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 person with whom we are all most intimate is oneself.  It’s just the way it is.  I don’t mean that in some oracular Delphic “know thyself” way, or in any deep psychoanalytical sense, but very simply.  We have our own thoughts and feelings that come and go like breaths, most of which never get expressed in words.  Together with our actions, including speech, they make up our lives.  We try to anchor them with photos and memorabilia and lots of things, but time has no mercy; it sweeps us all away. Then our things remain for a while until they become a burden to those who remain, and then the things go. As the song reminds us, “We come and go like a ripple on a stream.”

For most people, their congeries of living experiences evaporate as quickly as soap bubbles in a pan of dish water.  This is also true for the social and personal facts of our lives that leave but vague traces.  Yet some strange people record them.  They are a small minority, writers being chief among them.  They keep words.  Words unspoken and spoken words.

I have kept notebooks since my mid-twenties.  They sit in cartons in a closet.  They were at first my imaginary friends who never responded.  Maybe I didn’t want them to.  They are still silent, although every once in a while I seem to hear inarticulate sounds coming from the boxes.

I usually give them my ear at the end of each year when I read my notebook for the previous year.  I then extract any entries that I have not yet used in my writing and put them in a small writing project notebook.  But this year it was very strange.  There was only one entry for 2021: “It’s all lies.”  Those words keep echoing in my mind.

Featured image: Albert Camus, Michel y Jeannine Gallimard by Antonio Marín Segovia

Most years I encounter many things that I have forgotten: a scene I saw and recorded; a snatch of conversation overheard; thoughts and musings; little paragraphs that I write that I might use later; feelings and emotions; questions; notes for future writing projects; things I did, people I met, books I read; events both personal and social that seem significant – almost anything that comes to mind.  I have a love/hate relationship with these jottings, for I know that when I am dead, few, if any, people will care to read them.  Why should they?  I don’t, except once at the end of each year.  For some strange reason I feel that if I burn the lot of them, the real me might disappear.  But I also don’t really believe that, for I know I am not in those boxes.  But I keep writing to myself nevertheless and then shut those words up.

“It’s all lies” concisely summed up my private disgust throughout 2020-21.  I had tried in my public writing to expose those lies while having no energy or inclination left to write to or for myself.  The past two years have been so absurd, the Covid propaganda so all-consuming, its madness so disturbing as so many people have gone off the deep end believing such outlandish garbage, that to contemplate this madness any more than I was already doing publicly must have seemed…I don’t know what.  All I know is that I didn’t.  I could only take so much.

Anyway, to start this year, having read my three words for 2021, I turned to reading the notebooks of my companion since my early twenties, Albert Camus.  He too kept notebooks – cahiers – from the age of twenty-two until his strange death in a car crash – accident or assassination? – on January 4, 1960, a few months after his forty-sixth birthday, the age my daughter will reach this month.  Camus was born in 1913, the same year as my father.  These facts may be significant.  I am writing this on January 4, 2022.

Brother Albert had always striven to serve both justice and beauty; to find a way to oppose a world of lies while living fully.  I have recently concluded that many people who accept or oppose the vast tapestry of lies within which we now exist, the closing down of freedom and the rise of a new totalitarianism, have in a strange way unknowingly embraced a trick of the propagandists: they have become so one-dimensional in their obsessive need to defend or oppose their positions that they have forgotten to relish life.

One side lives in perpetual fear of disease and death and has turned into obedient and vengeful children wanting to ban the dissidents from society or burn them at the stake.  The other side, flabbergasted at the credulous behavior of the compliant ones in the face of so many official lies and contradictions, feels compelled – and rightly so – to resist at every turn the gradual slide into a digital dystopian totalitarianism.  But emotions are so raw and twisted that they flip at the drop of a pin.  Or are flipped.  This is how great propaganda works.  For those behind the COVID hoax, Russia-gate, etc. want all the peons to hate life itself and embrace their dark and evil nihilism.  To forget that life is both beautiful and tragic. To cut each other to pieces.

The journalist Andre Vltchek used to remind us, as he traveled the world reporting on the empire’s atrocities, that to dispense with poetry and song and passion is to succumb to evil; it is to forget that true revolution demands art as well as politics, the best expressions of the human spirit. For years before his untimely death in 2020, he noted how a grim sense of joylessness and indifference had descended on so many western countries, especially those, led by the United States, which cause so much human misery throughout the world.  And he reminded us repeatedly, that throughout the world where people are oppressed, the spirit of resistance is preserved in remembering the great and beautiful poetry and music of their countries’ artists, whose words regular people have memorized and celebrate for their beauty and joie de vivre – despite oppressive conditions.

Speaking for himself, in a moving  essay, “Return to Tipasa,”Camus wrote:

To give up beauty and the sensual happiness that comes with it and devote one’s self exclusively to unhappiness requires a nobility I lack…isolate beauty ends in grimaces, solitary justice in oppression. Anyone who seeks to serve the one to the exclusion of the other serves no one, not even himself, and in the end is doubly the servant of injustice.

So I have turned to Camus’ notebooks to see if I might fill in some gaps and learn some lessons for 2022.

On May 5, 1935 Camus made his first entry.  Here is the opening sentence:

What I mean is this: that one can, with no romanticism, feel nostalgic for lost poverty.

That can be easily misunderstood, but he clarifies it.  For Camus grew up in poverty but under the sun and by the sea in Algeria where he found beauty and joy in nature.  He knew there was a grey, depressing form of poverty that did not provide such solace.  He was trying at a young age to express what he later said differently: “I cling like a miser to the freedom that disappears as soon as there is an excess of things.”

Yet here we are in 2022 drowning in an excess of things, possessions that keep the world captive to the evil genius of consumer capitalism and the false rhetoric of freedom, things that people don’t need but want because of advertising’s brainwashing and the existential emptiness that convinces people that if you surround yourself with enough things you are somehow protecting yourself, while that delusion feeds an environmental crisis that is destroying the earth.  Possessions as a form of demonic possession, a protection racket that doesn’t protect. But they give people an imaginary boost.  Call them boosters.  See the front page of The New York Times for all the latest consumer goods no one needs.  They call it news, and the boosters, booster shots.

April 1937:

In the evening, the gentleness of the world on the bay. There are days when the world lies, days when it tells the truth. It is telling the truth this evening – with what sad and insistent beauty.

Yes, this has always been so, but it is terrifying and exhilarating. Living in constant fear as so many are now doing blocks both the sun and the clouds and reduces life to a caricature of its possibilities.  All the official lies have produced passionless people afraid of themselves and others.

April 1941:

“It is always a great crime to deprive people of its liberty on the pretext that it is using it wrongly.” (Tocqueville)

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. When Camus wrote this, Germany was occupying France and the French Resistance was born.  These days so many minds are occupied by endless propaganda that penetrates to the primal emotions and reduces carnal truth to digital abstractions.  I think we will lose our freedom if we continue to  embrace digital technology.  Resistance is necessary.

August 1942:

Novel. Don’t put the “plague” in the title. Put something like “The Prisoners.”

He instinctively knew that is was not a plague that imprisons people but the mind-forged manacles of those who are afraid to confront it. Those who lack the courage to see the truth and resist it. To collaborate with the Nazis was for cowards.  Free people fight back.  As editor of Combat, the banned newspaper, he knew that when voices were censored it was because the censors were afraid the truth would prevail.  A good lesson for 2022.

October 1946:

What makes a man feel alone is the cowardice of others. Must one try to understand that cowardice too? But it’s beyond my strength. And, on the other hand, I cannot be a scorner.

Ditto.

September 1949:

One must love life before loving its meaning, Dostoevsky says. Yes, and when the love of life disappears, no meaning consoles us for it.

Even depression is good.  Even confronting evil is good.  Even arguing.  Pleasure is good.  It’s all good.  Life is an agon, always conflictual and agreeable.  We were born to love and fight and try always to make the fight a loving fight.  Words are our best weapons. I have always enjoyed writing them, for they always have seemed to be like wild birds in my breast, struggling to leave the nest.  They are always taking us somewhere.  Where is the question.  Or better yet: Where do we want to go?

February 1950:

Later write an essay, without hesitation or reservation, on what I know to be true. (Do what one doesn’t want, want what one doesn’t do.)

What was that?  I think he never wrote the essay but left us with his beautiful, unfinished novel, The First Man, wherein he wrote without hesitation or reservation and opened his heart.  His was an unfinished life.  I wonder if that is true for all of us.

June 1951:

Man of 1950. He fornicated and read the newspapers.

Sort of still right.  2022: They masturbated and checked their cell phones.  Call it transhumanism.  What’s love got to do with it?

February 1953:

Two common errors: existence precedes essence or essence existence. Both rise and fall with the same step.

So the sagacious intellectuals ripped him for this.  Subtleties of thought always escape them.  Today’s common errors: Obama differs from Trump or Trump differs from Obama (Biden).  I once thought I was an intellectual until I understood their thinking.  Small minds looking through the wrong ends of their binoculars.

May 1954:

Play. A happy man. And nobody can put up with him.

So what is happiness?  There are those who think that it consists of having “fun.”  They cannot understand the joy of struggle, the artist’s efforts to give form to chaos.  One can only live if one is drunk with life, Tolstoy said.  And he spent a bit of his life writing.  Was he happy?  Of happiness and despair we have no measure.

November 1, 1954:

I often read that I am atheistic. I hear people speak of my atheism. Yet these words say nothing to me; for me they have no meaning. I do not believe in God and I am not an atheist.

I do believe in God and yet one of my sisters years ago said to me that “I thought you were an atheist.”  This shocked me.  Camus too was shocked by the meaningless of such terms. He knew there was a sharp distinction between the heart and the head and that belief and faith were not the same thing.  Only the living-dead cannot distinguish them.  Faith guides me.  Camus, too, was led by an invisible star; he said it differently: “In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer.”  The current age denies the invisible and promotes defeatism.

July 1, 1958 (his last notebook entry):

The lie lulls or dreams, like the illusion. The truth is the only power, cheerful, inexhaustible. If we were able to live only of, and for truth: young and immortal energy in us. The man of truth does not age. A little more effort and he will not die.

How to say it when “It’s all lies”?  Keep trying, and try to make it beautiful.  Only the artistic imagination can accomplish this.  As you said, Albert, “Beauty never enslaved anyone…And for thousands of years, every day, at every second, it has instead assuaged the servitude of millions of men and, occasionally, liberated some of them once and for all.

After all, perhaps the greatness of art lies in the perpetual tension between beauty and pain, the love of men and the madness of creation, unbearable solitude and the exhausting crowd, rejection and consent.

Art advances between two chasms, which are frivolity and propaganda.”

Create dangerously indeed, you advised!  For we are in the heat of combat.

Let us rejoice and fight on.

*

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). 

Featured image: Albert Camus, Michel y Jeannine Gallimard by Antonio Marín Segovia

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 the report citing four people familiar with the matter, much of the $200 million package included military equipment such as small arms, ammunition, security radios, and medical equipment.

The media outlet adds that Congress was notified of the White House decision earlier this month, but other U.S. officials learned of the matter through classified channels.

The report says that the new security assistance will take some time to reach Ukraine.

It further says, citing two congressional aides, that the Biden administration wanted to keep this new security package secret ahead of the US-Russia security talks that took place in Geneva on Monday.

Another source told CNN that the additional $200 million in security aid to Ukraine is not substantial enough to deter any Russian aggression.

Kiev has made it clear that it wants more security assistance beyond the defensive weaponry already being provided by the U.S.

Western countries accuse Russia of allegedly deploying thousands of troops near the Ukrainian border in preparation for aggressive action.

Moscow has repeatedly denied the accusations.

Following Monday’s talks between Washington and Moscow, a Council between Russia and NATO will meet in Brussels this Wednesday to discuss this issue, among others.

*

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: US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, left, and Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Rybakov attend security talks at the United States Mission in Geneva, Switzerland | Photo: DENIS BALIBOUSE / POOL

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.

***

Wendy Sherman thinks her aim in talks with Russian officials starting Monday is to lecture them on the cost of hubris. Instead she’s set to lead the U.S., NATO, and Europe down a path of ruin, warns Scott Ritter.

If ever a critical diplomatic negotiation was doomed to fail from the start, the discussions between the U.S. and Russia over Ukraine and Russian security guarantees is it.

The two sides can’t even agree on an agenda.

From the Russian perspective, the situation is clear: “The Russian side came here [to Geneva] with a clear position that contains a number of elements that, to my mind, are understandable and have been so clearly formulated—including at a high level—that deviating from our approaches simply is not possible,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told the press after a pre-meeting dinner on Sunday hosted by U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who is leading the U.S. delegation.

Ryabkov was referring Russian President Vladimir Putin’s demands to U.S. President Joe Biden in early December regarding Russian security guarantees, which were then laid out by Moscow in detail in the form of two draft treaties, one a Russian-U.S. security treaty, the other a security agreement between Russia and NATO.

The latter would bar Ukraine from joining NATO and rule out any eastward expansion by the trans-Atlantic military alliance. At the time, Ryabkov tersely noted that the U.S. should immediately begin to address the proposed drafts with an eye to finalizing something when the two sides meet. Now, with the meeting beginning on Monday, it doesn’t appear as if the U.S. has done any such thing.

“[T]he talks are going to be difficult,” Ryabkov told reporters after the dinner meeting. “They cannot be easy. They will be business-like. I think we won’t waste our time tomorrow.” When asked if Russia was ready to compromise, Ryabkov tersely responded, “The Americans should get ready to reach a compromise.”

All the U.S. has been willing to do, it seems, is to remind Russia of so-called “serious consequences” should Russia invade Ukraine, something the U.S. and NATO fear is imminent, given the scope and scale of recent Russian military exercises in the region involving tens of thousands of troops. This threat was made by Biden to Putin on several occasions, including a phone call initiated by Putin last week to help frame the upcoming talks.

Yet on the eve of the Ryabkov-Sherman meeting, U.S. Secretary of State Tony Blinken simply reiterated these threats, declaring that Russia would face “massive consequences” if it invaded Ukraine.

“It’s clear that we’ve offered him two paths forward,” Blinken said, speaking of Putin. “One is through diplomacy and dialogue; the other is through deterrence and massive consequences for Russia if it renews its aggression against Ukraine. And we’re about to test the proposition of which path President Putin wants to take this week.”

Lessons of History

Moscow, June 23, 1941: Soviet soldiers on their way to the front. The sign reads: “Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. The victory will be ours! ” (Anatoliy Garanin .License: CC BY SA 3.0.)

It is as if both Biden and Blinken are deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to reading Russia.

Ryabkov has alluded to a fact already made clear by the Russians—there will be no compromise when it comes to Russia’s legitimate national security interests. And if the U.S. cannot understand how the accumulation of military power encompassed in a military alliance which views Russia as a singular, existential threat to its members’ security is seen by Russia as threatening, then there is no comprehension of how the events of June 22, 1941 have shaped the present -day Russian psyche, why Russia will never again allow such a situation to occur, and why the talks are doomed before they even begin.

As for the American threats, Russia has given its response—any effort to sanction Russia would result, as Putin told Biden last month, in a “complete rupture of relations” between Russia and those countries attempting sanctions. One need not be a student of history to comprehend that the next logical step following a “complete rupture of relations” between two parties that are at loggerheads over matters pertaining to existential threats to the national security of one or both is not the peaceful resumption of relations, but war.

There is no mealy-mouthed posturing by Foggy Bottom peacocks taking place in Moscow, but rather a cold, hard, statement of fact—ignore Russia’s demands at you own peril. The U.S., it seems, believes that the worst-case scenario is one where Russia invades Ukraine, only to wilt under the sustained pressure of economic sanctions and military threats.

Russia’s worse-case scenario is one where it engages in armed conflict with NATO.

Generally speaking, the side that is most prepared for the reality of armed conflict will prevail.

Russia has been preparing for this possibility for more than a year. It has repeatedly shown a capability to rapidly mobilize 100,000-plus combat-ready forces in short order. NATO has shown an ability to mobilize 30,000 after six-to-nine-months of extensive preparations.

The Shape of War

What would a conflict between Russia and NATO look like? In short, not like anything NATO has prepared for. Time is the friend of NATO in any such conflict—time to let sanctions weaken the Russian economy, and time to allow NATO to build up sufficient military power to be able to match Russia’s conventional military strength.

Russia knows this, and as such, any Russian move will be designed to be both swift and decisive.

First and foremost, if it comes to it, when Russia decides to move on Ukraine, it will do so with a plan of action that has been well-thought out and which sufficient resources have been allocated for its successful completion. Russia will not get involved in a military misadventure in Ukraine that has the potential of dragging on and on, like the U.S. experience in Afghanistan and Iraq. Russia has studied an earlier U.S. military campaign—Operation Desert Storm, of Gulf War I—and has taken to heart the lessons of that conflict.

One does not need to occupy the territory of a foe in order to destroy it. A strategic air campaign designed to nullify specific aspects of a nations’ capability, whether it be economic, political, military, or all the above, coupled with a focused ground campaign designed to destroy an enemy’s army as opposed to occupy its territory, is the likely course of action.

Given the overwhelming supremacy Russia has both in terms of the ability to project air power backed by precision missile attacks, a strategic air campaign against Ukraine would accomplish in days what the U.S. took more than a month to do against Iraq in 1991.

On the ground, the destruction of Ukraine’s Army is all but guaranteed. Simply put, the Ukrainian military is neither equipped nor trained to engage in large-scale ground combat. It would be destroyed piecemeal, and the Russians would more than likely spend more time processing Ukrainian prisoners of war than killing Ukrainian defenders.

For any Russian military campaign against Ukraine to be effective in a larger conflict with NATO, however, two things must occur—Ukraine must cease to exist as a modern nation state, and the defeat of the Ukrainian military must be massively one-sided and quick. If Russia is able to accomplish these two objectives, then it is well positioned to move on to the next phase of its overall strategic posturing vis-à-vis NATO—intimidation.

While the U.S., NATO, the EU, and the G7 have all promised “unprecedented sanctions,” sanctions only matter if the other side cares. Russia, by rupturing relations with the West, no longer would care about sanctions. Moreover, it is a simple acknowledgement of reality that Russia can survive being blocked from SWIFT transactions longer than Europe can survive without Russian energy. Any rupturing of relations between Russia and the West will result in the complete embargoing of Russian gas and oil to European customers.

There is no European Plan B. Europe will suffer, and because Europe is composed of erstwhile democracies, politicians will pay the price. All those politicians who followed the U.S. blindly into a confrontation with Russia will now have to answer to their respective constituents why they committed economic suicide on behalf of a Nazi-worshipping, thoroughly corrupt nation (Ukraine) which has nothing in common with the rest of Europe. It will be a short conversation.

NATO’s Fix

If the U.S. tries to build up NATO forces on Russia’s western frontiers in the aftermath of any Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia will then present Europe with a fait accompli in the form of what would now be known as the “Ukrainian model.” In short, Russia will guarantee that the Ukrainian treatment will be applied to the Baltics, Poland, and even Finland, should it be foolish enough to pursue NATO membership.

Russia won’t wait until the U.S. has had time to accumulate sufficient military power, either. Russia will simply destroy the offending party through the combination of an air campaign designed to degrade the economic function of the targeted nation, and a ground campaign designed to annihilate the ability to wage war. Russia does not need to occupy the territory of NATO for any lengthy period—just enough to destroy whatever military power has been accumulated by NATO near its borders.

And—here’s the kicker—short of employing nuclear weapons, there’s nothing NATO can do to prevent this outcome. Militarily, NATO is but a shadow of its former self. The once great armies of Europe have had to cannibalize their combat formations to assemble battalion-sized “combat groups” in the Baltics and Poland. Russia, on the other hand, has reconstituted two army-size formations—the 1^stGuards Tank Army and the 20^th Combined Arms Army—from the Cold War-era which specialize in deep offensive military action.

Even Vegas wouldn’t offer odds on this one.

Sherman will face off against Ryabkov in Geneva, with the fate of Europe in her hands. The sad thing is, she doesn’t see it that way. Thanks to Biden, Blinken and the host of Russophobes who populate the U.S. national security state today, Sherman thinks she is there to simply communicate the consequences of diplomatic failure to Russia. To threaten. With mere words.

What Sherman, Biden, Blinken, and the others have yet to comprehend is that Russia has already weighed the consequences and is apparently willing to accept them. And respond. With action.

One wonders if Sherman, Biden, Blinken, and the others have thought this through. Odds are, they have not, and the consequences for Europe will be dire.

*

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.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.

Featured image: Ahead of the formal talks, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman met with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on Sunday in Geneva and told him Washington “would welcome genuine progress through diplomacy.” (Russian Mission in Geneva)

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.

***

Based on the transcript of Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s interview with Jake Tapper on CNN’s State of the Union show on January 9, below, as posted on the State Department website.

Much of what has been excised is standard diplomatic verbiage along the lines of we’d prefer a diplomatic solution but….We’d like to think our aggressive adversary is occasionally capable of exercising reason and restraint but….We’d prefer that Russia peacefully evacuate Crimea, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh and Kazakhstan, but if they don’t…. And so on.

Blinken’s tone remains what it was the preceding day after the NATO foreign ministers conference, harsh and bellicose to an alarming degree, and many of the particulars of his CNN interview appear identical to those used the same day by John Bolton in his article in The Wall Street Journal entitled Is the Crisis in Kazakhstan the Rebirth of the Soviet Union? For example, denouncing Russia for aggression against Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine in the same sentence. And when asked by Tapper if what “drives Putin is a desire to restore the old Soviet Union,” responding: “I think that’s right. I think that’s one of President Putin’s objectives.”

His accusation of Russia invading Crimea in 2014 is the standard Western characterization of Russia reclaiming the peninsula without firing a shot. His accusation of aggressive Russian actions against Moldova – a charge no one in the West has leveled until recent weeks – appears to be an allusion to the presence of 1,500 Russian troops in Transnistria, the continuation of a Russian peacekeeping deployment that began in 1992.

Regarding NATO expansion along Russia’s entire western border – fourteen new members in Eastern Europe since 1999 – Blinken is intractable on refusing to even discuss withdrawal of U.S. and NATO military assets from those nations. As he is on Ukraine’s and Georgia’s right to join the military alliance. In his words Washington remains uncompromisingly committed to “the principle that one country can’t change the borders of another by force, the principle that one country can’t dictate to another its foreign policy and the choices – and its choices including with whom it will associate….”

Yet shortly afterwards when speaking of Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev requesting assistance from fellow members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization Blinken states, “We have real questions about why they felt compelled to call in this organization that Russia dominates.” Adding that, “We’re asking for clarification on that.”

In condemning Russian actions in and relating to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Moldova as he does, he identified half of the former union republics of the Soviet Union not already in NATO. They, and Russia itself if included, are identified by Blinken as political and potentially military conflict zones in the worsening confrontation between the U.S./NATO and Russia. And in addition to those, seven or more of what were formerly called frozen conflicts by the West, but which the U.S. and NATO recently have rebranded temporarily occupied territories.

Thirty-one years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union a unipolar U.S. and a global NATO are poised to finish the war of Soviet succession.

*

Tapper: Hello. I’m Jake Tapper in Washington, where the state of our union is having Cold War flashbacks.

…President Putin demanding that the U.S. pull some troops back out of Eastern Europe and rule out expanding NATO to include Ukraine. Are either of those on the negotiating table?

Blinken: Neither of those is on the table, Jake, but here’s where we are. There are two paths before us. There’s a path of dialogue and diplomacy to try to resolve some of these differences and avoid a confrontation. The other path is confrontation and massive consequences for Russia if it renews its aggression on Ukraine. We’re about to test the proposition about which path President Putin’s prepared to take.

Tapper: It seems unlikely Putin will withdraw troops or take at least some of them off the border without some concessions by the U.S. You’ve already said that those two that I mentioned up top are off the table or not on the table. What about moving heavy U.S. weaponry out of Poland, moving it further west? Or what about moving missiles? What about limiting the scope of U.S. military exercise? Are any of those on the table?

Blinken: Look, first, Jake, I don’t think we’re going to see any breakthroughs in the coming week….

[I]t’s hard to see making actual progress as opposed to talking in an atmosphere of escalation with a gun to Ukraine’s head. So if we’re actually going to make progress, we’re going to have to see de-escalation, Russia pulling back from the threat that it currently poses to Ukraine.

Tapper: So you didn’t rule any of those out, which doesn’t mean you’re going to do them, but just they’re not off the table as the earlier items you said were.

Blinken: Yeah, it’s – Jake, it’s exactly the opposite. First of all, why are we here? We’re here because repeatedly over the last decade, Russia has committed acts of aggression against neighbors: Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine in 2014, and now the renewed threat about Ukraine today. Second, there are large principles at stake that go to the fundamentals of international peace and security: the principle that one country can’t change the borders of another by force, the principle that one country can’t dictate to another its foreign policy and the choices – and its choices including with whom it will associate, the principle that one country can’t exert a sphere of influence to subjugate its neighbors.

All of that is on the table. That’s exactly why not only are we standing up, but we have rallied countries not just in Europe, but indeed beyond to make it clear to Russia that this aggression will not be accepted, will not be tolerated, will not stand, so that the choice is Russia. It’s also not about making concessions….

Tapper: Right. So you say the U.S. will respond with massive consequences to any Russian aggression in Ukraine. President Biden has ruled out U.S. unilateral troops on the ground. What sanctions is the U.S. willing to impose, and are U.S. troops as part of a NATO or international force on the table?

Blinken: Well, first, when it comes to consequences, it’s not just us who has been saying this. The G7, the leading democratic economies in the world, made clear there would be massive consequences for renewed Russian aggression. So has the European Union, so has NATO. And we have been working very closely with all of these countries in recent weeks….I’m not going to telegraph the details, but I think Russia has a pretty good idea of the kinds of things it would face if it renews its aggression.

Second, we’ve made clear that we will continue to provide and supply Ukraine with defensive military equipment to be able to defend itself. And it’s also clear that in the event of further Russian aggression, NATO is going to have to further reinforce its eastern flank. And you know Jake, what’s interesting about all of this is that President Putin talks about lots of things he’s concerned about —

Tapper: Right.

Blinken: …and yet the very actions he’s taken have precipitated much of what he says he wants to prevent….So it’s President Putin’s actions that are precipitating what he says he doesn’t want.

Tapper: Yeah.

Blinken: There’s now an opportunity – if he takes it – through dialogue…as well as address many concerns that the United States and Europe have over Russia’s conduct.

Tapper: Right. Beyond this military buildup on the Ukraine border, Russian-led troops are now intervening in violent protests in Kazakhstan. They also stepped in after recent Belarus elections and the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said a few years ago that what he believes drives Putin is a desire to restore the old Soviet Union. Do you agree?

Blinken: I think that’s right. I think that’s one of President Putin’s objectives, and it is to re-exert a sphere of influence over countries that previously were part of the Soviet Union. And as we’ve said, that’s unacceptable. We can’t go back to a world of spheres of influence….

Tapper: Yeah. Do you the invasion is likely – do you think an invasion of Ukraine is likely?

Blinken: Look, I can’t tell you whether it’s likely or not. I can tell you this:…we’re prepared to deal very resolutely with Russia if it chooses confrontation, if it chooses aggression. We’ll see. It is now up to President Putin to decide which path he wants to follow. We’re prepared, again –

*

Tapper: So Kazakhstan’s president is publicly saying that he gave an order, quote, to “open fire,” to “kill without warning” the protesters in the street. President Biden said in October that your administration, quote, “put human rights back at the center of our foreign policy” and, quote, “No U.S. president should stand by when human rights are under attack.” They’re under attack in Kazakhstan. At least 164 people were killed during protests this week.

Blinken: Yeah, and I condemn that statement, and if that’s the national policy, condemn that policy, the shoot to kill.

…We have real questions about why they felt compelled to call in this organization that Russia dominates. We’re asking for clarification on 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.

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).

Featured image: Then-Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken testifies before a Senate appropriations subcommittee on April 12, 2016 in Washington, DC. (Source: PAUL MORIGI/WIREIMAGE)

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.

***

Sucharit Bhakdi, MD and Arne Burkhardt, MD show 14 of 15 autopsied victims (93 %) who died after being inoculated with a Covid “vaccine” were killed by the “vaccine”

The “vaccine” was implicated in 93% of the deaths in the patients they examined. What’s troubling is the government-connected coroner didn’t implicate the vaccine in any of those deaths.

The vaccines are bad news. Fifteen bodies were examined (all died from 7 days to 6 months after vaccination; ages 28 to 95). The coroner or the public prosecutor didn’t associate the vaccine as the cause of death in any of the cases. However, further examination revealed that the vaccine was implicated in the deaths of 14 of the 15 cases. The most attacked organ was the heart (in all of the people who died), but other organs were attacked as well. The implications are potentially enormous resulting in millions of deaths. The vaccines should be immediately halted.

No need to worry. It is doubtful that anything will happen because the work wasn’t published in a peer-reviewed journal so will be ignored by the scientific community. That’s just the way it works.

I got an email recently from Mike Yeadon, former VP of Pfizer, who urged me to check out this video. He wrote me this email on 12/24/21:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/fHIT55iM4Zv9/

“Steve,

“This is about the worst 15 min I’ve ever seen.

“Mass covid19 vaccination is leading to mass murder.

“Mike”

The video references this paper, posted on December 10, 2021, On COVID vaccines: why they cannot work, and irrefutable evidence of their causative role in deaths after vaccination by Sucharit Bhakdi, MD and Arne Burkhardt, MD. It has been getting a lot of attention lately.

Check out the number of likes and retweets… just in the first 3 hours!

The authors did an autopsy in 15 patients who died (from 7 days to 6 months) after receiving the COVID vaccine.

These were all cases where the coroner ruled as NOT being caused by the vaccine.

They discovered that in 14 of the 15 patients there was widespread evidence of the body attacking itself, something that is never seen before. The heart was attacked in all 14 cases.

A number of salient aspects dominated in all affected tissues of all cases:

1. inflammatory events in small blood vessels (endotheliitis), characterized by an abundance of T-lymphocytes and sequestered, dead endothelial cells within the vessel lumen;

2. the extensive perivascular accumulation of T-lymphocytes;

3. a massive lymphocytic infiltration of surrounding non-lymphatic organs or tissue with T-lymphocytes.

Lymphocytic infiltration occasionally occurred in combination with intense lymphocytic activation and follicle formation. Where these were present, they were usually accompanied by tissue destruction.

Here’s the video presentation of the results.

VAERS as well as other independent studies (e.g., see this vaccine injury paper) shows the vaccines are killing people and that cardiac events were highly elevated. This study is consistent with those results.

This work independently validates the analysis of Peter Schimacher who showed a minimum of 30% to 40% of the deaths after vaccine were caused by the vaccine.

Reactions from a level-headed scientist (name withheld to protect him from attack):

If the autopsy findings are confirmed by other pathologists with additional samples, and if they are combined with the findings of Dr. Hoffe (>60% inoculant recipients have elevated D-dimer tests and evidence of clotting) and Dr. Cole (increase in cancers after inoculation, including twenty-fold increase in uterine cancer), we are seeing a disaster of unimaginable proportions.  The conclusion (if supported by further data) is that essentially EVERY inoculant recipient suffers damage, with more damage after each shot.  Given the seriousness of the types of damage (autoimmune diseases, cancer, re-emergent dormant infections, clotting/strokes, cardiac damage, etc.), these effects will translate into lifespan reduction, which should be counted as deaths from the inoculations.  So, in the USA, where ~200M people have been fully inoculated, the number of deaths will not be the 10,000 or so reported in VAERS, or the 150,000+ scaled-up deaths from VAERS, but could be closer to tens of millions when the inoculation effects play out!

What the above three findings (Burkhart, Hoffe, Cole, and I suspect many others who have not yet come forward) show is that the post-inoculation effects are not rare events (as reported by the media-gov’t), but are in actuality frequent events.  They may be, in fact, universal, with the severity and damage different for each recipient.

The question in my mind is whether it is possible to reverse these inoculation-based adverse events.  Can the innate immune system be fully restored?  Can the micro clotting be reversed?  Can the autoimmunity be reversed?  I have seen a wide spectrum of opinions on whether this is possible, none of which is overly convincing.

Are we headed for the situation where the ~30% un-vaxxed will be devoting their lives to operating whatever is left of the economic infrastructure and serving as caretakers for the vaxxed?

I realize the above sounds extreme, and maybe when more data are gathered from myriad credible sources the results and conclusions may change, but right now the above data seem to synchronize with the demonstrated underlying mechanisms of damage.  Additionally, we seem to be doubling down on inoculations, with fourth booster being proposed for Israel, and UK suggesting quarterly boosters.

*

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.

Our thanks to Dr. Gary G. Kohls for bringing this to our attention.

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

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.

***

Russian President Vladimir Putin at his End of the Year Press Conference, Dec. 23, 2021, speaking to 500 domestic and international journalists, said the following:

“We have made it clear that any further movement of NATO to the East is unacceptable. Is there anything unclear about this? Are we deploying missiles near the U.S. border? No, we are not. It is the United States that has come to our home with its missiles and is already standing at our doorstep. Is it going too far to demand that no strike systems be placed near our home? What is so unusual about this?”

This statement makes it clear who the aggressor is in the latest and continuing confrontation between Russia and U.S. imperialism. Yet the U.S. corporate media reported it as bellicose, threatening, unreasonable, an ominous warning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. President Joe Biden promised “serious consequences.”

As U.S. policy grows more reckless, the corporate media perceives threats everywhere. After Putin and Biden spoke by zoom, Putin and President Xi Jinping of China had a New Year’s exchange Dec. 15. This conversation was headlined by The Hill as “‘Allies’ China and Russia Are Ganging Up on America.”

Yet NATO expansion is in direct violation of U.S. agreements with the then-USSR, agreements that the U.S.-commanded and dominated military alliance would move “not one inch eastward.” U.S. Secretary of State James Baker in 1990 pledged this to former president of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev, promising that a reunified German state in the heart of Europe would present no threat to the Soviet Union.

Putin’s statement above summarizes the Russian government’s position leading up to scheduled Jan. 10 talks in Geneva, Switzerland, to discuss Russian demands to stop U.S./NATO expansion to its borders. Meanwhile, the U.S. corporate media reports Russia’s troops within Russia as a buildup on the border with Ukraine.

What President Putin is addressing is the further expansion of NATO through Ukraine’s absorption into an aggressive, U.S.-dominated military alliance.

NATO keeps expanding

Since 1990, U.S. and West European — especially German — imperialism have shared a policy toward formerly socialist Eastern Europe: They aimed to consolidate capitalist property relations under Western economic domination. For this to succeed they began organizing the state itself, its police and military, under U.S. military command. To lock in place this transfer of property, they insisted on NATO membership for each country.

Beyond the imperialist reconquest of Eastern Europe was the effort to totally dominate and loot Russia. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the separation of former Soviet republics into small, dysfunctional “independent” countries whetted U.S. imperialist appetites.

During the years Boris Yeltsin was president of Russia, 1991-99, the corrupt bureaucrats and criminals who had seized control of the formerly nationalized industries became oligarchs. These new rulers sold entire industries for scrap metal to curry favor in the West and enrich themselves. They expected to be welcomed as equals into the imperialist bloc.

No way.

Putin blocks looting

What Putin has attempted, especially in the past decade, is to stabilize and consolidate capitalist property relations in Russia, ending the wild looting and economic chaos of the Yeltsin years. He has not sought to reestablish socialist property relations but to defend Russian nationalist interests.

Outside Russia, the Putin government provided air cover and vital military aid to Syria that halted the imperialist attempt to overthrow the Syrian government. Russian missiles shipped to Venezuela have provided that government with some needed air cover. These steps outraged imperialist forces determined to reassert their domination of oil-rich Western Asia and to control all of South America.

What is barely mentioned in all the current reporting of a Russian threat is that the U.S. is supplying $450 million additional funding in weapons to Ukraine. Together with U.S. aid to bring about the reactionary February 2014 coup in Kiev, Ukraine’s capital, that adds up to $2.5 billion. There is $60 million more in small arms, ammunition and radar systems.

Britain, NATO member and U.S. junior partner, is constructing two naval ports for the pro-imperialist Ukraine regime on that country’s Black Sea shoreline. One is in the Sea of Azov, that is, between the Russian naval base on the Crimean Peninsula and the rest of Russia. London is also lending the U.S.-installed government in Kiev $1.6 billion to pay for an assortment of British-made naval vessels.

Western military officials are discussing deploying new technology, including nuclear-capable missiles, in Poland and Latvia and along Ukraine’s Russia-facing eastern front.

Background to Jan. 10

Russia’s position for the Jan. 10 meeting:

• NATO should cease its efforts to expand eastward into Ukraine and Georgia;
• NATO guarantees that it will not deploy missile batteries in nations bordering Russia; and
• An end to NATO military and naval exercises in nations and seas bordering Russia.

It is important to review this pledge today in the present crisis.

In 1990 then Soviet President Gorbachev was facing a social upheaval internally, following the opening of the Soviet Union to Western-funded programs and ending the leading role of the Communist Party. Seeking a deal with imperialism, Gorbachev allowed the annexation of the German Democratic Republic — which the Soviet Union had a legal right to veto.

Gorbachev had received assurances that NATO would not expand after he withdrew all Soviet forces from Eastern Europe, and not just from Baker. U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents declassified on Dec. 12, 2017, and posted online at George Washington University, revealed a torrent of assurances which Western leaders gave Gorbachev and other Soviet officials, throughout the process of German unification in 1990-91. They all promised Soviet security.

These documents reveal that U.S. President George H.W. Bush, West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, CIA Director Robert Gates, French President Francois Mitterrand, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd, British Prime Minister John Major and NATO Secretary General Manfred Woerner made promises similar to Baker’s pledge of NATO expanding “not one inch.” (tinyurl.com/mr4atc3m)

The absorption of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) into the imperialist bloc, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the dissolution of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact left NATO as a totally unopposed, aggressive military alliance. NATO first asserted its military capacity through bombing campaigns and troop deployments to carry out the breakup of the Yugoslav Socialist Federation through the 1990s.

Since then, the U.S. military has led the NATO military alliance in a series of wars, invasions, bombing campaigns and occupations, including in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria and in subversive regime-change operations throughout Eastern Europe, Western Asia and Africa.

In every former socialist country in Eastern Europe, regime changes reinstated capitalism. It was a brutal and wrenching political and economic transformation. With Washington’s assistance, reactionary monarchists, religious clerics, former Nazi collaborators and Wall Street economists flooded into the entire region.

Hundreds of social organizations, NGOs, schools and publications received billions of dollars in U.S. funding, through USAID programs, to reorganize society on a capitalist basis. They aggressively rewrote constitutions along with banking and new ownership laws, privatized and sold off major industries, dismembered social services and looted pensions.

To consolidate and protect these brutal thefts of socialized property from potential popular resistance, the imperialists turned to the NATO military alliance. The collaborators in each capitalist-reorganized country had to join NATO, in the process borrowing to pay for U.S.-made military equipment and pledging thousands of their soldiers to fight in U.S. wars.

New right-wing governments in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic applied for and were quickly accepted into the NATO alliance in 1999. The former Soviet Republics of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, all bordering Russia, were admitted to NATO in 2004, as were the right-wing governments in Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Albania and Croatia were admitted into the military alliance in 2009, Montenegro in 2017 and North Macedonia in 2020.

From 16 members in 1990, NATO grew to 30 members today.

U.S. coup in Ukraine

It was the fierce political struggle over Ukraine joining NATO that led to the aggressive U.S.-orchestrated coup in 2014. The U.S. government pumped $5.1 billion into the country to carry out an enormous social engineering campaign and regime-change operation against the elected government.

A Dec. 13, 2013, speech by Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland to the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation, a U.S.-funded nongovernmental agency, revealed the price tag for this Ukrainian operation.

The Western media reported the coup as a democratic renewal. But the Euro-Maidan Uprising, in Kiev, was led by Right Sektor and neo-Nazi militias. After months of street protests, these forces literally overran government buildings on Feb. 22, 2014, forcing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and many of his officials to flee for their lives.

Nuland and European officials immediately declared the new regime “legitimate.”

Protesting the illegitimate overthrow of their elected president, mass movements in the more industrialized Donbass in Eastern Ukraine and in Crimea held referendums, seeking separation from this right-wing seizure of power in western Ukraine. Russian forces moved into Crimea to secure Russia’s only warm water port on the Black Sea.

This impasse has continued since 2014.

The U.S. and European Union imposed harsh sanctions on Russia for resisting NATO’s military expansion. The economic sanctions are especially focused on rupturing Russia’s ability to sell oil and gas to Germany by blocking the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline. Tying Europe’s energy needs to fracked natural gas from the U.S. increases U.S. imperialist leverage against its EU allies, which are also capitalist competitors.

U.S. always violates agreements

The U.S. government violates treaties at will. This is imperialist diplomacy, confirmed by hundreds of broken treaties with Indigenous nations within the U.S.

Along with violating its promises regarding NATO expansion, Washington violated two publicly signed international agreements of great importance. The U.S. broke the nuclear agreement (JCPOA) signed in 2015 along with Iran and Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia and the U.N. Security Council.

Washington is now flagrantly violating the 1979 agreement recognizing the People’s Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of all China including Taiwan.

Breaking these treaties may have unforeseen consequences, causing U.S. targets to forge alliances. In his 1997 book, “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives,” imperialist strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski warned:

“Potentially, the most dangerous scenario [for U.S. domination] would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an ‘antihegemonic’ coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances.”

*

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 Workers World.

Sara Flounders is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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.

***

New findings on Covid vaccines discussed by lawyer Reiner Fuellmich, Dr Wolfgang Wodarg and Dr Sam White during their #85 Corona Investigation Committee session on 31st Dec 2021.

“As a lawyer, that’s inescapable proof of premeditation. And once you have premeditation, there’s no immunity for anyone, not even in the United States.”

*

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

High Recorded Mortality in Countries Categorized as “Covid-19 Vaccine Champions”. The Vaccinated Suffer from Increased Risk of Mortality compared to the Non-vaccinated

By Gérard Delépine, January 11, 2022

Since the beginning of the health crisis, the French government has claimed that early treatment was ineffective. It has  imposed major restrictions on our freedoms, in particular on doctors’ prescriptions.

New Big Data Study of 145 Countries Show COVID Vaccines Makes Things Worse (Cases and Deaths)

By Steve Kirsch, January 10, 2022

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.

Why the Kazakhstan Crisis Is a Much Bigger Deal than Western Media Is Letting On

By Zero Hedge and Clint Ehrlich, January 10, 2022

Geopolitical commentator Clint Ehrlich has reported while on the ground in Moscow that “the situation in Kazakhstan is a much bigger deal than Western media is letting on.” He further argues that the mayhem unleashed this past week and ongoing violent destabilization significantly increases the risk of NATO-Russia conflict.

The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 11, 2022

The World has been in a state crisis for almost two years and now formal statements by both the WHO and the CDC (with the usual innuendos) confirm that the RT-PCR test (used to justify every single policy mandate including lockdowns, social distancing, the mask, confinement of the labor force, closure of economic activity, etc.) is flawed and invalid.

The Real Reason They Want to Give COVID Jabs to Kids. “Vaccine Makers Want Zero Liability”

By Dr. Joseph Mercola and Alix Mayer, January 10, 2022

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.

Video: Dr. Shankara Chetty Testifies before the German Corona Investigative Committee

By Dr. Shankara Chetty, Reiner Fuellmich, and xelzbrod, January 11, 2022

Shankara Chetty could be called a second Zelenko. He is a medical doctor, a general practitioner in South Africa who has treated more than 7000 Covid patients successfully, without the need for extra oxygen or hospitalization.

Indiana Life Insurance CEO Says Deaths Are Up 40% Among People Ages 18-64

By Margaret Menge, January 10, 2022

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.

Hey, Hey, USA! How Many Bombs Did You Drop Today?

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, January 10, 2022

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.

The Mauling of Tennis Player Novak Djokovic

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, January 10, 2022

Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews also stated that all arrivals in Australia had to “provide acceptable proof that they cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons”.  Absent that, Djokovic “won’t be treated any different to anyone else and he’ll be on the next plane home.”

There Was an Attempted Coup in Kazakhstan, but It Wasn’t by President Tokayev. Long Planned “Color Revolution”

By Andrew Korybko, January 10, 2022

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.

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.

***

Shankara Chetty could be called a second Zelenko. He is a medical doctor, a general practitioner in South Africa who has treated more than 7000 Covid patients successfully, without the need for extra oxygen or hospitalization. Through meticulous observation he was able to discern the nature of Covid-19 as a two-phase illness with a respiratory and an allergic phase, and to develop a treatment protocol which he describes in the first part of the interview.

In the second part he is talking about how he sees the pandemic, long Covid, the virus and its variants, the whack scenes, and the development of a new medicine, to treat the negative effects from the spike proteins.

I offer here a one-hour essentials edit of Chetty’s 1hr 50min testimony before the German Corona Inquiry Committee (session 82, Dec 10th, 2021). Get the full interview from their official channel.

*

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 a screenshot from the video

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.

***

Like the West, the Philippines is going down the road to discriminating the unvaccinated by disallowing them to go outside due to a marching order from President Rodrigo R. Duterte to all village chiefs, which is to “restrain” the unvaxxed and detain them in their homes.

COVID-19 has taken another unpredictable turn with the surge of cases all over the world because of the appearance of the Omicron variant. Lockdowns have been imposed in many nations around the globe since 2020 hoping that this could hamper the rise of cases with foreseeable consequences of crippling the economy worldwide and worsening the poverty situation everywhere. Vaccines were seen as panacea to the pandemic, which was proven to be wrong later. Governments all over have been implementing vaccine mandates forcing whole populations into vaccination. This is a grave and clear violation of the freedom of choice by citizens.

The Philippines had been following the lead of Western nations in resolving its own healthcare crisis due to COVID-19. Vaccination is thought of as cure-all to the problem when it should not be but pills and other drug therapies. First, its Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF-EID) planned to implement vaccination by prioritizing risk groups to achieve its inoculation target of 50 million Filipinos. Later, however, it changed its target to 70 million for the year 2021. But the slow pace of vaccination aggravated by the delays in the arrival of the vaccines made the administration to push the attainment of its target to February this year, 2022. As of 4 January 2022, only 50,627,482 have been fully vaccinated or 46 percent of the total population of 109.6 million, which brings us to the situation now in the Philippines with Duterte depriving the rights of the unvaxxed to move.

On January 4, 2022, in a taped public address, Duterte ordered:

“Barangay captains, you’re put on notice and the order for you is to find out the persons who are not compliant with the laws, or their refusal to have the vaccines. You can actually prevent [them] from leaving the house”.

He was irrationally equating those who haven’t been vaccinated with those who are not compliant with the laws, which they were not. What law did the unvaxxed violate? If they insist on going out, Duterte said that they should be shepherded by authorities adding that

“If you force the issue, I said, because the barangay captain is a person of authority, he can place you [the unvaxxed] under arrest and dalhin ka sa istasyon (bring you to the station)”.

If a police is around, then the barangay captain can ask the policeman to bring the unvaxxed to the police station. If there’s no police, as a person in authority the barangay captain can use in Duterte’s words, “reasonable force” with the unvaxxed.

In the same address, Duterte also said in Tagalog, which revealed that he is a total pro-vax:

“Kung mamamatay ka, bahala ka sa sarili mo (If you die, you’re on your own)…Ngayon kung hihingi kayo ng tulong sa akin, sabihin ko hindi ako tulong sayo. Kasi hindi ka nagpabakuna. Kung nagpabakuna ka wala na akong problema at saka wala ka ng problema (Now, if you ask help from me, I will say I will not help you. Because you didn’t get vaccinated. If you got vaccinated, I do not have a problem and you do not have a problem).”

And he thinks only vaccine can save the life of a COVID-19-stricken patient, saying

“No offense sa inyo, pero, which is the reality ever present in the situation in the environment, malaki ang tsansa na kapag mahawa ka, talagang mamatay ka (No offense to you… but there is a big chance that if you get infected you will die)”.

Next, the Metro Manila Council passed consistently a resolution asking local government units (LGUs) to enact local ordinances restricting the movements of the unvaxxed. On January 5, some LGUs in Metro Manila like Quezon City etc. approved ordinances to this effect limiting the entry to establishments of the unvaxxed and providing penalties for the violation. Inbound travelers to Manila or at border checkpoints must now present vaccination cards.

Why should the unvaxxed bear the brunt of the vaccine hesitancy of the Filipino populace when the vaccines themselves are not safe? As of October 17, 2021, there were 1,122 fatal events that were received by Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) of the Philippines’ Department of Health (DOH). The report was evasive that the deaths was not caused by the vaccine but pointed to “underlying conditions or pre-existing medical conditions”. Majority or 70.14% (787) of the fatal cases came from ages 60 years and above, 21.21 % (238) from ages 40-59 years, 7.40% (83) from ages 18-39 years and 1.25% from unidentified ages. As of the same date, the same FDA received 68,690 suspected adverse reaction reports and 3,004 suspected serious adverse reaction reports out of 52,303,905 doses administered.

Banning the unvaxxed from going out of their homes infringes on the bill of rights enshrined in the Philippine constitution particularly the right to due process and the right to travel. What crime did they commit? Is refusal to get vaccinated a crime? Restraining them to stay at home so that they are pressured to get vaccinated is like coercing them, which violates their right to freedom of choice. The right to travel shall not be impaired “except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law”. The Philippines’ Commission on Human Rights (CHR), through its spokesperson, rightly and timely intervened saying,

“Presently, there is no law that makes being unvaccinated a crime, nor is there any law that would satisfy the Constitutional provision on curtailing freedom of movement. Any arrest made on these grounds may be illegal; thus, violative of the Constitution and our guaranteed human rights”.

Duterte who flaunts of being a good lawyer must know this but must have become rusty through the years. In fact, Duterte’s order should be challenged in the Philippine Supreme Court.

The option to get vaccinated or not rests on the choice of each individual citizen. It should not be legislated. Rejecting to be inoculated should not be criminalized. Nor vaccination should only be made available as the solution to the pandemic. Drug therapies to cure COVID-19 should be accessible to the public because the illness is curable or treatable when it is promptly diagnosed and treated.

Restricting the movement of the unvaxxed is only a kneejerk reaction to the uptick of COVID-19 cases in the early days of this month. Mass testing of COVID-19 should be focused on. Instead of vaccination cards as a requirement for all comings and goings to establishments or places since getting vaccinated does not guarantee that one does not get infected, negative PCR tests and rapid lateral flow tests should be obligatory to all those visiting the malls, markets, shops or any other institutions. Those who tested positive should be encouraged to self-isolate and stay at home.

Better for Duterte to jettison this imprudent policy of dragooning the unvaxxed in their homes, center on mass testing the population and use of drug therapies for the cure of COVID-19 instead of mass vaccination, and opening the economy widely rather than lockdown for normalcy to come back the soonest possible time.

*

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.

Erwin S. Fernández is a PhD Candidate at the Universidad de Salamanca in Spain. He is the author of The Diplomat-Scholar: A Biography of León Ma. Guerrero (Singapore: ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute, 2017).

Featured image is from Flickr

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.

***

Geopolitical commentator Clint Ehrlich has reported while on the ground in Moscow that “the situation in Kazakhstan is a much bigger deal than Western media is letting on.” He further argues that the mayhem unleashed this past week and ongoing violent destabilization significantly increases the risk of NATO-Russia conflict. 

He asks the key question: what really is happening in Kazakhstan? After all, he writes  “In America, the situation in Kazakhstan is a small news item” but it remains that “in Moscow, it is currently receiving 24/7 news coverage, like it’s an apocalyptic threat to Russia’s security. I’ve had the TV on here while writing this thread, and Kazakhstan has been on the entire time.” Below is Ehrlich’s mega-thread from Twitter exploring the crisis and connecting the dots in terms of why this is a bigger deal than many believe…

*

Mass protests and anti-government violence have left dozens dead. Russia is deploying 3,000 paratroopers after Kazakh security forces were overrun. The largest city, Almaty, looks like a warzone. To appreciate why Russia is willing to deploy troops to Kazakhstan, it’s critical to understand the depth of Russia’s vital national interests inside the country. This isn’t just any former Soviet republic. It’s almost as important to Russia as Belarus or Ukraine. 

First, Russia and Kazakhstan have the largest continuous land border on planet earth. If Kazakhstan destabilizes, a significant fraction of the country’s 19 million residents could become refugees streaming across the border. Russia is not willing to let that happen.

Second, roughly one-quarter of the population of Kazakhstan is ethnic Russians. Kazakh nationalists are overwhelmingly Muslims, who resent the Orthodox-Christian Russian minority. Russia believes that civil war would entail a non-trivial risk of anti-Russian ethnic cleansing.

Third, the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan was the heart of the Soviet space program. Russia still uses it as its primary space-launch facility. The Vostochny Cosmodrome in Russia’s Far East will lessen that dependence, but it still isn’t complete.

Fourth, Russia conducts its Anti-Ballistic Missile testing at the Sary-Shagan test site within Kazakhstan. This is where ongoing development of the S-550 ABM system is occurring, one of the foundations of Russia’s national security.

Fifth, Russia’s nuclear fuel cycle is intimately linked to Kazakhstan. Russian-backed Uranium mining operations are active in the country. Uranium from Kazakhstan is enriched in Novouralsk, Russia and then returned to Kazakhstan for use in Chinese nuclear-fuel assemblies.

Collectively, these security interests make Kazakhstan a region that Russia is willing to stabilize with force. The 3,000 troops it has already committed are not the maximum it is willing to deploy. If necessary, these will only be the first wave of RU forces in the country. The biggest question is how the situation in Kazakhstan will affect the existing standoff between Russia and NATO over Ukraine. Will Russia be deterred from intervention in Ukraine by the need to maintain reserves to deploy to Kazakhstan? Or will it simply be provoked?

Recall that, before things escalated in Kazakhstan, Russia had massed troops along its border with Ukraine. Moscow issued an ultimatum: Provide security guarantees that Ukraine would not join NATO “or else.” This was already a very dangerous situation. NATO-Russia talks to resolve the crisis in Ukraine were set to begin next week. Yet, on their eve, the revolution against the government of Kazakhstan began. Russia perceives this to be an act of “hybrid war.” Right or wrong, that perception is fueling a desire for revenge.

What is “hybrid war”? From the Russian perspective, it is a two-pronged approach to regime change. First, Western-backed NGOs encourage large protests against an incumbent government. Second, armed provocateurs use the protests as cover to stage kinetic attacks.

Moscow believes that this playbook was employed successfully in Ukraine to oust the Russian-aligned government in 2014. And it believes that the West unsuccessfully attempted to employ the same strategy to topple Russia’s allies in Syria and Belarus. It’s debatable whether the West has anywhere near the power to spark revolutions that Russia contends. Yet America plays into Russian paranoia by funding “civil society” NGOs overseas.

See the NED’s Kazakhstan page here.

When revolutions occur in countries where they’re active, Russia connects the dots. Kazakhstan is the latest example. In the year before the attempted revolution, the US National Endowment for democracy spent more than $1M in the country. The money went to PR campaigns against the government and training anti-government protesters. The Russians are convinced that NED is a front for the CIA. I don’t think that’s true. But it’s a distinction without a difference, since NED has taken over part of the CIA’s mission. In 1986, the founder of NED, Carl Gershman, said the group was created because “[i]t would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the CIA.” Today, instead of receiving CIA money, they receive NED money.

In 1991, NED President Allen Weinstein said, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” He claimed that operating overtly via NED, rather than covertly through the CIA, made the risk of blowback “close to zero.”  The Russians do not see things that way. When they witness overt US support for ousting pro-Russian governments, they assume there is also covert support being provided. To them, NED is only 1/2 of a “hybrid war” strategy in Kazakhstan that includes kinetic operations. Russia’s Foreign Ministry made that clear yesterday.

It describes the situation in Kazakhstan as “an attempt to undermine the security and integrity of the state by force, using trained and organized armed formations, that is inspired from the outside.” This claim forms the predicate for intervention by the “Collective Security Treaty Organization,” the Russian-led equivalent of NATO. It’s the first ever CSTO intervention, and it’s based on the accusation of a foreign attack on the sovereignty of Kazakhstan. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki has questioned the legal legitimacy of the CSTO operation, but there’s not much to complain about.

The undisputed President of Kazakhstan, Tokayev, requested CSTO support, claiming his nation was under attack. To bolster the appearance of multilateralism, RU forces are deploying alongside smaller number of troops from two other CSTO states, Belarus and Armenia. These CSTO forces will secure critical government installations, freeing up the Kazakh military to perform “anti-terrorism.” The most critical function of the CSTO deployment is internal signaling within Kazakhstan.

Now that Kazakh forces know Russia is backing their government, fewer of them will be willing to join the side of the opposition. We saw that happen before. I doubt we’ll see it again. In the short term, while Kazakhstan remains volatile, Russia’s freedom to maneuver in Ukraine may be constrained. But this will not motivate Moscow to deescalate the crisis in the long term.

Instead, it will only strengthen perceptions of the West as an existential threat. Activists from prior color revolutions are already publicly taking credit for what is happening in Kazakhstan. Here is a post from Belorussian activist, Dzmitry Halko, who says that he helped organize the uprising in Kazakhstan along with veterans of the Ukraine revolution…

The situation in Kazakhstan is a much bigger deal than Western media is letting on.

I believe it significantly increases the risk of NATO-Russia conflict.

Here is my report from Moscow. A MEGA-thread… 🧵

— Clint Ehrlich (@ClintEhrlich) January 7, 2022

The Kremlin’s biggest fear is a “Maidan on Red Square” – i.e., a repeat of the Ukrainian revolution inside Moscow. The more that it appears the West is pursuing similar revolutions in former Soviet republics, the more aggressively Russia will push back.

In America, the situation in Kazakhstan is a small news item. In Moscow, it is currently receiving 24/7 news coverage, like it’s an apocalyptic threat to Russia’s security. I’ve had the TV on here while writing this thread, and Kazakhstan has been on the entire time.

It’s important to note that today (Jan.7) is Christmas in Russia. (They celebrate it on January 7th rather than December 25th, due to the Russian Orthodox church still adhering to the Julian Calendar.) When Christmas is overshadowed by a security crisis, it’s a big deal. 

*

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.

All images in this article are from the authors unless otherwise stated

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 Washington State Board of Health may soon amend state law to authorize the involuntary detainment of residents as young as 5 years old in Covid-19 “internment camps” for failing to comply with the state’s experimental vaccine mandate.

WAC 246-100-040, a proposed revision to include Covid protocol under the state’s Communicable and Certain Other Diseases act, outlines “Procedures for isolation or quarantine.” The measure would allow local health officers “at his or her sole discretion” to “issue an emergency detention order causing a person or group of persons to be immediately detained for purposes of isolation or quarantine.”

Health officers are required to provide documentation proving unvaccinated residents subject to detention have denied “requests for medical examination, testing, treatment, counseling, vaccination, decontamination of persons or animals, isolation, quarantine and inspection and closure of facilities” prior to involuntarily confinement in quarantine facilities, the resolution states.

The amended law would also allow health officers to deploy law enforcement officials to assist with the arrest of uncompliant Washington residents.

According to W 246-100-040,  “a local health officer may invoke the powers of police officers, sheriffs, constables, and all other officers and employees of any political subdivisions within the jurisdiction of the health department to enforce immediately orders given to effectuate the purposes of this section in accordance with the provisions of RCW 43.20.050(4) and 70.05.120.”

The “emergency detention order” legalizes the isolation and detainment of American citizens who fail to voluntarily comply with Covid gene therapy shots “for a period not to exceed ten days.”

However, a judge may extend the forced quarantine “for a period not to exceed thirty days” if the segregated individual or family persists to refuse vaccination.

WAC 246-100-040 was certified on October 25, 2019, months prior to the coronavirus outbreak in the United States. The first confirmed case of Covid in the US was diagnosed in Seattle on January 20, 2020. 

The Washington State Board of Health will hold a virtual public meeting on January 12 to discuss the application of W 246-100-040. 

Here is more information on the public meeting on January 12. Link to final agenda, click HERE.

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.

1. The Lyons-Weiler paper
2. The Harvard study
3. The German study
4. The Denmark study (which shows Dr. James was right; you have to boost every 30 days to maintain protection.
5. German government data (this is from The Expose)
6. 80% of the COVID deaths in the UK are vaccinated
7. Lancet: 89% Of New UK COVID Cases Among Fully Vaxxed

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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:

1. There must be an emergency;
2. a vaccine must be at least 30% to 50% effective;
3. the known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks of the product;
4. and there can be no adequate, approved and available alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines). Unless all four criteria are met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained

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

¹ Reuters October 19, 2021

² Biotech Law December 22, 2003

³ Maryannedemasi.com November 11, 2021

⁴ The BMJ Opinion

⁵ FDA BioNTech BLA Approval

⁶ USA Today December 22, 2021

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:

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.

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

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.

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 Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 15, 2021

***

Introduction

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

reported 19 October 2021  

EudraVigilance Database,  MHRA Yellow Card Scheme. VAERS database.

The Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction Test (RT-PCR)

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.

1. False Positives

2. The PCR-Test Does Not Detect the Identity of the 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.”

3. The WHO’s “Customized” RT-PCR Covid-19 “Test” 

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 Fluoride Free Peel, August 04, 2021

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.

Was the 2009 H1N1 Pandemic a “Dress Rehearsal”?

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.

Concluding Remarks

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

The 2020-21 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

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]

See Michel Chossudovsky, Biographical Note

Michel Chossudovsky’s Articles on Global Research

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

What Does America Stand to Gain by Surrounding Russia with Missiles? Ukraine and Taiwan: Spark Plugs for WW3?

By Matthew Ehret-Kump, January 09, 2022

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?

Donald Trump, The Manchurian Candidate: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Campaign to Destabilize the Trump Presidency. Regime Change in America

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 09, 2022

Trump 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 Peter Koenig, Reiner Fuellmich, and Maria Zeee, January 09, 2022

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.

Pills Equipped with Sensors to Digitally Track When and If You Took the Drug Approved by FDA in 2017

By Great Game India, January 09, 2022

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.

Evidence: No Vials Are Safe, Full Stop: Terminate COVID Injection Program Now

By Dr. Jane Ruby and Stew Peters, January 09, 2022

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.

Kazakhstan and Europe’s Anti-lockdown Protests — A Contrast in Reactions

By Gavin OReilly, January 09, 2022

On the 2^nd 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.

Videos and Text: Blinken, Stoltenberg Unleash Unprecedented Diktat, Ultimatum at Russia Following NATO Foreign Policy Meeting

By Rick Rozoff, January 09, 2022

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.

A Look Back at 2021: The Good, the Bad and the Censored.

By Michael Welch, Andy Lee Roth, Pepe Escobar, and James Corbett, January 08, 2022

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.

20 Facts about Vaccination Your Doctor Forgot To Tell You

By Dr. Vernon Coleman, January 08, 2022

In 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.

Video: Experimental Injections. “Biggest Crimes Against Humanity Ever Committed.” Anna de Bouisseret Explains Who Will be Held Liable Under the Law

By Anna De Buisseret, January 08, 2022

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.

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

¹ Covid Chronicles Movie

^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

⁵ PJ Media October 27, 2020

⁶ AAPS October 7, 2020

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

¹¹ WHO January 13, 2021

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

²¹ UC Davis October 4, 2021

²² Vimeo, COVID Chronicles, 56:00

²³ Science August 16, 2021

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

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 20^thcentury – 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

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)

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.

Ukraine and Taiwan: Spark Plugs for WW3?

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.

USA Should Agree to Putin’s Demands

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

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 10^th, 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

“Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”

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.

Click here to order.

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 2^nd 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.

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

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:

• It’s Russia that invaded Ukraine nearly eight years ago.
• It’s Russia that is the military occupier of part of Ukraine, in Crimea.
• It’s Russia that, to this day, is fueling a war in eastern Ukraine.
• It’s Russia that has failed to implement any of its Minsk commitments, indeed is actively violating many of them, and refuses to acknowledge it’s a party to the conflict.
• It’s Russia that’s taken aim repeatedly at Ukraine’s democracy.
• And it’s Russia that’s sending troops to Ukraine’s border, once again.

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).

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

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

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.

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:

1. https://www.daily-journal.com/business/main-street-jan-5-2022/article_2f23371e-6cad-11ec-b152-bb2582322867.html

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.”

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

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

by Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 9780973714715

List Price: $24.95

click here to order

Special Price: $18.00

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.

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). 

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)

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.

• The CIA’s assassination of JFK
• The false Gulf of Tonkin incident that escalated the CIA’s war in Vietnam
• The deceptions used to justify the 1991 Gulf War
• The government-sponsored 2001 anthrax attacks
• Claims of weapons of mass destruction used to justify the second invasion of Iraq
• The many manufactured terrorist events following 9/11
• Previously hyped pandemics, including the 2005 “Bird Flu” and 2009 “Swine Flu” that were grossly exaggerated by the World Health Organization for the benefit of big pharma companies

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.

• Indefinite detention without charges at Guantanamo Bay
• Unwarranted mass surveillance
• Voting machine hacking and election theft
• Failure to prosecute the crimes of previous administrations (e.g. drone killings targeting weddings and funerals, torture at CIA black sites)
• The increasing totalitarian censorship of dissenting views

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.

1. As has been demonstrated through all of history, the most effective way to dumb down a population is through fear.  Communism, terrorism, WMDs, virus… it all works the same way. This basic feature of the Covid scare is one of many features and outcomes that it shares with previous psychological operations.
2. Censorship is another hallmark of authoritarian tyranny and we are seeing it raised to a new level in the media today. Any doctor or scientist who has spoken out about the obvious lack of scientific scrutiny applied to the Covid scare has been blocked on social media and ignored or smeared on television, radio, and in print.
3. In America the most useful tool driving willful ignorance has been the narrative behind the phony 2-party system in politics. The Covid scare works in part because many Americans are easily controlled through the farcical theater of “right-left” identity politics. Today if you want “the left” to take a position, all that is needed is to frame it as opposition to Trump.  Control of “the right” is just as easy. This works despite the fact that we are ruled by an oligarchy that does the same things no matter who is in office.

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.

1. The PCR test for Covid infection in the U.S., which was used in many other countries as well, did not identify a unique coronavirus. In other words, the test had a high rate of false positives. Still, people accepted the narrative of “cases” that drove the fear.
2. The policy endorsed by the WHO and the CDC that attributed Covid as a cause of death for anyone who tested positive using the false PCR test, no matter what their actual cause of death was, dramatically inflated the number of deaths attributed to Covid.
3. Both the word vaccine and the word pandemic were redefined by agencies like the WHO to enable the Covid scare.
4. The “vaccines” are experimental gene therapies that are making people sick and killing them. Those bought into the vaccine narrative responded to this fact with the diversionary claim that the Covid drugs do not change your DNA. But most gene therapies do not change your DNA. Instead, they provide a functioning gene in addition to your DNA. More importantly, all the Covid “vaccines” provide genetic material that drives the production of toxic spike proteins that cause blood clotting, endothelial tissue damage, antibody dependent enhancement, and death.
5. The Emergency Use Authorizations under which these Covid drugs were granted temporary approvals were based on fraudulent attacks against long-established, effective treatments like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine.  The suppression of these effective drugs is responsible for the deaths of the patients who did die from Covid (instead of just with 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

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.

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.

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.

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

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”

Patrick Brown, CTV News

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

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)

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.

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

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:

• 24:19: An estimated 500,000 COVID Deaths resulted from the suppression of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).
• 25:39: Former head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Dr. Janet Woodcock, intentionally prevented doctors from using HCQ outside of the hospital setting (HCQ is one of the few antiviral medications safe in pregnancy and is largely ineffective once a person has been hospitalized).
• 31:10: Pharma industry’s systematic efforts to discredit ivermectin.
• 32:40: COVID deaths in the Indian State of Uttar Pradesh plummeted soon after packets of medicines were distributed to their population. It is suspected these packets included Ivermectin but this was never formally disclosed. This puzzling policy went into effect soon after a meeting between President Biden and Prime Minister Modi.
• 36:28: Increased risk of adverse events from vaccinating after SARS-COV2 infection.
• 38:40: 140 studies demonstrate natural immunity is superior to vaccine-induced immunity. Natural immunity is 6- to 13-fold better than vaccination in preventing hospitalization.
• 43:44: The Trusted News Initiative employed to protect western elections from foreign influence was used to justify the suppression of “misinformation” around the pandemic.
• 50:15: Emails between NIH Director Francis Collins and Fauci demonstrate an intention to launch a smear campaign against the founders of the Great Barrington Declaration.
• 54:00: How is Israel (highly vaccinated) faring in comparison to Palestine (poorly vaccinated)?
• 57:00: Why is good data nearly impossible to find?
• 1:06:00: The regulatory process is broken because vaccine manufacturers are responsible for their own data (FDA is not doing its job as a regulatory body).
• 1:14:50: Arguably the best clinicians of our day are having their medical licensure attacked.
• 1:22:50: Hong Kong study demonstrates that 1 in 2,700 boys getting hospitalized with myocarditis after vaccination.
• 1:27:00: Lipid nanoparticles pose danger to ovaries.
• 1:46:30: Long COVID and post-vaccination syndrome are impossible to differentiate.
• 1:49:00: Dysregulation of T-cells after vaccination may be causing latent virus reactivation (e.g., shingles).
• 1:59:00: Omicron and the possible negative efficacy of vaccines.
• 2:06:20: What is Original Antigenic Sin?
• 2:20:00: Monoclonal antibody therapies are still important but have been limited by our authorities.
• 2:22:10: Vaccine mandates are illegal.
• 2:35:50: Pfizer is one of the most criminal pharmaceutical organizations in the world.
• 2:37:00: What are mass formation psychosis and tribalism?
• 2:53:00: We are having a worldwide epidemic of suicide in children.

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

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.

***

Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution the time will come when medicine will organize itself into an undercover dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to doctors and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic.  —Dr. Benjamin Rush

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 45^th 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 45^thpresident 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 45^th 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 6^th, 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

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 5^th way worse than the US’ January 6^th. 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.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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:

• Surgical masks and N95 masks perform nearly the same.²⁶
• Cloth masks perform far worse as was demonstrated in a 2015 study²⁷ of health care workers and flu-like illness. The researchers cautioned against cloth masks for occupational health and safety reasons.
• A review of the evidence²⁸ of nonpharmacological personal protective equipment to reduce the spread of flu published by the CDC found “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks” in a community setting.
• According to the CDC,^29,30 71% of patients testing positive for COVID-19 reported they “always” wore a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days before getting sick.
• According to a guidance memo by the WHO:³¹ “At present there is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2.”

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

⁵ Open VAERS, COVID Data

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

¹⁰ Stanford, Harvey Cohen

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

¹⁸ YouTube, August 30, 2017

¹⁹ CNBC, December 27, 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

²⁶ JAMA 2009;302(17):1865

²⁷ BMJ Open 2015;5:e006577

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

³⁴ Twitter, Election Wizard

³⁶ Your Tango, February 16, 2021

³⁷ RT, December 19, 2021

³⁸ YouTube, December 1, 2021

³⁹ YouTube, June 29, 2021

⁴⁰ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Human Coronavirus Types

⁴¹ NBC News, December 7, 2021

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

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

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.

Source

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