broadcast of the Soloviev Live channel broadcast on YouTube.
Referring to his telephone conversations with residents of the city of two million, he stated: “[They said:] The people who rioted and looted were not from our city. People dressed in camouflage on SUVs coordinated their actions.”
The crowd was not capable of such well-organised and swift actions, he stressed. “If you look at the objects they have seized – of course someone has coordinated them. And that crowd did not turn up there by chance. The chaos was instigated after a command.”
It took those responsible at least six months to prepare these actions, he added.
These events have the same template as the Maidan “uprising” in Ukraine masquerading as “spontaneous” protests over high LPG prices. The protests in Kazakhstan resulted in a nationwide crisis within just a few days. Violent demonstrators have been occupying one government building after another and have disarmed entire army and police units.
Kazakhstan: Very important and intriguing detail with strong shades of Kyrgyzstan 2020. Peaceful people initiate rallies, but shady and violent individuals turn up to sow trouble, and it is never remotely clear who they are or where they came from /1 https://t.co/qYSlUUrMVx
— Peter Leonard (@Peter__Leonard) January 6, 2022
In June 2020, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev approved a new digital code to legalize crypto mining and the possibility for banks to start offering cryptocurrency accounts.
Kazakhstan has been the third-largest country in terms of energy consumed to mine Bitcoin. After China (by far the largest producer of cryptocurrency units) clamped down on digital coins, many miners switched to servers in Kazakhstan. BIT Mining, one of China’s largest miners, moved to the country with 320 servers and Kazakhstan counted at least 20 crypto farms.
Before the upheaval, Kazakhstan ranked second behind the US in global Bitcoin mining, accounting for 18.1 percent of the global rate of Bitcoin mining, up from 8.8 percent in June last year.
Kazakhstan offers coal-powered electricity at an average of 5 dollar cents per kWh, compared to 9-11 dollar cents in Russia, China, and the United States. But the violence resulted in 12 percent of Bitcoin’s worldwide computational power vanishing.
A Russian-led military alliance, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), announced that it would send peacekeeper troops to Kazakhstan. They are now landing in Almaty and it will take a few days to end the rebellion. With Russian boots on the ground, the outcome is likely to favour Moscow, not Washington.
#Kazakhstan Thank you for pointing out that the previous video is from yesterday. However, watch this video. It is reportedly from today. Police detained more than 2,000 people during raids in Almaty. In the city, buildings that were previously seized are also being “recaptured”. pic.twitter.com/qfpWLUUEzI
— Hanna Liubakova (@HannaLiubakova) January 6, 2022
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons
January 9th, 2022 by Dr. Jane Ruby
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Recently on this show Dr. Jane Ruby came on and gave us the remarkable information that a huge percentage of side effects tracked in the CDC’s VAERS database are linked to just a small percentage of the vaccine batches produced by Pfizer and Moderna. This data came from a group calling itself Team Enigma. They’re a group of independent researchers with experience in medical R&D, statistics, data analytics, and everything else you’d need to investigate a vaccine’s impact on millions of people.
A lot of Team Enigma is anonymous but thankfully one of their number has agreed to speak publicly. Sasha Latypova joins us to discuss.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
January 8th, 2022 by Michael Welch
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.
***
“The New Year is a painting not yet painted; a path not yet stepped on; a wing not yet taken off! Things haven’t happened as yet! Before the clock strikes twelve, remember that you are blessed with the ability to reshape your life!” – Mehmet Murat ildean [1]
LISTEN TO THE SHOW
Click to download the audio (MP3 format)
This is the first broadcast of the Global Research News Hour. And therefore the topic to discuss will obviously be the BIG stories of the previous year.
It seems that by and large it was a turbulent year for stories. Donald Trump’s non-acceptance of defeat in the U.S. election resulting in the ULTIMATE “hell no” event on January 6.
The tragic storms and weather events assaulting regions around the world is seen as a sign that climate change is getting worse – leading to new energy behind the COP26 climate recommendations.
The abandonment of Afghanistan in time for the 20th anniversary of 9/11. We saw the international pressure shooting up toward the end of the year in Ukraine resulting in an end year stand-off between Russia and NATO.
Meanwhile, as the we approach the third year of the COVID crisis, we discovered that the shift in tone of public health discourse from making the COVID vaccine available for every person who wants it to now demanding every man, woman and child get the shot whether they want it or not!
Meanwhile, efforts to further contain what is communicated in media is shrinking our capacity to get a grip on the policies affecting our daily lives. Could 2022 possibly be the last year of freedom of thought on this planet?
These years of the 2020s are a time of hardship but also a time of promise! And the show this week will focus on a handful of observers watching news who have formulated their own take on what constitutes the most significant story of 2021.
My first guest, as always, is Andy Lee Roth of Project Censored. In about twenty minutes he goes over all the most censored or under-reported stories of the 2020-21 year according to his organization and stable of researchers animating it. He also briefly discusses ‘Junk Food’ news, and the ‘new normal’ shift in the news consumer production. This is followed by a discussion with geopolitical analyst and journalist Pepe Escobar about major changes on the international stage. Finally, James Corbett of the Corbett Report pops in to provide background on his call for major developments pronouncing themselves everywhere around the globe.
Andy Lee Roth is the Associate Director of Project Censored, a media research program which fosters student development of media literacy and critical thinking skills as applied to news media censorship in the United States.
Pepe Escobar born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. His most recent book is entitled Raging Twenties: Great Power Politics Meets Techno-Feudalism. He is also a frequent contributor to Global Research.
James Corbett started The Corbett Report website in 2007 as an outlet for independent critical analysis of politics, society, history, and economics. An award-winning investigative journalist, he has lectured on geopolitics at the University of Groningen’s Studium Generale, and delivered presentations on open source journalism at The French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation’s fOSSa conference, at TedXGroningen and at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto.
(Global Research News Hour Episode 338)
LISTEN TO THE SHOW
Click to download the audio (MP3 format)
The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .
Other stations airing the show:
CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.
WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.
Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.
CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am.
Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.
Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.
Notes:
January 8th, 2022 by Global Research News
Report by TheBlaze.com
The Food and Drug Administration was told that it can’t take 75 years to release COVID-19 vaccine data. On Thursday, a federal judge in Texas ordered the FDA to greatly increase the number of documents it releases each month that pertain to the agency’s approval process for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.
Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency launched a Freedom of Information Act suit against the FDA in August. The international group consists of “public health professionals, medical professionals, scientists, and journalists,” including academics and medical experts from Yale, Harvard Medical School, and UCLA.
The nonprofit organization “exists solely to obtain and disseminate the data relied upon by the FDA to license COVID-19 vaccines” and “takes no position on the data other than that it should be made publicly available to allow independent experts to conduct their own review and analyses.”
January 8th, 2022 by Anna De Buisseret
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.
***
“This is very serious – these are the biggest crimes against humanity ever committed in the history of human kind” – Anna de Buisseret
In this brilliant interview, lawyer Anna de Buisseret explains clearly and eloquently how those responsible for causing harm will be held liable under the law in relation to the experimental injections currently being rolled out, especially to young children. She describes how those who have explicitly or implicitly aided and abetted governments in a military grade psychological operation have essentially committed crimes against humanity and that they will inevitably be held accountable, as has happened throughout history.
Having been accused of issuing threats, Anna declares she is simply a messenger and that the law is the law. She is simply pointing out what the law is because people need to be aware of what they are doing and the harms they are causing.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from TrialSiteNews
January 7th, 2022 by Nick Turse
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Incisive and carefully documented analysis by Nick Turse on the Counter-terrorism Agenda initiated under the Bush Administration in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks.
What should be understood is that these Counter-terrorist operations have been directed against “Islamist” terrorist entities, all of which are “intelligence assets” of the CIA. These counter-terrorism ops have provided a justification for waging war against sovereign countries under the disguise of the “War on Terrorism”.
The terrorists are Made in America. The counter-terrorist pretext provides the US with with a “humanitarian” mandate.
In 2016-17, Obama ordered the extensive bombing of both Iraq and Syria as part of a CT campaign directed against ISIS-Daesh which is a creation of US intelligence.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, January 7, 2022
It began more than two decades ago. On September 20, 2001, President George W. Bush declared a “war on terror” and told a joint session of Congress (and the American people) that “the course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain.”
If he meant a 20-year slide to defeat in Afghanistan, a proliferation of militant groups across the Greater Middle East and Africa, and a never-ending, world-spanning war that, at a minimum, has killed about 300 times the number of people murdered in America on 9/11, then give him credit. He was absolutely right.
Days earlier, Congress had authorized Bush
“to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determine[d] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such organizations or persons.”
By then, it was already evident, as Bush said in his address, that al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks. But it was equally clear that he had no intention of conducting a limited campaign. “Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there,” he announced. “It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.”
Congress had already assented to whatever the president saw fit to do. It had voted 420 to 1 in the House and 98 to 0 in the Senate to grant an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that would give him (and presidents to come) essentially a free hand to make war around the world.
“I believe that it’s broad enough for the president to have the authority to do all that he needs to do to deal with this terrorist attack and threat,” Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) said at the time. “I also think that it is tight enough that the constitutional requirements and limitations are protected.” That AUMF would, however, quickly become a blank check for boundless war.
In the two decades since, that 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force has been formally invoked to justify counterterrorism (CT) operations — including ground combat, airstrikes, detention, and the support of partner militaries — in 22 countries, according to a new report by Stephanie Savell of Brown University’s Costs of War Project. During that same time, the number of terrorist groups threatening Americans and American interests has, according to the U.S. State Department, more than doubled.
Under that AUMF, U.S. troops have conducted missions across four continents. The countries in question include some of little surprise like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and a few unexpected nations like Georgia and Kosovo. “In many cases the executive branch inadequately described the full scope of U.S. actions,” writes Savell, noting the regular invocation of vague language, pretzeled logic, and weak explanations. “In other cases, the executive branch reported on ‘support for CT operations,’ but did not acknowledge that troops were or could be involved in hostilities with militants.”
For nearly a year, the Biden administration has conducted a comprehensive evaluation of this country’s counterterrorism policies, while continuing to carry out airstrikes in at least four countries. The 2001 AUMF has, however, already been invoked by Biden to cover an unknown number of military missions in 12 countries: Afghanistan, Cuba, Djibouti, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Niger, the Philippines, Somalia, and Yemen.
“A lot is being said about the Biden administration’s rethinking of U.S. counterterrorism strategy, and while it’s true that Biden has conducted substantially less drone strikes so far than his predecessors, which is a positive step,” Savell told TomDispatch, “his invocation of the 2001 AUMF in at least 12 countries indicates that the U.S. will continue its counterterrorism activities in many places. Basically, the U.S. post-9/11 wars continue, even though U.S. troops have formally left Afghanistan.”
AUMFing in Africa
“[W]e are entering into a long twilight struggle against terrorism,” said Representative David Obey (WI), the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, on the day that the 2001 AUMF’s fraternal twin, a $40 billion emergency spending bill, was passed. “This bill is a down payment on the efforts of this country to undertake to find and punish those who committed this terrible act and those who supported them.”
If you want to buy a house, a 20% down payment has been the traditional ideal. To buy an endless war on terror in 2001, however, less than 1% was all you needed. Since that initial installment, war costs have increased to about $5.8 trillion.
“This is going to be a very nasty enterprise,” Obey continued. “This is going to be a long fight.” On both counts he was dead on. Twenty-plus years later, according to the Costs of War Project, close to one million people have been killed in direct violence during this country’s ongoing war on terror.
Over those two decades, that AUMF has also been invoked to justify detention operations at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; efforts at a counterterrorism hub in the African nation of Djibouti to support attacks in Somalia and Yemen; and ground missions or air strikes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. The authorization has also been called on to justify “support” for partner armed forces in 13 countries. The line between “support” and combat can, however, be so thin as to be functionally nonexistent.
In October 2017, after the Islamic State ambushed U.S. troops in Niger — one of the 13 AUMF “support” nations — killing four American soldiers and wounding two others, U.S. Africa Command claimed that those troops were merely providing “advice and assistance” to local counterparts. Later, it was revealed that they had been working with a Nigerien force under the umbrella of Operation Juniper Shield, a wide-ranging counterterrorism effort in northwest Africa. Until bad weather prevented it, in fact, they were slated to support another group of American commandos trying to kill or capture Islamic State leader Doundoun Cheffou as part of an effort known as Obsidian Nomad II.
Obsidian Nomad is, in fact, a 127e program — named for the budgetary authority (section 127e of title 10 of the U.S. Code) that allows Special Operations forces to use select local troops as surrogates in counterterrorism missions. Run either by Joint Special Operations Command, the secretive organization that controls the Navy’s SEAL Team 6, the Army’s Delta Force, and other elite special mission units, or by more generic “theater special operations forces,” its special operators have accompanied local commandos into the field across the African continent in operations indistinguishable from combat.
The U.S. military, for instance, ran a similar 127e counterterrorism effort, codenamed Obsidian Mosaic, in neighboring Mali. As Savell notes, no administration has ever actually cited the 2001 AUMF when it comes to Mali, but both Trump and Biden referred to providing “CT support to African and European partners” in that region. Meanwhile, Savell also notes, investigative journalists “revealed incidents in which U.S. forces engaged not just in support activities in Mali, but in active hostilities in 2015, 2017, and 2018, as well as imminent hostilities via the 127e program in 2019.” And Mali was only one of 13 African nations where U.S. troops saw combat between 2013 and 2017, according to retired Army Brigadier General Don Bolduc, who served at Africa Command and then headed Special Operations Command Africa during those years.
In 2017, the Intercept exposed the torture of prisoners at a Cameroonian military base that was used by U.S. personnel and private contractors for training missions and drone surveillance. That same year, Cameroon was cited for the first time under the 2001 AUMF as part of an effort to “support CT operations.” It was, according to Bolduc, yet another nation where U.S. troops saw combat.
American forces also fought in Kenya at around the same time, said Bolduc, even taking casualties. That country has, in fact, been cited under the AUMF during the Bush, Trump, and Biden administrations. While Biden and Trump acknowledged U.S. troop “deployments” in Kenya in the years from 2017 to 2021 to “support CT operations,” Savell notes that neither made “reference to imminent hostilities through an active 127e program beginning at least in 2017, nor to a combat incident in January 2020, when al Shabaab militants attacked a U.S. military base in Manda Bay, Kenya, and killed three Americans, one Army soldier and two Pentagon contractors.”
In addition to cataloging the ways in which that 2001 AUMF has been used, Savell’s report sheds light on glaring inconsistencies in the justifications for doing so, as well as in which nations the AUMF has been invoked and why. Few war-on-terror watchers would, for example, be shocked to see Libya on the list of countries where the authorization was used to justify air strikes or ground operations. They might, however, be surprised by the dates cited, as it was only invoked to cover military operations in 2013, and then from 2015 to 2019.
In 2011, however, during Operation Odyssey Dawn and the NATO mission that succeeded it, Operation Unified Protector (OUP), the U.S. military and eight other air forces flew sorties against the military of then-Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi, leading to his death and the end of his regime. Altogether, NATO reportedly conducted around 9,700 strike sorties and dropped more than 7,700 precision-guided munitions.
Between March and October of 2011, in fact, U.S. drones flying from Italy regularly stalked the skies above Libya. “Our Predators shot 243 Hellfire missiles in the six months of OUP, over 20 percent of the total of all Hellfires expended in the 14 years of the system’s deployment,” retired Lieutenant Colonel Gary Peppers, the commander of the 324th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron during Operation Unified Protector, told the Intercept in 2018. Despite those hundreds of drone strikes, not to mention attacks by manned aircraft, the Obama administration argued, as Savell notes, that the attacks did not constitute “hostilities” and so did not require AUMF citation.
The War for Terror?
In the wake of 9/11, 90% of Americans were braying for war. Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) was one of them. “[W]e must prosecute the war that has been thrust upon us with resolve, with fortitude, with unity, until the evil terrorist groups that are waging war against our country are eradicated from the face of the Earth,” he said. More than 20 years later, al-Qaeda still exists, its affiliates have multiplied, and harsher and deadlier ideological successors have emerged on multiple continents.
As both political parties rushed the United States into a “forever war” that globalized the death and suffering al-Qaeda meted out on 9/11, only Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) stood up to urge restraint. “Our country is in a state of mourning,” she explained. “Some of us must say, ‘Let’s step back for a moment, let’s just pause, just for a minute, and think through the implications of our actions today, so that this does not spiral out of control.’”
While the United States was defeated in Afghanistan last year, the war on terror continues to spiral elsewhere around world. Last month, in fact, President Biden informed Congress that the U.S. military “continues to work with partners around the globe, with a particular focus” on Africa and the Middle East, and “has deployed forces to conduct counterterrorism operations and to advise, assist, and accompany security forces of select foreign partners on counterterrorism operations.”
In his letter, Biden acknowledged that troops continue detention operations at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and support counterterrorism operations by the armed forces of the Philippines. He also assured Congress and the American people that the United States “remains postured to address threats” in Afghanistan; continues its ground missions and air strikes in Iraq and Syria; has forces “deployed to Yemen to conduct operations against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS”; others in Turkey “to support Counter-ISIS operations”; around 90 troops deployed to Lebanon “to enhance the government’s counterterrorism capabilities”; and has sent more than 2,100 troops to “the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to protect United States forces and interests in the region against hostile action by Iran and Iran-backed groups,” as well as approximately 3,150 personnel to Jordan “to support Counter-ISIS operations, to enhance Jordan’s security, and to promote regional stability.”
In Africa, Biden noted, U.S. forces “based outside Somalia continue to counter the terrorist threat posed by ISIS and al-Shabaab, an associated force of al Qaeda” through air strikes and assistance to Somali partners and are deployed to Kenya to support counterterrorism operations. They also remain deployed in Djibouti “for purposes of staging for counterterrorism and counter-piracy operations,” while in the Lake Chad Basin and the Sahel, U.S. troops “conduct airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance operations” and advise, assist, and accompany local forces on counterterrorism missions.
Just days after Biden sent that letter to Congress, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced the release of an annual counterterrorism report that also served as a useful assessment of more than 20 years of AUMF-fueled counterterror operations. Blinken pointed to the “spread of ISIS branches and networks and al-Qaeda affiliates, particularly in Africa,” while noting that “the number of terrorist attacks and the overall number of fatalities resulting from those attacks increased by more than 10 percent in 2020 compared with 2019.” The report, itself, was even bleaker. It noted that “ISIS-affiliated groups increased the volume and lethality of their attacks across West Africa, the Sahel, the Lake Chad Basin, and northern Mozambique,” while al-Qaeda “further bolstered its presence” in the Middle East and Africa. The “terrorism threat,” it added, “has become more geographically dispersed in regions around the world” while “terrorist groups remained a persistent and pervasive threat worldwide.” Worse than any qualitative assessment, however, was the quantitative report card that it offered.
The State Department had counted 32 foreign terrorist organizations scattered around the world when the 2001 AUMF was passed. Twenty years of war, around six trillion dollars, and nearly one million corpses later, the number of terrorist groups, according to that congressionally mandated report, stands at 69.
With the passage of that AUMF, George W. Bush declared that America’s war would “not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” Yet after 20 years, four presidents, and invocations of the AUMF in 22 countries, the number of terrorist groups that “threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security” has more than doubled.
“The 2001 AUMF is like a blank check that U.S. presidents have used to conduct military violence in an ever-expanding number of operations in any number of places, without adequate oversight from Congress. But it’s also just the tip of the iceberg,” Savell told TomDispatch. “To truly end U.S. war violence in the name of counterterrorism, repealing the 2001 AUMF is the first step, but much more needs to be done to push for government accountability on more secretive authorities and military programs.”
When Congress gave Bush that blank check — now worth $5.8 trillion and counting — he said that the outcome of the war on terror was already “certain.” Twenty years later, it’s a certainty that the president and Congress, Representative Barbara Lee aside, had it all wrong.
As 2022 begins, the Biden administration has an opportunity to end a decades-long mistake by backing efforts to replace, sunset, or repeal that 2001 AUMF — or Congress could step up and do so on its own. Until then, however, that same blank check remains in effect, while the tab for the war on terror, as well as its AUMF-fueled toll in human lives, continues to rise.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Nick Turse is the managing editor of TomDispatch and a fellow at the Type Media Center. He is the author most recently of Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead: War and Survival in South Sudan and of the bestselling Kill Anything That Moves.
Featured image: American-trained Afghan forces are defecting to join ISIS-K, in what increasingly looks like a US plan to subvert the war-torn country’s recovery. Photo Credit: The Cradle
In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by “Islamic terrorists”. Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.
The expanded edition, which includes twelve new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.
According to Chossudovsky, the “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.
September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.
January 7th, 2022 by Robert F. Kennedy Jr
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
The following audio podcast is a shortened version of a video interview from a few weeks ago.
Our conversation touched on many aspects of the CIA’s devious role in so many aspects of history, including its relentless lying attacks on the Kennedy family that go back decades, its assassinations of Kennedys, and its egregious character assassination of RFK, Jr.
His recent book, The Real Anthony Fauci, has been ignored by the mainstream media because they speak for the CIA, as they have been doing for decades, and Kennedy is a great threat to their stranglehold on the truth.
We discuss many issues: Operation Mockingbird, Anthony Fauci, Covid, Noam Chomsky and his acolytes, JFK, the CIA’s long deep involvement in germ warfare, the militarizing of medicine, and its pushing of drugs, etc.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.
Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
January 7th, 2022 by Andreina Chavez Alava
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Venezuelan National Assembly (AN) President Jorge Rodríguez reiterated that the dialogue process in Mexico will restart once government envoy Alex Saab is released by Washington and the US-backed opposition returns seized foreign assets.
“Enough hypocrisy. If you want dialogue, release Alex Saab. If you want dialogue, return our assets abroad and our gold [withheld by the Bank of England] which you stole,” Rodríguez stated on Wednesday during an AN session to inaugurate the 2022 legislative period.
The AN president added that the opposition led by self-proclaimed “Interim President” Juan Guaidó must recognize “the crimes committed against Venezuela.” Rodríguez recalled the seizure of Colombia-based petrochemical Monómeros and US-based oil subsidiary CITGO. Both companies were handed to Guaidó by Bogotá and Washington in early 2019 and are currently on the brink of being taken over by creditors.
Rodríguez went on to denounce that Guaidó and his allies “stole US $382 million between 2020 and 2021″ from Venezuelan frozen assets abroad. He detailed that $8 million alone were used to pay salaries of the defunct 2015 National Assembly. According to the US State Department, the opposition leader has also received over $1.9 billion for “humanitarian aid” since 2017, with another $1.3 billion coming from the US, Colombia, and Spain.
With a strong message against “impunity,” the parliament’s president requested accelerated investigations on Guaidó’s “rotten pot” of criminal activities.
The former vice president likewise linked the government-opposition dialogue’s future with Alex Saab’s release.
“Do not propose dialogue to later attack it as the United States Department of Justice did by kidnapping Saab, a Venezuelan diplomat and member of our delegation in Mexico,” reaffirmed Rodríguez, who led the government representatives in the talks.
Norway-brokered negotiations in Mexico City between the Maduro administration and the US-backed opposition came to a halt last year following Colombo-Venezuelan businessman Alex Saab’s extradition to the United States. The talks were due to enter their fourth round on October 17, a day after the extradition to Florida happened.
Saab was detained in July 2020 on a stop-off in Cape Verde reportedly en route to the Middle East to close food and fuel import deals on behalf Caracas. According to his lawyers, his arrest and subsequent extradition have been mired with irregularities, including the continued disregard of his diplomatic status in court proceedings.
The Venezuelan envoy faces a lone count of conspiracy to launder money which could carry a 20-year jail term if found guilty. Previously, judge Robert Scola of the Southern District of Florida dismissed seven money-laundering charges at the request of the prosecution. This was allegedly part of a deal struck with Cape Verde to secure the extradition.
Saab’s latest hearing, scheduled for January 7, 2022, was postponed to February 16 on the basis of a Covid-19 cases surge in Florida.
For his part, Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro restated that Washington sabotaged the dialogue process by extraditing Saab just as “the economy and criminal US sanctions” were being discussed. “We will wait to see what happens in the upcoming months [with Saab’s case],” he said in an interview with Spanish journalist Ignacio Ramonet.
In turn, opposition frontman Juan Guaidó has called to resume the talks repeating his slogan of “free and fair elections” ahead of the 2024 presidential race. The US-backed politician currently holds no elected office after the former parliament’s term expired in January 2021 and a newly elected body assumed the next five-year mandate.
However, the defunct Guaidó-led parliament has continued operating to access funds and retain control of Venezuelan foreign assets. On Monday, the former legislators extended their term and Guaidó’s “interim presidency” until January 2023. The US Department of State was quick to endorse the move.
Guaidó’s words on dialogue echoed the State Department’s communique. “We call on Nicolás Maduro to reengage in the negotiations in Mexico, and to do so in good faith for the benefit of the Venezuelan people,” reads the document.
Before Saab’s extradition halted the Mexico talks, the first rounds of negotiations had led to the return of the hardline oppostion to the electoral path in November’s mega-elections. Other advances, currently uncompleted, included a $5.1 billion injection by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and a joint pledge to defend Venezuela’s Essequibo Strip.
Two previous dialogue efforts were likewise derailed before reaching any agreements. In 2017-2018, the opposition abandoned the table reportedly after then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson phoned lead opposition negotiator Julio Borges. Then in 2019, the US imposed wide-reaching sanctions when new talks were underway.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: Parliament chief Jorge Rodríguez asked to ramp up the investigation into opposition leader Juan Guaidó’s theft of Venezuelan assets abroad. (Twitter / @Asamblea_Ven)
January 7th, 2022 by Kevin Ryan
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
It’s been a year since I’ve written anything for this blog. The reason, frankly, is that I have been at a loss for words. What has happened to human society in the last two years has been, for anyone with an understanding of history, beyond belief. Of course, it should not be beyond belief because we know history repeats itself. And in the last two years it has been repeating with a vengeance.
I spent 18 years working to understand, and help others understand, the crimes of September 11, 2001. Those crimes were never honestly investigated apart from the work of independent researchers. The official accounts are widely known to be false and those who have taken the time to look deeper have found that there are good reasons to believe that people within government and major corporations were involved in planning and executing the attacks.
September 11th was a deception used by rich and powerful people to steal resources, consolidate power, and control the masses. It was just one example of such a mass deception. Others include the following.
Along with these conveniently over-looked crimes, the last 18 months have shown that the 9/11 lie was not taken seriously. Anyone who still believes that governments and media care about our health has forgotten that deep state actors murdered thousands of citizens on 9/11. The corporate media and corporate-owned governments then covered it up so that a million more could be murdered to steal resources and control people.
Historical illiteracy is largely to blame for the Covid scare although much of that illiteracy is by choice, through willful ignorance of events that cause cognitive dissonance. The examples cited above are but a few in the long history of deceptions used by governments to drive the agendas of the powerful few. People who ignore these historical facts not only turn a bind eye to history, they ignore painfully obvious features of current affairs including that “terrorism” has mysteriously disappeared.
People don’t want to acknowledge the fact that we do not live in democratic societies any longer. Yet today the world is fully run by an oligarchy and that oligarchy wants us to be diverted and outraged about superficial things while staying ignorant or silent on issues important to us like the following.
Some people have accepted or ignored the poverty and famine being driven by the reckless response to Covid. And they have also ignored that the people driving the Covid scare have a history of crimes against humanity. Not the least of these are Bill Gates, who has monopolized healthcare and has tried to buy off the media, and Anthony Fauci, who is known for having killed nearly 200,000 HIV patients with the toxic drug AZT.
How has the public’s willful ignorance been established so easily? The Covid crimes were carefully practiced beforehand through a series of exercises conducted by governments and corporations since 9/11. And the operation builds upon elements utilized in all the previous government crimes against humanity. Here are three primary components.
Added to this formula of fear, censorship, and cartoonish politics has been the complete abandonment of science. Scientific illiteracy is known to be quite high in America, but that has become the case for many nations and today anyone with a lab coat and a pointer promoted by the media is accepted as a scientific authority. What people often forget is that it was doctors, not soldiers, who committed the worst crimes in Nazi Germany. These days it is just as easy to buy a doctor or a scientist as it is to buy a politician.
Scientific literacy in America took a giant leap downward after 9/11. The absurd anti-scientific approach taken by the government for the destruction of the Word Trade Center buildings was either accepted or left unquestioned by many Americans. No doubt the death of science with respect to 9/11 was a key step in enabling the Covid scam.
Here are a few examples of how people around the world abandoned science when it came to Covid.
How do we go forward realizing that many of our friends, family, and coworkers have decided to remain willfully ignorant of history and science and the facts about the Covid psychological operation?
It is a difficult question but one that has a few clear answers. First, we must stop parroting the absurd official narrative regarding Covid. It is an illness that has a 99.7% survival rate for the elderly and higher for everyone else. And it is very obviously a tool of propaganda in a psychological operation that exhibits all the features and outcomes of previous psychological operations. So, the first step is to not accept or repeat the nonsense narrative.
Secondly, since social media and other corporate media are completely compromised and engage in censorship of any facts related to Covid, we must reach people directly. This means speaking out locally, and contacting your city, county, and state government representatives to oppose the Covid agenda.
There are creative ways to resist as well. For example, if you are forced to wear a mask in public areas in order to conduct your life, put a message on the mask that lets like minded people see you. Something like “Mind Control” or “You stay safe, I’ll stay free” would work.
Finally, realizing that this will all get much worse before it gets better, plan to reduce your dependence on goods and services controlled by the oligarchy. If you can, get off the grid. In other words, find alternative sources of power, food, water, and the other necessities of life before the ultimate tool of control—the vaccine passport—limits your access.
The psychological operations of the media and political establishment are ramping up.
They’re targeting every weakness of the gullible public, from its scientific and historical illiteracy to its most banal prejudices, in order to inflame superficial separations from the farcical left/right division to racial tensions.
They know us better than we know ourselves. Let’s resist these provocations and see if we can establish control groups within this corrupt system that can survive and educate future generations.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from Dig Within
January 7th, 2022 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Just as the Kremlin had steeled itself to face down the West over Ukraine, Washington initiated the destabilization of Kazakhstan on Russia’s central Asian border. At this time it is unclear how serious the situation is, but the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) consisting of Russia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Armenia, and Kazakhstan have sent troops in response to the Kazakh government’s request for help.
Now the Kremlin finds itself with troubles on two fronts.
Unlike the overthrow of Ukraine, which the Kremlin was too preoccupied with the Sochi Olympics to prevent, the Kremlin responded quickly to the attempt to overthrow the Kazakh government.
The main lesson for the Kremlin is that Washington could not care less about the Kremlin’s security concerns. Just a couple days before Biden and Putin are scheduled to resolve the Ukraine situation, another former Soviet republic goes into chaos. The largest city is burning and there is disorder throughout the country. See this. It is impossible to believe that the widespread violence spontaneously erupted. The CIA is at work.
Russia was set up for destabilization by Washington’s breakup of the Soviet Union in the 1990s. Numerous former Russian provinces are now independent states. The separations removed Russians from power in the new independent republics, but the CIA remained.
The Kremlin, fearful of confirming Western propaganda about Russia, has kept its hands off its former provinces, but Washington has not. Even inside Russia herself the Kremlin has demonstrated its commitment to democracy by permitting Western-financed NGOs to operate in Russia, creating pockets of opposition to the Russian government.
I suspect that Washington will, without being hard-nosed about it, refrain from accommodating the Kremlin’s security concerns, having made the Kremlin aware that Washington can create Maidan revolutions in all of the former Soviet republics.
Washington prefers for the Ukraine to remain a festering wound, which eventually will be resolved by Russian intervention or by NATO membership for Ukraine. Either way Washington wins. A Russian invasion of Ukraine would confirm the propaganda that a Russian threat hangs over Europe. NATO membership for Ukraine would indicate Russian submission to Washington’s hegemony.
In my view, it was a strategic error for the Kremlin to bank on diplomacy and Western good will. Perhaps Russian elites were unable to take seriously Washington’s intent to destabilize the Russian Federation in the interests of Washington’s hegemony.
The question that remains is what is the point of next Monday’s meeting between Putin and Biden?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
January 7th, 2022 by Alex MacDonald
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Iraqi campaigners and politicians have expressed their “disgust” at the decision by the British government to award a knighthood to former Prime Minister Tony Blair, citing his involvement in the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation.
The anger comes as a petition launched in the UK calling for the former Labour leader to have the honour withdrawn reached over 700,000 signatures.
Blair has been accused of war crimes over his role in the invasion of Iraq, which toppled longtime ruler Saddam Hussein and led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, widespread internecine violence and ongoing instability in Iraq and beyond.
There was further anger on Wednesday after it was claimed by Blair’s former defence secretary Geoff Hoon that he had been told to “burn” a memo from the British attorney general which cast doubt on the legality of the Iraq war.
Rami al-Sakini, an Iraqi MP and member of the Foreign Relations Committee, told Middle East Eye that the knighthood should be withdrawn.
“Of course this is neither appropriate nor correct,” said Sakini, who is an MP for the southern city of Basra, which fell under British administration following the invasion.
“Especially for Tony Blair, who participated in the occupation of Iraq and was a major reason for wasting the resources of this country.”
Sakini, whose Sairoun party won the largest number of seats in Iraq’s parliamentary elections last October, said giving Blair the title was effectively “honouring the violation” that was the Iraq war.
The actions of British forces in Basra have repeatedly come in for criticism with claims of willful killings, detainee abuse, and what the International Criminal Court has deemed “credible allegations of torture and rape”.
Apart from the initial violence, many have argued that the subsequent chaos provoked by the invasion led to the rise of the Islamic State group, who capture vast swaths of Iraq and Syria in 2014 and have launched terror attacks around the world that have led to thousands of deaths.
Ali al-Baroodi, a teacher and campaigner in the former IS stronghold of Mosul – which was obliterated in 2017 in a foreign-backed campaign to defeat the militant group – told MEE that honouring Blair was “disgusting” referring to him as “B-Liar” as many anti-war campaigners have done.
“It’s horrendous news to be honest,” he said.
‘A crime against humanity’
On Tuesday, Blair’s successor as Labour Party leader, Keir Starmer, said that the former prime minister “deserves” to be knighted and cited a number of domestic reforms he introduced during his time in office, 1997-2007.
Speaking to ITV, Starmer said he understood many held “strong views” about the Iraq war, but said that this did “not detract from the fact that Tony Blair was a very successful prime minister of this country and made a huge difference to the lives of millions of people in this country.”
But for Iraqis, and many others across the globe, the 2003 invasion has come to be seen as an outrage.
Kamal Jabir, a politician with the Civil Democratic Alliance, and a former freedom fighter against Saddam Hussein in the 80s and 90s, said: “With millions of caring world citizens l stood firm in objecting the 2003 war against Iraq – I was hoping that Tony Blair as one of the young leaders of the Labour Party would have the courage and the wisdom not to follow [US President] George Bush’s wrong decision to invade Iraq using false and fabricated intelligence to justify an ugly and unfair war that paved the way to the rise of the present corrupt and Islamic extremist parties and gangs in Iraq.”
Although Blair was leader of the Labour Party through three UK election victories, his reputation since leaving office has slumped heavily and continued scrutiny has been poured on the justification for the war.
The new revelations by Hoon, which come from his recently published memoirs, suggest that a “very long and very detailed legal opinion” from Attorney General Peter Goldsmith indicated that the invasion was on shaky legal ground.
“It was not exactly the ringing endorsement that the chief of the defence staff [Mike Boyce] was looking for, and in any event, I was not strictly allowed to show it to him or even discuss it with him,” wrote Hoon.
“Moreover, when my principal private secretary, Peter Watkins, called [Blair’s chief of staff] Jonathan Powell in Downing St and asked what he should now do with the document, he was told in no uncertain terms that he should ‘burn it’.”
He said the legal document was not burned, but eventually locked away in a Ministry of Defence safe and is “probably still there.”
A poll released by the British polling agency YouGov on Tuesday suggested the UK public was overwhelmingly opposed to the former premier being knighted.
According to the poll, 62 percent of the public either “tend to” or “strongly” disapprove of Blair receiving the honour, with only 14 percent in favour.
Meanwhile, 56 percent of Labour Party voters also disapproved.
Jabir told MEE that virtually the entire political establishment in the UK and US now accepted that the war had been wrong and that the damage caused in “wasted” lives had been incalculable.
“The 2003 war against Iraq was a crime against humanity – therefore Blair should be tried instead of getting rewarded,” he said.
“Looks like the moral compass among the leaders in the UK is fading away like every other country in the world.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
January 7th, 2022 by Ted Snider
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
On January 10, American and Russian officials will meet to discuss Putin’s proposal on mutual security guarantees. Western media and political analysts have cast Putin’s demands that NATO not expand further east to Ukraine and that NATO not establish military bases in former Soviet states nor use them to carry out military activity as bold and impossible.
Here are six crucial pieces of background that the western media will not tell you.
The NATO Promise
Putin’s demands are only bold if it is bold to ask NATO to keep its promises; his demands are only impossible if it is impossible for NATO to keep its promises.
On February 9, 1990, Secretary of State James Baker assured Gorbachev that if NATO got Germany – a huge concession – NATO would not expand one inch east of Germany. The next day, West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher made the same promise to his Soviet counterpart, Eduard Shevardnadz. Earlier, on January 31, 1990, Genscher had already publicly declared in a major speech that there would not be “an expansion of NATO territory to the east, in other words, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union.”
Recently declassified documents make it clear that all the western powers, including not only the US and Germany but also the UK and France, repeatedly made Russia the same promise.
Seven years later, when the US had already broken that promise, Clinton made Russia a second promise. Having expanded NATO far east of Germany, at least they would not permanently station substantial combat forces. That was the promise the US signed in the NATO-Russia Founding Act on Mutual Relations. It was a reiteration of the earlier February 1990 promise that, not only NATO membership, but NATO troops would not extend east.
So, far from being bold or asking the ridiculous, what the media will not tell you is that Putin is not asking for any new Western concessions. He is asking only that the West honor the commitments it has already made.
The Coup
The catalyst for the crisis today in Ukraine was the 2014 coup. That coup was set up and supported by the US. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was faced with the choice of economic alliance with the European Union or with Russia. Polls at the time clearly showed that Ukrainians were nearly evenly split on which economic alliance to choose. Yanukovych’s choice of either package would have divided the country. Putin offered Yanukovych a way out: both Russia and the EU could help Ukraine and Yanukovych doesn’t have to be forced to choose. The US and EU rejected Putin’s peace offering. According to Stephen Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies at Princeton, “it was the European Union, backed by Washington, that said in November to the democratically elected President of a profoundly divided country, Ukraine, ‘You must choose between Europe and Russia.’”
The stage was now set for strife in Ukraine. And the US stoked that strife. Led by Senator John McCain and Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs Victoria Nuland, the US publicly endorsed and supported the coup protesters. The White House then provided cover and legitimacy to the violent protesters in the streets. Through The National Endowment for Democracy, the US also funded projects that helped fuel the coup.
More sinister than that even, the US was deeply involved in the plotting of the coup itself. Nuland was caught plotting who the Americans want to be the winner of the regime change. She can be heard on an intercepted call telling the American ambassador in Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, that Arseniy Yatsenyuk is America’s choice to replace Yanukovych (and he did). Most importantly, Pyatt refers to the West needing to “midwife this thing,” a metaphorical admission of America’s role in leading the coup. At one point, Nuland even seems to say that then Vice President Biden, himself, would be willing to do the midwifery.
Nuland then pressured security forces to stop guarding government buildings and allow the coup protesters in. The opposition then took advantage of the absence of MPs from the south and east because of a pre-scheduled congress of regional politicians and of intimidation that forced many others to flee to ensure that it had the numbers to take over parliament in a coup disguised as democracy.
So instead of a Russian puppet president betraying his people and abandoning an economic alliance with the European Union in favor of an economic alliance with Russia, what the media will not tell you is that the catalyst of the current crisis was a US engineered and supported coup of a democratically elected president.
The Connection
The media will also not tell you about the crucial connection between the NATO promise not to expand east and the coup in Ukraine. The economic alliance with the EU was not the benign package presented to the Western pubic. It was not just an economic offer. According to Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies at Princeton, Stephen Cohen, the European Union proposal also “included ‘security policy’ provisions . . . that would apparently subordinate Ukraine to NATO.” The provisions compelled Ukraine to “adhere to Europe’s ‘military and security’ policies.” So the proposal was not a benign economic agreement: it was a security threat to Russia in economic sheep’s clothing.
Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent Richard Sakwa says, “EU enlargement paves the way to NATO membership” and points out that, since 1989, every new member of the EU has become a member of NATO. It’s not only that the EU package subordinated Ukraine to NATO, since the EU Treaty of Lisbon went into effect in 2009, all new members of the EU are required to align their defense and security policies with NATO.
Far from being just an economic agreement, Article 4 of the EU’s Association Agreement with Ukraine says the Agreement will “promote gradual convergence on foreign and security matters with the aim of Ukraine’s ever-deeper involvement in the European security area.” Article 7 speaks of the convergence of security and defense, and Article 10 says that “the parties shall explore the potential of military and technological cooperation.”
So, the EU economic alliance was an aggressive package that hid in it NATO’s expansion right up to Russia’s border. The media won’t tell you that either.
What Crimea Wants
What made Russia’s annexation of Crimea so threatening to the US was not the annexation itself. In itself, Crimea is not so important to the US. What was so threatening was what the annexation meant in terms of Russia’s relationship to the US and in terms of its changing role in the world order.
Alexander Lukin, who is Head of Department of International Relations at National Research University Higher School of Economics in Moscow and an authority on Russian politics and international relations, explains that the reason the annexation of Crimea was crucial is that, prior to that, since the end of the Cold War, Russia had been considered a subordinate partner of the West. In all disagreements between Russia and the US up to then, Russia had compromised, and the disagreements were resolved rather quickly. “The crisis in Ukraine and Russia’s reaction to it have fundamentally changed this consensus,” Lukin says. “Russia refused to play by the rules.” Crimea marked the end of the unipolar world of American hegemony. Russia drew the line and asserted itself as a new pole in a multipolar world order. That is why the US is so threatened by Russia’s response to the events of 2014 and the US coup. It is the battle over which US hegemony will be fought.
The coup in Ukraine led to the Russian annexation of Crimea. But that was not an act of aggression. It was a defensive reaction to Western encroachment deep into its sphere of influence and right up to its borders. It was a defensive reaction to the oppression of Russian-speaking people on its borders. NATO expansion had knocked on Russia’s doors. In 2014, “it came to ‘brotherly’ Ukraine,” as Lukin puts it, “a region for which Russia has special feelings and most of whose residents consider themselves Russian.” That was Russia’s red line, and it annexed Crimea. But not as an act of aggression. Rather the annexation was “in response to the aspirations of a majority of its residents.”
Sakwa says that “It is clear that the majority of the Crimean population favored unification with Russia.” A majority voted for unification with Russia when the question was put to a referendum. The accuracy of the exact result has been the subject of debate, but Sakwa says that “even in perfect conditions a majority in Crimea would have voted for union with Russia.”
So, far from being an act of Russian aggression in seizing Crimea, what the media will not tell you is that Russia was responding to Western aggression and answering the call of the majority of the people of Crimea.
What the Donbas and Russia Want
While the US and the Western media exaggerate the threat of an unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine – an invasion Noam Chomsky has recently said that “most serious analysts doubt” – what they won’t tell you is that Russia wants very badly not to invade Ukraine. That’s why they haven’t for the past seven years. Anatol Lieven, who is a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, points out that “Russia has not annexed Donetsk and Luhansk (the two Ukrainian provinces that make up the Donbas) or recognized their independence.” He says that “annexation is not Russia’s preferred option for the future of the [Donbas] region,” and adds the important reminder that “Moscow could have annexed the Donbas (as it did Crimea) at any time during the past seven years but has refrained from doing so.”
When the Donbas region of Eastern Ukraine tried to follow Crimea’s path back to Russia, Putin tried to prevent their referendums, even while he accepted Crimea’s. Sakwa reports in Frontline Ukraine that “Putin showed little sign of wanting a Crimea-style takeover of the region, repeatedly rejecting requests to accept the territory as part of Russia.” When Donbas did hold elections, though Putin “respected” the results, he declined to accept them or be bound by them.
In addition to Russia’s actions being defensive and not expansionist, there are a number of reasons Putin would be hesitant to invade Ukraine. One is the US promise that it “will respond decisively.” Another is the difficulty in winning, controlling and holding the Donbas region. But another is that it is strategically more beneficial for Russia not to annex the Donbas. Anatol Lieven told me in a personal correspondence that “it makes much more sense for Russia to leave the Donbas as part of Ukraine and use it as a lever first to block NATO expansion and secondly (if it can be made an autonomous part of Ukraine) to influence Ukrainian politics from within.” As long as the Donbas is part of Ukraine, it can vote against NATO membership; if Russia annexes it, it loses that vote.
So, contrary to the media message, Russia doesn’t even want to annex the Donbas. And what do the people of the Donbas want?
The US maintains that it is helpless to promise that Ukraine won’t join NATO because it is up to the people of the Ukraine to make that decision. That is ironic because it is not clear that the people of Ukraine want to join NATO, and it is certainly unclear that the people of the Donbas do.
Contrary to the portrayal in the media of a people desperate to escape Russian and to run into the arms of NATO, Volodymyr Ishchenko, research associate at the Institute of East European Studies, Freie Universität Berlin, reports that “Ukrainians are far from unified in support of NATO membership.” Ishchenko says that the majority of Ukrainians do not favor NATO membership. He reports that support stands at about 40% but that even that minority number is misleadingly bloated. The number has swelled to 40% by no longer including Ukrainians from the pro-Russian regions of Crimea and Donbas in the surveys. He adds that even where support for an alliance with Russia has dropped, it has not migrated to the NATO camp but to the neutral camp.
So the real picture is one the media won’t tell you: Russia doesn’t want the Donbas and the Donbas, and possibly even Ukraine, don’t want NATO.
Hypocrisy
Russians also feel the sting of hypocrisy when it comes to Ukraine and Crimea. They point to Kosovo and Cuba.
In 2008, the US supported the secession of Kosovo over Russia’s objections, but they call Crimea’s secession a gross violation of international law by Russia. “As a result,” Lukin says, “Russia sees the West’s position on Crimea . . . as nothing more than a case of extreme hypocrisy.”
Sakwa points out in Frontline Ukraine that Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia without even having a referendum. Yet “many Western countries, with the US in the lead, had recognized Kosovo’s independence despite repeated UN resolutions upholding the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia.” Sakwa also points out that the US endorsed “the infamous advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice . . . that Kosovo’s declaration of independence ‘did not violate general international law’.” Why is what’s fair for Kosovo not fair for Ukraine?
And what about NATO troops and weapons pushing right up to Russia’s borders? How would the US respond if Russia placed troops and weapons on America’s border? The Munro doctrine tells us clearly how the US would interpret Russian encroachment into the American sphere. And the Cuban missile crisis tells us clearly how the US would react to Russian troops and weapons on America’s border.
The annexation of Crimea was not a Russian act of expansionist aggression or intervention. It was the defense of a red line against US expansionism that broke a foundational US and NATO promise and against an interventionist US supported coup. Russia has been unwilling to annex the Donbas and responsive to the will of the majority in annexing Crimea. The US is threatened by Russia’s activity because Russia has drawn the line and is no longer playing a submissive and cooperative role in the US led world order. The Eastern Ukraine-Russian border is the line over which the battle of US hegemony is being fought. But the Western media won’t tell you that.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Ted Snider has a graduate degree in philosophy and writes on analyzing patterns in US foreign policy and history.
January 7th, 2022 by Robert F. Kennedy Jr
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
There’s a reason CNN’s Jake Tapper is intent on branding me a “menace” and “a liar,” and why he refuses to debate me on the merits of facts and scientific evidence. Here’s the back story.
Apparently, appalled by robust sales of my bestseller, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” CNN anchor Jake Tapper — in lieu of critically reviewing the work — used his Twitter feed to unleash a barrage of ad hominem insults against me.
Breaking with the traditional restraints of journalistic neutrality, professional propriety and intellectual rigor, he branded me “dangerous,” a “menace,” a “liar,” a “grifter,” a fraud, “unhinged” and more.
But Tapper’s defamations hang in the atmosphere without substantiation or citation. If I’m a liar, then what was my lie? If I’m a grifter, then what is my personal profit or advantage? If I am a fraud, then where is my inaccurate statement?
I concede that I’m a dangerous menace, but only to the pharmaceutical industry, its captive technocrats and its media toadies.
When I responded to his slander with a respectful tweet inviting him to debate me, Tapper declined, explaining he would not debate a “conspiracy theorist.” Characteristically, he neglected to cite any conspiracy theory he believes I promoted.
And is it credible to dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist unworthy of debate? After all, I am founder and former president of the world’s largest water protection group, and founder and current chairman of one of the largest children’s health advocacy groups.
I’ve won hundreds of successful lawsuits, including milestone victories against Monsanto, DuPont, Exxon, Smithfield Foods and leading polluters from the chemical, carbon, pharmaceutical and agricultural industries. (Many of these also initially dismissed me as a “conspiracy theorist.”)
My current book, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” may be the most heavily footnoted volume to ever sit atop global best-seller lists for six consecutive weeks. With 500,000 copies sold, it has attracted a whopping 5,500+ five-star reviews (92%).
Despite extreme hostility toward this volume from mainstream media and the medical cartel, no one has yet identified a factual inaccuracy in its 250,000 words.
If my book is baseless conspiracy theories, then shouldn’t Mr. Tapper welcome an opportunity to correct me with facts or arguments that go beyond name-calling?
Allow me, then, to offer my own theory for Mr. Tapper’s apoplexy.
Many people make Faustian bargains during their lives, trading personal integrity for material advantage. Oftentimes the metamorphosis occurs as a gradual erosion of moral fiber. Occasionally it happens in an instant; a man stands at a moral crossroads and chooses the dark side.
I happened to have a front-row seat when Jake Tapper had his moment of moral crisis. I’m guessing his fierce vitriol toward me is a reaction to his embarrassment that I was witness to the instant when Mr. Tapper chose career over character.
In July 2005, Jake Tapper was ABC’s senior producer when the network ordered him to pull a lengthy exposé on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) secret 2000 Simpsonwood conference.
Here is the background:
In 1999, in response to exploding epidemics of autism and other neurological disorders, CDC decided to study its vast Vaccine Safety Datalink — the medical and vaccination record of millions of Americans, archived by the top HMOs — to learn whether the dramatic escalation of the vaccine schedule, beginning in 1989, was a culprit. CDC’s in-house epidemiologist, Thomas Verstraeten, led the effort.
Verstraeten’s initial data run suggested that mercury-containing hepatitis B vaccines — administered during the first month of life — were associated with a wide range of neurological injuries, including a dramatic 1,135% rise in autism risks among vaccinated children.
Verstraeten’s findings propelled CDC into DEFCON 1. The agency’s top vaccine officials summoned 52 pharmaceutical industry leaders, the foremost vaccinologists from academia and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and public health regulators from the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), CDC, World Health Organization (WHO) and European Medicines Agency to a secret two-day meeting at the remote Simpsonwood retreat center in Norcross, Georgia, to strategize about how to hide these awful revelations from the public.
In 2005, I obtained the explosive transcripts of this meeting and was about to publish excerpts in Rolling Stone (Deadly Immunity, July 18, 2005). Those recordings, ironically, portrayed these leading kingpins of the vaccine cartel poised at their own moral brink, and chronicled their collapse into corruption over two sickening days of debate.
Most of these individuals were physicians and regulatory officials who had committed their lives to public health out of idealism and deep concern for children. Verstraeten’s data confronted them with the fact that the cumulative mercury levels in all those new vaccines they had recommended had overdosed a generation of American children with mercury concentrations over a hundred times the exposures the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considered safe.
In recommending a vast battery of new vaccines for children, public health regulators had somehow neglected to calculate the cumulative mercury and aluminum loads in all the new jabs.
Dr. Peter Patriarca, the then-director of the FDA Office on Vaccine Research and Review, expressed the general feeling of horror when he asked why no one had calculated the cumulative mercury exposure to children as policymakers added this cascade of new vaccines to the childhood schedule: “Conversion of the percentage thimerosal to actual micrograms of mercury involves ninth-grade algebra. What took the FDA so long to do the calculations?”
In the tense days leading up to the Simpsonwood conclave, children’s health champion Dr. Ruth Etzel of the EPA pleaded with her fellow public health leaders to publicly admit they made a terrible mistake by inadvertently poisoning American children, and to repair the damage.
Dr. Etzel urged AAP and the government regulators to handle the crisis with the same honesty and public remorse that Johnson & Johnson had demonstrated on discovering toxic chemicals in its Tylenol formulations:
“We must follow three basic rules: (1) act quickly to inform pediatricians that the products have more mercury than we realized; (2) be open with consumers about why we didn’t catch this earlier; (3) show contrition. If the public loses faith in the Public Health Services recommendations, then the immunization battle will falter. To keep faith, we must be open and honest and move forward quickly to replace these products.”
Confronted with scientific proof of their role in the chronic disease calamity, the cabal did exactly the opposite. The shocking Simpsonwood transcripts show Dr. Patriarca and the other public health panjandrums warning each other of their reputational liabilities, their vulnerability to litigation by plaintiffs’ lawyers and potential damage to the vaccine program.
Dr. Patriarca cautioned that public disclosure of CDC’s explosive findings would make Americans feel that the FDA, CDC and vaccine policymakers had been “asleep at the switch” for decades in allowing Thimerosal to remain in childhood vaccines.
Over two days of intense discussion, these Big Pharma operatives and government technocrats persuaded each other to transform their disastrous error into villainy — by doubling down and hiding their mistake from the public.
Tapper saw an early draft of my Rolling Stone story and proposed that, in exchange for exclusivity, he would do a companion piece for ABC timed to air on the magazine’s publication day.
Tapper spent several weeks working on the story with me and a team of enthusiastic ABC reporters and technicians. During his frequent conversations with me over that period, he was on fire with indignation over the Simpsonwood revelations. He acted like a journalist hoping to win an Emmy.
The day before the piece was to air, an exasperated Tapper called me to say that ABC’s corporate officials ordered him to pull the story. The network’s pharmaceutical advertisers were threatening to cancel their advertising.
“Corporate told us to shut it down,” Tapper fumed. Tapper told me that it was the first time in his career that ABC officials had ordered him to kill a story.
ABC had advertised the Simpsonwood exposé, and its sudden cancellation disappointed an army of vaccine safety advocates and parents of injured children who deluged the network with a maelstrom of angry emails.
In response, ABC changed tack and publicly promised to air the piece. Instead, following a one-week delay, the network duplicitously aired a hastily assembled puff piece promoting vaccines and assuring listeners that mercury-laden vaccines were safe.
The new “bait and switch” segment precisely followed Pharma’s talking points. “I’m putting my faith in the Institute of Medicine,” ABC’s obsequious medical editor, Dr. Tim Johnson, declared in closing. Two pharmaceutical advertisements bracketed the story.
After that piece aired, I called Jake to complain. He neither answered nor returned my calls.
During the 16 intervening years, Pharma has returned Mr. Tapper’s favor by aggressively promoting his career. Pfizer shamelessly sponsors Tapper’s CNN news show, announcing its ownership of the space — and Mr. Tapper’s indentured servitude — before each episode with the loaded phrase: “Brought to you by Pfizer.”
Under the apparent terms of that sponsorship, CNN and Tapper provide Pfizer a platform to market its products and allow the drug company — a serial felon — to dictate content on CNN.
This arrangement has transformed CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper into a propaganda vehicle for Pharma and effectively reduced Mr. Tapper to the role of a drug rep — shamelessly promoting fear porn, confusion, and germophobia, and ushering his audience toward high-yield patent pharmaceuticals.
Tapper’s main thrust during the pandemic has been to promote levels of public terror sufficient to indemnify all the official lies against critical thinking.
All that Pharma money naturally requires that Mr. Tapper kowtow to Dr. Fauci, and the CNN host’s slavishness has helped make Tapper’s show the go-to pulpit for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director.
It’s a safe place for Dr. Fauci to hit all Jake’s reliable softballs out of the park.
“The bootlicking competition at CNN is pretty nauseating,” observed investigative journalist Celia Farber who has chronicled Dr. Fauci’s mismanagement at NIAID for more than 25 years. “It’s ruinous for both democracy and for public health.”
Another journalist has compared Tapper’s mortifying on-air servility toward Dr. Fauci to the adulation of a loyal and obedient canine. “It’s like a dog watching a chess match,” says former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson. “So much intensity and so little understanding.”
Tapper has gone two years without asking Dr. Fauci a single tough question. He has covered up Fauci’s involvement with Wuhan, suppressed news of vaccine injuries, gaslighted the injured, and defended every official orthodoxy on masks, lockdowns, social distancing, vaccines, remdesivir, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
He has never asked about the public health, mental health, and economic costs of lockdown, about the disproportionate burdens of Dr. Fauci’s policies on minorities, the working class and the global poor.
He has never asked Dr. Fauci to explain why countries and states that refused Dr. Fauci’s prescription have consistently experienced dramatically better health outcomes. For example, why are U.S. death rates 1,000x the death rates of African countries like Nigeria and Indian statesthat widely use hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin? Mr. Tapper simply never allows contrary views on his show.
He continues to extol COVID vaccines as a miracle technology that individuals can take four times and still both get and spread the illness.
“He never calls Dr. Fauci on his vacillating science-free pronouncements,” said Farber. “Dr. Fauci seems to be able to paralyze the curiosity features of Tapper’s brain.”
Tapper has to ask Dr. Fauci why, under his direction, America suffered the world’s highest body count. With 4.2% of the global population, our nation suffered 15% of COVID deaths.
Instead, he functions as high priest of every official orthodoxy, working to deify Dr. Fauci and anoint all his absurd, vacillating and contradictory pronouncements with papal infallibility. The sure way to earn Tapper’s indignation is to criticize Dr. Fauci.
Here are just a few examples of Mr. Tapper’s brazen deceptions:
On Feb. 2, 2021, Tapper “debunked” claims that baseball great Hank Aaron may have died from a COVID shot. The home run king submitted to a CDC-staged press conference 17 days earlier. Tapper assured his audience that the Fulton County coroner had determined Aaron to have died from “natural causes.”
When the Fulton County coroner subsequently denied ever having seen Aaron’s body, much less performed an autopsy, Tapper refused to correct his story.
In August 2021, Tapper gave Dr. Fauci a platform to spread the rumor that deluded Americans were poisoning themselves with a “horse medicine” called ivermectin.
In an Aug. 29, 2021 interview, Dr. Fauci told Tapper, “There’s no evidence whatsoever that that works, and it could potentially have toxicity… with people who have gone to poison control centers because they’ve taken the drug at a ridiculous dose and wind up getting sick. There’s no clinical evidence that indicates that this works.”
Tapper never corrected Dr. Fauci. He never pointed out that there were by then 70 peer-reviewed studies demonstrating ivermectin’s miraculous efficacy against COVID.
He didn’t dispute Dr. Fauci’s characterization of ivermectin as a horse medicine by noting that the drug had won both a Nobel Prize and WHO’s listing as an “essential medicine” for its miraculous efficacy against human illnesses, and that people have consumed billions of doses with no significant safety signals.
Mr. Tapper never thought to ask Dr. Fauci if he was trying to discourage use of a cheap, effective drug that might compete with his experimental vaccines.
Instead, Tapper abjectly parroted Dr. Fauci’s talking points: “Poison control centers are reporting that their calls are spiking in places like Mississippi and Oklahoma, because some Americans are trying to use an anti-parasite horse drug called ivermectin to treat coronavirus, to prevent contracting coronavirus.”
It mattered not to Tapper that both Mississippi and Oklahoma officials quickly denied that anyone in their state had been hospitalized for ivermectin poisoning. Tapper never corrected his false story.
On Sept. 14, 2021, Tapper obligingly gave Dr. Fauci a platform to dispute rapper Nicki Minaj’s worry that COVID vaccines may affect fertility. Dr. Fauci simply declared, “The answer to that, Jake, is a resounding no.”
As usual, Tapper did not ask Dr. Fauci to cite a study to support this assertion. He never pointed out to Dr. Fauci that all of the COVID vaccine manufacturers acknowledge that their products are not tested for effects on fertility, or that recent data has shown dramatic upticks in miscarriagesand pre-eclampsia in vaccinated women.
Nevertheless, based upon Dr. Fauci’s word alone, CNN rushed on to defame and discredit the rapper and to assure the public that Minaj was wrong. Dr. Fauci, after all, had spoken!
It’s easy to see how two years of such obsequious deference emboldened Dr. Fauci in November 2021 to declare that “I represent science.”
There are too many other examples of Tapper’s uncritical promotion of government and pharma falsehoods to even summarize. These are not harmless lies. Each of them has potentially disastrous consequences for public health.
The term “psychological projection” describes the uncanny precision with which a certain sort of person applies the very pejoratives to others that most accurately depict their own shortcomings.
When Mr. Tapper calls me “unhinged,” a “menace to public health,” a “fraud,” a “liar,” is he falling victim to projection?
The critical functions of journalism in a democracy are to speak truth to power, relentlessly expose official corruption, and to forever maintain a posture of skepticism toward government and corporate power centers.
What Jake Tapper does is the opposite of journalism. Tapper, instead, aligns himself with power, and makes himself a propagandist for official narratives and a servile publicist for powerful elites and government technocrats.
No wonder his fury at those who challenge their narratives.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s reputation as a resolute defender of the environment stems from a litany of successful legal actions.
Featured image: “Jake Tapper-Caricature” by DonkeyHotey — licensed under CC BY 2.0
January 7th, 2022 by Arjun Walia
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
COVID hospitalizations and deaths throughout this pandemic have been inaccurately reported. This has been made clear by government health officials throughout the pandemic in multiple regions across the planet. One of them is in Ontario, Canada.
Dr. Kieran Moore, Ontario’s chief medical officer, reaffirmed this once again in a press conference held at the end of December. She stated that Ontario’s daily reported COVID hospitalization numbers haven’t been telling the fully story.
She confirmed that approximately 50% of COVID hospitalizations represent people who aren’t actually there suffering from COVID, but have gone to the hospital with something else, like a broken leg, and just happened to test positive. The Toronto Sun was one of the few media outlets to emphasize this.
Brampton (an outskirt of the Greater Toronto Area) Mayor Patrick Brown Echoed Moore’s statements. On Dec 29, 2021 CTV News Toronto reported that he has heard from a number of physicians that COVID hospitalization numbers may not necessarily paint an accurate picture of the current situation in the province.
He said that approximately 50 per cent of people in hospitals diagnosed with COVID were admitted for another reason.
“They came to the hospital for another procedure and found inadvertently that they had COVID, so no symptoms. So someone might be coming in for a surgery and because we’re testing all patients for COVID they find out that way.”
“Then they’re in the provincial reported data as hospitalization with COVID, but they’re not being hospitalized because of COVID. I would suggest it’s a bit misleading”
Hospitals will now be asked to filter these numbers out to present a more accurate count that will inevitably prove to be much lower.
What we’re doing with testing right now is something that we’ve never seen before. Imagine testing every single person, including asymptomatic people who aren’t even going to the hospital, for other common respiratory viruses, like the flu, or RSV for example.
Imagine generating a case count and testing everybody who has died with the flu or RSV . Imagine these numbers being added to the death count. When did we test heart attack victims for other viruses and add that to the death count? This has never been done, but with COVID it has. The numbers would be extraordinary. RSV already kills millions of people and has a universal infection rate. It would arguably be higher than COVID.
Not only have COVID “hospitalizations” been inaccurately portrayed, but COVID “deaths” seem to be inaccurately portrayed too. On their own website, the Ontario government states the following in their footnotes (#7),
Any case marked as “Fatal” is included in the deaths data. Deaths are included whether or not COVID-19 was determined to be a contributing or underlying cause of death.
This was also expressed by Toronto Public Health as early as June 2020.
Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19 are included in the case counts for COVID-19 deaths in Toronto.
— Toronto Public Health (@TOPublicHealth) June 24, 2020
This means that some deaths, we don’t know how many, that occurred as a result of something else and not COVID have been added to the COVID death count. There is great potential here for misleading inflation of numbers.
The statement from Ontario Public Health echoes statements made multiple times by Canadian public health agencies and personnel. According to Ontario Ministry Health Senior Communications Advisor Anna Miller,
As a result of how data is recorded by health units into public health information databases, the ministry is not able to accurately separate how many people died directly because of COVID versus those who died with a COVID infection.
In the United States, CDC data shows that 95% of people who have died with COVID-19 have had at least one comorbidity listed as a cause of death. The average is four comorbidities. We don’t know enough to say for certain that these people died because of COVID, or if COVID contributed to their death. In some cases it probably did, and in others it probably didn’t. Who knows? This is the problem.
There are many examples of this type of misleading data in multiple countries.
Dr. Ngozi Ezike, Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health stated the following during the first wave of the pandemic,
If you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live and then you were also found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death, despite if you died of a clear alternative cause it’s still listed as a COVID death. So, everyone who is listed as a COVID death that doesn’t mean that was the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of death.
Her statements created a lot of controversy at the time. There is also the possibility of death counts being undercounted. A recent paper published in the European Journal of Epidemiology by Dr. John Ioannidis (one of the gentleman in the video below), suggests that in many countries, COVID deaths have been over reported while in others, they may have been underreported.
One thing that has definitely not received adequate attention and proper discussion are the catastrophic impacts of lockdowns. Data shows that lockdowns alone have killed more people than COVID. You can dive more into that discussion here if interested.
Below is a video of Dr. Vinay Prasad, MD MPH, and Dr. John Ioannidis, a professor of Medicine and Epidemiology at Stanford. In it they discuss just how complicated counting and attributing deaths to causes really is. The video is timestaped to start at 56:38, because that’s where they begin to discuss death counts. Just click play.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from The Pulse
January 7th, 2022 by Ashley Sadler
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Mary T. Bassett said rare incidents of pediatric hospitalizations were brought to the fore ‘to motivate pediatricians and families to seek the protection of vaccination’ for young children who face virtually no risk from COVID-19.
New York State’s acting health commissioner affirmed late last month that she played up extremely rare pediatric COVID-19 hospitalizations to promote injecting all children five years old and above with the experimental and abortion-tainted COVID jabs.
The promotion of universal vaccination in young children comes in spite of evidence that children face very minimal risk from COVID-19, and ignores the thousands of reports of serious adverse events and deaths connected with the experimental shots.
During a December 28, 2021, press conference, acting State Health Commissioner Dr. Mary T. Bassett said that while the numbers of pediatric COVID-related hospital admissions were “small,” and while children are not “having an epidemic of infection,” a handful of rare pediatric hospitalizations were given center stage in a recent health alert “to motivate pediatricians and families to seek the protection of vaccination” for young children.
Here’s the clip! pic.twitter.com/11HeYKQu6V
— Keep School Open (@KeepSchoolOpen) December 28, 2021
Bassett’s statements came after she warned of a “striking” uptick in pediatric COVID-19 hospitalizations in a December 24 press release put out by the New York State Department of Health.
“The risks of COVID-19 for children are real,” Bassett wrote in the release. “We are alerting New Yorkers to this recent striking increase in pediatric COVID-19 admissions so that pediatricians, parents and guardians can take urgent action to protect our youngest New Yorkers.”
“We must use all available safe and effective infection control, prevention and mitigation strategies,” she continued, urging parents to “[p]rotect your children who are five years and older by getting them fully vaccinated and protect children under five by making sure all of those around them have protection through vaccination, boosters, mask-wearing, avoiding crowds and testing.”
“[These] were small numbers that we reported in our health alert,” Bassett admitted in the December 28 presser. “That was based on 50 hospitalizations and I’ve now given you some larger numbers. But still small numbers.”
The 50 pediatric hospitalizations are among a population of roughly 4 million children under 18 who live in New York, according to census data.
Meanwhile, it’s unclear whether the children recorded as having been hospitalized with COVID-19 were actually admitted because of the virus.
While asserting a “four-fold increases in COVID-19 hospital admissions for children 18 and under” between December 5 and December 24 and arguing that “[t]hese startling trends underscore the critical importance of protecting our children from COVID-19,” the press release failed to differentiate between children who may have entered the hospital because of COVID-19 compared to those who tested positive while hospitalized for a different reason and may have had minor symptoms or none at all.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has repeatedly urged universal vaccination, last week acknowledged that “if you look at the children that are hospitalized, many of them are hospitalized with COVID, as opposed to because of COVID.” Fauci also affirmed that children are often counted as COVID-19 hospital admissions if they test positive for the virus after being admitted for an unrelated condition such as “a broken leg or appendicitis.”
Fauci: "If you look at the children that are hospitalized, many of them are hospitalized with Covid, as opposed to because of Covid." pic.twitter.com/57Rdx8gPg3
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) December 31, 2021
Fauci’s statements have confirmed long-standing suspicions that COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths have been overcounted, with hospitals financially incentivized to unnecessarily record hospitalizations and deaths as COVID-related.
The New York Health Commissioner’s comments and recommendations come in spite of data suggesting that children face a vanishingly small risk from COVID-19, with the American Pediatric Association estimating that between 0.00-0.02% of child COVID cases in the United States have resulted in death. Meanwhile, the thousands of reports of serious adverse events and deaths following the jabs have led numerous experts to criticize the effort to inject children with the experimental shots.
In summer 2021, researchers with Johns Hopkins School of Medicine found a “mortality rate of zero among children without a pre-existing medical condition such as leukemia” when they “analyze[d] approximately 48,000 children under 18 diagnosed with Covid in health-insurance data from April to August 2020.”
Dr. Robert Malone, a prominent virologist and pioneer of the mRNA technology used in the Pfizer and Moderna injections, has suggested that inoculating the 28 million American children between 5 to 11 years old with the experimental drugs could lead to “1,000 or more excess deaths,” while the risk from COVID-19 for healthy children is “about zero” and appears to be lower than the seasonal flu.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: Mary T. Bassett (screenshot/YouTube)
January 7th, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
According to Collette Martin, a practicing nurse who testified before a Louisiana Health and Welfare Committee hearing December 6, 2021, children are having “terrifying” reactions to the COVID shot, yet her concerns are simply dismissed
The average number of adverse event reports following vaccination for the past 10 years has been about 39,000 annually, with an average of 155 deaths. That’s for all available vaccines combined. The COVID jabs alone now account for 983,756 adverse event reports as of December 17, 2021, including 20,622 deaths — and this doesn’t include the underreporting factor, which we know is significant
Children are at risk for potentially lifelong health problems from the jab. Myocarditis (heart inflammation) has emerged as one of the most common problems, especially among boys and young men
Myocarditis is inversely correlated to age, so the risk gets higher the younger you are. The risk is also dose-dependent, with boys having a six fold greater risk of myocarditis following the second dose
British data show deaths among teenagers have spiked since that age group became eligible for the COVID shots. Between the week ending June 26 and the week ending September 18, 2020, 148 deaths were reported among 15- to 19-year-olds. During those same weeks in 2021, 217 deaths occurred in that age group — an increase of 47%
*
Click here to watch the video.
The video above features Collette Martin, a practicing nurse who testified before a Louisiana Health and Welfare Committee hearing December 6, 2021.1,2 Martin claims she and her colleagues have witnessed “terrifying” reactions to the COVID shots among children — including blood clots, heart attacks, encephalopathy and arrhythmias — yet their concerns are simply dismissed.
Among elderly patients, she’s noticed an uptick in falls and acute onset of confusion “without any known etiology.” Coworkers are also experiencing side effects, such as vision and cardiovascular problems.
Martin points out that few doctors or nurses are aware the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) even exists, so injury reports are not being filed. Hospitals also are not gathering data on COVID jab injuries in any other ways, so there’s no data to investigate even if you wanted to. According to Martin:
“We are not just seeing severe acute [short term] reactions with this vaccine, but we have zero idea what any long-term reactions are. Cancers, autoimmune [disorders], infertility. We just don’t know.
We are potentially sacrificing our children for fear of MAYBE dying, getting sick of a virus — a virus with a 99% survival rate. As of now, we have more children that died from the COVID vaccine than COVID itself.
And then, for the Health Department to come out and say the new variant [Omicron] has all the side effects of the vaccine reactions we’re currently seeing — it’s maddening, and I don’t understand why more people don’t see it. I think they do, but they fear speaking out and, even worse, being fired … Which side of history will you be on? I have to know that this madness will stop.”
Martin also states she believes the hospital treatment protocol is killing COVID patients. Doctors agree that it’s “not working,” but that “it’s all we have.” But “that’s simply not true,” she says. “It’s just what the CDC will allow us to give.”
What the VAERS Data Tell Us About COVID Jab Risks
I recently interviewed Jessica Rose, Ph.D., a research fellow at the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge in Israel, about what the VAERS data tell us about the COVID jabs’ risks. As noted by Rose, the average number of adverse event reports following vaccination for the past 10 years has been about 39,000 annually, with an average of 155 deaths. That’s for all available vaccines combined.
The COVID jabs alone now account for 983,756 adverse event reports as of December 17, 2021, including 20,622 deaths3 — and this doesn’t include the underreporting factor, which we know is significant and likely ranges from five to 40 times higher than reported. Most doctors and nurses don’t even know what VAERS is and even if they do, they chose not to report the incidents.
You can’t even compare the COVID shots to other vaccines. They’re by far the most dangerous injections ever created, yet there doesn’t appear to be a cutoff for acceptable harm. No one within the CDC or Food and Drug Administration, which jointly run VAERS, has addressed these shocking numbers. Both agencies outrageously deny that a single death can be attributed to the COVID jabs, which is simply impossible. It’s not statistically plausible.
The FDA and CDC are also ignoring standard data analyses that can shed light on causation. It’s known as the Bradford Hill criteria — a set of 10 criteria that need to be satisfied in order to show strong evidence of causal relationship. One of the most important of these criteria is temporality, because one thing has to come before the other, and the shorter the duration between two events, the higher the likelihood of a causative effect.
Well, in the case of the COVID jabs, 50% of the deaths occur within 48 hours of injection. It’s simply not conceivable that 10,000 people died two days after their shot from something other than the shot. It cannot all be coincidence. Especially since so many of them are younger, with no underlying lethal conditions that threaten to take them out on any given day. A full 80% have died within one week of their jab, which is still incredibly close in terms of temporality.4
Children Risk Permanent Heart Damage
Aside from the immediate risk of death, children are also at risk for potentially lifelong health problems from the jab. Myocarditis (heart inflammation) has emerged as one of the most common problems, especially among boys and young men.
In early September 2021, Tracy Beth Hoeg and colleagues posted an analysis5 of VAERS data on the preprint server medRxiv, showing that more than 86% of the children aged 12 to 17 who report symptoms of myocarditis were severe enough to require hospitalization.
Cases of myocarditis explode after the second shot, Hoeg found, and disproportionally affect boys. A full 90% of post-jab myocarditis reports are males, and 85% of reports occurred after the second dose. According to Hoeg et. al.:6
“The estimated incidence of CAEs [cardiac adverse events] among boys aged 12-15 years following the second dose was 162 per million; the incidence among boys aged 16-17 years was 94 per million. The estimated incidence of CAEs among girls was 13 per million in both age groups.”
No doubt, doctors are seeing an increase in myocarditis, but few are willing to talk about it. In a recent Substack post, Steve Kirsch writes:7
“I just read a comment on my private ‘healthcare providers only’ substack. An estimated100X elevation in rate of myocarditis, but nobody will learn of it since cardiologists aren’t going to speak out for fear of retribution.
His comment was a private conversation he had with a pediatric cardiologist. The cardiologist is never going to say this in public, to the press, or have his name revealed since his first duty is to his family (keeping his job).
If a ‘fact checker’ called the cardiologist, he might either refuse to comment or say ‘I’m seeing somewhat more cases after the vaccine rolled out.’ Here’s the exact comment that was posted to the private substack:
‘Pre-jab, one or two cases per year of myocarditis. Now, half his waiting room. Tells parents they are ‘studying’ the causality. Refers them to infectious disease specialist for discussions on their other children.
Admits he and about 50% of his colleagues know what’s going on but are too terrified to speak out for fear of retaliation from hospitals and state licensing boards.
Other 50% don’t want to know, don’t care and/or are reveling in the cognitive dissonance (like Dr. Harvey [Cohen] at Stanford) and/or letting loose their authoritarian demon. Good luck with these former colleagues of mine. The stench is overpowering.’
… From 1 or 2 cases per year to ‘half his waiting room.’ I don’t know the size of his waiting room, but it’s at least two people since he said ‘half.’ So, the rate has increased by: 250 day per year open/1.5 avg cases per year=166X.”
Myocarditis Is Not a Mild, Inconsequential Side Effect
Together with Dr. Peter McCullough, in October 2021 Rose also submitted a paper8 on myocarditis cases in VAERS following the COVID jabs to the journal Current Problems in Cardiology. Everything was set for publication when, suddenly, the journal changed its mind and took it down.
You can still find the pre-proof on Rose’s website, though. The data clearly show that myocarditis is inversely correlated to age, so the risk gets higher the younger you are. The risk is also dose-dependent, with boys having a sixfold greater risk of myocarditis following the second dose.
While our health authorities are shrugging off this risk saying cases are “mild,” that’s a frightening lie. The damage to the heart is typically permanent, and the three- to five-year survival rate for myocarditis has historically ranged from 56% to 83%.9
Patients with acute fulminant myocarditis (characterized by severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction requiring drug therapy or mechanical circulatory support10) who survive the acute stage have a survival rate of 93% at 11 years, whereas those with acute nonfulminant myocarditis (left ventricular systolic dysfunction, but otherwise hemodynamically stable11) have a survival rate of just 45% at 11 years.12
This could mean that anywhere from 7% to 55% of the teens injured by these shots today might not survive into their late 20s or early 30s. Some might not even make it into their early 20s! How is this possibly an acceptable tradeoff for a virus you have practically zero risk of dying from as a child or adolescent?
Excess Deaths Are Exploding, Including Among Teens
Throughout the pandemic, the COVID jab was held out as the way back to normalcy. Yet, despite mass injections and boosters, excess deaths keep rising. For example, in the week ending November 12, 2021, the U.K. reported 2,047 more deaths13 than occurred during the same period between 2015 and 2019.
COVID-19 cannot be entirely to blame, as it was listed on the death certificates for only 1,197 people. Even more telling is the fact that, since July 2021, non-COVID deaths in the U.K. have been higher than the weekly average in the five years prior to the pandemic. Heart disease and strokes appear to be behind many of the excess deaths, and both are known side effects of the COVID jab.
In a November 28, 2021, Twitter post,14 Silicon Valley software engineer Ben M. (@USMortality) revealed that in the preceding 13 weeks, about 107,700 seniors died above the normal rate, despite a 98.7% vaccination rate. In another example, he used data from the CDC and census.gov to show excess deaths rising in Vermont even as the majority of adults have been injected.15
“Vermont had 71% of their entire population vaccinated by June 1, 2021,” he tweeted. “That’s 83% of their adult population, yet they are seeing the most excess deaths now since the pandemic!”
Even more disturbing, British data show deaths among teenagers have spiked since that age group became eligible for the COVID shots.16 Between the week ending June 26 and the week ending September 18, 2020, 148 deaths were reported among 15- to 19-year-olds. Between the week ending June 25, 2021, and the week ending September 17, 2021, 217 deaths occurred in that age group. That’s an increase of 47%!
Deaths from COVID-19 also went up among 15- to 19-year-olds after the shots were rolled out for this age group. Significant concerns have been raised about the possibility that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).17 Is that what’s going on here? As reported by The Exposé, which conducted the investigation:18
“Correlation does not equal causation, but it is extremely concerning to see that deaths have increased by 47% among teens over the age of 15, and COVID-19 deaths have also increased among this age group since they started receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, and it is perhaps one coincidence too far.”
Omicron Poses No Risk to Young People
As noted in a recent analysis by Dr. Robert Malone,19 (who recently got banned from Twitter but can be found on Substack), the risk-benefit ratio of the COVID shot is becoming even more inverted with the emergence of Omicron, as this variant produces far milder illness than previous variants, putting children at even lower risk of hospitalization or death from infection than they were before, and their risk was already negligible.
Malone is currently spearheading the second Physicians Declaration20 by the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists, which has been signed by more than 16,000 doctors and scientists, stating that “healthy children shall not be subjected to forced vaccination” as their clinical risk from SARS-CoV-2 infection is negligible and long term safety of the shots cannot be determined prior to such policies being enacted.
Not only are children at high risk for severe adverse events from the shots, but having healthy, unvaccinated children in the population is crucial to achieving herd immunity.
Shots Double Risk of Acute Coronary Syndrome
Researchers have also found Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 shots dramatically increase biomarkers associated with thrombosis, cardiomyopathy and other vascular events following injection.21
People who had received two doses of the mRNA jab more than doubled their five-year risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the researchers found, driving it from an average of 11% to 25%. ACS is an umbrella term that includes not only heart attacks, but also a range of other conditions involving abruptly reduced blood flow to your heart. In a November 21, 2021, tweet, cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra wrote:22
“Extraordinary, disturbing, upsetting. We now have evidence of a plausible biological mechanism of how mRNA vaccine may be contributing to increased cardiac events. The abstract is published in the highest impact cardiology journal so we must take these findings very seriously.”
AMA Is A-OK With Sacrificing Children
Tragically, it’s not only the CDC and FDA that have been captured by the drug industry and who are sacrificing public health, including the health of our children, in order to further the technocratic Great Reset agenda.
Even the American Medical Association, which is supposed to lobby for physicians and medical students in the U.S. and promote medicine for the betterment of public health, has abandoned all semblance of ethics, transparency and honesty.
In a mid-November 2021 article on the AMA’s website, “COVID-19 Vaccine for Kids: How We Know It’s Safe,”23 contributing news writer Tanya Albert Henry cites data straight from Pfizer’s press release, and then goes on to claim we “know it’s safe” because “younger children see the same side effects as has been seen in adults and teens.” Based on the VAERS data, that should send shivers down parents’ backs.
“The American Academy of Pediatrics is on board with vaccinating this age group, along with the American Academy of Family Physicians and the Pediatrics Infectious Diseases Society, said Dr. Fryhofer, chair-elect the AMA Board of Trustees,” Henry writes.
“Dr. Fryhofer … noted that myocarditis has been a rare occurrence after the second dose of the mRNA vaccines. ‘The observed risk is highest in young males age 12 to 29, but COVID infection can also cause myocarditis,’ she pointed out. ‘For adolescents and young adults, the risk of myocarditis caused by COVID infection is much higher than after mRNA vaccination.’”
Really? Where did Fryhofer get that idea? I’ve not seen any data to back that up, and Henry doesn’t provide any.
What Do the VAERS Data Show?
Research published in 201724 calculated the background rate of myocarditis in children and youth, showing it occurs at a rate of four cases per million per year. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as of 2020 there were 73.1 million people under the age of 18 in the U.S.25 That means the background rate for myocarditis in adolescents (18 and younger) would be about 292 cases per year.
As of December 17, 2021, looking only at U.S. reports and excluding the international ones, VAERS had received:26
In total, that’s 1,475 cases of myocarditis in teens aged 18 and younger — five times the background rate. And again, this does not take into account the underreporting rate, which has been calculated to be anywhere from five to 40.
Meanwhile, the CDC27 claims that, between March 2020 and January 2021, “the risk for myocarditis was 0.146% among patients diagnosed with COVID-19,” compared to a background rate of 0.009% among patients who did not have a diagnosis of COVID-19.
After adjusting for “patient and hospital characteristics,” COVID-19 patients between the ages of 16 and 39 were on average seven times more likely to develop myocarditis than those without COVID.
That said, the CDC stressed that “Overall, myocarditis was uncommon” among all patients, COVID or not. What’s more, only 23.7% of myocarditis patients between the ages of 16 and 24 had a history of COVID-19, so a majority of the cases in that age group were not due to COVID.
We’re also not talking about big numbers in terms of actual COVID infections. The weekly adolescent hospitalization rate peaked at 2.1 per 100,000 in early January 2021, declined to 0.6 per 100,000 in mid-March, and rose to 1.3 per 100,000 in April.28
Using that peak hospitalization rate of 2.1 per 100,000 (or 21 per million) in this age group, and assuming the risk for myocarditis is 0.146% among COVID-positive patients, we get a myocarditis-from-COVID rate among adolescents of 0.03 per million. That’s a far cry from the normal background rate of four cases per million, so the risk of getting myocarditis from SARS-CoV-2 infection is probably quite small.
Now, assuming the COVID hospitalization rate for adolescents is 21 per million, and we have 73.1 million adolescents, we could expect there to be 1,535 hospitalizations for COVID in this age group in a year. If 0.146% of those 1,535 teens develop myocarditis, we could expect 2.2 cases of myocarditis to occur in this age group each year, among those who come down with COVID.
In summary, based on CDC statistics, we could expect just over two teens to contract myocarditis from COVID-19 infection. Meanwhile, we have 1,475 cases reported following the COVID jab in just six months (shots for 12- to 17-year-olds were authorized July 30, 202129).
Taking into account underreporting, the real number could be anywhere between 7,375 and 59,000 — again, in just six months! To estimate an annual rate, we’d have to double it, giving us anywhere from 14,750 to 118,000 cases of myocarditis. So, is it actually true that “For adolescents and young adults, the risk of myocarditis caused by COVID infection is much higher than after mRNA vaccination”? I doubt it.
Can You Lessen the Damaging Effects?
There is absolutely no medical rationale or justification for children and teens to get a COVID shot. It’s all risk and no gain. If for whatever reason your son or daughter has already received one or more jabs, and you hope to lessen their risk of cardiac and cardiovascular complications, there are a few basic strategies I would suggest implementing.
Keep in mind these suggestions DO NOT supersede or cancel out any medical advice they may receive from their pediatrician. These are really only recommendations for when there are no adverse symptoms. If your child experiences any symptoms of a cardiac or cardiovascular problem, seek immediate medical attention.
1. First and foremost, do not give them another shot or booster.
2. Measure their vitamin D level and make sure they take enough vitamin D orally and/or get sensible sun exposure to make sure their level is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/ml (150 to 200 nmol/l).
3. Eliminate all vegetable (seed) oils in their diet. This involves eliminating nearly all processed foods and most meals in restaurants unless you convince the chef to only cook with butter. Avoid any sauces or salad dressings as they are loaded with seed oils.
Also avoid conventionally raised chicken and pork as they are very high in linoleic acid, the omega-6 fat that is far too high in nearly everyone and contributes to oxidative stress that causes heart disease.
4. Consider giving them around 500 milligrams per day of NAC, as it helps prevent blood clots and is a precursor for the important antioxidant glutathione.
5. Consider fibrinolytic enzymes that digest the fibrin that leads to blood clots, strokes and pulmonary embolisms. The dose is typically two to six capsules, twice a day, but must be taken on an empty stomach, either an hour before or two hours after a meal. Otherwise, the enzymes will merely act as a digestive enzyme rather than digesting fibrin.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Notes
1 Louisiana Health and Welfare Committee Meeting December 6, 2021
2 Louisiana Government Archived Videos 2021 (see Health and Welfare)
3 OpenVAERS Data as of December 17, 2021
4 Dare to Seek the Truth Dr. Peter McCullough
5, 6 medRxiv September 8, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866
7 SteveKirsch.substack December 30, 2021
9, 12 European Heart Journal September 2008; 29(17): 2073–2082
10, 11 Journal of the American College of Cardiology July 23, 2019; 74(3):299-311
13 Financial Times November 23, 2021
14 Twitter, Ben M. November 28, 2021
15 Twitter, Ben M. November 24, 2021
16, 18 The Exposé September 30, 2021
17 Int J Clin Pract. 2020 Oct 28 : e13795
19 RWMaloneMD.substack.com COVID Vaccine Safety in Children
20 Physicians Declaration by the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists
21 Circulation November 16, 2021; 144(Suppl_1)
22 Twitter Aseem Malhotra November 21, 2021
24 Journal of the American Heart Association November 18, 2017; 6:e005306
26 OpenVAERS Myocarditis cases by age as of December 17, 2021
27, 28 CDC MMWR September 3, 2021; 70(35);1228–1232
29 CDC MMWR August 6, 2021; 70(31);1053-1058
Featured image is from Anti-Empire
January 7th, 2022 by Free West Media
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
The Austrian government announced today that the validity of the “Green Passport” has been reduced to six months. This also means that all people who have had their “full vaccination” for the last six months will be relegated to an inferior civil status and become “unvaccinated”.
Even the obedient have become second class people, excluded from social life thanks to the country’s “lockdown for the unvaccinated”. Austrians living in this fact-free dystopian nightmare, are currently faced with two options: Force the government out or take the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and perhaps eternal shot.
Six months ago around 3.8 million Austrians were considered “fully vaccinated”. They trusted the former Chancellor Sebastian Kurz and the Greens who had promised that the double injection would “set them free”. Their “civic duty” and “solidarity” would conquer the disease they were told repeatedly and soon everything would return to normal. Or not? Chancellor Nehammer is bringing down the hammer, even on his followers.
Anyone who does not accept the booster shot with the same agent, which has been proven to have no effect against “variants”, is now excluded from social life and is considered a pariah because the unvaccinated are bad, stupid people according to official narrative, who endanger others, are probably even “right-wing extremists” or worse… “terrorists”. Being downgraded to an asocial, stupid, right-wing radical by decree, will be a hard pill to swallow for many.
It is not clear how many people will actually lose their “green” status because a few of those who had been double-jabbed by July 2021, have already had the booster. It could be that around 1.9 million Austrians – in addition to the already unvaccinated – refuse to obey.
Vaccines are an abject failure
A Canadian study has shown that two doses of the jab had no measurable effect on an Omicron infection. The data it contains is explosive. The authors, 13 international scientists, funded by the Canadian Ministry of Health, among others, explicitly state that “two doses of Covid-19 vaccines are unlikely to protect against infection by Omicron. A third dose provides some protection in the immediate term, but substantially less than against Delta. Our results may be confounded by behaviours that we were unable to account for in our analyses. Further research is needed to examine protection against severe outcomes”.
In short: two administered doses of the Covid-19 vaccine do not work against Omicron. To arrive at this conclusion, 3 442 Omicron cases and 9 201 Delta cases were examined.
Of course, this is not the only paper that indicates that these hyped products have zero use, but data now clearly show that in Germany and Denmark over 90 percent of those infected with Omicron were vaccinated. This is also proven by the current hospitalization figures in Austria.
Facts do not impress Nehammer
Completely unaffected by all the hard data obliterating the current health policy, the Austrian Federal Government continues to cite unspecified “experts” while besieging the population to submit to their evidence-free fanatical dictates. Science has probably never played any role in their decisions and certainly not public health.
“The less effective this Corona vaccine is, the more stubborn the government becomes. Forcing vaccination is neither legally or medically sustainable. Chancellor Nehammer and company prove with their stance that they are not about the welfare of the people,” said Herbert Kickl, leader of the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ).
Rumours on social media will not die down that the Federal Government’s task force has been fully aware that the vaccinations are failing. It is even feared that numerous people could die because their immune systems have been severely weakened as a result of the triple jab. If this information is true, the government’s insistence on mandatory vaccination becomes more and more incomprehensible. A psychologist told the Kronen Zeitung that in such a case “unrest” would explode.
But countless demonstrations with hundreds of thousands of participants have shown that the overwhelming majority of Austrians are not interested in unrest. They demand a return to the rule of law, the granting of basic rights and an end to lockdowns.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: Karl Nehammer, Austrian chancellor. Screenshot from YouTube via Free West Media
January 7th, 2022 by Madhava Setty
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
In an interview with Joe Rogan, Dr. Robert Malone, mRNA vaccine expert and outspoken critic of our pandemic response, delivered a powerful message to the world. Yes, it’s three hours long, and yes, it’s worth every minute.
Something monumentally important happened in the closing days of 2021.
Joe Rogan, host of the widely viewed “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast, interviewed one of the world’s most qualified and unbiased individuals about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines now deployed upon nearly 4 billion human beings.
Dr. Robert Malone, originally an academic pathologist, has run more than 100 clinical trials mostly in the vaccine and drug repurposing spaces.
He has been involved in nearly every infectious disease outbreak since the AIDS epidemic, has worked for the National Institutes of Health awarding millions of dollars in contracts for vaccines and biodefense, and spent “countless hours” at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices meetings.
Malone works closely with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, knows Dr. Anthony Fauci personally and is possibly best known for his instrumental work in developing the platform for mRNA-based vaccine technologies more than 30 years ago.
On Dec. 30, 2021, Malone and Rogan sat down in Rogan’s studio in Austin, Texas, and recorded a riveting three-hour conversation.
Rogan stands alone as an independent voice outside of corporate media that is able to reach a politically and ideologically diverse audience of 11 million or more per episode.
Similarly, Malone is an outspoken critic of vaccine mandates who represents the opinion of a large and growing number of researchers and clinicians who believe our approach to the pandemic has been poorly conceived and stands in opposition to basic tenets of immunology, epidemiology and emerging real-world data.
It was clear both were prepared for the encounter. Rogan reported he had been following the doctor’s tweets, has been reading everything Malone has been writing and was clearly versed in the latest and most salient scientific findings.
Malone, though honed by countless appearances on various platforms, admitted this interview was special because of its potential impact on public opinion.
The conversation opened with Malone summarizing his bonafides and then describing his approach to engaging his audiences.
“I try really hard to get people the information and help them to think, not tell them what to think,” Malone said.
Malone was true to his method throughout, being careful to identify fact from speculation, noting what is observed without assuming intent while helping Rogan explore the rabbit holes that we inevitably encounter when choosing to look just a bit further beyond what has become socially acceptable.
The two spoke of Malone’s recent loss of his Twitter account. The doctor was banned from the platform without warning or explanation. He speculated it may have been due to one or both of his final two tweets, one which brought attention to the Canadian COVID Care Alliance’s summary of the Pfizer trial, the other to the World Economic Forum’s strategy for managing media around COVID.
Rogan repeatedly voiced his concern around the silencing of opinions from legitimate experts.
Malone responded:
“If it’s not okay for me to be a part of the conversation … even though I’m pointing out facts that may be inconvenient, then who can be allowed? Virtually all others that have [my] background have conflicts of interest…I am not getting any money out of this…”
Over the next two-and-a-half hours the two demonstrated how we can make sense of conflicting messaging and complex data by asking the right questions and being open to the answers, if they exist.
The vaccinologist, inventor and staunch advocate for informed consent told his personal story of getting COVID, suffering from long-COVID, getting the Moderna vaccination and suffering adverse events (stage III hypertension, heart arrhythmias, restless leg syndrome and narcolepsy) after the second jab.
Rogan took full advantage of his time with Malone, asking the questions media refuse to pose to their own identified “experts.”
The result was a full-scale repudiation of our pandemic response from its inception to the vaccine mandates that are in violation of the Nuremberg Code.
Malone and Rogan thoroughly probed many angles of our present situation from, T-cell dysfunction to the Trusted News Initiative.
Here are some of the key points discussed with time codes:
Conclusion
Malone concludes, “There are two hills that I am willing to die on. The first is stopping the jabs on the children. [The other] is resisting the erosion of free speech …”
It is clear the former can only be accomplished if the latter is as well. Though this three-hour exchange sheds light on the numerous challenges we face as a society, it can only result in real transformation if people are willing and able to listen.
Four days after this content was released, YouTube removed the video from its platform. It can still be seen here on Bitchute.
As Malone repeatedly pointed out, Big Tech, Big Pharma and governmental authorities are concerted in their efforts to suppress any dissenting opinion at any cost, including the health of our children.
Clarity, it seems, will only emerge from sources untrammeled by corporate interests.
Thankfully the magnitude of the problem was not lost on Rogan who stated, “I am compelled to have people like you on because I don’t know where else this is going to get out.”
He’s right.
Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) submitted the full transcript of Rogan’s interview with Malone to the Congressional Record, where it cannot be cnesored.
Watch the full interview with Malone on the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast:
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Madhava Setty, M.D. is senior science editor for The Defender.
Featured image is from CHD
January 7th, 2022 by Kelleigh Nelson
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Freedom of choice must be brought to bear upon the US Medical practice. —Congressman Phil Crane
One of the first duties of the physician is to educate the masses not to take medicine. —William Osler (1849-1919) Described as the Father of Modern Medicine
They do not cover the new variants; patients are failing on these vaccines. They’re being hospitalized and getting sick despite having had the vaccines.The vaccines at this point in time have amounted to record mortality and injury and should be considered unsafe and unfit for human use. —Dr. Peter A. McCullough
Dr. Stephen Hahn, the mild-mannered former chief medical executive of the MD Anderson Cancer Center, became the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration shortly after the coronavirus broke out in China.
He quickly found himself in an uncomfortable position. The White House wanted an emergency approval of one of the vaccines being developed to treat COVID-19. Under a massive and secretive government effort, “Operation Warp Speed,” was one of the most consequential public health decisions in American history. The FDA’s scientific determinations, as to whether a vaccine is safe and effective enough to give to millions of healthy Americans, are dicey enough. But Hahn, like so many top federal health officials, seemed to have found himself in a tightening vice.
President Trump, his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and his son-in-law and special adviser, Jared Kushner,all called Dr. Hahn directly, urging him to accelerate emergency authorization of vaccines and treatments, i.e., Remdesivir.
If Hahn didn’t cave and accelerate the approval, potentially jeopardizing safety, the decision could be taken from the FDA and rammed through by Trump’s Health and Human Services Secretary, Alex Azar, the former President of Eli Lilly USA. Hahn also knew that if he stood up to Trump, he would be fired. He was willing to be dismissed rather than serve as a presidential puppet.
On December 10, 2020, Dr. Hahn testified during a Senate “Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Hearing” on the federal government response to COVID-19. White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows had pressed Hahn to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) for Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine by the end of the day on December 11, 2020.
Biopharmaceutical History
The history of all four pharmaceutical companies involved in creating the COVID-19 jab is certainly not pretty. America’s Medical Mafia: Biopharmaceutical Companies, written in May of this year, exposed the past of these companies and the many lawsuits against them. Because the COVID vax is an EUA, it is protected from lawsuits by the federal government via the PREP Act signed into law by President George W. Bush.
The US Government has a secret history of grisly experiments on animals and humans, and these COVID jabs are no different; Americans are human lab rats. In 2010, I wrote a ten-part article entitled, American Citizens as Guinea Pigs. Part two included the detrimental polio vaccine tainted with Simian Virus-40 which causes soft tissue cancers and is genetically passed. It was never pulled from the market.
Here is a partial list of the many failed drugs taken off market after dangerous side effects or deaths. This does not include the 1976 swine flu vaccine pulled after 25 to 50 deaths.
Trump Promotes Vax/Boosters
If you’ve had the CCP virus, you have lifetime immunity as evidenced in 140 studies. You do not need the Sars-coV-2 jabs, or any of the boosters. Dr. Peter McCullough states, “Once and done.” There is no need to worry about getting the virus again.
Dr. McCullough writes that there are risks for those who have recovered from the CCP virus who then receive the Sars-voV-2 jabs. Medical research concludes that the COVID-19 jabs are dangerous for those who have already had the virus and have recovered with inferred robust, complete, and durable immunity.A medical study of United Kingdom healthcare workers who had already had COVID-19 and then received the vaccine found that they suffered higher rates of side effects than the average population.
So why has former President Trump taken both jabs and now the booster when he obviously recovered from the virus while he was still the 45th president? Or did he take them? Did he get the placebo instead? Doesn’t he have physicians who will tell him the truth? Doesn’t he do any research? Doesn’t he read?
Why wasn’t he and his family put on Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin to keep them from ever contracting the virus?
Where was Dr. Scott Atlas with this important information, or did Trump rebuff him? There are simply too many unanswered questions and too many statements by Trump that are untrue.
Trump tell us we’re playing right into their hands when we doubt the vaccine. Whose hands? He made the remarks during a live event with former Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly.“We did something historic, we saved tens of millions of lives worldwide,” said Trump, before going on to credit the vaccine for preventing a repeat of the Spanish flu, which infected nearly a third of the world and killed as many as 100 million people. The reality is the carnage from the lethal injections will make the 1917 flu pale in comparison.
The comparison is somewhat alarmist given that the Spanish flu had a 2.5% global mortality rate, which is substantially larger than Sars-coV-2’s actual mortality rate when you discount the many PCR false positive tests. Many who had bacterial pneumonia and could have been saved with antibiotics were left to die because C-19 was diagnosed, and that’s not even mentioning the worthless stakeholder/medical protocols used on C-19 hospital patients.
Despite Trump’s glorification of the vax, he said it shouldn’t be mandatory. Well, it isn’t mandatory for federal politicians and stakeholders, and the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens crossing our southern border.
When interviewed by Candace Owens, our 45thpresident claimed no one had been hurt by these jabs, when that is just a flat out lie! Over 111 airline pilots are dead from the jab, over 75 sports figures have died on the fields, young men are getting myocarditis, which destroys their heart muscle with inflammation. Even Trump’s buddy, Franklin Graham ended up with pericarditis. Graham told us we all should get the vax, that if Jesus were here, he’d get the vax. What absolute total rubbish!
Trump should take a look at the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS) numbers out by Lifesite News from Dec. 14, 2020 to Dec. 10, 2021. Only one percent is reported, so multiply the numbers by 100 and you’ll get the actual death and adverse effect figures since the clot shot came out.
To top it off, Trump echoes the commie Pravda media and tells Candace that 90% of the people in hospitals are unvaccinated, when exactly the opposite is true. Those in hospital sick with Sars-coV-2 are jabbed with one or all of the clot shots including the booster, but if you’ve had the jabs within the last two weeks, hospitals count you as unvaxed. And many get sick or die within the first two weeks after the inoculation. Trump is spewing information from CNN, MSNBC, Fauci and the snakeholders.
There has never been a vaccine for a virus! We know this is not a real vaccine! Why would Trump promote such a thing? Is it pride? That’s the only thing that makes sense. He keeps lauding the fact that he and he alone created “Operation Warp Speed” and saved the country from COVID…a virus 99.8% recover from. We all know, “Pride goeth before the fall.”
COVID Jabs are Shielded
Take note that the federal government shields Pfizer/Moderna/J&J from liability and has given them billions of dollars and is forcing Americans to take their product. But they won’t let you see the data supporting its safety/efficacy. Just who does the government work for?
The FDA has asked a federal judge to make the public wait until the year 2076 to disclose all of the data and information it relied upon to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. That is not a typo. It wants 55 years to produce this information to the public. It’s been 58 years since John F. Kennedy was assassinated and even Donald J. Trump did not release the truth to the public.
As explained in this article, the FDA repeatedly promised “full transparency” with regard to Covid-19 vaccines, including reaffirming “the FDA’s commitment to transparency” when licensing Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.
More than 30 academics, professors, and scientists from this country’s most prestigious universities requested the data and information submitted to the FDA by Pfizer to license its COVID-19 vaccine.
The FDA’s response? It produced nothing. In September, Attorney Aaron Siri’s firm filed a lawsuit against the FDA on behalf of this group to demand this information. To date, almost three months after it licensed Pfizer’s vaccine, the FDA still had not released a single page; finally it released under 100 pages which you can read here.
Support for Trump
I know in my heart the 2020 election was rigged, that Donald J. Trump won the election, hands down. Our 45th president did many wonderful things for this country, and we had a four-year Nineveh. (If you don’t know the story, read the book of Jonah in the Old Testament; it comes right after Obadiah, and right before Micah and is important history.)
My 2016 support for Donald Trump never wavered. I wrote article after article supporting him, two of which he actually used in rallies and the first one helped him to get rid of Jeb Bush. The second article he used at a rally in Alabama explaining why the media is allowed to lie about public figures. Why Alabama? Because that’s where these legal suits started and then ended with the Supreme Court decision in NYTs v. Sullivan.
The mere fact that it took President Trump four years to realize just exactly who and what his Vice President really was, and who and what his Senior Counselor, Kellyanne Conway was…tells me the man has little discernment as to those who are really on his side. Pence sent Trump to controlled-opposition Heritage Foundation and Conway sent him to the Federalist Society, both of whom steered Trump to Supreme Court nominees who, we now know, are anything but conservative. Conway and Pence have been friends for years and have family who are intermarried. They worked together.
Pence was given challenge after challenge by Trump, and failed at every one of them, including being in charge of the Coronavirus Task Force. He gave us Fauci, Birx and Redfield and they destroyed our economy and Trump…just as their handlers planned. Read Pence’s history… [Link], [Link], [Link], [Link].
On January 6th, 2021, Pence stabbed Trump in the back and the Republic in the heart. Finally, after four years, Trump saw the real face of his Vice President…one who had no problem elbow bumping with Pelosi.
Throughout Trump’s administration, he never chose people outside the Deep State. He hired from the swamp over and over and over again. He took Chris Christie’s suggestion and hired Christopher Wray as FBI Director. Then he listened to Attorneys Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing and hired Deep Stater Bill Barr as Attorney General.
Only once did he hire outside the swamp when he appointed Lt. General Michael T. Flynn as National Security Advisor. General Flynn was his finest choice and was terminated within weeks by the deceit and duplicity of the FBI and their backdoor into Pence’s office. Pence’s Chief of Staff was Josh Pitcock whose wife worked for Peter Strzok and Lisa Page allegedly checking Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Trump listened to Deep Stater Pence rather than the General who had decades of intel knowledge. He needed General Flynn, but he ended up with Deep Staters in that very important position over and over again. Far too many people saw his choices as guided by those from the swamp and completely incompatible with Trump, which they proved to be. A prime example is that Christopher Wray is still head of the FBI and Trump should have pulled his nomination during Wray’s Senate hearings.
Conclusion
Around the world hundreds of thousands have died, not from Sars-coV-2, but from the messenger RNA vaccines, millions have suffered permanent disabilities and adverse effects. The buck ultimately stops with Trump. He chose to put Pence in charge of the Coronavirus Task Force, and Pence brought in the Deep State stakeholders. The NIH, FDA, CDC or AMA never approved any early home treatment and banned long approved safe and cheap drugs that would have cured.
People were told there was nothing to be done, go home…and when it got worse, they went to the hospital, were put on oxygen and then ventilators, and 80% of them died. The ultimate goal was the huge moneymaker for Big Pharma…the “vaccines.” Dr. McCullough tells us that 86% of the people who died of the virus could have been saved, but obviously that was not the goal of the snake holders.
Excuses for Trump can be made, yet the buck stops with him. He was our Commander in Chief. There is no question that the guilt of negligence is Trump’s, but the guilt of homicide belongs to Big Pharma. They were the ones that knew what they were doing. Trump’s negligence was not blowing the whistle on them and firing Fauci and the heads of these fraudulent government entities. You can make the case of malicious contempt in the action of Fauci and the officials of Big Pharma, all of whom need to do time at the very least. Trump keeps pushing the lethal vax, why? Is it pride alone? Is it stupidity? Or is it that he is not what he represented himself to be?
Would I ever support Trump again? Only if he is man enough to admit that he made a mistake and provide leadership that results in correction. Repentance is the foundation of our Judeo-Christian faith.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Kelleigh Nelson has been researching the Christian right and their connections to the left, the new age, and cults since 1975. Formerly an executive producer for three different national radio talk show hosts, she was adept at finding and scheduling a variety of wonderful guests for her radio hosts. She has owned her own wholesale commercial bakery since 1990. Previously, Kelleigh was marketing communications and advertising manager for a fortune 100 company. Born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, she was a Goldwater girl with high school classmate, Hillary Rodham, in Park Ridge, Illinois. Kelleigh is well acquainted with Chicago politics and was working in downtown Chicago during the 1968 Democratic convention riots. Email: [email protected]
Featured image is from InfoBrics
January 7th, 2022 by Andrew Korybko
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
The more that people realize the reality of what’s happening in Kazakhstan, the more that they’ll realize that the CSTO peacekeeping mission there is much more peaceful, democratic, and stabilizing than the US’ own ‘peacekeeping missions’.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki responded to a question on Thursday about Kazakhstan. Here’s a transcript of that exchange from the official White House website:
“Q And then, on the situation in Kazakhstan, does what is happening there in any way change the dynamic for the U.S.-Russia talks that are going to begin next week, from the U.S. side? And is there any thought that Putin might be less likely to invade Ukraine while this crisis is playing out in Kazakhstan?
MS. PSAKI: Well, let me touch on a couple of things. First, to provide all of you an update — and you may have seen this — but today, Secretary Blinken shared a productive call with Kazakhstan foreign minister — with the Kazakhstan foreign minister, where he reaffirmed the United States full support for Kazakhstan’s constitutional institutions, human rights, media freedom, including through the restoration of Internet service, and advocated for a peaceful, rights- respecting resolution to the crisis.
There have been, kind of, a range of reports about peacekeeping forces, which I think you might be referencing, but — from Russia. We are closely monitoring reports that the Collective Security Treaty Organization have dispatched its collective peacekeeping forces to Kazakhstan. We have questions about the nature of this request and whether it has — it was a legitimate invitation or not. We don’t know at this point.
The world will, of course, be watching for any violation of human rights and actions that may lay the predicate for the seizure of Kazakh institutions, and we call on the CSTO collective peacekeeping forces and law enforcement to uphold international human rights obligations in order to support a peaceful resolution.”
It’s not her place or anyone else’s actually to question the legitimacy of the CSTO’s Kazakhstani peacekeeping mission.
The Russian-led bloc is carrying out a limited intervention at the request of Kazakhstan’s President Tokayev, whom the American government also recognizes. There are also no credible concerns that the CSTO is violating human rights though it was predictable that the US-led West would fearmonger about that scenario in a desperate attempt to discredit this operation. Washington doesn’t like that Moscow is supporting genuine democracy in Kazakhstan since this contradicts everything that the US government ever said about its Russian counterpart.
To elaborate, the CSTO’s Kazakhstani mission is predicated on “regime reinforcement”, which is the opposite of the US’ regime change policy. It deserves mentioning that America’s anti-Russian “deep state” faction might have played a role in catalyzing the Hybrid War of Terror on Kazakhstan in a last-ditch gamble to sabotage the upcoming negotiations on de-escalating the undeclared US-provoked missile crisis in Europe. Even if the Biden Administration didn’t approve of this operation, it’ll still want to exploit Russia’s response as part of its ongoing information warfare campaign against that country.
The CSTO was invited into Kazakhstan and didn’t invade it like NATO did Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Serbian Autonomous Province of Kosovo & Metohija where the American-led alliance carried out its own “peacekeeping missions” and still does in the last-mentioned. It importantly wasn’t preceded by a “shock and awe” campaign either nor did the CSTO overthrow Kazakhstan’s government and replace it with a puppet regime before intervening. The contrast between the Russian-led mission in Kazakhstan and the American-led ones in the earlier mentioned places powerfully erodes the US’ soft power.
Kazakhstan’s national model of democracy is under threat from regime change terrorists that are waging Hybrid Warfare against this geostrategically located Central Asian nation. Its people are literally living in fear of the terrorists that took over their country’s largest city in the span of just several hours, which made Kazakhstan’s January 5th way worse than the US’ January 6th. Attacking members of the security services (let alone beheading them), seizing and burning government buildings, and even taking over an airport are indisputable acts of terrorism, not “peaceful pro-democracy protests”.
Russia is therefore literally saving Kazakhstan’s democracy, freeing its people from the reign of terror that they’ve suddenly been forced to suffer under, and thus stabilizing the region. This objective observation discredits the US’ fake news narrative that Russia is an “anti-democratic regional destabilizer”, which is why Psaki so desperately attempted to malign its peacekeeping mission in Kazakhstan. She can’t let Russia get away with looking good lest the global masses begin questioning the basis of her country’s information warfare campaign against it.
The more that people realize the reality of what’s happening in Kazakhstan, the more that they’ll realize that Russia’s pro-democracy anti-terrorist peacekeeping mission there is much more peaceful, democratic, and stabilizing than the US’ own “peacekeeping missions”. It’s the latter whose legitimacy should be questioned and serious concerns raised about its soldiers’ widespread violation of the most basic human rights. The US has a track record of death, destruction, and despair whenever it intervenes to overthrow other governments while Russia’s Kazakhstani operation is legal, peaceful, and stabilizing.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on OneWorld.
January 7th, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the NIAID and chief medical adviser to the president, has suggested that vaccines may be mandatory to fly domestically as another incentive to get people vaccinated; he doesn’t mention reducing the spread of the virus
As reports of disruptive and violent passengers continues to rise, having reached 2,900 since January 1, 2021, Fauci recently said that taking off masks while on airplanes is “not something we should even be considering”
Evidence before and during the pandemic does not support the use of masks. Although the newest variant has symptoms nearly identical to a cold, is responsible for 73% of the infections and has killed one person, Fauci says the virus is set to “take over this winter”
This is a new type of war, aimed against society to bring in a totalitarian regime bent on eliminating your freedom. There are steps we can take to keep their planned horrors at bay
*
If Dr. Anthony Fauci had not been a household name before 2020 — or at least since the 1980s — he most certainly has become one since. Fauci is the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the chief medical adviser to the president.
Just two days after Christmas 2021, in an interview with MSNBC, Fauci proposed that vaccinations may become a requirement to fly within the U.S.1,2 He supports this despite continued reports of breakthrough infections,3 recommendations to wear masks no matter how many shots you’ve had4and overwhelming numbers of people experiencing adverse effects, including death.5
Much of Fauci’s power lies in his capacity to fund, arm, pay, maintain and effectively deploy a large and sprawling standing army of helpmates in whatever demands, mandates and other intrusions on your personal freedom he may think of. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) alone controls an annual $37 billion budget distributed in over 50,000 grants supporting over 300,000 positions globally in medical research.6
In his latest book released November 16, 2021,7 “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health,” Robert F. Kennedy Jr., environmental activist and attorney, revealed and documented many of Fauci’s demonstrably illegal practices that have placed the health and welfare of U.S. citizens under fire.
The book follows Fauci’s career, which he launched during the AIDS crisis by partnering with pharmaceutical companies. At the time, they developed and executed a plan that has since been repeated during the COVID-19 pandemic — which was to sabotage all safe and effective known treatments to benefit Big Pharma.8
Fauci’s power and political reach highly influences the recommendations of the FDA and CDC, and subsequently health care providers who either don’t or won’t read independent research to form their own opinions. Steve Kirsch9 recently published remarks made by his friend, Dr. Harvey Cohen,10 pediatric hematologist and oncologist from Stanford Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, which are indicative of the current state of affairs in health care.
When Kirsch asked Cohen if he was going to speak out or be silent about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, Cohen responded by discrediting those who do speak out: “The hospitals are filling with non-vaccinated COVID patients. Why don’t you speak out in favor of getting people vaccinated so we will have fewer hospital admissions and fewer deaths?” Later Cohen ended the conversation, writing:11
“We are in alternative worlds. There is no conspiracy about vaccines, only attempts to control the severity of the pandemic. Sorry, I cannot deal with your misinformation. Please don’t write me anymore about it. I rely on the CDC and FDA to give me the information I need to take care of patients.”
Fauci’s Suggestion to Vax for Flights Is Not for Safety
In his interview with MSNBC Fauci revealed there were ongoing conversations to reduce the number of days individuals who had been exposed to COVID-19 may have to quarantine. During the interview he said:12
“One of the things we have to be careful of, is that when you have so many people who are exposed but not necessarily infected but in general they have to stay out of action for 10 days. If they have an essential job, we want to get them back at that job before the 10-day period. And that’s what’s just being discussed very seriously by the CDC.”
In other words, vaccinated or not, if you have been exposed but do not have symptoms by day five, the CDC was considering reducing the quarantine period. Within hours, the CDC made the announcement,13 and Fauci appeared on CNN14 discussing why the quarantine period was reduced. In response to the question, why reduce the quarantine time now, Fauci responded:15
“With the sheer volume of new cases that we are having, and we expect to continue with Omicron, one of the things we want to be careful of is that we don’t have so many people out. If you are asymptomatic, we want to get people back to their jobs, particularly those with essential jobs, to keep our society running smoothly.”
In other words, it appears that the decision to shorten the quarantine time is based solely to ensure the country has enough people to run essential services. In the same interview, Fauci said that despite thinking a vaccine mandate to fly was something he supports, he was not going to say whether he would personally ask the president to issue such a mandate:16
“I’m not going to tell you that for the simple reason that I don’t want to be publicly telling you what I’m recommending to the president because then if the president doesn’t do it, I don’t want to make it look like the president is going against it. The president takes all recommendations, all discussion and as a group we make a decision about what’s best to do. …
If you’re talking about a requirement to get on a plane domestically that is just another requirement that’s reasonable to consider. I think that’s what we’re talking about. When you make vaccination a requirement, that’s another incentive to get people vaccinated. If you want to do that with domestic flights, I think that’s something that should be seriously considered.”
Fauci’s interview triggers more questions than it answers. Why shorten the quarantine time after nearly two years of “emergency” living? Could it be that there are too many essential workers refusing the vaccine17 and a 10-day quarantine would hamstring the country?
More importantly, Fauci did not mention safety reason for mandating vaccination on domestic flights. Instead, his reasoning was to use a forced shot as “another incentive to get people vaccinated.” It appears he is taking a page from Nike’s famous advertising slogan18 as the narrative changes from safety to “Just do it.”
Airlines Backing Masks for Financial Reasons, Not Science
Although CNBC reports19 that “there is no indication at this point that a vaccine mandate is on its way for U.S. flights,” during the past 18 months, Fauci has historically made suggestions which subsequently come to pass.
He also clearly signaled that masks are here to stay for the foreseeable future when he said that taking off masks while on airplanes is “not something we should even be considering.”20
In December 2021, the executives of American Airlines, Delta Airlines, United Airlines and Southwest testified at a Senate hearing that air quality in the planes is controlled by electrostatically-sprayed, high-grade disinfectant and HEPA air filters that remove up to “99.99% of airborne particles.” They concurred with the Southwest Airlines executive’s statement:21
“I think the case is very strong that masks don’t add much if anything in the air cabin environment. It is very safe, and very high quality compared to any other indoor setting.”
The CEO for United Airlines noted their partnership with Cleveland Clinic and the testing the Department of Defense had performed on United’s airplanes, concluding the air quality was safer than many other indoor areas because of the filtration.22 Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants, spoke in rebuttal in what Forbes magazine called a “swift and thorough fact check.”
She made the point that the mannequins used during the study referenced by United Airlines CEO did not move and did not eat, alluding to the fact that masks do not provide an effective seal. She also pointed out that the older planes do not have the HEPA filtration — and that concluded her swift and thorough “fact” check.
After the Senate hearing the CEO of Delta and American Airlines backpedaled their statements.23CNN Business24 reports that Nelson said the reason airline tickets are being sold close to prepandemic levels today are because the mask mandate has led to greater confidence in airline passengers.
Kerry Tan, professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland agrees with Nelson. “I can’t speak to the science of whether masks help, but my thoughts with the mask mandate is that they help with booking leisure travel. I feel like it generally will give passengers peace of mind,” he told CNN Business.25
If you read the studies, they don’t support mask use. When you start to search for data on wearing masks as a strategy to reduce your risk of infection, here’s a sample of what you’ll find:
Airline Mask Rules Trigger Disruptive and Violent Passengers
In other words, instead of addressing the science that does not support the use of masks to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2, or educating airline customers about the science, several CEOs, Nelson and the economic professor from Loyola decided it’s easier and more financially advantageous to mandate masks and go with the flow. Yet, recent news reports of disruptive and violent passengers do not fit what they hoped.
In June 2021, The Washington Post32 reported an “unprecedented rise in disruptive passengers” on flights, warning that “experts say it could get worse.” The article recounted when a Southwest passenger knocked out a flight attendant’s teeth and a man was arrested after banging on the cockpit door of a Delta flight.
Speaking to The Washington Post, Nelson said “There is constant conflict on board. I think there’s a potential that this can get worse.”33 The Federal Aviation Administration received 2,900 reports of unruly passengers since January 1, 2021, and 2,200 of those were about the mask mandate.
Most recently was a two-minute video posted on Twitter34 showing an unmasked woman in the aisle yelling at a seated unmasked man who was eating. She had to be restrained and taken to the back of the plane after she assaulted him and spit on him for not wearing a mask.
Fauci Warns Coronavirus Cold May ‘Take Over This Winter’
According to Kennedy, “Fauci uses the financial clout at his disposal to wield extraordinary influence over hospitals, universities, journals and thousands of influential doctors and scientists — whose careers and institutions he has the power to ruin, advance or reward.”35
Earlier this year, Fauci received a $1 million prize from Israel for “speaking truth to power” as “the consummate model of leadership and impact in public health.”36 This a far cry from the documented evidence presented in Kennedy’s book, or from the Freedom of Information Act release of Fauci’s emails37 or from the documentation presented before the Senate.38,39
It is vital to remember that coronaviruses were first identified in the mid-1960s40 and are among the viruses responsible for the common cold. The newest mutation of SARS-CoV-2 is called Omicron, and thus far, while the variant has accounted for 73% of new cases41 in the U.S., only one man with underlying health conditions has died.
Perhaps this is because the symptoms of Omicron are nearly identical to a cold, with cough, fatigue, congestion and runny nose the most prominent symptoms. Yet, Fauci continues fear mongering, warning that Omicron is going to “take over this winter” and Americans should brace for a “tough few weeks to months.”42
This Is the New War
There is no doubt we are in a sophisticated war and anyone capable of rational thought and an inkling of desire for freedom is the designated enemy. Everywhere you look, officials are spewing easily provable lies, yet the mainstream media run with it and large numbers of people are swallowing the information without thinking twice.
It is not hard to imagine a future where the population is so grossly misinformed that there’s no one left to even consider questioning the narrative handed to them. Importantly, as explained by Mattias Desmet,43 professor of clinical psychology at Ghent University in Belgium, totalitarianism differs from dictatorships.
Since totalitarian regimes commit their worst atrocities once dissenting voices have been silenced, many planned horrors can be kept at bay by keeping the pressure on, and by vocalizing dissent. By speaking out and uniting in the fight for freedom we also provide a better alternative to those who otherwise would simply go along with the program, for fear of being ostracized.
“In my opinion, it is not an option to stop speaking,” Desmet says. “It’s the most important thing we can do.”44 We also need to create parallel structures — businesses, organizations, technologies, movements and creative pursuits that fit within a totalitarian society while being morally outside of it. Once enough parallel structures are created, a parallel culture is born that functions as a sanctuary of sanity within the totalitarian world.
According to Desmet, totalitarianism will always self-destruct in the end. The psychological underpinnings are so self-destructive that the system ends up killing its own. That’s the good news. The bad news is a totalitarian system can survive for long periods of time before petering out, and there tend to be few survivors at the end.
That said, Desmet believes this new global totalitarianism is more unstable than regional dictator-led totalitarian systems, so it may self-destruct faster. The key is to survive outside the totalitarian system while we patiently resist it and wait for its self-destruction.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Notes
1 New York Times, December 27, 2021
2, 16 MSNBC, December 27, 2021, Minute 8:08
3 Johns Hopkins Medicine, November 23, 2021
4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, October 15, 2021
6 Bitchute, November 9, 2021, Minute 1:45
7, 35 The Defender, August 18, 2021
8 Simon and Schuster, The Real Anthony Fauci
9 Steve Kirsch, December 26, 2021
11 Steve Kirsch, December 26, 2021, para 4 and first quote under the numbered text
12 MSNBC, December 27, 2021, Minute 3:25
13 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, December 17, 2021
14, 15 CNN Health, December 27, 2021
17 ABC News, September 30, 2021
20 Fox News, December 17, 2021
21, 22, 23 Forbes, December 17, 2021
24 CNN Business, December 15, 2021
25 CNN Business, December 20, 2021, para 7
28 Emerging Infectious Diseases May 2020; 26(5)
29 CDC.gov MMWR September 11, 2020; 69(36)
30 Breitbart, October 14, 2020, para 7
31 WHO.int Advice on the Use of Masks in the Context of COVID-19
32, 33 Washington Posts, June 11, 2021
36 Your Tango, February 16, 2021
40 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Human Coronavirus Types
42 CNN Health, December 20, 2021
43 YouTube, October 20, 2021, Min 1:27
44 YouTube, October 20, 2021, Min 44:34
Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense
January 7th, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
A strange wave of protests has broken out in Kazakhstan in this first week of 2022, affecting the entire social structure of the country. The public excuse for the demonstrations is popular discontent with the rising price of gas in the country, but the protests have not ceased even with the government lowering prices, revealing that it is likely to be greater interests being disputed. Considering the strategic importance of Kazakhstan, some analysts suspect the involvement of American and Turkish agents interested in creating instability and tensions in Central Asia, mutually affecting Moscow and Beijing.
The first week of 2022 is being very turbulent in Kazakhstan. A strong wave of protests broke out against the government, apparently motivated by the exponential increase in the price of liquefied petroleum gas. This type of fuel is commonly used in the country at low prices, as a substitute for gasoline, whose value is higher. On Saturday, the first day of the year, the government approved a law to increase the price of the gas, which possibly prompted a serious social crisis, with the emergence of protests.
The regions with the greatest focus of protests are precisely those where most of the fuel is produced, mainly the city of Janaozen and the province of Aktau. The demonstrations quickly reached Almaty, the country’s largest city, home to around 8% of Kazakhstan’s total population. The situation was completely out of the authorities’ control, with car burnings, depredation, occupation of public buildings, vandalism and violent attacks on police and civilians, resulting in an uncertain number of injured and dead people.
The government, under intense pressure, announced some measures to alleviate the crisis. The price of gas has dropped considerably, reaching the mark of US$ 0.11 per liter in regions like Mangystau – where Aktau city is located. However, this was not enough to contain the violence of the protesters, who continued to carry out acts of vandalism and disrupt public order. Threatening even more the social and economic structure of the country, the protesters invaded and occupied the Almaty airport, which caused a major inconvenience for the local population. Part of the government capitulated to the pressure, which resulted in Prime Minister Askar Mamin’s resignation. On the other hand, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev declared a state of emergency and promised a tough response against protesters.
The president asked the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) – an alliance of Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan – to help restore order in the country’s cities. The assistance was immediate, with troops, vehicles and equipment being sent in order to help Kazakh security forces regain control over the cities. The clashes have been severe, with many deaths reported. Many protesters are using weapons and confronting agents with guerrilla tactics. CSTO’s work has been effective in reducing chaos, but the violence is not expected to end soon.
Faced with this type of situation, it is practically impossible not to suspect the possibility of foreign interference. Obviously, it is possible that the protests started organically, with the population dissatisfied with the prices, but clearly there is more to it than mere popular dissatisfaction. Definitely, it is not common for the people to continue acting with such violence, even after the government partially attends the demands – considering that the price of gas has been reduced. Also, the extreme use of force against police and military personnel does not seem to be an attitude usual of popular collectives. It is very likely that there is something beyond popular dissatisfaction and that foreign groups are interfering in the situation to take advantage of the tensions and provoke a possible color revolution.
The most interested in a situation like this in Kazakhstan are the US and Turkey. Both countries have a very strong interest in gaining influence over the Central Asian post-Soviet space and, for that, they want to undermine Russian and Chinese influence in the region. For this, Kazakhstan seems an extremely strategic point, considering its proximity to Russia and the Xinjiang region of China. Beijing certainly fears that a colorful revolution in Kazakhstan will develop into a wave of rebellions across Central Asia, as that would mean the possibility of a Uighur insurrection. Moscow, in the same sense, fears the destabilization of the entire post-Soviet zone, which comprises a large part of its border territory and strategic environment.
The US is currently looking to increase the number of its military bases in Central Asian countries to fill the US troop deficit in the region after the defeat in Kabul. For its part, Ankara wants to expand across Central Asia as part of its pan-Turkish geopolitics. With this, Kazakhstan becomes a point of common interest for the Americans and Turks to act as destabilizing agents, harming Eurasian integration precisely at the moment of closer ties between Russia and China.
Furthermore, it must be remembered that a summit between NATO and Russia on the Ukrainian issue will soon take place. With this, it is possible that Washington is sending a message to Moscow saying that it is willing to negotiate the situation in Eastern Europe, but that, in return, will intensify activities in Central Asia – which would mean a change of geopolitical focus in the tensions between the West. and Russia.
In fact, there are many possibilities. The strategic importance of Kazakhstan is immense, and it is very likely that some degree of foreign involvement will be revealed soon. The Russian government has already issued a public statement asking that no state interfere in the local crisis, saying that Kazakhstan will solve its problems by its own means. The most likely situation is that the crisis will soon be appeased and that the plans for a color revolution will fail, as NATO’s real objective is only to generate instability in the region, not to provoke large-scale conflicts. Given that there is already a CSTO’s intervention, it is unlikely that there is any Western interest in further arming the protesters, creating a possible war.
Despite the possibility of appeasement, there is a clear message coming from these protests: NATO is ready to act strongly in Central Asia. And this will be the biggest challenge to be faced by the Eurasian integration project.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
Featured image is from TASS
January 7th, 2022 by Alex Berenson
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
A huge new study has found the risk of serious heart problems called myocarditis in men under 40 soars with each dose of a Covid mRNA vaccine – and is sharply higher than the risk from a coronavirus infection itself.
The findings call into sharp question the efforts by American colleges and universities to make their students receive booster shots before returning to school this January – especially since other studies have shown that the risk of post-vaccine myocarditis is concentrated not merely in men under 40 but in those aged 16-25.
The study, which British researchers released in late December, showed that the risk of myocarditis almost doubled after the first Pfizer shot in men under 40. Then it doubled again after the second and doubled again after the third – to almost eight times the baseline risk.
For the Moderna vaccine, the risks were even higher, reaching 16-fold after the second shot. (The risk of a third Moderna shot could not be calculated because too few people received it.)
Because each Moderna shot contains 100 micrograms of mRNA, while each Pfizer shot contains 30, the findings suggest strongly that the heart risks are dose-related and likely to continue to rise with each additional shot.
The study also contained some evidence that post-vaccine myocarditis might be more dangerous than other forms of myocarditis. It showed a trend towards higher death rates in people hospitalized for myocarditis after vaccination compared to other myocarditis cases.
Both myocarditis and pericarditis are forms of heart inflammation that can be very serious, even deadly. In an appendix, the researchers reported that 263 Britons were hospitalized for myocarditis within four weeks of receiving a Pfizer shot; of those, 38, or 14 percent, died. Only about 9 percent of people hospitalized for myocarditis that did not follow an mRNA vaccination died.
The researchers did not look at other potential cardiovascular risks, such as heart attacks or irregular heartbeats, although American and European databases of post-vaccine side effects contain many reports of those as well.
The findings come even as many colleges and universities – including public schools like the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, large private schools such as Syracuse University, and Ivy League institutions such as Princeton University – demand that their students receive a booster Covid shot before returning to campus.
For nearly all these students, an mRNA shot is the only viable option, as the Johnson & Johnson shot is no longer in common use.
These colleges are likely subjecting their male students to a risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, a related illness, that is much higher than the overall risk of Covid, which is vanishingly small for healthy teenagers and young adults. Many larger universities are likely to have multiple cases of male students hospitalized for myocarditis as a result of the mandates.
The massive study was is based on data from 42 million Britons who received at least one Covid vaccine dose, including roughly 22 million who received the mRNA vaccines.
About half were given the mRNA vaccines, while the rest received AstraZeneca’s DNA/AAV vaccine, which is not available in the United States. The AstraZeneca vaccine, which works similarly to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, had a lower risk of myocarditis than mRNA vaccines.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from NaturalNews.com
January 7th, 2022 by Prof Rodrigue Tremblay
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
“Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of a private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. – Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945), 32nd American President (1933-1945). (in ‘Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies’, April 29, 1938)
“The flood of money that gushes into politics today is a pollution of democracy.” – Theodore H. White (1915-1984), American political journalist, historian and novelist, (in Time magazine, Nov. 19, 1984)
“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” —A Republic, if you can keep it”. – Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), American inventor and U.S. Founding Father. (An answer to a lady’s question at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787)
Poll after poll indicates very deep political divisions among Americans, with indications that such divisions are deepening, and even widening as a consequence of the the pandemic. Indeed, according to the most recent NPR/Ipsos poll, seven in ten Americans believe the country is in crisis and is at risk of failing.
Why so much pessimism and such disintegration?
Major shifts in domestic policies over the last 40 years
Over the last four decades, there have been two important structural shifts in the U.S. that have profoundly changed the functioning of its political and social systems in a most negative way.
The first was the decision by the Reagan administration (1981-1989) to open American airwaves to extremist political groups. Indeed, in 1986, the Reagan administration and the Federal Communications Commission (FFC) abolished the 1949 Fairness Doctrine rule in licensing the airwaves to radio and television operators. That policy required the holders of broadcast licenses both to “present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced.” The policy was formerly repealed in 1987.
Secondly, on January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court made a controversial decision regarding the role of money in politics. Indeed, the court issued a 5-4 decision in favor of a plaintiff, Citizens United, which struck down restrictions on the amounts of money spent in the political arena by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations, by declaring that “money is speech”, which could not be regulated under the First Amendment.
That 2010 Supreme Court decision was an important break with the past, because it reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions, and it has enabled corporations and other special interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of money in American elections.
To the traditional rule of “one person, one vote”, expressing the principle that citizens should have equal representation in voting, the U.S. Supreme Court has, in fact, added the rule of “one dollar-one voice” for corporations, nonprofit organizations and labor unions. The more dollars an outfit has, the stronger is its political voice and its political influence. As a consequence, this has moved the American electoral system closer to a de facto plutocracy and power politics for the super-rich and special interests. As former president Jimmy Carter (1924- ) said in 2015, the United States is now “an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery”.
These two influential decisions, in 1986 and in 2010—coupled with friendly fiscal measures by the U.S. government and an ultra-loose monetary policy pursued by the Fed in the aftermath of the 2007-08 financial crisis and during the 2020-22 pandemic—have been instrumental in entrenching the money oligarchy and the special interests of the ultra-rich in the United States. Their increased wealth has given them a dominant control over the political propaganda machine (print and electronic media), over the electoral process and the overall functioning of public institutions.
Income and wealth inequalities are high and increasing in the U.S.
Income and wealth inequalities in the United States are presently more severely skewed in favor of upper-income Americans than over the last 50 years, while the U.S. middle class, where a clear majority of Americans used to belong, is shrinking. For instance, according to the Pew Research Center analysis, the relative share of U.S. aggregate income of American adults in the middle class fell from 62 percent in 1970 to 43 percent in 2018—a significant drop. During the same period, the share of upper-income Americans rose from 29 percent in 1970 to 48 percent in 2018. Even the share of lower income Americans has fallen from 10 percent to 9 percent.
The shifts in U.S. aggregate wealth among upper-income families and middle- and lower-income families have been even more pronounced than income inequality and are growing since the early ’80s.
For example, also from Pew Research, the share of American wealth held by upper-income families was 75 percent in 1983, but surged to 87 percent in 2016. Middle-income families and lower-income families saw their share of U.S. wealth decline. The former’s share fell from 22.3 percent in 1983 to 11.8 percent in 2016, while the latter saw their share of wealth fall from 2.7 percent in 1983 to 1.2 percent in 2016.
Many factors can explain such a significant shift in the relative shares of income and wealth over the last half-century, in the United States, but also in the most advanced economies in Europe, in Canada and in Australia, in a less profound way.
The most relevant are:
The process of rapid technological changes, deregulation and the rise of new industries have produced a profound transformation in the way communications and information in general are being transmitted almost instantaneously, through a proliferation of television and radio networks and computer networks.
In this new context, unscrupulous media won’t hesitate to suppress information and offer superficial or biased analyses, going as far as to generate disinformationand fake news, where facts are denied and lies glorified. For this purpose, they can resort to psychological manipulation through the propaganda technique of the ‘Big Lie‘. In so doing, they can profoundly influence the masses in a chosen direction. This has opened the gates to demagoguery.
The advent of social media, for instance, was made possible by the Internet, with the support of ever more powerful microprocessors, and by interconnected computer networks. This is the technology that has allowed for the creation of numerous social communication platforms (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.) and which have generated enormous personal wealth for some individuals.
The development of a more globalized economy has also transferred political power in favor of multinational corporations and banks, at the expense of national governments. Indeed, in the mid-1990s, there was an acceleration of economic and financial globalization, when low cost communication networks intensified the international movements not only of goods and services through cross-border trade, but also of financial capital and direct investment, work and technology, from high wage countries to lower wage economies.
Also, in many advanced economies, there was a relative institutional decline of labor unions, and this played a role in widening the gap between more skilled and less skilled workers and in enlarging the gap between the rich and poor.
Governments have also played an important role in exacerbating income and wealth disparities through fiscal policies, which lowered taxes on high incomes and transferred subsidies and grants to the wealthy. This has also been the case with monetary policies, which have created financial bubbles in the real estate markets and in the stock market, thus favoring the wealthiest among owners.
One must also add the policies of mass immigration pursued by certain governments, which have had a disproportionate negative impact on low-wage earners, especially when such policies increase the competition between less skilled workers.
It is not surprising that all these important technological and economic transformations, and the concomitant shifts in income and wealth disparities, have created political and social resentment among many low-income earners. They strongly resent being pitted against low-wage earners in less developed countries through free trade and more imports of labor-intensive goods, and, at home, through mass immigration. For these workers, it’s a double whammy.
A substantial part of the current divisiveness and the refusal to compromise observed in the U.S. can be traced back to this increasing trend toward income and wealth inequalities between high income earners and low income earners.
Violence and civil tensions are on the rise in the U.S.
Money and guns seem to be the modern gods of America. [N.B.: In June 2018, a Small Arms Survey estimated that there were 393.3 million guns, some military guns, in civilian hands in the United States, i.e. 120.5 guns per 100 inhabitants.]
This could explain why violence of Americans against other Americans seems to be so deadly, and while this is increasing and even encouraged in some quarters. In only one year, in 2020, there were some 43,000 people killed by firearms in the United States, an average of over 100 deaths per day.
Politically, the violent storming of the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob, on January 6, 2021, failed in its objective of reversing the democratic results of the November 3rd 2020 election. However, evidence mounts that such a full-fledged and seditions attempted coup d’état had been well organized and planned in advance.
If so, this is likely to be a harbinger of unsavory things to come for the United States. About one third of Americans now think that violence against the government can be justified. Some observers are not even excluding a possible new civil war. They are troubled by the fact that the Pentagon pays to broadcast the conspiracy-prone Fox News network to its 800 bases around the world.
Domestically, some instances of economic anarchy have occurred in the San Francisco Bay area, where organized mobs have been charging and looting stores. It would not be a surprise to see such a phenomenon spreading to other large American cities, especially if a serious economic recession were to follow the current financial excesses.
Conclusion
In matters of politics and social affairs, wisdom calls for ruling at the center in order to unite rather than divide. Governing for extremist interests, either left or right, only encourages the fragmentation of a nation.
Currently, several indicators show that the United States has entered a phase of internal self-destruction, due to a series of political, economic and technological factors, and because of all the disruptions that ensue, some of which have been exacerbated by the on-going pandemic.
If the United States were to continue on the same path of extreme political divisiveness, social disintegration, hatred between groups and dangerous economic inequalities, this could have profound consequences for itself and for its democracy, of course, but also for the entire world.
The end result of it all could be more moral decline, more political extremism and gridlock, more costly conflicts abroad and more violence at home. This does not bode well for the future.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay.
International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book about morals “The code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles” of the book about geopolitics “The New American Empire“, and the recent book , in French, “La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018“. He holds a Ph.D. in international finance from Stanford University.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
Featured image is from Savvapanf Photo/Shutterstock
January 7th, 2022 by Global Research News
Bombshell Document Dump on Pfizer Vaccine Data
, December 31 , 2021
, December 31 , 2021
, January 2 , 2022
, January 6 , 2022
, December 7 , 2021
Graphene COVID Kill Shots: Let the Evidence Speak for Itself
, December 5 , 2021
, December 28 , 2021
The Prevailing Corona Nonsense Narrative
, December 25 , 2021
ODMS: “Oxygen Deprivation Mask Syndrome” Now Sweeping Across the Globe
, January 2 , 2022
, December 6 , 2021
, December 9 , 2021
Video: A Final Warning to Humanity from Former Pfizer Chief Scientist Michael Yeadon
, December 12 , 2021
US Pilot Deaths increase by 1,750% after Covid Vaccine Rollout
, December 25 , 2021
“Is the Virus Fictitious”? Laboratories in US Can’t Find COVID-19 in One of 1,500 Positive Tests
, December 16 , 2021
Video: Graphene Hydroxide in the mRNA Vaccine Vial: Assassination of Dr. Andreas Noack
, December 29 , 2021
, December 25 , 2021
, December 22 , 2021
Video: “Imagine All The People”: The Covid-19 Omicron Christmas and New Year Lockdown
, January 2 , 2022
, December 28 , 2021
, December 29 , 2021
January 7th, 2022 by Marius Palz
January 7th, 2022 by Global Research News
Uncovering the Corona Narrative: Was Everything Carefully Planned? Analysis by Ernst Wolff
By
, January 06, 2022The current situation we find ourselves in is unique in the history of mankind. Never before has the whole world been thrown under the rule of this type of coercive regime as we are experiencing now. And never have so many measures been taken which at first glance appears so unintelligible, partly so nonsensical, and in many cases, so contradictory.
Narrative and Reality of the Libyan Crisis
By
, January 06, 2022NATO expresses concern over the crisis in Libya, which “has direct implications for regional stability and the security of all Allies.” It therefore assures that it “remains committed to providing Libya with defense and security advice”.
By
, January 06, 2022While the Chinese authorities announced TWO YEARS AGO on January 7, 2020 that they had isolated and identified “a new type of virus” no details were provided. Then on the 28th of January 2020, the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated that the novela corona virus had been isolated.
Living in Epoch-Defining Times: Food, Agriculture and the New World Order
By
, January 06, 2022Farmerless farms manned by driverless machines, monitored by drones and doused with chemicals to produce commodity crops from patented genetically engineered seeds for industrial ‘biomatter’ to be processed and constituted into something resembling food.
The Corona Crisis: Is the Tide Turning? “A Rapid General Awakening”?
By
, January 06, 2022Early indications are that the tide may be turning, that “peak-covid tyranny” may have been reached. Going into 2022 under these new apparent signs could mean a rapid general awakening, to the point of reaching a critical mass of people who start doubting the going billion-dollar propagated narrative. That would be good. It’s never too late.
By
, January 06, 2022On November 23, 2021, the WHO did a Facebook post claiming the vaccines side-effects are mild. You’d never guess that from the 45,000 comments they received–all negative.
By
, January 06, 2022A group of 57 leading scientists, doctors and policy experts has released a report calling in to question the safety and efficacy of the current COVID-19 vaccines and are now calling for an immediate end to all vaccine programs. We urge you to read and share this damning report.
Radioactive Contamination: Japan Plans to Dump Water from Fukushima Plant into the Pacific Ocean
By
, January 06, 2022People in coastal communities in Japan, joined by voices from around the world, denounced a new governmental plan to dump contaminated water from the site of the Fukushima nuclear disaster into the Pacific Ocean.
“Fabricated War on Terrorism”: Pentagon Drone Attacks Killed Many Innocent People with Impunity
By
, January 06, 2022A frontpage New York Times Magazine report on Sunday January 2 revealed in chilling details the systematic targeting of peoples in territories where the United States government had declared a frontline battlefield against its fabricated “war on terrorism.”
By
, January 06, 2022If the public had been informed and reassured that Covid is (according to the WHO definition) “Similar to Seasonal Influenza”, the fear campaign would have fallen flat. The lockdown and closure of the national economy would have been rejected outright.
January 6th, 2022 by Živadin Jovanović
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Global Research brings to the attention our readers the speech of Zivadin Jovanovic, published by Current Concerns.
The speech entitled 60 years after the Belgrade, Non-Aligned Movement conference: A movement for non-alignment is still necessary today was held at the Forum “NAM Talks”, The Museum of African Arts, September 2nd, 2021.
You can read the article by clicking the image below.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: The member- (dark blue) und the observer states (light blue) of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). (graphic wikipedia.org/Current Concerns)
January 6th, 2022 by Abayomi Azikiwe
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
A frontpage New York Times Magazine report on Sunday January 2 revealed in chilling details the systematic targeting of peoples in territories where the United States government had declared a frontline battlefield against its fabricated “war on terrorism.”
In fact, the “war on terrorism” was a calculated efforts to enhance and secure the status of the U.S. as the dominant imperialist country in the world.
The use of drones has become a major weapon in the war arsenal of the Pentagon since the usage of this long-range ordnance minimizes U.S. casualties. The less injuries and deaths reported by the corporate and western government-controlled media outlets, the more the Pentagon and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) can attempt to build support for aggressive military actions against perceived enemies.
In justifying the use of drone warfare, the Pentagon and its allies continue to say that civilians unconnected with the so-called “terrorists” or “jihadists” are never injured or killed. Nonetheless, the New York Times reports and in years prior, the revelations from WikiLeaks, exposed these genocidal war crimes for the world to see.
With the withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 and the refusal to fully exit Iraq and Syria, the White House, Pentagon and State Department are looking for additional avenues to assert its military and economic prowess amid a rapidly shifting international situation. Although tensions are escalating between Washington and the governments of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation, among others in Latin America and Africa, the political status of the current administration of President Joe Biden would be further comprised in the event of a major geo-political conflict in Eastern Europe, the Asia-Pacific or South America and the Caribbean.
Obviously losing influence around the world, the Biden administration has issued threats against Beijing and Moscow. They have accused China of planning to retake Taiwan and Russia of positioning itself militarily to intervene in neighboring Ukraine. These allegations are baseless sense it is the U.S. which has sought to minimize and destabilize the governments in Beijing and Moscow. Holding a “Democracy Summit” while ignoring large and significant states such as Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, etc., can only fuel international tensions.
The New York Times Magazine article written by Azmat Khan with photos from Ivor Prickett says:
“The Times obtained more than 1,300 confidential Pentagon assessments of allegations of civilian casualties in the American-led air war in the Middle East, between September 2014 and January 2018, during the height of the war against the Islamic State. Based on those documents, The Times recently reported patterns of failed intelligence, decision-making and execution behind deadly airstrikes. These documents detail the criteria and rationales for how the Pentagon chose to classify civilian casualty allegations as either credible or noncredible.”
Although these documents only cover a period of four years during the war against the so-called “Islamic State” in Iraq and northern Syria, the drone and other targeted bomb attacks on people within these two countries and neighboring nations such as Yemen, have been going on since the post-2001 intervention in Afghanistan. Even prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, the utilization of targeted assassinations through bombings has been standard practice of U.S. imperialism and its allies.
Khan does deal with the impact of the air war in Afghanistan as well. Many innocent civilians lost their lives as a result of the purported failure of the Pentagon to properly target its designated enemies within ISIS, the Taliban and other organizations. The Pentagon’s own internal investigations and assessments reinforced the disregard for human life in the “war on terrorism.”
Moreover, the “Islamist” groupings from al-Qaeda to ISIS and its affiliates, have their origins in the wars waged by the Pentagon and NATO in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. These organizations have been used by the U.S. to overthrow states in Africa and Asia which represented independence from the western imperialist policies. At the same time, the very existence of al-Qaeda and ISIS and their being labelled as “terrorists”, provides a rationale for the continued deployment of U.S. military forces and the launching of drone attacks.
Even with these contradictory narratives in place, the failure to understand the geography of these countries and the predominant languages which are spoken, contributed immensely to the deaths and injuries of noncombatants. The New York Times reports on drone attacks reveals that the wrong areas, towns and villages were struck while there was no thorough investigation of these errors where casualties occurred.
Khan notes in the same NYT Magazine report that: “In some assessments, the Pentagon simply confused towns with the same or similar names and dismissed the claims, the documents show, as happened with a reported airstrike on a Syrian town in March 2017. Several social media posts said that the strike had hit a neighborhood in Maskana, part of Aleppo Province in Syria, killing at least eight people. An internal Pentagon team flagged the claim for further review. The documents show that assessors zeroed in on Maskana, but it was the wrong one. There is a town with the same name in Homs, a different province of Syria. The reviewers were unable to find correlating airstrikes, and the allegation was dismissed.”
These facts require an independent investigation into the war crimes and the punishment of those responsible. However, the policy of military impunity seems to be thoroughly ingrained into the policies of the Pentagon.
Those Who Exposed War Crimes Should Be Exonerated
What is often overlooked in the period between the beginning of the first Iraq war in 1991 and continuing through the invasions of Afghanistan (2001), the occupation of Iraq in 2003, the destruction of Libya (2011) and the continuing destabilization efforts against Syria (2011-present), is that significant resistance to these genocidal wars took place outside and inside the military.
Some of the most well-known people who exposed these criminal acts are Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, Edward Snowden, a private contractor with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Chelsea Manning, a former soldier accused of sharing military secrets with WikiLeaks. Snowden was driven into exile in Russia, Manning was court martialed under the Espionage Act and served seven years in U.S. military prisons, while Assange is facing extradition to the U.S. to stand trial.
There is no way that Assange can have a fair trial in the U.S. since both the Democratic and Republican parties are implicated in these war crimes which were exposed by WikiLeaks. Since the crimes of the Pentagon have long been exposed and the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan illustrated the futility of the occupations, Assange, Snowden and Manning should be pardoned for their work.
Assange took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy for seven years (2012-2019) until there was a right-wing change of government which ousted him from the building. He was arrested by the British authorities while the U.S. heightened its efforts to have him extradited to stand trial for supposedly hacking into State Department and Defense Department files. A lower court in Britain held up the extradition due to mental health concerns expressed through the lawyers for Assange. Nonetheless, the British High Court overturned the decision under the guise that the U.S. has given guarantees that Assange would be treated fairly and not placed in heavily restricted custody.
In a report published by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) on the High Court ruling it emphasizes that:
“If convicted in the U.S., Mr. Assange, 50, faces a possible penalty of up to 175 years in jail, his lawyers have said. However, the U.S. government said the sentence was more likely to be between four and six years. Mr. Assange faces an 18-count indictment from the U.S. government, accusing him of conspiring to hack into U.S. military databases to acquire sensitive secret information relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which was then published on the Wikileaks website. He says the information exposed abuses by the U.S. military. But U.S. prosecutors say the leaks of classified material endangered lives, and so the U.S. sought his extradition from the UK.”
This argument that the exposure of war crimes cost lives is absurd. It was not Assange that carried out drone attacks and other bombing operations against innocent civilians and journalists. The lives were taken by the Pentagon based upon imperialist designs to control large swaths of territory in Central, South and West Asia along with Africa. It was the Pentagon war planes directed by high-ranking military officials, intelligence operatives and politicians that killed and maimed millions over the last two-to-three decades.
In addition to the mass killings, tens of millions more have been internally displaced and turned into refugees. The political, economic and military institutions of the U.S. and NATO countries are the ones that require prosecution, imprisonment and dismantlement in order for corrective justice to be achieved.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All images in this article are from the author
January 6th, 2022 by Peter Koenig
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Early indications are that the tide may be turning, that “peak-covid tyranny” may have been reached. Going into 2022 under these new apparent signs could mean a rapid general awakening, to the point of reaching a critical mass of people who start doubting the going billion-dollar propagated narrative. That would be good. It’s never too late.
Though a lot of damage, health-wise, socially as well as economically has already been done, but a lot more could be done – and is, in fact, planned – through the UN Agenda 2030. We must stop this diabolical agenda.
The forced “vaccination” programs, throughout Europe, and strangely, to a lesser degree in the US, where apparently US states have more authority and autonomy than have European Union (EU) member countries, are creating enormous physical (like in diseases caused by the vaxxes), psychological and social harm.
Yes, you understood correctly, in Europe, the European Union (EU), entire so-called sovereign nations, are more subjected to tyrannical dictatorships than are US states, despite a dictatorial US President, who requests that every US citizen be “vaccinated” or else. His words are blown in the wind, when it comes to US State autonomy. Fortunately. We can just dream of such leadership in European nations. There ain’t. They are all bought, coerced or threatened into submission.
For example, US States do not accept QR-coded vaccine passports. The coercion to vaccination varies, but in most states, there is no forced vaccination. The most “liberal” states as far as vaxxes go, are Texas and Florida, where very few restrictions apply, if any. Many “rules” are voluntary and not imposed.
Japan Places Myocarditis Warning on ‘Vaccines’, Requires Informed Consent
The Government of Japan requests that myocarditis warnings are put on vaccines, and that vaccination may only take place with informed consent. Vaccination is basically voluntary and at that, people have to be told about the risks they are taking, by accepting the jab – see this.
Indeed, immediate cardiac arrest, or myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle, a direct result of the mRNA – “vaxx”, that could lead to lingering heart problems, as well as death. This has already happened in thousands of cases as a result of mRNA unproven gene-modifying experimental injections. See Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi (16 min. video).
Click here to watch the video.
These efforts towards informed consent from Japan’s health authority are in stark contrast to the dictatorial and coercive measures taken by other countries to force citizens into taking the injection, downplaying and outright lying about potentially deadly side effects, as well as discouraging proper adverse event reporting.
In fact, Japan breaks ranks with the rest of the world.
Doctors worldwide have echoed Japan’s health authority warnings about the experimental gene-therapies – “vaccination” is a stark misnomer – side effects. However, this kind of proper informed consent has cost many doctors in western nations their licenses to practice medicine. The government has accused these doctors of spreading ‘vaccine hesitancy.’ They have threatened them to either conform to the current narrative or “else”. The” else” may include the worst threats imaginable.
Additionally, Japan is not only emphasizing informed consent, but is respecting bodily autonomy. Until the appearance of the coronavirus “pandemic”, the concept of “informed consent” was considered sacred to healthcare professionals in the West.
*
And here – just in – BREAKING news: In Israel they just discovered the latest sibling in the corona family. It’s called “Flurona”, a hybrid of flu and Covid. Very, very infectious. I kid you not. Health workers are just being forced into their 4th Covid jab (The Times of Israel) See this.
In the same train of thoughts and of equally powerful breaking news: In France they discovered the latest brand of the corona family “variants”, called “IHU”, which is more infectious than Omicron and spreads even faster – and, of course, current vaccines are likely to be worthless against IHU. So, what’s next? They are still debating on how to confront and fight this latest Covid-19 strain. See this French Health News.
One would think with so much “funny” BREAKING Covid information appearing at once, juxtaposing the real news of Japan’s dismantling obligatory Covid vaccination for their deadly “side effects”, or rather potentially deadly consequences, it would be a wake-up call for the still sleep-walking part of the population. One would hope. Let’s hope it’s more than hope.
*
In a “Final Warning to Humanity”, Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Vice President and Chief Science Officer of Pfizer, talks about myriad willful crimes against humanity by Pfizer, most of which are applicable to some extent to all mRNA vaxx-manufacturers. See this shocking video (54 min).
In addition, there is Pfizer’s scandalous confidential “Killer Report”. Within about 2 ½ months after vaxxing began (mid-December 2020), “Pfizer had already received more than 1,200 reports of deaths, allegedly caused by the vaccine and tens of thousands of reported adverse events, including 23 cases of spontaneous abortions out of 270 pregnancies and more than 2,000 reports of cardiac disorders.” See this.
*
In Romania, the Police Protests with the People
In Romania, the police will not enforce the Government’s covid rules, and they, the police, march en masse with the protesters – see video below. Should this make history, granted, it so far hasn’t, then the Covid lie would soon be dismantled and over.
The only recourse left for governments would then be calling in the army. This might become problematic for many members of the army, as in most so-called democracies, the army takes an oath not to fight against its compatriots, the people of the very country they were recruited to defend.
One such country that has abandoned all principles of democratic and civil freedom is Australia, where the army forcibly throws Covid-exposed, or suspected Covid-exposed people (like Australians returning from abroad) into quarantine camps; and where the chief medical officer warns the unvaccinated, “Your life will be miserable”.
According to this CBS report, Australia has seized to be a free country (7 min. video).
Then there is the New Zealand dictator, Jacinda Ardern, who says “there is no end point to Covid vaccines” – see this. She calls out to “her” citizens, “Those who were vaccinated six months ago, we really need them to come back or we need to go to them.” It is not clear what she plans to do with those who do not come back for their next shot. The worst is to be expected as she says there is no end in sight for the covid vaccine program.
Revealing News
Now comes the whammy, revealing news. You might be surprised to hear – or not – that many, if not all, of the most tyrannical leaders (sic), took Klaus Schab’s (WEF) intensive course for “Young Global Leaders”. Among them are New Zealand’s Ms. Ardern; The Australian Prime Minister and several of Australian’s Provincial Governors; Canada’s Mr. Justin Trudeau; France’s Mr. Emmanuel Macron, Costa Rica’s President Carlos Alvarado Quesada; Madame Angela Merkel – and many more – just to give you a taste, so you may judge for yourself, who is at least part of the Big Orchestraters of this deadly game of never heard-of tyranny in recent history. See this.
Ms. Ursual von der Leyen, President of the unelected European Commission is a Member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum.
In Germany, protests against “Covid measures”, especially coerced vaccination, over the past 2 weeks have covered most major cities, starting peacefully, then turning violent, mostly reacting to violent police interference. Hundreds of thousands – if not millions – took to the streets throughout Germany over the past few weeks. There is no end in sight as long as the German Government insists on forced vaccination, and the QR-coded Covid Pass.
Why is the QR-coded Covid pass so evil? Because everything you ever do, wherever you go and you have to show your Covid pass, grocery shopping, to the hairdresser, your entire health or disease record, or god-forbid, you have to check-into a hospital or see your medical doctor – all, and more, will be recorded on your QR-code. And you don’t know it. It’s centrally government controlled.
It’s no longer a secret to the people of Germany, that thousands and thousands of Germans have died as a result of the experimental mRNA injection, and tens of thousands were injured, many of them with lasting hindrances, who will live miserable rest of their lives and may eventually also die premature deaths.
In Austria, the first country to introduce compulsory forced vaccination – and Covid passes (meaning, vaccination certificates) for everybody, protests also abound – endlessly. And as people’s protests do not relent, those who have been believing and following the Covid narrative and propaganda, may gradually wake up to a reality they didn’t want to accept. But once this reality is laid open for everyone to see, there is no way back.
It’s like a groundswell of understanding what is going on, what has been going on over the past two years, and especially since the so-called vaxx-programs started throughout the western world in mid-December 2020. Once this groundswell of understanding of “waking up”, reaches a critical mass, there is no turning back.
That’s when the tide turns. We are not quite there yet, and it may take a while until the enemy has exhausted all its propaganda and coercive weaponry – but the light at the end of the tunnel is visible.
One might wonder, what will happen to all those world leaders, and to all those who have commandeered the world leaders to commit these unspeakable crimes? Are they preparing a spaceship – or have they already prepared one with a several thousand men / women capacity, to fly the murderers to a distant planet? Is this one of Elon Musk’s secret plans? It may sound like fantasy, but perhaps it is not so far-fetched.
Just think of the recent (2021) star-studded movie, “Don’t Look Up”. An outstanding parody of failed leadership, not unlike our current (western) world experience. Over the past ten/twenty years we have noticed that what looks like laughable fantasy, suddenly has become reality – in no time. We are entering this new epoch, where tomorrow may become today in a flicker.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
Featured image is from Hal Turner Radio Show
January 6th, 2022 by Steve Kirsch
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
On November 23, 2021, the WHO did a Facebook post claiming the vaccines side-effects are mild. You’d never guess that from the 45,000 comments they received–all negative.
Here’s the WHO Facebook post of November 23, 2021:
Here are a few of the comments:
The World Health Organization, does not promote “health”. Neither does the CDC, the government or most health care systems.
If their agenda was for us to be healthy they would be encouraging exercise, good food, fresh air and natural herbs.
I get that for “most people” the jab doesn’t affect them much.
But here’s the other Fact. 99.8% of people that get Covid have mild to none side effects long term, plus they have what the body is built for. Natural immunity.
And a lot of us, have strong immune systems because we focus on real “health” so our bodies never get it.
For those who love TRUTH and FREEDOM keep asking the question “WHY”?
– -Why did The pharmaceutical companies start developing these shots for Covid-19 before the virus was released?
– why has Pfizer locked up all the research and data for about 50 years?
– Why has the government made it impossible for anyone who was seriously hurt or affected to sue or legally hold accountable these companies?
– Why have all the groups on FB of people gathering to share their experiences and their horror stories after the shot been shut down and banned?
– Why have countries like Australia gone militant enforcing mandates and violate the choice and freedom of its citizens?
– Why does the government legally require companies to force their employees to comply and get the shot, or lose their jobs and benefits?
– Why are there places in the country that even the movie theaters and restaurants have been required to join the enforcers of these stupid mandates?
There are a lot more questions to keep asking.
We live in crazy and unprecedented times.
I want to reiterate this…
I’m NOT anti-vax
I’m anti-propaganda, anti-manipulation and anti-deceit and harmful practices
I’m PRO health. Pro-freedom. Pro-responsible decision making.
For those that choose to get it, I celebrate and honor your choice and hope that you stay healthy and strong.
And if you’re like me, that chooses to take responsibility for my own health, then let’s keep letting our voices be heard so they know WE WILL NOT COMPLY and have our rights abused.
I hope these companies aren’t spending their profits? I see big huge lawsuits before too long!
I think you get the picture. Check out the post and scroll to a random comment or two.
And if you know how to view it in a wider column than this, let me know in the comments. It is such a horrible user interface.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense
January 6th, 2022 by Mong Palatino
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
People in coastal communities in Japan, joined by voices from around the world, denounced a new governmental plan to dump contaminated water from the site of the Fukushima nuclear disaster into the Pacific Ocean. Local communities and other nations in the Pacific Ocean fear the dumping will poison the environment and cripple local fishing and tourism industries that have struggled to recover from the March 2011 nuclear accident on Japan’s northeast coast for over a decade.
According to a government plan released on December 28, 2021, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) will start releasing 1 million metric tonnes of radioactive water from the Fukushima plant into the Pacific Ocean in 2023. The plan, which is still being developed over the coming months, states that an undersea tunnel will be built to pump the water out to the sea. Funds have also been reserved to compensate local fishing and tourism industries for potential “reputational damage.”
In March 2011 an earthquake and tsunami caused three nuclear reactors operated by TEPCO in Fukushima to meltdown. Over the years, groundwater flowing through the plants was contaminated with radioactive content. In order to prevent this water from reaching the ocean, it was pumped from the reactor buildings into large tanks that now dominate the reactor installation.
A Screenshot from the YouTube video of the Manhattan Project for a Nuclear-Free World featuring Japanese mothers from the townships of Okuma and Futaba protesting the plan to dump radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean.
As of December 2021, at least 1 million tonnes of contaminated water are stored in the tanks inside the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.
While highly radioactive contaminants are removed, the stored water that the Japanese government is planning to pump out to sea still contains significant amounts of tritium, a radioactive element that some experts say is harmless when diluted in seawater.
The Japanese government’s plan to pump the contaminated water has been in the works since 2020. Greenpeace said in April 2021 that it collected 183,000 signatures opposing the plan to discharge water from the Fukushima plant.
Also in April 2021, South Korean civil society groups issued a statement condemning TEPCO’s plan, noting, “even if diluted the total amount of radioactive material thrown into the sea remains unchanged. If the radioactive wastewater is discharged, it will be an irrevocable disaster not only for marine ecosystem but for the human.”
The issue was tackled during the Pacific Islands Forum Foreign Ministers Meeting in July 2021, and the body made the following declaration:
Forum Foreign Ministers noted the concerns surrounding the seriousness of this issue in relation to the potential threat of further nuclear contamination of our Blue Pacific and the potential adverse and transboundary impacts to the health and security of the Blue Pacific Continent, and its peoples over both the short and long term.
In November 2021, TEPCO said its radiological impact assessment showed minimal impact on the environment:
The assessment found that effects of the discharge of ALPS (Advanced Liquid Process System) treated water into the sea on the public and the environment is minimal as calculated doses were significantly less than the dose limits, dose targets, and the values specified by international organizations for each species.
TEPCO assured the public that it is continually updating its scientific studies regarding the plan to release processed water into the Pacific. But doubts remain about their reports, mostly because there still are few concrete plans about how and where the contaminated water will be dumped, making it difficult for outside observers to assess the risk.
The Pacific Collective on Nuclear Issues, which represents civil society organizations based in Oceania, refutes the veracity of these studies. It also has a message for TEPCO and the Japanese government:
The Pacific is not and must not become the dumping ground for nuclear wastes.
The Collective considers that TEPCO, and the relevant Japanese Government agencies, have wrongly prioritised convenience and costs over the short term and long term environmental and human cost of their planned actions.
Japanese residents have also consistently expressed concern about TEPCO’s plan.
Greenpeace interviewed fisherman Ono Haruo from the township of Shinchi in Fukushima, who echoed the sentiments of the local population:
Fish are finally starting to return after ten years, but if they now pour tritium into the water, no matter how much they dilute it, who’s going to buy those fish? Who wants to eat poisoned fish?
The ocean is our place of work. Can you imagine what it feels like for that to be intentionally polluted?
It’ll be 30 or 40 years before we see the effects. The causal relationship will have become unclear and it’ll be impossible to prove anything. What’s going to happen to the future of our children, our grandchildren? It’s not even clear who will take responsibility.
A group of mothers in Iwaki city, Fukushima, participated in a protest in November 2021 opposing the plan to dump contaminated water into the ocean. The townships of Okuma and Futaba, which host the stricken Fukushima Daiichi complex, have experienced almost complete depopulation over the past decade.
In spring 2022, the International Atomic Energy Agency will evaluate and report on plans has on the Fukushima water treatment, while stakeholders will continue to engage authorities about the controversial plan of TEPCO.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: Water tanks holding contaminated water in front of the reactor buildings at Fukushima Daiichi. Photo Credit: Susanna Loof / IAEA. Image license: Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)
January 6th, 2022 by Prof. Anthony J. Hall
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Dr Anthony Hall, Dr Valentina Capurri and Dr Angela Durante are PhDs in History discussing issues surrounding the ongoing COVID narrative, mandatory vaccinations and the state of the universities in the covid era.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense
January 6th, 2022 by Colin Todhunter
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Farmerless farms manned by driverless machines, monitored by drones and doused with chemicals to produce commodity crops from patented genetically engineered seeds for industrial ‘biomatter’ to be processed and constituted into something resembling food. Data platforms, private equity firms, e-commerce giants and AI-controlled farming systems.
This is the future that big agritech and agribusiness envisage: a future of ‘data-driven’ and ‘climate-friendly’ agriculture that they say is essential if we are to feed a growing global population.
The transformative vision outlined above which is being promoted by the likes of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation amounts to a power grab. Whether through all aspects of data control (soil quality, consumer preferences, weather, etc), e-commerce monopolies, corporate land ownership, seed biopiracy and patenting, synthetic lab-made food or the eradication of the public sector’s role in ensuring food security and national food sovereignty, the aim is for a relative handful of corporations to gain full control of the entire global food system.
Smallholder peasant farming is to be eradicated as the big-tech giants and agribusiness impose their ‘disruptive’ technologies.
This vision is symptomatic of a reductionist mindset fixated on a narrow yield-output paradigm that is unable or more likely unwilling to grasp an integrated social-cultural-economic-agronomic systems approach to food and agriculture that accounts for many different factors, including local/regional food security and sovereignty, diverse nutrition production per acre, water table stability and boosting rural development based on thriving local communities.
Instead, what is envisaged will lead to the further trashing of rural economies, communities and cultures. A vision that has scant regard for the right to healthy and culturally appropriate food and the right of people to define their own food and agriculture systems.
But is any of this necessary or inevitable?
There is no global shortage of food. Even under any plausible future population scenario, there will be no shortage as evidenced by scientist Dr Jonathan Latham in his paper The Myth of a Food Crisis (2020). Furthermore, there are tried and tested approaches to addressing the challenges humanity faces, not least agroecology.
Reshaping agrifood systems
An organic-based, agrifood system could be implemented in Europe and would allow a balanced coexistence between agriculture and the environment. This would reinforce Europe’s autonomy, feed the predicted population in 2050, allow the continent to continue to export cereals to countries which need them for human consumption and substantially reduce water pollution and toxic emissions from agriculture.
That is the message conveyed in the paper Reshaping the European Agro-food System and Closing its Nitrogen Cycle: The potential of combining dietary change, agroecology, and circularity (2020) which appeared in the journal One Earth.
The paper by Gilles Billen et al follows a long line of studies and reports which have concluded that organic agriculture is vital for guaranteeing food security, rural development, better nutrition and sustainability.
For instance, in the 2006 book The Global Development of Organic Agriculture: Challenges and Prospects, Neils Halberg and his colleagues argue that there are still more than 740 million food insecure people (at least 100 million more today), the majority of whom live in the Global South. They say if a conversion to organic farming of approximately 50% of the agricultural area in the Global South were to be carried out, it would result in increased self-sufficiency and decreased net food imports to the region.
In 2007, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) noted that organic models increase cost-effectiveness and contribute to resilience in the face of climatic stress. The FAO concluded that by managing biodiversity in time (rotations) and space (mixed cropping), organic farmers use their labour and environmental factors to intensify production in a sustainable way and that organic agriculture could break the vicious circle of farmer indebtedness for proprietary agricultural inputs.
Of course, organic agriculture and agroecology are not necessarily one and the same. Whereas organic agriculture can still be part of the prevailing globalised food regime dominated by giant agrifood conglomerates, agroecology uses organic practices but is ideally rooted in the principles of localisation, food sovereignty and self-reliance.
The FAO recognises that agroecology contributes to improved food self-reliance, the revitalisation of smallholder agriculture and enhanced employment opportunities. It has argued that organic agriculture could produce enough food on a global per capita basis for the current world population but with reduced environmental impact than conventional agriculture.
In 2012, Deputy Secretary General of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Petko Draganov stated that expanding Africa’s shift towards organic farming will have beneficial effects on the continent’s nutritional needs, the environment, farmers’ incomes, markets and employment.
A meta analysis conducted by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and UNCTAD (2008) assessed 114 cases of organic farming in Africa. The two UN agencies concluded that organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems and that it is more likely to be sustainable in the long term.
The 2009 report Agriculture at a Crossroads by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, produced by 400 scientists and supported by 60 countries, recommended agroecology to maintain and increase the productivity of global agriculture. It cites the largest study of ‘sustainable agriculture’ in the Global South, which analysed 286 projects covering 37 million hectares in 57 countries, and found that on average crop yields increased by 79% (the study also included ‘resource conserving’ non-organic conventional approaches).
There are numerous other studies and projects which testify to the efficacy of organic farming, including those from the Rodale Institute, the Oakland Institute, the UN Green Economy Initiative, the Women’s Collective of Tamil Nadu, Newcastle University and Washington State University. We also need look no further than the results of organic-based farming in Malawi.
In Ethiopia, agroecology has been scaled up across the entire Tigray region, partly due to enlightened political leaders and the commitment of key institutions. But Cuba is the one country in the world that has made the biggest changes in the shortest time in moving from industrial chemical-intensive agriculture to organic farming.
Professor of Agroecology Miguel Altieri notes that, due to the difficulties Cuba experienced as a result of the fall of the USSR, it moved towards organic and agroecological techniques in the 1990s. From 1996 to 2005, per capita food production in Cuba increased by 4.2% yearly during a period when production was stagnant across the wider region.
By 2016, Cuba had 383,000 urban farms, covering 50,000 hectares of otherwise unused land and producing more than 1.5 million tons of vegetables. The most productive urban farms yield up to 20 kg of food per square metre, the highest rate in the world, using no synthetic chemicals. Urban farms supply 50 to 70% or more of all the fresh vegetables consumed in cities such as Havana and Villa Clara.
It has been calculated by Altieri and his colleague Fernando R Funes-Monzote that if all peasant farms and cooperatives adopted diversified agroecological designs, Cuba would be able to produce enough to feed its population, supply food to the tourist industry and even export some food to help generate foreign currency.
Serving a corporate agenda
However, global agribusiness and agritech firms continue to marginalise organic, capture public bodies and push for their chemical-intensive, high-tech approaches. Although organic farming and natural farming methods like agroecology offer genuine solutions for many of the world’s pressing problems (health, environment, employment, rural development, etc), these approaches challenge corporate interests and threaten their bottom line.
In 2014, Corporate Europe Observatory released a critical report on the European Commission over the previous five years. The report concluded that the commission had been a willing servant of a corporate agenda. It had sided with agribusiness on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and pesticides. Far from shifting Europe to a more sustainable food and agriculture system, the opposite had happened, as agribusiness and its lobbyists continued to dominate the Brussels scene.
Consumers in Europe reject GM food, but the commission had made various attempts to meet the demands from the biotech sector to allow GMOs into Europe, aided by giant food companies, such as Unilever, and the lobby group FoodDrinkEurope.
The report concluded that the commission had eagerly pursued a corporate agenda in all the areas investigated and pushed for policies in sync with the interests of big business. It had done this in the apparent belief that such interests are synonymous with the interests of society at large.
Little has changed since. In December 2021, Friends of the Earth Europe (FOEE) noted that big agribusiness and biotech corporations are currently pushing for the European Commission to remove any labelling and safety checks for new genomic techniques. Since the beginning of their lobbying efforts (in 2018), these corporations have spent at least €36 million lobbying the European Union and have had 182 meetings with European commissioners, their cabinets and director generals: more than one meeting a week.
According to FOEE, the European Commission seems more than willing to put the lobby’s demands into a new law that would include weakened safety checks and bypass GMO labelling.
Corporate influence over key national and international bodies is nothing new. From the World Bank’s ‘enabling the business of agriculture’ and the influence of foreign retail on India’s NITI Aayog (the influential policy commission think tank of the Government of India) to the Gates Foundation’s role in opening up African agriculture to global food and agribusiness oligopolies, democratic procedures at sovereign state levels are being bypassed to impose seed monopolies and proprietary inputs on farmers and to incorporate them into a global agrifood chain dominated by powerful corporations.
But there are now also new players on the block. Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and others are closing in on the global agrifood sector while the likes of Bayer, Syngenta, Corteva and Cargill continue to cement their stranglehold.
The tech giants entry into the sector will increasingly lead to a mutually beneficial integration between the companies that supply products to farmers (pesticides, seeds, fertilisers, tractors, etc) and those that control the flow of data and have access to digital (cloud) infrastructure and food consumers. In effect, multi-billion dollar agrifood data management markets are being created.
In India, Walmart and Amazon could end up dominating the e-retail sector. These two US companies would also own India’s key consumer and other economic data, making them the country’s digital overlords along with Google and Facebook.
The government is facilitating the dominance of giant corporations, not least through digital or e-commerce platforms. E-commerce companies not only control data about consumption but also control data on production, logistics, who needs what, when they need it, who should produce it, who should move it and when it should be moved.
These platforms have the capacity to shape the entire physical economy. We are seeing the eradication of the marketplace in favour of platforms owned by global conglomerates which will control everything from production to logistics, including agriculture and farming.
The farmer will be told how much production is expected, how much rain is anticipated, what type of soil quality there is, what type of (GM) seeds and proprietary inputs are required and when the produce needs to be ready.
E-commerce platforms will become permanently embedded once artificial intelligence begins to plan and determine all of the above.
In April 2021, the Indian government signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Microsoft, allowing its local partner CropData to leverage a master database of farmers. The MoU seems to be part of the AgriStack policy initiative, which involves the roll out of ‘disruptive’ technologies and digital databases in the agricultural sector.
CropData will be granted access to a government database of 50 million farmers and their land records. As the database is developed, it will include farmers’ personal details, profile of land held, production data and financial details.
In addition to facilitating data harvesting and a data management market, the Indian government is trying to establish a system of ‘conclusive titling’ of all land in the country, so that ownership can be identified and land can then be valued, bought or taken away.
The plan is that, as farmers lose access to land or can be identified as legal owners, predatory global institutional investors will buy up and amalgamate holdings, facilitating the further roll out of high-input, corporate-dependent industrial agriculture.
This is an example of stakeholder-partnership capitalism, much promoted by the likes of the World Economic Forum, whereby a government facilitates the gathering of such information by a private player which can then, in this case, use the data for developing a land market (courtesy of land law changes that the government enacts) for institutional investors at the expense of smallholder farmers who will find themselves displaced.
By harvesting information – under the benign-sounding policy of data-driven agriculture – private corporations will be better placed to exploit farmers’ situations for their own ends.
Imagine a cartel of data owners, proprietary input suppliers and retail concerns at the commanding heights of the global economy, peddling toxic industrial (and lab-engineered) ‘food’ and the devastating health and environmental impacts associated with it.
As for elected representatives and sovereign state governments, their role will be highly limited to technocratic overseers of these platforms and the artificial intelligence tools that plan and determine all of the above.
But none of this is set in stone or inevitable. The farmers victory in India in getting the corporate-friendly farm laws repealed show what can be achieved, even if this is only viewed as a spanner in the works of a global machine that is relentless.
New world order
And that machine comprises what journalist Ernst Wolff calls the digital-financial complex that is now driving the globalisation-one agriculture agenda. This complex comprises many of the companies mentioned above: Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), Apple, Amazon and Meta (Facebook) as well as BlackRock and Vanguard, transnational investment/asset management corporations.
These entities exert control over governments and important institutions like the European Central Bank (ECB) and the US Federal Reserve. Indeed, Wolff states that BlackRock and Vanguard have more financial assets than the ECB and the Fed combined.
To appreciate the power and influence of BlackRock and Vanguard, let us turn to the documentary Monopoly: An Overview of the Great Reset which argues that the stock of the world’s largest corporations are owned by the same institutional investors. This means that ‘competing’ brands, like Coke and Pepsi, are not really competitors, since their stock is owned by the same investment companies, investment funds, insurance companies and banks.
Smaller investors are owned by larger investors. Those are owned by even bigger investors. The visible top of this pyramid shows only two companies: Vanguard and Black Rock.
A 2017 Bloomberg report states that both these companies in the year 2028 together will have investments amounting to 20 trillion dollars. In other words, they will own almost everything worth owning.
The digital-financial complex wants control over all aspects of life. It wants a cashless world, to destroy bodily integrity with a mandatory vaccination agenda linked to emerging digital-biopharmaceutical technologies, to control all personal data and digital money and it requires full control over everything, including food and farming.
If events over the last two years have shown us anything, it is that an unaccountable authoritarian global elite knows the type of world it wants to create, has the ability to coordinate its agenda globally and will use deception and duplicity to achieve it. And in this brave new Orwellian world where capitalist ‘liberal democracy’ has run its course, there will be no place for genuinely independent nation states or individual rights.
The independence of nation states could be further eroded by the digital-financial complex’s ‘financialisation of nature’ and its ‘green profiling’ of countries and companies. If we take the example of India, again, the Indian government has been on a relentless drive to attract inflows of foreign investment into government bonds (creating a lucrative market for global investors). It does not take much imagination to see how investors could destabilise the economy with large movements in or out of these bonds but also how India’s ‘green credentials’ could be factored in to downgrade its international credit rating.
And how could India demonstrate its green credentials and thus its ‘credit worthiness’? Perhaps by allowing herbicide-resistant GMO commodity crop monocultures that the GM sector misleadingly portrays as ‘climate friendly’.
As for concepts such as localisation, food sovereignty, self-reliance and participatory democracy – key tenets of agroecology – these are mere inconveniences to be trampled on.
Olivier De Schutter, former UN special Rapporteur on the right to food, delivered his final report to the UN Human Rights Council in 2011, based on an extensive review of scientific literature. He concluded that by applying agroecological principles to the design of democratically controlled agricultural systems we can help to put an end to food crises and address climate variabilities and poverty challenges.
De Schutter argued that agroecological approaches could address food needs in critical regions and double food production within 10 years. However, he notes there is insufficient backing for organic-based farming which seriously hinders progress.
But it is not just a case of insufficient backing. Global agribusiness and agritech corporations have leveraged themselves into strategic positions and integral to their strategy has been attacks on organic farming as they attempt to cast it as a niche model which cannot feed the world. From the false narrative that industrial agriculture is necessary to feed a growing population to providing lavish research grants and the capture of important policy-making institutions, these firms have secured a thick legitimacy within policy making machinery.
These conglomerates regard organic approaches as a threat, especially agroecology which adheres to a non-industrial, smallholder model rooted in local independent enterprises and communities based on the principle of localisation. When people like De Schutter assert the need for a “democratically controlled” agroecology, this runs counter to the reality of large agribusiness firms, their proprietary products and their globalisation agenda based on long supply chains, market dependency, dispossession and the incorporation of farms and farmers into their agrifood regime. And as we can see, ‘democracy’ has no place in the world of the digital-financial complex.
The 2015 Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology argues for building grass-root local food systems that create new rural-urban links, based on truly agroecological food production. It says that agroecology should not be co-opted to become a tool of the industrial food production model; it should be the essential alternative to it.
The declaration stated that agroecology is political and requires local producers and communities to challenge and transform structures of power in society, not least by putting the control of seeds, biodiversity, land and territories, waters, knowledge, culture and the commons in the hands of those who feed the world.
According to Pat Mooney of the ETC Group, this involves developing healthy and equitable agroecological production systems, building short (community-based) supply chains and restructuring and democratising governance systems that could take 25 years to accomplish: in effect a ‘long food movement’.
We are currently living through epoch-defining changes and the struggle for the future of food and agriculture is integral to the wider struggle over the future direction of humanity. There is a pressing need to transition towards a notion of food sovereignty based on agroecological principles and the local ownership and stewardship of common resources.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization in Montreal.
January 6th, 2022 by Suzanne Downing
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
A group of doctors and others have penned a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration, explaining a problem that they’ve identified with the Covid-19 vaccine: Pilots are flying with unapproved medications in their bodies, in violation of FAA rules.
According to the letter signers, which include attorneys and medical doctors, the airline industry is operating in violation of Title 14 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and related federal rules, which prohibit pilots from flying with non-FDA approved agents in their bodies, such as the Covid-10 vaccines, if those substances put the general public at risk for serious injury or death. The writers distinguish between FDA-approved vaccines and those that are actually being used to reduce the danger of Covid-19.
The authors of the letter are requesting the FAA medically flag all vaccinated pilots within four weeks of the Dec. 15 letter, until those pilots undergo thorough medical reexaminations to include D-Dimer tests; which check for blood clotting; Troponin tests, which reveal heart muscle damage; and EKG and MRI tests to determine cardiac health.
The signers of the letter are recommending that all pilots who fail the tests be immediately grounded until they can get a clean bill of health.
“From this point forward, only allowing commercial aircraft to be operated by pilots who can show D-Dimer and Troponin tests – as well as cardiac MRIs, ECGs and PULS tests – at aeromedically acceptable levels, and a clean medical examination undertaken a minimum of five (5) days after each COVID-19 vaccine and after each COVID ‘booster’ shot, as a review of reporting systems such as the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (‘VAERS’) indicates that the current FAA wait time of two (2) days is insufficient to detect a significant number of blood clotting and myocarditis cases (which are manifesting more than 48 hours post-inoculation),” the group wrote.
“…the FDA has not approved any of the COVID-19 shots currently available in the United States. On August 23, the FDA granted BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH’s Biologics Licensing Application to distribute the Comirnaty vaccine in the United States once certain conditions are met; however, the Comirnaty vaccine is not currently available in the United States – and will not be until the supply of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is first exhausted. See https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is currently available only under an EUA, which the FDA extended on August 23, 2021. See https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download. It is also important to note that the approved vaccine, Comirnaty, cannot be said to be interchangeable with unapproved inoculations,” the letter said.
The group said it knows of pilots who have died after getting the Covid vaccine, and others who continue to suffer side effects but are afraid to report them for fear of being grounded.
Some pilots have been forced to seek medical care, such as Cody Flint, whose story is included in the letter:
“I am a 33 year old husband and father of two young boys. I am an agricultural pilot by profession, with over 10,000 flight hours. I have been very healthy my whole life, with no underlying conditions. I received my first dose of the Pfizer Covid Vaccine on February 1. Within thirty minutes, I developed a severe stabbing headache, which later became a burning sensation in the back of my neck. Two days after vaccination, I got in my airplane to do a job that would only take a few hours.
“Immediately after taking off, I knew that something was not right with me. I was starting to develop tunnel vision, and my headache was getting worse. Approximately two hours into flying, I pulled my airplane up to turn around and felt an extreme burst of pressure in my ears.
“Instantly, I was nearly blacked out, dizzy, disoriented, nauseous and shaking uncontrollably. By the grace of God, I was able to land my plane without incident – although I do not remember doing this.
“My initial diagnosis of vertigo and severe panic attacks – although I’ve never had a history of either of these – was later replaced with left and right peri-lymphatic fistulas, Eustachian tube dysfunction, and elevated intra-cranial pressure due to brain swelling. My condition continued to decline, and my doctors told me that only an adverse reaction to the vaccine or a major head trauma could have caused this much spontaneous damage.
“I’ve had six spinal taps over eight months to monitor my intra-cranial pressure, and two surgeries, eight weeks apart, to repair the fistulas. I have missed nearly an entire year of my life – and my children’s lives. Days of baseball games, playing in the backyard, and just picking up my kids to hug them have been replaced with living in a sick body, doctor’s visits, and more questions than answers. I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to fly again.
“This vaccine has taken my career from me, and the future I have worked so hard to build. I’ve used all of my savings just to pay my medical bills: my family and I are on the verge of losing everything we have. I was and still am pro-science and pro-vaccine. The main issue rests squarely on the fact that the FDA, CDC and NIH refuse to acknowledge that real lives are being absolutely destroyed by this vaccine….“
The letter is signed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Mary Holland of the Children’s Health Defense, Dr. Ryan Cole, who was featured at the Alaska Early Treatment Summit in Anchorage; Lt. Col. Peter Chambers, M.D., Special Forces Flight Surgeon – Green Beret; Dr. Peter McCullough, M.D.;Lt. Col. Theresa Long, M.D., MPH Army Aerospace Medicine Specialist Aviation Officer Course & Mishap Training, and Leigh Taylor Dundas, Esq., Advocates for Citizens Rights.
The entire letter can be read at this link.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Suzanne Downing had careers in business and journalism before serving as the Director of Faith and Community-based Initiatives for Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and returning to Alaska to serve as speechwriter for Gov. Sean Parnell. Born on the Oregon coast, she moved to Alaska in 1969.
Featured image is from Must Read Alaska
January 6th, 2022 by Children’s Health Defense
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Insurers in Indiana and India report similar rates of non-COVID-related premature deaths. “I’m sure I’m one of many who wonder what kind of diamond mine of data the insurance companies are sitting on,” said educator and statistician Michael Crawford.
An Indiana insurance executive dropped a bombshell statistic during an end-of-year virtual news conference, reporting a “stunning” 40% increase in the death rate among 18- to 64-year-old adults compared to pre-pandemic levels.
During the same call, OneAmerica’s CEO Scott Davison also described a major uptick in both short- and long-term disability claims.
The insurance executive rated the extraordinarily high death rate as “the highest … we have seen in the history of this business,” adding the trend is “consistent across every player in that business.”
To further underscore the import of his statements, Davison said, “Just to give you an idea of how bad [40%] is, a … one-in-200 catastrophe would be a 10% increase over pre-pandemic. So 40% is just unheard of.”
Contrary to what the public might assume — given the media’s unremitting coverage of COVID-19— Davison reported most of the death claims listed causes of death other than COVID.
Commenting on the news, Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, wrote, “It would take something REALLY BIG to have an effect this big.”
Moreover, Kirsch said, the culprit would have to be something first introduced in 2021 — “something new … that a huge number of people would be exposed to” — such as COVID shots.
Vaccine scientist Dr. Robert Malone and statistician Jessica Rose, Ph.D., agreed that experimental COVID injections should be considered prime suspects.
Surging non-COVID-related hospital admissions
Around the country, hospitals are reporting increased admissions for serious non-COVID-related illnesses that just happen to match up to the types of adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID vaccination.
In fact, at a different Indiana news conference in December, the state’s chief medical officer reported Indiana is experiencing its highest hospitalization rate in five years.
While claiming not to have a breakdown of causes, an Indiana hospital association official noted that the majority of intensive care patients are in the hospital for illnesses and conditions having nothing to do with COVID.
In a September study described as “narrative-shattering,” Harvard, Tufts and Veterans Affairs researchers reported that approximately half of hospitalized patients “showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021” had likely been admitted “for another reason entirely.”
In Ventura County, California, which is witnessing a startling spike in non-COVID-related hospitalizations, nurse whistleblowers argue the vaccines should be one of the first explanations considered. Why else, they ask, would otherwise healthy adults be showing up in droves with brain bleeds, heart attacks, autoimmune issues and lung abnormalities?
Autopsies of individuals who died following COVID vaccination reveal shocking pathological alterations most frequently affecting the heart and lungs but also the brain and other organs.
A profitable industry that intends to remain profitable
By revenue, the U.S. has the largest insurance industry in the world, valued in 2020 at $1.28 trillion. Financial analysts deem life insurance — which represents 49% of total premiums paid — to be “one of the most profitable industries in the world.”
More than half (52%) of American adults have life insurance, including group coverage of the type underwritten by OneAmerica. The face value of life insurance policy purchases in the U.S. is $3.29 trillion.
One of the key determinants of life insurance profitability is the accurate assessment of mortality risk by actuaries, and notably, proper accounting of premature death risks.
Reports for 2020 indicate life insurers took an unexpected hit from claims associated with “COVID-19” — with an $18 billion drop in “net gains from operations” in 2020 as compared to 2019.
While no one, as of yet, is commenting on 2021 or discussing whether the life insurance industry may have underestimated the lethality of COVID vaccines, OneAmerica’s Davison did go so far as to admit that payouts related to the unprecedented 40% increase in working-age deaths will be in excess of $100 million.
To claw back those outlays, the costs “will be passed on to employers purchasing group life insurance policies, who will have to pay higher premiums,” Davison said.
Far from being willing to contemplate the elephant in the room, the Indiana insurance executive indicated he plans to require all OneAmerica employees to get vaccinated.
Somewhat counterintuitively, the industry’s ability to pass along costs for elevated claims activity by raising premiums now has analysts rosily predicting the insurance industry is “buckled up to accelerate growth in 2022.”
Insurers also anticipate rising demand due to “businesses and consumers becom[ing] more risk-conscious coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic,” and “new levels of awareness” about the importance of disability insurance.
On the consumer side of the fence, the picture is far less rosy — for both the unvaccinated and vaccinated.
For example, New York State Assemblyman Patrick Burke (D-Buffalo) proposed punitive legislation that would permit insurers to deny COVID-related treatment coverage for individuals who choose not to get vaccinated.
Adding insult to injury, there are also reports of insurance companies imposing premium increases on employers in counties with low vaccination rates.
Meanwhile, many of those injured by COVID vaccines report denials of health and disability insurance coverage.
In December 2020, on the cusp of the vaccine rollout, a spokesman for the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) pledged to beef up claims-handling capacity for the government’s Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) in anticipation of a “potential influx of COVID-19 claims.”
The “black hole” program, ostensibly available to dispense compensation for COVID vaccine injuries, is notoriously stingy and has a one-year statute of limitations. Thus far, CICP has only compensated one of the thousands of COVID-vaccine-related claims submitted.
40% — India, too, not just Indiana
For the time being, at least, other U.S. insurers do not appear to be sharing data or observations about increased non-COVID hospitalization and death claims.
But the press in India is openly discussing the same unprecedented trends as Indiana.
The Times of India reported in late October that health insurers are seeing a “huge surge in non-COVID claims.” Again citing the magic number of 40%, the head of interventional cardiology at a Mumbai hospital noted a 40% increase in heart problems — acute coronary syndrome, sudden heart attacks and cardiac arrest — over the previous six to eight months
The cardiologist also observed that “even patients who have been stable for years are coming in with acute heart emergencies.”
That same month, the New Indian Express reported on widespread concern about the growing prevalence of heart attacks in those under age 45. Although these young adults — including a number of celebrities — typically have “no conventional risk factors,” Indian heart doctors are blaming the mysterious rise in heart attacks on “lifestyle choices.”
Around the same time in late December that OneAmerica’s Davison shared his remarks, Fortune India reported on data from the nation’s Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority showing a 41% increase (there’s that number again) in death claims in fiscal year 2021. In comparison, death claims rose by 11% in fiscal year 2020.
Describing the increase in non-COVID-19 deaths, a life insurance executive suggested the industry might end up posting “a 200-300% increase in claims” for 2021. For now, however, 18 of the 24 life insurance companies operating in India in 2020-21 are reporting profits.
India launched the “world’s biggest” COVID vaccination drive in January 2021, primarily administering AstraZeneca’s vaccine (manufactured by India’s Serum Institute under the brand name Covishield) and Covaxin, an India-developed vaccine perceived as having garnered a “hasty” approval and which resulted in one acknowledged death during clinical trials.
And, to get 2022 off to an ambitious start, India just administered Covaxin to more than 3.8 million teenagers (ages 15-18) in the span of a single day. With 120 million youngsters between ages 15 and 19, India has the largest adolescent population in the world, which will remain the target of COVID vaccination efforts.
Meanwhile, with no long-term safety data and VAERS reports of COVID vaccine injuries passing the one million mark, including tens of thousands of adverse events reported for 5- to 17-year-olds, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) just okayed Pfizer booster shots for American teens ages 12 and up.
Ethical doctors have been issuing urgent warnings about the dangers of COVID vaccines for children and adolescents for months — but the FDA’s and CDC’s paid stooges continue to ignore them.
Hidden treasure trove of data?
Academic researchers have long acknowledged the utility of insurance claims data for predicting trends. Describing India’s 24 life insurance companies, one writer noted the “millions of rows of data” generated by 310 million policies, stating “you can imagine the humongous amount of data generated by insurance companies in India and [the] world over.”
Likewise, Substack writer and mathematician Matthew Crawford pondered the implications of Davison’s admissions, commenting, “I’m sure I’m one of many who wonder what kind of diamond mine of data the insurance companies are sitting on.”
Recent reports indicate U.S. life expectancy declined in 2020 by an unprecedented 1.8 years, and Davison’s remarks suggest we could see even worse when 2021 is tallied up.
At a 2017 symposium of actuaries, a presenter noted that understanding shifts in the structure of mortality requires going beyond variables such as life expectancy to look at the main drivers of the change and the age ranges affected.
In a study published a few months ago, researchers tackled that type of analysis, finding the dramatic decline in U.S. life expectancy was not only due to “direct” effects of COVID but also “indirect” effects (for example, from restrictive policies).
The researchers emphasized the 15 to 44 age group was most strongly impacted by indirect effects.
Clearly, numerous factors could be contributing to premature deaths in working-age adults — including suicide, overdoses and deferred care related to lockdowns.
However, the pressing question raised by life insurer Davison’s disclosures is whether insurance companies will reveal the extent to which the COVID injections are also having a fatal impact.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from CHD
January 6th, 2022 by Jordan Schachtel
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Are government regulators minimizing the availability of COVID vaccine options in the United States in order to protect our health, or are there many other factors in play — that are completely unrelated to our health — being considered behind the curtain?
The U.S. COVID-19 vaccine market has been shut out to outside competition for almost a year. Despite these shots being marketed and sold as akin to a cure to a coronavirus, they have catastrophically failed to achieve that result. Despite COVID-19 being declared the pandemic of the century, American regulatory agencies remain adamantly opposed to opening the market to more participants.
On December 11th, 2020, the FDA issued emergency use authorization (EUA) to Pfizer and BioNTech for their COVID-19 vaccine. The U.S. government has since spent billions of taxpayer dollars on hundreds of millions of Pfizer shots.
On December 18th, 2020, the FDA issued an EUA to Moderna for their COVID-19 vaccine. The U.S. government has since spent billions of taxpayer dollars on hundreds of millions of Moderna shots.
On February 27th, 2021, the FDA issued an EUA to Johnson & Johnson for their COVID-19 vaccine. The U.S. government has since spent billions of taxpayer dollars on hundreds of millions of Johnson & Johnson shots.
All of these shots were developed in early 2020. None have been updated or optimized for variants. Yet they remain the only three shots in town.
Since the early 2021 J&J approval, the FDA has failed to authorize any other candidates for emergency use. The overwhelming majority of taxpayer funds spent on COVID vaccines have gone to Moderna and Pfizer.
Now, some of you readers will know by now that I have become deeply skeptical of the merits of this entire new market, which is rife with the worst of pharmaceutical snake oil salesmen. However, it is worth exploring why the U.S. continues to operate under the Big Three vaccine paradigm.
The COVID-19 problem has not exactly gone away, and the global COVID-19 vaccine market has ballooned into a massive industry, with hundreds of candidates surfacing from all over the world.
Why does the United States still only have 3 authorized COVID vaccines (the approved Pfizer shot remains inaccessible in the United States) for emergency use only? Let’s take a global snapshot of what’s going on elsewhere.
The European Medicines Agency has authorized 5 COVID vaccines for use. They list the Big Three U.S. shots plus Novavax and AstraZeneca. Additionally, European regulators have listed 4 other shots under a “rolling review” process.
The World Health Organization (WHO) now lists 10 COVID vaccines that are approved for use under their emergency use listing authority.
What are individual nations doing?
America’s top competitors are pursuing a “vaccine nationalism” strategy. China has authorized 6 shots (4 of which are inactivated vaccines), and all of them are produced by Chinese companies.
Russia has authorized 4, and all of them are produced by Russian companies.
Most countries are pursuing their vaccine strategy in line with their current alliance structure. This reality does not seem to conform to the narrative of a global, devastating plague, but rather, a geopolitical struggle in the name of a virus. China’s allies are committing to China’s vaccines. Russia’s allies are committing to Russia’s vaccines. The Western world is committing to the U.S.-based shots, plus the Oxford-Astrazeneca shot.
Other nations seem to be engaging in a “we hope something will work” strategy. Indonesia and the Philippines have authorized 11 shots. India, Mexico, Hungary, and Argentina have authorized 9 shots. Vietnam has allowed for 8. Nigeria and Pakistan have said yes to 7.
U.S. “public health” officials have defended the cartel behavior of the Biden Administration, claiming Americans already have access to the very best COVID shots. In late May, the FDA reinforced this position by notifying manufacturers that it may start issuing blanket rejections for new EUA applications, claiming it is too much of a regulatory hassle to go through all of their new data.
Still, companies from around the world continue to submit EUA applications for their COVID-19 vaccines, with zero having secured the golden ticket to the U.S. market. It remains mRNA or bust in the United States.
U.S. public health bureaucrat Anthony Fauci was pushed on this issue in an interview at the end of the year. The D.C. lifer rejected the idea that America should open up the playing field to promising candidates outside of the mRNA (Moderna and Pfizer) vaccines.
When the host asked if the U.S. would entertain the merits of Covaxin (an inactivated vaccine candidate from India’s Bharat Biotech), Fauci went nuclear on her.
“We have enough vaccines, the best vaccines available in the United States … We have what we need. We need to use it.
We don’t need another vaccine. We have plenty of vaccines.”
Despite America’s current regime claiming that Americans have access to the “very best” shots in every major pharmacy across our country, the actual COVID datasure doesn’t suggest anything resembling the idea that our mRNA dominant approach is acting in a more beneficial manner than any other candidate available across the world.
It certainly seems to be a no-brainer that the U.S. would be better off allowing more competitors to enter the space. The hundreds of Big Pharma lobbyists who represent the interests of the Big Three would prefer that never happens. And once again, in line with the recurring theme throughout COVID Mania, it seems that America’s ruling class is making regulatory decisions far removed from its citizens’ actual health interests.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from The COVID World